Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2007

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 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Birchington-on-Sea

Recently reached GA status and I think it meets the FA criteria. Epbr123 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• Some paragraphs are too short. A good paragraph should be at least four sentences or so. Generally, if you have a 2-3 sentence paragraph, it should either be expanded or combined with another paragraph.
• Going along with the previous bullet point, I dislike really short sections. In the case of this article, the Sport and Notable residents section are borderline o.k. but the Local media and Twin town sections are too short.
• You have some unnecessary wikilinks. Make sure only the first instance of a word is linked (for example, only the first instance of km and miles should be wikilinked).↔NMajdan•talk 19:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the short paragraphs and sections, but I don't think I can remove the links from the km & miles as its part of the {{convert|0|mi|km|0|lk=on}} template. Epbr123 21:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now worked out how to remove the links to km & mi and they have now been fixed. Epbr123 22:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think it would be nice with some pictures.--Wolf ^{talk | हिन्दी | বাংলা} 19:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Yep, definitely needs some pictures.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support Some pictures would be a good addition to the article - • The Giant Puffin • 08:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - given the subject matter shouldn't be too hard to get a few photos (?). Also, a few sentence tweaks needed:

In ancient times, it is known that Minnis Bay was once... - remove in ancient times which is redundant.

Man-made artefacts have also been discovered in the area dating from Roman and prehistoric times - could be rewritten too. "Roman and prehistoric artefacts have also been discovered in the area"

Over the centuries,.. -remove as redundant.

I will look later but can't support until it has some piccies. sorry cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 08:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures aren't part of the featured article criteria, so I fail to see the relevance in the last comment as regards whether you'd support or not. LuciferMorgan 17:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

O-kay..the point being I would not consider supporting unless there were pictures given that it should be a straightforward task to get some. Now that there are I will have a look later today. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 18:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I still feel the same way, but it's best to leave the discussion at that. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 19:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm..no. There was no point continuing to review the text until pix were added, which they have been. Now I have concluded. as you can see.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree entirely with the statement "There was no point continuing to review the text until pix were added", and sincerely hope you're in the minority on this. The nominator chose to add pictures but wasn't required to. This FAC is an assessment of whether this article meets the criteria or not, not whether it has pictures or not. If you feel pictures should be part of the criteria then please discuss the issue at the criteria talk page. LuciferMorgan 13:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ummmmmmm...criterion 3 maybe?cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Depends on your viewpoint of "where appropriate". And back on the subject, you wouldn't support an article just because it doesn't have pictures? That's awful. I sincerely hope other FAC reviewers do not adopt this approach of reviewing, and withholding a vote based on pictures. LuciferMorgan 16:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, well I decided what "appropriate" was and as far as "awful", who's supporting this article and who isn't? But you're right, we should take this to the talk page. I note it has not been discussed as of yet after checking the archives.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 22:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Pictures have now been added. Epbr123 00:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support looks good now. Thanks for hunting down the pictures. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 22:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Work on wikilinking, per WP:CONTEXT. Common terms should not be linked (and it's not clear other terms are linked as they should be — for example, why the choice to wikilink bridge but not chess ? And why isn't Chinese porcelain linked to Chinese ceramics? These are examples only — lots to be checked.) Sloppy prose — please don't use ampersand for the word "and" (article still needs copyedit). See also templates belong at the top of sections (see WP:GTL). Why is Visual Arts capped here: to become a specialist Visual Arts school? Is north-east hyphenated or one word (I'm not sure). Book sources should have page numbers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no problem with wikilinking. Chess is clearly more well known than bridge. The ampersands were included to help clarity. It is not a requirement for book sources to have page numbers. Nice try. Epbr123 00:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "I don't have to do X because the rules don't specifically say I must" is a poor argument. Very clearly, page numbers should be provided for any volume of significant length. It's common practice in notes section. Ref 5 is also lacking publisher information. Finally, the last ref to IMDb is not a reliable source.
    • Chess may be better known than bridge, but it looks oddly inconsistent. Marskell 10:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I didn't provide those references so I can't add the page numbers. I don't agree with you about the bridge link. Words shouldn't be linked just to make the text look nice. Epbr123 10:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Oppose per Sandy's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 15:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Hi. Most of Sandy's comments were actually fixed this morning. Thanks for your opinion anyway. Epbr123 15:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Back for a second look.

• I can't determine how this site rises to the level of WP:RS: http://www.victorianartinbritain.co.uk/about.htm
• Sites like http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/education/06/school_tables/primary_schools/html/agg_886.stm have a publication date (07 December, 2006), which should be listed in the ref (I give this example here, so you can fix these on all of your noms) Ditto for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/education/04/school_tables/secondary_schools/html/886_gcse_lea.stm (19 October 2005)
• I don't find the 750 pupils mentioned on the cited page, and that statement should be qualified by a date (as in 750 pupils as of whatever year). Also, the word "currently" should be avoided, as it becomes outdated ... you should say when, specifically. "It has around 750 pupils and is currently seeking government support to become a specialist visual arts school.[38] "
• This isn't exactly what the sources says, slightly misleading: "The Parish Councillors do not have an allegiance to a political party.[37]" Please doublecheck that all of your sources support the text cited.
  • Its was clear what it meant. Epbr123 14:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• why is Local Elections capped here but not in the main article it links to? "As of the 2007 Local Elections, all five ... "
• Totaltravel.com is a commercial source. (I started from the bottom, and stopped reviewing sources at that point, as work is still needed — now back to the other issues.)
• The wikilinking issues (WP:CONTEXT) have not been addressed.
• & in place of and has not been addressed.

I struck a few items above (templates), but most is still unaddressed. I'll wait for you to finish these sorts of items in all five noms before continuing to review the others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Back for a third look. Here, too, looks like just about everything addressed, but one more copyedit runthough is needed:

• Church archive have shown that the village's All Saints church dates back to at least around 1350. (very redundant - Archives show the village's All Saints Church dates to around 1350 ???)
• Perhaps too much delinking? Not sure on cliff stacks, since it's a term specialized to Geology.

I suggest a day or two off, to get distance from the text of the articles, and then a fresh run through to spot redundancies and copyedit problems, after looking at the guide on Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s page. Almost there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Back for a fourth look. Please run through the text one more time: I shouldn't be able to find sentences like this on a quick glance (As a seaside resort, there various clubs for watersports.) "Various" is used throughout the sports section. Also, consider whether you want to use a word to avoid (claim) in the lead—perhaps it's intended, but if it's really only a "claim", why does it warrant mention in the lead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I struck my oppose after making some final ce changes myself; please check to see if meaning was correct in those changes I made. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose until Sandy's fresh concerns are addressed, and due to stubby sections which should be merged. LuciferMorgan 00:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Short paragraphs have been merged where appropriate. Epbr123 22:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Would it be an idea to include the civil_parish field and data in the InfoBox for completeness. Also, wouldn't some indication of the surrounding parishes, perhaps even using a compass-table, in the appropriate section would help place it into a larger context?  DDStretch  (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've added the parish council to the infobox and have mentioned the surrounding civil parishes in the geography section, but I'm not sure about adding a compass-table as the town is neighboured by some unparished areas. Epbr123 09:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok. I've replied with one suggestion on my talk page to your question, but one other alternative is to simply enter "unparished" or "(unparished)" in those cells where relevant. Trying out a few alternatives in a sandbox and seeing how they look next to each other might be a way forward.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The table has been added. Epbr123 14:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Concern: Please include where the village gets its drinking water from and where its sewage goes. Is Quex Park the only park in the town? The introduction says "Birchington-on-Sea is a village and civil parish" - what is the difference between a village and civil parish? --maclean 05:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have added local recreation grounds to the culture section and about the water to the geography section. Civil parishes have now been explained in the politics section. Epbr123 08:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally do not think it was necessary to explain the differences between a village and a civil parish, as the link to civil parish was in place, and that could have been followed to find out. The fact is, many villages in England are contained in a civil parish, and in quite a few of these cases, the name of the civil parish is the same as the name of the village. It would be tedious in the extreme to repeat such definitional information in each such village article when a linked article that explains it is already there. In this case, it is a minor point, but if such a requirement was universally required, I don't think it would be a good thing.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It is the village part I don't get. Why make the distinction? We don't say that "Boston is a city and municipality..." or that "A cougar is an animal and a mammal..." And, on a side note, where I'm from (not the UK) we call communities of 9800 people "cities" (a small city) with villages being on the order of 1000 people. --maclean 19:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Not all villages are parishes and not all parishes are villages. Epbr123 20:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Not all villages are civil parishes, and vice versa. Incidentally, Chew Stoke is also a village and a civil parish, and it is being considered for FA status as well at the moment. No one has asked for these terms to be explained. To go some way to explaining the village issue, I will link the reference to the appropriate article. However, in some cases, I have seen such links being removed by other editors on the grounds that to include them would be a case of Overlinking.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a foreigner so please bear with me. I don't oppose based on the whole "is a village and civil parish" in the lead sentence (it was just a question), but it just seems unnecessary to me, as it seems "village" is just a colloquial term according to the link provided (it is a good link, does help). Anyways... Questions/Concerns (Will Raul654 decide which are serious and which are just questions?):

• Is this the civil parish website [1]? Why doesn't it call itself "Birchington-on-Sea"?
• The "History" section stops at 1923, this can be made more comprehensive by going telling us what has happened since? Good times? bad times?
• In the Geography section, why put "miles" before "km"? I thought UK was metric.
• Why put the climate data for another town? Those big climate boxes aren't a requirement. if the data isn't available, then the data isn't available.
• "Wakeboard and Water Ski Club, which was established in 2004 to help alleviate anti-social behaviour in the area." it is that easy?
• Several of "references" in the Culture section are just ext.links to a club's homepage. --maclean 23:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Birchington-on-Sea is the town's full name. Officially, the UK is metric but UK people still prefer to use miles than km. The climate data for Wye gives a rough idea of what the climate for Birchington is like. Wakeboard and Water Ski Club was established to help alleviate anti-social behaviour. The club's homepages provide info supporting the article. Epbr123 23:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to search for more recent notable events to put in the history, but I can't find any that aren't already mentioned in other sections. Epbr123 12:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean "the village's full name". Unless the area is a town because it has a town council rather than a parish council, that is.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • You're really fast. I switched the units to km|mi as the remainder of the article used metric|imperial. I wish my town had water skiing to help alleviate the anti-social behaviour. Some of the data in the census table is repeated in the text. --maclean 00:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The table is to help give an overview to the text, similar to the infobox at the start of the article. Epbr123 00:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

As an addition: it is true that Birchington-on-Sea is the village's full name. The civil parish and the village are not the same thing, however, and slight name differences can happen. Indeed, the name of the parish may bear little in common to any of the settlements located within it. If required, the text could be altered to read something like "Birchington-on-Sea is a village and (as Birchington) a civil parish..."  DDStretch  (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead has been reworded. Epbr123 11:55, 24 June 2007 (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 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Western Ganga Dynasty

The Western Ganga Dynasty ruled over Southern Karnataka, India, for over six centuries and played an important role in the development of the region. Although a small Kingdom, their contributions are well worth documenting and that is what this article has tried to establish. The article was in PR for a week without any comments or feedback. I am looking forward to constructive feedback that could help take this article to FA.Dineshkannambadi 23:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Nice article, but it seems it's over-informative, which is not a negative point as such.Cheers! User:Luxurious.gaurav
• Support: Great article with ample citations. But it seems that the 'History of Karnataka' template is not well placed. Please see if anything can be done here. But anyway I fully support the nomination. DSachan 11:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Kalyan

• • Suggestion: The lead para states that the peak empire lasted from 350 to 550 CE. i am assuming that the territory of the empire was the largest at that time. The map shows the territory as of 800 CE. It will be great if you can the largest extent in a different shade to the same map.

DK reply Actually they were as soverign power between 350-550, not the peak.This is reflected in the lead. The map generally should be considered their core area, though the author (Adiga) says 800 CE onwards. I have a similar map from Kamath which assigns the area generally speaking, without dates. In 930 time frame they also ruled territories in the Tungabhadra valley further north but this was for a few decades untill the fall of Rashtrakutas, their overlords. Maps are ticky and I dont want to use my judgement in calculating area coverage at their peak. Dineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• • "lasted from about 350 to 550" CE? BC? - add that reference

DK DoneDineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• • "feudatory" - is there a wikilink or you need to provide an explanation to this term as the understanding of the whole sentence hinges on this term.

DK the term has no wikilink, but generally means a subordinate. I can change it to subordinate.

• • "fighting for the cause of the overlords" - i am assuming it is the chalukyas. On second thought, can you re-phrase the entire sentence "After the rise of the imperial ..."

DK Done, emphasized better nowDineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

: Need date when they started serving under the Chalukyas --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• • "When the Chalukyas were replaced" - provide date

DK DoneDineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• • a few issues with this:"the Western Gangas successfully fought along side their new overlords against their traditional foes, the Chola Dynasty of Tanjavur in the battle of Takkolam resulting in the Rashtrakuta occupation of northern Tamil Nadu." - (1)new overlords - this means that their existence after 550 CE is as a subject nation to a larger empire. can you make that clear in the sentence that chalks history from 350 to 550 CE. Thus the addition of 550 to 1000 CE would provide a complete overview (2) traditional foes - the previous sentence had the pallavas as their foe. avoid usage of the term "traditional", unless you would like to add substantial evidence in the lead section (3) "occupation of northern Tamil Nadu" - provide dates. remember that the lead section needs to stand on it's own and dates are essential in these type of history articles

DK Simplified. removed mention of Rashtrakuta occupation of northern Tamil nadu as it is perhaps unnecessary to the article lead. As such, it is mentioned in the History section. It is mentioned more in detail in the Rashtrakuta Dynasty article. Regarding the time frame from 550-1000, they were really independent from 750-850 (approx), constantly at war with the Rashtrakutas. There after they again became subordinates. So one cant really say they were a subject nation technically throughout. How does it look now?Dineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Much better. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• • "In the late 10th century, major political changes were taking place in the Deccan." - violates Show, don't tell policy. reword/re-phrase or remove

DK Done. removed "major political..."Dineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• • "The Rashtrakutas were replaced by the emerging Western Chalukya Empire north of the Tungabhadra river" - grammatical error. I think it should be "North of Tungabhadra river, the Rashtrakutas were replaced by the emerging Western Chalukya Empire"

DK Done. Copied your sentence.Dineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• • "Though territorially a small kingdom," - all the above dealt with geo-spread of the empire and subsequent sentences deal with culture and other aspects. it is best to seperate it out as a new para. combine all military prowress/empire extent into one para

DK Done. seperated.Dineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• • "resulting in the construction of fine monuments" - avoid usage of terms "fine". could be considered POV. Also, let the reader make the judgement of the monument being fine or otherwise

DK done. removed "fine".Dineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

** The lead para does not have details of how the empire came into existence in 350 CE. Please add the same.

DK The invasion of Samudragupta having caused disturbance in the south is only a theory, perhaps not proven by inscriptions. This is why even historians merely mention it without giving it too much credibility, but more as a geo-political event. Adding it to the LEAD may make people think that the Gangas had something to do with Samudragupta. This is why I prefer no to add it.Dineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:My try: "The general belief is that the Western Ganga empire began during a time period when multiple small kingdoms arose after the weaking of the Pallava empire, a geo-political event sometimes attributed to the conquests of Samudra Gupta. Does that sound fair? --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DK I have addd this to the lead. Please take a look.Dineshkannambadi 01:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• • How is the shravanabelagola temple and idol related to the History section? Move it to a different/more appropriate section

DK Done. Moved it down and moved Kings template up.Dineshkannambadi 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• • "of southern India by Samudra Gupta, a king from North India and carved out a small kingdom for themselves. " - which year (or approx. range of years) did Samudra gupta invade? and when did the gangas carve a "small kingdom" for themselves. also, remove "small" unless you are going to quantify it

DK Samudragupta ruled from 335-380. I dont have a date for his southern invasion, but it must have been just prior to 350 as this is mentioned in more than one book. Generally, such major geo-political changes throws up smaller kingdoms who break away from their earlier overlords.Dineshkannambadi 00:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

** At times, they also controlled some areas in modern Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh." - years/dates? which areas in AP and TN?

DK done. I have added the info. They consolidated Ananthpur in AP aroud 450 and Kongu region in TN in 6th century. But their hold there was not permanent.Dineshkannambadi 01:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• • "capital around 350 and " - add CE in this sentence as well as everywhere else in the article as well

DK This issue has had its share of conflicts. Many reviewers feel that CE need not be added everywhere, only in the lead. I have had to do-redo-do this kind of edits repeatedly and finally stuck to what I felt was majority view. same with 350 kind of linking.Dineshkannambadi 00:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:Fair enough. CE is lead and none elsewhere will be my mantra going forward. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

** "Historians have debated whether Gangas had complete independence in the early decades of their rule from Kolar." - i am confused. the previous sentence states that the empire was created with kolar as the capital. this sentence contradicts that. need clarification and re-wording

DK Majority of the historians view that they became independent from 350. A few like Baji feel they still owed some alligience to Pallavas for a few decades. This is normal as these things dont happen overnight. I went with the majority view in the lead. I can remove the above sentence "Historians have debated whether Gangas had complete independence in the early decades of their rule from Kolar." since it is not critical to the article. Sound ok?Dineshkannambadi 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

: Yeah, please remove or re-word the sentence. as i stated, the previous sentence states that the gangas made Kolar their capital and the next sentence stated just the opposite. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DK removed sentence for clarity.Dineshkannambadi 15:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

** "the Gangas had consolidated their kingdom with Talakad as their capital." - why did they choose Talakad as their capital?

DK closer to the rich pasture lands and agricultural lands of Malnad, considering they were still under pressure from Kadambas in central Karnataka and Pallavas south of Kaveri. I did not want to go into these details to keep the article concise. In an earlier FA, I was asked not to dwell into details.Dineshkannambadi 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

: I think the details of why an empire shifted capitals is very important and pertinent to the wiki article. Please add the same here. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Dk Done. Added info. A strategic move to contain the Kadambas.Dineshkannambadi 01:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• • "By 430 they had consolidated their eastern territories" - any info on which regions in AP/Kar/TN are covered in this "eastern territories".

DK Historians here , at this time, refer to Bangalore, Kolar, Tumkur, perhaps Anathapur (not many inscriptions from here) .Dineshkannambadi 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

** 'his younger brother who was favoured by King Avinita." - who is Avinita? provide wikilink for his page and if possible, some reference to his involvement in the history of the dynasty.

DK King Avinita is King Durvinita's father. Not much is written about Avinita, though I can create a stub.Dineshkannambadi 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

DK created a stub for Avinita.Dineshkannambadi 01:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

** "accounts suggest that in this family feud the Pallavas " - copyedit required, remove "in this family feud" at a min and add the phrase towards the end of sentence else re-write the sentence

DK rewrote.Dineshkannambadi 01:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:Follow-up comments: Manu should be wikilinked to Manu (Hinduism) and not Manu (hinduism).

DK linked correctly.Dineshkannambadi 15:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• • "King Sripurusha fought the Pallava King Paramamaheshvara Varman successfully" - which year? I noticed that there are 2 Paramamahshvara Varman (I and II). but their reign was 672 - 700 and 705 - 710. whereas your article implies that it is after 725. please reconcile

DK Copy edit mistake. corrected. The king was Nandivarman Pallavamalla. Earlier, in early 8th century, Parameshvaravarman was killed in a duel with Ganga -Chalukya Vikramaditya II alliance.Dineshkannambadi 01:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

** "A contest with the Pandyas of Madurai over control of Kongu region brought mixed results" - what is "mixed results", did they lose teritory? did that make any political impact? Not having that info seems to provide only one sided view of the events.

DK I read it again. The author says that the Pandyas incriptions claim the Ganga control over Kongu was "threatened" by Pandya invasion in which the Pandya seem to have won the battle, but it is not clear if they held Kongu because there was a marriage between Ganga princess and Pandya prince.(K.A.N. Sastri in Adiga). The 771 Salem plates of Sripurusha and the Koramangala grant however indicate the Kongu region remained in Ganga control.(Ramesh in Adiga)Dineshkannambadi 01:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

: Please add this summary in the article. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DK Added summary with citations.Dineshkannambadi 15:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• • "In 753, the Badami Chalukyas were replaced by Rashtrakutas as the dominant force in the Deccan to which the Gangas offered stiff resistance for about a century" - this does not get reflected in the lead section. request a phrase addition in the lead section.

DK Done.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

** "Butuga II was the next famous king who ascended the throne with the help of Rashtrakuta Amoghavarsha III (whose daughter he married).[33]" - year and was any king missed in-between?

DK Yes. Not much is mentioned about Rachamalla II, Ereganga Neetimarga II and Narasimha who ruled in (870-938). Perhaps an uneventuful time as the Rashtrakuta overlords were the supreme power in Deccan at this time..Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

: Fair enough. Follow-up comment: "After an uneventful period, Butuga II was the next famous king who ascended the throne in 938 " - remove "was the next famous king who" - POV and not required. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DK Done.Dineshkannambadi 15:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• • "Rashtrakuta Amoghavarsha I gave his daughter Chandrabbalabbe in marriage to Ganga prince Butuga I"; later "Butuga II was the next famous king who ascended the throne with the help of Rashtrakuta Amoghavarsha III (whose daughter he married" - are these 2 different events or the same event with mistake in the roman numerals. If there is no mistake, what happened to Butuga I, why did he not become the king after his father's death?

DK Butuga I never became the king. There is no mistake with Roman numerals.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• • "A later " - year?month?decade?

DK dated to 963

• • "a minister in the Western Ganga court is a well known personality to students of modern Karnataka's history " - def. POV

DK Removed phrase.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• • "He served King Marasimha II and his successors ably and helped them during times of distress." - violates Show, don't tell policy. Please elaborate on what distress did he solve for the king?

DK Done. Hepled supress a civi war.

** "Large areas of south Karnataka came under Chola control for about a century until the region was annexed by Hoysala Vishnuvardhana who defeated the Cholas in a decisive battle at Talakad.[44]" - strong object to this sentence. please explain the need for the sentence.

DK Removed. put it for continuity, but i guess its not necessary.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:Yes. it is not necessary. It gives an impression that you are pursuing an agenda of highlighting the superiority of kannada people's rule over modern karnataka region. sticking to facts provides little/no ammo for vandals. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

** The Western Ganga administration was influenced by some principles stated in the ancient text Arthashastra." - how did they receive arthashastra? which principles (provide number evidence) did they follow?

DK I have added this info. It was the role played by village elders. The same citation in following line holds good.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

: Not convinced. remove the term "some" and i think that should be fine. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DK Done.Dineshkannambadi 01:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

** Niyogis - provide wikilink

Dk Done. will add stub.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:Isn't the niyogis mentioned here, the same as Niyogi. Please let me know. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DK Done. The article on Niyogi has been written with todays POV that they are predominently Telugu. 1500 years back things may have been different given the fact people have moved around a lot. So I hesitate to link to that, to avoid confusion and unnecessary conflict. In fact I would request not to link. (I have linked anyway)Dineshkannambadi 15:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• • pergade, nadabova, nalagamiga, prabhu and gavunda - what do these titles mean? Oh, i get it - either move the sentence to the next para or combine the 2 paras.

DK DoneDineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Image of Roof sculpture, Panchakuta basadi at Kambadahalli is repeated twice.

DK Actually they are two seperate sculptures, resembling each other. I have commented out one.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:Oh, i didn't know that. if they are different, you can add both as well as ensure that the difference is made visible to all. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• • With respect to images, please make a gallery and add these images in the same. The gallery goes under the religion/architecture sections and you can have multiple galleries - i see one for shravanabelagola and another for the rest.

DK regarding this, I request a waiver. This issue came up in another FAC and reviewers felt that the reader would loose the context if a gallery were added. This is why I have not used galleries in any FA.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

: I am not convinced but i shall go with you on this. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• • "The Western Ganga rule was a period of brisk literary activity in Sanskrit and Kannada, though many of the writings are now considered extinct and are known only from references made to them." - need reference

DK Done.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• • signed --Kalyan 17:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply-->Please give me a day or two to answer, modify, correct or confirm all the points you have brought up.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

: I have struck off comments which have been addressed. There are a few still that needs to be done, before i want to add my support to the article. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DK I will take a closer look today.Dineshkannambadi 13:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

SUPPORT: All comments have been closed. --Kalyan 04:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Object. The article has too many opinionated sentences. I have tagged some. By virtue of a Hindu belief that killing of a brahmin (Bramhatya) was a sin, capital punishment was not applicable to them is POV. Severe crimes committed were punishable by the severing of a foot or hand - what is a severe crime? Don't you think the article should be renamed as Western Ganga Empire or Western Ganga Kingdom? A dynastic page ought to focus on the succession primarily. Anwar 18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply-->These are opinions of Scholars for which citations have been provided. Not my opinions. Additional Citation has been provided. Infact citation already existed just a few lines ahead. I dont see why a dynastic page has to merely focus on succession. However, I have no problem if its called Western Ganga Kingdom, if there is concensus. I can study he book again and see what the author may have meant by "severe crime", though I suspect its unlikely he would have listed what was severe and what was not because that would be considered "opinionated". Dineshkannambadi 19:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that another article Political history of medieval Karnataka does not have any section about Western Ganga dynasty at all. Which version is correct? The society, language, literature, architecture and religion sections of WGD should be shifted to the PHMK without much ado as they are apparently common traits of all Kannada kingdoms then. Anwar 12:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DK A pargraph on Gangas exists in the very first section bottom of the article you mentioned. The section is called "Kadambas and Gangas" in bold. Why should these sections from Western Ganga Dynasty be shifted to Political History of medieval Karnataka? PHMK is meant to be a brief commentary on all empires that ruled from Karnataka with limited focus on kingdom history, some focus on language, architecture. literature etc. I think you are getting confused. WGD on the contrary is a detailed description of the Gangas. BTW, this FAC is on "Western Ganga Dynasty", not PHMK.Dineshkannambadi 13:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Impressive presentation of the matter. Ample references and some real good pictures are adding value to the article. Would make a fine history FA. - KNM ^Talk 21:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I think all issues that were raised have been addressed and article is in excellent shape now. Gnanapiti 15:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Well written article with a good number of references. -- Naveen ^(talk) 16:50, 27 June 2007 (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 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Æthelberht of Kent

Major rewrite and expansion done; I think this is at FA standard now. Other FAs of Anglo-Saxon kings, in case comparison is useful: Ælle of Sussex, Penda of Mercia and Æthelbald of Mercia. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I like it, but the lead paragraphs need to bolster some of the bold claims. This can be done in the sentences themselves, without any distracting and alienating notes. E.g. "In his Historia Gestae Britanica, the Venerable Bede, lists Aethelberht as being third ..." No need for a note there, but it's clear to readers. Similarly for "earliest written code in any Germanic language." The moment we say "first," hands shoot up among the audience. In this instance it's quite true, but an historian can be given so that you don't bear the brunt of the criticism. E.g. "<Expertdude> says that Aethelberht's Kentish code is the first written in any Germanic language." (You and I probably know that this fact has a great deal of significance because of what it is not. The code being in A-S means that it's non-ecclesiastic and not ecclesiastically derived. That suggests a secular state apparatus prior to the conversion that demands great stability.) (More in a moment, but saving to prevent edit conflicts.) Geogre 16:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to respond under each of your bullets, if that's OK: I know some reviewers don't like that approach but as you've signed each bullet separately I'm going to assume that's the easiest way to go. For your point above, there's actually a footnote for the Bede reference: as you say, footnotes in the lead aren't very desirable, so I simply cut it thinking the later footnote would do it. I think you're right that the sentence on Bede should be expanded, along the lines you suggest; but I'm not so sure about the "first Germanic code" one. The (later) footnote for that assertion is to Stenton, but I felt that readers wouldn't know who Stenton was either, so it wouldn't really help. Bede is different, since a reader has to understand who Bede is to understand the sources of information on Æthelberht. I can certainly make the change if you think it's necessary, but can you comment on the difference I see there? Meanwhile I'll go make the Bede edit. Mike Christie (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• • More of the comment: "Historical background" is good, but it seems to mix historical and historiographic backgrounds. It's interesting to discuss the validity, biases, and interests of our sources (conceivably even our modern ones), but I would expect -- rightly or wrongly -- that this section would give the readers some material, legal, and ecclesiastic history of the area at the accession of Aethelbert. This would be where I would expect information on the Anglo-Saxon religion (flavored and accented Norse, which we know only really from Tacitus's Germania), the trade relationships between the tribal states of the A-S (as we get pictures in Icelandic sagas), the chieftain-driven society, the posse comitatus, the presence/absence of coinage, the attempts by Gregory to get the island back into the church, successes or failures in Ireland, etc. You know -- this is how things were when our hero emerged kind of stuff. Geogre 16:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with all the points you make; I'll go do some research and come back with some changes. On the history vs. historiography question: should I separate out the sources para? I could make the main section "Background", with two subsections: "Historical context", and "Sources". Mike Christie (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• • More of it: The Accession section is kind of tough slogging. As an encyclopedist and synthesizer of information, you should do your best to report the debate without going into such detail that only fans of a particular source can read it. (I'd put my money on Bede, for example, over the Chronicles, every single time, and Tours didn't really need to know.) My point is that you should vastly consolidate it, report that there is divergence and uncertainty (which will surprise no one), and give folks the simple version of ranges of dates. Geogre 16:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I knew this was a lot of detail, but I sort of liked it; I got some feedback on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Æthelbald of Mercia FAC that going into the sources in detail was good, and maybe I overdid it this time. I've cut it a bit, so if you could have another look and tell me if I need to do more I'd appreciate it. I'd really like to leave some of the gory details in -- this sort of analysis is what you have to do to draw conclusions about dates for this time period, and I'd like to leave the readers with a sense of it. Mike Christie (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Sickeningly more of it: The last sentence in "Relations with Franks" seems like it is left over from a previous version of the article, as it makes little sense in this place at this time. It's rather inexplicable where it stands, so it either needs expansion and better lead in or needs excision. For that matter, you indicate the presence of Frankish influence on agricultural and legal practice, and yet that seems to be one of those really important facts that could help explain much. The legal under/over lording matters less, to my view, than the cultural subsuming of Kent to a Frankish (and hence ready-to-convert) system. What are the indications, here? Do they imply experts coming over and going back? If there is an exchange of people as well as goods, we've got a story. Geogre 16:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Several different points here, so split responses. That last sentence is based on this sentence in Yorke: "Frankish fashions in dress, weaponry and drink are reflected in the burials, though these are never exclusively Frankish suggesting 'influence' rather than settlement." I felt the sentence was justified because otherwise a reader might say "How do you know this is cultural connection? Couldn't these just be Frankish graves?" Mike Christie (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

For the agricultural and legal practice: I've cited Stenton for the agrarian influence, but unfortunately he doesn't footnote it so I can't trace that to a more detailed argument. I have seen the comment made elsewhere, but I think only in survey works; I would assume the underlying reference is to some papers that establish the connections. Do I need to hunt those down? I agree they would be interesting, but in an article about Æthelberht, rather than about the settlement of Kent, I was thinking that was enough detail. Mike Christie (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

For people travelling back and forth, I'm not aware of any evidence at all other than the existence of trade. I did consider merging the trade and Franks sections, as they are obviously related, but one seemed primarily political and the other economic, so I eventually kept them separate. I also see the case for talking about religious influences, but I think the section on Augustine's mission does need to be separated, so I put a more detailed discussion of Frankish pressure to convert in that section. What do you think of that approach? I didn't want to duplicate material in two places, but I can move things around if need be. Mike Christie (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• • And you thought I was gone: Ok, in "Bretwalda," or actually before, you mention a particular AS Chronicle. Which one? Isn't C the Parker Chronicle? If so, please do indicate which of the Chronicles has the sui generis material, as there is much to be gained from such knowledge. Geogre 16:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Done -- I tweaked the caption to point at the surviving manuscripts section of the ASC article. Mike Christie (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Still here: I hate to be a pest, but the "historical background" section could have done something that would alleviate reader confusion later. The business of the overlord is highly meaningful to anyone who has studied the Anglo-Saxons, or the Norse, or the Franks, but it's not necessarily obvious to non-specialists that a king could spread Christianity to his thanes without legal order and yet very effectively. I think people expect resentful, grumbling minions with "overlord" rather than thanes and thane-lords. Geogre 17:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea: I added a short paragraph on this. Let me know if that does it. Mike Christie (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Alas, it's him again: The section on Augustine's mission contains information the reader needed to contextualize the import of the king and could well have been moved far up. However, there is one flat misstatement that really must be amended. You say that the invasions separated the Celtic church from Europe for centuries. C. 400, Roman troops withdraw. C. 440, Picts and Scots invade and invade and invade. C. 440, the infamous Hengest and Horsa. C. 500, Anglo-Saxon dominance. By 600, we generally think there was virtually no Christianity on the island, except in Wales, if there, and the conversion of the Saxons is not a reconnection of an isolated church but a new conversion of a people who had been pagan from the beginning. No doubt the "work of giants" (Roman engineers) and of "ghosts" (Celtic decorative arts) that remained and spooked the Saxons helped them accept the new old religion, but the sentence really leads to an incorrect view. Geogre 17:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess I need to ask you for the specific sentence you feel is a mis-statement: I'm not seeing it. I did tweak one sentence to say the Roman church had "no presence" instead of "little presence", which strengthens things in the direction you're asking for, but I'm not clear what else to change. The story of Augustine meeting the British bishops at Augustine's Oak relies on Bede, but that seems pretty definite evidence that there was an active church in Wales, at least. I agree that the tone of this section implies a reconnection, but it's the church reconnecting, not the people, that I meant to refer to. For example, later in the seventh century the British and Roman churches have the big fights about the date of Easter and some other liturgical and ritual issues, and the Roman side (well, by that time the A-S church side, which is by then back in the Roman fold) wins the argument. I know it took some time to reintegrate the church hierarchies even after that, but I thought it was the case that once Rome and the new A-S ecclesiastical hierarchy were clear on the divergence of the British clergy from Roman ritual, there was a definite goal of bringing them back under the Pope's authority. Am I missing something here? Mike Christie (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Back, but on the super minor: In the laws thing, let's link Offa and blood feud, and any other items mysterious to the uninitiated. Geogre 17:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Done; I also linked Ine of Wessex. Mike Christie (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support: If I have tweaks and tips, I'll go to the article talk page and/or make edits. It's a strong page. I still feel that the prose bogs down under the weight of the scholarship here and there, but, while that is an argument for improvement, it is not an argument against this being a featured article. The article is more than worthy, and the author deserves all praise for the work. Geogre 17:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment—Haven't looked properly yet, but lots of hyphens that should be en dashes in the reference list (MOS insists now); the opening "c.560–February 24, 616" has an en dash that should be spaced, because both items are spaced—well, both should be spaced (MOS). Tony

Done, both for the date ranges and the page ranges in the refs. I noticed what appears to be an inconsistency in the MOS, by the way: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#En_dashes says that there should be spaces around the en dashes when the items contain spaces, but Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_of_birth_and_death says it can be a hyphen or en dash, and says it can be spaced or unspaced in this case. I assume this just needs to be brought up to date with the new MOS section. Anyway, I think it's now fixed for the Æthelberht article. Mike Christie (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support The article is well written and well referenced. Unlike the earlier FAs of Anglo Saxon kings, which I supported before, this one has some real meat (not to fault the earlier FA's, but it appeared the sources just weren't there). This is an EXCELLENT article and deserves promotion as an FA. I can find no obvious fixes needed. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:34, 27 June 2007 (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 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None

This article is FA. Citations, out-of-universe, brilliant prose IMO, lead summarizes article. I firmly belive that it satisfies all FA critera.Paaerduag 14:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support, well-written and comprehensive. Spoilers should be retained, regardless of the anti-spoiler campaign.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support in any case. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - spoilers are inappropiate for plot summary as per WP:SPOILER. They should be removed. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 20:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It's a plot summary: the presence of spoilers is horribly redundant. There is no reason why they should be kept. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's only 'redundant' to people who spend large amounts of time on Wikipedia.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Or people who know what the words "Plot summary" means? Atropos 03:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been fixed! Please return back to the discussion at hand, about whether this article should be FA.--Paaerduag 07:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support good article, although a very minor issue for me is the one sentence paragraph in the development section. It should be merged or extended if possible. Great article nonetheless.Lemmington 19:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I merged it with the paragraph about the Wii release--Paaerduag 00:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support I was going to give this article a copyedit, but I don't think it needs one. My one gripe is that the sections of 'Characters' and 'Setting' are too short. Can these be expanded somehow? Like for 'Characters' can you describe their abilities and how they interact with one another (and how that affects the game)? If not, then just merge the two sections into one main 'Characters and setting' section.UberCryxic 20:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I was considering expanding these, but in my other FAC at Voyage, people told me to cut back on the in-universe stuff, and focus on the out-of-universe stuff. If anything I'll probably combine the sections, because I'm reluctant to expand these per others' comments.Paaerduag 09:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose until it's properly copy-edited. Why are there bloopers in the lead? ...
  • "follows very closely to the plot".
  • "novel, the novel" (and "further the connection" is clumsy).
  • "Reactions to the game ranged were mixed".
  • "Recently"—what will that mean in three years' time?
  • "with some calling"—there are better connectors than "with".
  • "motion sensitive"—must by hyphenated.

There's a sense of deja vue, having just reviewed your other game here. Take care using the same formula. BTW, aren't all games "point-and-click"? I'm ignorant of this area, though. Tony 10:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to address all your concerns. The term 'point-and-click' refers to games in which the player moves around by clicking on various points of the screen, and all the backgrounds are prerendered. Like 'Myst', if you've heard of that.Paaerduag 11:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, with the use of the word recently, is it incorrect to use a word drawing the article to a particular time? I mean can't I just remove that when it isn't recent anymore? I've removed it for now, but unsure on the policy of that sort of 'recentism'.--Paaerduag 11:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you might remember to remove "recently" from an article that you care about, but other editors are not so diligent. There are examples of "recently" in other articles and when you read them and deduce that it all happened three years ago, it's a bit jarring. It's better to avoid it. Is it significant that the announcement was made in March 2007? Instead of saying "On March 19, 2007, The Adventure Company announced that And Then There Were None will be ported to the Wii console.[4] The Wii version of the game is expected to be released during November 2007.[4]" - wouldn't it be easier and more specific to say "The Adventure Company announced that And Then There Were None will be ported to the Wii console with an expected release date of November 2007". Assuming that the release date is important, and the date of the announcement is not. It also saves what I consider to be excessive linking to sources - and reduces two links to one without losing anything. (I like both your articles BTW, but I want to read them more carefully before I comment further.) Rossrs 14:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Fine prose and comprehensive. --Tjkirk 07:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Well sourced and exhaustive. Most game articles lack such as nice Development section. Kariteh 11:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Article well done. --SkyWalker 12:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - very well done. Comprehensive, focussed and well structured. Rossrs 14:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support — well-referenced, well-structured. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 20:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fix needed Years shouldn't be linked if not accompanied by both a day and a month. Epbr123 23:14, 22 June 2007 (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 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Providence, Rhode Island

previous FAC

This is an immediate renomination. Final feedback from people commenting hadn't been received, so I felt this was prematurely archived. I was told, given the circumstances, an exception to the "don't renominate immediately rule" would be made. Here it is. I believe all recommendations received have been worked into the article.--Loodog 02:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Needs the following fixes:
  • Referencing:
    • However, some fear that the new development will ruin the historic look of the city. Additional concerns include an equitable taxation policy for several of the new luxury highrises. No reference for these concerns. Where are such concerns published.
    • Nearly 30 percent of the city population lives below the poverty line. Where is this fact published?
    • The Pie Chart in the economy section needs a reference. Consider using the caption option in the image markup to put one in.
    • Vincent Cianci, Jr, who was often credited with Providence's 1990s renaissance, Credited by whom? If you credit someone, you should, you know, CREDIT them with a reference.
    • Between these schools the number of post-secondary students is approximately 44,000, or 25% the population of Providence Sometimes, a sentance can be overreferenced. Does this statement need SEVEN ref tags? If many references are needed, consider using a single ref tage with an explanatory footnote that explains how they all relate. This seems just gratuitous though.
    • The Providence Public School District serves about 26,000 students from pre-Kindergarten to grade 12. Funny. There are seven references for the post-secondary student population, and NO references for the K-12 population. Huh?
    • The animated television series Family Guy takes place in Quahog, a fictional suburb of Providence and prominently features the most pronounced segment of Providence's skyline several times an episode (the buildings are One Financial Plaza, 50 Kennedy Plaza, and the Bank of America Building respectively). The city and its name were used in the television series Providence, and Showtime's new series, Brotherhood, was also filmed and set in Providence. Needs some references to back up these claims.
    • Most baseball fans — along with the local media — tend to follow the Boston Red Sox. According to whom. Look, I believe you, but it needs a reference.
    • The references as a whole need some clean up, in terms of consistancy of style. Each reference needs full bibliographic info, if seeking to be a featured article: Author (if availible), Title, Work (if part of a larger work), publisher, date, url linked to title (for websites) and accessdate (for websites). As an option, the citation templates can help organize this information. Use them or don't use them, but the bibliographic info needs to be complete.
  • Organization issues:
    • The neighborhoods section has a confusing map which is in a bad place (it clashes with the bullets); plus the section should be part of, or at least next to, the Geography section. The map needs fixing; consider labeling each neighborhood. Its a useless map without labels. Plus, the entire section is merely a list. Consider prosifying the section with maybe a sentance or so describing the location and significance of each neighborhood. If worth mentioning in the article, it probably merits at leats a sentence.
    • Sister cities is droped in without context. This might be better at the end of the article as a small section on its own, rather than tacked on to the end of the Government section, which seems random. Plus it could benefit from explanatory text rather than just a bullet list.
    • The education section seems to need general clean up. Its choppy and poorly organized. Why are there not wikilinks for schools that probably have articles? Subsections would improve the article, (K-12, Post Secondary) and the list should be prosified.
    • The lead needs expansion. Several sections of the article are entirely unaddressed by the lead. This needs work. If the article has an entire section dedicated to it, it needs a summary in the lead. The lead should be a full summary of the entire article, and should be able to stand on its own as a mini-article. See WP:LEAD

Those fixes are all needed to make this FA, IMHO. Doable, considering it looks like the article is well cared for. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Response
  • The pie chart has references on its image page. I'm not sure how I would add sources to it as an image.
    • Did it myself. Does it look OK? Now it has a ref in the image caption.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The schools note needs seven reference tags because that 44,000 is the sum of each individual school's declared number of students. I can't really think of a way to streamline that.
    • Try this : <ref>This figure (44,000 students) is calculated as the sum of each individual school's declared number of students. See: {{cite web | first reference}} {{cite web | second reference}} etc. etc.</ref> That way, you can leave an explanatory note, and include all seven references without having seven footnotes.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Follow up Done.
  • The citation templates you speak of are use in every citation, though they need "publisher". I'm not sure what to put if there's no obvious publisher, though.
    • Cite #11, the CNN/Money Magazine Home Appreciation list is missing the following information which I have cut and pasted from the link itself: work = CNN/Money.com | publisher = Cable News Network LP, LLLP | date = 2007 | accessdate = 2007-06-13 . This information exists on nearly every reliable source as a website. If the website doesn't list publisher information like the copyright holder of the website or the date it was published, it probably isn't reliable. Looking through your list of refs, MOST look like they are formatted OK, and have all of the information needed, so I wouldn't go through and reformat each one, but check carefully to ensure that nothing is omitted like with cite #11.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Cite #96 is to a Providence Journal article with an author. Give him credit. Again, check your refs to ensure that full bibliographic info is included as appropriate.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Follow up Done.
  • I considered prosifying the neighborhood list, but I feared that would add needless length to the article.
    • Looked again. The map looks better with the neighborhood names. Maybe the list could be reformatted or the map resized to eliminate white space? Just an aesthetic thing, though. Not a huge deal.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what is meant by explanatory text in Sister cities. Among FA's, only Tulsa, Oklahoma seems to make any explanatory note, and that's about what Sister Cities are in general. Every U.S. FA city article just has a bulleted list here.
    • Yeah, I guess you are right. No problem there I guess.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Loodog 04:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Follow up Hopefully, I've addressed your other comments. Let me know.--Loodog 14:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Article is much improved, with the neighborhood map adding a lot. Though, the neighborhood section seems like a good fit to go in the Geography section, maybe as a subsection?
  • The government section seems short, but I don't know what if anything might be missing. Also, some more cites are needed (e.g. "making him the first openly gay mayor of an American state capital.")
  • Something else missing... what's the level of crime in Providence? Crime trends? --Aude (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Good idea. I've added a brief crime section, moved neighborhoods to geography, and made the citation on Cicilline more explicit. Don't know what to add to the government section, though.--Loodog 16:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
      • You know the most about Providence. If you don't think there's anything missing, then the government section may be okay.--Aude (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Education section lists only postsecondary schools. I think some reference to other schools, maybe just the name of the school district or districts and maybe number of schools might be in order. John Carter 00:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Maybe you were looking at just the first subsection. Classical, Nathanael Green, and the private schools are all listed. Though, mentioning of districts is a good idea.--Loodog 00:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A vote

Since no one's responded in the last two days and I've tried to address every comment made, I'd appreciate a vote if no one has anything further.

• Support Obviously, since I'm the one promoting it. I can't think of anything else to addd to the article. It is well-sourced, and IMO well-written and thorough.--Loodog 18:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support I added two ref requests that are minor and can be fixed quickly, but I'm happy to support. Great article. Postoak 23:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Followup Done. Thanks!--Loodog 15:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Support Change vote from above. Fix those ref tags that Postoak noted, and you have yourself a fantastic article there.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Followup Done. Thanks!--Loodog 15:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comments A few more minor issues... More copyediting is needed, such as in the history section where the paragraph says "Revival began in the 1970s." In the crime section, and possibly elsewhere, there is a reference that is misplaced. References should go after the punctuation. The "See also" link in the culture section should go at the top of the section, per WP:LAYOUT. --Aude (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Followup. Done. I'd actually already fixed all the refs, but somebody snuck in that little bit about the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Commission without proper referencing. I assure you the rest of the article, the ref placement is sound. Good?--Loodog 04:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support I can't think of any other suggestions or comments. The article is much improved since it was nominated. Good work. --Aude (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone for the feedback and support. I think we have concensus. If there's an admin around, feel free to close this up.--Loodog 21:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite how it works. The Featured Article Director will make the determination on consensus. I also wouldn't mind if some more reviewers looked at the article. But don't have anything else to add or suggest myself, and think you have done a good job with the article. --Aude (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok.--Loodog 21:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - some available publishing dates of web sources are either missing or incorrect. Epbr123 23:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment will gladly fix. Please mention which sources you mean. Thanks.--Loodog 23:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Some points and concerns:
  • "Providence thrived postwar, waves of immigrants and land annexations brought the population from 54,595 in 1865 to 175,597 by 1900." sounds awkward and I don't think it is a proper paragraph. The Crime section also has two stubby paragraphs.
  • That "Matt Hyson" paragraph is the Sports section really comes out of nowhere. Why is that important to the city and justify a one-sentence paragraph?
  • The article doesn't mention anything about utilities. Where does the city get it drinking water from and sewage go to (I assume this is a service the city provides)? electricity, natural gas, anything?
  • Good Cityscape section. --maclean 01:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Follow up Done. Let me know if it's better.--Loodog 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Support. Those are minor concerns, nothing that should stop this from being featured. This is very well written article. You can place the info on drinking water and sewage disposal in the Geography section. Here is some info on sewage (pdf) --maclean 19:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks Maclean, though I didn't see any info in there on present sewer utilities. So far as I read, it's a report from the 80s on the efforts to clean up the water, which did really need it. Unless you see something I didn't.--Loodog 04:53, 26 June 2007 (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 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film)

Self nomination. This article has been through the peer review process and was promoted to Good Article status in February of 2007. Since that time I have considerably tweaked and expanded the article to such an extent that I believe it may be at the FA-level. Put it to the vote or make any suggestions here that you think may improve the article. Thanks.-Hal Raglan 02:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Great article. Succinct and to the point, yet comprehensive, well-written, and informative. Two minor quibbles: some words are wikilinked when they don't need to be (rather common terms like "lunatic" and "brother-in-law" in the lead, which I fixed), and the references to the issues of Video Watchdog Magazine need the dates of publication, if they are available. Otherwise, great work. WesleyDodds 09:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I appreciate your comments. I've added the dates for the two referenced Video Watchdog issues.-Hal Raglan 13:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support great article--Candyfan 16:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Everything looks to be in order. —imaek 22:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nothing's missing, it's well put together.--Digipatd 15:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• What is all of that bolding? Is the Film Project advising that? Pls see WP:MOSBOLD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • When you write "all of that bolding", are you referring to the title of the article and the cast listing? Those are the only examples that I can see in the article. For the bolding utilized in the cast listing, the "Cast and crew information" section of the WikiProject Films' Style guidelines supports the format used here: "Pertinent casting information might also be included in this section (or in production), and only then should bolding be used to make the credits stand out from the additional information."-Hal Raglan 01:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Naïve comment - Most similar articles I've seen contain a spoiler warning before the plot summary. I don't know whether it would be appropriate here but just wondered whether you'd considered it. Verisimilus T 17:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not really a naive comment at all. Many articles on wikipedia do seem to contain spoiler tags. However, according to wikipedia's spoiler policy, "it is unusual for scholarly reference works (of the sort that Wikipedia aspires to be) to warn for spoilers when discussing fictional works. If they do, they often avoid terms such as 'spoiler'. Because of this, spoiler warnings should generally be avoided." The general consensus appears to be that if an article on a fictional work contains a synopsis section, the reader should simply assume that plot details (i.e., "spoilers") are included.-Hal Raglan 19:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying. Verisimilus T 20:36, 23 June 2007 (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 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Battle of Cape Esperance

Respectfully self-nominate this article about a World War II Pacific War naval battle for featured article. The article has been through a peer review ([2]) and A-class review ([3]) with WP:MILHIST. CLA 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Well written article of FA level. Kyriakos 21:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. but see if you can make more wikilinks. Rlevse 16:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There's been a trend lately to reduce the number of wikilinks but I'll relook it for this article. CLA 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. A very well written and clear article on a very confusing battle. --Nick Dowling 23:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Fix needed. Most of your measurements are in yards, and metric equivalents aren't given. Also, WP:UNITS (non-breaking hard spaces between numbers and units of measurement) isn't addressed. You can kill two birds with one stone by using {{convert}} on units of measurement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. That's a nice tool. CLA 03:11, 26 June 2007 (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 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Still Reigning

Before i started work on this article it was one paragraph - seen here. After receiving two very dodgy GAC reviews i submitted it to GAR where it received helpful feedback and almost doubled in size. Over the last few days i added the finishing touches, and while it is short it is comprehensive. I am happy to fix any editors concerns that are valid as soon as possible. Thanks. M3tal H3ad 09:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I see the quality of the article has left you all speechless :) M3tal H3ad 07:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Some places it rocks hard. I've never heard Slayer so I got a couple of requests. (1) In the beginning of "Conception" can you make it clear that Reign in Blood is the 1987 album, (2) in the same section Hanneman is mentioned for the first time but context of who he is (guitarist for the band) is not given until two sentences later. (2) Reference 2 (RIAA.com) gives me a 404 Not Found, (3) I don't think the first footnote in the second paragraph of "Production" is the one you want, it doesn't doesn't actually say "death threat" (which is wikilinked twice in the article) and it is the same as the one at the end of the paragraph (why two of the same?) (4) why call the non-album songs on the DVD "Bonus"? Maybe I missed it but what are they anyway? new songs? played at the same concert? (5) Consider making the "Track listing" parallel like this. --maclean 07:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that's what you call useful feedback, i will get to work, thanks for the comments. M3tal H3ad 08:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support as Slayer Wikiproject member. LuciferMorgan 13:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Comprehensive and well sourced. One sentence isn't reading quite right to me though: The positive reception lead to the band's European agent suggest the band play Reign in Blood in its entirety... Maybe lead the agent "to suggest" or "suggesting"? Cricket02 14:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support — Fantastic. Another masterpiece by M3tal H3ad. NSR77 ^T_C 01:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Considering the recent fuss over Fair Use, images might need to be re-evaluated here before promotion. See WT:WIAFA#Time for FA to change culture vis-a-vis fair use images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Durin was rather stupid in removing an album cover from the Slayer article - album covers are used with the intention of promotion and are usually encouraged by record labels. Unless the fair use criteria as it relates to FAs is changed, I don't feel that discussion affects the article - as it's only discussion. LuciferMorgan 15:50, 28 June 2007 (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 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Four Times of the Day

Probably not one of Hogarth's more famous series, these four pictures provide a light-hearted snapshot of 18th century London. ALoan and I have tried to pick out the details. I hope you find it interesting (and that ALoan returns to help me out with any objections). Yomangani^talk 16:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting article, congratulations. Comments:
  • This sentence is, I think, misleading/difficult: Four Times of the Day was the first set of prints that Hogarth had published since his two great successes A Harlot's Progress (1732) and A Rake's Progress (1735) and one of the first to be published after the Engraving Copyright Act 1734 (which Hogarth had helped push through Parliament) had come into force. (1) It makes it seem like the prints were among the first in general to be printed, when really there must have been hundreds of prints published between 1735-8. (2) A Rake's Progress was published after the Act came into force; indeed, Hogarth held it back for this reason. The words 'one of the first' make is seem like Hogarth was making an important innovation when he printed Four Times of the Day, when really he was just doing the same as he had for at least one major set of prints already.

    I thought that phrasing made it clearer that it was one of Hogarth's first publications since the act rather than one of the first in general, but obviously not. I've rephrased it. Yomangani^talk 00:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The background paragraph contains the comment 'Find ref in Paulson', which presumably needs dealing with

    Fixed (I knew I missed one). Yomangani^talk 00:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The article doesn't say much about the history of the paintings after they were painted. According to the Dictionary of National Biography, Morning and Night are kept at Upton House, Warwickshire and Noon and Evening are in a private collection. It would be nice, if possible, to include something about how they got there. The article on Upton House contains some info.

Ycdkwm 19:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is tricky. The other two are in the Ancaster Collection at Grimsthorpe Castle, never having been resold, but the two at Upton House seem to have left little trail between Heathcote buying them at the auction and Bearsted gifting them to the National Trust. I've filled in a little detail. Yomangani^talk 00:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this, this is the kind of information I was thinking of.

Support, as my comments above have been dealt with Ycdkwm 18:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Another fine article by Yomangani, who is making a considerable contribution to the visual arts area on Wikipedia, which is much neglected. I didn't so much read this article as pore over it, opening up all the images and comparing them with each other and the text, as well as feeling prompted to read connected articles and bits and pieces in books about Hogarth. In the latter case, I found the text to be fully supported by the secondary sources I could get hold of. qp10qp 21:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support - a few sentences not directly referenced that probably should be, e.g."In the distance, a cartload of furniture passes Charles' statue, perhaps penurious tenants escaping from their landlord under the cover of darkness." bt I'm happy to accept that the surrounding references cover them. "Four Times of the Day was the first series of prints that Hogarth had issued since the success of the the Harlot and Rake and would be the only set he would issue until Marriage à-la-mode in 1745, so it was eagerly anticipated." - did they know he was planning Marriage á-la-Mode? Because if not, it's hard to see how its date makes the prints more anticipated. Scans of the engravings could stand to be a fair bit larger - it's hard to make out some of the details. I don't think this all adds up to an oppose, but it's a bit problematic. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  I've put the Marriage á-la-Mode clause in parentheses to make it clear that they were eagerly anticipated because of the Harlot and Rake. As to the size of the images, if anybody can find better copies I'd be happy to replace them, but I'm afraid those were the best copies I've been able to get hold of. Yomangani^talk 15:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - succinct crisp prose and comprehensive - congrats. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Not yet - doesn't feel quite balanced in terms of sections and layout.
  • Y DoneThe background section is a hefty chunk of prose to get through before getting to the actual pictures themselves. Could the background material be itself split up to make it more digestable?
  • The sections on each of the four pictures are fine, but the first two having a "detail" picture and the last two not makes it feel top-heavy. I would suggest having the same number of pictures in each of the "series" subsections (ie. Morning, Noon, Evening, Night), and ensuring the amount of text in each section balances as well.
  • The individual picture subsections could also be broken up a bit by bold titles introducing the paragraphs on different parts of that painting (use the ";" formatting).
  • After reading through four lengthy analyses of the four paintings, the "Reception" section feels too short in comparison.
  • Y DoneFinally, the introductory picture should be a montage of the four paintings (get some technical wizard to do this for you if you can't). At first, I thought the picture of Hogarth was the painting itself. The picture of Hogarth should go in the background section.
• If all this is done or there are good reasons not to do them, then I'd support. Carcharoth 13:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  Well, I'm a bit stuck here. My personal preferences in this area seem to run contrary to yours. Does adding headings to the paragraphs really help? To me it seems to break the article down into something more of a list and constrains the discussion. I don't see any need for additional pictures in the discussion of the second two pictures, although I'm open to suggestions if you have an idea of what should appear. Not all the pictures have the same amount of discussion because not all the pictures have the same number of topics to discuss: there's a lot going on in some of them and less in others. I don't think there is anything more to say in the reception section: very little has been written on their reception (if you can find anything it would be a welcome addition). Finally, I've added the group pic as suggested. I'm not sure it adds a lot as it is too small to be able to make out any of the details, but I don't suppose it detracts from the article either. Yomangani^talk 15:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  I find the montage picture a great improvement, and the picture in the background section is enough to break up the text, so I'm happy with those bits. I still feel the layout of the detail pictures is clumsy. I'll try something on the article itself - see if you think it improves it. The same for the bold bits. I'll look in tomorrow and will probably support then. Nothing to say about the rest of the article - great writing and fascinating subject. Carcharoth 17:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  In fact, I thought the extra pictures in the top two sections were details from the main pictures. I see now they are showing details from other pictures. Why not start a new section titled "Relation to other works" or something? And use those two pictures there and work in the text from the main picture sections? Carcharoth 17:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  Seeing as the pictures are discussed in order I think it would be a little awkward to split out some of the details from each to a separate section. That approach works well when discussing a single piece, but I think this linear structure works better in the case of a series. (Glad you like the montage, I think it's growing on me too.) Yomangani^talk 17:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  Personally I find the details from Battle of the Pictures and Rape of the Sabine Women distracting. There are other examples where you could illustrate what you are talking about, for example, Gin Lane, but you chose to focus on these two instead. I still think having just the two pictures (painting and engraving) for each of the four sections would work best, but I won't oppose just for that! :-) Carcharoth 12:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - following above discussion. Carcharoth 12:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

More great work on an interesting subject, Yomangani. This one doesn't have an infobox, while your last one did. I'm not bothered either way, but you might see if there's a standard on a project somewhere. I think there are a few paragraphs that are somewhat overloaded—the first and last of Background, for example. I'd digest the info better with a few more para breaks. Evening also seems a touch underweight compared to the others. Two specific things:

• "Paulson sees the kite hanging from the church as forming a trinity of signs" threw me. The headless woman is an actual sign, the black man's head is a complimentary sign,(?) so "Paulson sees the kite as the third in a trinity of signs"?
• "perhaps Venus, Adonis and Cupid..."; assuming that's not your guess, it should be attributed.

Finally, watch en dash use where em is appropriate. Cheers, Marskell 11:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to make the trinity of signs clearer: it refers to the two real signs on the other side of the street, and attributed the fan comment. There is no appropriate infobox: the painting infoboxes are the closest there are, but it would mean attempting to shoehorn the details in. I think it is better as is. Yomangani^talk 11:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-reading it seems more clear it's John the Baptist's head. It's just that with two intervening sentences you risk the reader not grasping it. Is the Evening scene meant to say anything else about gender? Both with the children and the adults, the female appears domineering. The horns to symbolize cuckolding is interesting. Just a thought.

I'm supporting. Good work. Marskell 07:27, 24 June 2007 (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 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne

First previous FAC Second previous FAC

Nom restarted Old nom Raul654 17:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support (see old nom) --User:Krator (t c) 14:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - per old nom. --Tjkirk 07:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Sources are provided where necessary and issues mentioned in the previous nominations have been fixed. Kariteh 11:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: There is no description of any music in the game, or its development. The article is probably not comprehensive without it. --Teggles 00:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually recall there being any music in the game when I played it, except for a few short tunes, which were finished very quickly and not constant throughout. Also, in the process of my research there were no sources regarding the game's music, so I don't think it's a very important aspect of the game. Paaerduag 04:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, that's fine. I'll support then, unless someone disagrees with you. --Teggles 09:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comments & Concerns
  • Man, that is a lot of footnotes! There is 4 in the infobox and 15 in the lead! See Wikipedia:When to cite.
  • I don't understand what Reference 6: "Journey to the Moon. journey-to-the-moon.com (2006). Retrieved on 29 May 2007." There is nothing about this game at that link.
  • What does the Fair Use image Image:Jumping game.jpg add to the article that is not adequately described in the text?

--maclean 00:16, 27 June 2007 (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 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Mary of Teck

Queen Consort of George V of the United Kingdom – Peer review • Talk • history

• Support. Self-nominated. DrKiernan 05:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• I haven't read the article, but I noticed a couple of things. The article doesn't comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)—specifically, I see hyphens used where en dashes should be. The fair use rationale of Image:Mary of Teck.jpg is a little weak. On somewhat of a side note, that image should be removed from articles where it does not qualify as fair use. Choker, for example. Pagrashtak 15:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, dashes inserted. DrKiernan 07:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• You can insert en dashes and em dashes with the edit box when you're in edit mode without the need for HTML code. Some of your – codes you inserted were replacing existing en dashes. En dashes and hyphens look very similar in the monospace edit window, but you can tell easily when you preview. Not a big deal though. I cleaned up the dashes and corrected some some others. Please check my edit and make sure I didn't miss any. Thanks, Pagrashtak 15:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support: An excellent article, definitely of featured quality in my opinion (I mean, what else is there to know about her? We even find out, in a Pooterish detail, that she was big in the needlework community). I don't have the reservation about the prose that I had for Wallis Simpson: this one reads very cleanly, and in places the prose strikes me as encyclopedically exemplary (the essential information in the clearest language).

A few minor points:

• Her background: I felt the lack of an explanation of why an English woman had a foreign title and background. I gradually worked it out by looking at the tables, etc., but the reader might need slightly more help at the beginning, where I presumed I was going to be reading about a foreign consort, which up to that time had been the usual thing.

• Amended the lead.

• There they were joined by their six children: Edward, Albert, Mary, Henry, George, and John.

For me, this was phrased a little strangely, as it sounds as if a stork had passed over the house and parcel-dropped the children one afternoon. I didn't copy edit it because I'm not entirely sure how long they all lived there (or I might have changed it to "brought up their six children").

• Isn't that how babies are delivered?

• I would have liked a touch more detail on Prince John. The article said he'd been "kept away" on the Sandringham estate, but since they already lived on the Sandringham estate, I think it needs to be made slightly clearer what was going on. I've changed it to "hidden away"; was he not even allowed to live in the cottage with them? I do remember seeing Poliakoff's television play about him, but I don't know how accurate it was. It seems to me that the question of John's treatment is crucial to our sense of Mary as a mother.

• I've amended this slightly.

• In the quotation "Her soft voice...", my copyediting fingers itched to put a comma after "treasures", but I don't know if there was one in the original quote.

• There's no comma in my version.

• We hear that George became ill and died, but not what of.

• Amended.

• "she supported the war effort by visiting troops and factories, and helping to gather scrap materials"

Could this be made slightly clearer? At the moment I have a picture of her tottering about in her high-heels, helping out a couple of rag-and-bone men.

• :-)

• Some ISBNs missing. Not a big deal, but it's a shame not to have them when the article is so meticulously referenced.

Anyway, congratulations. Another fine article by the docmeister.qp10qp 01:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot, your edits have certainly improved it! DrKiernan 07:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Very nice. --maclean 19:00, 24 June 2007 (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 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] El Al

The old nom had many stricken objections and it was difficult to sort out the still-valid from the addressed ones. Nom restarted. Raul654 17:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Major procedural objection—I call on the director to explain:
• (1) why the struck-through text (most of it not objections) makes it hard to sort out the addressed from the valid—doesn't look hard to me;
• (2) whether he checked to see who performed the strike-through actions;
• (3) why there isn't a risk that his actions will encourage nominators and others to strike out lots of text to win a restart; and
• (4) whether there are reasons for eliminating the possibility that is a deliberate strategy on his part to favour this article, or at the very least that the practice of restarting nominations needs to be properly justified. Tony 13:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Informative and well-written article. (As nominator)--Flymeoutofhere 20:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Unless someone brought this up in the last nomination, but I have a concern about the various logo images dotted in the article. Can there be context on why the logos have changed over the years (and maybe remove the second instance of the current logo) under the "El Al today" heading? Other than that, it is a splendid article I would love to see on the front page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

**Oppose. It seems that my suggestions are being ignored. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

They are not being ignored. I've tried and am still trying to find more info on the logos. It's very difficult for me though. The recent logo change was part of an overall PR campaign after the privatization. The original 1950's logo may have been based on the Israeli Air Force shield, but I don't have any reliable sources yet. nadav (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok and sorry if I sounded a bit harsh. You got one of my concerns already; the current logo appeared in the infobox and it felt confusing to have it repeat again. Other than that, if more information cannot be found about the logos, we can remove them (and restore them if enough information is found). Support. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. nadav (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Logo images moved to talk page. Derwig 07:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fix needed Some dates need wikilinking, including some in the footnotes. Epbr123 23:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Will go over the dates in the main text. Done Derwig 10:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you give an example of missing date linking in the references? The unlinked dates I see are publication dates. This is the standard format of the citation templates. --Derwig 10:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Ideally, the citation template should link the publication dates as well, but it doesn't. You'll have to link them manually. Epbr123 13:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Done --Derwig 14:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Well done. Also, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, it is not recommended to specify the size of images, as the size should be what readers have specified in their user preferences. Epbr123 15:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Done - 2 images with specified size were unchanged. The first image, opposite the TOC (should not make a difference with user preferences, and it is the leading image), and the ad image. The details of the ad would be unreadable in thumb size. --Derwig 15:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Nice job. Epbr123 15:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• This is a very nice and informative article and covers just about all aspects of the airline. My one little question from reading this article is: how many passengers does El Al carry each year? Some traffic data for 2006 would be nice. Otherwise I support featuring this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Passenger data for 2002-2005 added. Derwig 13:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that! (And support). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support The major concerns have all been addressed. I think it's up to par now. nadav (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Second procedural objection. Users Flymeoutofhere and Nadav have both breached a fundamental rule here (see the lead to this page) that supporting reviewers who have made significant contributions to a nomination must disclose that fact here. Under the circumstances, I believe that their declarations of support should be disregarded. Tony 13:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that my vote should be disregarded. My edits were all recent and were relatively minor attempts to bring the article up to the point where I would be satisfied to express support on the FAC, since I was somewhat hesitant to do so earlier. I find it is more constructive to actually carry out minor changes instead of directing others to do them. You should assume more good faith. I won't speak for Flymeoutofhere, but I am sure if has lapsed in any way, it was an honest mistake. nadav (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I will leave the procedural objections for the director to handle, and try and deal with the quality of the article. The only major opposition left in the previous nom was yours. The article has been thoroughly copyedited by a professional editor. You refused to read the entire article before, I would ask you to have a look at it now, and consider the nomination. Constructive comments will be appreciated. -Derwig 14:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The article has been renominated since I carried out major work to the article and so I felt it unneccessary to disclose that, as it was in the original nomination. I will happily add that to the comment but why for that reason must the votes be discounted? Seems very much like double-standards are being applied to this article.Flymeoutofhere 18:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, there's a clear requirement for contributors who want to count themselves as "Supporters" of the nomination to simply state that they've contributed to the article. It's all about forestalling potential complaints of conflict of interest. So easy to do. The way the rule is worded, trivial contributions (a few small edits) are not counted. But I checked what both users have done, and it looked more than trivial. Tony 07:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already said that any changes I made were solely so I could write "support" instead of "object until you fix these and these things." I feel the changes I made were minor in scope and that I have not been a "significant contributor to the article." I don't like your insinuations and would prefer the FAC director to make his own determinations. Now, do you have any comments about whether the article is of FA quality? nadav (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2007 (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 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Elk

Restarting this nom (starting under a name following page move to avoid confusing gimmebot) Raul654 17:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support, though since working in FAR I've found out a bit about word emphasis. This article has italics, quotes and both in one case. Though not significant enough to oppose, I feel this needs addressing. I'd use italics and not quotes to emphasise bugling in the LEAD, and then all the words, either foreign or emphasised in Naming section. There is no reason why elch is treated differently to waapiti.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  I cleaned these issues up I believe, if you care to check the intro and Naming and etymology section again.--MONGO 09:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

fantastic -thanks cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Well-written, good references, comprehensive, excellent images, and meets other criteria expected of featured articles. --Aude (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Axl 15:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support: A great article. Fully supported. DSachan 06:34, 24 June 2007 (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 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Ediacaran biota

Self nomination

This article's had a few months to mature. Vanished user suggested it was ready for FA nomination; all the suggestions of a peer review have been implemented, and I can't see anything major I want to do to the article. So: ready for your comments! Thanks, Verisimilus T 10:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Excellent article. Vanished user ^talk 18:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Impressive piece of work. --Targeman 18:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Is there a particular reason why the article does not follow the guide to layout?--Crzycheetah 20:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: The guide to layout says that those sections may be put in any order, and it makes sense to put the huge list last. Vanished user ^talk 21:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I meant to point out that those sections should be a heading of level 2.--Crzycheetah 00:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, right. Fixed! Vanished user ^talk 00:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support TimVickers 23:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

*"subsequent multicellular life would be based on the Cambrian, not the Ediacaran." you can't base life on a time period. "based on body plans that evolved in the Cambrian..."?

Re-worded. Verisimilus T 11:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

*They appeared around.. you just finished talking about the Cambrian, not immediately clear what "they" are.

Re-worded. Verisimilus T 11:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

*Their discoverer, A. Murray, a geological surveyor, found them useful aids for correlating the age of rocks around Newfoundland. If you cite him by name, you need a reference. Similarly for the other proposals.

• • I think those are all covered by the historical overview article at the end of the paragraph. I may be wrong, and was about to go to bed, though. Vanished user ^talk 00:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes - all are contained in reference 4 (Gehling 1999). I've cited them explicitly. Verisimilus T 11:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

*In the Morphology section you should use the past tense to talk about the animals, but the present tense to talk about their fossils.

This is in places a tricky distinction to make. For example, "Size ranges from millimetres to metres" - this is true for both the animals, and their fossils. But I've done what I can to this section. Verisimilus T 12:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten this a bit more, see if you think this is reasonable. TimVickers 16:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Great. I've made a minor alteration to avoid such direct comparison of organisms with fossils, but that's now looking good. Thanks. Verisimilus T 17:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

*These traces imply the presence of motile organisms with heads,... Not all motile organisms have heads, did you mean anterior/posterior differentiation?

I'm trying to think this through. Yes, anterior/posterior differentiation must certainly have been present — but I don't see how you can burrow without something that could at least be described as a head, even if there wasn't a complex brain present. As soon as you're moving through sediment, it makes evolutionary sense to concentrate sensory organs towards the front of the body (where new environments are being encountered) and this would logically lead to the development of a head sensu "a gathering of sensors at the anterior end of the body". Verisimilus T 12:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Horizontal surface motion does not necessarily require a "head", I think the problem is that the "head" implication is taken in the text from both sets of traces, while if it is only burrowing which implies this, this should be made more clear. TimVickers 16:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

How's this rewording? Verisimilus T 17:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

*Why are the sections on "Assemblages" and "Preservations" at opposite ends of the article? These would logically seem to go together.

The reader needs to have been introduced to certain concepts - for example, rangeomorphs - before the Assemblages makes sense. Further, it's helpful to have been introduced to microbial mats early on, as they are mentioned extensively throughout the article. We've had a discussion on article structure previously and settled on this as the best compromise. I agree that they do cover similar ground and it would be nice to have them together, but as a naïve reader I personally feel I'd be best served by a quick introduction to the preservation - which is perhaps one of the most important aspects of the biota - but that the assemblages is perhaps more in-depth and of less passing interest, and is thus better saved to the end. Verisimilus T 12:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

*If scientist's names are important enough to link, they could do with stubs to remove the redlinks. Otherwise, remove the links.

Removed. Verisimilus T 12:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Created a page on Mark McMenamin for you. TimVickers 16:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

*"palæolatitudes" is not defined by a link to latitudes, I don't understand how these terms differ.

• • Remember significant continental drift has happened since the Ediacaran - the latitudes that they're found in now are not the same as they were at the time. Perhaps we could be more clear... 00:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I've added a note about it, though it may be a little excessively complex to put across a fairly minor point. Vanished user ^talk 00:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I"m confused, surely the latitudes remain the same whatever the position of the landmasses? After all, isn't the equator defined relative to the poles? TimVickers 00:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Antarctica, for example, was once in tropical latitudes. The palæolatitude (in this context, anyway) is the latitude the fossils were at when they were created, which may not be the same as where they've now been moved to. Vanished user ^talk 00:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. I'd recommend making a sub-heading for palaeolatitude on the latitude page and making a piped link to this definition. TimVickers 02:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Should we keep the short clarification? Vanished user ^talk 03:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've shortened it a bit. TimVickers 03:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

*References should all contain a PMID, DOI or ISBN link.

Oh, you meanie. I'll get onto it. Verisimilus T 12:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - What if they don't appear online? Is ISSN ok? e.g. Reference 1, "Ediacaran-like fossils in Cambrian Burgess Shale–type faunas of North America"

Looks fine. TimVickers 16:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Great. That's all of them, as last! Verisimilus T 17:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

*There is no point in adding access dates to references with no external links.

I think I've removed all of these. Verisimilus T 17:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

*Refs 7, 25 and 66 are incorrectly formatted external links.

Sorry, it's not entirely clear what the correct format is. Better now? Verisimilus T 13:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's best to use the cite web template Template:Cite web. TimVickers 16:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Done. Verisimilus T 16:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why is Image:Nama_assemblage commented out in the "Nama-type assemblage" section? TimVickers 17:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd been waiting for some pictures displaying the assemblages to be created by Mr Fink and was saving a space for them. Whilst it's been some time, I feel I may as well leave the images ready to go, so the captions and references are available when needed. Verisimilus T 18:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, suppose that works. TimVickers 18:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - good work on prose (trickiest criteria to satisfy)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Excellent article M&NCenarius 17:04, 26 June 2007 (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 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Daspletosaurus

This is the twelfth dinosaur article nominated by WikiProject Dinosaurs and the third tyrannosaurid. It had a peer review here which has had no feedback outside of Project members in almost a week, although edits have been made directly to the article by non-Project editors in that timeframe. However, I believe it meets the standard set by previous featured dinosaurs such as Albertosaurus so I am submitting it here for judgment. All comments and criticisms are welcome, even from biased Everton or Manchester United supporters. :) Sheep81 09:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I should probably disclose that this is a self-nomination as I wrote most of the article. Sheep81 09:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm, but we also did some work... Spawn Man 10:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I did say most. Sheep81 12:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I disclose I am on WP dinos and have helped edit this one a bit. Still, I feel it is at least as good if not better than some of the other dino FAs WRT prose. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Sheep81 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for now→Changed to Weak Support - I have every intention of removing my vote when the following things are fixed in a nice manner. 1) There are four red links in the article to subjects which would be nice to have a blue link to. 2) The paragraphs in the Description & the first paragraph in the Unamed Species section are about 1-2 lines too short - this could be solved by merging or expanding. 3) Overall, the article is too short for my liking, but I'll be willing to let this one go. That's about all. Cheers, Spawn Man 10:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The four red links don't look very notable to have an article on their own, FA criteria is based on comprehensiveness not length, if you feel it is to short what do you think can be added? You have to give more detail in your oppose. M3tal H3ad 12:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have given more information off this discussion page prior, but I feel that a general expansion isn't an unheard of opposition reason. Good work on the red links. And yes, a dinosaur formation is reasonably notable. Spawn Man 12:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I've de-reddened Darren Tanke. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, we'll see what we can do. Sheep81 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Bearpaw Shale has been written, and the redlink to Bearpaw Sea was removed. Sheep81 02:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed to Weak Support - Still not as long as I'd like it to be, but I don't see any real reason to oppose it not. Cheers, Spawn Man 05:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC).

• Support I looked this over at peer review but couldn't find anything to add, great work! Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Glad you like it. Think of it as a really, really big and not very nice canary. :) Sheep81 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Moral support as a WP:DINO member and minor contributor; I am also available to make changes. J. Spencer 03:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support, though I disclose I am a WP:DINO member and minor contributor to this article. This article is the eighth longest dinosaur article, longer than seven Featured dinosaur articles; quite a feat, considering it doesn't have the pop culture section that articles like Diplodocus have. Mr. Sheep has been very thorough. Problems were spotted during this article's peer review, but these have all been addressed. The prose seems readable, although I have difficulty judging this. 32 scientific papers are cited in this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks Firs! Somehow I missed you up here. I am actually intensely proud that this article does NOT have a pop culture section. I do hate them so. Sheep81 08:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh. And yet, you wrote the current pop culture section in Dinosaur. Ironic, no? ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well, that was the only dinosaur article that really needed one! Aside from Velociraptor and Tyrannosaurus I guess. Sheep81 05:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment "Adults could reach a length of 8-9 meters (26-30 ft)" - en dashes should be used per WP:MOS. Epbr123 23:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I switched – for -. That character isn't on a standard U.S. keyboard, and they look identical in my IE text editing box. :/ Firsfron of Ronchester 00:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support; seems to meet all the requirements and is a well written article. Only one comment on the last paragraph, where it is initially mentioned that another Albertosaurine is 'possibly' found in the same formation. In the following sentences, Gorgosaurus and niche partitioning are mentioned. Is Gorgosaurus the albertosaurine being referred to in that first sentence? Make it a bit clearer. Good work anyway. Kare Kare 23:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at it, and they're two different animals (two different geologic formations), so I threw in a distinction. J. Spencer 03:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! And thank you J for fixing that. Sheep81 08:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support very good article, can't find anything there that would make me oppose.Legalbeaver 23:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review! Sheep81 08:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose pending copyedit.Changed to neutral til I can read through the whole thing. I've put up some areas that need a copyedit:

"Daspletosaurus (pronounced /dæsˌplito'sɔrəs/ or das-PLEET-o-SAWR-us; meaning 'frightful lizard') is a genus of tyrannosaurid theropod dinosaur that lived in western North America between 80 and 73 million years ago, during the Late Cretaceous Period.". I really think "between 80 and 73 million years ago" and "during the Late Cretaceous Period" ought to be reversed, though this may be personal taste.

Well, reversing the two would change the meaning here. If I write "...during the Late Cretaceous Period, between 80 and 73 million years ago," it suggests that the Late Cretaceous lasted from 80 to 73 million years ago. It was actually much longer than that, but Daspletosaurus wasn't around for the whole time. I don't think that implication is there when its written the other way around, although I could be wrong. It also goes from specific to general, similar to "tyrannosaurid theropod dinosaur" in the same sentence. Sheep81 08:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Daspletosaurus is closely related to the more recent Tyrannosaurus, and shares numerous anatomical features with its much larger relative" Redundant and awkward. Is there a better way to phrase "more recent"?

Which part is redundant and awkwards? Is "shares... features" implied by "closely related"? Would it read better as "Daspletosaurus is closely related to the much larger and more recent Tyrannosaurus" or did you have something else in mind? As far as the "most recent" bit, I'm not sure what else to use there. I tried "younger" but that obviously has other meanings. T. rex IS more recent, by several million years. I can't think of any other way to phrase it that doesn't add a bunch of extra words. Sheep81 08:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I like "Daspletosaurus is closely related to the much larger and more recent Tyrannosaurus" just fine if there's no better way to say "more recent".Wafulz 17:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Switched that sentence in. What about "geologically younger"? Sheep81 05:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Like most known tyrannosaurids, Daspletosaurus was a multi-ton bipedal predator equipped with dozens of large, sharp teeth. Daspletosaurus had the small forelimbs typical of tyrannosaurids, although they were proportionately longer than in other genera. It probably was similar in weight to a modern white rhinoceros or a small elephant." No need to repeat "Daspletosaurus" where a pronoun would suffice. Try to avoid splitting the infinitive.

I don't see an infinitive in that sentence but I assume you would rather it read "It was probably..." That does sound better. Done. Sheep81 08:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, yeah, that's what I meant.Wafulz 17:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"In some areas Daspletosaurus coexisted with another tyrannosaurid, Gorgosaurus, though there is some evidence of niche differentiation between the two." Could use a comma. I would prefer "with the tyrannosaurid".

Would you agree with a comma after "areas"? And "with the tyrannosaurid" de-emphasizes the fact that both *D* and *G* are tyrannosaurs, which is a major reason why this animal is interesting and kind of the only point of including that sentence in the lead. Sheep81 08:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Point taken.Wafulz 17:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There are instances of choppy prose. Example: "Daspletosaurus shared the same body form as other tyrannosaurids. A short S-shaped neck supported the heavy head. In contrast to the massive skull, the forelimbs were extremely small, bearing only two digits. Of all tyrannosaurids, Daspletosaurus had the longest forelimbs in proportion to body size."

That is choppy. I'll fix it. Sheep81 08:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"It was discovered in 1921 by Charles Mortram Sternberg, who thought it was a new species of Gorgosaurus. However, it was not until 1970 that the specimen was fully described by Dale Russell". "However" seems redundant- the sentence still flows without it.

Removed, thank you. Sheep81 08:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Two or three additional species have been assigned to the genus Daspletosaurus over the years, although as of 2007 none of these species have received a proper description or scientific name. In the meantime, all are assigned to Daspletosaurus sp. although this does not imply that they all are the same species." The "current" parts of the paragraph seem unnecessary.

I'm not sure what you mean by "current" parts. Sheep81 08:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like having "as of 2007" and "in the meantime". Since this is an ever-evolving encyclopedia, it's not necessary.Wafulz 17:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How else might it be implied that this condition (unnamed, undescribed species) is temporary, and will be corrected with time, and that for now, they are referred to with the same name, but that will not always be the case? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, since it is ever-evolving, we can change it if and when they are described, or the year changes, right? Sheep81 05:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Along with the holotype, Russell designated a specimen". Holotype should be wikilinked.

Holotype is synonymous with type specimen, which is already linked earlier in that section. Should I link both or change "holotype" to "type specimen", do you think? Sheep81 08:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I suppose "type specimen" could also mean a neotype or lectotype, and apparently they actually do link to different articles. So I'll just link both as you suggested! Sheep81 08:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is all that I've looked at right now, though I'm sure there's more tweaking to be done.--Wafulz 16:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it over, I'll make changes immediately. Sheep81 08:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support there are few little quirks in the writing (I too would like to see the period and the specific time reversed in the first sentence), but not enough that it really needs a copy-edit before I can support; it's an easy read, informative and seems comprehensive. I am sad to see that redlinks have been removed on the basis of an unactionable oppose. Redlinks are good. I was going to put the remaining redlink back, but I leave it to your discretion. Yomangani^talk 19:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah, just wait till the nom passes, then stick 'em back in then :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! The removed redlink was Bearpaw Sea, which was covered in the Bearpaw Shale article. After writing Bearpaw Shale I didn't see a need to have another article for Bearpaw Sea, so I removed the redlink. I would never remove an informative redlink just because I wanted an article to pass, haha! Sheep81 08:23, 27 June 2007 (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 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Minneapolis, Minnesota

Hi. Minneapolis is a GA, has peer review and appears to be stable and meet FA criteria. A number of contributors are part of WikiProject Minnesota which is very active and some of us also worked with WikiProject Cities earlier this year to develop the article's structure. (Just a note that feedback since GA review suggested that we work on transitions so I will move this article at WikiProject League of Copyeditors from "other articles" up to "FAC and FAR articles" since the group there seems to be quite busy.) Thank you. -Susanlesch 18:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support with a grain of salt because I was a primary editor and contributor. -Susanlesch 19:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support very comprehensive, good use of images, well written and well sourced. Kamryn Matika 19:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support article is very well-written, well-sourced, and can serve as almost a model for other city articles on wikipedia. I've also witnessed much of this article's transformation and editing in the past few months, since it's GA nomination, and I think it's worthy of the FA star. Nice work! Dr. Cash 21:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Well referenced and written. Good work! -- Underneath-it-All 03:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment—MOS now requires en dashes for all year, date and page ranges. Please check the references section. Tony 15:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Y Done

• Thanks for the comment. -Susanlesch 16:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

*Object-Image:Cityflag2.gif, Image:Mplsseal.gif, and others have no fair-use rationals. Please check all images and provide necessary documentation.--trey 03:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hello, trey. Can you tell me please to what images you refer? The two you link to here both have rationales. No other images need rationales because none are non-free. P.S. (Are you looking at the right article?) -Susanlesch 05:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Err, didnt see the little rationals. Good job, then. --trey 14:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks much for taking a second look. -Susanlesch 15:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Reads very well, good sources, extremely comprehensive. I also see rationales are provided for the above images in question. Cricket02 04:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Incorrect usage of the cite templates results in an inconsistent bibiliographic style and makes it difficult to evaluate sources for reliability. Publishers are often mistakenly identified in the author field of the template, while actual publishers aren't always given. Running through every source to correct the cite template will be time-consuming, but without specification of publishers, it's very hard to determine what kinds of sources are used. Please see WP:CITET and WP:CITE/ES for explanations on correct usage of the cite templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. I will see what I can do after work. Too many 'cite web's may be in place now. P.S. 163 of them at least. Out of curiosity I looked this up from last summer, Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, "Seems like a heckuvalotta work to do it and change it later so I wanted to ask." and have as a result used 'cite web' in all kinds of articles (and note it has a different author field than some of the other cite templates). But it's okay, we'll get this one right for now and then I will go back and look at the other articles. -Susanlesch 19:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the [cite:web] template is fine per WP:CITET. I could be wrong but I think what Sandy means is to go through them and add additional parameters, if possible, i.e. |pubisher=, etc., for better clarification. Cricket02 20:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Refs fixed now, striking my oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Should we have a map of the park system (i.e. the Chain of Lakes, parkway system, and trails)? Or any other maps? I can see if I can whip something up in Quantum GIS. Also, the mention of Hubert Humphrey joining the Democratic Party and the Farmer-Labor Party to become the DFL is more of a statewide issue than a Minneapolis issue. The article should say what he did for Minneapolis, such as improving the situation for civil rights. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• What do you think of a wide panel of maps across the bottom of the parks section, two or three maps across? Thanks for the correction. The Humphrey sentence is changed. Is "activist" is the right word? -Susanlesch 23:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• The Humphrey sentence is more applicable now. As far as the term "activist" is concerned, I think it's accurate. I was thinking about doing just one map with all the parks and trails on it (the Chain of Lakes, the parkways, major city parks, and the other trails), since it would show an integrated system better. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:59, 28 June 2007 (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 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] American Goldfinch

Self-nomination. I've been working on this article on and off for the past two month or so (with a lot of help). It passed GA, and I can't think of anything else to add to it, so this is the next step. --Jude 02:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support as WP birds member and contributor to this article. I have assisted in tweaking this article for some time and feel it fulfils criteria. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support as another WP birds member. I've used this article as a comparison for another article I'm working on and it's great. I think it definitely fulfills the criteria. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 23:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I haven't had time to go through it properly so I won't support yet. It looks fairly good from what I've read so far, but the linking seems poor. Low value links are unnecessarily linked (colours, seasons), other links are repetitively linked (bird feeder, incubation) and the occasional helpful link is omitted (places mentioned in the ranges being linked would help). Neither of the incubation links go directly to the right article by the way. I also found the range descriptions for the subspecies less than clear in some places (e.g. The winter range extends as far as Florida to central Mexico from where? saying "as far as" two different places is awkward phrasing). These could be expanded to make the ranges clear without detracting from the article. Finally, wouldn't "fall" be a better choice than "autumn" here: it reads strangely to me with American spelling and British vocabulary. I'll hopefully have time to have a better look at it soon. Yomangani^talk 01:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Comprehensive and nicely illustrated. I still have some minor quibbles, but not enough to withhold support:
  • it needs the dashes sorting out Y Done
  • units need to be given consistently in Imperial as well as metric units Y Done
  • American v British English needs checking (I still found some examples of mixing and I wasn't looking very hard) Y Done
  • in the brood-parasitism paragraph if the mentions of "cowbird" refer to the Brown-headed Cowbird the name should be given in full so we know it isn't any old cowbird species. If it is any cowbird species then the special mention of the Brown-headed Cowbird at the beginning should be dropped.Y Done Yomangani^talk 14:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Minor oppose Well written and well referenced, but some MOS issues keep me from lending support:
  • The main issue it seemes, is what Yomangani notes above as poor linking. Common terms, like colors (olive? yellow?) are linked, while in other cases, the first instance of locations (British Columbia, Ontario) are not; Locations provide important context and should always be linked; colors are common enough they should almost never be linked. The article needs to have this fixed. Y Done
    • I think I've fixed that...if I missed anything, just tell me and I'll fix it. Jude 15:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, the use of dashes is inconsistant. Number ranges should use ndashes and not hyphens or the word "and". see WP:DASH. Y Done
  • In general the unit abbreviations in some places need cleanup per WP:MOSNUM. Spell out the whole unit for the main unit, and use abbreviations only in parenthesis or tables. Use nonblocking spaces to prevent wrap issues. For example, where the article says: " 11-13 cm (4-5 in) " it should read " 11–13 centimeters (4–5 in) ". (using ndash and nbsp). Y Done

Fix these, and this should be FA quality. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comments from Universe=atom
  • Why is there no "See also" section that gives links to other birds of similar characteristics or of similar classifications. Perhaps one can be made in the article.
  • In the "References" section, why do most links specifically say that they are in the language English? If I remember correct, I think that it states in one of the sub manuals of style that only references of foreign languages should be labeled specially stating the language. Ignore this point if I am wrong.Y Done
  • I totally agree with user Jayron32 about the links. I think that those should be fixed so that non-important ones (e.g. colours, seasons, etc.) should be removed and important ones should be linked. This is a major problem in the article.
  • Grammar mistake (in lead): "The American Goldfinch is granivorous, and has adapted several features in order to aid seedhead consumption, such as a conical beak to better remove the seeds, and agile feet with which to grip the stems of seedheads while feeding." No comma required between compound verbs and between compound objects of prepositions. Y Done
  • Grammar (section 1): "Its closest relatives are the Lesser Goldfinch (C. psaltria ), Lawrence's Goldfinch (C. lawrencei) and the siskins." Obviously, this article should be written in American English. So, the serial comma should be used. Y Done
  • Grammar (section 1): "Though it shares a name with the European Goldfinch, the two are in separate subgenera, and are not directly related." No comma required between compound verbs.
  • Grammar (section 2): "In some winter ranges, the goldfinches lose all traces of yellow, becoming a predominantly medium tan-gray color, with an olive tinge evident only on close viewing." No comma required before the word with. Y Done
  • Grammar (section 2): "A tsee-tsi-tsi-tsit, call is often given in flight..." No comma required before the word call. Y Done
  • Grammar (section 2): "While the female incubates the eggs she calls her returning mate with a" A comma is required after prepositional phrases in the beginning of a sentence. Y Done
  • Grammar (subsection 4.1): "The American Goldfinch is a diurnal feeder. It is mainly granivorous, but will occasionally eat insects, which it feeds to its young in order to provide them with protein." No comma required between compound verbs. Y Done
  • Perhaps a navbox or two can be put at the end of the article. If no relevant ones can be found, ignore this point.
  • Perhaps section 3 can be expanded a bit.

I don't think that there is any other information that can be added to this section. The section is short, but I haven't been able to locate any more detailed information, and I think that the information provided covers the topic thoroughly. If there is a specific piece of information that should be added, I can do my best to find that. cheers, Jude 16:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC).

If all of these points are taken of, I think I will support this nomination. On a good note, this article is well-written and well-referenced. It has some potential as an FA. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 11:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

To answer the first point, many other editors, myself included, consider see also sections highly unencyclopaedic. Any relevant articles can be included in the main text. To answer a later point, the only avian navbox that currently exists is a higher order one dealing with important ornithology subjects and bird orders, so, as suggested, taht point can be ignored. Sabine's Sunbird talk 11:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Since when are "See also" section considered unencyclopedic? It is even part of the MoS that there should be a section on Miscellaneous topics, or, in other words, a "See also" section? Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 11:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been involved in FA noms for around a year and none of the articles I've nominated or been involved in nominating have had one. I can see the case very occasionally when there are some related topics which may be hard to link to directly in the text but I don't think that's the case here. What do you not see in the article proper taht would you want in it? We can look at where it should go cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

A "See also" is not universally desirable or undesirable. It depends upon the article, and hard rules about what features an article should have are themselves undesirable. If, say, one were writing about one facet of a large controversy, not only would there be links in the text, but there might be contextual topics listed in a "see also." If one were doing, say, Theater of the absurd, it might well be useful to have a see also to Epic theater and Theater of cruelty, as all three were reactions and developments that emerged at the same time to overarching pressures. If one were doing a single development of Nietzsche's philosophy, the see-also might well direct readers to anti-rationalism and Hegel and Kierkegaard. I'm not sure that a Goldfinch is going to have that kind of context (unless it's something like finch morphology or new world finches), but I know nothing of finches (except that my feeder could lose 100 house finches and be none the worse for it). Geogre 12:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - this one is fairly straightforward - related species, the family, even the european namesake are all discussed/linked in text, so why reduplicate?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Minor oppose Support - I've cleaned up most if not all of the redundant and unnecessary links, and added some new informative ones. I've also given the article a bit of a copyedit. Some issues remain though. For me, the main issue is the references. They're kind of a mess. Sometimes the footnotes have unique identifiers, other times not. Sometimes the refs are in template format, sometimes not. Sometimes the whole names of authors are used, sometimes only their initials. Sometimes the last names are first, sometimes not. Sometimes things use all caps (ick), sometimes not (yay). I would really really like to see these cleaned up and standardized. I have no idea what's going on in Ref #7, there are weird random brackets for some reason that I can't find in the code. Ref #14 is title "San Diego Zoo" when in fact the link goes to the website of the San Diego Natural History Museum (they are different). Also, the prose seems to switch between British (recognise, no serial commas) and American English (color, molt, use of serial commas). It would read better if it was one or the other but I think the editors should decide which one. Oh, also it seems the section on brood parasitism by cowbirds is repeated... probably the first instance should be deleted as the second is more thorough. Anyway, as far as content goes I think it is very thorough and should definitely be featured once it is cleaned up a bit. Sheep81 08:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicated brood parasite section was my bad - I added the info without realiseing it had been mentioned before. I took out the first instance per your suggestion. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the author names (initials, last name first), put the all-caps into lower case, put everything into templates, and fixed the San Diego thing. What do you mean by "unique identifiers"? The fact that half of them are named "American Goldfinch (Carduelis tristis)"? --Jude 00:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, I meant that some of them used the "ref name=" tag and others just used "ref". Of all the issues I had with the refs, this was the most minor. I'm not sure why I mentioned it first, it really isn't a big deal and isn't going to stop me from supporting the article now that ya'll have made most of the changes I suggested. Great job bird editors! Sheep81 07:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support now that the minor issues have been addressed. I've done a bit to this, mostly adding some refs. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Struck through above vote, as all fixes have now been made. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. Seems comprehensive, from what I can tell. I do not understand the range map, however. I'd expect the year-round range to overlap the summer-only and winter-only areas. Is this a mistake, or do summer birds really migrate from Canada to Mexico while avoiding the northern U.S.? Please explain to a person not familiar with bird migration patterns (me). Firsfron of Ronchester 19:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It was a mistake. I've fixed it now. Jude 22:54, 27 June 2007 (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 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Final Fantasy IX

This article is a self nomination. I've been tidying it up for a few weeks and I believe it is FA quality, like the other articles in the Final Fantasy series (i.e. FFVI, FFIV, FFVII, FFVIII, FFX, FFX-2 and FFXII). There is also a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Final Fantasy IX/archive1. One of the best game articles and certainly one of the best of Wikipedia. Sjones23 11:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination—while I think this is a day or two too early, as one of the primary writers of the article, I can't oppose. — Deckiller 12:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - The article is in top shape, and has been extensively prepared for Featured status. Judgesurreal777 13:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll archive the peer review as per WP:PR. Sjones23 15:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support haven't played this one yet, but the article is in good shape, comparable to the other featured FFs. igordebraga ≠ 16:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks. Perhaps I'm overanalyzing the prose then; it looks decent? — Deckiller 17:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• It still needs some copy-editing in the audio, development and reception sections. Greg Jones II (Sjones23) 17:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I take a break for a few days and you not only discuss but implement an early FAC without me? SHAME ON YOU ALL! I've had my eye on this article for a while and I really believe it is one of the best that Wikipedia has to offer. --ΔαίδαλοςΣ 19:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If I've implemented an early FAC without you, Daedalus, I apologize. Greg Jones II (Sjones23) 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I'm the one who chose to take the break when I did.  ;) --ΔαίδαλοςΣ 19:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ;) Any other issues left in order for it to become an FA? Greg Jones II (Sjones23) 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Looks awesome! One concern- at the very end of the article, it's talking about how the PlayOnline strategy guide site doesn't exist, and mentions that a link to the backup of it is included in the reference - I'm a bit uneasy about a self-referential statement like that. Not even close to enough to oppose, though. Good job, all! --PresN 20:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

True or not, saying that it is "severely hidden" seems a little POV to me, so I removed that and the self-referential bit. The reference tag linking to the reflist containing the link should be all the direction that one would need if they wish to study further or to find the new location. --ΔαίδαλοςΣ 22:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I've added a hidden warning to the top of the plot, warning people not to add unneccesary info, including spoiler tags, to the plot. This should stop many new users from doing so. :D Greg Jones II 20:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• For. Lookin' through the article; see nothing wrong with it. Looks well sourced, the prose looks fine (then again, I'm not looking for any kinks). I'll take another look tomorrow, but as of now you guys looked like you did it again. --Sir Crazyswordsman 03:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Question - I noticed a few minor things I want to fix up, but have two questions first - is there a preferred way that you'd like the accessdates to be formatted? YYYY-MM-DD good? Second question - is there a particular preference for how you handle work/publisher in the refs? Sometimes you link to the article, sometimes you external link, etc. Any particular preferred way of doing this? --- RockMFR 03:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The inconsistency is probably because there were three primary editors working on those last three sections (Blue, Teggles, and myself); the other two guys usually use the links, but I don't. They can probably should added for consistency. — Deckiller 03:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Another comment - Mognet is linked a few times throughout the article, but links to an article that does not mention Mognet at all. This is a tad confusing. --- RockMFR 03:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It must've been chopped during the consolidation of the common themes page. Nevertheless, it's probably mentioned enough on this article. — Deckiller 03:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Well written article, sound throughout, with adequate sourcing. -- Elaich ^talk 05:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Not quite there. I've got a few easily fixable qualms, as usual.
  1. Some of the fair-use rationales for the images aren't very rational. Image:Ff9 strategyguide scan.png in particular has a rationale that has nothing to do with the image. This seems to be a templating issue; the coyp-paste text isn't always relevant.
  2. There's a handful of unusual words used incorrectly. "synonymous(?) with Final Fantasy VII's Gaia, but not the same world" and "Final Fantasy IX was also the benchmark(?) of Square's interactive PlayOnline service" jump out at me. I think it needs a bit more copyediting.

     Similarly, "Uematsu was twice reported claiming without hesitation that Final Fantasy IX is his favorite score." Unless Final Fantasy IX is also the name of the game's score, then this needs to be rephrased.

  3. The huge and ugly score table in Final Fantasy IX#Reception and criticism is probably unnecessary; the reviews' text speaks for itself, so there's no need to focus on the scores over the actual reviews.
  4. Is RPGFan a reliable source? I'm gonna leave this to those who know it a bit better, but I'm of two minds.
  5. This is a Japanese game, and its release in Japan was a big deal. Where's the Japanese critical reception? The only thing I see was a fan poll six years after the fact in Famitsu.
  6. The last paragraph of the criticism section seems to be a bunch of random, unrelated stuff crammed together in a lump. It could stand to be rewritten.
  7. The bulk of the images could stand to be reduced in size, to close to or exactly the size used in the article. The game and soundtrack covers in particular need to be reduced.

  There's still some work that needs to be done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• #1 has been fixed, and I reworded the problem with the "favorite score" sentence. #3 is a non-issue, I would say, considering it's used in other featured articles for video games. #4, regarding RPGFan, the site is very likely a reliable source - it cites sources (when needed, obviously), was created in 1999, and has a good editorial process[4]. --Teggles 09:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

RPGFan is definitely a reliable source. It is acknowledged and linked to by major official sites such as CocoeBiz. Kariteh 09:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The reviews table will most likely stay per other FF FAs (although it should be reduced in size). The Japanese critical recpetion is rarely mentioned on Wikipedia gaming articles due to translation issues (famitsu is about as good as one can get). RPGFan is generally fine, depending on what it's being used for. I agree about the last paragraph of the reception section; the para has been split into the remainder of the section. Also, I'm not sure about the image sizes; they're all 200px, and appear to be the same size on my monitor. — Deckiller 11:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That Japanese critical reception is rarely mentioned on Wikipedia is not a good thing. It be nice to get Famitsu's score in there. As in other gaming articles, I feel the reviews box out should stay, I usually use in in articles as a reference guide to quotes in the text. For example, we read that IGN liked this and that, but filling up the prose with lots of numbers doesn't make for good reading, box outs are useful. - hahnchen 18:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• The box out is completely unnnecessary. The numbers are arbitrary and meaningless without the context of the site's rating system. Moreover, the obsession with review scores seems limited to video games; do the film FAs or book FAs have tables with the various arbitrary review scores? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, but you'll see music album FAs include review scores. Game reviews have always been scored, every major source will score their game reviews. Whereas this happens less with albums, even less with films, and never for literature. You've made a point of rating systems being arbitrary, and whereas criteria must vary between publications, you've still got an idea whether that publication liked the game or not. - hahnchen 21:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't need a number to tell that. You can just cite the review and its praise or criticism, like we do for everything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The box out is clearly a subject of debate, so the issue should be canceled out from this FAC. — Deckiller 00:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I think it would be a good idea to add what EGM and Famitsu had to say about the game, but other than that, it looks pretty good. --- RockMFR 22:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support I think this article looks good, keep up the good work. DarthGriz98 01:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great work. Excellently referenced and well written. NSR77 ^T_C 05:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Well-writen, exhaustive, and minor issues have been fixed. Kariteh 10:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for the support everyone. Alas, it didn't need as much of a copy-edit as I had feared. — Deckiller 15:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I will archive the peer review. Greg Jones II 17:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC) May the force be with you....

Oh, wait. I didn't realize the PR was already archived. Greg Jones II 17:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• One more Support for the article as per all positive responses above. — Bluerで す。 17:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Fixes needed Some web sources are missing available publication dates or authors, and some publication dates need wikilinking. Epbr123 23:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Can you give an example? --Teggles 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ref 57. Epbr123 09:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• All of the possible references to fix have been fixed. --Teggles 10:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Epbr123 10:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: What's with the following comment in the reference section? <!--woah woah woah, this doesn't sound right...most of the audio criticism I've read has been positive. will tweak later. --> Is this still a problem? If not, or when it is fixed, I will be supporting. --Teggles 10:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure. Most of the responses found about the audio of FFIX leans more to the negative; as from the cited reviews. If there is a review that said positive things about the audio, the section can be tweaked a bit. — Bluerで す。 11:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• SOMETHING positive should be added. — Deckiller 17:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sup -凶 10:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing much, you? ;) --Teggles 11:09, 23 June 2007 (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 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Hamilton, Ontario

This article has been greatly expanded and improved over the past year. It is listed as a Good Article. There have been two Peer Reviews – here and here – and all of the suggestions were incorporated into the article. The writing is solid, and the information is comprehensive without being overwhelming. ... discospinster _talk 12:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the article mentions a Globe and Mail article called "Go West, Young Artist" a couple of times, but there is no citation or link to the actual article? heqs ·:. 16:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• I added the citation [5] --maclean 06:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• But it's still mentioned in the lead without citation, and seems like too much detail for the lead. Perhaps you can mention the arts more generically in the lead, without the specific, so the missing citation won't be so noticeable there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Seems reasonably comprehensive and is well cited.--Analogue Kid 12:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support satifies all the criteria. Good work. Lemmington 19:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fixes needed. There is a lot of WP:MOS work needed. Please review the info in the Manual of Style about the difference between hyphens, endashes, and emdashes. The article used hyphens instead of endashes to separate date ranges, and endashes where emdashes should be used. Also, pls see WP:MOSNUM regarding wikilinking of dates; there is no need or reason to link solo years, and they should be unlinked. I fixed this for you, but in the future, please be aware of footnote placement per WP:FN. The article is overcited to the point that it violates WP:NOT and looks like a blog or webpage. We don't need to link to the website of every business, place, and organization in the area. If we do need five cites after a sentence, perhaps you can combine them with the style used at Tourette syndrome, but I really don't think we need to link to every business site to reference the fact that they exist. By smalling the referencing list twice, it's impossible for anyone without 20-20 vision to see the footnotes. Publishers are not identified on most of the sources, so we can't determine if reliable sources are used (see WP:CITE/ES). Portals belong in See also, per WP:LAYOUT. Please see WP:MOS regarding the use of italics; it's not clear why you've italicized things like names of Historical societies and names of companies. Please see WP:CONTEXT regarding overlinking of common terms like acting. Also TV & film industry; an & in the lead is rather informal. Lots of work to be done here; please ping me to revisit when work is completed. I'm most concerned about the bloggish/advert quality of some of the text and links which make the article feel like a commercial or tour guide to the area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed date links & portal placement --maclean 23:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed overlinking & dash usage. --maclean 05:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed italics --maclean 19:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed reference padding --maclean 04:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed bloggish/advert quality. Though I see you are on a wikibreak, that should address all your points. --maclean 03:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Oppose (but I appreciate that you respected my wikibreak :-) The article has been at FAC for over a week, but hasn't yet come up to standard. Most of the sources don't list publishers (see WP:CITE/ES) which are needed to evaluate reliability of sources. Emdashes are still used to separate date ranges, WP:UNITS haven't been addressed (you might consider using {{convert}}, and there are copyedit needs, example: In 2001, the new city of Hamilton was formed. The Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth and its six local municipalities; Ancaster, Dundas, Flamborough, Glanbrook, Hamilton and Stoney Creek amalgamated. (January 1st) Before amalgamation, the "old" City of Hamilton was made up of 100 neighbourhoods. Today in the new megacity, there are over 200 designated neighbourhoods. What is the January 1st in the middle of the sentence? When is "today" (As of ?) This is only an example of the kind of ce needs throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I fixed several dashes; please have another look, because I don't think I got them all. Most of the sources still don't list publishers (see WP:CITE/ES for samples). There are still copyedit needs. For example, starting at the bottom:
        • This, coupled with growth in the Downtown condo market which is drawing people back to the Core, is having an impact on the cultural fabric of the City. The opening of the Downtown Arts Centre[59] on Rebecca Street has spurred further creative activities in the Core. The Community Centre for Media Arts[60] (CCMA) continues to operate in Downtown Hamilton. (Core doesn't seem to be defined anywhere in the article, and I'm not clear why the City or Downtown are capped.)
        • Hamilton is home to several post-secondary institutions which has led to numerous direct and indirect jobs in education and research. Should Keyboard Studio be capped?
        • The faculty and staff is comprised of highly regarded regional artists ... is sourced to the institution's own website; that kind of statement requires an independent source. Things like this still need to be addressed throughout; these are only samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Fixed...next. Nhl4hamilton 04:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Copyedits. I cannot find any improper emdashes (nothing in any date ranges). --maclean 06:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
        • See my fixes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Fixed units. Used {{convert}} where possible, and WP:UNITS-style where not. and referneces--maclean 03:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerns:

• I removed the list of waterfalls but I suggest creating a separate article similar to List of city parks of Erie, Pennsylvania.
• Please include information regarding utilities, like where their drinking water comes from and sewage goes.
• I removed some of the reference padding, but have questions about a couple:
  • The reference to McMaster Divinity College goes to their homepage but I don't see where it says "in practice it is interdenominational, and could be said to more closely align with the broader Evangelical tradition" as the article states.
  • The Redeemer College reference goes to their homepage but I don't see where it says 850 student enrollment. Same with Columbia International College and "largest private boarding university-preparatory school in Canada, with 1,200 students from 48 countries"
• The "History" section has 4 paragraph on the city's origin (before 1846) but nothing between 1855 and 2001. Would be best to use Wikipedia:Summary style on this section with History of Hamilton, Ontario. And why is the opening of the Grand Lodge a "noteworthy event that shaped Hamilton's early years"? --maclean 04:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support I have made the changes to fix my own objections. I can support this now. --maclean 05:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fixes needed "Citizens of Hamilton are represented by 3 tiers of Government. The federal representation consists of 5 members of parliament serving in the legislature of Canada." - I think it would be better to write numbers under ten in words. Also, some web sources are missing available publishing dates. Epbr123 23:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed numbers. --maclean 03:07, 24 June 2007 (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 18:00, 19 June 2007.

[edit] Stereolab

(Self-nomination). Recently rewrote this article about the alternative music band Stereolab. It's just been peer-reviewed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music, and should be FA quality now. - Merzbow 04:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone is bound to ask why the album covers are there (strictly, not fair use). Apart from that, it seems fine. Neil ╦ 08:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are criticised in the text, so they're there for the purposes of identification. That's the way I see anyway. CloudNine 08:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I made sure to only show album covers for albums discussed in the text (for at least a few sentences), which makes it acceptable under fair-use. I wish there were more GFDL Stereolab photos I could use, but there aren't; I even asked on a Stereolab message board for contributions, but got none. - Merzbow 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on what is and isn't acceptable, so fair enough. Support, as a big Sterolab fan (I'm gonna dig out Dots and Loops later thanks to this), but note below. First, a stylistic thing, but no big deal - for the section discussing the Marxist connotations of Ping Pong, could it be better to have a {{rquote}} template on the right featuring the lyrics, rather than an .ogg sample of the song (or both)? Oh, and "run over" is an idiom (in the 2002 section), "struck by a car" would be better (unless the car actually did drive over her).

Also, all the reviews and critical coverage referred to in the article is American (Billboard chart placements, Washington Post reviews, Rolling Stone, etc); seems a little strange for a British/French band. There's nothing about NME coverage of the band, Stereolab were one of the darlings of the NME in the mid 1990s ... is the article a bit too US-centric, possibly? Nothing on how they were received outside the US other than one Mojo review. Neil ╦ 08:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In the sources listed I see Melody Maker, The Wire, The Indepedent, and The Guardian, which are all respected and notable British arts publications. Sure, if we can get opinions from NME that would be great, but I feel the UK press is represented sufficiently.WesleyDodds 09:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

47/57 press reviews are American; there are more from the Washington Post alone than from all UK sources. More than that, there's nothing at all from outside the US/UK. There's also nothing written in the article about chart performance other than in the US (again, strange for a non-US band), and nothing at all about the band's success outside the US/UK. Perhaps I'm being too fussy? Neil ╦ 09:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Raw numbers don't matter as much to me as long as a cross-section of critical opinion is displayed. If that's a concern for you that's perfectly fine and reasonable; I just personally feel that differences in critical opinion are well-represented overall. And did you count the Simon Reynolds reviews? He's British but during the 1990s he lived mostly in the US. I cited an article he wrote for the New York Times in "Smells Like Teen Spirit". WesleyDodds 09:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Of maybe a bit more concern is the absolute lack of any reference to reception / activity / success outside the US or UK. Neil ╦ 10:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Barring foreign language sources (which aren't necessary for the English Wiki, although it might be nice to see what the French think given the nature of the band), that leaves us with press from places like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and so forth. None of those countries are particularly noted internationally for their music criticism. Going back to your previous statements, it's arguably more important that the NME's critical opinion is included than that of non Anglo/American sources. Honestly, the critical notices are of lesser importance; how they are viewed in the greater context of music (their stylistic traits, their role in post-rock, their influence) is conveyed sufficiently by the sources present. WesleyDodds 10:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

How they are viewed in the greater context of music would include how they are viewed outside the UK and US. The article shows how Stereolab is seen in the US and (to a lesser extent) the UK. That is a lack of worldview. Why are these countries not noted for their music criticism? Because you haven't heard of their publications? Information on how Stereolab have performed, records sold, etc, outside the US and UK would be a very valuable addition to the article. Neil ╦ 11:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The first sentence of "1994–2001" covers their entire UK chart history (AFAIK they only managed to hit the UK Singles chart, not the album chart). I'm not sure if they charted anywhere outside the US/UK, but I'll see if I can find out. I'm not so worried about US vs. UK coverage given that Reynolds and Hoskyns are British, but if I can find a few more British reviews, I'll quote them. As for non-US/UK, I'll try to find a few album or gig reviews from, say, French newspapers (thanks to Google Translate). Also I'll quote some of "Ping Pong"'s lyrics in addition to having the sample. - Merzbow 16:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a lyrical except from Ping Pong. I also added several more UK references, replacing a couple lesser-known US references. Although I can't find anything that generalizes about how the band was received outside the US/UK, I did find two album reviews from two of France and Germany's top newspapers, and used them. They seem to have the same opinion of Stereolab's sound as the US/UK reviewers, though, so I don't think there's much difference here. I couldn't find anything on chart performance outside the US/UK, however; data on this subject are fragmented, and I don't think Stereolab's music did well enough to hit top 40 anywhere. I'll keep my eyes open. - Merzbow 00:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I'm a member of Wikiproject Alternative music, and have reviewed the article at Peer Review. This is a well-written, comprehensive, and informative article that meets FA standards (and didn't even need to go through GAC). More notices from the UK press would be appreciated, but in terms of hard facts the article is virtually complete. It's basically everything you need to know about the band in a clear and informative manner. WesleyDodds 09:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Appreciated. Your advice in the PR helped a great deal. - Merzbow 00:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I'm just a maintainer there, for about a year, but it's been a true pleasure watching the article rapidly develop over the last few weeks. It now seems comprehensive, fascinating, neutral, impeccably researched and referenced, and other effusive complimentary adjectives! He's also been working hard on all the related articles such as Stereolab discography and the various releases. My compliments to Merzbow. --Quiddity 22:49, 13 June 2007 (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 18:44, 19 June 2007.

[edit] Wallis, Duchess of Windsor

Peer review Talk History

• Support. Self-nominated. DrKiernan 09:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support with comments (sorry once again I missed the peer review for these):
  1. Not sure the coincidence with George V's would-have-been birthday is particularly relevant, but that's minor.
  2. "...lent to them by Charles Bedaux, who later worked actively for Germany in World War II..." it's unclear what he "actively" did. Could you expand a bit on this for non-expert readers like me?
  3. Suggest wikilink letters patent, again for the non-experts.
  4. "On the outbreak of the war..." doesn't sound quite right to me, perhaps "Following the outbreak..."?
  5. Overwikilinking of Germany in WWII para, but a minor point again.
  6. Ref [72] needs moving in-line with WP:CITE.
  7. Is it "exploitative" rather than "exploitive"? Perhaps both are legitimate...
  8. Death of Diana could be linked to Death of Diana, Princess of Wales
  9. duchess with small d in Historical speculation section - consistency required.
  10. "Hearsay, conjecture and politically-motivated propaganda have clouded assessment of the Duchess of Windsor's life, unhelped by her own manipulation of the truth. But there is no document which proves directly that she was anything other than a victim of her own ambition, who lived out a great romance that became a great tragedy." sentences read a bit like an essay. I don't think need citing but they don't feel quite right for me.
  11. "made-for-TV movie" could be better expressed as "television movie", in my opinion.

Hope these help, let me know if there's anything more I can do. The Rambling Man 12:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It does help, thank you. I have addressed the minor points, and will expand on Bedaux tomorrow. (6) Ref 72 only applies to the first clause of the sentence, so I would prefer to leave it there. I could insert a comma? (7) The Oxford English Dictionary gives both forms. (10) Also mentioned at peer review and I've been thinking about it since then. I guess I could re-write it (with citations), but it would lose its poetic resonance if I did so. I'd prefer to wait until someone objects, and forces me to do something about it! ;-) DrKiernan 12:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, don't worry too much about ref 72, certainly don't add a comma where one really isn't needed. Glad OED has both exploit...'s, and as for my comment 10, I couldn't agree more, the prose on FA's is supposed to be engaging (or even brilliant!) so I would do as you have said, wait until someone really gets upset by it! The Rambling Man 16:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing I've just noticed, you ought to have a specific Fair Use rationale for all Fair Use images within the article. I think the Time front cover and the Hitler shot both need specific rationales, but best check them all. The Rambling Man 16:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments Lots of instances of confusing prose.

• You should mention where she was born in the lead. As someone unfamiliar with her, I initially assumed she was British; don't assume the reader has prior knowledge of the subject.
  • Done.
• "She remains a controversial figure in British history." should be put at the end of the lead as kind of a wrapping up sentence: "THUS, she remains..."
  • Done.
• "the only child of Teackle Wallis Warfield by Alice M. Montague." Huh? This could be A LOT clearer. If that is her mother and father, just say so.
• "She was named Bessie Wallis, in honour of her father and her mother's sister, Bessie Montague, Mrs. David Buchanan Merryman." Huh? Where does the second name come from?
  • Amended.
• "at Pensacola, Florida whilst visiting her cousin, Mrs Corinne Mustin." Whilst? Why not just Corinne Mustin? The language is too cute.
  • Amended.
• "witnessed two aeroplane crashes about a fortnight apart" Same thing. I understand this article is about a royal but must the language be so romantic?
  • I don't know what you mean here. How is an aircrash romantic?
    • Just that the terms 'aeroplane' and 'fortnight' seem antiquated to me. More a personal opinion than anything. Nathanalex 03:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I see. I think that's a difference between British and American usage. I shall change it to the American version and see if anyone complains. DrKiernan 06:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• "Later that year Wallis sailed out to the Far East aboard a troop carrier; during the trip the passengers were so unruly a man was killed and buried at sea." Who killed the man? Why were the passengers unruly? Why does this matter at all to Wallis?
• "Win continued an association with the Italian fascists" Where does it mention he had an association to begin with?
• "The Simpsons temporarily set up home in a Mayfair furnished house with four servants." Mayfair is apparently a district in London. Should it say 'in a furnished home in Mayfair'?
  • Amended.
• "as well as evidence of a physical sex act." Vague.
  • Quotes added.
• In legacy section, "But there is no document which proves directly that she was anything other than a victim of her own ambition, who lived out a great romance that became a great tragedy." This should have a citation as it seems POV, or left out all together.
  • Amended.
    • This sentence still bothers me. I hate to be a pain, but it just seems like it is original research. The sources don't seem to say anything about ambition, nor do they say anything about tragedy. It seems this sentence would better fit in an individual essay, rather than an encyclopedia. Nathanalex 05:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I've added a quote from Weintraub as an attempt at further justification. DrKiernan 07:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Lots of places that need commas... will try to add them myself. Nathanalex 04:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Your comments and help are much appreciated! DrKiernan 08:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The lead states authoritatively "She was born out of wedlock in humble circumstances" when the later facts and cites show this may not be the case. Secondly: She was never "maitresse en titre (official mistress) " this id not an officially recognized title in Britain. While the couple friends were aware of the position it was never acknowledged in public that she was his mistress. There seem to quite a lot of conjecture in the page. which perhaps does not need to be there. Giano 12:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. Yes, there have been edits to the page within the last 24 hours, which have led to the discrepancy. The out-of-wedlock claim is backed by original documents as quoted by Higham, I am waiting to discover which original documents were used by the newly introduced source. I think I can fairly easily find a reference for maitresse en titre (official mistress), if I can't I will change it. As for conjecture, yes, there is. But the conjecture is labelled as such and the sources for it are given. DrKiernan 13:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

'maitresse en titre" can never be official even if you find some one who has published the term because she was never his "official mistress" - there is no such term in England. One may have a mistress but not an official mistress as the term and relationship is not acknowleged by law or in any way as official. Giano 15:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added two references and a dictionary definition. DrKiernan 08:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

'Object':No I don't buy it - she was never his "maitresse en titre" secondly these titles listed in the info-box: HG The Duchess of Windsor Mrs Wallis Warfield Mrs Ernest Aldrich Simpson Mrs Wallis Warfield Spencer Mrs Earl Winfield Spencer Miss Wallis Warfield

"HG" is completely wrong and never used in abreviated form, the other names are not titles but forms of address, many of them just temporary names by which she chose to call herself - they appear to be just listed to bulk out the info box. Giano 21:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Infobox amended. "maitresse en titre" is supported by two highly respectable (in fact, one could say the best) sources - Ziegler and Bradford. DrKiernan 09:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• It matters not who says it - the fact remains "maitresse en titre" is not officially aplied to the mistresses of British Kings - even at the height of the Hannovarian royal promiscuity the mistresses were never referred to so - even if mistresses were so called at Versailles. It is just a modern introduction from the french introduced pretentiously and wrongly by some biographers. I'm sure Edward VII never said "Do you know my maitresse en titre Mrs Keppel?" No more than Mrs Keppel had her visiting cards printed "Mrs George Keppel, (maitresse en titre a le Roi)" I won't support while this term remains - having read the page again I'm surprised amongst all the gossipy bits about her birth etc there is no mention if the "Singapore Clinch" and other rumours concerning her behaviour in that department. Giano 09:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• "maitresse en titre" removed. DrKiernan 06:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. LuciferMorgan 20:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I restored original name of the article in the nomination heading.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wallis, The Duchess of Windsor is wrong. There should be no "the". In fact as she was not divorced from the Duke or superseded in the title by the wife an an heir of the Duke the title could just be "The Duchess of Windsor"; another alternative is The Dowager Duchess of Windsor. Whatever alternative is chosen Wallis, The Duchess of Windsor is incorrect. Giano 06:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous discussions here: Talk:Wallis, The Duchess of Windsor#Wikipedia Convention re Names. There appears to have been a move war between editors before I came to the page. They settled on Wallis, The Duchess of Windsor. It is not my choice. DrKiernan 06:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• There is no argument on this one, the title is plainly and simply wrong "THE" does not ever come after a woman's Christian name as the definite article of her title neither for commoner Duchesses or Royal Duchesses. See Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough or more succinctly both her sisters-in-law Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester and Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent the only difference is Wallis was not an HR so does not have the "princess" first (although that is debatable in law, she was never officially recognized as a princess) Giano 07:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, evidently I wasn't clear above. I agree with you. Is that now clear? DrKiernan 07:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• When something is clearly wrong, one just moves the page. Giano 08:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Moved. I announced it on the talk page, there wasn't any dissent this time. DrKiernan 07:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—1a. Here are examples just from the lead of why the whole article needs fresh eyes. Ninety minutes' work by a good copy-editor.
  • MOS now allows no bolding of alternative names, to avoid the ugly crowd of black at the top. Why not change it?
    • Because MoS says, "Equivalent names may follow, and may or may not be in boldface." Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty/Style guide prefers bold.
  • Ungainly repetition: "the King proposed to marry her. The desire of the King to marry her".
    • Amended.
  • "The abdicated King"—Unusual and ungainly construction. "After abdication, he was ..."
    • Amended.
  • "George VI of the United Kingdom"—pipe this link using just "George VI".
    • Amended.
  • "the style "Her Royal Highness""—Is it a style or a title? MOS says use italics.
    • Amended.
  • Remove comma after "during".
    • Amended.
  • Suspected of being Nazi sympathisers by whom? Such a serious accusation should either be left until the body of the article or supported by the agent(s) of suspicion here.
    • This is fully expanded in the body of the article.
  • MOS says use a comma: "In the 1950s and 1960s she and the Duke shuttled between". Tony 02:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, amended. DrKiernan 06:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, buzz me when you've had someone else do the whole thing. Tony 09:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I should have paid more attention to what Nathanlex said earlier, I've had another couple of scans through it. DrKiernan 07:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support I've given it a copy edit. There didn't seem much wrong with it apart from a few punctuation points here and there. The prose does seem a little stiff, and I would have welcomed a few longer sentences, but on the other hand, it is a very clear read, and I think foreign and younger readers would find it one of the easier encyclopedia articles to read, which is very much a virtue. The referencing was highly impressive and thorough and I feel very confident that this article is comprehensive and reliable. It is a good length and follows a clear structure.

A few minor points:

• maitresse en titre

I found this rather an intrusive expression to put right at the beginning of the article, and its three reference tags are distracting. Might it not be better to just say that she was his mistress and if the maitresse en titre bit is necessary, to displace it to a footnote, explaining it there as a specialist term?

• Amended.

• At an evening party in Buckingham Palace, he introduced her to his mother — his father was outraged,[35] primarily on account of her marital history (divorced people were excluded from court).

By my reckoning, she was still married at this time; or did this ban apply even to remarried people? In fact, the article gives no information about the state of this second marriage: was Wallis separated from the second husband by now? I would have thought that the king would have been even more outraged that Edward was seeing a married woman than that she had previously been divorced.

• Yes, the ban still applied to the remarried. Simpson faded from the scene from about August 1934.

• The King of the United Kingdom is Supreme Governor of the Church of England – at the time of the proposed marriage, and until 2002, the Church of England did not permit the re-marriage of divorced people with living ex-partners.[45] Accordingly, while there was no civil law barrier to King Edward marrying Wallis, and she would have automatically become Queen of the United Kingdom and Empress of India, the constitutional position was that the King could not marry a divorcée and remain as King (for to do so would conflict with his role as Supreme Governor).

Perhaps it's me, but I found this explanation unnecessarily diffuse. Does it mean that he could have married her in a registry office and she would have become queen but then he would have had to abdicate? I think it might be simpler to say that constitutionally he could not marry a divorcée because it would clash with his governorship of the Church of England rather than mentioning the bit about her automatically becoming queen.

• Yes, I agree. Amended.

• briefly reunited/evacuated

Where were they reunited? Why "evacuated"? (People are usually evacuated to move them away from danger, but it seems here that she moved because she was ill.)

• Why was she travelling around China?

• "travelled" changed to "toured", "billeted" changed to "stayed".

• Win and the Fascists. This isn't explained. It seems too abrupt, because it is mentioned after he has gone back to the States, and his connection with Italy hasn't been mentioned before.

• Amended.

• When was she supposed to have been lovers with Ribbentrop? When she was visiting Germany with the Duke, or before?

• Amended.

• fled south

Where from? Where had they been living before?

• Amended.

• After her husband's death, the Duchess gave her legal authority to her French lawyer, Suzanne Blum

Does this mean that Blum was her lawyer? What's the significance of this?

• Wallis was named Woman of the Year by Time magazine in 1936, the first ever female to receive the title.

Now, if you don't change this fast, I'll send it to one of those Wikipedia joke pages. It made me laugh out loud.

• Amended! Made me laugh as well.

qp10qp 06:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose I'll reluctantly move from oppose to neutral; it's better-written than it was, but hardly "compelling" as required. At random, I saw:
  • "For the next three months, she was practically under siege"—I think that "practically" is not good encyclopedic/scholarly language, because it's vague, unverifiable, and may be an attitudinal epithet. Same for "seemingly".
  • "morganatic marriage"—shouldn't have to hit the link to learn what this unusual term means.
  • "Wallis performed her role as the Governor's lady with competence for five years." "Wallis competently performed ...". Tony 07:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks , I've amended the above. DrKiernan 17:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support: Don't be so grudging Tony, we have both seen far worse promoted. I've changed to support following the changes I asked for above. Giano 07:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I read through this, wondering why I was doing so. What was this person notable for, other than being one factor in an abdication? (And an abdication that substituted a stuttering figurehead for a smartly-dressed figurehead.) After I'd read all the way through the article, I still didn't know. She had been married and divorced twice, certain Brits didn't think this was appropriate for a king's missus; he preferred her to a life of ceremony; this screwed up her plan for the ultimate pedestal; she soured toward the Brits. I can't see that she accomplished anything. I can't even see that she damaged anything. The article handily reminds us that the silliness of Time is nothing new, but there's no sign that she was anything other than a remarkable social climber who failed to make it to the top but lucked out all the same with an unearned life of moneyed leisure. We then read at the end that there is no document which proves directly that she was anything other than a victim of her own ambition, who lived out a great romance that became a great tragedy. How was she a victim of her own ambition? How was the romance "great"? (It seems pretty banal to me.) What "great tragedy"? Tragedy for whom? (I'd been under the impression that it worked out rather well: the king was of no importance but the missus of the king the Brits got was one who was right -- or who was easily presented as right -- for the times; while the missus of the king the Brits didn't get would have been a much harder sell.) -- Hoary 09:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK, what about this ending?:

"Hearsay, conjecture and politically-motivated propaganda have clouded assessment of the Duchess of Windsor's life, unhelped by her own manipulation of the truth, but there is no document which proves the accusations made against her. In the opinion of her biographers, "she experienced the ultimate fairy tale, becoming the adored favourite of the most glamorous bachelor of his time. The idyll went wrong when, ignoring her pleas, he threw up his position to spend the rest of his life with her."^[1] Academics agree that she ascended a precipice that "left her with fewer alternatives than she had anticipated. Somehow she thought that the Establishment could be overcome once [Edward] was king, and she confessed frankly to Aunt Bessie about her "insatiable ambitions"…Trapped by his flight from responsibility into exactly the role she had sought, suddenly she warned him, in a letter, "You and I can only create disaster together"…she predicted to society hostess Sybil Colefax, "two people will suffer" because of "the workings of a system"…Denied dignity, and without anything useful to do, the new Duke of Windsor and his Duchess would be international society's most notorious parasites for a generation, while they thoroughly bored each other…She had thought of him as emotionally a Peter Pan, and of herself an Alice in Wonderland. The book they had written together, however, was a Paradise Lost."^[2] The Duchess herself is reported to have summed up her life in a sentence: "You have no idea how hard it is to live out a great romance."^[3]

. DrKiernan 09:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Crumbs, Weintraub can purple his prose, can't he? I read his biography of Beardsley some years ago and was impressed; now I start to wonder. Well, now it's clear that the tragedy was hers (and perhaps hubby's). So some of my questions have evaporated. Yet the big one remains: Why are we reading all this about her? Why does she matter? -- Hoary 10:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it's of current relevance because of the Charles and Camilla marriage. He's married a divorced woman, and is still going to be King (presumably). Seventy years ago the outcome was very different. I haven't mentioned this here, although it is in the companion article Edward VIII abdication crisis, because I want this article to be about her life, not an historical comparison. DrKiernan 10:19, 19 June 2007 (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 18:00, 19 June 2007.

[edit] Uncle Tupelo

Self-nom. A highly influential if not somewhat obscure band of the early 1990s that was recently promoted to GA. I feel that it fulfills the featured article criteria, so I decided to list it here. What do you guys think? Teemu08 22:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Meets the criteria. Well organized and written. One thing, though, could you use the band's album covers to provide more illustrations for the article? CLA 02:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yuck, album covers don't generally help illustrate much for an article (see Norah Jones), and it's not as easy to justify using them in an article about the band. It may be a good idea to add another sample or two, for example to illustrate the layered sounds used on Still Feel Gone. ShadowHalo 13:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't own Still Feel Gone, but I added a sound clip of "Atomic Power" from March 16–20, 1992 to give an example of the band's acoustic style. Teemu08 21:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Have not read the article fully yet, but some initial comments:

• I'd like to see the extent of their influence on the alt.country scene more fully developed in the lead. I remember when alt.country was called "no depression", and I've spent the last week reading reviews of "Sky Blue Sky" which all opened with this point. (Randomly from Q: "...previous incarnation Uncle Tupelo pretty much invented the template").
  • I quickly browsed through almost twenty reviews of Sky Blue Sky, but didn't find anything that wasn't already implemented in the article. I don't have the Q Magazine review of the album, however. I was able to expand the legacy section a bit with a few articles that I just came across. Teemu08 04:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Better; but "and influenced artists such as Whiskeytown" - thats an understatment, to put it mildly. Ceoil 04:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but I can't romanticize the band's influence without sources to back it up, which I haven't been able to find aside from the included articles. Teemu08 22:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's evidant from the "Legacy" section anyway. Ceoil 22:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• The first para in the "The Plebes and The Primitives" section is undated.
  • The only date I can find for the band is "early 1980s" — I hope that will suffice. Teemu08 03:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• I'll have more to say on the prose, but can you avoid constructs such as "Wishing to enter a battle-of-the-bands competition, the Plebes sought a fourth band member" - Why not "The Plebes sought to enter a battle-of-the-bands competition, and sought a fourth band member".
• Can you add retreval dates to the cited weblinks.
  • Fixed. Teemu08 03:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Cite 63 points to an faq. Is this a WP:RS
  • Well, it does come from the No Depression official website, so I would say yes. The main page used to have a box stating this tidbit, so if necessary I could use the wayback machine to link to an older version the main page. Teemu08 03:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

So far as i've read, great work. Ceoil 22:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Q: "but began to listen to country music after punk rock received a poor reception from Belleville crowds" - had they not listened to country before; was the poor reception towards the bands own brand of punk or to punk in general. Ceoil 22:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• I clarified that statement a bit. By the way, thanks for the ce. Teemu08 00:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Good article, well referenced, Support. It needs a copyedit, but I'm doing that now, and will finish tonight or tomorrow. I have some other minor suggestions (and will add more if need be):

• "Image:Uncle Tupelo.jpg" needs to specify in its FUR which articles use the image and why. Same with "Image:Uncle Tupelo poster.png".
• "Image:UTFactoryBelt.ogg" and "Image:UTAtomicPower.ogg" should specify copyright holder, songwriter, producers, etc., per Wikipedia:Music_samples.

• Images and samples fixed. Teemu08 20:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

- Merzbow 04:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit is done; prose still needs a small bit of tightening from a second pair of eyes, but it's of course still a support. - Merzbow 05:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. (member of the Alternative music WikiProject) It's well referenced and comprehensive. You may want to add when the infobox picture was (c. 1991 is fine) to the caption, but that's a minor point. I agree that the prose does need a little tightening; I'll see if I can give it a copyedit sometime. CloudNine 11:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. But ...
  • What's the apostrophe doing here, last sentence in the lead: " Farrar and Tweedy lyrics' frequently referenced Middle America and the working class of Belleville."?
  • "Anthropomorphic"—Bit high-fallutin'. Can't you express it more simply?
  • Caption for "Factory belt": "This song showcases the band's start-stop song technique"—"Exemplifies" better than "showcases". En dash for "start–stop". Tony 09:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • All fixed. Teemu08 19:22, 16 June 2007 (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 18:00, 19 June 2007.

[edit] SkyTrain (Vancouver)

first FAC second FAC

This one was on the FAC a long time. Selmo has been persistent in responding to and fixing problems. Most of the old ones had been addressed, so I wanted to give this one a fresh start. (old nom) Raul654 17:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. It has had so many of its mistakes and flaws corrected and it seems to do a great job at describing what it is, and all other aspects towards it. Dreamy 19:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments Support: I would like the nom's responses to the following comments before i vote on the article

• "There have been no derailments or collisions in its history" - wouldn't "no accident in history" be more concise and better representation?
  • The current wording is the most accurate description. There have been accidents, e.g. people falling off the platforms and being hit by trains. Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 05:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• "TransLink claims to lose about C$6 million in unpaid fares annually, including $3 million from SkyTrain alone." - Is reference to translink's losses necessary?

  It's very significant to the topic. — Selmo ^(talk) 19:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  I am not convinced but will take as it. --Kalyan 17:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• lead para needs details on the planning stages of the skytrain? details like designer, budget, construction start date
  • A bit excessive for the lead... — Selmo ^(talk) 19:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• "Shortly after Vancouver was chosen to host the 1986 World's Fair" - year?
  • 1986, obviously. — Selmo ^(talk) 19:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

my question was wrt to the dates on planning. --Kalyan 17:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Isnt this phrase redundant - "The SkyTrain was conceived as a legacy project of Expo 86 ..."
  • No, because the lead is for concise information, and the rest of the article is for details. — Selmo ^(talk) 19:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I still disagree but will go with you. the reason i disagree is that the previous para started with "Shortly after Vancouver was chosen to host the 1986 World's Fair, or Expo"
• "Construction of the original line proceeded under the Socred government of Bill Bennett,[6] who inaugurated the system at Waterfront Station." - when did the construction begin?
  • 1982. — Selmo ^(talk) 20:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• taking a different view, very little info is available on the planning and building of the first line of the sky train. is there a possibility that more information can be added?
• "and the first line was finished in 1985 in time to showcase the fair's theme" - it will help if you can provide details of the train system in 1985. how many stations? how long was the track?

• It's already in the article. — Selmo ^(talk) 19:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Several options including streetcars and rapid buses were proposed before a final decision was made to build a new SkyTrain line.[12]" - year?
  • I don't see how the year is relevant. — Selmo ^(talk) 19:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Providing all details. To me, dates are important and needs to be linked to the year. --Kalyan 17:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Other than these comments, the rest of the article looks to be fine. (Do i have the option to change that during the next round of review!) --Kalyan 18:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - since first nom the article has been improved drastically; hard work deserves to be paid off. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 05:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comments: The article has improved. There is still some outstanding issues:

** "As of 2007, there is a proposal to extend the Millennium Line westward along the Broadway corridor through the Central Broadway business district, but stopping short of the University of British Columbia (UBC)." - needs attribution (who's proposal is this?) and contradicts the next section.

• • I still believe the article needs to improve its coverage of the financial aspects of the system. What are its annual operating costs and annual revenues? How much money annually goes to debt servicing? What level of government covers the system's losses?
    • From Translink's 2005 Annual Report, I added that the Skytrain cost them $73,381,000 to operate. Annual revenues are more difficult as it is just generally counted as "Transit fare" (and "Advertising", etc.) and not as money spent on SkyTrain tickets. They use mainly sinking fund bonds for debt servicing but it is also grouped with other Translink capital projects (roads, bridges, stations, etc.), not SkyTrain projects alone. By "losses" do you mean shortfalls in budget forecasts? Looks like they've had surpluses since 1999 and have only needed to borrow to pay for major projects and whatever they inherited from BC Transit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maclean25 (talk • contribs)
      • The numbers that have just been added to the article [6] confuse more than they inform. Problem 1) You've cited operating expenses for SkyTrain, and transit fares for the entire system, when only 20% of the region's transit users ever use SkyTrain! Problem 2) By losses, I mean what losses usually mean: the difference between revenues and expenditures. If I'm reading the 2005 TransLink annual report correctly, it mentions nearly $500 million in subsidy (from taxes) versus only $292 million in fare revenue, but only the second figure is given. Why not give both figures? Problem 3) Why does the figure of $3 million worth of fare evasion appear prominently in the lead, with lots of detail after that, without putting it into perspective as a proportion of fare revenue or as a proportion of paid-up fares? From what I've heard, something like 95% of SkyTrain users pay up, whereas the article currently makes it sound as if fare evasion is the system's biggest problem. On the other hand, the $3 -$6 million figure is only one of many point of view.[7] and the other points of view should be represented 4) Translink's annual report will only report the expenses that Translink is responsible for. What other expenses are incurred by other levels of government? That is the main point of my question, and it's still unanswered. Hint: "Costs are shared between the Province and the local Vancouver Regional Transit Commission. Overall, the Transit Commission pays about 65% of the day to day operating costs and 31% of the capital cost. SkyTrain debt is over one quarter of the budget."[8] (this quote is from 1997 and the current structure may be different). Some reports say that SkyTrain is subsidized $200 million per year. Where does that number come from? Sorry for sounding grumpy here, but I'm getting tired of repeating a request for extremely basic fiscal information. The article devotes more space to the issue of how MK1 and MK2 cars are coupled together than it gives to the question of what happens to half a million dollars every day. Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 07:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
        • 1)The problem we are facing is that revenue comes in one general fund, not a SkyTrain fund, bus fund, seabus fund, etc. Who decides what portion of a monthly transit pass goes to SkyTrain? So, all we can say is that they generate $x from transit fare. Though I did find find a source that said fare evasion of $4 million was 5% of their revenue (does that mean $80 million -$4m in revenue?). 2)I added both revenue sources (fare/tax) and where the debt comes from and goes (ie. "loses"). 3)I reduced the weight given to this aspect (one paragraph now) and put it context (5% of their revenue). 4)I added an example of how other governments chip in for the Canada Line but as I'm restricted to internet sources I do not know about the pre-1999 situation, and I have no idea where a $200m subsidy (are you saying it is strictly a user-pay system?) would come from and it is not mentioned in the article (at least I didn't see it). --maclean 04:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
          • The section is looking much better! If you have a Vancouver Public Library card, you can access the Canadian Newsstand database from the web. A search for "SkyTrain debt" in document text yields 37 results which cover the subsidy issue well. Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 06:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a lot of weight devoted to fare evasion which costs $3 million per year, but in order for the reader to understand this figure we need to know the bigger picture. There has been significant controversy over using Public Private Partnerships to build SkyTrain. What's this about?
  • The following is still not what the source says, and implies that the only time the system had debt problems was in 1998. "The system has also had debt problems in 1998 when the debt servicing of SkyTrain were three and a half times the actual operating budget. Only a seventh of the funding went to buses." Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 06:20, 14 June 2007 (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 18:00, 19 June 2007.

[edit] Ion Heliade Rădulescu

A great article, which I think would pass the FA criteria. --Eurocopter tigre 16:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Object (for now) There are numerous red links and the entire lead section is without a citation. Indoles 20:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The lead paragraphs are a concise overview of the rest of the article, and citations are not required. See Raul speak on the matter. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Redlinks do not go against FAC criteria, afaik. Additionally, the lead sections are supposed to be citationless - in any case, all of what is mentioned in the lead section (which, i remind editors, is intended as a summary of the article-proper, not as a part of the actual article) is abundantly referenced in the text. Dahn 20:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Well, since those were the only two things I had problems with, my vote is now in support of. Indoles 23:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support - thorough, well-written, finely cited and interesting article on a key and (to the world at large) little-known Romanian figure of the 19th century. Endorse without hesitation after reading through it carefully. Biruitorul 22:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Object - this is an excellent article, but I have some reservations. For example:

• I have no objection to some red links (Wikipedia is a constant work in progress, after all), but I counted more than forty here and in some cases they are actually needed to have things make sense. Consider this sentence from the Printer and court poet section: "Heliade began a career as a civil servant after the Postelnicie commissioned him to print the Official Bulletin, and later climbed through the official hierarchy, eventually serving as Clucer." What is the "Postelnicie" and what is a "Glucer"? A lot of the biographical redlinks will get filled in in their own time, but it would be extremely helpful to have some of the others glossed at least.
• I don't think it's a prerequisite to have a spoken version of the article to make FA, but it would be nice, especially in an article where so many terms are necessarily in a foreign language. More importantly, there are no pronunciation keys for any of those words. For example, how do you pronounce the gentleman's first name? Matt Deres 02:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thank you for your suggestions. I could add short stubs on some of those redlinks - will that, in principle, suffice? Also, since a spoken version is harder to produce, would it be sufficient if we add the IPA version of his name and IPA versions of words such as "Postelnic" in their individual articles? Dahn 10:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The two articles in question were since stubbed, IPA was added to both and to the main article. The redlinks at the present time do not, IMO, pose problems of context for readers (they are names of magazines, personal names, and one event). Dahn 14:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. Good job! Matt Deres 16:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support. Excellent article—well documented, well constructed, and well written—on a key topic for the understanding of 19th century Romania. Turgidson 01:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support. I agree completely with Turgidson and Biruitorul's comments. Atropos 03:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support, very well indeed. --Tone 11:02, 14 June 2007 (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 18:00, 19 June 2007.

[edit] Olm

This article was translated and modified from Slovenian version, where it already has the FA status. The article is comprehensive, cites sources and is equiped with wonderful photos that were released to GFDL by a promiment photographer. I think it meets all the criteria. --Tone 12:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's a translation from the slov. Wiki then: was the history imported (to comply with the GFDL)? Matthew 12:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No problems with that. The older versions can be seen, for example here. --Tone 12:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Lissamphibia is a subclass of Amphibia class. Infobox template states it as a class. Check that. DSachan 12:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the IPA pronunciation key of the word 'olm' should also be provided. DSachan 14:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The pronunciation is phonetic. bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 19:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- Good article, pictures illustrate very well. Matthew 12:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I really like this article, but I cannot say that the prose is "well written" (criteria 1a). It still reads like non-native English. A few examples below but the problem is throughout.
  • they live in the surface waters in eastern United States.
  • The mouth is small, with tiny teeth forming a sieve which keeps larger particles inside the mouth.
  • Being unable to use sight for orientation
  • Today we know that the olm is oviparous.
  • The olms from different cave system differ substantially in body measurements, color and some microscopic characters
  • The enthusiasm of scientists and broader public about this inhabitant of Slovenian caves is still strong 200 years after its discovery.
• Nuetral This is much improved, but I still feel the writing is short of professional. Maybe I have read this too many times to be objective anymore, so I will not oppose. I do have a few minor issues outside of the level of writing:
  • with a reduced number of digits; instead of the normal five, the front legs have three digits, the rear only two Normal five, normal for what?
  • The nasal epithelium is thicker than in other amphibians, present on the inner surface of the nasal cavity and in the Jacobson's organ That is not grammatical.
  • In other amphibians, the metamorphosis is regulated by the hormone thyroxine, excreted by the thyroid gland. The thyroid is normally developed and functioning in the Olm, so the lack of metamorphosis is due to the unresponsiveness of key tissues to thyroxine. This needs more explanation
  • The Olm is resistant to long-term starvation, an adaptation to its underground habitat & This is a behavioral adaptation to life underground I cannot read Slovenian but I doubt such bold assertions can be proven.
  • These features suggest that the Black Proteus is not as heavily adaptated to cave habitats as the type subspecies. & The black proteus' biology is largely unknown as it was only recently discovered. Unclear in meaning. Whnat subspecies, and what is an animal's biology?
  • The history of research This sub-section has no references until the Darwin quote. Were they lost somehow? I should have noticed it in peer review if there were none.--BirgitteSB 01:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I expanded the intro, and fixed the infobox & some minor style issues. Unfortunately, I don't know how to write the IPA pronunciation key. As the anonymous commenter above already observed, I'm not a native English speaker, so if anyone is willing to through the article, he would be most welcome. Yerpo 17:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC) (the original author)

• Oppose. It still needs language related cleanup and could use some more English citations. Good-article status, definitely, but FA, I'm not so sure. bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 19:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I removed the sentence "The other six species of the family, found in freshwater streams, lakes, and marshes in the eastern half of North America, belong to the genus Necturus." from the lead... I could see this somewhere in the body of the article, but not in the lead. The article is about Proteus, not Necturus. I also capitalized Olm everywhere I saw it, as I believe common names of amphibians (unlike mammals) are supposed to be proper nouns. I could be wrong but I checked a few other good herp articles to make sure. Also the article was mixed between American and British spelling, so I standardized it to American since "color" seemed to be more prevalent than "colour". Otherwise I just went through and cleaned up a little bit of the grammar... your English is better than my Slovenian though! Sheep81 09:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Tone nominated my rewrite of this article before I had the chance to implement suggestions about grammar & style. But after the Sheep81's copyedit I don't see why it couldn't be FA. --Yerpo 09:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Change to support. However, I would like to see more English citations. I will comb through my books and see whether I have any other mentions of the Olm I can cite. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 16:55, 18 June 2007 (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 18:00, 19 June 2007.

[edit] Fightin' Texas Aggie Band

Self-nomination. I have worked very hard on this article to bring it up to standards and feel it has been done excessively well. Any concerns will be addressed in a timely manner (<24 hrs). All criteria have been met for featured article status:

1. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
2. It complies with the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects.
3. It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images and media meets the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly.
4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 08:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Figured I'd make it a little easier to see where the article stands:

*  Concerns reasonably addressed, no response from poster
** Concerns not addressed or responded to

Support - Well, it's a fine one, it sure is. People can see, that hard work has been done here. Great job! I find the lenght okay (not to long, which is certainly better than some other FA-nominees from the past), and not short either. Just fine. I only think, an article can be a bit more than just stable. Thts the only real error, and it is a really small one, rather ignorant. Still, it is a very fine written article indeed. I loved to read it. I think it deserves my support for getting to FA-class. Cheers, BQZip01, you've done a fine job. No, let'swait and hope it'll succeed! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 11:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - The article reads very well and after reading it I felt I knew the history and important traits of the Aggie Band very thoroughly. It has the added bonus that it was enjoyable to read while still maintaining encyclopedic style, NPOV, and featured article requirements. Good job! --Claygate 12:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - Addressed my several pages of concerns quickly and promptly as shown on the talk page. (oops forgot to sign in)Oldag07 14:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - Very succinct and interesting article. EXCELLENT job BQZip! BlueAg09 (Talk) 15:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - Looks fine to me. Goes into an appropriate level of detail with good illustrations. Nice work. -Texink^[talk] 18:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - Overall looks good, the only item that I could find - really, really picky, too, is that two of the images are left floated, but since the subjects of both are facing left, out of the article, they really should be right floated. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. They've been fixed (I actually found 3: original 1894 band with all member facing right, bugle rank facing left, individual cadet marching facing left). If I missed any, let me know. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - Nice article. --Wordbuilder 19:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - Well done article. The history seems lacking from the late '40s to present though. Maybe there's nothing that notable to mention during that period. Also, I don't see the point of the Commons Military band link. -Fnlayson 00:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Commons Military Band link (doesn't really do much for the article). As for the gap in history, that was a typo that deleted 6 paragraphs of visible text; it was in the source code for the page, but not visible otherwise: MY BAD!!! It has been fixed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - Dude - this is an EXCELLENT piece of work! I concur that it should be eligible for a featured article! Makes me envious, as a prototype for what to look for in a band history! Mark Sublette 22:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC) (Alumni Band, Clemson University)

Minor oppose There are some direct quotes that need referencing. They should be referenced directly after the closequotes. Also, it should be noted that the "fact" that a computer program cannot simmulate the routines is currently only sourced to an internal Aggie Band source, and unless independant sources can verify this, I find the claim spurious. If a better reference can be found, please provide it. Otherwise, the "fact" isn't really reliably verified. Make these fixes, and I will support. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayron, I respect your opinion immensely, so thanks for bringing these objections to our attention.

• I understand WP:CITE, BUT, this makes for odd citations and I feel that it detracts from the article. but I have made the requested corrections in the article.

For clarification, why should the quote be considered from anywhere else (or uncited completely) if the citation is at the end of the paragraph?

• For example, why would you type

Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah.^[2] John stated, "the best is yet to come,"^[2] but blah blah blah.^[2] Blah blah blah.^[2]

instead of

Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah. John stated, "the best is yet to come," but blah blah blah. Blah blah blah.^[2]

It seems that the second version is much less cluttered, but clearly shows where the source of the quote and other text comes from. Another odd example from the second paragraph of the history section is, "As 'a crusty old army man,' Col. Dunn understood the nation's urgent need for troops, but he accepted the fact that the Aggie Band could only return after the war was over.^[1]" where you think it should be "As 'a crusty old army man,'^[1] Col. Dunn understood the nation's urgent need for troops, but he accepted the fact that the Aggie Band could only return after the war was over.^[1]"? Why should you quote the same source twice in the same sentence? What about all previous text? should I reference that too?

• For clarification, this video may be on the Aggie Band page, but it was created and published by the Former Students Association in conjunction with the Aggie Athletics Department. Please view the video clip and you can see the appropriate corroboration. — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. "Doing the impossible..." - is this a quote from somebody? Why is this a section header? --- RockMFR 02:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The source of the quote is from the referenced video clip. I thought the section header was appropriate and used a direct quote. Please see response to previous poster and watch the video clip. How can we reference the source of the quote and still use as a subheading title; Is what I did ok? — BQZip01 — ^talk 10:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems a bit POV to use that as a header. Obviously what they do is not impossible. It's like using "I'm loving it" as a header in a McDonald's article. I listened to the video - they don't even say "Doing the impossible". Just remove the header. It's not needed. Futhermore, the video was created by the band, right? (since they show it during A&M games, I'm assuming so) I wouldn't consider this a good source for how "impossible" their drill is. --- RockMFR 16:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine you think it is POV and it'll be removed shortly, but no, it was NOT created by the band. It was created by the former students association (in conjunction with the Texas A&M Athletic department) for broadcast at the Texas A&M football games, though not at halftime while the band is performing. This information was put above as well. Sorry I didn't make it more prominent. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Comment. I'm impressed with the amount of work that's been done on the article already, but I think it still needs a bit of polishing. Here are my suggestions --

• I think the first few sentences of the early years section have a different feel from the rest of the prose in the early years section, and it needs a better introductory sentence. How about something along the lines of..."The Aggie Band owes its existence to Joseph Holick. In 1894?, Holick and his brother Louis boarded an empty boxcar bound for Orange, Texas so that they could gain employment in a lumber mill. En route, the two stopped in Bryan, Texas, near the campus of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas. The 22-year-old Holick began to doubt his choice, stating, "I was a small boy and couldn't do lumbering work," and chose to remain in Bryan working under Raymond Blatherwick,....
  • Done — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• The Dunn years
  • Was Col. Dunn a member of Sousa's Marine Band at the time he worked with the band. If not, I'd reword to "A former member of John Philip Sousa's Marine Band with 26 years of military band leadership experience"

• Clarification made — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I would add an introduction to the paragraph beginning "In 1925" to emphasize that the band was also responsible for creating several Aggie traditions that are still recognized today -- the alma mater (and use its name, please), and Elephant Walk.

• Done — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Do the two units of the band ever perform separately? If not, please note that.
    • Yes, they do. added information in "Leadership section" — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Need to add a metric equivalent to 5 yards.

• Done — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• mismatched point-of-view, which needs to be fixed in this sentence -- "He felt his obligation was,"....my"
  • Fixed — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Referring to people
  • Do not need to refer to Dunn as "Col. Dunn", but only as Dunn. (same for Haney and Rhea)

Disagree immensely. This is a title, much as President of the University. Maybe not used after the first usage, though. I'll review and fix anything I see. — BQZip01 — ^talk

Dunn is referred to by his full title the first time you mention him (Lieutenant Colonel Richard J. Dunn). Since his title has thus been established, it is not necessary to refer to him again as Col. Dunn; just Dunn will suffice. I found at least 4 instances where he is then referred to again as Colonel Dunn, and several others where he is referred to as simply Dunn. It looks like Haney has been fixed. As for Dr. Rhea, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Academic_titles:WP:MOS for biographies states that "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name." Although this is not a biography, I believe that the same sentiment applies for references to Rhea after his first mention. Karanacs 16:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. Corrected accordingly. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• • In Adams era first paragraph, after you mention Adams' full name, he should thereafter be referred to as Adams, not Cadet Adams or E.V. Adams.
    • Again, disagree. See above for further objections, but I also think that "cadet" emphasizes his position and time in life versus when he was a Colonel 20 years later. On top of that it provides a transitional phrase between sections. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      • There is no reason to include his initials when referencing him before. You already refer to Adams as a cadet in the first sentence of that paragraph ("then-cadet"). You could also reword the second sentence if you feel it necessary to emphasize that he was a subordinate -- "At the time, Adams thought his commanding officer/band leader/teacher? was joking,..." Karanacs 16:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I initially added his initials to prevent any ambiguity with the corresponding picture, but I think it's ok and people will get the link without it being spelled out for them (or abbreviated in this case). Corrected as you desired. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Need a comma after "In 1975"

• Added — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• wikilink to University of Arkansas, please

Added — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• most dates are in format 1 Jan 2007, but some are not -- please be consistent

• Uh, where did I miss one? I can't seem to find any. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just found one -- October 24, 1981 Karanacs 16:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Be careful on this one. This is the whole reason we wikify dates, so they will format to the user's preference. It did not and should not display like that in the text, but was reversed in the code. Note that the Texas A&M University article is LOADED with these in the code, but they show up fine in the actual article. I went ahead and "fixed" this "problem" for the sake of consistency (Once I found it I figured I might as well change it). — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I fully understand the date/preferences stuff. I'll read up on it. Thanks for fixing anyway :) Karanacs 20:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Instead of "To date" be more specific -- "As of 2007,"

Fixed — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reword sentence about George H.W. Bush please -- this could be read as Toler having had undue influence on the president ;)

• Done — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Images
  • The image of the Senior boots has a dangling preposition! Maybe reword to "Senior boots, such as those Dunn tried to banish"

• Done — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I like all the images for the article, but I think they could be reorganized differently within the article. For example, I would move the following:
    • "The bugle rank leads the band into Kyle Field." to Typical halftime show
    • "The Band finishes an oblique movement" to Complex maneuvers
    • "ATM formation during halftime" to The Dunn years (where you first talk about Block T)
    • Senior boots picture unde rthe one of you in full uniform.

• Done — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

After you fix these I'll change to support. Karanacs 01:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

All changes made. Support? — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Per above and it is a well written and constructed article, but if I have to be picky, the lead seems one sentence per paragraph, too short. But a very good enjoyable read. SpecialWindler talk 09:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you suggest something more to add? More history? More about the drills? More what? I'd be happy to add it, you just say the word. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

After re-reading the article, the lead seems complete but is still probably short, but it's OK. Another point I want to make is that the wiki link in the first sentence of the "Cadet life" section the link BQs links to a place where there is nothing on BQ's, I don't know what it stands for?? You may want to change it to Bad Quakes (BQs) and then you can remove the wikilink and people know what it stands for. (I could be totally mistaken and it may not be initials for something). SpecialWindler talk 09:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed link. it used to work, but I think someone else changed it in the linked article (don't know when...and maybe it was even me), but its been fixed now. It was in the article linked, just a little further down. For those interested on this page, BQ originally stood for Band Qualified and was stamped on the personnel folders of cadets. Those who were not qualified were stamped CT for Cadet in Training. Over time, the two entities came up with nicknames for those initials to mock the other: Band Queer and Corps Turd...which is why I didn't type such a lengthy explanation in the first place. As for your suggestion on the other one, I'm going to leave it as is, for now and will add to it once the FA review is over. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Normally I would enter a comment or fixes needed, but against the sea of support above, I need to make sure these issues are fixed, as it appears reviewers aren't checking for 2, MOS issues. The first thing one finds is WP:MSH issues (The in section headings). Please review WP:DASH and WP:MOS regarding the differences between hyphens, endashes and emdashes; the article uses them incorrectly and also inconsistently, using hyphens in one section and emdashes in the next. HTML is the default and identifying it in cite templates only clutters the footnotes (it is good to identify PDFs and DOCs, for example). Some of the links in references go nowhere (apparently they were Google cache versions - try the internet archive). Why are we linking to a commercial source (the band's bookstore)? When mousing over the References, one finds that publishers aren't always correctly identified. We don't link to a commerical bookseller (Amazon.com), and page numbers are typically given on book sources, and must be given for direct quotes. Does the band book have an ISBN? Per WP:CONTEXT, do most people reading this article not know what a trumpet is? And, there are prose issues—sample: A veteran of many Air Force Bands and a Grammy nomination under his belt, Toler was quick to realize the potential and traditions of the Aggie Band and quickly set about publicizing it. Please ping me when all of this work is done and the article is ready for a new review. It would be a shame if this article is promoted in spite of these deficiencies because it received a sea of support in spite of these issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• "The" removed from section headings. Good catch. I missed those when I renamed them. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Removed HTML from websites, but I don't find your assertion that HTML is the "default" anywhere in citation sources. Why is that necessary? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• The link to the Aggie Band Association store, not the band store, (if you opened it) shows six musical compilations of the Aggie Band, now available in 6 CDs. Each CD case, when clicked shows that all contain most (if not all) of the mentioned songs. It was the only site which specifically showed the names of lots of songs which the Aggie Band plays and has played over time. If this is insufficient for you, I can easily link every single CD, but that would clutter up the citation page pretty good with repetitive information. Again, just want to satisfy the verifiability requirement here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Addressed emdash/endash/hyphen issues. If I missed any, please let me know. If you are more specific next time, it will lend to a speedier correction. Thanks. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• "Some of the links in references go nowhere (apparently they were Google cache versions - try the internet archive)." By "some" I assume you mean "one", as there was only one such source? This source was under construction and was not available when I last checked it. I checked it today and found it working again. It has been fixed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• "When mousing over the References, one finds that publishers aren't always correctly identified." Can you please be more specific IAW WP:FAC? Which ones? — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Link to commerical bookseller (Amazon.com) removed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• "...page numbers are typically given on book sources, and must be given for direct quotes."
  • I realize it is typically given, but was intentionally omitted to address the problem of the citation templates taking too long to load...per your comments on the last FAC nomination in which I participated... — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please show me where wikipedia says that. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• "Per WP:CONTEXT, do most people reading this article not know what a trumpet is?" I'm not saying they do or don't, but the extensive use of trumpets is certainly compelling and its use in conjunction with cornets (a far less commonly used term) might leave readers wondering what the difference is; these links show it. As for the rest of the references to instruments, yes, they may know what they are, but would be an ideal lead into the specific instruments. In WP:CONTEXT, it states "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully. This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question." I see little reason to add trumpet, cornet, woodwinds, sousaphone, etc. and not go ahead and link the other instruments and further enhance the article and its usefulness. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Cited prose issue fixed. Please list any others IAW WP:FAC. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• "It would be a shame if this article is promoted in spite of these deficiencies because it received a sea of support in spite of these issues." Respectfully, this tone seems to discount other editors opinions as to the content of the article. Your dismissal of others' opinions and the tone that appears to be protrayed seems almost hostile. I am assuming good faith in this and I know the FAC is supposed to be tough, but you seem to be citing a lot of preferences as hard and fast rules as to how wikipedia has to operate. I hope my previous FAC submissions are not the proximate cause of this hostility. But, as many other editors can attest, I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong if/when I am, and in this case, I'd like to be. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Per WP:FAC instructions, contributors should identify themselves as such. Top contributors per articlestats are:

• BQZip01
• NickBurns2006
• BlueAg09
• Wordbuilder
• Claygate
• Fnlayson
• Texink

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here ahead of WB's response (please note this was after his post, but should be addressed before additional time of editors is used), but where exactly does it state that contributors should state as such? The closest thing I can find is "If you have worked on the article you nominate, note it as a 'self-nomination'." I see nothing in the requirements stating your exact claim that all contributors should do so. Second, where exactly can I see this counter? I'd like to see the quantity of edits versus the quantity edited because I think most edits from BlueAg09, Wordbuilder, Claygate, Fnlayson, and Texink are incredibly minor, whereas my edits have been substantial (brought article from ~6K to current size). I think perspective is in order here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my ignorance of the guideline. I did indeed contribute to the article. --Wordbuilder 23:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

BQZip - WP:FAC clearly states "If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this" under "supporting and objecting". SandyGeorgia - I am confused as to what a "significant" editor is. There are now about 220+ edits to the article, and I only made exactly seven of them. That accounts for about 3% of the total edits. After reviewing those seven edits I found most of them were minor changes. The only major thing I've done was add a free-use image I uploaded. I did not write any of the content, as BQZip01 wrote/revised the majority of the article. Either way, I too apologize for not following the procedure completely. BlueAg09 (Talk) 07:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks BlueAg09. You managed to both find the source and emphasize my point. I was the only one whom I feel made significant edits in an way. Not saying that others didn't contribute here and there, but I was the one who wrote it, producing approximately 23Kb of new material. YThe rest of the edits combined were less than 1Kb. In addition, NickBurns2006 last edited this article almost 2 years ago when it was a mere 2 sentence stub and he's the most significant behind me...let that sink in a little. I really hope this isn't the case of this particular editor holding a grudge from our last FA article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you hope it isn't, then please don't imply that it is, Fox News-style. I write dinosaur articles, and if one of my FACs had that many supports from the other dinosaur editors, I wouldn't expect it to pass off of their votes alone either, even if I had written 98% of the article and they had just put in the odd semicolon here and there. That said, it is a nice article and I support it as a featured article. Sheep81 12:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

1) I believe it to be, but honestly hope it isn't. Don't read too much into things I type...Slate-style.^[1] (note the reference is the only "criticism" from the Fox News article)

I believe it to be, but honestly hope it isn't. - Actually that is precisely what I read into it, that's why I wrote what I did. The Fox News reference was to their tendency to have headlines at the bottom of the screen like "John Kerry eats babies?" where they add the question mark so they can claim that they didn't outright SAY it was true while still implying that it was. I'm sure other news organizations do similar things but Fox News gets the most attention for it (let's not get into a media bias debate here). Sheep81 16:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

2) I do not expect to pass from their reviews alone. You cannot possibly read my mind and determine what I do/don't expect. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard "John Kerry eats babies?" ever and if you don't want to discuss media bias, then don't use it as an example. I implied it was true, but was willing to be wrong and was waiting for his response. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be hostile, just saying that Sandy is right, five out of the nine supports up there were from article contributors, no matter how big or small their contributions. Again, and not to hold myself up as the shining light of all that is good and holy, but if five out of the nine supports from my dinosaur FAC were from WP:DINO members, and somebody came along and said so, I would agree with them rather than trying to prove that they weren't major contributors. Not that they don't have a right to support any article they choose, and not that they're intentionally biased or biased at all, but it's a fair observation, I think. Anyway, that's all I'm going to say, good luck with the article, looks like it's going places. Sheep81 16:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Point taken, but I think the problem resides in the definition of "If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this." Since it is not well-defined, it appears that a person is using it as a weapon to club reviewers over the head when its very nature is ambiguous. Many of these people I have discussed other articles with and I asked them to review the FTAB article. That any of them fixed a comma here and spelling there is irrelevant, IMHO, and has no bearing on this discussion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"[If] somebody came along and said so, I would agree with them rather than trying to prove that they weren't major contributors. Not that they don't have a right to support any article they choose, and not that they're intentionally biased or biased at all, but it's a fair observation, I think." I never denied they were anything. Five of the twelve did indeed contribute, but I feel their actions are far from "substantial." Should I also point out that I am a former band member? Should I point out those that went to the school? Should I point out anyone with whom I've had contact? Where does it end? Where is this codified in Wikipedia? Near as I can tell, it isn't and to degrade their contributions here because of an added comma and a spelling correction is close to being overtly hostile for no good reason. In Wikipedia, we are supposed to assume good faith. It doesn't seem like this "problem" does. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Sheep81 12:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC) (added by BQZip01 IAW statement above for the sake of clarity)

Support If the above problems aren't taken care of, I will oppose though. A couple things "The band weathered the disaster and emerged with a greater legacy of excellence." This sentence rubs me the wrong way, maybe a little POV. Next, what affilliation does the Texas A&M University Press have in relation to the band considering it is the most citied reference, and third, do you have an example of their music? That would be nice. --Clyde (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed that sentence. It wasn't needed anyway. Thanks! --Wordbuilder 02:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, WordBuilder, but I think the sentence should stay. I don't believe it exerts any particular point of view or bias, but sums up the prior paragraph and provides transition to the next. That said, I will leave it removed for now but replace it if there are no further suggestions/objections.

Well "a greater legacy of excellence" is the POV part, not "weathered the disaster". Try to tone it down maybe? "Success" and "achievements" are non-POV things you can verify, "excellence" depends on your point of view (what do Longhorn fans think, for instance? ;) ). Someone who wasn't affiliated with the band or university probably wouldn't have used that phrase. It's a little fawning. Sheep81 12:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How about nixing "of excellence"? — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say that is the main flaw in the sentence As I mentioned I see no problem with saying that they had a lot of achievements or success, since that is verifiable no matter what you think of the band or its music, so you could say something like that... I don't know exactly but I trust you can write something that fits and sounds good without edging towards POV. Sheep81 16:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Done & readded. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the University Press, they are one publishing arm of the University. See http://www.tamu.edu/upress/AboutUs.html for more information. I think we can all agree they are a reliable source.

Much of the music is copyrighted, but I will see about adding some of it (how exactly do I do that from a LEGAL copy of their MP3s distirubted ON THEIR WEBSITE?) — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out: Wikipedia:Music samples, hopefully that helps. Sheep81 12:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll add them in the future (this will be a bit involved to add a few pieces), but for now I'll include a link to their website with samples. Adequate? — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. You have to understand my original worry that the single most citied source (around 40 citations) looks like it is published by a party related to the band. I still have doubts, but it seems "world class" enough to accept.--Clyde (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Concern understood, but this book is LOADED with footnotes and is clearly well-researched. You might consider it a good read if you get a chance. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:10, 18 June 2007 (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 18:00, 19 June 2007.

[edit] AHS Centaur

Self nomination. After a sizeable amount of effort, and comments from serveral editors, I am placing this article up for FAC. I believe it meets the criteria for a fratured article. The article is as complete as possible without going into miniature. It covers all aspects of the subject, and all the major published works on the subject have been used at some point. The article's structure is stable, and any revisions will be primarily prose or grammatical in nature.

Here are links for the February peer review, and the May A-class review, both performed by the Military History WikiProject. -- saberwyn 22:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I must confess to making some fairly minor contributions to this article, but in my opinion it is extremely comprehensive, well written and thoroughly referenced. --Nick Dowling 11:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support and comment looks good. Due to the lengthy references section, you might be interested in the reference format used in Tony Blair or Siege of Malakand which I recently came across and found quite useful. Otherwise, great job! SGGH ^speak! 16:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • References now scrolling. Thank you for suggesting it. -- saberwyn 20:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Great article full support. Hossen27 03:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support, excellent, informative article.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support well written, extremely well referenced. Seems complete.Lemmington 19:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support - an excellent, well written article, one of the most deserving FACs I have seen in a long time - definitely has my support. My only very minor point is to ask whether there are any relevant external links (either used in the article or otherwise relevant) as is desirable under the Manual of Style? It might be good for the purposes of further reading. JRG 12:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The vast majority of the relevant web-based material has been sourced and is in the bibliography. Of the others the Australian War Memorial page or its subpage(s) may be worth inclusion in a external links section. Researching this, I have found that the majority of the reliable further reading is found in book format (all of which are cited in the article anyway). -- saberwyn 20:59, 17 June 2007 (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 18:00, 19 June 2007.

[edit] Margate F.C.

I thought it would be interesting to see if I could get a non-league football club article up to featured status (I realise that York City F.C. is a FA, but I don't count them as a "true" non-league club as they were in the Football League until three years ago, Margate on the other hand have never been in the FL), so have been working hard on this one for the last month or so, including getting a peer review which raised only a few minor points, all of which have been addressed. So now here it is for consideration for Featured Status. Many thanks in advance for your time! ChrisTheDude 14:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support my concerns at the PR were addressed. Good work. The Rambling Man 14:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Looks great. Epbr123 15:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Very interesting and well written, and that's coming from me not knowing one thing about the team and/or sport. I would change the formatting of the reflist, however, perhaps to two columns to do away with the white space to the right. That's all I've got, though, great job. :) María (críticame) 16:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very nice work, I can't see any problems. Gran² 18:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose 'Support all necessary corrections made

(a few changes need to be made, correcting #6 alone will change my opinion to Support) Very nice overall, especially references (I wish more articles on Wikipedia were more like this). A few things to improve the article and you will have my full support.

1) Don't put the number column in the chart showing the players at all. If all of them are N/A, then why have the column in the first place. If you are trying to point out they don't have numbers, then just add a sentence in the intro.

• I've removed all the "n/a"s, although the column heading still displays in the template, I have no idea how to rectify this.... ChrisTheDude 07:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That's because you're using a template. Well, I'd just make my own, but that's up to you how you want it done, but I'd really like to see it done Read up on charts and I think you could do it yourself. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

2) Just a pet peeve of mine (and not technically wrong in Wikipedia) that appears to bring down the quality of your article a bit. If you use multiple references at the end of a sentence, make sure they are in numerical order (it just looks bad IMHO).

Actually, I agree here, so that's been fixed now. The Rambling Man 07:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

3) rename your section of "Support" to something like "Popular support" to be more specific (since this doesn't deal at all with finances, gov't support, etc.)

• I've changed it to "supporters", hope this is OK. It's a term universally understood, AFAIK, to specifically mean the people who turn up and pay to watch the game.... ChrisTheDude 07:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

4) In the "Players" section merge the single-sentence paragraph in somewhere else. It also doesn't need its own subheading.

• I've removed the sub-heading, thus conjoining it to the "notable former players" section, where it fits in ChrisTheDude 07:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

5) Just little things throughout like "Margate Football Club was originally founded in 1896..." as opposed to when they were founded later? Also this is another example of passive voice.

• I've removed the word "originally" but can't see how the passive voice could be avoided in this example, as the only way to use the active voice would be to say "(Persons X, Y and Z) founded Margate FC....." and personally I don't feel that would read well as an opening sentence, although I'm prepared to be challenged on this ;-) ..... ChrisTheDude 07:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

6) Way too much passive voice throughout and doesn't quite satisfy FAC 1a IMHO. Try to use more of an active voice. In short try to eliminate all conjugations of the word "be" when used in conjunction with another verb. If you have trouble with this, let me know; I'd be happy to help.

Example: Instead of

"By the 1920s the kit had changed to plain white shirts (with the team having the appropriate nickname of "The Lilywhites") but in 1929 the club adopted amber and black as its colours."

try

"By the 1920s the kit had changed to plain white shirts and the team garnered the nickname "The Lilywhites", but in 1929 changed their colours once again to amber and black."

• I've been through and corrected as many examples of this as I can find, hope it's now OK. There's a few examples where I simply can't see how they can be changed (eg "Hartsdown Park was demolished in 2003" - you couldn't really replace that with "Workmen demolished Hartsdown Park in 2003", it would sound rubbish), but hopefully the overall "voice" of the article has now improved.... ChrisTheDude 07:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Actually on second thoughts it wouldn't sound that rubbish, but in that one instance I still think that "the stadium was demolished" is OK.... ;-) ChrisTheDude 07:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Your example isn't correct... you've changed the past perfect tense to the simple past tense, not the active to the passive. Both are in fact active (passive would be "the kit had been changed" and "the kit was changed"). In fact, past perfect is a superior choice here because it represents "completed action before something in the past". The sentence doesn't say exactly when the kit changed, just that it happened on or before the 1920s. But your overall point is correct, the article does use the passive too often (although not grossly so). - Merzbow 07:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Aw crap. This is what happens when you rush things late at night (it is near 3 AM here). You are absolutely right. I had another phrase all picked out but copied this one and edited it. My bad, but as long as my point is clear, I think we're on solid ground here.

Better example:

"...and by the time they were able to return to their own ground they had been relegated to the Isthmian League."

change to

"and by the time they were able to return to their own ground they were relegated to the Isthmian League."

• I've now reworded that sentence, hope it's OK as it stands.... ChrisTheDude 08:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• ....and I've removed as much usage of the passive voice as I felt possible too ChrisTheDude 11:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

7) link FA Cup earlier in the article and spell out what FA means in its first usage.

• FA Cup is already linked in both its first and second usages within the article. I have added the additional descriptor "England's premier cup competition" as I feel this is more appropriate than simply stating that "FA" stands for "Football Association", which wouldn't especially enlighten the non-savvy reader.... ChrisTheDude 08:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

8) Watch informal words. This is an encyclopedia, not storytime village.

• I feel I've weeded out any remaining informall language, are any specific examples you feel I've missed? ChrisTheDude 08:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This is really close and satisfies almost all criteria. Keep pressing on it!!! [[User:BQZip01| — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Well written article. I would however, remove about half of the references where possible. e.g. All the manager info comes from the same webpage, does it need listing 25 times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorjb (talk • contribs)

• Sorted, I think, I've rationalised all the refs in the manager section that link to the same page into one link at the top saying "this ref unless shown otherwise" - the others all link to separate distinct pages..... ChrisTheDude 15:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fixes still needed. Whole lot of "the" in the section headings (see WP:MSH) and incorrect use of hyphens and dashes (scores need endashes for example—see WP:DASH and WP:MOS). References are not complete; pls review all of them. For example, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2002/11/26/sfnmar26.xml has a publication date which is not given, as do the BBC sources; all sources should identify author and publication date when available (see WP:CITE/ES). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Those have been fixed. Epbr123 23:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Gosh, that was fast! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support - well done. Nice crisp prose. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 19 June 2007 (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 18:00, 19 June 2007.

[edit] IK Pegasi

This otherwise obscure binary star system is of note primarily because it is the nearest known supernova progenitor candidate. But I think the system has other attributes that make it interesting to a person who is interested in astronomy. The article has undergone a peer review and has a good article status. But I'd like to bring it up to FA a rating (although I'm none too interested in front page exposure :). Please let me know what remains to be done so that it is at feature quality and I'll try to address your concerns and expectations. (Yes the lead is only half the maximum allowed length, but I do think it provides a sufficient summary. Unfortunately I do not have a quality photograph of the surrounding star field available.) Thank you. — RJH (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to see an inline citation for every datum in the infobox. This should be the standard for articles on astronomical objects at this point. If this does not happen by Monday 11 June 2007, I will add "citation needed" tags. Dr. Submillimeter 19:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply — The SIMBAD entry under the "Database references" at the end of the infobox provides the majority of the parameters. I thought that was the purpose of that reference field? For the other values I cited the individual sources. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - It is unclear that SIMBAD is being used as a reference, and I think the general consensus has been that inline citations are highly preferable to general notes that something was used as a reference. In this specific article, it is unclear as to which data the SIMBAD database was used for, and the average reader will not be able to figure it out very easily. If inline citations were used, it would be immediately apparent as to where the data originated from. Therefore, I would like to see inline citations for every entry in the infobox. Dr. Submillimeter 01:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply — Okay, will do. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support I couldn't see anything wrong. Well written, referenced, good layout, sufficient amount of images and so on. Well done. — Wackymacs 07:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support, well-done but is there any reference on IK Pegasi discoverer (or at least any of its components)? Also: "This is the nearest known supernova progenitor candidate". Which one of the components? --Brand спойт 18:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply — The Bonn Durchmusterung catalog entry (per the ID=BD +18°4794) was the oldest reference I could find. (Since the star bares a variable star designation of the form introduced by F. W. Argelander, and he also co-produced the BD catalog, I could wildly speculate that it may have been him or one of his co-workers. But I don't have a suitable citation.) The progenitor component is given at the end of the second paragraph in the lead. Otherwise perhaps I am misunderstanding your concern? — RJH (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've specified, if it's IK Pegasi B :) --Brand спойт 19:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's somewhat redundantly redundant, but thanks. :) — RJH (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the second paragraph just says B is a white dwarf. Somebody (like me) who doesn't know much about supernovas wouldn't necessarily know that a white dwarf is more likely to go supernova than a main sequence star eh? Now I know which of the stars is going to go boom. Sheep81 13:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The final sentence of the paragraph read, "When the white dwarf approaches the Chandrasekhar limit of 1.44 solar masses, it may explode as a Type Ia supernova." So I was unsure why there was any ambiguity. No matter. :-) — RJH (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The formulas used in the "Notes" section are too large relative to the text font. Could you use a smaller font size for them? CG 07:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply — Unfortunately I've never had much success in setting the font size of the math markup. (C.f. Help:Math.) That's just the way the formulae seem to be displayed. It is rather frustrating not to have better control of the display size. — RJH (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Why do some infobox entries, such as the U-B colors and B-V colors, have "/-" characters after the numbers? Is this a problem with the templates? Dr. Submillimeter 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply — Currently the pair can not be resolved, even by the HST. So, unfortunately, there is no separate color indicies available for the presumably much fainter white dwarf companion. The dash was meant to indicate that no data is available for the B component. Would it be preferable to just show the result as a combined value? Or perhaps it should say "Unknown" instead? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd have thought the apparent and absolute magnitudes, and distance from us should have been in the lead.

However the margin of error for this result is relatively high. - shouldn't that be "large"?

Overall, looks fairly comprehensive but there seem to be alot of commas and bits of clauses about. I need to sleep now but will be back to look later.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

• • Reply — I've mentioned the distance and visibility in the lead section, and addressed your second issue. The magnitudes are listed in the infobox to the right of the lead. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Minor oppose - The prose in the "Future evolution" questionsection switches back and forth between present and future tense with no apparent rhyme or reason. Example from the second paragraph: "Once IK Pegasus A has expanded to the point where its outer envelope overflows the Roche lobe of its companion, a gaseous accretion disk will form around the white dwarf. This gas, composed primarily of hydrogen and helium, then begins to accrete onto the surface of the companion." Can you pick one or the other (preferably future) throughout that section? It doesn't seem to be an issue with the rest of the article (at least I didn't notice). If this is fixed I will support. A couple questions though... what happens to A when B goes supernova? If A and B are so close, won't A engulf B when it turns into a red giant? Didn't B do the same when it became a red giant? And even if we don't all die when the thing explodes, will there be any effects on Earth from a supernova 500 light years away (assuming our own sun hasn't turned into a red giant itself by then)? I dunno if all of these things are necessary to put in the article, but they were questions that arose as I was reading the article which I don't think were ever answered. Maybe if you find a decent source you can stick one or two in? Thanks either way. Nice job! Sheep81 13:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply — I attempted to address your concerns about the tense of the last section.
    • The final paragraph answers your question about what happens to A when B explodes. Component A will "lose some mass", possibly create a "gap in the expanding debris", and will retain the (relatively high) velocity it had at the moment of the explosion (of 100-200 km/s).
    • The section on Evolution says what happened when B expanded into a red giant: "...during this time period the two stars shared a common envelope. As a result, the outer atmosphere of the smaller companion (A) may have received an isotope enhancement." Perhaps I need to clarify it further?
    • I can't say for certain that the explosion will occur when the star is 500 light years from Earth. It may be many times more distant when it goes off. The Supernova#Impact_on_Earth section covers the topic in some detail. There's also a link in the External links section that covers the topic. The Sun won't turn into a red giant for another 5 Gyr, so it's a long way off.

    Thank you for the review. — RJH (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

    • Well I was hoping all the verbs that describe what will happen in the future would be changed to future tense (subheading: Future evolution). For instance "accretes" would become "will accrete". But in the interest of time I just went ahead and edited them all (at least I hope I got all of them) myself. You are right, those questions are answered in the text, I just missed them. Thank you for the fine article! Support now. Sheep81 16:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the corrections. — RJH (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2007 (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, 13 June 2007.

[edit] Whitstable

I believe this article passes the FA criteria. Epbr123 07:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, no images of the town? -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 07:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Images have been added. Epbr123 16:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, support now. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 17:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, the lede is rather short, consisting of four paragraphs all of which are rather stubby. Resurgent insurgent 08:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The lead has been lengthened. Epbr123 16:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Changed to support after lede lengthening. Resurgent insurgent 16:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support: It is within size limits (41 KB, acceptable), has balanced sections, and has nice images. On the other hand, I think that it can be improved a bit. Although the pictures are nice, what about putting some more in the "Culture," "Famous Residents," and "Education" sections. Also, perhaps the "Famous Residents" section can be merged in with the "Demographics" section (maybe). Also, perhaps the "Culture" section can be shortened a bit. Also, I agree with the comment that perhaps the lead can be elongated a bit. This said, it must be necessary to also state that the pros eclipse the cons. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 14:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. The lead has been lengthened. It will be difficult to find more images but I'll try. I'm not sure about moving the Famous Residents section; culture may be a better place for it anyway. Epbr123 16:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Object - The prose seems stilted, and not quite featured quality. Just an example:

Oysters have been fished in Whistable since at least the Roman times. The oyster beds were first patented in 1574 by order of Queen Elizabeth I. The current owner is the Whitstable Oyster Fishery Company, which was originally set up in 1792 under the name Free Fishers and Dredgers. The oyster production drastically declined between the 1940s and 1970s due to pollution, disease, bad weather and underinvestment, but has since slowly improved.

The prose doesn't flow. Each sentence feels like it could be a separate bulletpoint on a series of lists, as opposed to being complimentary parts of a single flowing paragraph. As such, it reads stilted, disjointed. Not every paragraph has this problem, but enough do that I'm uncomfortable with supporting this. The history section as a whole suffers from this problem, and furthermore has organizational issues. I don't quite understand how the information is being presented... is it in chronological order? No... doesn't seem to be. Is it by subject matter? If so, how are the subjects organized? I can't tell. Fix this up please. Fieari 19:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice work so far. BIG improvements to the history section. I'm going through the rest of the article in more detail now. Let's ensure this article is the best it can be!

• Whitstable celebrates the famous Oyster Festival in July each year. "Famous"? Who says? Looks like a peacock term to me.
• The culture section also could use the same treatment you gave the History section. The "Sport", and "Local Media" subsections are particularly in need of effort, with short snippy sentences that fail to flow. They feel like lists of facts instead of prose. The other sections there could use a bit of touching up too for improvement.
• I know you link "Twinned" under the "Twin Town" section, but could you briefly (very briefly) explain the concept here, for convenience?

There may be an item or two more to work on, but I've gotta go for the moment. I'll continue reviewing when I get back to the computer. Fieari 16:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Those have now been fixed. Epbr123 11:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, similar problems to Birchington-on-Sea (see comments there) on Wikilinking, see WP:CONTEXT and please unlink solo years as well. Example, what is foreshore — it should be linked. Why are oysters linked? WP:DASH attention need on number ranges (ndash, not hyphen). Avoid sounding like a tourism brochure (... the closest street to the seafront, is one of the most picturesque parts of town ... ) I believe shipnames are italicized; check with the Military history WikiProject. Redundancies and copyedit needs (In 1830, the world's first passenger railway service was opened by the Canterbury and Whitstable Railway Company. Whitstable harbour was subsequently opened by the company in 1832, .) 1832 is subsequent to 1830. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. I don't like the overuse of wikilinks either, but they were added by a GA reviewer. The one dash error has been fixed. Some more examples of where it needs copyediting would be useful. Epbr123 10:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, that's why GA is not FA; I'll revisit after Herne Bay and Birchington-on-Sea are corrected, and suggestions I made on their FACs can also be incorporated here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Back for a second look:

• Oops, just noticing something that needs to be changed on all (normally, I'd change this myself, but since there are six, I'll let you do it). Per (I think) WP:GTL, the Kent Portal link belongs in See also, not at the top of the article. Portals are See alsos.
• co-habiting perhaps should stay linked, may not be common to everyone? will leave that to your choice (per WP:CONTEXT), but throughout all articles. Also, I'm not able to find a google indication that it's a hyphenated word, so I'm not sure on that (no prose expert; check with someone else, fix on all if necessary).
• CE needs, as in other articles: As at April 2007, Canterbury City Council were making plans to boost tourism by building further retail developments in addition to the existing shopping centre. (In early 2007, the Canterbury City Council began planning or had plans or planned to boost tourism by building retail developments in addition to the existing shopping center?) Example only; suggest running through all text after a few days off, for distance. Another example, saw a minor typo in text — hard to see all of these little things when you're working on so may at once: Peter Cushing. Cantrbury City Council. The prose is still very rough here (example only): The town is a popular destination for watersports, with one of the oldest yacht clubs in England and each year hosting the International Waterski Championships. Another prose issue (and...and ... ): Whitstable is one of the settings of the 1998 novel Tipping the Velvet by the British author Sarah Waters, and the subsequent 2002 BBC drama adaptation, and the hometown of the protagonist Nancy Astley. Allaboutyou.com screams iffy source, but it seems to be related to a magazine? Can you verify and indicate them as the publiher if that's the case? Double check WP:RS on that one. Everything else looks much improved; I'll review the other two after you've taken a few days to clean up copyedit needs and these few loose ends, but ce needs throughout are apparent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Back for a third look. The structural issues all seem to be addressed (why did you remove the Portal entirely, rather than adding it to the bottom of the article as provided in WP:GTL?), but the prose could still use smoothing out and doesn't yet seem to be compelling. Some samples only. I see phrases that don't seem to be related joined in sentences (There are many amateur music and choral groups,[39] and the town's only cinema is called the Imperial Oyster.), choppy sentences that could be better connected (The street is also home to the Favourite. Built in 1824, it is one of the few remaining Whitstable oyster yawls. The Favourite is managed by the Favourite Trust, a charitable trust who undertake fund raising to maintain the historical vessel.), many uses of the word "also" and "various", and sentences that don't really add anything important (The parade involves various entertainers including marching bands and people in costume.) More work on the prose is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Another look. I'm really not sure on this prose, and a more experienced copyeditor will have to look:

• (hyphen on right-angles? Sentence ending in walk along?) A notable feature of Whitstable is The Street, a natural strip of shingle bank which runs out to sea at right-angles to the coast, for a distance of about half a mile. Located to the east of the harbour, it is revealed only at low tide, when it is possible to walk along.
• (Hyphen on hill-top?) An view of The Street can be seen on the hill-top lawns of Tankerton Slopes.
• (Hyphen on now-redundant?) A now-redundant offshore World War II sea fort is visible from the town's coast.
• (Hyphens on criss-crossed, lack of hyphens on rights of way, and strange sentence construction about walking sideways?) The town is criss-crossed by numerous small alleys, once used by fishermen to reach the beach. Many of these are now registered as public rights of way and are still in frequent use. Squeeze Gut Alley is one of the more notable, which most people have to walk sideways to navigate.

I'm not a grammarian, so if someone else can clear these issues, I can strike my oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose until Sandy's concerns are addressed. LuciferMorgan 01:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. These hyphens (above) are fine, especially in BrEng. Further problems at random.
  • enabling passengers and goods to be transported between Canterbury and London via a steam ship at the harbour—So it was "beam me to London, Scotty", was it? (at)
  • Whitstable's distinctive character and ambience is popular with tourists and the maritime heritage is celebrated with a summer Oyster Festival in July each year. Comma before and, or there's a bump in the reading. Why not with an annual oyster festival in July? Use caps only if giving the title.
  • I still find the placement at the opening of US measurements first strange in a UK article (just use miles and feet first where it's historical).
    • I think miles are still more commonly used in the UK than km. Epbr123 07:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • show then have shown—the past is better, but why not present-tense indicate for the second? Tense is subtle here, but jerks if wrong.
  • Check Whitstapl—no e, which surely has been there since the Normans ... Maybe not.
  • 6 miles long --? six-mile-long (10 km long) railway—it's not ideal, but better than the existing. Abbreviated units not hyphenated. The plural must be changed, though.
  • The rights to fish the oyster beds—they're not fish, so harvest.
  • twenty yet 80. The boundary is between nine and 10, usually.

And more. So it needs fresh eyes for a final, careful run-through. Lots of it is good! Tony 01:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The above examples have been fixed. I'll try to get someone to do another copy-edit. Epbr123 08:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Striking my oppose per Tony1 feedback and Yomangani ce. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 8 June 2007 (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, 13 June 2007.

[edit] History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966)

Largely a self-nomination. This article recently went through peer review and the response was positive enough that I thought it was worth a nomination at FAC. It is as comprehensive as can be, with images and hopefully a neutral tone, and I've put a lot of work into making sure it is well-referenced too. Qwghlm 12:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Here's a few comments as I read through the article:

• "This article covers the History of Arsenal Football Club from 1886 to 1966." In my opinion, this is unneccessary and redundant. Just start with "Arsenal Football Club were founded in 1886 ...". Consequently, the {{main}} link is redundant.
• The lead could be a little longer. I'm not sure a paragraph does the article justice.
• Did the club's amateur players give a reason for forming Royal Ordnance Factories?
• "(a huge sum for the time)" Although it is time-dependent, is there any chance of stating how much that would be today? (or over a certain figure would be fine).
• Try not to use ampersands in section titles. (I've fixed these instances)
• Try to replace the word "rejigging" with something more formal.
• "crushing scorelines"? "one-sided scorelines" would be more suitable.

I'll add more comments as I go through the text. I'm impressed by the pictures in the early years section. Good work :) CloudNine 19:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

All good points - I've worked on the first, third and fourth points and feel all have now been addressed. I will expand the lead tomorrow when I have more time :). Qwghlm 23:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. Taking a look at the references, I've got no real qualms about their reliability. I feel all my major comments have been addressed, so I'll support this nomination. CloudNine 11:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed the two outstanding points you've raised now, I think. Qwghlm 12:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• All the ”Aresnal were” sequences...is that proper grammar? -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 03:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In British English, yes. Sports teams and clubs are frequently referred to in the plural, even by the national broadcaster and the newspaper of record. Qwghlm 07:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with CloudNine that the lead ought to be longer in view of the overall length of the article. Other than that, just one minor point: it might be better to avoid colloquial terms such as "the drop" and "going down" when referring to relegation. Oldelpaso 08:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Have tightened up the tone for relegation-related terms now. Intro on its way... Qwghlm 08:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The intro is now double in length. Is this enough, do you reckon? Qwghlm 11:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Support Yes, that looks fine. Oldelpaso 13:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Support Comment Could you explain why the history has been split between two articles? I note that it was discussed at Talk:History_of_Arsenal_F.C., but I'd be interested to know why a split was chosen over, say, cutting the single article down. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is a not paper encyclopedia and there is no practical limit to the amount of information we can hold here. I did the same thing to an even greater extent with History of the New York Giants. Quadzilla99 07:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and that was precisely what I and BlueValour thought. The page as it stood before the split was 58k (and that was mostly text with few references). Splitting it into two, rather than removing information, was the most logical option. Qwghlm 08:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between History of the New York Giants and this being, of course, that the Giants article is a standard use of summary style, whereas this has two main articles splitting off one section in Arsenal F.C., which is what gave me pause. Having thought about it further today, I decided I found it slightly unusual but not inherently bad. Anyway, if I were to complain about it, you could very easily subsection the History in Arsenal F.C., leaving me without a leg to stand on! On a minor note, on reading the article on its own, it wasn't clear to me why 1966 is the cut-off point — I have to read on to the next article to find why 1966 onwards is considered a separate era. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 18:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The History section of Arsenal F.C. can be split into two, I see no harm in doing so. As for why 1966 is picked as the breakpoint, I have edited the article to emphasise the appointment of Bertie Mee in 1966 as a pivotal point in the club's history, which I hope helps. Qwghlm 23:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see what you're saying Winkle. I thought you were implying that there should only be one team history article and that individual articles on periods of history were unnecessary. My bad. Quadzilla99 03:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

All fine. Thanks for the slight change - it makes the structure clearer, I think. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 08:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've had a good read through, and made comments on the talk page as it got rather lengthly. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 20:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of points, I've finally got round to adding the appropriate refs, tweaking the article and answering the couple I didn't agree with. Qwghlm 20:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of remaining clarifications. I'm also waiting to see the result of Sandy's queries on the refs. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 20:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

All points addressed, changing to support. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 08:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Footnote #15 is blank at the minute. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 00:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed, see below. Qwghlm 09:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Some of these are problems, some are questions — most significant is the concern over 1c, reliable sources:
  • Is that a hyphen or n-dash in the article title? I'm not sure if there is consensus at WP:MOS as to whether the correct usage (endash) should be included in article titles.
  • Problem with the article title in the lead, which should not include links: see WP:LEAD#Bold_title
  • Missing footnotes.
    • There are still missing (blank) footnotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • See also and templates used incorrectly at bottom of sections, see WP:GTL
    • The For template was at the bottom; I moved it to the top per WP:GTL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Discussion continued below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Inconsistency throughout wrt WP:DASH
    • Scores still have hyphens rather than ndashes, and some ndashes are used in place of mdashes ( ... Nor did the club have much luck in the FA Cup – after reaching the final in 1951–52, ... )
  • Incorrect use of bolding in the text, see WP:MOSBOLD
  • This looks like it's from Usenet, what makes it a reliable source? http://www.rsssf.com/
  • This looks like a personal website, why is it a reliable source? http://www.krysstal.com/index.html
  • Bibliography and further reading is mislabeled, as it contains External links.
    • You are correct (WP:GTL is a wreck, and needs work to provide some clarity between the different appendices.)
• SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Now uses an endash as per other similarly titled articles at WP:FA
• Fixed.
• Fixed.
• Not sure what you mean by this - do you mean the use of {{for}} at the end of the main text? What do you recommend instead? As it is a natural continuation of this article I think it's appropriate.
• Again, not sure what you specifically mean here. Where is the usage inconsistent?
• Bolding removed.
• RSSSF was organised around a Usenet group, but it does not use Usenet as a source for its statistics; it is a highly-respected statistics site that uses books and the such. It has been cited by the mainstream media (e.g.) and is regarded as a reliable source by members of WikiProject Football.

• (Apologies for breaking in, here) I trust RSSF, as I'm already aware of it, but its lack of sourcing might concern those who are not. You could easily replace it with, say, this link to the same data at soccerbase, which is published by the Racing Post, and should therefore be accepted as a reliable source by all. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 18:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have qualms about Soccerbase - the goal average in those tables is clearly wrong, and there are no ordinals in the left hand column (making claims about 10th place or whatever harder to verify). Plus Soccerbase is not 100% reliable, especially for older statistics; for example, their entry for George Allison says he quit as Arsenal manager on May 1, 1947 when he actually quit after the end of the season, which went on till June 7 due to post-war delays. Soccerbase suffers from the same lack of sourcing, and is know to have errors for the time period. Qwghlm 21:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ho-hum, kind of exposes the difference between info from a supposedly reliable commercial publisher, and a more accurate non-commercial site. Anyway, I have no issues with RSSF. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 07:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• That link was dead as it turns out, and now has been replaced with an alternate and more reliable source (the BBC).
• Nothing in WP:MOS that says electronic texts are not allowed in Further Reading sections, and I think it a more appropriate title. Qwghlm 09:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK the broken link has been fixed, and the dashes are now consistent. As for the {{for}} template - to me, a reader wanting to know more about the club's history post-1966 would want to have the link at the very end of the article (i.e. when it has actually reached 1966) to follow onto once they have finished reading, without the need to scroll to the top of the ultimate section. For now, I've removed it, but would welcome your input on how best to provide a link that continues on to the next page, at the very bottom of the article. Qwghlm 19:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• I like the WP:GTL guidelines about placing templates at the top of a section, because I like to let a reader know in advance that s/he is not reading all we have to say on the topic, and there is somewhere else to go in case they want to come to back to it. If you don't like it at the top, you could add the link to See also? I've struck my oppose because one template is not worthy of an oppose. Thanks for the quick response ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 8 June 2007 (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, 13 June 2007.

[edit] Supreme Commander

Self Nomination: A highly anticipated and recent video game. Submitted for peer review and GAC, but no responses were received. I believe it to meet the featured article criteria, so I boldly submitted it for FAC here. On the article itself, it is mostly modelled after the featured article FFX. I do a lot of assessments and peer reviews for WP:VG, so I tried to keep the standards I judge others by: no in-universe information, no gaming jargon, and concise gameplay and story sections, with emphasis on the more encyclopaedic Reception and Development sections. --User:Krator (t c) 17:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

On the talk page, you stated that the game was mentioned by GameSpy in July 2005, which predates the PC Gamer reference from their August 2005 issue. Was this not changed in the lead due to the publishing and release of the magazine earlier than August, or was the issue forgotten? --- RockMFR 18:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The Wayback machine on archive.org shows the pcgamer.com homepage as mentioning Supreme Commander in July 2005, for example July 7^{broken in Firefox}, a day before the GameSpy articles appeared. I suspect that the magazine released in July was named the August magazine, just like the current PC gamer homepage, which shows the June 2007 magazine. --User:Krator (t c) 20:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Isn't stability an issue, especially regarding the "reception" section? 99.244.236.210 20:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Not anymore, I beleieve a consensus was reached. At least to the point where there aren't any more edit wars.--Clyde (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support I have made a couple cleanup edits to this article, and since have seen it become one of the finest articles I have seen in quite a while. I don't have an eye for FA prose, but overall the article looks solid.--Clyde (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think you should expand the "Warfare" section; it concentrates on zoom rather than warfare, up until the last sentence. Maybe add something about the population limit, the weapons used by the different factions, explain how upgrades are purchased, say that war can be waged on land, in the water, and in the air, etc. · AndonicO ^Talk 09:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How's the current section? I moved around some information, and wrote some more on a few subjects yet untouched. --User:Krator (t c) 10:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Much better, the focus isn't completely on the zoom anymore. · AndonicO ^Talk 16:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Note the in-universe perspective of the section entitled "plot". I believe this should be fixed in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines on writing fiction. -- Rmrfstar 02:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to remove and change that section a bit. What about the current version? I found it hard to change more, so please be specific with suggestions for further improvement. --User:Krator (t c) 09:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's better now, at least from my lay perspective. -- Rmrfstar 13:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support Though Supreme Commander is also so called most moddable game. I wish a article about modding articles gives a brief description about the tools and so on. Also a User Interface (UI) and in-game screenshots would be cool. Though this can come later. I strongly support a supcom be FA article. --SkyWalker 21:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Though Chris Taylor has stated the SupCom is the most moddable game ever(see Development section), the actual mods made for the game have been very disappointing. Nothing but the limited balance, UI and AI mods seen in most games has been developed so far. No reliable third party sources have written about anything related to modifications of Supreme Commander, probably because of the absence of high profile projects. Until a few weeks ago, there wasn't even an option for custom maps to be played, and no map editor existed. It would be incredibly biased to create a section detailing the modification capabilities, as it is a really tiny part of the game (and even of the community) at the moment. Using GPG itself as a source -which is bad already- would be next to impossible as well, as the company communicates exclusively via forum posts, which are not reliable per WP:RS. --User:Krator (t c) 22:13, 13 June 2007 (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, 13 June 2007.

[edit] Ælle of Sussex

Passed GA; I've tweaked it some more and hope it is now ready for FA. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Comment Thoroughly enjoyed the article, and have made various notes below. Overall seemed well written and referenced. Short, obviously, but seems to give a thorough coverage given the lack of contemporary evidence. Can't comment on MOS issues very far, but seemed fine to me, bar one comment below.

• 1st para of lead – should make the location clear i.e. “Sussex, England” or similar.

• “The information about him is so limited that it cannot be said now with certainty that Ælle even existed.” – strike the “now”?

• “A significant victory at what is now Pevensey is reported to have ended with the Saxons slaughtering their opponents to the last man” - “significant” and “to the last man” don’t seem backed up by the main article, which says “and there killed many Welsh and drove some to flight”, and reasons for it’s significance aren’t discussed.

• “Pagan raids on the southern and eastern shores of England” – I think you ought to either substitute “Pagan” with more specific detail (You mention Saxons, Jutes etc later), or put “pagan” in context.

• “sufficiently troublesome by the later third century” – “later” should be “late” or “latter half”?

• Chronicle quotes in Early sources – perhaps make it a little clearer that they are quotes, with quotation marks perhaps?

• “The Chronicle was put together about four hundred years after these events, and its source for this information is unknown. It is known that the annalists used material from earlier chronicles, as well as from oral sources such as sagas, but there is no way to tell where these lines came from.” – the section after the last comma seems fairly redundant, given you’ve stated the source is unknown in the first sentence.

• “this may indicate a period in which Anglo-Saxon dominance was interrupted in some way.” – can I just check that this is supported by the ref you give?

• “at about 692 or perhaps slightly earlier” seems a slightly vague way to say a date is vague – “at or about 692”?

• “There are other early writers whose works can shed light on Ælle’s time…” – this paragraph seems not to be very well linked to the immediate subject. Perhaps you can link in what those sources can tell us about Aelle, or the Sussex of his time?

• Evidence from placenames in Sussex (And should it be place name? That’s what you use further on) – could you confirm this analysis is from the sources?

• Has anyone argued against Aelle’s existence with anything stronger than “The evidence is weak”? Claiming contradictory sources, etc? If so, that view should be mentioned, if not, then fine.

* "Aelle's Reign" is repeating the title in a header - see WP:HEAD "Avoid restating the subject or title of the article or of an enclosing section in heading titles"

• Aelle’s Reign – something that troubled me from this section is that it represents the analysis of various scattered sources, and it wasn’t clear to me whose analysis it was. If, as I imagine, it’s Stenton’s, perhaps it would be better to make that explicit?

• The article spends a lot of time repeating the vagueness and uncertainty of the evidence. I wonder if it would be better to state the issues with the evidence clearly (as it does), but then carry on without qualifying the evidence repeatedly?

Some of these are more opinion on my part than definite points - feel free to tell me why I'm wrong :) J.Winklethorpe ^talk 19:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed comments. Responses below, prefixed by the first few words of each of your points.

• "1st para of lead . . ." Done.

• “The information about him . . ." Agreed; done.

• “A significant victory at what is now Pevensey . . ." This refers to the 491 annal. I've done the easy part and fixed the lead to make the reference unambiguous. I'll have to dig out the source that talks about the significance of the battle; I'll add another note here when I've done that. I think it's the completeness of the victory, and the fact that it is at the far end of Sussex, so could be seen as establishing control of what became the kingdom of Sussex.

• “Pagan raids on the southern and eastern shores . . ." The raids were not only by the Saxons, but I don't think there's a lot of detailed sources on this. The best answer is probably to put it in context by pointing out the limits to Roman and Christian dominion in Northern Europe, and then mention that it was from these pagan peoples that the raids came. I'll do that and post another note here when it's done.

• “sufficiently troublesome by the later third century . . .” Changed to "late".

• "Chronicle quotes in Early sources – perhaps make it a little clearer that they are quotes, with quotation marks perhaps?" I'm not sure about this. I think the quotes would look a bit ugly, but the real difficulty is that the translation used is composite. There's a footnote here that gives the details and citations. The result is that I'm not really quoting a source. I was hoping that the footnote covered this adequately. Do you feel these details should be in the main text? I thought that might be a little too much interruption of the flow.

• Ah right, looking at the footnote again it does explain it.

• “The Chronicle was put together . . ." I cut the earlier clause of the two that were redundant, rather than the later; it seemed a better construction.

• “this may indicate a period . . ." Yes, it's supported; however, what is in Stenton includes reference to Mons Badonicus. That is, he points out that given that we know Mons Badonicus occurred, the long gap in the bretwalda dates between Ælle and Ceawlin implies that "the English advance against the Britons was suspended for at least a generation". So I am not being completely accurate in the quote. The reason is that that's a synthetic argument, and I felt the article flowed better by saving the synthesis to the final section, since there is so little definite to say about Ælle anyway. So I trimmed it to the essential point derived from the source I was discussing in that section, the Chronicle. Let me know if you think that works.

• Yep, that's fine.

• “at about 692 or perhaps slightly earlier . . ." I checked Kirby on this and I had a slight mistake here -- the charter gives the date as 692, but that may be a later addition to the charter. So I think "at about 692" is close enough. Since the charter doesn't bear directly on Ælle I don't think this needs to be discussed in the text.

• “There are other early writers . . ." The intention here was that that sentence should serve as a lead-in to discussion of Gildas and Procopius -- those are the "other early writers". Does this need revision?

• It was actually the whole paragraph that concerned me, because it lacked a positive mention of Aelle or the Sussex of his period. What can be inferred from Gildas about Aelle's Sussex? Reading again, I'm now understanding that Procopius is backing up the idea of a pause in the Anglo-Saxon incursions. Possibly I was a little dense on first reading of the paragraph.

• "Evidence from placenames in Sussex . . ." I'm making them all "place name"; I don't have a strong preference so I picked one and made it consistent. I think "place-name", "placename" and "place name" are probably all supportable, so I picked the one I thought was probably the British English spelling. As for the research, yes, it's in the source. Blair makes it pretty clear these names are used by historians as evidence of very early settlement.

• Fine

• "Has anyone argued against Aelle’s existence . . ." Not that I am aware of. The version of the article that was there when I started work (here) states in the lead that he is a legend, though the body softens it to "could be fact or fiction". I couldn't find anything at all to support the definite assertion that he's only a legend.

• That's fine then.

• ""Aelle's Reign" is repeating the title in a header . . ." OK -- would a section title something like "The historical Ælle" do? Or "Interpretations of the sources"?

• Just "Reign" would suffice, but it's up to you.

"Reign" it is, then. Mike Christie (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Aelle’s Reign – something that troubled me . . ." Yes, it's Stenton. The footnotes are all to Stenton for the argument; I'd like to suggest that that's sufficient. I hate to introduce Stenton into the main text here, since I think that would distract from the argument itself. It's true I can't cite anyone else who constructs this whole argument, but I think it's reasonably mainstream.

• All fine then. If anyone else finds the same issue, I think a short note in the footnote would satisfy.

• "The article spends a lot of time . . ." This echoes a criticism made of my last FA nom, Æthelbald of Mercia, so I suspect this is an area I need to be careful in. I will do a pass specifically looking for this and will post another note when I've done so.

More to follow on the three points I marked above as outstanding. Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Some replies and strikethroughs above. I'll watch the page and follow up as necessary. Thanks, J.Winklethorpe ^talk 08:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"A significant victory . . ." The passage I was thinking of when I wrote that is in Stenton; he talks about it as evidence for steady west-to-east progression against stiff resistance; and he also cites the lack of place names of British origin as evidence for a large Saxon incursion. I've taken "significant" out of the lead, where it doesn't have any context, and I've added those thoughts drawn from Stenton to the place names section and the last section. Diffs in two parts, here and here. Mike Christie (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Pagan raids . . ." I have dropped the word "pagan" in favour of an expanded explanation of the origin of these peoples. Source was in Campbell, already cited, so there's no extra footnote. Mike Christie (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"There are other early writers . . ." I've tweaked the text slightly; let me know if it needs more. Mike Christie (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"The article spends a lot of time . . ." OK, I think this must be a blind spot of mine. I pasted a copy into Word and highlit all the "probably" and "least-document" comments, and such like; I just don't see a natural place to cut. Can you give some specific pointers? Thanks. I think that's the last of your points I had not responded to. Mike Christie (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I've struck through everything and changed to support. On the last point, I'll have another good read through and see what I can do. In the meantime, it's not enough to withhold support on. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 08:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

On further reflection on my last point, I realise I underestimated the paucity of sources and level of uncertainty in anglo-saxon history, and the article reflects this accurately. If I wasn't already supporting, I would be now. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 19:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: it's hard to see what relevance the picture currently given prominence in the infobox has to the article. I think it would be better to move one of the other maps to the top of the article (the non-C18th one is best, in my opinion), or to find a picture of the name Aelle in a historic document. Ycdkwm 09:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reversed part of the change you just made: you put "three" instead of "3" in the 477 annal. Swanton (the source for this translation) uses the digits to indicate that the original annal used Roman numerals rather than words for the numbers. This is a distinction worth preserving in general because certain kinds of scribal error are possible with digits but not with words. In this particular case there's no likelihood of scribal error, but since this is mostly quoting Swanton I think it should preserve his usage. Change it back again if you disagree, but I thought this was the right way to do it.

As for the picture, I agree it's a stretch. The problem is that I can find no pictures that refers to Ælle. The earliest mss that I know of that might have a use of his name would be Bede and the ASC, but the few pages I have images of don't include his name. I agree that the modern map is better; I included the 1780 one because it shows the Owers, and that's really the closest connection to Ælle that I can find anywhere. If I use the modern map in the infobox it will shrink to unreadability, and I don't think I can then reuse that modern map lower in the article -- or at least a GA reviewer asked me not to use an image twice in that way. So putting the modern map up top would render it less useful. The result was that I figured snipping out the Owers from the image and enlarging it would give the reader an image of something specific. I'm fine with changing the infobox to one of the other images if you think it's necessary, or removing the image from the infobox without replacing it, but I wanted to explain my reasoning for the way I've done it. Let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Changing 'three' to '3': fine, I see your reasoning. My copy of the AS-C says 'three', which was why I edited the quoted text, but it is probably a worse edition than Swanton's. Regarding the image: it's unfortunate that a better one doesn't exist, and I see what you mean about the map being resized too small. My personal philosophy is that almost any image is better than no image because it makes the article more visually identifiable, so I don't see why (in the absence of an alternative) the current picture in the infobox shouldn't stay. Ycdkwm 21:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I found an image of page in the Parker Chronicle that included Aelle's name, so I've switched to that. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I like it. I would like to see a larger scan, if possible, so that something like "Aelle's name incribed in the Parker Chronicle (AD ###)" would fit underneath as a caption. Perhaps more of the words next to the name? In any case, it's an improvement over the inset of the sandbars. -- Yamara 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to force a caption into the infobox? I didn't think that could be done. The page of the Parker Chronicle is also uploaded at Image:Parker chronicle f. 5a 455-490.gif, so please feel free to chop and have another go; or if you can tell me how to do the caption I can have a try. Note there are two places Aelle's name shows up. Mike Christie (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it can be done. Just add:

| caption=caption text here

This can be inserted after the image line, or probably anywhere. Try it out in preview.

Also there's a typo in the caption of the full manuscript page: "Ælle's name, spelled "Elle", can be sent in two of the entries" -- Yamara 14:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Done; thanks for the tip. I fixed the typo too. Mike Christie (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Good find. I think it looks better now. It would be nice if you included a thumbnail of the scan of the whole page that you uploaded. Perhaps move one of the two maps up or down a section, then include the scan next to the bit on the AS-C? The green map would fit nicely in the 'historical context' section. (I would do this myself, but you've done a lot work on the article, so I'm leaving the decision up to you.) Ycdkwm 08:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion; I've done just that. How does it look now? Mike Christie (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. This can stand as one of the best Wikipedia articles. However, I do have a few queries:

1. Several websites, and our own article on the Battle of Mons Badonicus, claim that Ælle may have led the Saxons there. This is repeatedly sourced to recent scholars. Could we find out whose theory it is, and then mention it in the text?
2. Is "Mearcred's Burn" the actual text in the translation of the Chronicle used? "Mearcred's Creek" appears widely online, while "Mearcred's Bourne" is a more likely form for south eastern England. Google Books turns up an early C20 study which mentions lukewarmly a theory that it is the Battle Bourne in Windsor Great Park - perhaps this might be worth mentioning.
3. The article should probably clarify what is meant by "Welsh" in the Chronicle.

As for a picture, I seem to remember John Speed's Heptarchy map having an (obviously imaginary) depiction of Ælle. If it would be of interest, I could scan it in, as it is in the public domain. Warofdreams talk 17:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Per your comments:

• Mons Badonicus. The only websites listed in that article that refers to the claim that Ælle led the Saxons is this one. I took a look around and it says that it's based on this book, which I don't have. Reading the reviews at Amazon, it appears to be a good faith attempt to review the archaeological data, though there are also some negative comments about speculation there. I don't know anything about the authors or how well-accepted this suggestion is. (It sounds plausible to me, but it also sounds like guesswork.) I think the best thing is to put a note on the talk page saying that it would be good to add a note to this effect if it can be sourced to a scholarly suggestion rather than just speculation. The Phillips/Keatman book might be good enough, if they hold academic positions; I just don't know about them.
• Yes, Swanton gives it as "Mearcred's Burn". The underlying original OE text is "Mearcrædes burnan" in the A text, "Mearcredes burnan" in the E text, again according to Swanton. Swanton simply says it's "unidentified". The book you link to is interesting; I didn't know anything about this author, but he does appear to have academic credentials. I found this link which describes him as having a "vivid imagination" and being a "picturesque historian"; this gives me enough pause to want to see another opinion on the location of Mearcred's burn before adding his suggestion, particularly since Swanton is so unequivocal. I think again that the best thing is to note this on the talk page for further research.
• "Welsh"; yes, it should. I had thought of that but had not remembered to do it. I think I have a reference somewhere that covers this usage; I'll see what I can dig up and will post another note here when I've done so.
• Picture: Well, this has come up before. There was a discussion about this at another FA; I argued there that an imaginary picture with nothing else to recommend it is probably not worth it. I was talking about the EB 1911 pictures; you can see another one at Egbert of Wessex. I think if there's a picture that is notable in some way, because although imaginary it is a notable piece of art, then that would be great. If it's a serious attempt at an accurate depiction, that could also work. Beyond that I'm inclined to stick with things like the line of text that's there now. This is mostly an aesthetic judgement on my part, though, so if you disagree, please go ahead and add it. Mike Christie (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've now added a sentence (reffed to Swanton) about the "Welsh" and the "British". I'd have liked to add a note saying that since the British were ultimately penned into Wales, which held out much longer than England, the two terms were likely to be synonymous to the West Saxon annalist who wrote those lines. However, I can't find a source for this assertion; it seems plausible, but I think it should have support from a source before it goes in. Mike Christie (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at these points. I rather agree with you on Godsal; perhaps some further details on this may turn up at a later date. On Mons Badonicus, I suspect that there is a stronger reference than the apparently rather imaginative Phillips and Keatman. In the 1972 British Battlefields, Philip Warner writes that the Saxon force "was reputed to have been led by one Aelle but this can hardly have been the Aelle who had first appeared in 477" [because he reasons the date of the battle as 516]. By the 2004 Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare, we have "It has been thought possible the English leader was Aelle of Sussex"; it seems to me that there is enough discussion of this to merit a mention in the article, although rather a cautious one. Lastly, I've added the picture I mentioned, thinking that it is a reasonably notable work, but I'd be happy to discuss its inclusion further on the article talk page. Warofdreams talk 01:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks fine, and Speed's notability is enough to make it a worthwhile addition. I have commented on the Mons Badonicus issue on the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional support This is the second great Anglo-Saxon monarch article in a week. A nice followup to Aethelbald of Murcia. Just a minor aesthetic fix: The two images in the "Early sources" section are squeezing text between them. On my monitor resolution, this leaves like 4-5 words per line, and is hard to read. Try bumping the manuscript image up a paragrapgh and the map image down a paragraph. That would improve readibility. Also, the phrase "the 491 annal" is awkward and does not have enough context. Consider rewording to explain better what this source is. Otherwise, though, a fantastic read.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the image, but couldn't get rid of the overlap completely. If I move the upper one any higher, it would have to start against the title, and I think that looks ugly; if I move the lower one lower, it will stick out below the end of the section. I think this is as far as they can go and still look OK; is it enough? I have also rephrased "the 491 annal" to "the Chronicle entry for 491", which I think is clear enough, given the earlier listing of the Chronicle entries. Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed to full support. The images no longer clash, and the 491 entry is clearer. Great article! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support: interesting article on a difficult to research subject. Thanks for acting on my comments. Ycdkwm 08:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support: Excellent article, and thanks for responses to comments and suggestions. The A-class review at Wikiproject Biography that I started looks like it will be tabled pending this FA review; if the FA fails, we are welcome to submit an A-class review again. So far, editors at the A-class Biography review found Ælle of Sussex within the scope of Wikiproject Biography... which I believe speaks to the thoroughness of the article's comparative research, given that the subject has barely a half-dozen mentions in all known records. -- Yamara 23:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Yes, I echo Yamara's final comments. I've only ever read two biographies of Aelle, both were single paragraphs. Excellent work. DrKiernan 07:21, 13 June 2007 (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, 13 June 2007.

[edit] Toraja

Previous nom.

It's been awhile and I would like to nominate this article again after a lot of revisions, new materials addition based on previous FACfailed nom. The article has now about 35kb and it is large enough for common readers to understand about this special ethnic group of Indonesia. It covers all aspects needed to know about them, including history, culture, society, economy and its present modern civilization. I hope the article can gain FA status now. Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 11:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Mild oppose. The article needs more inline citations, especially in the "Wood carvings" section (where statements like "The Torajan language is only spoken; no writing system exists" like citations). The article also has unsourced POV statements like "When Tana Toraja was further opened to the outside world in the 1970s, Toraja became an icon of tourism in Indonesia, exploited by tourism developers and studied by many anthropologists." Exploited is a loaded term and needs a solid cite to support it. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

  Reply. Thanks Alabamaboy. I have provided inline citation you requested. Since I wrote almost all materials in the article, I know exactly where they came from because I didn't know about this subject prior writing it when it was still a stub. So if you find some other statements that you think their sources will be likely to be challenged, then please let me know again. — Indon (reply) — 08:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. Thanks for adding more citations. Looks good to me. --Alabamaboy 20:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Alabamaboy. I wonder why this kind of topic attracts less reviewer than pop-culture. — Indon (reply) — 07:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. You've done a fantastic job with the material which is in the article, well done Indon! My concern is the same as last time - the article is not yet sufficiently scoped to cover important aspects of their culture - traditional dance, clothes, music, cuisine, etc. Another smaller concern is to find some good pictures of Toraja people, but I know how hard this can be. Caniago 12:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  Reply:. Thanks for your comment Caniago. My concern is the article's size. Those cultural aspects are not as important as the other three already mentioned (the house, wood carvings and funeral rites) which are the iconic symbols of Toraja. However, I'm going to add some statements about them. — Indon (reply) — 12:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  Updated:. I just added the traditional Toraja dance and music subsection. — Indon (reply) — 16:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for the new section. The text has a section on "Funeral rites", but it also mentions "Both death and life rituals are equally important.". However, the article doesn't seem to yet adequately address what the life rituals of the Toraja are. It mentions "During the Dutch missionary works, Christian Torajans were prohibited from attending or performing life rituals, while allowing them to perform death rituals. Consequently, Toraja's death rituals are still practiced today, while life rituals diminished.". So, I'd like to know what the life rituals are today, and if possible what they were before the Dutch missionaries arrived. I presume they include ceremonies including birth, marriage, etc. I changed my vote to oppose for now as per criteria 1(b). (Caniago 04:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

  It's a very difficult task you asked, as life rituals are very rare today both in practice and in literature. I can't promise anything now. — Indon (reply) — 11:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  I know, but with the high standard you have set with your other articles I'm always expecting great things from you Indon :). How about the book "The Thread of Life: Toraja reflections on the life cycle" by Jane C. Wellenkamp, University of Hawaii Press, 1996. There must be others too? (Caniago 15:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

  Hmm.. I don't have the book at my hand. I have several sources from journals and JSTORS. Let me find if there are life rituals still performed nowadays and then. If I can't find them, then sorry that I can't add anything more about it in the article. Perhaps in the contemporary Toraja life itself today, the life rituals have already forgotten. — Indon (reply) — 21:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  (unident) WP:WIAFA 1.b says: "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.. I believe all major and important facts are already presented in the article. Yes, you read a lot of funerals, their traditional houses and tourism, but as you read in the text that they are the most important aspects of Toraja life and history. I don't have sources (books) for the other facts about their food, pregnancy, birth, marriage, divorce, etc., but they are not important facts to pass 1.b. — Indon (reply) — 09:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  I disagree. I don't believe you are able to sufficiently understand an ethnic group without having an understanding of the impact of their culture on key aspects of their life - birth, adolescence, marriage, divorce, etc. Focusing on the funeral aspects alone is not sufficient. Other key aspects currently missing include some photos of Toraja people, and aspects like their cuisine, history of warfare/headhunting, etc. The article as it stands is good, but it is not sufficiently comprehensive. (Caniago 09:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

  I believe we cannot make the same information from all ethnic groups for FA, because one major aspect of one ethnic group can be a minor aspect of the other one. I've looked into other FA ethnic group articles: Tamil people, Azerbaijani people and Pashtun people. Tamil has a small mentioning of cuisine and a large portion of literature, visual arts and religion. OTOH, Azerbaijani and Pasthun do not mention about cuisine. Furthermore all of them do not mention about divorce, marriage or other. Some important aspects are specifically mentioned in those articles. For example, there is a dedicated Women section in the Pasthun article, Genetics section in the Azerbaijani to explain about Turkic, Iranian and Caucasian descendants, and a large portion of history in the Tamil article because they influenced Indian history. Now, for Toraja, the most astonishing story features about Toraja, that fascinates anthropologists or whoever who wants to know about this ethnic group, are its elaborate and expensive funerals, their striking traditional house (and it is a central part of Toraja life), and its history through tourism commercialization after it was opened by the Indonesian government. If readers want to know more detail about its other non important aspects, then we can always suggest to read books in the Further Readings section. In this case, I will add books you suggested in that section later. — Indon (reply) — 11:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  To neglect 90% of the lives of the Toraja is fine in a tourist book or an individual academic paper, but an Encyclopedia needs to provide a general and comprehensive overview of the subject. Other ethnic group articles are irrelevant to the discussion - we weren't involved in promoting them. To say aspects like childbirth or marriage are not important is nonsense, they are important in every culture. There are details which have been documented for these aspects of the lives of Toraja, and an overview needs to be included. (Caniago 12:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

  Of course we can compare similar articles. We have FA standard for every articles, right? I have a different opinion about 90% of Toraja lives. It's not about marriage, courtship, foods, etc. but almost 100% of Toraja life lies in its religion (aluk), which has been mentioned actually in the article. Aluk governs all aspects of Toraja's life. Should we mentioned all of them in detail here? I guess we have to pick most major parts of aluk here to conform with WP:SIZE. Otherwise we are going to make a complete book of Toraja. And those major aluk parts have already been presented in the article. Okay, perhaps I was wrong to say it is not important, but it is minor aspects. — Indon (reply) — 13:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  For ethnic groups who follow one of the mainstream religions, many life events are guided by religion, and so providing details isn't so necessary. That the Toraja have a unique animistic based religion is all the more reason to provide an overview of their lives and the major events in their lives. We have nothing to guide our understanding of how their lives are impacted by their beliefs and culture. You don't need to provide every detail, but we do need an overview of their their whole lives, not just their afterlives. Ultimately I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups needs to develop some guidelines about what need to be covered in an ethnic group article, since there seems to be little consistency. (Caniago 14:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

• It's good, but needs a copy-edit throughout. Here are examples from the top of why this is the case.
  • "The majority of the population is Christian, with Muslim and local animist beliefs, known as aluk (the way), existing as minorities." Clumsy use of "existing". Removing the word is one solution.
  • "Prior to"—What's wrong with "before"?
  • Why are dictionary terms such as "autonomous", "agricultural" and "social life" linked? Pipe-linking "habits" to "habituation" is surely wrong. Then "ethnic group", "20th century" .... Why? Please audit the whole article for trivial links.
  • Commas required: "Early Dutch missionaries faced strong opposition especially among elite Torajans as the abolishment of their profitable slave trade angered them." Tony 04:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Reply. Ah, thanks Tony. Finally, somebody reviewed it after a long vacuum. I'm going to work on it per your suggestions and will ask some good external copyeditors to furnish the article. I'll update about it later. — Indon (reply) — 07:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• I did some work and left you some ref questions on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have answered your concerns in the article's talk page. — Indon (reply) — 13:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Very nice work so far on the footnotes and referencing; pending Outriggr's copyedits, things are looking good ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Yes, things are looking good, I knew this would make its way to FAC when I first saw it. "Highly support without doubts". Cheers - Imoeng 12:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral—surprised to have to correct a blooper or two (abolishment). But it's not bad now. Tony 02:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support I don't believe that every little nuiance of a people has to be addressed---if it isn't notable then you don't need to have a special discussion dealing with food, pregnancy, birth, marriage, divorce.Balloonman 06:18, 11 June 2007 (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, 13 June 2007.

[edit] An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump

Not the longest article going but a comprehensive look at Joseph Wright of Derby's most famous painting. Hope you like it. Yomangani^talk 14:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I liked it very much. It made me repeatedly look at the picture and brought it to life splendidly. The length is fine, because an article about one painting shouldn't be too long. My comments at the peer review were professionally addressed. qp10qp 21:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I need to read this in more detail before I can decide whether I support the article, but I just wanted commend the nominator for choosing a relatively uncommon and interesting subject. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support..gosh. Prose is well done; only tiny quibble is that a cockatoo is not a species as such so I'd replace the word 'species' with plain 'bird' in:

The cockatoo would have been rare at the time, as the species did not become well-known

but this is not a deal-breaker. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 11:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. Fixed Yomangani^talk 12:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support; a good, to-the-point read. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 20:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. It's really a shame that we don't have a higher-quality image of the painting. I considered paying for a hi-res file from the National Gallery website (under the semi-legitimate pretense of using it for a lecture, which I probably would do as some point), but the U.K. doesn't have any equivalent of Bridgeman v. Corel. I have a photo of the mezzotint of the composition from when it was recently on display in New Haven, but unfortunately it was behind glass and I couldn't get one that wasn't ruined by reflections. Hopefully at some point, a good image of that will be another improvement to the article.--ragesoss 03:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  Unfortunately the National Gallery has the only image that is light enough to show the details in the background. Volume II of Nicholson's book has a fairly good reproduction but it is in greyscale and folds out (so is ruined by a crease), and all the other illustrations I've come across have been tiny and/or very dark. I've added a link to the National Gallery's online zoomable version which is about as good as you can get without going and standing in front of it. Yomangani^talk 12:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Absolutely fascinating, well written and sourced, and quite unique. I've never heard of the painting before, but I've found a respect for it after reading this article, which properly displays this painting's significance in not only art but science, as well. Very good work! María (habla conmigo) 13:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• This is a lovely piece, Yomangani. I recall you've posted that you want to test the bottom size range of FA, and this is a great example of a short FA-quality article. Could you derive two or three summative sentences from Reception and add it to the lead? I know the infobox tells us it's at the National Gallery, but I like to imagine the lead as if no infobox exists. Few wikilinks—that's fine, because we link too often. For something like this, I'd only say that natural science info that directly relates to the subject ought to be linked (e.g. link air pressure but not magnetism). Your description of the invention of the air pump is now far better than on the main air pump article, incidentally. Might want to tweak Historical background and post it on the science page. Finally, you have yet to discover the beauty of the serial comma. One can't oppose on that basis, but let me tell you that once you turn to the dark side you will never look back ;). Marskell 21:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  It's hard to pull much out of the reception section without getting bogged down in details. I've added a sentence, but I don't really want to retrace its provenance or repeat (or rather "prepeat") its reviews. By the way, there is no beauty to the serial comma and, if you think this article is short, I've got three more coming that at the moment are only just longer than this when combined. Yomangani^talk 22:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Fascinating, well-written and illustrated article on a non-mainline subjects. Few quibbles/suggestions:

1. Can the size of the painting be mentioned somewhere in the text ? I was looking for this information, but found it in the infobox only after I had read through the article.

   Done.Yomangani^talk

2. The Style section refers to a man "timing the experiment" (I guess the man in the right left foreground  ?), but the Details section does not refer to him as such.

   I was trying not to break the flow too much, but hopefully I've made it clearer by splitting the description across the two sections now.Yomangani^talk

3. I was confused by these sentences, "The single source of light is obscured behind the bowl on the table; some hint of a lamp glass can be seen around the side of the bowl, but David Hockney has suggested that the bowl may contain sulphur, giving a powerful single light source that a candle or oil lamp would not." since I found it difficult to keep the bowl, lamp glass and the "large liquid-filled glass jar" in order. My guess is that bowl=jar, while the sulphur is in the lamp glass rather than the skull container. If that is the case, perhaps use of consistent terminology will make it easier to decipher the description.

   First guess was right, second guess was wrong. Hopefully made that clearer too. Yomangani^talk 23:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

4. Finally, should Lunar Society be wikilinked on first, rather than second use ?

   Yes, that's what comes of rearranging sections. Well spotted. Yomangani^talk 23:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare 22:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to reword a sentence in the Style section to include a mention of the Hockney-Falco thesis? A one-link "See also" section just looks tacky. ShadowHalo

  Try that. I was never keen on the single see also, but it is a bit cumbersome to insert mid flow. Yomangani^talk 00:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

  Works for me. Support. ShadowHalo 00:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support plus! This is a cool article. It should be a TFA as well. This would be a great main page article. As a minor fix, though, consider playing with the image placement a bit. There are some places that (on my monitor resolution) some of the left-aligned images are clashing with headers and the like. Consider alternating or changing image locations so as to avoid having left aligned images near the tops or bottoms of sections to avoid this problem. Its a minor issue, but some small asthectic fixes could improve readability a tad.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  I've rearranged it closer to my original "column" layout and tried it on a few resolutions. Seems better now, but let me know if you still have problems. Yomangani^talk 17:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - brilliant article. More like this, please! Carcharoth 00:35, 12 June 2007 (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, 13 June 2007.

[edit] USS New Jersey (BB-62)

I have been working on this article in an effort to bring it up to Featured Status for some time now, I final got the break through I neded last month when I located sources allowing me to expand the articles poorly written latter half. I have not recieved any comments on the peer review page for the last ten days, so I am moving the article here to put it in the running for featured article status. This is a self nomination, I have retooled the entire article to include citations and have rewritten a substantial part of the mid and lower half to better include coverage of the topic. Note that I am in the middle of summer school at the moment, so if I appear slow to respond here have patients; it is likely that school work has me tied up. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Excellent effort Tom, but I think there needs to be a wider range of sources as too many parts are cited to footnote #2 at the moment. And since it's a web source, there might be disputes over the accuracy and credibility of it. You might want to check newspaper/magazine/journal archives and libraries to find a wider range of more reliable sources. — Wackymacs 16:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • DANFS is not just a web source; it is a publication of the US Navy and is thus pretty accurate and credible. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Wackymacs, I understand your concern over the large amount of sourcing that goes to DANFS; however, DANFS is a canonical work on the life of the batleship USS New Jersey and internet sources all site DANFS when discussing the battleship (or any other ship, for that matter). The only alternative I would have to DANFS as far as citing is concerned would be to go door to door and collect information from the crewmen who served aboard the battleship back in the day. The issue of mass citing to DANFS came up loudly during the Featured Article Review for Wisconsin, when members of the community were taken back by the amount of citation to DANFS. During that review Kirill Lokshin, the lead cooridnator for the military history Wikiproject, made the following comment:

"But the point being made is that it's not (necessarily) a problem! There are any number of good reasons for having a limited number of sources; the chief ones are (1) that there simply aren't any other (useful) sources or (2) that the sources already used are the canonical works on the topic, and that any others are merely derivatitive or redundant." (TomStar81 (Talk) 01:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

• Support. Rlevse 17:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written, lots of reliable references. Meets the FA Criteria. — Wackymacs 19:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support I can find nothing at all objectionable about this article. A fine job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Balloonman 05:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I may not be very good at grammar, but I find using "she" to refer to the ship a bit odd. CG 07:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

'She' to refer to a ship is correct. — Wackymacs 08:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• This has come up before on the talk pages of both Missouri and Wisconsin. The consensus is that Wikipedia should hold no differnce between the use of "she" and the use of "it"; however, the article in question should not alternate between "she" and "it". Given that DANFS material is already in she format, it is easier for me to use she the whole way through. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Can't find anything wrong with it, I might suggest a cite or two in the lead paragraphs, alternating the images from left to right for asthetic reasons and a cite for where you got all the information in the infobox re:weapons and so on? The last one I'm not sure about, because I don't know the guidelines regarding ship infoboxes, so if that kind of citation isn't done then don't worry about my third point. SGGH ^speak! 21:09, 13 June 2007 (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 17:04, 10 June 2007.

[edit] Rings of Jupiter

Everybody knows that Saturn has rings. However the fact that all giant planets have the ring systems is far less known. This article is about the Jovian ring system, which is faint but interesting. So I think it deserves FA status. Ruslik 13:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Support: However a few points -

• "In nineties the Jovian ring system was thoroughly investigated by the Galileo orbiter.[2]" - copyedit. In the ninties, the .....
  • Note: "nineties" seems to be a valid word in my Webster's dictionary. I'm unfamiliar with "ninties". Is that a British-English spelling? — RJH (talk)
    • I think the editor misspelled "nineties" and wanted to point out the missing "the." Awadewit ^Talk 15:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Lesson learnt for the day: When providing review comments, avoid making errors or else the review feedback will sound confusing. Yes, i wanted to point to the missing "the" and a second yes (admit) that it was not for "ninties" (or nineties as it should be rightly worded). Hope that clarifies. Kalyan 16:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Ah, okay. Thank you for the clarification. — RJH (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done I inserted 'the'. Ruslik 12:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• "The rings were also observed by Hubble Space Telescope and from the ground.[3]" - when? 90s? or do they continue to observe them in which case the sentence should revert to present tense
  • Y Done I added a phrase 'for the last 25 years' and changed tense to present perfect. Ruslik 12:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• The image in the lead section needs a better explanation than "The rings of Jupiter"
  • Y Done
• Shouldn't the main ring section come after the halo ring section - so that it fits an order?
  Kalyan 14:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This order (main->halo->gossamer) comes from the peer reviewed literature that I have read i.e. the order has been established long ago. I think it's unwise to change it now (see for instance [9]). Ruslik 12:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think the Exploration section should come under the lead as it is sort of a 'History' section. Will look more later. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 04:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In other articles including some with FA status (Mars (planet), Jupiter (planet)) this section is positioned close to the end (or at the end) of the article. So, I think it is wise to follow the example. Ruslik 12:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I think this section should be expanded a little bit. It should also include the time line of when the structures were really explored in addition to including only how they were explored. DSachan 07:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Y Done I added dates to the exploration section. Ruslik 14:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral -- can we get "about 15 μm" to be 15 plus-or-minus it's 95% confidence interval micrometers, please? BenB4 06:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done I added 1σ confidence interval. Ruslik 12:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me; just one thing: can you fix up the 'halo ring' title? it's been offset oddly by the above picture. I'll read through in more detail later. --Paaerduag 05:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I actually saw nothing odd with 'Halo ring' title, but appearance of wiki articles sometimes depends on screen resolution and your browser. Anyway I moved picture to the right. Is it good now? Ruslik 14:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support The article is good, comprehensive and well sourced. I support it. DSachan 23:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Object Sorry, 16 footnotes? no chance.c'mon, we've fished a good one.Kfc1864Cuba Libre! 11:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Er, ignore all above, please........c'mon, we've fished a good one.Kfc1864Cuba Libre! 09:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• • How many footnotes should it have: 20, 1000 or 10¹⁰⁰. Or can you specify number of footnotes per 1 kb of text? Ruslik 14:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment most of the footnotes are used multiple times. I count 135 actual citations. Bluap 17:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done Although reviewer didn't specify a necessary number I added some additional footnotes and also expanded 'External links' section. I think the objection was addressed, taking into account that all footnotes are used many times (see comment above). Ruslik 12:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support - This article provides a great overview of the current state of knowledge of the Jovian ring system, its various components, and the types of observations that have been brought to bear on the subject. My only suggestion would be to switch the two images of the main ring by Galileo and New Horizons. It seems like the New Horizons image, showing the main ring at low- and high-phase angles would make a great companion to the section in the article on the appearance of the Main Ring in changing lighting conditions. Otherwise, this article has my support. --Volcanopele 08:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Y Done I absolutely agree with your suggestion. So I switched images. Ruslik 08:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Question: "In the nineties, the Jovian ring system was thoroughly investigated by the Galileo orbiter." You never mentioned the Jovian Ring system before. If that is the official name for the rings of Jupiter the name should be mentioned earlier, near the bolded article title so there is a lexical link. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done I added an explanation of the Jovian ring system in the first sentence of the article. Ruslik 11:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—1a. Here are examples just from the lead.
  • "The largest planet in the Solar System – Jupiter possesses a planetary ring system called also the Jovian ring system." Not a spaced en dash, but a comma.
  • MoS on captions: no period unless a proper sentence.
  • Why repeat links? ("Solar System" twice at the top.)
  • "nineties"—nah, "1990s", especially in the same sentence as Galileo.
  • "the past 25 years", not the "last".
  • Remove "very"—two of them.
  • "It comprises four main components: a thick inner torus of particles known as the 'halo ring', a relatively bright, razor-thin 'main ring', and two wide, thick and faint outer 'gossamer rings' named for the moons of whose material they are composed: Amalthea and Thebe." This complex, nested sentence needs better punctuation. "It comprises four main components: a thick inner torus of particles known as the 'halo ring'; a relatively bright, razor-thin 'main ring'; and two wide, thick and faint outer 'gossamer rings', named for the moons of whose material they are composed: Amalthea and Thebe." MOS says to use italic for words as words.
  • "High resolution images"—better with hyphen, IMO. Same for "high velocity impacts". Makes it easier for non-experts.
  • "The Jovian rings have reddish color (except the halo ring, which is neutral or blue) in visible and near-infrared light." Start with "In visible and near-infrared light, the ..." and change parenthesis into comma. "a reddish color".
  • I can see that parentheses will be the order of the day in the main text. Prefer commas or em/spaced en dashes, at least some of the time.

This is not good enough yet. Find a fresh copy-editor who's not familiar with the text. Tony 02:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I understand that 1a is only problem that persists. I included corrections proposed above and made a proofreading request wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/proofreading. Ruslik 12:33, 9 June 2007 (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 17:04, 10 June 2007.

[edit] New York City

Dec 04 previous FAC, Apr 06 previous FAC, Jul 06 previous FAC, Sep 06 previous FAC, Dec 06 previous FAC, Jan 07 previous FAC

This article is currently a good article and has been nominated for featured article status quite a few times, but it has never become an FA. Since the last nomination, I feel that the quality of the New York City article has increased dramatically. Previously, the main concerns were over the amount of citations in certain sections. For example, there are now fourteen citations in the History section and thirteen in the Geography section, instead of the precious few earlier. The problems with the article's prose have been corrected, as well as the POV issues with the Crime area. There are over twenty images, all of which are free content.

It is my belief that this deserves to be a featured article. Indoles 18:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I think the prose needs further copyediting, but I'm working to address that. (have been through the History and Geography sections). - Done
  • There are some places that could use cites, but I'm helping to address this. - Done
  • The lead (introduction) section isn't quite satisfactory in my opinion. From WP:LEAD, this section needs to be a "concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." (1) I don't think the lead does enough summarizing and providing an overview. (2) Yes, we know NYC is important, but think the lead section goes overboard on telling readers how important and great NYC is. I see this in other places in the article. The article needs to be neutral and be more modest in this respect, so that it reads less like something written by the NYC Visitors & Convention Bureau. - Done
    • I'll be sure to work on this. Indoles 03:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Sounds good. I'm sure we can get this addressed. --Aude (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The links section must be trimmed significantly.
    • Done I've removed about five links that seemed to me not to be needed. Indoles 03:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I went ahead and cut some more links, and moved some to subarticles. Links included in the article should be very high quality sites and/or the most pertinent. --Aude (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that the quality of the article has improved significantly since the last FAC nomination, and think the objections and issues can be addressed this time. --Aude (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• The three issues (copyediting, checking/adding cites, and toning down the rhetoric) need to be addressed throughout the article. So far, I have been through:
  • Parts of the history section, but not ready to endorse it.
  • First four paragraphs/first part of the geography section, though still need a cite for "Staten Island Greenbelt". Also, been through the first paragraph of the Environment section. Still need some cites in the climate section, such as quantifying the amount of snowfall rather than saying "moderate". What's moderate? people may vary in what they consider moderate.
• Still need to go through:
  • Cityscape (architecture, boroughs)
  • Culture (tourism, sports, media)
    • "Six of the world's top ten global advertising agencies are headquartered in New York, and three of the "Big Four" record labels are also based in the city." - this needs cites, but can't find them. The only list of "top advertising" agencies is here, but not free to access. For the "Big Four", EMI is headquartered in London, so I would assume the other three are all based in NYC. Though according to the article on Universal Music Group, they have headquarters in both Santa Monica, California and New York City. So, three out of four is not quite right.
    • I also think it's not necessary to say "WNYC, a public radio station owned by the city until 1997, has the largest public radio audience in the United States." Simply mentioning that WNYC is the city's public radio station, once owned by the city, would be sufficient. There's a logical fallacy in saying it's the largest public radio audience, because it's simply reflects the fact that NYC is the largest city. I haven't figured out how to rewrite this. --Aude (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Economy
  • Demographics
  • Government (crime)
  • Education
  • Transportation
• Sister cities section is okay.
• I don't think the National Geographic link belongs in the Further reading section.
• There are links in the external links section that I don't think belong. --Aude (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support I agree, it should be a featured article. Josh 03:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support London Steam 19:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support The article appears to have improved drastically from archived edits. Stable, NPOV, and well written with appropriate references. NSR77 ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The "Demographics" section has two different figures for the population of NYC in the 2000 census. Which is it? —Cuiviénen 22:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Done Adjusted. I'm using the one with the citation. Indoles 22:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• If, as I gather, the Bibliography section is just a renamed Further Reading section, I don't see what it adds to the article. Barring that, sound layout, decent and heavy citations, Support MrZaius^talk 14:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Section has been renamed. Further reading is consistent with WP:LAYOUT. --Aude (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: Main issue is the lead. It does not seem to adequately summarize the article. The following sections are not even mentioned in the lead:
  • "History": Other than a throwaway sentance dealing with the culture of New York, this section is not adequately summarized.
  • "Architecture": No treatment at all
  • "Culture": seems underrepresented (no sports in lead, no media, etc.) and the third paragraph that does deal with this borders on worshipful in tone.
  • "Economy": Again, other than a single mention of wall street, gets no treatment at all.
  • "Government", "Education", "Transportation", again no treatment in the lead.

The article itself is great, but the lead needs dealing with. I may rewrite this myself if I feel bold enough. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I've put a lot more into the lede, I know it probably needs trimming but it's definitely a starting point. --Golbez 07:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Looking MUCH better. A few specifics it may be nice to see mentioned in the lead: The mayor should be named, and Broadway isn't even mentioned. When I think "New York" these images come to mind instantly, and it would me nice to see a sentance about them, worked into the appropriate places (Broadway in the paragraph on Culture, the Mayor in the very first paragraph, or maybe a new paragraph on Gov't and education). Also, economy needs to be worked into the lead. But this is MUCH improving. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, but much improvement over past versions. Unfortunately, it looks like a lot of editing by different editors has resulted in inconsistent and incorrect usage of the cite templates. I just ran through and corrected what I could easily, but there is far too much for me to complete. On the surface, it appears that no publishers have been identified (so one cannot determine reliability of sources), when in fact, many publishers were incorrectly identified in the author parameter on the cite templates. Of more concern is attribution: there is a very big difference between a press release and an (independent) news report. The cite news template has been used for many cases that are actually press releases, where cite press release should have been used, and I can't download 35 PDFs to check them all. Further, different editors used different date formatting styles, so unless the date parameter is wikilinked, results will yield different date formats, not respecting user preferences. (IF the date formatting were consistent throughout, this wouldn't be so unsightly.) The biggest concern is that all publishers should be identfied (every cite template needs a publisher) and press releases should be clearly identified as press releases, as they aren't independent news reports. It will take hours of work to check each cite and clean all of this up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Likely that I missed some, but have spent time cleaning these up. If anyone else can check them, that would be helpful. --Aude (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I just spent two hours checking refs at Belgium, so I'm wiped out. If I can find time this weekend, I'll try to help clean up NYC refs, if no one else gets to them sooner. PDFs are really slow on my computer; maybe someone can download and verify them, make sure publishers and dates/authors when available are given, and switch any that are press releases to cite press release? It would be easier for me to run through the rest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I have checked the PDFs, and have done another spot check on other references. Of course, I may have missed something that someone else will find. --Aude (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I corrected errors from Economy to the bottom; can look at the rest tomorrow or Saturday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Thank you very much for checking and correcting references in the article. It's appreciated greatly. I'm still learning to adhere exactly to the MOS for references, but have a better idea what needs to be done and is expected of articles brought to FAC. --Aude (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Finishing checking and fixing refs, all sources look reliable. Striking my oppose (which was based on ref formatting only), but haven't yet thoroughly reviewed the article. A marked improvement over past versions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Struck through prior oppose. The lead now looks adequate, and the article as a whole looks great. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• There's still a "citation needed" for the metro section. Fix that, and I'll be happy to promote, assuming nobody brings up any other issues. Raul654 16:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's been reworded. --Aude (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Excellent! Thanks Aude for fixing that. Indoles 22:27, 10 June 2007 (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 17:04, 10 June 2007.

[edit] Film Booking Offices of America

Self-nomination. Stable article on Hollywood studio of the late silent film era. Predecessor of RKO Pictures, it played a pivotal role in the conversion to sound film. Owned during crucial period by Joseph P. Kennedy, father of the future president. Thanks to Quadell and WesleyDodds for a very productive peer review.—DCGeist 18:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Some early comments, I'll look it over in detail more later. Why no infobox? If articles like RKO Pictures have one this article should too for consistency. Also, the logo should be in the top right for consistency sake too, I don't see why a movie poster is in the top right and not the company logo. Quadzilla99 13:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)