Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2007: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:17, 3 September 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 not promoted 04:56, 3 September 2007.

Mumia Abu-Jamal

Interesting story. Very pleased with copyediting, referencing, presentation of citations, image content. Has attained stability and neutrality. Not aware of any transgressions against Manual of Style expectations. Well-hyperlinked.TruthHider 05:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't use words like "presently undefined" in the lead section. --Kaypoh 05:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the article - especially the 2001 Federal ruling directing resentencing is very hard to read. He ordered the State of Pennsylvania to commence sentencing proceedings anew within 180 days[91] and ruled that it was unconstitutional to require that a jury's finding of the existence of a mitigating factor with regard to sentencing be a unanimous one in relation to one or more such factors discretely named on a checklist provided at the outset of deliberations - how is someone supposed to parse this sentence? Also, District Attorney Lynne Abraham has stated that the case was the "most open-and-shut murder case" she'd ever tried - was she, in fact, the prosecutor in the trial? If so, this should be stated explicitly. Raul654 05:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object - it's not stable because there's a very important appeals ruling due any day now. Controversial current events are rarely promoted for that reason. (Plus, if the paragraph on the 2006-7 appeal news is representative of the whole article, it needs lots of cop[yediting.) ←Ben^B4 08:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Needs thorough copy editing. Too much passive voice and unnecessarily convoluted wording. Examples: "This became known...", "It has been noted..., "In 1999, Abu-Jamwal was invited to deliver...", "The attention received has spawned ....his status as a celebrated author..."(?) "His political consciousness was sharpened by the circumstance of his suffering a beating..." Mattisse 12:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The nominator, TruthHider, currently has his IP autoblocked because of another user with the same IP. --Mattisse 02:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted 04:56, 3 September 2007.

2007 Canadian Grand Prix

previous FAC

Re-nominating. Have fixed the minor issues raised. Buc 15:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Where is it cited that four safety cars is 'unprecedented'? I browsed through some of the refs but couldn't find one. --Golbez 15:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Buc 16:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The issues raised last time were not minor, they were major lack of coverage of a very dramatic race. Many safety cars occurred, many passes occurred and each time, the complexion of the race changed a lot. From reading the article one cannot understand how the race evolved from start to finish. One would have to think....how did the Super Aguri of Sato end up in front of Alonso

Done

and at one point was ahead of Raikkonen's Ferrari and lapping faster and passing people?

Done

How did Wurz and Kovalainen end up in front of much faster Ferrari and McLaren. A person who did not watch the race on TV or video would not understand how the result came to be. It was a very complicated race and the race report would need to be at least three times longer to be understandable in terms of what happened. There were also some incidents in the later part of the race where Trulli and Liuzzi

Already mentioned Buc 09:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

crashed and Alonso went grasscutting and landmowing while trying to pass Webber? and then falling back again.

The one on lap 1? Buc 09:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess not - wasn't that much later in the race? 4u1e 15:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rember that at all. Buc 17:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well he went off at the first corner three times during the race, so I guess it was one of those. 4u1e 14:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done

According to one/6738963.stm this BBC timeline, Alonso went off at the first corner on laps 1, 14 and 18. The article only says that he went 'ran wide' on lap 1, which is a bit of an understatement, he ran right off the track, and that he 'made mistakes' on laps 14 and 18 - again he went right off track. I don't know if that's what Blnguyen was referring to, but it should certainly be described rather more precisely than in the current version of the article, as it is in these three race reports: Story.aspx?PO=39583 www.itv-f1.com, one/6738963.stm www.bbc.co.uk and www.grandprix.com. 4u1e 15:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link I've added it in. Buc 14:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was another grasscutting by Alonso after the final SC but the report doeen't include. Actually since so much happened, it doesn't include a lot of things in htis unusual case because so much happened. Does anyone have a video of the race around still. I presume that's how ppl wrote episode summaries of the those Simpsosn FAs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never knew about that so there isn't much I can do. Would need a ref anyway. Buc 17:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can't see why this was re-started. The previous FAC wasn't all that long or complicated, all that the re-nomination has achieved is to make me look in two places to see whether previously raised points have been addressed. <shrug> 4u1e 15:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4u1e, it was 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix was restarted, not this FAC!! Davnel03 19:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - the previous FAC was a fail, then? My apologies, in that case. Cheers. 4u1e 08:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not happy with the writing yet. Samples:

"despite him reporting that the car was"—ungrammatical: "despite his report that the car was" or "despite his reporting that the car was".
MOS breach—spaced a.m., etc., which will then require a spaced en dash.
"with a position in-between the two Honda cars"—Remove the hyphen.
"Sixteenth", but "19th". Where is your numeral/spelling-out boundary? See MOS. Tony 05:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Oppose - Far from a professional standard of writing. Some examples from early in the article (there are more later on):

From the lead The race was filled with many incidents resulting in an unprecedented four safety car periods,[2] including the violent impact of Robert Kubica's BMW Sauber against a concrete retaining wall, that he escaped with a sprained ankle and concussion. - The race was filled with many incidents comes across as a bit of a weak sentence and I don't think the latter part (that he escaped with...) even makes sense.

Done

BMW Sauber were pleased with 5th place then 7th place from Nick Heidfeld—despite his report that the car was was "very difficult to drive", - I think this is trying to say he got 5th in the first session and 7th in the second but it could do with being made clearer. No idea what the purpose of the dash is though.

{{done}

Robert Kubicas car suffered a fuel leak- 'Possessive form of a singular noun' here so it should be Kubica's car.

Done

a failure continuing his run of form during this race weekend - This comes under the practice session so I'm guessing it means that it was a sign of things to come but it's worded terribly.

Done

In qualifying Hamilton took his first ever pole position as part of a McLaren one-two. It was his first pole position. Not necessary to use ever.

Done

Heidfeld had an improved drive to take third position He had an improved drive? Again this comes across as awkward and on the verge of not making sense. Heidfeld improved on his practice performance to take third position is clearer.

Done

In the qualifying the bit about DC's braking problem is half-mentioned in two paragraphs. Do it all together in one paragraph and explain it clearly.

Done

Takuma Sato, once again out-qualifying the two Honda cars and just missed out on the top ten, in front of Vitantonio Liuzzi. Tense and structure are wrong.

Done

Referencing is also badly done throughout. In one paragraph we have [10][11][12][10][12][12][10][11][14] scattered throughout. This is a lot of repetition so unless absolutely necessary to go at the end of the sentence move them to the end of the paragraph. Also check that if the job done by [11] for example is also covered by [10] and [12] then remove [11]. This is a problem right through the article and breaks up the readability of the prose.
- Is this part of FA criteria? Buc 14:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At present this is definitely not an example of Wikipedia's best work. It just about scrapes past GA's "reasonably well written" criteria (although parts are close to not making sense) but is far from being featured yet. AlexJ 11:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this image. Is there a alternative to this image which is OK to use that are good against Wikipedia guidlines. Have you look on Flickr for an alternative to use? I also can't help but to strongly agree with AlexJ's comments. You should of gone to Peer review (a mistake I regret making when heading straight for FAC with Malaysia GP). Oh you did go to peer review - only problem is you failed to list it - that's why it got zero comments. The only comment was from me - and that stated that I had to list it because you never. Davnel03 11:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Fails 1a right from the off, the image status is still unclear, and it also needs a lot of work to comply with 4. The most difficult aspect that this article wll come up against is the stipulation that successful FA candidates are well written and are "engaging, even brilliant, and of professional standard". This is not. If I were to choose a word beginning with P, it would be "pedestrian". The prose is functional, at best, and more than occasionally slips into magazine-tone and jargon. Examples of the latter, such as "got off the grid ", are rife, and weasel words abound (e.g. how on Earth did "Possibly frustrated by dropping back to third" ever get through GA??

- What's wrong with it?
  - Have you read WP:WEASEL? Pyrope 18:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is "Possibly" a WW? Buc 19:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is, and moreover it is speculation and unsubstantiated. If you can find a source that directly links the two events in this way then us a citation, if you can't then try rephrasing it to intimate a link, without directly doing so. Pyrope 20:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FA is supposed to showcase the best articles that Wikipedia has to offer, it is not a cub scout badge that you gain by ticking a few boxes.
- Never said it was. Buc 18:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But you have treated it as such ever since this FAC process started. Most times, when a problem has been raised, instead of discussing how it might be made better you have simply come back with a fatuous green tick and the word "done". You are actually ticking things! I have deliberately made my comments abstract, rather than specific, as I believe that this article's failings are intrinsic and deep-rooted, and probably require that the article is rewritten in a more lively an engaging style. Pyrope 18:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But users were pionting out problems and the problems have been fixed. What eles am I supposed to do? It's not unusual to see this on FAC pages. I never said that by doing that the article would pass. Raul is looking for Support not stuff being done. Buc 19:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I know, unfortunately. It would be far better to leave a comment outlining what you have changed, maybe providing a link to the differences, and then let the reviewing editor decide whether or not you have altered it to their satisfaction. Then they can chose whether or not to change their opinion. By adding giant ticks and bold Done you are effectively trying to bully the decision out of them. If they don't drop back to see for themselves, then a polite request on their talk page is usually all it takes. Pyrope 21:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles should be inspirational, engaging, entertaining, informative and, crucially, exceptional examples of Wikipedia. That certain, probably indefinable, "something", this article currently lacks. Pyrope 17:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Do you have any specific to piont out so I can change it? Buc 18:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - FA is not peer review. Am I supposed to rewrite the whole article to demonstrate my point? Besides this probably being beyond my ability,
    - Are you saying the article would have to be entirely re-written to become a FA? Buc 20:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not neccessarily, this article is far closer to the right approach than the Malaysian GP one is. As I said, at present it lacks the sparkle of an excellent race report, particulary one blessed with so much potential content. Pyrope 20:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have already given you plenty of examples of how this article fails. I have read plenty of very high-quality, professional motorsport journalism and historical writing in my time, and this just doesn't get close. Frankly, for such a dramatic and eventful race, it's dull. p.s. And my concern about point 4? This article gives far too much space to utterly inconsequential, and unrelated, "Pre-race" cruft. For ****'s sake, testing and practice are just that, they are not a competition and very often bear very little relationship to what happens during a race. It is not even a requirement that a car is legal during a test! This section could be reduced to a single sentence: "A test session was held on May 17 and May 18 at the Paul Ricard circuit, with the track set up to replicate the conditions of the Canadian Grand Prix, where Ferrari dominated", period. Then you have to say why this is significant with respect to the race. Is it? Really? Considering that Ferrari were then rubbish throughout the race weekend I don't think it bears any relation at all, unless you want to make an allusion to the fact that their testing pace flattered to deceive. The aricle relates to a race, and should focus on the race and affairs that directly influenced the outcome of that race. If you want to write about test sessions then do so at the generic 2007 Formula One season page, do not clutter a race report with meaningless testing times (to three decimal places!!!). Similar comments stand for the "Practice" section. Pyrope 18:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Gave it a PR. No one replied. But something alone the lines of what you gave in the 2007 Malaysian GP PR would be great. Buc 19:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sometimes people just don't see a request, and sometimes a request just doesn't excite people enough that they want to spend an hour or more (which is what it takes to properly peer review an article) on that one article. I'm afraid that I fall into the second category, and a race report has to cover a particularly interesting race (which, ironically, this one does!) for it to pique my interest. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Many of the comments that I made for Malaysia stand for this article, with the proviso that this particular race is blessed with a fascinating and dramatic sequence of events, so FA might actually be worth working toward! Concentrate your efforts on drawing out the significant events, and tone down the minutiae of the midfield reshuffling. Pyrope 20:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks I hope you can comment when I give this another PR. I will address what you have said when I can find the time. Buc 20:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted 04:56, 3 September 2007.

Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

previous FAC

A A-class article with a few great reviews. A Raider Like Indiana 01:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Nomination/Support I was the prime editor of all of the Star Wars film articles and their FACs. My progress of Return of the Jedi has been slowed down in the last few months due to real life. However, I do think it is now finally ready for FA status. In addition to the above stated, I'll add that it has had a peer review and that it has been passed as Good article. The Filmaker 03:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Nomination/Support I was also the prime editor of all the Kingdom Hearts articles and their FACs. I have previously nominated ROTJ for FA, but it wasn't ready at the time. I now think it is ready for FA. Greg Jones II 03:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this article, and made some small contributions to it over time. This article meets the criteria, and should be added to the roll of Featured article. Judgesurreal777 17:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So....... is that's a Support. I assume? The Filmaker 02:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL yeah, forgot to write it :) Support Judgesurreal777 05:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support did some edits to this article, is great and while not as detailed as the other ones, worthy of the FA criteria. Now we only need to improve the main Star Wars page. igordebraga ≠ 18:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - seems to me that you're missing a giant source on production info here... Girolamo Savonarola 10:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience those pages offer nothing more than what the current sources provide, any extra information is too trivial to be included. The Filmaker 14:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are production information articles written by department heads regarding their work. While there are certainly trivial details, there are also prominent ones worthy of noting. I am very disappointed that you are unwilling to do the legwork - I know this is a lot to comb through, and it's somewhat dense reading at times - but this link was mentioned by three separate editors in the ESB FAC, with no real response, and I think it's shameful to dismiss it. Things that could be added include: the order in which locations were shot (I mean which days they started in Yuma, Crescent City, and Elstree), weather issues involving the Crescent City location on scout vs. shoot, the fact that Lucasfilm went to considerable expense to pay loggers to remove potential "widow makers" from the Crescent City location ahead of time, the original release date chosen and then changed, why the Millennium Falcon is only used as a matte plate during the Han/Lando goodbye, the fact that ILM did farm out about 400 effects shots, substantial quotes from Marquand, Kazanjian, and Lucas, details regarding the hiring of Marquand, the fact that Lucas wanted to cut Yoda from the picture entirely, how much of the script survived the cutting room, the number of special effects shots, the fact that over 100,000 feet of film was rejected by ILM before usage because of perforation problems, the speeder bike plates required a Steadicam additionally fitted out with two gyroscopes (very unusual) and were operated by the device's inventor, location scouting at Death Valley, Moab, and White Sands before settling on Yuma, the development of computerized puppetry "go-motion" by Tippett, which was a precursor to his work on Jurassic Park (detailed in the Cotta Vaz book), the breaking of the optical elements record (about 70 different pieces of film), official cites for the infamous "Nike in space" and chewing gum for ships...do you want me to continue?

What's really most shocking is that for a film which was the culmination of ILM's first phase of history, which completed the SFX extravanganza of the Star Wars trilogy, and was undoubtedly the most complex and advanced SFX film when it was released (and remained so for some time) - there is not even so much as a mention of ILM, much less all the work that they did! The production section is very threadbare as far as actual shooting details go, and with the highly accessible articles called: Art Direction, Cinematography, Creature Design, Effects Photography, Effects Art Direction, Location Photography, Matte Effects, Model Construction, Optical Effects, Production and Direction, and Steadicam Plates, each of which runs several pages you have absolutely no excuse not to do your homework. I know it's annoying, takes time to parse, and does have a fair bit of trivia that needs to be skipped. But there as much wheat as chaff there. If you're willing to nominate an FAC, you should be willing to sit down and do the work. Girolamo Savonarola 19:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you really wish, I will comb through the site again. Please assume good faith, as I am willing to do the legwork, however the last few times I had looked through the site, I saw nothing worth inclusion. For the record, while there is no response on the ESB FAC, the site was included in some text to aid other sources that were already there. The Filmaker 20:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. You might want to start in the Production and Direction section first, since that is more of a general overview. If you need any help deciphering the technical details, let me know. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 20:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. All the images in the article are nonfree. Are there no free images of the actors or the director that could be used? All of them have rather weak rationales that don't provide all the information requested at WP:FURG. Image:RevengeOTJedi.jpg doesn't seem to meet WP:NFCC #8, as it doesn't add anything that the text "The film was originally titled Revenge of the Jedi, and the original teaser trailer for the film carried this moniker" doesn't already tell us; it also lacks source information. Image:Return of the jedi 1.jpg doesn't seem particularly significant; the sentence it supports, "Luke is also captured and is sent with Solo and the others to the Great Pit of Carkoon to be slowly consumed by the Sarlacc", isn't so descriptive as to need an image. Image:Return of the jedi 4.jpg is so dark you can hardly see anything other than the lightsabers themselves. —Angr 18:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to fix the rationales up ASAP. Greg Jones II 18:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the problem with the darkness in the second image in the Plot section. This sometimes happens when capturing images from DVD players, using such programs as PowerDVD. However, Free images are not required per the featured article criteria. The Filmaker 20:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, free images are not required; I never said they were. But non-free images are neither required nor desirable, and yet that's all the article has. —Angr 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what's your point? That we should add free-images for the novelty of it? Just so that we can say that we have at least one free-image in the article? The Filmaker 15:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Angr was trying to say is: can some of these nonfree images be swapped for similar free ones? Because presumably it would make for less problems down the road. Girolamo Savonarola 00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, no. To replace the screenshots with free-use would not achieve the purpose of the images (to illustrate the text in the plot), there is also know free-image photo of the entire cast, much less one that features them in character. The Filmaker 00:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point was not that we should add free-images "for the novelty of it", but rather that we should aim for a minimal use of nonfree images (per NFCC#3). As I mentioned above, two of the images used in the article do not meet NFCC#8. On the other hand, we have several free images of the cast that could be used: Image:Mark Hamill (1978).jpg, Image:Harrison Ford IJ4.jpg, Image:Carrie fisher with steven spielberg.jpg, Image:David Prowse, 2006.jpg, Image:JEJones.jpg, Image:Daniels03.jpg, Image:Kenny Baker convention.jpg, Image:Peter Mayhew2005.jpg, Image:Warwick Davis, 2006.jpg, Image:Jeremy Bulloch.JPG. Since articles on fiction are to be written from a real-world perspective, not an in-universe perspective, images of the actors out of character are preferable to images of them in character, for encyclopedic reasons in addition to free-content reasons. —Angr 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are speaking of the cast photo. The photo illustrates both the major cast and the major characters. You will notice the section contains information both on the casting and the characters themselves. Also, after viewing the image again, I would less say that they are in character, just in costume. Considering they are obviously posing for a publicity photo. The Filmaker 21:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cast photo is the one that is easily replaceable with free images. The other photos I mentioned above can simply be removed. —Angr 21:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the fair-use rationales, for all four images. I've added new information on the Revenge of the Jedi poster on the notability of it as a very rare collector's item. I've fixed the darkness in the second image in the Plot. The first image in the Plot section illustrates the entire paragraph with the location of Tatooine and is the beginning of the major action at the beginning of the film, which takes place on the ship they are being transported on. The cast photo illustrates both the cast and the look of their characters, both of which have information contained in the Cast section. Please re-evaluate your oppositions, if you still have any, based on these changes. The Filmaker 01:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd take out the phrase "(actually a Jedi Padawan)" from the character descriptions. It's a poor choice for a number of reasons: Padawan status is not mentioned in the film or the original trilogy; it's debatable if Lucas even had a concept of Padawan prior to 1994; and it can be argued from an in-universe perspective that the old system is de facto obsolete from the point at which the Jedi were dismantled and exterminated. Girolamo Savonarola 01:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it must have snuck in during one of the many edits over the months. I guess I just didn't notice it. Good catch. The Filmaker 01:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm too tired to read the whole article, but it's looking great like the other episode articles. One thing I noticed in Production is this little tidbit: "Some reports have suggested that Lucas was so heavily involved in the shooting of Return of the Jedi that he could be considered a second or a co-director. It is likely that he directed much of the second unit work personally as the shooting threatened to go over schedule — this is a function Lucas had willingly performed on previous occasions when he had only officially been producing a film (i.e. Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Empire Strikes Back, More American Graffiti).[4][5]" Can you turn these slightly weaselly words ("some reports"; "it is likely") into concrete statements? Also, a few more commas throughout would help readability. But anyway, it's looking good.--Dark Kubrick 01:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else on comments or objections? Greg Jones II 20:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on improving production info to the article, so I'm technically still "Oppose" for now. Will try to do more work on it tonight. Girolamo Savonarola 22:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes needed, WP:DASH issues throughout (no spaced emdashes) and WP:UNITS, conversions needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted 04:56, 3 September 2007.

London

previous FAC

Great article. I think it deserves to be promoted to FA. Mercenary2k 04:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw some fact tags, and the categories indicate a call for cleanup. There also appear to be some image formatting issues in "Transport". --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 05:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done All the Fact Tags have been replaced with proper citations. The sub-categories in various sections have also been removed and sections merged. I am not sure what image formatting issues you have with "Transport". All images there are either released by the author or are part of Wikipedia commons. Mercenary2k 06:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - some citations have missing retrieval dates or aren't properly formatted (for example ref #97 or #39, but there are more of them). Ref #10 is tagged for verification. Ref #41 is from skyscrapercity.com forum and I doubt if it will survive (see WP:EL). The Transport images comment doesn't mean licensing, all seem to be OK, but they bump into each other and it doesn't look nice. I would suggest re-arranging. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 07:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done All Citations have now a standard Retrieval Date format. The Citation from Skyscrapercity has been re-directed from their forum to their news site. The Images in the "Transport" section have been changed. 1 Image has been deleted while others have been re-arranged to prevent them from bumping into each other. Mercenary2k 08:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for solving these issues, though my oppose still continues. Retrieval dates, as their are full ones, should be linked to enable readers' date preference. I feel that some more citations would be useful, for example:The average price for all properties in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is £894,000 (as reported by the BBC in February 2007) with similar average outlay in most of Central London. – saying that BBC reported that in Feb 2007 isn't enough. A citation would be better, or caption in Sport: The new Wembley Stadium is the most expensive stadium ever built costing £793 million ($1.6 billion) – quite strong claim I think, but these are only examples, there may be more of them. As for MoS, I have found only one point so far, concerning use of WP:DASHes – either use unspaced em dash or spaced en dash (and should be consistent throughout the article). MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done All Retrieval dates have been wikified. All numerical facts and figures have been cited including the two examples you mentioned. As for MoS, I went through the article and I corrected any that I saw. But a fresh set of eyes should help as well. Let me know if you are satisfied with these changes. Mercenary2k 21:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dashes still haven't been fixed – either unspaced em (—) or spaced en (–), though for stylistic reasons en dashes are better-looking than a lot of em dashes. That means, for example, this sentence from History: "...first metro system — the London Underground — in 1863." should be either "... – the London Underground – ..." or "...—the London Underground—...". Now I have checked external links and I feel that London Eye and 2012 Summer Olympics link aren't necessary for main article, because both have their articles and this one is about London in general. And are sub-links of Transport of London link needed? I think everyone can access them from the main site. Generally, there are too many images in some points, for example here or in the Economy. I would suggest either re-arranging again, if possible, or throwing out. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~::::Oh ok. Now I understand your critique about the Dashes. I will fix them up. I will also get rid of some images. Mercenary2k 02:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Done Fixed the dashes as you recommended. Take a look and let me know if you are satisfied with the changes. I also got rid of some images as you pointed out that there were too many. I am not quite sure what you mean by London Eye and 2012 Summer Olympics having external links. They are wikified and thats it. As for sub-links under Transport of London. I think its ok to have it as it gives more information about transportation in London. Mercenary2k 10:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean they aren't very appropriate for the London article. I suggest deleting London Eye and 2012 Summer Olympics external links from this article. TfL sub-links are just about appropriate, but I think they can be accessed from that main page, right? And for images, re-arranging also means re-arranging two images, which "sandwich" the text at some point (there are five such places). WP:MOS#Images discourages such practice. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 11:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Removed the external links to 2012 Summer Olympics and the London Eye. I also re-arranged and got rid of some images so that they no longer sandwich text between them. Mercenary2k 21:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. As I won't have a chance for longer review next few days and my objections seem to be addressed, I am changing my vote to weak support. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 05:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why Weak support? What still aren't you satisfied with? Mercenary2k 06:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest, I haven't checked all aspects (for example prose) which any FA should have and I don't know what others will bring up. As I won't have much time to check these for few days, the weak support vote is supposed to mean that I won't block promotion. If there won't be much to fix anyway, I'll be happy to strengthen my vote for this article. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 07:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After scanning through again, I've found one ^{[citation needed]} tag (Economy) and uncreated category (Government). MarkBA ^t/c/@ 15:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "Economy" section mentions finance, services, tourism and cargo transport. Is there absolutely no industry (in the sence of producing goods, not services) in London? In the "Parks and gardens" section, London is described as a Green City. What about smog and other kinds of pollution? — Kpalion^(talk) 09:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added more information which talks about London Manufacturing Industry and Information in regards to the pollution in london.Mercenary2k 08:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Population and Density sections of the infobox need to be fixed. Mgiganteus1 18:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Fixed the Infobox of Population and Density and created it along the lines of New York City's infobox. Mercenary2k 08:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article lacks a map similar to other UK towns articles. At best it would be a map that outlines the different definitions of London as described in the "Definition" section. Could someone create such a map? Thank you. CG 07:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added map. Mercenary2k 08:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 1c and 2, too much pending MOS work. I cleaned up some date linking and dashes, but there is a lot left (see WP:DASH and WP:MOSDATE). Solo years should not be linked, full dates should. The article looks like it was put together by different editors with different styles; some sections conform to MOS, others don't. This is not compelling prose, for this we have See also templates at tops of sections: Many films have also used London as a location and have done much to shape international perceptions of the city. See main article London in film. Citations are not fully and consistently formatted, see WP:CITE/ES. All sources need a publisher, websources need last accessdate, author and publisher should be identified when available. MANY publishers are missing, so sources can't be evaluated for reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a. It's infested with redundant wording; there are problems of logical and fuzziness. Let's look at the first three stub-paragraphs in the lead.
- "The ancient City of London to which the name originally belonged still retains its tiny mediaeval boundaries"—Remove "to which the name originally belonged" as redundant. "Still" and "retains"? What is left makes little sense tense-wise, anyway (past juddering with present). Tiny boundaries? What, one cm thick?
- You could drop "around". Drop "today" ("is" does that). Drop "all". Replace "one of the major global cities" with just "a global city".
- "city within city"
- Population of 7.5 million as of 2006 (that's dogs and cats, is it?) and a metropolitan area population of 12–14 million people (that's in what year?).
- "London shown within England", says the caption. Get rid of this caption. You might as well add to the previous caption "tower pionting towards sky".
- "300 different languages"—remove "different". Tony 10:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted 04:56, 3 September 2007.

Andalusian cadence

A while ago, I've found this article on Wikipedia, stopped for a while and read it. The whole thing was awfully wrong and I decided to fix it and to show explanations for every step of the analysis procedure.

Having just read a great book about tonality, written by one of the best Romanian music teachers, which happened to have had all the related explanations inside, I've tried to present this subject in a way not much too foggy, but neither too thin. I also thought of the reader with lesser knowledge of music theory and tried to include some functional basics of tonal harmony.

I didn't feel like adding more than one image, which seems to me a very clear depiction of the whole thing. There are plenty of examples, maybe more in classical music should arrive, and I'd be glad to find a helping hand for that. I've too mentioned some examples which alter the cadence somewhat, but one may still think of it or hear the pylon-chords throughout and should like to watch a tonal explanation for a moment. There is also a slight parallel with the lydian cadence, a thing the initial author of the article had puzzled with this (so that some readers who first thought of that variant as more logical would find out why they're wrong).

O.K., that's all the material I had to boast! ;) The reason for featuring this article was, except for the fact that I've worked with it for a number of days, that the subject is not much too generous, so that the article's size at the moment seems optimal to me. And it shouldn't also be shorter, as there is a number a notion which may seem difficult to some. Thank you for your time! (Impy4ever 18:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment The article is a bit brief and specialized for a FAC. However, my main concern is the lack of any audio example of the cadence. An .ogg file of the cadence on, say, piano or guitar would be helpful. --Ianmacm 19:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: When you said you stumbled upon the article a few days ago and worked on it, that kind of sent up a red flag. It isn't uncommon for FAs to have been worked for six months, a year, or even more to bring them to their state. While that is certainly not necessary, or required, there is a reason why it often takes so long. Because it takes a lot of knowledge of the topic, as well as correct form and Wiki-conventions to be an elite article. Of the four featured article criteria, I recommend addressing the following:

1. Basic criteria met?:

1a. Well written? Mmmm. It is good, but highly technical. While I acknowledge that this is a specialized article and most of its readers will likely come from a musical background, I think it could still be written with slightly more accessibility. A music sample, while not mandatory, would work wonders towards this end.

~~"chord progression comprising four" - "chord progression comprised of four"~~
~~" it is as old as the" - " it dates back to the " (the Renaissance is over, so that statement had a teeny logic issue)~~
~~"the centuries made it one of" - "the centuries has made it one of "~~
~~"may now most" - "may then most"~~
~~" in Ancient Greece existed a very " - " in Ancient Greece there existed a very "~~
~~"derived the Dorian mode" - "the Dorian mode was derived"~~
~~"One must not forget" - not really encyclopedic to address the reader or give admonishments~~
~~"out of a melodic pattern didn't take place" - "out of a melodic pattern likely didn't take place" - it's unlikely, but unproven and not impossible~~ (the author will rethink it out)
"Therefore, one can consider it as a trademark" - needs to be rephrased. Again "one" is bad. Also "can consider" - sounds like "you can believe this if you want to, or you can go and eat jellbeans" (i'm kidding, really :) ) Either state that this is a fact, or reference an authoritative source that believes this to be true. Also, the paragraph that begins "However, the mentioned structure..." should be merged with teh previous paragraph.
~~"the chords' structure" - "the chord's structure"~~
~~"proves more advanced knowledge in music theory" - "arose as a result of advancement in music theory."~~
~~The bullet that begins "the Andalusian cadence closely" has no references~~
~~"With this said, the Phrygian" - "This said, the Phrygian"~~

1b. Comprehensive? Doubtful, although I wouldn't know how to expand it.

1c. Factually accurate? I'm confident that it is, but it's hard to discern that since there are few inline citations or references.

1d. Neutral? Yes

1e. Stable? Yes

2. Complies with Manual of style and relevant WikiProjects?:

2a. Concise lead section? More of an itroduction to the topic and not actually a summary (which is what a Wikipedian lead is supposed to do. Read here for more info.

2b. Hierarchical headings? Yes

2c. Table of contents? Yes

2d. Sufficient inline citations?

~~Not a single inline citation and only one reference, which is simply (to be honest) unacceptable.~~
All inline citations should appear after terminal punctuation (eg - periods, commas, etc...)

3. Properly placed, tagged and/or rationalized images?: Yes

4. Appropriate length?: Very short. This might be a better good article candidate.

When these issues are addressed, note the changes here and notify me on my talk page. Thank you for your work so far. — Esprit15d 21:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Esprit15d, "comprised of" might not be the best there, as strict grammarians gnash their teeth at that particular phrase. The general rule of thumb is: the whole comprises parts while the parts compose the whole. They'd say that either "progression comprising four" (as before) or "progression is composed of four..." is correct. "Comprised of" is certainly gaining more acceptance, but "chord progression comprising four" would be more universally accepted than "chord progression comprised of four" at this point. 69.202.63.165 02:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Again, the article's main author. I've been working for five days now, almost without a pause, and fixed and added whatever was to be fixed and added. It's really difficult to extend the article more than it is now, without gracefully quiting the topic! And it is style that I've worked on, citations, attractivity (methinks), audio samples. Wikipedians, please vote for this article or at least leave comments and suggestions. Thank you again! (Impy4ever 21:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose, prose and MOS. The second sentence says "see below", indicating organizational attention needed to the lead, and e.g. and i.e. are in use in the lead no less (see WP:MOS). The lead has various parentheticals like this which don't convey a brilliance of prose. WP:MOSBOLD problems throughout, and we find the same parentheticals and go here-go there-see below prose in the body; the text needs better organization. Section headings could be revisited per WP:MSH. WP:DASH and WP:ITALICS problems (on foreign phrases). Attention needed on citation formatting, see WP:CITE/ES. All sources need a publisher, websources need last accessdate, author and publication date should be given when available, and a consistente format should be used. Suggest a peer review to get this article in shape for FAC candidacy. The prose is going to need sustained attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else struck my comments. Please read the instructions at WP:FAC; I've unstruck them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Poorly written, plus conceptual issues. By "descending chords", do you mean any set of descending chords, or a specific set? What are descending chords, anyway? Bass descending by step? Needs a proper definition at the top. Don't say "Note that". "Tie sign" = "Tie"? Surely en dashes to indicate chord progressions? Tony 05:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone struck parts of Tony's comments; pls read the instructions at WP:FAC and unstrike. Other editors' comments should never be struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As far as I know, British English prefers the "tie sign" phrase to just "tie". (Impy4ever 09:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. Why don't you try it, boss?, read a line in a certain video game. No really, it was obvious that my article couldn't make it to the FAs but it would really help if some of you opposers had me a couple of messages sent or added topics on the article's very talk page. You see, I'm quite a rigorous person, but at this point it is quite difficult to discern things when only my little Wikipedist experience is available. While you cope better than me with some issues (e.g. style), why not help after all? It'd take you a shorter amount of time to do it than it would to me. All in all, it's not my article, and it's not my "cause"; I guess all Wikipedians should show a little interest, since some are not off-topic. And please don't feel like biting! I think I've already done some work with this article, and I'm about to improve it, just do more than criticize. Please! (Impy4ever 05:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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 not promoted 04:56, 3 September 2007.

Chris Young (pitcher)

This article has been greatly expanded since being promoted to WP:GA. The intent of the expansion was to pursue WP:FA status. After much of the expansion was completed a cadre of concerned baseball editors took the article in a different direction (that I felt stripped it of its breadth). debate was contentious. This debate followed a one-on-one war with Ksy92003 in which he felt a much more terse version was better. I am by no means an expert at WP:FC, but everything I have nominated for promotion at WP:FAC (Campbell's Soup Cans & Chicago Board of Trade Building) or WP:FLC (All-Star Final Vote, List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry, List of Chicago Landmarks) has eventually been promoted. Basically, I pointed out that many of the changes were detracting from the WP:FA potential of the article which I feel based on my experience I have a good feel for. Soon thereafter, the warring stopped. I am very appreciative of the attention of the numerous eyes at WP:MLB because the article has been able to avoid WP:PROSELINE based on the help of the concerned parties. I believe the article is in good shape for a WP:FAC. However, I just noticed that Ksy92003 has some contentions on the use of the {{by}} template. I hope a very broad WP:FAC audience will have some advice on the direction the article is headed and should go. I do acknowledge the article is a detailed, heavily cited and lengthy article for a player at the stage of his career that Young is at now. However, this is the first internet era baseball All-Star I have seen at FAC. I.E., I have not seen any other players with significant cited detail of collegiate and minor league career at FAC. This could be the standard bearer of future such individuals. One thing that should be noted is that this article employs the philosophy that any individual game notable enough to be specifically mentioned is cited with either a box score or a game recap/summary if not both. I have chimed in on several other FACs about this philosophy for internet era biographies and in almost every case the requested box scores were added.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Chris Young most likely has a long career ahead of him that has just barely begun. This article will not be stable for a very long time. Furthremore, the format used by the article right now of providing year-by-year summaries will be completely unworkable once his career is over, meaning the form of the article will change significantly over time. The article also contains way to much trivia (height milestones, number of times he pitched eight shutout innings, ivy league tandems starting for same team, list goes on and on and on), the lead section contains his current DL status, which seems out of place for a lead item, each season section is more of a blow-by-blow of greatest hits rather than a summary account that puts these events in a larger context. I personally feel this article has a long way to go to be featured. A baseball player is more than a litany of starts and statistics. Indrian 10:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - In response to this statement "Chris Young most likely has a long career ahead of him that has just barely begun. This article will not be stable for a very long time." The youth of an article's subject is irrelevant to neither its qualification as a FA candidate nor the definition of article stability (which refers to current events and articles currently suffering from an edit war). Until someone is dead, they can always do something noteworthy that could potentially be added. While the other objections appear valid, all critique should be compared against the current state of the article.--Esprit15d 14:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this person has done almost nothing yet. With someone like Hugo Chavez, for instance, who was a featured article as president of Venezuela, you know he is going to do more things but you already have a vague idea as to his legacy. No one has ANY idea what Young's legacy is going to be. It is simply impossible to create a good encyclopedia article about Young right now that would contain enough good information for a featured article. Someone could surprise me and actually make such an article, but this is not it. It fails criteria 4 for not being in proper summary style. Furthermore because it is written in a "greatest hits" style this article has the potential to change on a day-by-day basis as he accumulates more stats and individual starts. That is the very essence of the stability requirement. Any article will change as new developments occur, but in baseball the new developments are constant. That would not be a problem if this article were written in true summary style, but the chosen format lends itself to constant change. It is just not written in the style of an encyclopedia article at all being just a litany of trivia and statistics. Indrian 19:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support (as nominator) I disagree with your interpretation of the stability article. Your philosophy would have us preclude articles of anyone who is expected to accomplish great things in the future from being FAs. For example, Barack Obama may be the first black U.S. President at some time in the future. This would be a very significant accomplishment and a presidency would drastically change the focus of his bio. Nonetheless, his promise of a great potential should not preclude his article from being a WP:FA. Similarly, if someone wanted to make Hilary Rodham Clinton a WP:FAC the fact that she may become the first female president should not preclude her from FA eligibility. A baseball fan understands that a pitcher who is successfully defending opponent batting average and hits per nine innings titles while adding earned run average and Walks plus hits per inning pitched leadership to his resume has done some things. His WP:LEAD covers his significant accomplishments very well. There is no WP:FAC rule that says a person has already fulfilled most of his promise to be eligible. Stability in the sense of FAC means that there is no current edit warring. It does not mean that the article looks pretty similar to what a good article on the same topic to look like 15 years from now. As far as the trivia goes. 15 years from now 50% of what is in the article now may be removed. However, that does not make the trivia uninteresting. It is incorporated into the text well as per current policy and that is what should be evaluated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the policy again. Stability means no current edit warring AND "content does not change significantly from day to day." Now this article can be written in a way that satisfies this second prong of the policy, but by chosing to put such emphasis on every start of every season you have created a situation where this article will be changing fairly constantly. By dividing the article by individual years, you have assured that the article will soon become too large and be subject to a fundamental change in structure. Your analogy above is a poor one. I guarantee you that if an article on one of the presidential candidates was FA quality right now and someone nominated it opposition would be overwhelming and consensus would be to wait until the election is over (and yes I know Obama is featured, but this happened back in 2004 when stability was not an issue). Chris Young can have an article now. He may even be able to have a featured article now. But the article that currently exists contains too much trivia, too little context, too little information on his life outside of baseball statistics, and not enough summary style. There are other gaps as well, it does not even give his pitch repretoire unless I missed it somewhere. I appreciate the work you have done here and think the article is on the right track over all, but next time please read the entire argument rather than sticking on one point and taking it out of context. Indrian 21:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't change day-to-day. In the current state of the article, the form its currently written in, the content doesn't "change" significantly; it's simply added to on an as-needed basis. And the trivia makes the article interesting. When I go to an article, I look for the history on the person and what about him makes him unique. And you can't deny that enough is said about a player who hasn't even played 4 complete seasons, yet he's an All-Star, made MLB history as being the pitcher who surrendered the first ever inside-the-park home run in All-Star Game history, is the 6th Ivy League All-Star, and has a lot of other historical first or tied other historical acheivements. And it seems like you're trying to say that a current athlete can't be a featured article. See Dominik Hasek. If his career ended tomorrow, would you say that the article isn't written well enough? The article isn't going to change for several years... it will only be added to; nothing will be changed. Ksy92003(talk) 21:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently someone else who cannot read. I will reprint and bold you a bit from above to make things easier for you. Chris Young can have an article now. He may even be able to have a featured article now. But the article that currently exists contains too much trivia, too little context, too little information on his life outside of baseball statistics, and not enough summary style. Hope that helps. Also, I am willing to work to get this article to featured status. It would involve some cuts and consolidation, but I am sure it could be molded to satisfy my objection. I am afraid if I were to try alone though, I would be accused of vandalism. If someone would like to work with me rather than complain, I am sure we can reach a compromise. That is what this process is all about. Indrian 21:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have looked at many of the bios at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Sport_and_recreational_activities. I would say that it is possible that in the future this article may take on the shape of Bill Russell (which it currently compares well to). Note that all of the FA bios I looked at including Martin Brodeur, Wayne Gretzky, Dominik Hašek, Sandy Koufax, & Michael Jordan have extensive chronological career summaries (not in violation of WP:SS. Because Young's career to date is short we can not have early, mid, and late career sections yet. Obama's article has survived multiple WP:FARs including one last month even though as a serious Presidential contender he is a different person than a as the Senatorial candidate he was when promoted to WP:FA. Note that he was promoted just a three months before the Senatorial elections. There was no consensus to wait and see the outcome of the election at that time. I have no reason to beleive a future WP:FAR would be successful (or unsuccessful based on your perspective since we really hope an article survives in general) if he wins the nomination. I don't really think you believe another FAR would result in demotion until after the election especially since he was promoted during one. As long as the article adheres to WP:PROSELINE it will survive summary style challenges. Young is uncontroversial. He has no failed marriages, tax evasion scandals, drug issues, or other skeletons that would make the article broader. Young has the potential to be a great power pitcher of his generation and to necessitate substantive additions to his article. This does not mean his article is ineligible. The fact that he continues to be undefeated since May 12 is part of the article that needs to be continually update. His major league leadership in various statistics needs to be monitored as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I see an unwillingness to compromise here. I have on my own initiative started a rewrite of the article at User:Indrian/Chris Young that you are more than welcome to look at and comment on. I have only done the first couple of sections so far, but you can see that I am a fairly light touch overall (though I may make some more drastic cuts at the Major League level). (Note: If you look at the article in the next few minutes it will look like I cut more than I actually did, some formatting issue is causing a lot of text not to show up, it is still there though). The article stands at 53K right now, which is over the recommended limit even for an FA and unecessary for a person of YOung's comparable importance. As I said before, your research foundation is solid, and I think my objections can be overcome, but you need to meet me halfway here. I am sure there is a compromise to be reached. Indrian 22:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for his pitch repertoire. I will watch for your version and compare.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE After visiting three Borders Books locations this week, I finally got a hold of "Guide to Pitchers: An Historical Compendium of Pitching, Pitchers, and Pitches" (ISBN 0743261585) by Rob Neyer and Bill James. I had hoped for some missing details (from the online update), but realized that the reason for the online update was that the book was published in 2004 before Young was a major league pitcher. Thus, there is no real detail about his repertoire. If you have any other source ideas let me know. I will continue to scour the internet for clues. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Please remember that this is a first cut at it and that I may end up removing too much. I am sure we can get somewhere in the middle of what we both see as the "ideal" article. Indrian 22:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far I can see that one might prefer not to note specific games as his career evolves. Is it necessary to remove such detail now. Removing it serves the 2nd level of reader mentioned at Wikipedia:Summary_style#Levels_of_desired_details at a cost to the 3rd level of reader. For the level two reader you have done a great job of editing. Who are we targeting with the article? Deciding which version of the Chris_Young_(pitcher)#Collegiate_career section obtains will set the tone for the whole article. Let's just focus on that.

Also, I disagree with your changes to the third paragraph of the lead. I think the level one reader would want to see the removed content. I agree with your other change which I was going to make on Thursday when he comes off the DL. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Young important? That is what the lead is about. Young is important for his on-field accomplishments. He would be just as important if he had not gone to an Ivy League school. The lead sets the tone for his accomplishments, the Ivy League facts can (and do) come later in the article. I feel the specific games are a problem, however, and this is one of my main complaints with the article. They do not provide much insight into his career and serve to clutter the article. I am willing to drop my other objection of too little context outside of his baseball stats entirely if we can work out these other issues. Also, you have convinced me that stability is not an issue, leaving only my criteria 4 complaints. Specific games I am willing to talk about, but if too many specific games are left in, I cannot in good consience end my opposition. Anyway, the first pass is done now. Keep in mind that I almost certainly took too much out at the moment since this was a first pass. Also, some of the references may have inadvertently gone wonky. I am willing to discuss any specific cut you would like to, though I recommend we move the discussion to the talk page of my redesign so as not to overly clutter things here. Indrian 23:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I think the argument comes down to the WP:SS issue that you raise. Whereas, all the other retired or nearly retired FAs are at a point where due to length they must shift from level 3 reader format to level 2 reader format, I do not believe Young is at that point. I do not believe that almost any athlete needs to have single season articles (except Bonds may deserve a 2007 season article for the level 3 reader) for every season. None of Young's seasons to date are important enough for such coverage. Thus when any season gets cut from level 3 detail to level 2 detail, we are sort of going to lose the detail. Thus, I do not support removal of most of the content that would take the article to level 2 detail. I don't think the current length exceeds that of other athlete bio FAs, so there is no need to reduce the article to level 2 detail. WP:SS seems to suggest going to level 2 as needed. It is not needed here. Also to say that Young is important for his on field accomplishments is like saying Obama or Clinton are important for their ideologies. Young's Ivy league status contributes to his importance much like Obama's race and Clinton's gender. P.S. let's keep the debate here for the record where it is most easily found.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The overall debate should stay here, but if we do this right we will be pouring over a large number of small changes to reach an equilibrium, and that would clog this page. I do not feel the Ivy League stuff is significant enough for the lead. It is still in the article, which is fine. Featured Articles need to represent our best work. Most of the information on individual games does not help gain a better understanding of the subject. It is indulgent to keep them all. A featured article is not something where we put stuff in because we can, it is a place where we put stuff in that we should. If in the context of his entire career at some later date these games are not important, then they are also not important now. As I stated before, I will discuss and compromise on individual games as I no doubt made some mistakes in my trimming, but compromise comes from both sides and I hope you will give up a few of these games too in the interest of getting this done. Indrian 23:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before getting into individual games, do you agree that based on length there is no need to convert from level 3 reader details to level 2 reader details at this time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the question and hope that this is the answer you need. Chris Young's career has been brief enough that a single article will be able to include all the necessary details, so yes, we can have what you call level 3 details. I think our disagreement though is not about level 3 versus level 2 but about what facts are needed at level 3 as opposed to facts that are not needed at all. I am open to being convinced as to why a certain game adds greater understanding to his career, but I am currently of the opinion that the ones I removed (and I did not remove all of them) are not needed at any level. Indrian 18:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are we going to do business here or what? I have gone out of my way to compromise, even agreeing to drop my comprehensiveness objection (just look at the biographies at the SABR Baseball Biography project for an idea of how much life outside of baseball information it is possible to accumulate on all those players that never made a controversial headline) if we can work out the summary style issues and working overtime to create my own version of the article for further discussion, but there has been little communication from TonyTheTiger indicating a willingness to do the grunt work required to get through this. His below comments about not wanting to fix dashes himself also indicates an unwillingness to take the necessary action on objections to get this thing to featured status. You submitted this to FAC, so you need to take care of some of these objections if you are serious about FA status. If I have not heard from you by this evening Eastern Standard Time, I am going to start implementing some of the changes from my revised version into the actual article. I will not put them all in without further discussion, but I imagine that if my objection here will not get your attention, a few good-faith changes to the article will. Indrian 12:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After rereading Wikipedia:Summary_style#Rationale several times, here is my understanding of the level three reader who "lot of detail on one or more aspects of the topic": I would say that each section should be analyzed with the mindset that a level 3 reader would really want a WP:GA on this section alone. Is there anything in this section that would not be desirable in a Good Article dedicated to the aspect of the article covered by this section. I object to most of your removals based on this standard. Does this standard seem reasonable. Thus, for any season where you wish to remove individual games ask yourself if I were to write a Good article on this season of Young's career would I remove this game from the article. I also think that it will be about three more years before we are pressed to begin to convert from level three to level two detail on this subject.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would not have a GA on an individual season of Young's career because it would most likely go to AfD and come away with a vote of merge. Your refusal to grasp this basic fact of wikipedia article construction is the miscommunication we are having. An encyclopedia article never goes down to that level of detail because it destroys the summary nature that makes something an encyclopedia article to begin with. Tonight I am going to start making changes. Since you are not going to work with me to pick what is most important to you of what I cut I will try my best to form the compromise on my own and I will not implement every change I made on the temp page. The article has to much minutiae to be a good FA right now and I will try to rectify some of that. Indrian 17:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question season by season articles of Young would and should be merged. The point is that the level of detail of a separate article should be retained until the aggregate article is too long and requires the type of editing you are proposing. I would prefer you create a level 3 reader article at the user page you have been using to lessen the edit resolution. Right now, I believe an editor should look at the article as if six articles (College Career, Minor League Career, and each major league season) plus some stubs need to be written. The proper detail level should be assessed on each section as if it were an article with an encyclopedic purpose of describing that aspect of the article. E.g., if someone were looking on WP to find information about Young's Minor league career what would you leave in there. I think it will be about 3 more years before the article needs to get cut to level 2 details.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the consolidation of the college career section (which would be a single topic as I mentioned in my argument above). It looks better this way. However, there is little doubt in my mind that if I wanted to read about Chris Youngs college career, I would want to know what his best games were. Thus, I oppose your removal of his career high game and his freshman season high game. I am going to reinsert these two games in this section.

Support I'm actually going against the opinion that I held a couple months ago, which was that I didn't think it'd become a Featured Article, and I do support the FAC. However, I'd like to point out that Chris Young is a pitcher who has played for 4 years. He hasn't won any league awards, World Series titles, or any sort of reward that gives a player much attention in the baseball world. There is a lot more information on him on his article than a lot of other people have on theirs. Mind he only has played for less than 4 seasons. If he has a lengthy career (15 seasons) then of course all that information will need to be shortened down. But that's not something to concern ourselves about now. Currently, the article is of great length and detail. I am a huge baseball/sports fan and am pretty knowledgeable about most of the players currently in the game, in my time (started following baseball in real depth in about 2000). But this is the first season that I've ever heard anything about this Chris Young (not to be confused with the Arizona Diamondbacks' center fielder Chris B. Young. But I came here, and I was glad to see that there was a lot of information about this player, more than I would expect Young to put in an autobiography. I think there still is too much information than is absolutely necessary, but I don't think I can in clear conscience say that the article, in its current state, provides enough detailed information to inform anybody of the success that Young has had at the college and minor league level. Again, I'm a huge baseball fan and I haven't even ever heard of this guy until I came here, and this article... TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) did a great job to inform me about a great baseball player by describing his entire career, and now I know a lot about him. And I think that if any article can do that, if an article about a baseball player can inform a die-hard baseball fan about a player as well as TonyTheTiger has written it, then it definitely should be a Featured Article. Ksy92003(talk) 17:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes needed. There are substantial WP:DASH problems throughout the article; almost every possible misuse of dash and hyphen is there at least once. Because sports articles are dash and hyphen heavy, tedious cleanup work is needed. Also, per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSLINK, I don't see justification for all of the baseball year links to solo years if those articles don't have information relevant to Chris Young in particular. Solo years shouldn't be linked (even to baseball years) unless the linked article provides context relevant to this article. There are significant uncited statements, example: Moe Berg was the last former Princeton player to do either. ~~What is the source for his career stats? This sentence needs further explanation: Young has been traded three times in his career partly because of the velocity of his fastball, ...~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried to cleanup the relevance of the velocity of his fastball.
- Since there are only a half dozen or so Princeton Major League Baseball players, the source for the Moe Berg claim is www.baseball-reference.com and one-by-one checking. Chris_Young_(pitcher)#Career_statistics has always had a citation. See the citation.
  - That's the definition of original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, there are a much more Princeton players than you realize. If you look at [1], you'll see that in MLB history there have been 24 Princeton players, 12 of them who are pitchers. So the "half dozen" number is 25% the real amount. However, looking at this page, you'd see that only Moe Berg and Dutch Sterrett have hit a HR, and Sterrett last played in 1913. Berg first played in 1923, so this proves that the Berg claim is true, as far as HR. The other players with a stolen base, Homer Hillebrand, Dutch Meier, Ted Reed, Sterrett, and Bobby Vaughn... the latest any of those 3 players has played was 1915 (Reed and Vaughn). Again, Berg had 11 stolen bases in his career, which began in 1923. While it isn't written in stone that Berg was the last Princeton player to do either, you have to put the pieces together and you'll be able to see that Berg was the most recent Princeton player to accomplish either feat. So I don't think it's original research because there is evidence which supports Berg being the most recent Princeton player to accomplish either feat. Ksy92003(talk) 07:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking briefly at other articles it seems that context of the goings on in baseball is important. Most baseball bios seem to use YYYY in baseball because someone researching a player of a given era will want the context of important happenings of that era in the sport. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do I have to fix the WP:DASH myself? I can't stand paying attention to that type stuff. I made every mistake one would make if one were not thinking about the proper use precisely because dashes are not as important to me as they should be. I'll hope someone who likes to make those fixes comes by before the end of the weekend or I will begrudgingly do them myself if I can find them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You could ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his dash script, but he's still perfecting it, it misses things, and you'd still have to run through them manually when he's done, so it may be better to do it yourself (because of the variety of errors). I'm not sure his script is perfected to the point (yet) that it will get everything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from User_talk:TonyTheTiger for consensus) I was looking throughout the Chris Young article, and the latter picture of Young delivering a pitch (exclude the image of him batting) looks rather small. Is it in any possible if that image can be upgraded to show Chris Young more? In other words, is it possible in any way to zoom in on Chris Young for that one image? The caption says "Chris Young during deilvery", but with the current state of that particular image, it is a little difficult to actually see Young throwing the ball. Is there any way that this image could be adjusted so Young is focused on more so it could be easier for us to actually see him delivering? The proportion of the image is fine as seen from Image:20070616 Chris Young visits Wrigley (8).JPG, but when the image is shrunk to fit in the article, it's a little difficult to see him really clearly. Ksy92003(talk) 19:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from User_talk:Ksy92003 for consensus)I am weakly against cropping the image because the flavor of Wrigley Field would be lost. Let's bring it the the FAC and see what others think though. I would go with consensus.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from User_talk:TonyTheTiger for consensus) I'm not really convinced that the historical significance of Wrigley Field adds any significance to the picture. I'm not arguing against that, but I wouldn't use that as a reason as to not cropping the image. You say "the flavor of Wrigley Field would be lost." I'm sorry, but personally I fail to see how the ballpark affects the image... the image was taken of Chris Young, and I'm not convinced that the background of Wrigley Field needs to be shown. However, the image is yours, and you're free to do whatever you want with it. And although you released the image to the public domain, I don't feel that I should have any right to adjust your image. If you feel the image is good as is, then that's fine. I still hold the opinion that the image could be improved by cropping to focus more on Chris Young, but I feel that you, as the photographer, should make whatever decisions you wish for this image. Ksy92003(talk) 07:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had not even paid attention to the picture until this started up. As it stands, that picture needs to be cropped and refocused on Young. The picture in the heading should focus on the subject of the article, which is not Wrigley Field. Even if the sweep of the image were appropriate, it still needs to be cropped, as overrunning the lead section with the info box in this way is not aesthetically appealing and should be avoided if possible, which I think it is in this case. Young is not even properly centered in the shot. Don't get me wrong; I think it is a very nice picture as is, but it should not be the main view of Young for this article. Indrian 01:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I believe that, as well... well of course, I'm the one who brought up the comment. I think that Young does need to be focused more in this image; Wrigley Field doesn't mean anything in this image, which was the reason TonyTheTiger gave for why he wasn't in favor of cropping the image, but I feel that it's quite necessary. Ksy92003(talk) 01:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main picture should not be cropped because it is used in several other pages where the background is important. Click on the image and look toward the bottom to see the pages such as bullpen and starting pitcher where cropping would cause problems. The picture at issue can be cropped, but like I said I was weakly against it. If people want to crop the picture at issue that is fine. The main image (a WP:FPC should not be cropped).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you crop the picture at issue you could swap positions with the main image if that is preferable. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree somewhat with Indrian on stabilty, the article is 55 KB long and he only pitched a couple of seasons. The prose is fairly weak because it's way over detailed, needs a good trimming and copyediting as well. The no-hitter paragraph is a perfect example. Are info like "The Padres are joined by the New York Mets, Colorado Rockies and Tampa Bay Devil Rays as the only franchises who have never pitched no-hitters" needed? Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Stability is a very tough thing to argue about. It is sort of a WP:CRYSTAL argument saying I don't like the article because my crystal ball tells me it is going to be very different in the future in a way that is difficult to edit. I don't know how to argue against a crystal ball on future editorial difficulties any better than I have above. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 03:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You have chosen one of the few sentences that does not stand up to the section by section necessity tests. I will remove that sentence. Please note any others that you think are similarly superfluous with respect to the needs of the typical level 3 reader discussed above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 05:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't that one of the sentences I had originally removed? I remember it was; you must've readded it, TonyTheTiger. Ksy92003(talk) 05:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty. That was before gaining an understanding of WP:SS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI agree with 3 of Jaranda's 4 August 11 edits. I think the fact that Young is part of one of two Ivy league tandems in the last 50 years ~~MLB history~~ is an interesting piece of trivia that should be in the article somewhere. Where it was seemed correct.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~—Support. 1a and breaches of MOS.
- Main units must be spelt out on first appearance, and thereafter unless there's consensus among the contributors. (I see no discussion on the talk page.)
  Resolved
  – I took care of ERA. Let me know if you see other instances--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "currently"—Read MOS on Precise language (Chronological items). Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "he bounced around in the Pirates"—what does that mean? Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "undefeated road games started streak to twenty-four"—I don't know the topic, but is this correct? Looks ungrammatical.
  - I have tried to clear this up. If it is still unclear I will write an article for road (sports), which means games played at location which is not the teams home venue. Let me know if this is necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "twenty-four"—MOS says that numbers 10 and over are normally expressed in digits.
  - Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Spelling_out_numbers] says this is a stylistic choice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "3-1"—No, MOS says en dash.
- Instead of subtitles "High school career" and "Collegiate career", why not simplify to "High school" and "College"? Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "ERA"—Huh? Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "in two sports—basketball and baseball — and was a unanimous selection for both awards". One em dash is unspaced (as MOS says to do it); the other is spaced. I hope he wasn't the only one to receive those awards; if so, "the", not "a".
  - Like I said before, I am not a dash guy, but will struggle through the fixes on Monday if nobody else comes to the rescue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done Looks like someone got the —es and I did some –es--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are just a small sample at random of why this text is quite unsatisfactory. Tony 11:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SUMMARY It seems that most points of objection are based on the following:

1.)Future editorial difficulties based on the fact that Young is young and has a long career ahead of him. The following are s of

currently active politicians: Tom Brinkman (with a {{Future election candidate}} tag), Bruce Johnson, Bob McEwen, Barack Obama also with {{Future election candidate}}, Jean Schmidt

currently active athletes: Martin Brodeur, Paul Collingwood, Adam Gilchrist, Dominik Hašek, Waisale Serevi, Gilberto Silva

currently active athletes (under the age of 30):Cynna Kydd, Kevin Pietersen, CM Punk, Harbhajan Singh

currently active sports franchises: Arsenal F.C., Aston Villa F.C., Central Coast Mariners FC, Chelsea F.C., Chicago Bears, Derry City F.C., Everton F.C., Gillingham F.C., Ipswich Town F.C., Leek Town F.C., Manchester City F.C., Margate F.C., New England Patriots, New Jersey Devils, Norwich City F.C., Sheffield Wednesday F.C., Sydney Roosters, Toronto Raptors, York City F.C.

All of these will have continuing editorial issues related to keeping the article current.

P.S. Oddly, I do not see any FAs of ongoing Western Hemisphere business entities at Category:FA-Class business and economics articles. Indian Railways and Bank of China (Hong Kong) are probably in need of editing to be more current. However, the problem with each of these (based on reading only the lead) is that they are not being updated. The concern with Young is that too much current info may cause a WP:PROSELINE problem. I am unsure why no Western Hemisphere businesses have been promoted to FA and none are even A-Class, but there are several Category:GA-Class business and economics articles that I think should be eligible despite ongoing editing needs to keep them current.

2.) Level of detail. As pointed out above WP:SS, especially Wikipedia:Summary_style#Levels_of_desired_details, suggest that there are varying desired levels of detail for various readers. It also points out a policy whereby we do not toss out details and reduce detail level as necessitated by space concerns. Right now this article has the space to target higher detail levels than many FAs, but it does not have a significant amount of superfluous info given the targetted level of detail.

3.) Copy editing. I have done my best this weekend.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments, I corrected the dashes I could find (there may be more); it's important to become familiar with WP:DASH and WP:HYPHEN when writing sports articles. An independent copyedit is still needed, for example: "He has yet to either hit a home run or recorded a stolen base." I am still concerned about original research, example: "Three other current and previous pitchers—Randy Johnson, Andrew Sisco, and Eric Hillman—are also 6 ft 10 in (2.08 m)." Going through baseball-reference.com and picking out info isn't guaranteed correct, and seems like original research. Has a reliable source stated these are the only 6-10 pitchers? Still the same for the Moe Berg comment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The example you pointed to occurred because when I tried to make this edit, I made this one accidentally. The Moe Berg comment is now sourced to a single WP:RS as opposed to my page by page compilation as noted above. I am not sure about the height. I will post a message with the contributing editor for this edit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE I thought I would call people's attention to a new formatting technique being employed in the Chris_Young_(pitcher)#Career_statistics section borrowed from Barry Bonds. I think this may be an acceptable use of copyright logos, but not sure.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of logos we are going to go with team colors so the issue is fairly unimportant now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article can really use some trimming of those blue links. Solo years and months do not need to be linked. "Baseball" and "basketball" are linked at least three times each. "No-hitter" is linked three times, twice in two consecutive sentences. Strikeout is linked three times. I would imagine most readers know what "championship" and "right-handed" means. And then, there are terms that are linked after they have been introduced earlier (where they weren't linked), like "walk", "hit", and "innings". If links are needed, please place them when the terms are introduced. Finally, you might want to consider expanding the lead to include a summary of his pitching style as well. 69.202.63.165 20:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:
- "Young was drafted by the Pittsburgh Pirates in the 3rd round of the 2000 amateur draft.[16] Young was signed to a deal on September 6, 2000." That was already said in the previous section.
- "After a few years of minor league service, he was traded to the Montreal Expos’ organization." Surely you can tell us exactly how many.
- "Young has been traded three times in his career partly because of the low velocity of his fastball, which is in the 85–90 mph (136.8–144.8 km/h) range and which did not give his employers an indication of his likely effectiveness." Unit conversion does not comply with WP:MOSNUM.
- Same thing goes for this sentence: "His curveball is a slow curveball and his 90 mph (144.8 km/h) fastball has been described by former teammate and catcher Mike Piazza as having late life and late movement that seems to jump"--Carabinieri 00:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted 04:56, 3 September 2007.

Runcorn

previous FAC

Since the previous nomination, all the comments made have been addressed: sections have been modified where appropriate; the article has been reorganised according to the recently revised advice in Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements; and the whole article has been copy-edited. Peter I. Vardy 16:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is an excellent article, and the issues I raised in the previous FAC have been addressed in full. Rebecca 05:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It looks like a good article, though it suffers in places from a stilted prose style, with sequences of choppy sentences and repetitive sentence structure. I am perplexed to find - under the heading Physical Geography - a description of transportation routes, housing density, and distribution of industry. It might be nice to add a little more about the New Town, particularly as the original architectural projects (1967-1977) were designed by James Stirling, a world-renowned architect; these housing complexes were torn down in the 1990s and replaced by a new New Town. The history involved is interesting and is presumably of some significance to the area. Pinkville 17:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- 1) Since the last nomination the article has been fully copy-edited (by a former professor of English) and in the process many sentences were split. 2) Including details of the built environment in "Geography" is in line with the advice given in Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. 3) During the previous nomination the excessive size of the "History" section was criticised, so it was reduced. To add what is suggested would lengthen it again. And would it be possible to give advice for relevant sources for this information? I could write it with my own knowledge (I lived through it) but would be unable to give citations and it would not be written from a NPOV. 3a) Last time the capitalization of "New Town" was criticised. Peter I. Vardy 21:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - 1) Most of the article flows well, but, for example, the paragraph describing monuments and sculptures could probably be refined so as to avoid such dry lamenesses as: There is public sculpture in the town. 2) The geography that is described is not "physical geography", it is some version of "human geography" - and apart from the housing density and distribution of industry, I don't believe a numeration of expressways qualifies as "geography" in any meaningful sense. 3) I'm only suggesting a couple of sentences - and furthermore, one doesn't limit content merely because of some arbitrary proscription: if there's interesting and pertinent content to add, add it. I'm happy to provide a couple of referenced sentences to add what I know on the subject. 3a) I wasn't making any point about the capitalisation of "New Town", though, of course, the term has no specific meaning in any context but the UK, and so capitalisation seems reasonable. Pinkville 01:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - 1) The reference to public sculpture has been deleted. It is of no importance in the town and I cannot find citations for it. It was only included because the old (now obsolete) guidelines advised its inclusion. 2) The heading "Physical geography" has been deleted so that human geography can be included. The expressways are not enumerated; of the five named expressways only the Central Expressway has been included. And this is to act as a reference line from which to name and locate the old settlements and the new areas which physically constitute the town. 3) Two sentences have been added to describe Stirling's unfortunate development in the new town. Peter I. Vardy 08:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Looks good, and the geography section is certainly better. Just a stray thought, wouldn't the following be a more pertinent and amusing excerpt from the Runcorn Ferry:

Now Runcorn lay over on one side of stream,

And Widnes on t'other side stood,

And, as nobody wanted to go either place,

Well, the trade wasn't any too good.

Or maybe that's just me... :~) Pinkville 13:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I was too sleepy (for other reasons) to go through this, so started at the bottom, and quickly found that the bibliography wasn't in alphabetical order. So I sorted that out. The arrangement within each bibliography entry strikes me as a little odd, but it makes sense so that's fine. A handful of the items are a bit underexplained by pedantic standards, but all but one (which I've marked with a nasty template) are OK. ¶ Then I jumped to the top, and there read: .Its population in 2004 was 61,252.<ref name="pop2004">Halton Borough Council:Halton Population. Accessed 3 April 2007</ref> Excuse me for making a point, but this strikes me as ludicrous. It's pretty obvious to me that with a population of this scale, people were rapidly being born, moving in, moving out and dying. Thus (i) the figure is unlikely to be accurate to the last person whenever it was made, and (ii) the figure is likely to have been different a week before or later. I did not bother to check this at www2.halton.gov.uk, as I'm pretty sure that it's there: it's the kind of thing that websites, even "serious" ones with content supplied by earnest, educated adults, solemnly say. However, WP doesn't have to propagate the sillier details of its sources. I suggest instead over 61 thousand. -- Hoary 14:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Thanks for the comments and for arranging the bibliography into alphabetical order — I didn't realise this is how it should be done (Wikipedia is a learning experience!). The Helsby reference is a booklet which contains no details of publication and no date (hence "n.d."). It consists of reminiscences rather than scholarship so I have deleted it. 2) I agree the precise population figure is a nonsense: it is taken from the website and is a mid–year estimate. I have amended the sentence to reflect this. Peter I. Vardy 16:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having slept on it, I have again changed the lead. The "precise" number has been reinstated with the qualification that this is an estimate. This reflects accurately what the source says without attempting any interpretation — and I think it now makes sense. "About" and "over" are words too vague to use at the start of the lead, in my opinion. Peter I. Vardy 09:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Sub-professional writing. Here are some of the problems in the lead, which indicate that the whole article needs considerable copy-editing.
Second sentence: en dash where a hyphen should be. Read MOS.
- MOS breach concerning conversion precision: "16 miles (22.5 km)".
- Overlinking: dictionary terms such as quarrying, shipbuilding, engineering ... they're not piped to focused, relevant articles, so why?
- Ungainly repetition: "the prime industries were the chemical industry". Then "industry" × 2 in the following two sentences.
- "A new town was built to the east of the existing town in the 1960s and 1970s. Farther to the east, areas of private housing have been established.[5] This has resulted in a doubling of the population of the town ..."—Remove "of the town". Does "This" refer to the previous one or two sentences? Do you mean: "A new town was built to the east of the existing town in the 1960s and 1970s, and farther to the east, areas of private housing have been established;[5] this has resulted in a doubling of the population of the town ...". And does ref 5 refer to one or two statements? We need precision at WP.
- ""there has been little integration of these two communities; at present there are separate ... bus stations"—Wow.
- The last sentence of the lead is aggressively ordinary, and also also contains a redundant also. Tony 14:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Above points addressed, other than a further round of copy-editing. Peter I. Vardy 13:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let me know when that has been done. Tony 10:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is lots of well-organised and well-referenced information here; however, I felt further improvement was still possible.
- I felt that the article was under-illustrated. The middle section in particular has several screenfuls without images. There are lots of relevant geographic images at Geograph which could be inserted. Another historical graphic would be valuable. It might also be interesting to include an image of one of the notable Runcorn people.
- A sketchmap would be interesting.
- Is anything more known about the history? That section felt rather abbreviated to me.
- The culture section felt a bit thin, and focused on very recent film/tv &c. For example, is there any reference to Runcorn in literature? Any famous paintings of the city?
- I agree with those who state the article needs another round of copy editing, to amalgamate a profusion of rather choppy short sentences and to tighten some bland prose. The widespread misuse of the n-dash where there should be a hyphen also needs removing. Espresso Addict 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The following have been addressed: more images added, including a notable person; history section expanded with a graphic; inappropriate n-dashes replaced with hyphens (I think I have found them all). The culture section reflects the thinness of Runcorn culture — I am not aware of any references in literature (other than Albert Ramsbottom) or of any paintings of note. Peter I. Vardy 21:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sketchmap also now included (with thanks to the author). Peter I. Vardy 17:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Further round of copyediting requested. Peter I. Vardy 17:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now:
- "Political representation" section starts in 1832. How about before that?
- Why is there all this information about roads, bridges, and railway lines in the "Geography" section? That belongs under "Transportation".--Carabinieri 01:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Political representation – ~~will try to find out~~. Done. Peter I. Vardy 11:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia says that Transportation geography is a branch of Urban geography, itself a branch of Human geography. Peter I. Vardy 10:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - - But why is there a "Transport" section, but also information about transportation in the "Geography" section. Considering what you wrote, it might make sense to mave "Transport" into "Geography".--Carabinieri 19:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements advises sections on both "Geography" and "Transport". Geography's a funny subject and some people advise it no longer exists as a separate discipline. So there are bound to be overlaps. I've tried to describe the "geographicial" parts of the transportation system of the town in one place and the "nitty-gritty" of bus timetables and such like in another. Different people will have different opinions. I think it sort of works. Maybe you don't. One thing I have learnt about Wikipedia in the short time I've been involved is that consistency is not one of its merits (yet). If you follow one person's advice, someone else will criticise you for doing it. It keeps us all conscious, I suppose. Peter I. Vardy 19:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, 2, unformatted citations, publishers not identified. Pls format the citations correctly. Examples can be found at WP:CITE/ES. All sources need a publisher, all websources need a last accessdate, date and author should be given when available. As long as this article has been at FAC, citations should be formatted by now. 00:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs)
- Book citations reformatted. This article has been through a peer review and a previous FAC; I am amazed that such a basic "error" should not have been pointed out to me earlier. I think all the websources are OK – if you spot any that are not please specify them. Peter I. Vardy 10:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not :-) Sources still aren't identified. Examples only (almost all need to be fixed):
    - Runcorn and Widnes Weekly News, accessed April 27, 2007
      - has a publisher, but no date, author, or article title, when in fact, all are available. Should the link go dead, you are only telling the reader something was published at some unspecified time under some unknown title by an unknown author in the Runcorn Weekly news. How will a reader locate the article? It should look contain all of these pieces (you don't have to use the cite template):
    - Bettley, Dave (April 26, 2007). "Linnets aim for new home after promotion". Runcorn Weekly News. icCheshireOnline. Retrieved 2007-04-27.
  - Another example:
    - ^ Dfes Primary Schools 2006, accessed July 4, 2007
  - should include:
    - "Primary School (Key Stage 2) Achievement and Attainment Tables 2006, LA : Halton". Department for Children, Schools and Families. Retrieved 2007-07-04.
  - All sources need accurate title, identification of publisher, and author and publication date when that is available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the advice. I have changed all I can find giving info on authors, publishers and dates. Peter I. Vardy 16:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I just had another look, and most of them are still lacking publishers. Here's one example only:
        ^ Selwyns. Retrieved on June 28, 2007
      - It's actually Selwyns Transport Solutions: About Us—Profile, published by Selwyns Travel Ltd. Most are still not done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        More done. Peter I. Vardy 13:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Now that we can see your sources, we can discuss their reliability. For example:
- ^ Bullock, Ross (February 7, 2005). Some History of Norton Priory and Runcorn. Retrieved on March 27, 2007.
is a personal website; what makes it a reliable source? And, since the statement it sources has another citation, why do we need this source? Pls review all sources to make sure they meet RS. Also, glancing at the lead only, I see overlinking. Please review WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSLINK. Most English-speaking readers know what soap is and it need not be linked; review throughout and delink common terms that don't provide specific context to this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- You raise an interesting point. The problem is local knowledge. I know the authors of both sites. Ross Bullock is the local expert on Norton Priory; he has been closely involved with the project since excavations began in 1970, is a trustee and is the person who is always asked to give talks about the site. His website may not be the most exciting to look at but I can assure you that its contents are thorough and reliable. On the other hand the "official" site is at present an "in preparation" page. In its last incarnation it was flashy, contained much less hard information than Bullock's website and was aimed at attracting visitors rather than providing the sort of information required by an encyclopaedia. I thought of not including the "official" website as a link, but sooner or later someone else will add it. The solution is to expand the current article on Norton Priory, which I intend to do in time, but until then I should like to keep the link.

- You are right about too much internal linking; this was done in my early Wiki days (poor excuse). I will go through and delete what I consider to be superfluous links. Peter I. Vardy 15:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was hoping to see an improvement, so I took this excerpt at random:

There has been an increase in the number of households from 47,214 in 1991 to 52,501 in 2006. The average household size has fallen from 2.70 in 1991 to 2.44 in 2001. In 1991, 75.8% of houses were centrally heated, compared with 89.8% in 2001. The type of housing has also changed, with an increase from 15.5% to 19.2% in detached houses from 1991 to 2001, an increase over the same years in semi-detached houses from 30.0% to 33.0%, and a corresponding decrease in terraced houses from 44.0% to 37.5%.[45] The percentage of dwellings in council tax bands A-B is, at 69%, the highest in any Cheshire local authority. The percentages in bands E-F (8%) and G-H (1%) are the lowest.

- Verbose first sentence; try "The number of households increased from 47,214 in 1991 to 52,501 in 2006." Remove "has" from the second sentence. Remove "corresponding". "Bands A and B"? In --> for. "Authority" --> "government area", or whatever the unit is called. Deal with the remaining two hyphens.

Not good. Still oppose. Tony 04:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- You are right: there has been no substantial change to the text because I am awaiting a second round of copyediting (see above). The previous round (and the peer review) failed to notice the verbosity and other faults, and made the prose "choppy". I look forward to an improvement that will satisfy all. Peter I. Vardy 13:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted 04:56, 3 September 2007.

Bughouse chess

Self nomination. In the past months this article has been totally rewritten. It is currently A-class, and I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Content wise, I had it proofread by several expert bughouse players. Voorlandt 06:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please cite the paragraph "Communication", preferably from an official rulebook. HansHermans 21:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for your comment, I have added a reference now.Voorlandt 05:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Needs more info about history of the game and competitive bughouse.

I agree that ideally, the history section would be longer. Unfortunately this information is not available, at least without doing original research. The closest I got was an email from Jeremy Graham, who was the founder of the Bughouse Newsletter in 1990. All he could tell me would here be classified as speculation (he gave me 3 possible origins, all in the US). I personally believe that bughouse was invented somewhat simultaneously around the 1960s (a date which he could confirm to me). It appears to have popped up all over the world. Some indication that this might be true is that bughouse is called Hungarian chess in Argentinia; Swedish chess in Russia; Polish chess in the Netherlands and Holland chess in the Czech Republic. It is all speculation, and most important, I don't have a single reference on the history of bughouse, except for the encyclopaedia of chess variants. I have written to several people and nobody could give me an answer, let alone a reference to show for it. Note that the dutch wikipedia says it was invented by the dutch! It is all speculation. Voorlandt 07:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no History section. Write a History section. Just one sentence saying "the history of bughouse chess is unknown, but there are a few legends" then two paragraphs about the legends is enough. Of course, if there's more info, add more info. --Kaypoh 12:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Even that I cannot do. I repeat: to my knowledge (and I did quite a bit of research), there is not a single written source on the history of bughouse, unless you count speculation in private emails. I simply can't add them without breaking WP:OR. I am marking this done because there really is nothing me or anyone else can do about this. Voorlandt 09:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would you want to see more on competitive bughouse? More detail on the given tournaments (like past winners, etc), or would you rather see a larger list of tournaments? Voorlandt 07:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the world champion and leading players? How are tournaments organised? What is the FIDE of bughouse chess? What are the differences between competitive and non-competitive bughouse? So many questions not answered. You can add more tournaments to the list if the tournaments are really important. --Kaypoh 12:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these suggestions. I have added answers to the first 3 of these questions, and it is good to have them in the article. It is however not the wealth of information you were probably expecting. For instance, there is no equivalent of FIDE for bughouse, therefore there is not that much I can say about it. However I did divide the tournaments in two sections: those organised by national chess federations and those privately organised; which makes that section more clear imo. Voorlandt 11:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please reference second paragraph of "Online" section. Don't use "your partner". --Kaypoh 10:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DoneVoorlandt 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good. --Kaypoh 12:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I hate doing this - as I was the one whose support for the A-class rating meant it got through, and I feel it does satisfy most of the FAC - but per Kaypoh I can't fully support it - as I've said before, the history section needs more depth. Compare this article to the main chess one and there's a huge quality gulf - even accepting the fact that an article as hugely in depth as the chess one is impossible with a variation like this. Fix Kaypoh's issues, and perhaps make it a bit longer generally - seems a little on the short side - and I'll change to support. Addyboy 10:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think length is an issue. See for instance Architecture_of_Windows_NT, which has the same length and hardly any references. Also I do think it is of appropriate length. ("It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail") They are 3 books about bughouse, thousands about chess, I believe this should be reflected in the article's length. As I mentioned above, there is really nothing to add about the history. Is there any specific other section you would like to see expanded? I don't think there is a huge quality gap. I had it reread by several expert bughouse players who really liked the article. Also, the article was recently quoted as being superior to the recent bughouse book in its explanation of the rules (Chess Life magazine, August 2007, P14). Voorlandt 07:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Fails to live up to the lead requirement of FAs: "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation." in its offensive use of the generic male. Other 1a issues.

"The game is usually played at a fast time control, this together with the passing and dropping of pieces can make the game look chaotic and random to the casual onlooker." Punctuation please—semicolon, then comma after "this".
- DoneVoorlandt 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "although" in the lead is illogical.
- It is usually played as a diversion (something that diverts or amuses: pastime) from chess. In a lot of clubs bughouse is played after the completion of tournament chess. Still, a few dedicated tournaments exist (read: here the game is played seriously). Would any of "but also" or "however" be better in that sentence? Voorlandt 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MOS breach in infoblot: en dash for ranges.
- Done Note that it is also wrong in the chess article. Voorlandt 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rules: players ... plays ... player plays ... plays ... player plays. All in less than 60 words.
- Done I have removed a few "plays", reads much better now. Voorlandt 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only males are allowed to play? The generic male is one of my pet hates (it excludes half the population, even if you might claim it doesn't). "plays his opponent". This is littered through the article. There are clearly established ways of avoiding it: pluralise "players" where possible; use "the opponent", etc; or even the singular they if you must.
- Done. Thanks for pointing this out, I simply wasn't realising this. However to my defence: the featured article chess has them (for instance third line: "each player, referred to by the color of his pieces"); also encyclopaedia Britannica 2007 (from chess: "A drawn position may be one in which Black lacks enough material to win or in which White has created an impenetrable fortress for his pieces .."). Voorlandt 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plus more; needs someone unfamiliar to copy-edit. Tony 13:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the use of the generic male

These are no longer present in the article, so the discussion whether or not it is ok to have them is irrelevant for the upgrading of this article. To keep things separate, I moved the discussion here. Voorlandt 09:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- 'Comment'It's harsh to call the use of "his" sexist, as gender neutral terminology in relation to chess players is all but unheard of, although I suppose I can agree considering to what it refers. Voorlandt perhaps you'll realise with this why I suggested a formal peer review before the submission to FAC ;) (oh, and this is Addyboy by the way in case you were wondering) Caissa's DeathAngel 16:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The generic use of "he" is hardly sexist, Tony. FAC isn't the place for you to advance your political agenda. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Parnham, how old are you? 95? I'm picturing a curmudgeonly, ungenerous person who's stuck on the gender relations of the 1950s. But I'm sure you're not that, which makes your comment all the stranger. The article gender-neutral language in English, which manages to be remarkably free of POV, I think, says the following, inter alia:

For example, gender-neutral language has gained support from major textbook publishers, and from professional and academic groups such as the American Psychological Association and the Associated Press. Newspapers like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal avoid such language. Many law journals, psychology journals, and literature journals do not print articles or papers that use gender-inclusive language.[1] Recent employee policy manuals have begun to include strongly worded statements prescribing avoidance of language that potentially could be considered discriminatory. The wording of this statement from a policy manual is typical: "All documents, publications or presentations developed by all constituencies…shall be written in gender neutral and/or gender inclusive language.[4] Employees are told that they need to be aware of their responsibilities to avoid discriminatory language, and that they are required to implement the enterprise's commitment to treat stakeholders equally and with courtesy. Institutional members are instructed, as a matter of corporate policy, to avoid using language that may even appear to be discriminatory, or that may gratuitously give offense in verbal or written communication. They also provide guidance about how to reflect the concept of valuing diversity in language usage.

As for your accusation that I'm peddling a political agenda, you're damn right I am: it's one that WP and all other self-respecting bodies should have embraced long ago. I'm most willing to engage in debate as to why this is the only sane course of action (but on a talk page, not here). Voorlandt, the sexist language was cleaned out of chess before it was promoted recently. It's disappointing to see that someone has re-inserted it. I'll be approaching the editors soon about this. Tony 15:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC) PS I'm certain that "gender-inclusive" should be "gender-specific", just before reference [1]—otherwise it doesn't make sense. I'll bring this to the attention of the cotributors.[reply]

Voorlandt, I've searched through Chess and can't find a single use of the generic male pronoun. Tony 02:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am missing something but how about the example I gave above or this (third paragraph in the section Chess#Rules): "When a player's king is under immediate threat of capture, it is said to be in check. A player is not permitted to make any move that would place his king in check. If his king is in check, he must make a move to take the king out of check. " Voorlandt 05:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless Voorlandt, the fact that Chess is an FA does not make it perfect - it could be something needing fixed in that article as well! I really do think this needs to be in a formal peer review, not FAC right now Caissa's DeathAngel 08:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and not me started the comparison with the chess article, and the alleged huge quality gulf between the two articles. I have addressed the use of generic male pronoun in the bughouse article, and was merely pointing to the chess article to show that this mistake is not uncommon. And now it would be nice to stop talking about the chess article here. Voorlandt 08:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may be fair enough, but you appear to be using the fact that is a common error as justification for it being there - all I'm doing is pointing out that this is not the case, and it should be fixed elsewhere if it appears elsewhere. And FWIW, I merely used chess as an example of what to me an FA should look like - any number of others would suffice.Caissa's DeathAngel 10:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using the male generic (e.g, "he" instead of "he or she") is perfectly acceptable. Raul654 20:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted 04:56, 3 September 2007.

QI

previous FAC

This article is a self-nomination. Since the last nomination, I have tried to improve the images and copyedited the article. The article has also been subject to a peer review. I believe that this article is now good enough for featured status. NB: the external links, which include a blog, have been extensivly discussed on the article's talk page, and are considered to be acceptable under WP:EL. ISD 12:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Good start but really for nomination yet. More needed about the history, development and reception of the show. More about format in the lead. I also don't the way the shows own archive is the main reference. Buc 18:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Has as already been metioned in the previous nomination, the Wikipedia list of episodes are the most complete list of QI episodes know on the internet (at least to my knowledge) and therefore the most accurate when referencing individual episodes. ISD 19:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A lot of what seem to have been flippant blog answers or a light-hearted interview, or even pieces written to entertain on a DVD rather than intended to be strictly true are cited as uncontrovertible fact. Kevin McE 12:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be rather good to have more information on the QI building in Oxford, or at least to explain why a quiz show needs a building! MLilburne 16:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Comment I've included some more information on the building. The building is where most of QI's research is carried out. ISD 17:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted 04:56, 3 September 2007.

The Rape of Nanking (book)

Article was promoted to GA at the end of July, and a peer review on it just concluded. As far as I can tell, the article doesn't have any major problems. So I'd like to make a push for FA status. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Although the article has improved somewhat, I still feel it is biased in places. For example, Ivan Hall is used as a single source towards the end despite the fact that he is described by the interviewing website as one of the most controversial commentators on Japan. Also I can't see how the source used (here) actually shows that:

revisionist historians in Japan organized a committee of right-wing scholars to condemned the book with repeated appearances at the Foreign Correspondents' Club in Tokyo and throughout Japan. They prevailed on Kashiwa Shobo, the contracted Japanese publisher of the book, to insist that Chang edit the book for "corrections" they wanted made, to delete photographs and alter maps, and also to publish a rebuttal to Chang's book. Chang disagreed with the changes and, as a result, withdrew the Japanese publishing of the book.

The only reference I found to Nanking was about a radio station. More generally I think that the article lacks detailed discussion of the book itself, generally talking "around it". There needs to be a sizeable section on the book's main points. John Smith's 16:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added that Hall is a "controversial" Japan scholar.[2]
- The source for the text about right-wing scholars condemning the book came from here - [3] - which is footnoted at the end of the relevant paragraph. But I've now added an extra footnote at the end of the sentence that you quoted.[4]
- As for a "general discussion" of the content inside the book - as the intro indicates, it is a history book about the Nanjing Massacre. The Massacre itself already has its own article and I didn't feel that a summary of the book's content is necessary. That's sort of like summarising the contents of a book about WW2 - it'll basically be information about WW2 itself. However, if other editors also feel it is necessary for FA, I can certainly add that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If Hall is a controversial scholar, why mention him at all? It would be better if you got a more non-partisan source to mention this given the seriousness of the allegations. John Smith's 17:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - He is necessary to make the section NPOV. If he is taken out, then the section would be biased. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors please note that John Smith's and I have been edit warring, so I have to admit that I have some bad faith reservations about why he is really opposing my nomination here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Assume good faith, Hong. I have a right to criticise as I see fit. Address the points I've made, rather than cry wolf. Besides, it takes two to tango - you can stop edit-warring any time you want. Additionally I remember you opposed the Japan article getting FA status too - does that mean it was down to our disputes at the time? Be careful of what you allege as you may be tarring yourself with the same brush. John Smith's 17:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah I opposed the FAC on Japan because of our dispute, and our dispute was about the Japan article itself. I felt that there were problems with the article, and you disagreed. On the other hand, we are disputing about something completely unrelated to The Rape of Nanking (book) at the moment. I apologise for assuming bad faith, but seeing that you are the first to vote and voted oppose when we are in the middle of a dispute about something unrelated to this article, this is something that I think should be pointed out for other editors to consider. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - We had other disputes going on at the same time in regards to the "Japan" article as far as I can remember.
    - As to this nomination, it may surprise you but I do not vote according to whether I like people/have or don't have disputes with them, etc. You did well to get a live source for the link that was no longer working. I'm not objecting to FA status under any circumstances for this article. If you talked it over with me, we might get to the point where at least I withdraw my opposition if not actively support it. John Smith's 18:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite support just yet

Get rid of the 2 red link book titles. Create stubs if you think they are notable enough, or simply remove the wikilinks.
Perhaps Response in Japan heading should be subheaded under Acclaim and criticism.
I found that Acclaim and criticism is exceptionally well-written for what is probably the most contentious part of this article. Kudos! However, I am sure there are many different reviews, both supportive and otherwise. Perhaps instead of going in-depth into a single criticism/issue (Buress, Hata and Chang's rebuttal) you should use the space to include more reviews from both sides.
I feel that in the final bit about Higashinakano, his "pure baloney" comments should be coupled with a statement saying that his view is not currently accepted by the consensus, or something to that effect.

-- Миборовский 22:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how one could cite a claim that those views are not accepted by "consensus", given consensus isn't easy to establish, even if we might agree that his views are not consensus ones. It would be easier, I think, to get a citation to say those opinions are not widely accepted in the historical academic community, or some such. But a citation is needed - maybe the qualifying expression could fit the citation(s). John Smith's 22:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what I am suggesting, JS. A consensus is the majority of opinions in a group. In this case the majority of opinions does not agree with Higashinakano, and therefore there is a consensus in the academia to that effect. -- Миборовский 22:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute his views ref "baloney" are not consensus. I just expressed a need for a citation and that the phrasing should fit the citation. John Smith's 22:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miborovsky:
- I'll be making stub articles for both of those red links.
- I've made the "Response in Japan" section a subsection.[5]
- The reason that I added in-depth content on Buress's criticism and Chang's rebuttal is because it was important to include Chang's direct response to the criticism. Unfortunately that was the only one of Chang's rebuttals I was able to find, that's why more attention was paid to that particular exchange. Sources say that Chang argued against her critics, and have appeared in talks and seminars to do so, but I wasn't able to find the actual content of her rebuttals except for that particular one, and the section may become POV if I only present criticism without her response.
- I'll try to find sources on opinions about Higashinakano's views, but not sure if I'd be able to find anything. And I fear that adding much more on the different views concerning the Nanjing Massacre itself may risk the article becoming a mirror of the Nanking Massacre article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stub articles for the two red links have been created. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article seems seems rather hagiographic and unbalanced. Some specific suggestions/examples:
- The 'Acclaim and criticism' doesn't adequetly cover the book's reception. From my understanding, this book received serious criticism and remains controversial. However, this section is focused on a dispute between Chang and a journalist over how some photos were captioned and Chang's response seems to receive disproportionate coverage. The article would be greatly improved by including the more serious concerns which were raised over the book - for instance, did Fogel, Kelly and Entenmann make any specific points, or did they publish one line reviews/responses in which they made what look like very serious criticisms? - did Chang respond to them?
- Moreover, are these reviewers (both positive and negative) the best qualified people to quote? - Kelly's review appeared in something called the 'Edogawa Women's Junior College Journal' which hardly seems like a notable source.
- As a broader point, is there a current consensus on the quality of the book? The article simply quotes positive and negative comments on it without stating whether one school of thought is dominant. The article should try to make it clear whether the book is considered reliable by experts on this and related topics and whether it recieved different receptions from academics and general reviewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Dowling (talk • contribs) 11:05, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
- The 'Research' section should discuss the quality of Chang's research and not just describe what she did and how she discovered some new sources (which doesn't seem a big deal anyway as this is what historians are meant to try to do - especially if they're researching an obscure topic)
- The 'Public reception' section simply states that 'The book received praise from news media' when the preceeding section states that this wasn't universal and the following section states that it got a poor reception in Japan.
- What seem like potentially serious criticisms from Japanese academics are burried in the 'Response in Japan' section when this material seems better suited to the 'Acclaim and criticism' section.
- As a broader comment, I'd suggest that the discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the book be integrated into the article rather than placed in seperate sections. For instance, the 'research' section could include the good and bad things which have been said about how Chang researched and wrote the book and the 'Inspiration' section could discuss whether it's accurate to say that the Rape of Nanking was in fact obscure in the west before the book. --Nick Dowling 08:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. Let me try to respond to your points:
  - The "Acclaim and criticism" section is written the way it is for both NPOV and available sources. Articles have said that Chang had defended her work against critics, but her one rebuttal to Burress' article was the only rebuttal that I could actually find. Without the actual content of Chang's or her allies' other rebuttals and defenses to the criticism, I felt the section would become POV to go into in-depth details on other criticism. However, Burress' criticism addresses concerns that from what I can see are shared by other critics, and it specifically cites another of Chang's critics (Ikuhiko Hata - he is mentioned in the article as having been cited by Burress).
  - I believe her praises and criticism come from notable sources, but I understand the concern on "why do their opinions matter"? That's why I've made sure to mention the credentials of the people that are named, and footnoted sources for what their credentials are. Readers can decide for themselves whether these people's opinions are worthy. Specifically concerning Kelly - he is an award-winning journalist, and his credentials are given at one of the footnotes at the end of the sentence.
  - I have not found sources that can authoritatively say what the "dominant" thought on the book is, whether it is positive or negative. And it's not like academics all get together to all agree on what they think of a book. Mostly their individual opinions are published seperately, and at the core of the problem here is that since the book is controversial, it is highly speculative and POV-risky to try to state that the book is mostly thought of as either positive or negative.
  - About the "Research" section - I noted that she discovered John Rabe and Minnie Vautrin's diaries because sources indicate that this is a notable fact about her research. On the quality of her research - most of the discussion on that comes from either praises or criticism of her work, which I felt was better served to be put in the "Acclaim and criticism" section.
  - Actually the "Public reception" section does not contradict the preceeding section about her praises and criticism. The "Public reception" concentrates on how the general public felt about the book, while the "Acclaim and criticism" section focuses on the academic response to the book. But I've moved "Public reception" above "Acclaim and criticism" to try to make it clear what the difference between the two sections are.
  - I've moved the "Response in Japan" sub-section under the "Acclaim and criticism" section.
  - About integrating the "strengths and weaknesses" of the book into the rest of the article as opposed to seperating them into its own section - I must disagree with you on this. Since the book is controversial, I felt it necessary that a seperate section be devoted to this topic. If the book was not so controversial, then I agree that a seperate section is not necessary. But one of the notable things about the book is its controversial nature, and readers will want to read about that specifically. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Thanks for the response. However, I'm afraid that I'm not going to change my vote. This article is very good and you should be proud of it, but it doesn't really capture the extent to which Chang's work is controversial and why this is the case. I don't think that it would be POV to discuss serious criticisms such as plagerism and blatant inaccuracies if these criticisms are made by reputable reviewers, even if no response from the author can be found - maybe she didn't respond? --Nick Dowling 08:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment As another point there are some serious problems with some of the references you've used and these should be removed:
      - I'm rather uncomfortable with reference 24 being "Quotes on the Jacket and Interior of" the book. Without having seen the actual reviews, how do you know that the authors' quotes are being used in context and accurately reflect the content of the review? It's probably safe to assume that they are (the reviewers would be contacting their lawyers otherwise!), but what's basically advertising material shouldn't be considered a reliable source. If you can't dig up the actual reviews and cite them you'd probably be better off removing these quotes.
      - Reference 3 is the introduction of the book but is used to back statements about the book breaking new ground. It should not be used to support any statements about the worth of the book as it is not in any way independent of it (Chang and her publishers would have hardly included a critical assessment of the book in its introduction!).
      - You should cite the individual pages of the book and not lump them together as they are in references 7 and 9. --Nick Dowling 09:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)----[reply]
        Thanks for your response - it's OK that you don't want to change your vote, but let me try to respond back to you anyway.
        
        I've changed the footnotes to cite specific pages of the book itself.
        
        I do disagree that in-depth criticism should be offered without also presenting rebuttals and defences. Right now the article is carefully balanced between praises and criticism, and I do think that giving too much attention to one side will make the article horribly POV. As you can see, some of the criticism come from sources that are not considered mainstream, or at least, are not at the same notability level as, for example, TIME magazine. It may be that no responses have been published to the public because the mainstream considers such criticism as basically Wikipedia:Fringe theories, because the criticism doesn't just go to the book itself, but toward what really happened in the Nanjing Massacre. A parallel can be drawn toward Holocaust denial and how much the mainstream actually acknowledge that by engaging in lengthy debates with deniers. However, praises and criticism must be offered, and so they have been mentioned in the article. I do think that an in-depth focus of Buress' article is sufficient to address the criticism, firstly because it was published in the San Francisco Chronicle and that's essentially the most notable source for a criticism that we have at the moment, and secondly because Buress draws from other critics as well and in doing so, the Buress article is an even better source for being a notable secondary source (per WP:NOR).
        
        You are right that a couple of the praises comes from the jacket of the book itself. But I do think they are OK to include because they are balanced by criticism, those quotes did in fact come from the people who wrote or said it, and they are footnoted as being from the jacket of the book. Readers may disregard them if they so choose, just like they may choose to disregard criticism that was published on the website of Edogawa Women's Junior College, or they may choose to disregard criticism that was published from www.jiyuu-shikan.org - the article uses that website as a source and the website is basically devoted to advancing the idea that Japan played a benevolent role in WW2. In the absence of more notable sources, I believe the important thing here is to make sure the praises and criticism are balanced and sourced for the readers' benefit. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks again for your response. I think that you should definetly not use the introduction of the book to justify statements about the book such as "[it] shows more clearly than any previous account just what [the Japanese] did" in the 'Acclaim and criticism' section. If the reviews of the book are from unreliable sources or were written to justify fringe theories then they should be treated as such and be removed. However, you quote a negative review from Fogel in what looks like a highly reputable publication which critises the book's research so it doesn't seem to be the case that all criticism of the book is driven by a desire to deny that the Rape of Nanking occured - some of these reviews seem to be arguing that it's simply not a good book. I don't think that it's fair on your readers to ask them to trawl through the footnotes to decide whether to believe individual bits of the article - if the source is unreliable or biased then the material shouldn't be used. Finally, articles don't need to be 'balanced' - they need to be accurate. If the reviews were generally good then this should be stated and cited and you don't need to trawl for unreliable bad reviews to provide 'balance'. Conversely, if the reviews were mixed, then the main issues raised should be covered without concern over whether they balance out. Do you have an article which discusses the book's reception you can draw from? - all the references seem to be basically primary sources or articles on Chang. --Nick Dowling 00:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Definitely disagree that the article doesn't have to be balanced. WP:NPOV is stated as "absolute and non-negotiable". At the same time I believe the article is also factual. Let me clarify - the article doesn't try to present that the book "shows more clearly than any previous account...", it merely states that it is what William C. Kirby wrote. Note that the same treatment is given to the criticism of the book. The article specifically uses quotes from the reviewers to avoid any original research problems. There are other positive reviews from other sources (for example[6][7][8]), but I disagree that using reviews found in the book itself is problematic. These reviews come from some of the most notable reviewers (professors from both Harvard and Yale), and it would be a great loss to the article to delete them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Kirby's introduction forms part of the book and is not a review so it has no place whatsoever the 'Acclaim and criticism' section and placing it there is misleading as the text indicates that this is a review of the book. Unless you can verify the reviews quoted on the book they should be treated as suspect. Wikipedia:Reliable sources states that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made" - these references clearly fail this test as they are not reliable unless they can be verified, are not from third-party sources, were selected by the publisher to promote the book and are not appropriate to the claims being made as they also essentially form part of the book. I think that you're misinterpreting WP:NPOV to mean that all views should be considered equal, when this isn't the case - the facts are meant to speak for themselves. --Nick Dowling 05:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I do maintain that they are OK to use as they are factual and accurately reflected. But would they be more acceptable to you if I added that those reviews are found in the book sleeve? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        In short, no. These are simply not suitable references for any article, and especially not a FA standard article. Unless you read the full review you don't know whether the graphic designer who put the book's cover together accurately quoted the reviews or whether the reviews also made serious criticisms of the book (eg, it's possible to argue that a book "yields a new and expanded telling" of something and but is also poorly written or contains serious errors). The book's cover is not a reliable source on the book's worth as it is advertising material promoting the book. Sorry, but I'm not going to be changing my vote on this article. --Nick Dowling 00:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ (I changed my position; see below -- Taku 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)) In general, I don't like (and so I usually do not) editing an article about a controversial topic. But the lead in the article should at least mention the facts: (1) there is no Japanese translation, and (2) the was not quite well received by the Japanese public in general. Maybe it is not easy to do this in a NPOV but this is my suggestion. -- Taku 09:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added in the intro that the book was not translated into Japanese. But is there a source that the book was not well-received by the Japanese "public in general"? The book wasn't even published in Japan, so how would the Japanese general public have any reaction to it? I know that there are a lot of right-wing politicians and academics that attacked the book, and that is covered in its own section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My sorry for the lateness of the reply and thank for addressing (1), which was done very nicely. Anyway, to elaborate on what I meant, me growing up in Japan, I noticed, for example, that some people use the book as an example of how the Chinese government uses the events in WWII in order to advance its nationalism. Even some, I say, ordinary people. Given that there is no Japanese translation, I suspect those (not necessarily academic) critics actually never read the book. I know this is completely anecdotal but I witness something like sometimes when the war-time topics are brought up and I feel that the book has not-so-good reputation in Japan and I suspect some ignorance is playing some part. In any rate, the logical step, now I think, is to address this point in the body of the article, then we can summarize it in the lead later. -- Taku 05:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you have sources that discuss how the book was received by the general public in Japan? Without sources, I fear it would be difficult to include something like that in the article, and I haven't come across any sources that discuss this in particular. There are sources for right-wing academics criticising the book, but none that I've found about the general public in Japan. And to be honest, I think it would be a little strange to try to discuss the general public reaction to the book in Japan when the book wasn't even published in Japan. How would we present that? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - What I meant is that even when the book is not available in Japan, people still know that it exists, and the book gets mentioned sometimes, like in the way, for example, the Chinese textbooks are mentioned even though they are not translated into Japanese. So, I don't think it's that strange. In any rate, I don't know reliable sources (there may be some though), so I agree that discussing the point is probably not easy. But, like I said, this is something that needs to be covered in my opinion. (See my other post below too) -- Taku 00:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Almost ready to support. Very well written etc. I have two concerns, one trivial and one somewhat more substantial. Small things first first: I'd like to see one sentence (or even just one phrase or clause, actually) added to the lede which provides a tiny sample of the quotes from both supporters and detractors (perhaps even just one of each), to make the range of response more concrete. That should take 5 minutes or less. Slightly more substantially, I noted that BUress' criticism was discounted for several reasons. Did any serious, accomplished scholars respond to the criticisms by others (Entenmann, etc.)? If so, I'd like to see that. But I am right on the cusp of supporting. Good work. --Ling.Nut 23:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.

I've added two quotes in the intro section.[9]
That section was not meant to discount Buress' criticism, but Chang's response was there to maintain NPOV. Without rebuttals or counter-arguments, giving in-depth focus to criticism would make the section POV. Also it was pointed out by the GA reviewer that it was necessary to provide rebuttals and counter-arguments in that section. Sources indicate that Chang fiercely defended her work in talks and seminars, having even appeared in talks where she was the only Asian and only woman in a panel of "experts". Unfortunately, Chang's response to Buress was the only one which I could actually find, thus more attention was given to both Buress' criticism and Chang's response. If I can find more responses and rebuttals to specific criticism, I'd be glad to add them to the article. But I feel the section would become POV if there was in depth focus to other criticism without offering specific responses to them. Fortunately though, from what I can see, some of Buress' criticism is shared by other critics, as he appeared to have drawn from other critics. And the article does make sure to mention that Buress cited notable critic Ikuhiko Hata. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the paragraph beginning, "Conversely, critic Joshua A. Fogel..." did these critics disagree with the main thrust of the book, i.e. denying the existence of the massacre, or did they simply feel the authored messed up a large number of details in the historical background? I ask because if people are saying the book was full of inaccuracies, that sort of leads to the implication that they felt its main thesis was false... which in fact may not have been be their opinion at all... -- Ling.Nut 19:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "main thrust" of the book, if there is one, is not about the denial. I have the book in my hands right now. In fact, only one out of ten chapters of the book is dedicated to what Chang sees as denial by Japanese right-wing politicians and elements like Ishihara Shintaro. That's only 15 pages out of a 290-page book. It's also briefly discussed in the intro of the book itself. I hope the article has not presented the book as a work that's thrusting a certain point to the readers. The book really is as simple as the article lead states - it's a book about the Nanjing Massacre and it tells of what happened in the Massacre. If Chang had any goal for the book at all, it is as the article stated - that she wanted simply to document the massacre because she felt that there was a lack of literature about it. So the bulk of the book is a documentation of the events of the Massacre and events leading up to the Massacre. Critics have mostly attacked the book for what they see as bad research - for example, the article mentions that Fogel called the book "full of misinformation and harebrained explanations". The in-depth focus on Burress' criticism exemplifies the kind of criticism that the book received, that such and such detail was not accurate, that this or that photo was problematic, etc etc. Iris Chang herself, however, before her suicide, was heavily involved in a movement to call for redress from the Japanese government, and this may have blurred the line in the point of the criticism offered - the motivation could have been to attack Chang herself for her efforts in calling for redress. But the book specifically only devoted very little about current Japanese reaction to the Nanjing Massacre. In fact that's written in the last chapter of the book almost as an afterthought or addendum. The book is divided into three parts, 1) What lead to the Massacre and what happened during the Massacre, 2) What happened immediately after the Massacre, and 3) modern Japanese reaction to the Massacre, consisting of only one chapter of 15-page long. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, we're talking around each other... I can see how you misinterpreted my comment. It was unintentionally ambiguous. I didn't mean to say that the book was about denial. I meant... the critics of the book whom you listed.. did they all deny the historicity of the account as a "massacre," or did som of them say, "Yes it was a massacre but Chang got her supporting facts wrong?" I want to get to the main point that perhaps not all critics deny the historicity of the massacre even though they think Chang botched many details... BUT that point is not clearly made in the article. --Ling.Nut 22:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, critics stayed away from stating their own personal opinions about "yes, it did happen, there was a massacre" or "no, it did not happen, there wasn't a massacre". They concentrated on the details of the book that they see as inaccurate and then summarised Chang's work as negative or bad, instead of making their own conclusions about the Nanjing Massacre - or at least, I don't think I can say that they made conclusions of their own without interpreting their statements and violating WP:Original research. None of them pointedly stated something to the effect of "Yes it was a massacre but Chang got her supporting facts wrong", or something similar. This is, of course, with the exception of certain Japanese right-wing individuals. And the article does state that noted critic Shudo Higashinakano had flat-out denied that there was even a massacre in the "Response in Japan" section. Hopefully this answers your question? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to interrupt the main line of the discussion between you two, but Ling.Nut made something clear to me. From what I hear (I never read the book) the book is "about the Nanjing Massacre and it tells of what happened in the Massacre." But that's not how it is "perceived" as I understand. Some people (say for instance news media) use the book as an example of how the Chinese is trying to revise the history by making up the stuff. That is why the inaccuracies in the books are so significant. They see that the errors are "deliberate" not innocuous ones, that the book is a part of the greater program of revisionism. Like I said, the problem emerges most likely from the ignorance but, very regrettably I think, this is something indeed going on. -- Taku 00:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources for this, or is it just your personal feeling? There are sources for the general public feeling for the book in China, and that's been included in the article. It would be valuable to also add the same for the general public feeling in Japan. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my post above? I think you missed the one. -- Taku 03:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see your comment above. And I guess you are aware that the problem here is that there are no reliable sources to state what the reaction is from the Japanese general public. I'd love to insert that into the article if some reliable sources can be found, but without that, I don't think we should put something in that would essentially be WP:Original research - especially since the book was never even published in Japanese. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That I am unaware of the source doesn't mean there cannot be one. So, I will certain let you know if I see something. -- Taku 09:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - I am only stating that we can't add anything like that to the article unless there are sources to support it. And there's also the possibility that a source like that doesn't actually exist. Admittedly I only have access to what is freely available online, but like I said, I'd love to add content about reception by the general public in Japan if there are sources that discuss that. The question is - would you support this FAC or does the lack of sources on this subject matter prevent you from supporting it? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is my answer.

Oppose Just to sum up what I was saying to Hong Qi Gong and what I am hearing here, I believe, in the current state, the article is quite good but lacks the discussion of a critical point, which in my opinion prevents the article from deserving the FA status. To put my point one more time, the book is not just a book. This is where I have a problem and we differ I guess. For example, like Ling.Nut was saying, it is vital to discuss some connection between the book and the denial of massacre in a larger context. The article should answer: what those inaccuracies, if any, mean in a more general sense. At least the lead of the article needs to make it clear this. Of course, whether this is something that can be omitted or not may ultimately bogs down to a personal taste. -- Taku 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC) To clarify what I meant by "the book is not just a book", when we discuss the Origin of the Species, it is necessary to discuss how Darwin wrote the book and what his critics said, what flaws the book had. But if that was all in the article, I think the article is incomplete because what the book means to people is so significant. I get the same feeling of incompleteness here. -- Taku 23:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the "Response in Japan" does cover the controversy of the denial itself, in the context of the book. The controversy outside the context of the book is better covered in the Nanking Massacre. The article also covers the book's critics, with specific examples of their criticism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem like you've actually read the book itself. Nor do you actually have sources to provide a discussion about the response in the Japanese general public. It's possible that you may be looking for something that isn't there. But thanks for the review anyway. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted 04:56, 3 September 2007.

Enfield revolver

The Enfield revolver was one of the other major British service revolvers, and the article has already passed an A-class review with no major objections. It's extensively cited, comprehensive, and (IMHO) worthy of being elevated to FA status. --Commander Zulu 05:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose This article is good (A-class possibly), BUT fails on most of the FA criteria.

1(a) Almost the entire article is written in passive voice and the details are sketchy. Many awkward sentences and phrases. This prose is neither engaging, brilliant, nor of a professional standard.
1(b) The article is horrendously short with prose less than 10K. Recommend combining with another article or expanding this handgun's usage.
1(c) several sentences with claims that are not referenced
1(d) seems ok, but I'd like a second opinion on this.
1(e) Seems pretty stable
2 Fails miserably with compliance with the MoS (read the entire WP:MoS, WP:Date, WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD, WP:GTL, etc.). Feel free to read other reviews I have done in order to get a better idea of the points I am talking about. This is your biggest problem.
2(a) marginal, but see WP:LEAD for some serious improvements...BTW, don't start with "the"
2(b) no system, just 4 subheadings
2(c) not substantial
2(d) consistent, but not enough
3 More images would be useful, if possible, but the captions are poor.
4 Inappropriate length. Please lengthen.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 06:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm having trouble following the specific areas you're commenting on- could you please provide some examples of what you are referring to? --Commander Zulu 06:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the given links and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Is that the info you want? — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't understand what you are referencing with the "1a, 2b, 3c" etc notations. --Commander Zulu 09:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are references to each of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Please click the wikilink to read about these. This article has potential, don't get me wrong, but it needs some serious work before it can be considered for FA. As the next reviewer suggested, try a "Good Article" review first. That should iron out a lot of bugs and help you. Good Luck!!! — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A few paragraphs have no references. Less than 15 kB, may be not comprehensive. Try GAC instead. --Kaypoh 12:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted 04:56, 3 September 2007.

Glasgow

I am submitting this article to become a Featured Article on Wikipedia. I feel that this article is extremely when written and coherant while presenting all the facts in an interesting and engaging fashion. The article has been well validated through a number of references and maintains a NPOV. The page is layed out in a well designed manor and thus makes it easy to navigate. I feel also that Glasgow is a notable city having had a rich and deep history as well as being rich in culture and divercity

Cabe6403 21:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ^{[citation needed]} --Kaypoh 08:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: As much as I'd love to see Glasgow as a Featured Article, I don't believe this article is at that point yet. The article is a bit unwieldy (is there really a need for such an in-depth section on districts?), listy in sections and could be a bit more succinct in places. There are whole unreferenced sections; the referencing could be sharpened up. Take a look at some other cities which are FA, like Houston, Cape Town, Vancouver - and a bit closer to home Dundee - and compare their layouts, the material that they cover, referencing and writing style. Glasgow isn't there yet, but with a bit of work, it could be. Thanks Globaltraveller 10:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mumia Abu-Jamal/archive1}}
 {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007 Canadian Grand Prix/archive2}}
-{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi/archive2}}
-{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/London}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/London/archive2}}
-{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Andalusian cadence}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Andalusian cadence/archive1}}
-{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chris Young (pitcher)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chris Young (pitcher)/archive1}}
-{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Runcorn}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Runcorn/archive2}}
-{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bughouse chess}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bughouse chess/archive1}}
-{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/QI}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/QI/archive2}}
-{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Rape of Nanking (book)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Rape of Nanking (book)/archive1}}
-{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Enfield revolver}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Enfield revolver/archive1}}
-{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Glasgow}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Glasgow/archive1}}