Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 15:26, 26 May 2008 [1].

---

Thomas Cranmer

previous FAC

Self-nominator. In reference to the previous FAC, I have completely rewritten and expanded the article and I believe all previously mentioned criticisms have been addressed. It is now based on modern secondary sources (no old sources, tertiary sources, or private websites). --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - in the notes you can delete the link to the book in a second time (ex. ^ Pinco pallino p 9 ^ Pinco pallino p 12), but the article seems ok :) --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 15:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically according to our MoS, that is correct. I use Template:Harvnb for formatting the citations and it is not clever enough to not provide a link after the first link. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I take that back. One can use the Ref=none parameter. However, the major problem with this is if the first cite is edited out for some reason, the next cite is not automatically linked and will probably remain missing. I would rather make certain that the cites are linked to the references. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is my first set of comments; more later. Feel free to ignore them. Also feel free to reformat their presentation on this page, if it aids clarity. here we go: — Ling.Nut 15:56, 19 May 2008 — continues after insertion below

Thanks for your comments. I will address these individually. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• However, he succeeded in publishing the first officially authorised vernacular service, the Exhortation and Litany.

  I presume a vernacular service is one in English instead of Latin? That term is not particularly transparent. Plus the link to Exhortation and Litany is a link to a stub. Would a footnote be preferable? I really do not know.

I linked "vernacular" to wiktionary. The link is a stub, but it can either be expanded in the future or merged with another article with a new redirect. In either case, I think the link remains useful. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• It took him a surprisingly long eight years to reach his Bachelor of Arts degree during which he began to collect medieval scholastic books, which he preserved faithfully throughout his life.

  During a surprisingly long eight-year period spent reaching his Bachelor of Arts degree, Cranmer began to collect medieval scholastic books, which he preserved faithfully throughout his life.

• Cranmer’s first contact with a Continental reformer was the humanist based in Basel, Switzerland, Simon Grynaeus, a follower of the Swiss reformers, Huldrych Zwingli and Johannes Oecolampadius. In the summer of 1531, Grynaeus took an extended...

  Cranmer’s first contact with a Continental reformer was with the humanist Simon Grynaeus. A follower of the Swiss reformers Huldrych Zwingli and Johannes Oecolampadius, Grynaeus was based in Basel, Switzerland. In the summer of 1531 [No comma!] Grynaeus took an extended...

• This was all the more remarkable given that he set aside his priestly vow of celibacy.

  This was all the more remarkable given that the marriage required him to set aside his priestly vow of celibacy.

Changed to your formulation. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• He did not take her as his mistress as was the prevailing custom with priests for whom celibacy was too rigorous.

  Priests usually took mistresses? Good place for a {{fact}} tag, unless that fact is verified in the cite in the sentence immediately below!

For those who found celibacy too difficult. This really was prevailing practice. Depending on how high in office, a priest, bishop, or cardinal would have one or more mistresses and of course the resulting illegitimate children. Depending on the location, this could be openly practised or kept hidden. The sentence can be verified in Basil Hall's article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Scholars note that Cranmer had moved, however moderately at this stage, into identifying with certain Lutheran principles.[18] This success in his personal life...

  Ambiguous. What was the success: the marriage or the move to Lutheranism? If it's the latter then I catch a faint whiff of POV.

I changed it to "progress". The point being made was that something was happening or moving at least in his private life, but he could not get Charles V to budge (the political life). --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Cranmer opened his court on 10 May inviting Henry and Catherine to appear.

  This was a bit confusing, for a couple of reasons. First: we had been talking about Anne for a while; Catherine was lost in the murky mists of one or two paragraphs ago. [Note my lack of a short-term memory]. Then suddenly Catherine is the one invited to appear... I lost track. This whiplash (for me and my poor memory, at least) can be fixed simply by finding a nice term to describe Catherine and contrast with Anne. I dunno, "first wife" or "she whom henry desired to dump like yesterday's TV dinner" or something. Second, was Henry actually married to two women at the same time' for a brief period? If so, then i think you need to hit this point with a bigger hammer.

I put in Catherine of Aragon. That makes the name unique and should helpfully prod the recall mechanism of the brain. :) Henry was not married to two women because he got the first marriage annulled which retroactively defines the first marriage as never having occurred. Of course, that invites the obvious question of what would happen if he never got the annulment. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• with men who followed the new thinking such as Hugh Latimer.

  with men such as Hugh Latimer who followed the new thinking.

• Under the vice-gerency (1535–1538)

  Vice-regency is a much more familiar synonym. I'm a little afraid you'll have to spend the rest of your life watching for well-meaning people changing "gerency" to "regency" every other month or so...

Unfortunately, they are not synonyms. The vice-regent is a deputy of a regent (to be facetious an example would be Edmund Blackadder) and the vice-gerent is a deputy of a top boss (in this case, the king). There is a hidden comment in that section which should reduce the WP:AGF changes. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• ...which created another set of institutions that gave a clear structure to the supremacy.

  Dude, I'm trying to sound smart here, but really, I'm totally lost. You've short-handed what seems to be a nontrivial political maneuver into a single, opaque phrase. Cheshire cat and all that.

I added "royal". The royal supremacy was rather ill-defined. Who was really at the head of the church, the king or the archbishop? What Cromwell did was to make sure that it was the king at the top and Cromwell created additional institutions in the name of the king. For example, the office of vice-gerent was clearly above the archbishops and Cromwell could also call his own synods. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• outfaced

  .. means what?

Meaning to make someone submit. In this case, to make his clerical opponents to submit. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• A balance was instituted between the conservatives and the reformers and this was seen in the first attempt at defining what Henry’s Church now believed: the Ten Articles. It had a two-part structure.

  Competition between the conservatives and reformers reached a balance, as made clear in the first set of guidelines drawn up regarding the beliefs of the Church of England as it became independent from Rome: the Ten Articles. The document had a two-part structure.

• Ling.Nut (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Okay, so Ayris & Selwyn is a collection of works by other authors? I can see how you did the referencing, but I think I would have listed each article in the references (using a format like this example Duggan, Charles (1965). "From the Conquest to the Death of John". In Lawrence, C. H. (ed.). The English Church and the Papacy in the Middle Ages (Reprint edition 1999 ed.). Stroud: Sutton Publishing. pp. 63–116. ISBN 0-7509-1947-7..

Otherwise, sources look good. Links checked out fine. I'll be back later to review fully. (cackles). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I use Template:Harvnb for formatting the cites along with Template:Citation for formatting the references. I like the fact that the two work together in wikilinking. The only problem is that Harvnb does not have many parameters to add article info, so the article info is placed after the cite template. I could make it work to the format you described by listing every article in the book separately in the References section and naming the article author in the Harvnb cite. But then someone might question why every article from one book is listed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is why I use cite, because it has the handy {{cite encyclopedia}} which covers this type of work. (I'm not a fan of the Harvnb system, it makes the whole ref section blue and that's annoying to read to me, but that's a editor choice). I'd just list the articles that you use, not all the articles in the book. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The wikilinks in the Notes section can be removed while using Harvnb (Ref=none parameter). I find the links handy especially if there is a long list of references. I changed it to the format you described. The articles are now listed separately in the References section. I only listed the articles I used, although that turns out that to be nearly all of the articles in the book. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I have recently peer reviewed this article and any issues I might have had with the article were dealt with there. Once again, I am delighted with RelHistBuff's attention to detail and care in putting together a biography of an important Reformation figure. The article is sourced to reliable biographies, appears to be comprehensive (I am no expert!), is well-written, and excellently illustrated. Thanks for your dedication to this project, RelHistBuff! Awadewit (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. I also peer reviewed the article, and all issues that I borught up were fixed. This is an excellent article about an important topic. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Greatly improved since I commented on the first FAC. The flow and style are not always great. Some points:

— Johnbod 01:04, 21 May 2008 — continues after insertion below

• "His parents, Thomas and Agnes (née Hatfield) Cranmer, were of modest means and were not members of the nobility. Their oldest son, John, inherited the family estate, while Thomas and his younger brother Edmund were placed on the path to a clerical career." Mixed signals here; no one said they were of the nobility, and people of "modest means" in the late C15th did not have a "family estate", or indeed usually the money to put 2-3 sons through a grammar school. Better before peer review perhaps!

There is not much that could be said about Cranmer's family, but everything written is from the source. They were certainly not members of the nobility, but they were not destitute either. Hence, I used the words "modest means". This is supported by a quote from the source, "Thomas's father, Thomas senior, styled himself esquire in his will, although his wealth was probably dangerously modest to claim such a status". However, in any case Thomas senior had enough possessions to make a will and the heir was John and he made provisions in his will to educate his remaining two sons. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Presumably he farmed/owned land, as no trade or profession is given. Esquire gives context - minor gentry (I notice that is what the BBC external link calls them)? "Modest means" is really entirely in the eye of the beholder, and 'modest wealth' far from being the same - one is income, the other capital. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to "modest wealth". Neither Ridley nor MacCulloch state what was Thomas senior's profession. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No doubt because he didn't have one. What do they say exactly? Both the short BBC article & the EB agree on minor gentry, and I see web-links referring to a manor held. The later family need better coverage too, as others have said. Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• DONE "Master’s degree, he took a different course of study..." - from what? Especially as you then say "He began studying theology..." only after becoming a fellow. Is this right?

I missed adding details on the BA curriculum. I added it now. Yes, he began studying theology only after his fellowship was reinstated. It is from the source. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Although he was not yet a priest, he was forced to forfeit his fellowship, resulting in the loss of his residence at Jesus College. In order to support himself and his wife, he took a job as a reader at another college. When Joan died during her first childbirth, Jesus College showed its esteem of Cranmer by reinstating his fellowship..." Clunky. All fellows were required to be unmarried until the mid-C19. He lost his job as well as his residence, is it necessary to stipulate "In order to support himself and his wife..." when he takes another? "Regard" or "opinion" would be better than "esteem".

I am not sure if everyone knows that fellows were required to be unmarried at the time (at least I didn't). That is how both sources phrased it. What would you suggest to make it better? I changed "esteem" to "regard", although I believe "esteem" is supported by the source in the quote, "The College authorities seem to have extended an altogether exceptional indulgence to Cranmer, for there is no other record of a Fellowship having been given to a widower during the next two hundred years". --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

How about: "...he married a woman named Joan, forcing him to forfeit his fellowship, which meant he lost both his income and his lodgings at Jesus College. He was able to find a job as a reader at another college." Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• DONE "When Cardinal Wolsey, the king's Lord Chancellor, had selected several Cambridge dons...." "had" is not needed here, and OED gives the first use of "don", as in University don, in 1660 (though Wolsey has the first cite of the Spanish title usage in English in 1523), so I think this is anachronistic - "scholar/s" would do. "In a recent discovery of two of Cranmer’s letters.." - better: "In two recently discovered letters by Cranmer..." - or does that upset the anti-passive fetishists? "Upon Cranmer's return from Spain in June 1527, he was given a personal half-hour long interview with the king. He described the king as "a man who is the kindest of princes."" better: "Upon Cranmer's return from Spain in June 1527, he was given a personal half-hour long interview with the king, who he described as "the kindest of princes."" No?

Agree to your changes. But just to mention that the use of the word "don" is straight from the source: "Lee was a Cambridge don..." --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• DONE "He tasked Cardinal Wolsey with prosecuting his case..." not really encyclopedic style, certainly in UK English.

A copyeditor put that in; I thought "task" was only a noun, but I thought it was a minor issue, so I took no action. I have now returned it to the original text. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• DONE "Two fellow Cambridge associates, Stephen Gardiner and Edward Foxe, joined him..." fellow associates is redundancy.

Removed fellow. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• "This was all the more remarkable given that he set aside his priestly vow of celibacy." I think we mean "broke", don't we?

Hall used "rejected"; MacCulloch used "set aside"; Ridley used "converted to the Lutheran view as regards to". I think "set aside" is best because it is neutral. Depending on one's point-of-view, Cranmer's action can be taken negatively or positively. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Set aside" seems less neutral, and vaguer, than "broke", which rightly or wrongly is certainly what he did. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate verb would depend on the context. A polemical account would certainly use "broke". An apologetic account would use "reject" (Hall for example said, "rejection of priestly celibacy as one of the tyrannous laws..."). Neither is appropriate here because the context is about what may have been his first step toward a reformed view. MacCulloch's chose the right verb. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• DONE "This progress in his personal life, however, could not be matched in his political life as he was unable to change the mind of Charles to support Henry's annulment." "Charles' mind" or just "pursuade Charles to" surely? You might mention Catherine was his aunt.

Agreed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• DONE I find Cranmer's meteoric promotion to Archbishop of Canterbury is still underplayed (a big beef last time too); this was surely an extraordinary leap that deserves more emphasis. You also don't mention the minor livings that I think he already had, which you should.

Added sentence on the surprise of his promotion (from Ayris). --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Pope Clement VII was furious at this defiance, but he could not take decisive action as he was pressured by other monarchs to avoid an irreparable breach with England." Hiding out in Orvieto (was it?) from the rampaging armies of Catherine's nephew, more like. Or was he back by then? Firmly under the Habsburg thumb anyway.

The source said that he could not take action because the King of France did not want England to break with Rome and the Emperor, Charles, was uncertain just what kind of drastic measures was needed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Pope Clement VII was furious at this defiance, but he could not take decisive action as he was pressured by both the Emperor and French king, who could not agree on a course of action, with France wanting to avoid an irreparable breach with England." is clearer then. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• DONE "He intervened in religious rows..." disputes? controversies?

Changed to disputes. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• DONE, though expansion still desirable, imo. "Hence, in matters regarding the king's spirituality, the archbishop was eclipsed by the Vice-gerent Cromwell.[32" seems a bit imprecise - how either could have much impact on "the king's spirituality" seems unclear, and "eclipsed" seems odd. This is an important point, and an unprecedented move, and could do with expansion and clarification.

A copyeditor changed it "spirituality"; I changed it back to the original which was "spiritual jurisdiction". The verb "eclipse" was used twice by Ayris in this context and I think it is an appropriate one. There are no statements of an explicit hierarchy, but Cromwell had the power to inhibit and augment Cranmer's role. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• DONE/OK "On 29 January 1536, when Anne miscarried a son, the king again had thoughts on the biblical prohibitions that haunted him during his marriage with Catherine" - "with a son" is normal usage I think. "that had haunted him" (although that should maybe be referenced anyway).

I am confused. What would you like changed? I believe "miscarried a son" is correct. I changed to "had haunted" and added a cite. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• DONE "Behind the scenes at the Court, Cromwell had decided to bring an end to Anne." - "bring an end to" is a bit informal, & that it was TC's own idea needs a reference.

I changed it to "turn against" and added a cite. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• "A balance was instituted between the conservatives and the reformers and this was seen in the first attempt at defining what Henry’s Church now believed: the Ten Articles" - awkward end, better rephrased. "by recognising only three sacraments: baptism, eucharist, and penance" add number before - 7. "The second five articles were about the ceremonies used in the Church and reflected the views of the traditionalists" - liturgy, rituals? Icon link in the next sentence is not really right - all about Eastern Orthodoxy. Next sentence "by" not "between".

Rewritten. Removed link to icon until a better one can be found. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Religious image or iconoclasm seem the best. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Those points done, but an external link to the text of the Ten Articles would be useful both here and at 39 Articles - none at present. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I put in an external link to the Thirty-Nine Articles as hosted by the Anglican Communion. Of course this is not the original Elizabethan version. I don't know what has changed between the original and modern versions. I can find online weblinks to other articles about the Ten Articles, but not to the text of the Ten Articles. The text can be found in books (it is a long document). If there is a site that hosts the text of the Ten Articles, then go ahead an put that in the External links section. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Got to stop now, I will try to return soon, but really the prose needs a good check-over. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Many points cleared & marked DONE. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. Excellent article! I am not an expert so I cannot comment on the discussion above, except to say I found no problems with the prose. Well done to all contributors. GrahamColm^Talk 15:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: image licensing issues:
  • Image:JohnHooperBpGloucester.jpg - image is using a deprecated license. Source makes no assertion of date or author of this image. Where is evidence that this is "Non-Contemporary"?
    • Image:JohnHooperBpGloucester.jpg has been fixed and can be restored to the article. Awadewit (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Martin Bucer.jpg - needs verifiable source per WP:IUP
  • Image:Pilgrimage Of Grace.jpg - source quite firmly asserts copyright (follow the link; it's cute). Where is evidence to support the PD claim?
    • Many sites are claiming copyright over this image - namely, any site that reprints it as a poster. Anyone have any idea which History of England is referred to here? Awadewit (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Cromwell,Thomas(1EEssex)01.jpg - needs a verifiable source.
    • Image:Cromwell,Thomas(1EEssex)01.jpg has been fixed and can be retored to the article. Awadewit (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Anneboleyn2.jpg needs a verifiable source (citing image to "Hever Castle, Kent" is like citing prose to "Cook County Library"). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Image:Anneboleyn2.jpg has now been fixed and can be restored to the article. Awadewit (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I deleted the images. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The Hooper should be easy to find in the NPG online database, where it no doubt came from. It is certainly PD-old of whatever they are calling it these days. The Anne Boleyn should be easy enough to find (since Hever castle has a lot fewer paintings than Cook County Library has books). Likewise the Cromwell. The Pilgrimage of Grace is surely PD-old too, but a poor Victorian image & no loss. But a little work will restore the others. The article is light on pictures as it is. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

They are not images that I uploaded, so if someone could tell me what to do to fix them to be legal, I would gladly do so. Otherwise, I will hunt for legal images. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed up three of them - it was not hard to find sources for them. Awadewit (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Those 3 restored, thanks Awa! (my edit summary wrongly says Bucer for Cromwell btw). Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Boleyn is still problematic, as the source is a link to the image itself (i.e. there's no support for the 1525 date). Perhaps an alternative image? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not that one! 1525 is wrong, and I have updated it. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Awadewit for fixing these, but I guess I need something for my own edification, at least so I know what to do the next time. I can see what was done in Image:JohnHooperBpGloucester.jpg by looking at the diff from the history, but what was done with Martin Bucer (nothing seems to have changed), Thomas Cromwell, and Anne Boleyn (there is no history?)? --RelHistBuff (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Bucer was just removed from the article. The other images are hosted at the Commons, so you just need to hit the "description page there" link to get to the page with the history. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Perhaps you forgot to click though to Commons for Boleyn and Cromwell? But indeed nothing has been done to Bucer - I'm not sure why he & the Pilgrimage were struck though above. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I struck because they've been removed from the article. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Still on images, I see here and here the shaky "Stephen Gardiner" is considered not be of him at all, which seems right to me. The NPG has 2 later prints, based on apparently the only portrait that might be authentic - not sure where that is. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the tip about clicking on description page of Commons. I think I understand what to do. Concerning Gardiner, if it is from 1510, then it is certainly not Gardiner. I took it down for now and will try to look for another one as well as a Martin Bucer engraving somewhere and upload them later. But at this stage does your oppose still stand, elcobbola? --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but only because Boleyn hasn't been fixed. The new NPG source would support this, but not the version currently being used. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It is Plate 1, and discussed on pp.42ff. of The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn: 'the Most Happy' By Eric William Ives, here. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This page says the date is 1525. Perhaps we should simply say "16th century" for the time being? Awadewit (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has never given a date, but comparison with the NPG info on their version and books I can't be faffed to cite here shows 1525 is certainly wrong for the actual painting, & probably too early for the lost original, whatever that was. Even "16th century" is not certain. See above. Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I updated the description on Commons for the other Boleyn picture and put the new image in the article. I also found another Bucer engraving which is used in MacCulloch. I used MacCulloch as the source of the metadata in an updated description. I have little experience in the handling of images on Commons so I hope I did this right. Is there some practical instructions on what kind of image metadata is required for FA? WP:IUP reads like legalese and in any case it is not very informative. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

New Boleyn looks fine (and Bucer, too); I've stricken the oppose. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments I lean towards support, but have some prose concerns, and would like to at least get something about his family, which was left hanging in exile under Henry VIII. — Ealdgyth 19:26, 21 May 2008 — continues after insertion below

Ouf! Fortunately, I had advance warning of a big batch of comments coming from Ealdgyth. :) I will start on these tomorrow. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Given how large the article is... I think this was rather a small batch myself (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Lead ... second sentence in the first paragraph, "...which resulted in the breach of the English Church from the Roman Catholic Church..." just reads awkward to me. Maybe division instead of breach? And shouldn't it be "Church of England" instead of "English Church"?

I changed "breach" to "separation". Concerning the use of "English Church", I was trying to avoid an anachronism. The Church of England is now a separate entity/communion, but at the time of Cranmer, the "English Church" or perhaps the "Church in England" (geographical or provincial definition, not ecclesiastically separate yet) was part of Roman Church but departed on a different path. Perhaps I am being too fussy, though. I don't mind using any of those three. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand the problem, maybe "English Church" is the best compromise here, although I remain open to other suggestions. Church IN England just seems clunky. Why couldn't Great Harry have been consistent???? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Same section, third paragraph, first sentence '...expedite major reforms..." Ugh, sounds like a business meeting. Maybe "...quicken the pace of reform."? or "...hasten the pace of reforms."?

I changed "expedite" to "promote". Thank goodness I still have my Roget's! --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I like promote better than my suggestions, done! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Lead, last paragraph, second sentence, when you say "He was imprisoned for over two years, after which he made..." the "after" implies he was let out of prison after two years THEN he made the recantations. Perhaps "Imprisoned for over two years, he then made ..." or something similar.

Agree. Changed to your formulation. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Early years ... first paragraph, next to last sentence, how long was a term then?

Used years instead of terms. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• In the service of Henry section, first paragraph, next to last sentence, should University be captitalised? I believe it was several universities that were consulted.

At first I thought that you must be right. But then when I took a look at MacCulloch, he used "University". This seems to imply that Wolsey relied on Cambridge experts. Looking at the context in the book, on the previous page he mentioned a Cambridge Hebraicist and on the next paragraph he discussed about Cranmer's role in the University. Since Lee, Gardiner, Sampson, and Foxe were all from Cambridge, I assume the "University" must refer to Cambridge specifically. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Urf. I really don't like the University there. Think you feel safe going with Cambridge Unversity? Maybe something in all those articles I just dumped on you... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the articles on Wolsey, unfortunately. I am one of those contributors that try to do everything by the book (source) and keep my own interpolations at a minimum. But I think this one can be easily done. A small "u" doesn't exclude Cambridge! --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Same section, third paragraph, first paragraph. I think I'd say "Cranmer's first contact with a Continetnal reformer was with Simon Crynaeus, who was based in Basel, Switzerland and was a follower of the Swiss reformers Huldrych Zwingli and Johannes Oecolampadius." which puts the name up closer to the action, as it were.

Agree. Followed your formulation using a dependent clause. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Appointed Archbishop section, second paragraph, fourth sentence, shouldn't the second phrase be "Catherine did not appear nor send a proxy."? I think I'd say "or" rather than "nor" but that's a personal preference.

Agree. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Same section, third paragraph, second sentence, the second phrase reads awkward to me. Perhaps "...he renewed Erasmus' pension that had previously been granted by Archbishop Warham."?

Agree. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Same section and paragraph, sentence starting "John Frith was condemned to death due to his.. " I think I'd say "for his views" instead of due, but again, a personal preference.

Agree. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Under the vice-gerency section, perhaps you need to explain what the vice-gerency is, since it's going to be very unfamiliar to most folks, and while you've linked it, it won't hurt to give a quickie explanation so folks don't have to leave the page to understand.

Added definition. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Same section, second paragraph, first sentence is awkward to me. Not sure how to word it better though. I suppose saying Henry had a guilty conscience isn't supported by the sources... or that he was an idiot won't work either...

Changed slightly (used the verb "reflect"). --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Probably should explain what Convocation was, not just wikilink it.

Added clause. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Reforms reversed section, first paragraph, might explain what auricular confession is to folks, who probably have no idea what it is.

Added clause. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support from the king section, fifth paragraph, I think I'd drop "roles" from the sentence starting "However, powerful reform-minded nobles Edward Seymour and John Dudley returned to England during the summer from roles overseas and they were able to turn the tide against the conservatives."

Agree. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Foreign devines section, last sentence of the first paragraph, what exactly are you attempting to say with "images suspected of attached devotion"? do you mean "suspected of attracting devotion"?

MacCulloch said "suspicion of devotion attached to it". I understand this to mean an image that is suspected of being venerated. From here, I cannot read more into MacCulloch's analysis, but I would assume actions such as kissing, kneeling, lighting candles, etc.. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this is a good point to use a direct quotation from the source, that way the awkward wording gets passed off to someone else, and you have someone to blame for it. (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not the most elegant of solutions, but it is one. I use quotes and cited it. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Same section, next paragraph, do we know if John Chrysostom did write the Ad aesarium Monachum?

Both Hall and MacCulloch just say that the epistle is by Chrysostom (no footnotes on whether modern scholars say that it is true or not). Gardiner, at the time, debated with Cranmer about the letter so I put in the word "allegedly". If I go strictly by the sources, I should remove that adverb. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to do some digging on this, after I get through the morning crap to-do list. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Working on this, hope to be able to clarify it after some research tomorrow. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a cite based on the article you sent me. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Book of Common Prayer section, was it still the Abbey of Chertsey? Or shouldn't it be the "former abbey of Chertsey"?

It should be former. It was already half-demolished at the time. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

thought so. Granted, we are getting past my normal time period, but I was pretty sure all the monasteries and chantries had disappeared under Great Harry. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Same section, first paragraph, next to last sentence "eucharistic encounter" is very awkward. Perhaps "..and believed that the eucharist's presence was only spiritual." Although this isn't the best formulation either, for something so freaking complex.

I saw "eucharistic encounter" in an book or source somewhere and I thought it was nice alternative. Anyway I changed it to "presence". --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Final reform programme section, second paragraph, I know it's usual to refer to folks by their last name, but I really think, given Peter Martyr's last name, that it is best to use his full name at all times. (first sentence of this paragraph)

When I first started out, I thought I would avoid the problem by using "Vermigli". But all the sources (Hall, MacCulloch, Ridley) use "Martyr" and they do not seem to have a problem with using his last name after introducing his full name the first time. What I tried to do is a compromise. Instead of giving his full name every time which would look a little strange if his name appeared only a few sentences apart, I used his full name whenever he was not mentioned within a couple of paragraphs. I might have missed a few, so I will check it over again. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I just hate using a last name like that alone, I think it can lead to confusion issues with some of the readers. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I did add a few full names so that there are no isolated "Martyr" and the full name is always nearby within the context. But if you think it is a serious enough problem that they all should be the full name, then I would rather change it to Vermigli. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Same section, third paragraph, I think there is some punctuation errors and something just awkward with the sentence starting "The new book removed any possiblity of prayers for the dead which, would imply support for the doctrine of purgatory." If they removed the prayers, wouldn't that imply that they no longer supported the doctrine of purgatory? And I believe the comma is misplaced anyway. Strongly suggest rewording this sentence.

Reworded. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Much clearer now, at least to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Same section and paragraph, sentence starting "While traveling in the north of the country...", the phrase "when he was based in Newcastle." do you mean Dudley or Knox? If Knox, wouldn't it read better "John Knox, then based in Newcastle."?

Agree. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• You mention a couple of times in passing a canon law revision, but never really say what it was about, just that it didn't pass and that Cranmer was involved. Perhaps this needs to be explained better?

Expanded that paragraph. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Much better. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I know that the real reason they tried to put Lady Jane Grey on the throne was that she was Protestant, but you probably should mention that she was indeed a blood relative of Edward and Mary's, not just that she was Dudley's daughter in law. Otherwise it really looks like she had no blood claim at all to the throne, which she did, just Mary's was much better.

Changed to mention Jane's relationship with Edward rather than her marriage relationship to Dudley.

• Probably should mention his children by the second marriage and that he did bring back his wife to England after Edward took the throne. We kinda left her hanging back when he sent her into exile under Henry VIII.

I had mentioned to Karanacs in the peer review that I would put something in the Legacy section. I just added a paragraph on what happened to the whole family. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As usual, an excellent article, just some quibbles and concerns about awkward prose or jargon. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Switched to support. All look resolved! Another great article, now on to Jan Hus!

Generally Support. Because the sources are offline and out of hand I can't really do a proper review of the article, but it is a pleasure to read. The reviewers above are doing a good job finding points to fix, but these are really very small detractions and I see you're addressing them. Wnt (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Support An excellently well-written, well-referenced and well-organized article. In a few places, the density of inline citations felt a bit low, but nothing very troubling. The final few sentences depicting Cranmer's Catholic and Protestant biographers seemed out-of-place, seemingly subjective and sweepingly apodictic; so I softened the wording somewhat — please check that I didn't change your intended meaning! Willow (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I can add citations for specific sentences on request; I try to make sure every paragraph is cited. Your wording definitely improved what I had originally. I just wanted to mention though that Ridley's paragraph on the subject of the various biographers was even harsher and I had to soften his phrasing! Null's description is more scholarly and very detailed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Cranmer mourned Henry’s death and it was later said that he demonstrated his grief by growing a beard. I think this mentions only the least important part of what MacCulloch says about the beard, which was a statement of rejection of the Old Church. Jennifer Loach makes the the same point in her Edward VI. The reason I raise this obscure point is that I was going to add a nice line about the beard to the caption of the white-beard portrait (since the other images have neat descriptive comments), but I didn't want to seem to contradict the article's statement that he grew the beard in mourning. I think the beard is more significant than just that. qp10qp (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the point on the rejection of the old Church (both in the text and in the caption). --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

---

Populous: The Beginning

previous FAC

(self) I addressed the concerns from last time, but the reviewers didn't show up... so I'm renom'ing. David Fuchs ^(talk) 13:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose

I own this game and I stubled over this piece of text:

"The game has no formal resource management; new units are created at houses, and training new warriors costs no type of resource. Only wood from trees is required to build new structures."

Training warriors costs mana as far as I know and mana is created by followers residing in houses. I would like to have this double checked. Regards, Daimanta 00:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. The number of followers in general funnels into the amount of mana your shaman has, but at any time you can create any type of fighter. I've double-checked the manual, and I see nothing to the contrary. David Fuchs ^(talk) 18:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I looked it in further and I have found some (weak evidence)

"This building takes any follower type (except Warrior) and makes them a Warrior. This process uses mana, and proceeds fastest whent[sic] the spell charge bar is full."

Source: http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/file/198322/23903

I believe I have read that training units costs mana in the game itself(probably level one), so you might want to take a look into either the tutorial or the first levels of Pop:TB. Regards, Daimanta 18:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed the sentence slightly. David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Support: Very well, the rest of the article is fine with me. You have my support. Regards, Daimanta 19:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Concise, informative, well-referenced, NPOV - great article (and milestone game). Can't believe this is the same article I created amateurishly over three years ago - User:David Fuchs has done an excellent job. -Kez 18:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support well written and well sourced. Good job! Miremare 21:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I'd like to see "PC" linked in the infobox (as "PS" is), but that's all. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 02:59, 11 September 2007.

---

FC Steaua Bucureşti

previous FAC

This article has undergone another FAC nomination a few months ago and it failed. However, this time, I feel that all FAC-criteria have been taken care of and that mistakes that lead to the previous FAC denial have been fixed. Thank you. Vladi 11:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The history section is hopelessly POV, being written from a fan's perspective. There have been so many controversial things about Steaua, especially before 1989, when it was Ceauşescus' favourite team, or even before, but none of these issues were mentioned, except for this apologetic bit:

Valentin Ceauşescu admitted in a recent interview that he had done nothing else than to protect his favourite team from FC Dinamo Bucureşti's sphere of influence

This is simply showing only one side's perspective. bogdan 19:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm afraid I'll have to contradict with you. I believe the article is rich enough in footnotes and references in order not to be considered POV. Whether one is or is not a supporter of one of Steaua's rival teams does not entitle them, in my opinion to oppose an article simply out of this reason. Yes, I am a Steaua fan, but the History section is entirely based on references and I tried to maintain a neutral stance as much as possible. It has never been proven that Valentin Ceausescu (and in no way Nicolae Ceausescu!) was ever involved in the life of a team in unethical ways and the paragraph about him covers as much as one can cover about a controversial topic. However, if any user outside Romania (because you are Romanian) opposes the article specifying this reason, I shall look into it. Vladi 20:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Just because an article is rich in footnotes and references doesn't mean it can't be POV. BTW, thanks for considering my opinion not important and waiting for a user from outside Romania. bogdan 20:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • And how exactly do you find this POV? I have no knowledge whether an article has the benefit of doubt over its POV-ness. If you have any suggestions where to find any articles marked "not POV" underneath, I will be glad to refer to them. And I said I waited for someone outside Romania not because of me being an anti-Romanian (because I too am Romanian), but because of the fierce rivalry existent among the 3 major Bucharest teams, which makes any article written about them vulnerable to unjust comments on behalf of fans of rival teams coming from Romania. And you using the term apologetic about a sentence which, in my opinion, has nothing special about it, made me, without accusing you of anything, think about it. Vladi 20:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
        • So you think that only fans of Steaua should edit the article on Steaua, right? Well, WP:NPOV says that in cases like this, NPOV is achieved when all parties reach a consensus. bogdan 20:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
          • If you give me a copy-paste of where I said only Steaua fans were entitled to edit the article, I'll retreat it from the list. I was referring to the fact the it has never been proven that Ceausescu was involved in the life of the team using unethical methods. Unfortunately, information outside Romania regarding this topic is simply anectodal. Neither do us, Romanians know much about the true reality of Communist years, but until something has been proven, no one can claim it is official and reliable information. However, I will take your advice into consideration and add one or two sentences to the section. Vladi 20:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I think it's certain Steaua did have some unethical advantages over other teams, the extent of them is debatable. One of these advantages was that they were allowed to take gifted younger footballers from other teams and gave them two choices: to do the military service in a regular unit or to play for Steaua. Some of them stayed for Steaua even after military service (not all, though: for example, Gica Popescu quickly returned to Craiova after playing for Steaua for some months). bogdan 21:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
              • This is a whole different story and it's about sports during Communism. You are referring to the fact that players would not move between teams as they do today, in a capitalistic fashion. Clubs were not companies and players were not professional. Therefore players would move to a different team only as arrangements between the governing trade unions of the respective clubs. Players did come to Steaua using this procedure in the same way they moved to teams of Ministry of Internal Affairs, which was the supreme body for sports back then (namely Dinamo), student teams (Sportul Stud., Univ. Craiova, Poli Timisoara, U Cluj) and yes, even workers' teams (Rapid, Otelul, FC Brasov, etc.) And this is exactly what I was arguing: that any implication of Ceausescu, even though possible, is, at the moment, nothing more than debatable. I hope that the supplements I made to the text though are good enough. Vladi 21:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
                • I am aware of the differences in the system. I just say it would be notable to say that the system was skewed in favour of Steaua and Dinamo, who were allowed to take players from other clubs without their club's consent (e.g. Gheorghe Hagi) and sometimes even the player's consent (e.g. Gica Popescu). Rapid, Craiova or other teams did not have this privilege. bogdan 08:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
                  •  Done There. :) I created a new section called HISTORICAL CONTROVERSIES in which I pretty much explained all these debates. Hope I managed to keep a neutral stance. Let me know if there's anything else. Vladi 10:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I think there are many things wrong or missing... I think it would need a peer-review from an expert and I'm certainly not one. I could name a few things:
  1. Gigi Becali sold Steaua in 2005 to his nephews in order to avoid being impounded by the tax authority, together with other assets of him. "Gigi Becali si-a vandut toate actiunile de la Steaua nepotilor sai" (prosport)
  2. AFC Steaua had a dozen million euros of unpaid taxes and to avoid paying them, a new company was set up and received the assets of old Steaua. The old association filed bankruptcy and never paid its debts. "Romanii platesc datoriile Stelei" (evz)

  An FA should be comprehensive on such things, not just have the history as it is presented on the official site. bogdan 19:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

  •  Done Nice to see you again. I admit you may be right on some topics. I edited the OWNERSHIP section with the information needed and I also added some lines about the racism-related issues around the fans. However, if you compare the history section on the official website and the one presented here, you'll notice an important difference. Also, the article has been peer reviewed a few weeks ago ([2]) and the problems raised there have been taken care of. Vladi 16:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• BTW, are you sure the chairman of Steaua is Gigi Becali? A google search shows the name of the Executive Director and President of the Administrative Council of Steaua is Valeriu Argăseală. bogdan 14:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done Been meaning to change that for a while actually. Vladi 16:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 02:59, 11 September 2007.

---

Concorde

Relisting after being delisted. Article is now massively referenced, and we have fixed all of the important issues previously making it ineligible for FA status. (Self nom, although work of very many people.)WolfKeeper 00:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose While it may be massively referenced and the layout and info looks good. The ref are not been entered correctly. this page should help you. Buc 18:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

While desirable, AFAIK that doesn't seem to be a mandated reference style for FA, and thus IMO should not gate FA. Can you refer me to where it is stated that this is the only acceptable format?WolfKeeper 18:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

1c —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That just essentially says it has to be referenced, which it is. 2d gives multiple options for how it is referenced.WolfKeeper 20:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad 2d is what I was looking for. Buc 20:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You both can debate reference style later. In the mean time references like this: [3] should be expanded to the bare minimum requirements. Mark83 20:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have replaced all of these with the appropriate article textWolfKeeper 00:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Yes, as Buc mentions references are still a problem. For example many of them are just numbered urls - no title, source info, date, access date etc.

Done.WolfKeeper 00:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not Done. While they do look a lot better they still require dates where avalible and acssesdates. Buc 05:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Concorde under Verrazano Bridge.jpg is strangely placed at the intro. It is an image depicting its time as a museum piece and should be in the retirement section in my opinion.
• Too many pics? There is a gallery linked at the bottom. May I suggest a few candidates for removal to it (if not already there)?
  • Image:Supersonic.arp.750pix.jpg - historic, yes. But not a great image; Nose almost cropped, front landing gear and rear right landing gear cropped and right wing cropped.
  • Either Image:Concorde Ramp.jpg or Image:intake concorde.jpg - Not identical, but not different enough either.
  • Three gate guardian pics?? (Image:ConcordeSinsheim.jpg, Image:ConcordeCDG.jpg and Image:Concorde At Manchester Airport Viewing Park.jpg) Wikipedia is not a repository of images. I suggest picking one to show the aircraft was important enough to have taken pride of place at a major airport, e.g. CDG.
• The Withdrawal from service section is a bit disjointed. i.e. the first part of that section has copious amounts of BA-specific material which should be under the BA sub-heading.
• "Cultural and political impact" is one (short) paragraph? That shocked me. I suggest merging this with "Public perception".

Yeah, it used be longer, but I removed stuff because it was uncited, and I couldn't find any cites for it. I've now merged it as you suggested.WolfKeeper 01:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Popular culture could do with being pruned. e.g. I know very few of these - but to take the one I know well, Snatch. Concorde features for less than two seconds in a 103 minute film. Not a "notable appearance or mention." Mark83 19:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK I've brutally shortened it down to only major references, basically chapters in books or greater.WolfKeeper 02:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Few more:
• Overlinking - BA 5 times, AF 6 times, TU-144 3 times. They're just the ones I noticed. However they are major factors of the article, so I doubt if there are many more such overlinks.

Done--WolfKeeper 16:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

.*Aerospatiale appears with and without an accent. Should be consistent.

• TOC too big. Under "Main problems overcome during design" I think "Passenger safety at altitude" should be removed."Increased radiation exposure" and "Cabin pressurisation" should just be two more subheadings of "Main problems overcome during design".
• The "The aircraft was initially referred to in Britain as "Concorde.." section is too big. It might just be me, but at some point it crosses the line from interesting to uninteresting/minutiae.

It's all rah-rah nationalism, it was a fairly big thing at the time.WolfKeeper 01:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Only Air France and British Airways (the successor to BOAC) took up their orders" -- Is it not more correct to say these nationalised airlines had the aircraft dumped on them?

No, they definitely had the choice, and because of that they were able to screw a damn good deal out of the government; it was essentially a zero-risk proposition for them.WolfKeeper 00:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• I believe in the spirit of WP:Summary the Engines subsection of "Main problems overcome during design" should be trimmed considerably with a main link:{{main|Rolls-Royce Olympus}}

This one is a bit tricky, it's mostly about the supersonic air inlets which were very specific to Concorde, and they are not normally considered to be part of a jet engine itself, which pushes it more into the Concorde article and away from the Olympus one, so on strict technical grounds it should be in the Concorde article. Also the inlets had impact on the testing and there are interactions with airspeed and air conditioners and so forth. But I can see that shortening the article may be desirable. So I can move it if you insist.

• "..experience gained in its design and manufacture which later became the basis of the Airbus consortium." great point, needs a ref though.
• "the precipitous Air France retirement of its own Concorde fleet was the direct result of a secret conspiracy between Air France Chairman/CEO Jean-Cyril Spinetta and then-AIRBUS CEO Noel Forgeard" -- cited yes, but undercited in my opinion. This is a major allegation from just one source, the author of which's credentials are not clear to me. Might I suggest this is a conspiracy theory of a conspiracy theory?
• "The small hope remaining for Concorde today rests with a dedicated group of French volunteer engineers keeping one of the youngest Concordes (F-BTSD) in near-airworthy condition. " repeated later under "Aircraft histories".Mark83 21:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose First of all, I love this plane and think it would have been awesome to fly in it. That said, this article fails badly in whole paragraphs (long ones) being completely unreferenced.

I think the references should also be constant throughout instead of a mix.

You need to explain what you mean by 'a mix'.WolfKeeper 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The pict from the Paris crash could be added for enhancement.

Unfortunately, no, this is impossible for legal reasons.WolfKeeper 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There are too many informal phrases

Please list what you consider to be informal phrases.WolfKeeper 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(why on earth would you use the @ symbol?)

done.WolfKeeper 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

and a lack of no-break spaces.

done.--WolfKeeper 16:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I also ran the semi-automated peer review on it and this is what it found

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.^[?]

I do not consider this to be a fair criticism of the lead, and I do not feel that a tool can be trusted on this issue.WolfKeeper 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2 kg, use 2 kg, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2 kg.^[?]

done.--WolfKeeper 16:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[?] Specifically, an example is 250 km.
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]

These are trivial issues.WolfKeeper 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor),

This is a British article, 'honor' is not present in the article.

favourite (B) (American: favorite),

This is a British article, favorite is not present in the article.

aluminium (B) (American: aluminum),

This is a British article 'aluminum' is not present in the article.

meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), 

This is a British article 'meter' is not present.

organise (B) (American: organize), realize (A) (British: realise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), modelling (B) (American: modeling), travelled (B) (American: traveled), ageing (B) (American: aging),

I'm sorry, but I have been unable to locate any American spellings. I do not consider that this tool can be trusted; the tool is expecting American spellings.WolfKeeper 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

routing (A) (British: routeing),

routing seems to be acceptable British english, it is used by the BBC.WolfKeeper 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

program (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ).

fixed.WolfKeeper 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• The script has spotted the following contractions: doesn't, doesn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]

Good luck!!! — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The tool is unimpressive.WolfKeeper 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Oppose Okay, just a quick one now before I go to bed, the article needs a WP:MOS overhaul before it should be promoted. I'll go into more detail asap. The Rambling Man 21:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments from --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• 4x "citation needed", those have to be addressed
• "Passenger experience" is largely unreferenced
• "Paris crash" contains 3x just a numbered URL
• "Operational history" contains several large unreferenced parts:
  • "The service was discontinued...Acapulco."
  • "Between 1984 and 1991,...Washington to Nice, France."
• "Withdrawal from service" has a large unreferenced part:
  • "The small hope remaining for Concorde ...regain airworthiness certification."
• References need authors/date/publishers/accessdate
• References should be checked for redundancy (e.g. 53 and 54 are identical)

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 02:18, 9 September 2007.

---

Crowded House

I, along with other members of the Crowded House WikiProject have thoroughly copyedited the article, as well as implementing much in the way of references, both in the way of further reading and inline reference citations, and we believe the article ready to be a Wikipedia Featured Article. --linca^linca 03:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Careful not to overlink. I noticed Neil Finn and New Zealand linked twice in the first two sentences (I fixed those cases). Might want to double check that this isn't the case throughout the whole article. It would be tiresome on readers' eyes. =) Also check that you're consistent when referring to the band as either singular or plural: you start with "Crowded House is" but later use the plural. Pick one and stick with it throughout the article. 69.202.41.119 02:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Forgot to mention: I really like the layout of the "Band members" section. It looks great! 69.202.41.119 02:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Here are some suggestions [4]. Giggy ^Talk 02:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comments - this one is definitely doable and should get over the line but some stuff needs to happen first. I'd agree with the stuff in the link to Lara Love's talk page above. More tags would be nice. Overall the prose is not bad but lacks a little something which I am having a hard time defining - it seems to lapse into a tone which may be a little informal or band/music jargonistic. I will get specific examples - tweak these and you'll be alot closer to FA. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I didn't initially write the whole article. Little by little, I've worked my way through copyediting and re-copyediting the existing texts that were in the article. You may be lapsing between my text and the original (I sure hope mine is the definition of the better). linca^linca 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

They released their eponymous debut, Crowded House, in June 1986. - add debut album (yeah yeah I know, you and I know it but think for someone who doesn't know 'em)

I actually removed that just the other day. I have a thing against having too many adjectives (debut is both an adjective and nounal) but if you feel this descriptor needs to be there, I'm happy to replace it. linca^linca 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Although critics were impressed, the album was not as accessible as their debut. - I sort of know what "accessible" means but it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia - can you define it (now where's a rock thesaurus when you need one?)

Haha. Rock thesaurus would probably define it as something even more ambiguous. I think for encyclopedic prose, I'll change it to "was not as well received commercially". linca^linca 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

After a month, Seymour initiated contact and the two agreed to bring Seymour back. - erm, reword so there's only one seymour...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Faced with some time off,.. - comes across as a little informal - rephrase?

The first para from From three piece to four piece (1991–1994) section is a bit rambling and could be rewritten more crisply.

Hmmm. I stewed on this and this was the best I could think of. This basically was the second "era" for Crowded House when they officially became a four piece for the first time in their recording career. I was trying to move away from the album-titled sections, and this seemed to describe the Together Alone and Woodface era better than anything else. I'll think of something. Another thought I had was "Two Finns and a Hart" but that seemed cornier than maize. I want the section to articulate that the group was no longer a three piece, but didn't know how to express that. Any ideas? linca^linca 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The next sentence has 5 clauses. These recording sessions mixed with a few songs from the earlier sessions yielded Woodface, which was released in July 1991 featuring seven songs written jointly by Tim and Neil Finn together, most of which had the two performing harmonied vocals, and featured the sombre "All I Ask" performed solo by Tim, which was later featured on AIDS awareness commercials in Australia. - I think splitting it into a couple of smaller sentences is needed

Sounds fine to me. Makes perfect sense.linca^linca 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

..multi-instrumentalist Mark Hart of Supertramp.. -these descriptors need to go where he is first mentioned - 2 lines previously.

Sure.linca^linca 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

also - it leaves one hanging a bit as to why Tim Finn was asked to leave - is it written somehwere?

I couldn't find it. I know it's been mentioned in a few articles and a few interviews, but the descriptions seem contradictory, so I didn't want to give information that could be inaccurate because of the differences between the sources. I could go with the "Something So Strong" description, but Neil Finn just in May talked about it on NZ radio and it's a slightly different story. --^linca 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't it because Tim was used to being a "Front man" during gigs and he had to take a lesser role during Crowded House? --Mutley 02:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

linca

How about prefacing the two differing versions with "Differing stories/versions exist as to why...." - and then mention both. I thought it'd be a key point given Tim Finn's stature etc. its ok to give two versions and I like the idea of an article giving alternate versions and not presenting info as canon.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea, and yes Mutley, the version that is in the book is that Tim was used to basically runnign the show, after taking over from Phil Judd in 76, and returning 15 years later as a "member" rather than a "leader" didn't wash well with him. This caused disagreements between him and Neil, and Neil, wanting to protect the friendship they'd restored after the distance they'd developed between themselves, decided it would be better for Tim to leave, to which Tim agreed (this is my paraphrase). The way Neil told it earlier this year (in the Denton or NZ radio interview, from memory) was that Tim decided to leave after not turning up to a gig one night. I also read this about 6 years ago, about when One Nil was about to come out. This resonates with me as a harsh story to tell, and possibly may be considered salacious or libelous, for the wiki page without strong references, and I don't have any. Idon't even want to suggest the story on the main page without said references, however I don't want to use the other story for the simple fact that it sounds a bit "convenient" and a bit warm and fuzzy, which, from following the history f the brothers, is likely to be untrue in favour of the "risky" one. For this reason, I want to keep it as it is until I can get firm info (maybe if my magazine can get me an interview with Finn in October when they're here - which they've told me they will, but who knows; they didn't come through on John Mayer - I'll ask him about it. He might be able to shed some light directly to me). --linca^linca 11:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

All the band's members were on board, including Hester and for the sake of reminiscing, the group also called upon Peter Jones and Tim Finn to make guest appearances - bolded bits are a bit too informal and the latter probably redundant.

Sure. linca^linca 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

...various different... -redundant - choose one adjective here.

had all reconnected with one another - gah! rephrase - too warm and fuzzy...

OK - what is a dealbreaker - the book ref (Something so strong) needs the rest of the details (isbn yada yada) and should be moved to a cited text subsection of refs and the page numbers as the individual inline refs.

The ISBN is quoted. I added that source there a while ago. Maybe someone removed it. I'll double check. I'll update all these applicable changes and get back to you. linca^linca 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The 2 books I presume have been use - the individual pages cited should be inline refs too.

The books used are both well over 250 pages, and the references are comprised from throughout, not necessarily from any particular part, so I'm not sure how to go about this, since we'd end up with about 60 pages being referenced, sometimes several pages cites for each individual reference. If this is essential for FA, I'm happy to do it, but my copy's not easily accessible to me (it's in an archive box along with most of my books, since they're all OCRed onto my computer, so I don't have page numbers listed there). The reason I mention this is that I may not be able to appease this request for a couple of weeks, since my archives aren't in Melbourne, they're in Sydney. linca^linca 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That sucks - sorry - look it'll probably be here for a couple of weeks and hopefully someone else can help out. Good luck. If you scroll down to the bottom of Amanita phalloides you'll get an idea what I mean. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As a compromise, can I put the chapter numbers? It's going to take me a while even still, but it means that the general information provided can be there, meaning I can also still use duplicated references where applicable, though not as often. linca^linca 08:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Chapter numbers is definitely better than the current. So go right ahead. Overall see what consensus is - I can't speak for others.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 02:18, 9 September 2007.

---

Franco-Mongol alliance

A little known but fascinating event of the 13th century. PHG 08:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support per nomination PHG 05:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Lead section is too short. Many paragraphs have no references. Some sentences are POV (e.g. "In 1253, Louis, following his disastrous Crusade, desperately looked for allies." and "Overall, Edward's crusade was rather insignificant and only gave the city of Acre a reprieve of ten years.") or confusing ("offering the Franks a 10 year truce (which he would later breach), a truce they accepted" and "and furthermore Arghun died on March 10th"). Please try for GAC first. --Kaypoh 11:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Done, 102 references now, with no paragraphs without reference I believe. POV or confusing sentences corrected and referenced. Thank you. PHG 14:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment:

• 2 books which appear foreign in nature are used as references for the article. There are no english alternatives? Foreign books make it hard to verify the article and to pursue the topic through further reading. Also if multitude of english sources are available then using foreign sources can become a comprehensiveness/reliability issue.

• The subject matter being primarily French, a few French sources (primary and secondary) are I guess quite acceptable. Of course French is also quite an accessible language for many English speaker wishing to check the material.PHG 16:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Done, thanks to User:Elonka, several more English-language books with associated references have been added. PHG 19:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Continuing with the first point, an English written quote is references to one of the foreign books; citation 32 is one. Did you translate this quote yourself? I would prefer for academic sources to give translations, this quotations appear to be dated to the 13th century and probably require a linguistics expert to properly translate the quote to another language.

•  Done. Good point. I am putting in the original French so that the translation can be verified by anyone. The 13th French is actually quite straitforward, making the translation an easy one.PHG 16:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Article is crammed with images. Why have an illustration Jacques de Molay, if the reader finds the subject so important as to pursue to see a sketch of him he can just click the wikilink to his article. I only prefer images that directly illustrate events of the article topic.

•  Done.Thanks, I took it away.PHG 16:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• The lead is very poor. The leads gives practically background information instead of summarizing all the events presented in the article. Also that "what if" last sentence of the lead does not appear anywhere else in the article.

•  Done. Thanks. I moved the "what if" to another part of the article. I improved the lead content so as to better reflect the content of the article.PHG 17:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• MoS issues, I would prefer you ask someone familiar with all the guidelines to review the article. Single dates are wikilinked, things are wikilinked that shouldn't: Mongol Empire is wikilinked 1/4th into the article for no reason.

•  Done. Thanks. I took out the redundant links to Mongol Empire. PHG 17:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

74.13.91.146 16:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • The MOS issue with autoformatting dates mentioned above has not been addressed. There are many stand-alone years wikilinked, particularly in the lead, and full dates not correctly formatted, e.g., June 12th, 1221 in the Early Contacts (1209–1244). --Malleus Fatuarum 11:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Done, all dates cleaned up I believe. PHG 20:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent! Well-researched and referenced and beautifully illustrated article on a fascinating and poorly-known subject. It should be of interest to many readers and will undoubtedly promote a deeper understanding of the long history of East-West relations. It should also help to correct the Eurocentric world view of many English speakers. John Hill 03:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. I can tell that a lot of work has gone into this article, and it appears to be well-sourced, but I'm afraid that many of the sources are not reliable ones. I cannot speak for all of the information in the article, but I am well-versed on Templar history (having been the primary editor to bring the Knights Templar article to FA status), and some of the information here about the involvement of the Templars and Jacques de Molay does not at all jibe with my sources. To my knowledge, there was no "retaking of Jerusalem by the Templars in 1299". De Molay was never "left in Jerusalem." I spent several hours last night reviewing my most reliable sources about Templar/Mongol involvement, and the actuality appears to be that De Molay was campaigning in Europe for a retaking of Jerusalem, but he could not muster sufficient support. The Templars, based in Cyprus when they received news that the Mongols took Jerusalem in 1299, were indeed hopeful that the Mongols were going to give Jerusalem back to the Christians, and rumors flew fast and furious,[5] but that was about the extent of it. I am open to being proven wrong here, but I've been looking at the sources that this Franco-Mongol alliance article provides, and they're just not good ones. Most of the Templar information appears to be sourced to personal websites,[6][7] And even if the Templar section were completely removed, I would still be adamantly opposed to this article being approved for FA status, unless the rest of the sources were scrutinized as well. --Elonka 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. You are rightly pointing to an area of the article where more sources would be welcome (the involvement of Molay in the 1299 campaings): today we have a specialized site on the Templars [8], and the French Center of Development in Arts and Medieval Culture [9]. I also found a painting in Versailles showing the conquest of Jerusalem by de Molay in 1299 Image:JacquesMolayPrendJerusalem1299VersaillesMuseeNationalChateauEtTrianons.jpg. Also included in the article is a JSTOR article claiming that the event actually did not happen, although it was widely publicized at that time in Europe [10]. More sources would of course be welcome, and I will be glad to discuss and enrich this part, or any part of the article. And of course all references in this article are genuine, you can check them very easily. Best regards PHG 19:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your courtesy. I acknowledge that the references exist; however, I challenge the reliability of some of them. Especially where the Templars are concerned, it is quite routine for sources to be promoting speculative information as fact. I've checked over a dozen books now, and am quite confident in stating that there was no re-taking of Jerusalem in 1299. All of my sources agree, that when the Turks took Jerusalem in 1244, that the city was never again under Christian control, until the British took it from the Ottomans in the early 20th century. --Elonka 08:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done. I eliminated the questionable references (mainly online Templar sites), in favor of recognized published sources (thanks Elonka for the references). The capture of Jerusalem was modified to something like "rumors of the capture of Jerusalem" to properly reflect available sources. Thanks again. PHG 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your changes, but this article still needs considerable work before it can reach featured status, especially considering that it was just created a couple weeks ago. I greatly appreciate PHG's sincere good faith efforts to address concerns, but trying to make quick fixes in the middle of the FA process, when there are such strong concerns about content issues, is not the best way for us to be proceeding at this point. The article is promoting a point of view that I just don't think is backed up by modern reliable sources. The article states that there was a strong alliance between the French and the Mongols, and I'm sorry, but there just wasn't such a thing, despite what may be claimed in Runciman's book. I can point to multiple reliable sources which state that there was a desire for an alliance, but that it never came to fruition. The article also makes heavy use of duplicated references, and too many places where there is just a link that says "Source" that is simply a link to an unspecified webpage. I also still have many strong concerns about the Templar information in the article. I am extremely willing to work with PHG to help improve things, but I'm afraid I have to insist that this article just isn't anywhere near FA status yet. It is my strong recommendation that we slow things down here a bit. Let's withdraw the FA nom, work on improving the article, put it through a Peer Review and the GA process first, and then take another run at FA. I firmly believe that this will be an excellent article, but it's going to take some time to find out where the consensus is. --Elonka 20:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for your comments. I took away all the "Source" mentions in favour of precise descriptions. For your other reasons for opposition to be valid, they have to be actionable. Many article have passed FA within 2 weeks from creation. I find that FA nomination is a great time to get the attention of many knowledgeable editors and to bring an article to top condition (lot of work within 1 or 2 weeks though!!) If improvements have to be made, let's make them now. Your comments and modifications are welcome to improve the content of the article. Regards PHG 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not think that you have adequately addressed my stated concerns. My oppose stands. And please, don't reply to me with "Done." --Elonka 21:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No offense intended. The "Done" answers to your actionable request about replacing "Source" mentions by more detailed descriptions. PHG 06:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm suprised that Lev Gumilev's name is not mentioned. He was one of the first to write at length about the joint French-Mongol activities in Syria and the rest of the Middle East. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of Gumilev's work, but would be glad if we could incorporate it if it is relevant to the subject-matter. PHG 19:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose and recommend article review. I was surprised by this rather sweeping statement The Mongols had been proselytised by Christian Nestorians since about the 7th century and many of them were Christians which is certainly counterintuitive and, although referenced, lacks a page citation. According to the CIA World Factbook, modern Mongolian religious practice is 6% for Christianity and Shamanism combined. The closest parallel to this topic I know in any depth is Mongol invasion of Rus and the sources I studied agreed with that article: Christianity played little role (if any) in the religion of thirteenth century Mongolia, and the extent that any Christians appeared among Genghis Khan's extended family was probably due to dynastic alliances with noble houses in conquered Christian lands. As Elonka expresses, it appears to be possible to find sources that assert the contrary, a minority of which satisfy WP:RS, but I'm far from convinced that this article represents a WP:NPOV treatment. To the nominating editor, although it appears you did a great deal of work bringing the article this far and I respect that effort, if your response is to add a page notation to the specific line I questioned and reply with a done template I'll revise this opinion to strong oppose. Elonka knows her area in considerable depth and consulted a variety of sources before replying. I'd like to see a wider range of sources listed as references and I'd like to see this FAC withdrawn for more serious revisions. The first try doesn't always succeed, so please keep going. Best regards from the main contributor to the featured Joan of Arc article, Durova^Charge! 05:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Durova. I am afraid it is a well documented fact that the Mongols were proselytised by Christian Nestorians since about the 7th century, although I agree it is counter-intuitive, and may surprise a lot of people. And modern figures from the CIA World Book have little relevance here. Christianity among the Mongols is part of the broader phenomenon of the expansion of Christianity to the East before the Middle East, also examplified by the history of Christianity in China. A great modern source is Foltz, Richard (2000): "Religions of the Silk Road : overland trade and cultural exchange from antiquity to the fifteenth century". Also "The Silk Road", Francis Wood, p.118 (among others) "William of Ribruk was shocked to discover that there were, indeed, Chirstians at the Mongl court, but that they were schismatic Nestorians" etc... A great medieval source was translated in "The Monks of Kublai Khan Emperor of China", Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, Online. Probably what is not known so well is the actual extent of the Christian religion among the Mongol populace in the 13th century, but Christianity among the Mongol elite is well documented (most of the wives and mothers of the Khans, some of the Mongol generals such as Kitbuqa, as detailed and referenced in the article). Regards PHG 05:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Durova. Since you made your comment on the Mongols and Christianity, I added about 10 new references with actual quotes. Please kindly check and comment, before I can consider myself actually  Done :) Best regards PHG 10:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak oppose at this moment Mainly criterion 1a - The prose is good, but not yet brilliant. At this stage this article (IMHO) would easily makes GA criteria. The topic is very interesting, and worth to be taken out of obscurity, and I compliment the editors for taking up this task. It is well researched, well sourced (although reliance on primary sources is not always best), seems reasonably neutral and comprehensive. However, I think some work is still needed (I agree with another editor here that the longer path through GA-candidacy, and a formal review may have been more appropriate). As stated above my main problem is in FA criterion 1a. Although the prose in itself seems of adequate quality the overall narrative of the article feels a bit 'choppy'. There is not always a good flow between the sections, and the first section after the lead starts out abrupt. An introduction that leads the reader into the important historical events should (IMHO) be a bit more catchy. Also the article now opens with the view of the mongols on the west. It may give a more balanced view if some "view of the Franks on Mongols" section was added. I hope and think that with some moderate level of copyediting to overcome this issue the article will make FA soon. Arnoutf 12:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 02:18, 9 September 2007.

---

Hard disk drive

It has great and clear images. It deeply defines the Hard drive both historical ones to the new one. It clearly understandable. It defines almost every aspect of the Hard drive: its function its types, it capacities, its parts and also the certain function of each and every part. And also, it clearly explains how the hard drive works and stores information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil ryans (talk • contribs)

Comment suggest that the Manufacturers section gets fixed first. --Oscarthecat 17:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose In addition to the above, the following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 5 inch, use 5 inch, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 5 inch.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • apparently
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: aluminum (A) (British: aluminium), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), fibre (B) (American: fiber), signaling (A) (British: signalling).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
• The script has spotted the following contractions: weren't, wouldn't, couldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 02:18, 9 September 2007.

---

Age of Enlightenment

I feel this article is very comprehensive in nature and provides a great deal of detail into the subject of philosophy, and specifically the Enlightenment era. Page is well edited, neat, and objective. MrRobinzine 20:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy oppose: No citations. Alientraveller 20:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: per above. DSachan 20:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: minimal citations; half the article is a list. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: Lacking citations per WP:V and WP:CITE; lists are an ineffective method of describing an entire era to readers unfamiliar with that era. Awadewit | talk 00:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: As above. - Hairchrm 04:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose: so many issues – substantial part is a list, no in-line citation, , etc. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 14:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:The copy editing is not very good. 3 sentences or less per paragraph is what I recommend. Laleena 01:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: Citations needed. Also, a section dedicated to the philosophies of the Age of Enlightment would come in real handy.Kmarinas86 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 02:18, 9 September 2007.

---

Human rights

I do believe this article is deserving of a article status. I believe this because, to the best of my knowledge and judgment the article is up to "snuff", and is most deserving of FAC status.N734LQ 05:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Needs a lot more work. Missing in-line citations for substantial amount of material, some links not properly formatted and in references, needs a good copy-edit, notes and cites need fixing up (one of them is a wikipedia page!).Recurring dreams 12:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 02:18, 9 September 2007.

---

Real Madrid C.F.

I think the article is very good and it should be a featured one. I have been working on this article for about two months. It is accurate, comprehensive and well-referenced, If there are any problems or suggestions please reply.--Hadrianos1990 17:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Object Oh my, its another one of these nominations. Nowhere near FA status. If you really want to get it to FA status, you will need to do a Peer Review and have a lot of spare time on your hands. Mattythewhite 17:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose and may I suggest you withdraw this FAC and head for peer review instead. At a glance there are several manual of style issues, and a serious lack of citation. Also it may be worthwhile looking at other current football club FA's to see what to aim for in terms of content and structure, such as Arsenal F.C. or Norwich City F.C.. Let me know when you've set the PR up. The Rambling Man 17:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - This token FAC needs a lot of work to reach FA standard. Try looking at some other featured football club articles for an idea of the structure you should be aiming for. - PeeJay 17:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is not ready for FA status at the moment. Have a read through Arsenal F.C., Chelsea F.C. and Manchester City F.C. to get an idea of what is required. There is a lot of competition for FA status, and it is usually a good idea to pass Good Article and Peer Review first before attempting FA. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Unfortunately, I had a flick through the article, and went straight to the 'Supporters' section, and immediaely saw unreferenced material regarding crowd attendances at the stadium. Such minutiae require addressing when attempting FA articles, as I have learned.--Bulleid Pacific 10:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry, but this article is nowhere near FA standard. The quality of prose is quite poor in many places (I suggest that someone whose primary language is English be asked to copyedit it, as much of the text reads as if it was written by non-native English speakers) and there should probably be at least five times as many citations as currently exist. One section refers to "controversy" but is completely uncited, which is a 100% no-no. I endorse the suggestion above that a new peer review be requested ChrisTheDude 23:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 07:15, 4 September 2007.

---

Essjay controversy

The controversy itself is now over, and the edit wars are now finished. What is left is very comprehensive and concise article that I think is now good enough for FA. Let something good come out of something bad. DevAlt 09:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Needs a section about its impact on Wikipedia. After Seigenthaler, we made the BLP policy and oversight, and anons cannot write new articles. Last section of "Wikipedia community" needs references. --Kaypoh 13:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Such a section about changes made after Seigenthaler is not appropriate on an article about Essjay, and there are already paragraphs about the failed credentials plan. The last section on Wikipedia community is derived from the previous reference given in the quote above. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I believe this article to be fundamentally unsuitable to be an FA. We cannot hold this up as an example of the best work on Wikipedia - it is self-referential and obsessed with our own importance. It is also an article about a short term news event rather than a topic of actual encyclopedic interest. I have long advocated its deletion and still do so now. However aside from this I believe this article falls well below our expected standards in the following ways:

1. It is not stable and is frequently the subject of edit wars.
2. The structure is pretty weak and is really just a collection of quotations with a bit of text in between, rather than a free standing article
3. The "Notes" section contains quotes not related to the subject of the article but general criticism and attacks about Wikipedia - this is against policy on references and would not be acceptable in other articles.
4. Some of the detail seems excessive
5. I'm not sure about neutrality - I realise there are few sources to use for balance, but Essjay's editorial contribs were minimal and whether or not he was a professor pretty irrelevant to a lot of his participation in the project. The article seem to imply he was a major contributor of content, which is simply not the case.

I certainly think this article falls below the FAC now and have reservations at whether it could ever meet that criteria. WjBscribe 18:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Every article that exists on Wikipedia should have an equal chance of reaching FA, regardless of how self-referential, obsessive or even naff it is. This article has enough separate sources that it will never be deleted, so it should have as great a shot at FA as anything else. Secondly, this article, with the exception of this brief spat on Larry Sanger I accidentally started, has not had any edit warring for the past fifty edits in its page history, which goes back to the beginning of August. I do not think it is as controversial as it was originally. And a lot of your issues can be fixed - I have removed the quotes in the Notes section. There's not a lot one can do with the structure of the article: it was a scandal about what Essjay said and how others responded to it, that does require quite a lot of quotation. If you could be a bit more specific about your complaints regarding neutrality and detail, i'd liek to deal with those too. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like your removal of those quotes got reverted - as mine did some time previously.... WjBscribe 19:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can try for the semblance of an FAC, at least. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Given Quackguru was just blocked for reverting repeatedly my removal of the quotes, would my removing them again count as revert warring because he can't respond? I want to address your objection but I'm not keen to break either the letter or the spirit of 3RR. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it would a bad idea for you to revert further. I will get back to you with more detail on my above points. If you want to make this a better article, feel free - but I doubt my view that it is unsuitable to be an FA will change... WjBscribe 20:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not actionable. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Not a bad article - I've seen worse. Few things - probably too much self-reference, in that WP is not a RS, and if you can't find another source, the likelihood is that no once cares. Bit of that, and some other stuff. Will try some fixes. Moreschi ^Talk 20:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  FWIW, in this case the relevant guideline is WP:SELFPUB, I think. In this article, the primary issue is that Wikipedia is a primary source. So in cases where we have items like "Jimbo made a statement" cited to The New Times or whatever, it's acceptable to link directly to that statement of Jimbo. But if the point is not made anywhere else, then Moreschi is right, probably nobody cares. --JayHenry 02:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for the simple fact that Raul would not be foolish enough to put this on the main page. Might make a good article, but not featured. Majorly (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Raul put Islam on the main page just after attempted Islamist bombings in the UK. That was hell - this would be far better! Moreschi ^Talk 20:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • To clarify, I also agree with WJBscribe's points. This is really an embarrassment to Wikipedia, if anything. And I doubt it would be included in a paper encyclopedia. It's simply a bloated news report. Majorly (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Raul maintains a select list of Featured Articles that he will never place on the main page - I imagine Essjay controversy will be one of them when it passes. And just because an article embarrasses Wikipedia doesn't mean we should exclude it, we come off rather badly in Criticism of Wikipedia. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What's more, this isn't the appropriate place to revisit whether or not the Essjay AFDs were correct. --JayHenry 02:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. What WJBscribe said. This would just make us look stupid if we ever had it on the main page, or as a featured article. That, and the fact that I don't think it reads like a featured article either. --Deskana (talky) 20:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Look, this simply isn't a valid objection. Personally, I don't find the fact that we trusted someone and they subsequently betrayed us embarrassing to Wikipedia, but I'm apparently in a minority here. The article exists, it has passed several AfDs, it's not going anywhere and theoretically, every article on Wikipedia should have a chance to become Featured, its content should be irrelevant. Like I said above, Raul keeps a list of articles that will never be put onto the main page, so this is a misplaced fear - Essjay controversy, in terms of how embarrassing it is, is similar to handjob, facial, and Citizendium(which is full of attacks on Wikipedia). All should have their chance to be FA, even if they don't make it onto the front page. Which is how it should be. Now, if you object to the prose, be more specific so I can address your objection. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Umm... yes it is valid, and you seem to have misunderstood my objections, as I don't find it embarassing either. However, I think the press would find it quite funny were we to have "Essjay controversy" on the main page. We're trying to build a reputation as a reputable encyclopedia, and if we start featuring articles on us on the main page, it makes us seem like we write about every little thing that happens on our website. This is how I feel about it. --Deskana (talky) 22:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've already told you that becoming FA isn't a guarantee it will end up on the main page, but that's up to Raul. Do you have any objections to the content of the article? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose as Majorly says, it's simply a bloated news report. And having an article about ourselves on the main page would make us look stupid. ElinorD (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone actually reading any of the previous comments at all? Have I not said at least three times now that becoming FA does not guarantee a place on the main page, an honour which is entirely at Raul's discretion? And are not all events basically extended news reports? Virginia Tech Massacre comes to mind. What exactly am I supposed to do with that? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I did read your comments. I stand over my comments. I'm not keen on the idea of any FA that would be inappropriate on the main page. And, I repeat, it's a bloated news article. ElinorD (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I am opposing per the others, as well as several problems with the actual article. I would personally like to see a section on other related incidents, similar Wikipedia issues etc. etc. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's just too self-referential. -- ChrisO 01:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to flesh out a few base principles here - (1) If this is promoted, I will not put it on the main page for the same reason I declined to put Wikipedia on the main page when it was a featured article - it's simply too self-referential. However, (2) the fact that it is not suitable for the main page, or the fact that is self-referential, should not in-and-of-itself disqualify this article from becoming a featured article. I've often said, and I'll say again here - any article that can or has survived a trip to the AFD should, at least in theory, be eligible for featured article status. (3) For the first three weeks in August, this article received only 16 edits; the diff for last month shows very little substantive change in the article. Therefore, I do not consider it unstable. The likelihood of vandalism or future edit wars is NOT a consideration when determining featured article status. Please restrict commentary here to the substance of the article. Raul654 03:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• This may just be the nature of covering such subjects, but I really don't like how much of the article is an indiscriminate list of quotes. In my opinion, the preferable way to document the media reaction would be a far shorter summary with few, if any, quotes. This is just a personal preference, however, and there is nothing really wrong with including too much verifiable information. As for actionable items...
  • At least one ref is broken (missing).
  • The linking of dates needs to be consistent - if you're going to link the month and day, the year should be linked. I also don't think month/year dates need to be linked.
  • ctrl+f "noted" - replace with neutral "stated" as it is someone's personal opinion
  • Is everything in the timeline accurate? Cited? --- RockMFR 04:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't find that broken ref, though I've clicked through to all of them. Dates should now be appropriately linked. All two "noted"s have been chnaged. :) So far as I know, everything in the timeline is cited in the text - it's basically an infobox. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - The writing is really quite pathetic and it is really just a collection of quotations strung together with some interspersed text now and then, rather than a free standing, narrative article featuring brilliant prose. If the version someone had tried to replace it with (I reverted to it once) in early March had been allowed to stay up for more than 2 minutes, this would most certainly not be so. Now you have the consequences. CyberAnth 06:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

An interesting version. I will see about integrating some of the prose from it to make it more like narrative. In the mean time, I will drop a line to the WP:LOCE to iron out any informal tone. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Possibly bad P.R., length, lacking of MOS and per Majorly Miranda 06:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:FAC is not AfD. It works by people what's wrong with the article and other people trying to fix it. Saying "length, lacking of MOS" is meaningless, I cannot fix a problem which consists of one noun. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I am stating what's wrong with the article. Let me rephrase for you. Oppose - The length is too short, the criticism section is merged in together when different viewpoints are expressed (MOS), this would be bad PR for Wikipedia because the article gives the impression that every person has to verify their credentials to edit Wikipedia, when in case some users enjoy their right to be anonymous (hence IP users). Miranda 07:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Length in itself is not a reason to support or oppose - what else do you want in the article that would lengthen it? Please clarify what you mean about the criticism section, there is no one section entitles criticism, so I do not know to what you refer. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

In some cases length is an appropriate case to oppose, and support. Criticism section (seen here) subheaders like "criticism from magazines/newspapers/etc." would be nice. Miranda 07:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That is going to make the article look very chopped if I create subheaders for a single paragraph each. I was going to put in more connecting sentences today, so come back and tell me what you think then. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - No. I don't think it's good enough to be a futured article, and the edit history doesn't seem too stable (At least, at first glance.) No way...--Isis4563 12:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please withdraw this per WP:SNOW. ←Ben^B4 17:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This is NOT an AfD. I have at least five days to address objections - Raul has stated that all opposes based on the nature of the article itself are irrelevant, so I have to fix the article according to the the remaining prose concerns to get it promoted. I believe this can be done, and as soon as I have a decent Internet cable (because I just moved into halls today but didn't bring an Ethernet cable with me. *smacks self*), I will do my best, considering most people are being frustratingly unspecific about what they see wrong with this article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dev, this is not an AFD discussion, and this discussion has already been flooded with people who are misunderstanding the FAC process (I'm hardly an expert on FAC, but comments like "this shouldn't be on the main page" are of no use, or "this article could never be eligible," when all articles are eligible.) Perhaps we should restart this nomination with some sort of disclaimer? --JayHenry 02:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the best option is to work on the article with the actionable objections made here, and it can be restarted if necessary after that. No point losing good criticism. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom lol -- Y not? 05:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, I'm going to try and give actionable objections here. I don't like this article personally, and I doubt it will ever pass FAC (the complete absence of supports is significant). However, FAC is about improving the article not giving it a star... So here goes:

1. There is an over-reliance on quotes in this article. As it stands its questionable if the sheer quantity is acceptable under fair use (the law not the wiki-policy). It seems like all the quotes are being included merely to bloat the article's size, suggesting inappropriate length. (WP:WIAFA 4)
2. Is WP:SIGNPOST really a reliable source? I find that questionable...
3. There needs to be a distinction between "related articles" and "source material"; that would still make sense in the context of a mirror. Specifically, the link to Essjay's user page should be an external link not an internal one and not dumped in the see also with other articles.
4. There are no images or graphics whatsoever in this article, its just dry prose. A picture of Essjay would be relevant for example.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a lot of quotes given without any connecting sentences, and I am going to try to fix that. Unfortunately, I am not yet connected to the Internet in my halls, which I wasn't expecting when I started this nomination, so it'll be maybe one of two days before I can actually deal with this issue. But I thank you, gratefully, for your comments, and I apologise both to you and to everyone else for this annoying delay. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 07:15, 4 September 2007.

---

Luxurious

I am nominating this article for the following reasons:-

• I Like the way the article is written and the information is very much sufficient. It in not over loaded with information.
• At one point of time, i doubted the length of the aticle, but when i saw that Hey Baby, which is exactly of the same length, is at FAC, then i felt, why not this article.
• This article is already GA and also A Class, and also had Peer Review.
• This article is part of a Featured topic. So beinf FA or this article became a priority.

Therfore, i kindly request and repect your comments. Thank You!. Luxurious.gaurav

• Oppose The article has several issues:
  • Reference 6 does not appear to be a reliable source since it borrows from this very article without attribution (note the "(see 2005 in music)" comment that doesn't link anywhere).

 DoneLuxurious.gaurav 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Why is there a sentence about critical reception in the Music and lyrics section?

  Why can't it be used. The critical reception is used in order to prove (and in one way cite as well) the idea of the song being called hip hop. This sentence could not be used in critical reception part as it is not a reception.Luxurious.gaurav 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  • There is little information about the music itself. For example, what chord progression does the song use?

  Is it a huge necessity? I was not able to find it, so it is not there. If we have the information, i is well and good. But it is not possible for all.Luxurious.gaurav 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  • The second paragraph is primarily interpretation sourced to the lyrics themselves, which is a form of original research.

  Lyrics have been expalained in many song articles. I got a similar feeling with Hey Ya!. 17Drew 05:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  I'm referring to the sentence that begins "The lyrics were well received." It doesn't present any new information about the lyrics, so it should go in a different section. Having information in an article about a song discussing the song itself is quite important. There is information about this stuff; I recommend looking for the sheet music, which is out there somewhere since it's cited in reference 7. Yes, articles should have interpretation, but only when sourced to secondary sources, as Hey Ya! does. Also note that "appropriate length" varies from one article to another (Hurricane Irene (2005) vs. Ketuanan Melayu). One would expect more information to be available for this song since it was released more recently, but I could be wrong since it didn't perform as well. 17Drew 19:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose lead and article seem rather short. The refs are inconsistent in format, for example, the web refs should all have publishers and retrieval dates.Rlevse 12:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done. I have already mentioned about the length of the article. I saw other articles of the same length getting nominated. Luxurious.gaurav

MOS and possible copyright issue.

• Unspaced en dash in the infoblot should be spaced (MOS).

 Done

• Please remove final period from captions that aren't complete sentences (MOS).
• IMV, the numbers 10 and over would be more readable if numerals (MOS recommends, although doesn't insist). Sits oddly with "Hot 100", "Top 40".

 Done

• Is the YouTube external link an infringement of copyright? Tony 13:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  The YouTube video was posted by universalmusicgroup. 17Drew 16:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 07:15, 4 September 2007.

---

Emergency psychiatry

Self-nomination. Article has been listed as a "Good Article" and went through a peer review. I reviewed the Featured article criteria, and the article seems to check out OK (from my humble reading). APA style referencing is used in the article. Looking to get this article to one of Wikipedia's best :)! Chupper 01:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for now looks promising but some things need to be addressed and I ain't got to prose yet:

ok, the first two refs which from two books; given the number of refs it is highly desirable (if not necessary) to have page numbers or chapters at the very least. Some reviewers will insist on page numbers.

Well, if the editors insist that page numbers be inserted, I will. The APA style, used in this article, states page numbers should not be used in short books such as these. If a reader were attempting to locate information cited here, the books have table of contents and are short enough so the information can be found relatively quickly. I guess I'm confused why Wikipedia would conflict with that... Again though, if the editors insist, I'll check out all of those books from the library again and add in page numbers. Just let me know... Chupper 00:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

:I have a little trouble with the scope of the article as there are a couple of overlapping themes - Emergency psychiatry as a discipline per se vs. psychiatric emergencies (wherever they occur) vs. psychiatry in the ER. A fourth is the set up of special subunits in ER (ED in Oz) which are called PECC units in Australia. This is mentioned. First glance leaves me unsure of what the article is actually focussing on.

I've renamed some of the sections and reworded some of the prose. I hope it is more clear now. The article should deal with emergency psychiatry as a very practical and clinical discipline (probably like most other branches of medicine). The Delivery of services section should now further describe how and where the practice of emergency psychiatry takes place. Chupper 00:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

:Need to add a couple of psych med emergencies - this is touched on but there's no mention of NMS (neuroleptic malignant syndrome) - dangerous overdoses - eg tricyclics which are lethal, lithium toxicity, and serotonin reactions - eg from mixing SSRI with tramadol or any form of amphetamines. All these need to be briefly mentioned. I am happy to insert them.

Wow, thanks for opening my eyes to these conditions. I'm just a lowly undergrad trying to wrap my brain around the subject. I've added information I've been able to find from the sources I have. (See Hazardous drug reactions and interactions subsection) Your expertise is really appreciated! Chupper 00:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway - its all doable but does need some nutting out - I can change to support once we address some of these. Good work so far cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful suggestions! I'll get to work on these over the next several days. Chupper 19:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed some of the issues above. I look forward to more comments or feedback. Chupper 00:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK - I've had a think about this and I think a radical but easy-to-install shift is the answer. In psychiatry there is no subspecialty (i.e. vocation as such) called 'Emergency Psychiatry, though there is a large amount of material on either Psychaitric emergencies or Psychiatry in the ER, both of which are amply represented here. As it stands the article reads as if it refers to a discipline of psychiatry in para 1 of lead, yet para 2 is all about services, as is the rest of the article - psych emergencies and some discussion on services.

I'm thinking the two options are either - rename and refocus as Psychiatry in the ER, or call it Psychiatric emergencies. The first is probably a better bet as it is a more inherently cohesive subject, whereas the second could just be a list with links to all the separate articles. I was goingt to say it would be a good fork from the Emergency medicine article but that one itself is way underdeveloped as is....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you do bring up some good points. I've given this a lot of thought, and I must admit, I'm not excited about the idea of a name change.

• I don't like psychiatry in the ER because I feel like it is misleading. Psychiatric emergencies don't always take place in the ER. Often times psych hospitals treat psych emergencies. And sometimes these emergencies are treated outside of hospital settings. And ER physicians, psychiatrists, and ER psychiatrists aren't the only people treating these patients.
• I like psychiatric emergencies a bit more, but still, the history section wouldn't really fit in an article like this and I want the article to be more "discipline" in nature.
• I disagree with the fact that emergency psychiatry is not a subspecialty. Hundreds of books have been published with emergency psychiatry as the main subject (a few of which are used in this article). Medical schools have emergency psychiatry rotations. The APA publishes Emergency Psychiatry and refers to it as a discipline.
• I did understand that you were saying the article doesn't seem to cover the subject as a discipline. I gave this a lot of thought, and while I see where you are coming from, I'm thinking most medical specialties would be presented in a service way, right? I guess what I mean to say is medicine is the science of "maintaining and/or restoring human health through the study, diagnosis, and treatment of patients." So any discipline under medicine will probably be a clinical application of that field. Psychology or anthropology may be different because they are academic (sometimes applied) disciplines where as medicine is always an applied discipline. The other concern is that "emergency psychiatry" is relatively new, and like psychiatry, pulls its science from many disciplines including neuroscience, psychology, pharmacology, and medicine. All this kind of keeps this "discipline" in a clinical perspective.

So, I hope I didn't come across as rude. I appreciate your comments. Let me know your thoughts about what I wrote above. Realize, of course, I may be completely off and wrong here :). Chupper 03:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No no, this is a place to nut things out and often things have to be negotiated/massaged before they evolve into something. Agee that it is an area of psychiatry and an important one - what I meant was that it wasn't a subspecialty with an addittional training scheme etc. etc. Anyway, opening sentence is a bit better. Will have another look and see how it can progress.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, don't hesitate to let me know if I'm wrong about something or making incorrect assumptions... Due to your comments I didn't really like the lead sentence, so I rewrote it. Let me know if it captures more of the theme of the article - "Emergency psychiatry is the clinical application of psychiatry in emergency settings." Does that fit better? Chupper 14:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 07:15, 4 September 2007.

---

Ford Taurus

Mar 06 FAC, Dec 05 FAC , Jan 07 FAC

I have put a lot of work into this article, such as rewriting most of it, referencing everything, as well as wikilinking, restructuring, as well as other changes. I think that now after all of these changes, mainly with the removal of POV and the addition of many references, that this article is finally ready to be featured, so I am again putting it up for FAC. Nomination and support Karrmann 00:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Sorry :) I do think this is a very comprehensive and apparently thoroughly referenced article which covers an important car in recent American automotive history, and Karmann has put a lot of work into it. I recently peer reviewed the article. The vast majority of my comments have been taken up (not that my comments have any special status!), but I have one remaining, vital, concern: the writing is not of FA standard. There is quite a lot of unclear, or non-standard, phrasing. In places the words could be compressed significantly for the same meaning - the most an obvious example being the first two paras of 'Fifth generation'. The article needs a good copyeditor with fresh eyes (not one of the regular contributors) to go through it in depth to clarify the structure and writing, streamline the text and fix errors. In some cases that may mean doing more research to allow particular phrases or claims to be made more specific. I also suggest that it would be helpful if the copyeditor was not from North America and had no particular interest in cars. With this done, which will not be a minor task, I would be happy to support the article. 4u1e 09:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 07:15, 4 September 2007.

---

Middlesbrough F.C.

(Self-nomination) Myself and others have been working on improving the article over the past few months and now feel it is of the same sort of standard as other football (soccer) club featured articles. --Simmo676 19:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Support: This article seems fully referenced and well written, although I must admit I am a bit biased for supporting this article, as I'm a Boro fan myself. ISD 19:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no references in first paragraph of "Stadia", "Honours - Cup", "Honours - International", "Top appearances", "Top goalscorers", "Football League 100 Legends" and "Football League Hall of Fame". What is "fluxuated", "finising" and "borry"? --Kaypoh 08:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Oppose for now. The lead does not follow guidelines at WP:LEAD. The lead should be a adequate summary of the whole article. At the moment it is not. Referencing needs to be improved. The stadium reference is only about Riverside and not about the previous stadia. There are several spelling mistakes throughout the article as highlighted by Kaypoh.Woodym555 12:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC) (changed to support, Woodym555 15:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Comment: I've corrected the spelling mistakes in the article and have referenced the Honours, appearances, goalscorers, FL 100 legends, and FL Hall of Fame sections. Stadia already had a relevant reference but I made it more clear that the reference in paragraph 2 also referenced paragraph 1. I also expanded the lead section and it is (in my opinion) comparable to the lead at Aston Villa F.C. which recently made FA status. I hope that addressed those concerns. --Simmo676 14:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes the lead looks good now, (i know about Villa because i was the nominator ;). There are some problems with the MOS. All of the scores need to have ndashes.

Also, the seasons need to be ndashes as well. E.g [[2002-03 in English football|2002–03 season]]. All seasons should be wikilinked to the appropriate articles. Most are but some are not at the moment.

All web references need retrieval dates. (I notice ref41 doesn't.)

The first instant of currency should be [[Pound Sterling|£]] per WP:MOSNUM.

The dates should be wikilinked correctly. I notice On 27 April 2006 in the history section is incorrect. Should be On 27 April 2006 for people's personal preferences to work. Woodym555 15:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than that, the references look good and the prose is excellent. Woodym555 14:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'd fix some of this myself, but it's been sprot'ed (s'proted?).
  • "Middlesbrough Football Club (commonly known as Boro) are an English football club based in Middlesbrough, Tees Valley, who currently play in the Premier League." Currently is also not the most encyclopedic word. "Who play" is just fine.
  • "The club was formed in 1876 and have"... In fact, the article alternates between singular and plural when referring to Middlesbrough. It'd be easier on readers if it was one or the other.
  • "...severe financial difficulties, however the club..." Ugh; please let's not have comma splices in an FAC.
  • Solo years and month/year combos should generally not be linked (full dates though should). Also, does "consortium" really need a link? 69.202.63.165 14:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I've fixed Woodym555's suggestions and corrected the missing word "in" noticed by 69.202.63.165, as well as tried to correct the comma splice, and delinked solo dates. I also tried to correct the plurality problems I spotted. Also, I thought consortium needed linking as I didn't really understand what one was, and guessed some other people reading might now know exactly what one is too. --Simmo676 15:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I did some little fixes such as wikilinks and a few weasel words. I have now changed to support, the article looks good. By the way, I have asked for unprotection and it has now been unprotected. Woodym555 15:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A couple of queries:
  • Why is there a picture of the Middlesbrough Ironopolis team?
  • The Riverside was not the first stadium built in line with the Taylor Report, that was the Deva Stadium. The Riverside was the first all-seater to do so though.
  • I have some concerns about the prose (1a). When I get the opportunity I'll run through this in detail and leave comments on the talk page. Oldelpaso 11:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've left some further comments about issues too minor to warrant an oppose on the article talk page. Oldelpaso 18:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • The Middlesbrough Ironopolis team picture to think of it doesn't seem relevant to the article actually, so removing it would be a good idea it seems.
  • The MFC website says that the Riverside was the first stadium "designed and constructed to comply with the Taylor Report"[11]. The Deva Stadium article simply says it was the first English stadium "to fulfil the safety recommendations" of it. Is there a difference there? Were plans designed earlier and later changed? Though, the Deva being built two years after the report may dispill that. All-seater may be what was intended after all. --Simmo676 13:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was 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)

• Comment Don't use words like "presently undefined" in the lead section. --Kaypoh 05:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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

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

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

The article was 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)

• 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)

 Done Buc 16:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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

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

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)

 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)

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

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)

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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

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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)
      • Is "Possibly" a WW? Buc 19:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
        • 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)
• 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)

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)

• • Do you have any specific to piont out so I can change it? Buc 18:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • 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)
        • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

The article was 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)

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)

 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)

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)

 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)

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)

 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)

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)

::::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)

 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)

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)

 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)

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)

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

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)

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

• 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)

 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)

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

 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)

• 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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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))

• 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)

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

• 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)

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)

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

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))

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
      • Actually, there are a much more Princeton players than you realize. If you look at [12], 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)

(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)

(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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)
  • "currently"—Read MOS on Precise language (Chronological items). Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "he bounced around in the Pirates"—what does that mean? Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "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)
  • "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)
  • "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)
  • "ERA"—Huh?  Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "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)
      •  Done Looks like someone got the —es and I did some –es--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

These are just a small sample at random of why this text is quite unsatisfactory. Tony 11:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
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)

• 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)
  • 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• • 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)

• • • 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)

• • • • 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)

• • • • • 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

• 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)
    • Above points addressed, other than a further round of copy-editing. Peter I. Vardy 13:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Let me know when that has been done. Tony 10:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• 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)
    • 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)
      • Sketchmap also now included (with thanks to the author). Peter I. Vardy 17:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Further round of copyediting requested. Peter I. Vardy 17:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• 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)
    • Political representation – will try to find out. Done. Peter I. Vardy 11:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • • 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)
          • 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)
• 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • More done. Peter I. Vardy 13:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

• • 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)

• 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)

• • 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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

 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)

• 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)

  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)

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)

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

•  DoneVoorlandt 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Good. --Kaypoh 12:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Plus more; needs someone unfamiliar to copy-edit. Tony 13:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

• • '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)
  • 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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

The article was 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • I've added that Hall is a "controversial" Japan scholar.[13]
  • The source for the text about right-wing scholars condemning the book came from here - [14] - 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.[15]
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)

• Not quite support just yet

1. Get rid of the 2 red link book titles. Create stubs if you think they are notable enough, or simply remove the wikilinks.
2. Perhaps Response in Japan heading should be subheaded under Acclaim and criticism.
3. 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.
4. 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)

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)

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)

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)

• Miborovsky:
  • I'll be making stub articles for both of those red links.
  • I've made the "Response in Japan" section a subsection.[16]
  • 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)
• Stub articles for the two red links have been created. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)
      • 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)
      • 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)----
          • 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)
            • 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)
              • 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[17][18][19]), 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)
                • 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)
                  • 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)
                    • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)

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)

Thanks for the review.

• I've added two quotes in the intro section.[20]
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)
  • 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)

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)

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 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)

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

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

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)

• 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)

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)

• Oppose --Kaypoh 08:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

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.