Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2007: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
m GimmeBot updating FAC archive links |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==September 2007== |
==September 2007== |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry Potter fandom}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry Potter fandom/archive2}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raëlian beliefs and practices}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raëlian beliefs and practices/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emma Watson}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emma Watson/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Real Madrid C.F.}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Real Madrid C.F./archive4}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Falk/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Falk/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alan Kippax/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alan Kippax/archive1}} |
||
Revision as of 18:57, 30 September 2007
September 2007
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 17:40, 30 September 2007.
Harry Potter fandom
A recent peer review of the article yielded no creative feedback (which could be due to the backlog, but I'm taking to mean as little more to say about the article). I think that all the concerns from the previous FAC have been addressed. The article is comprehensive as to how people take Harry Potter into their hands, with little to minimal mention of the popularity of the series or how the series has been critically assessed. Images are all free, and the article is well-cited. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 15:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Needs a copyedit. I found at least 2 odd constructions. "written by fans online", people usually write offline and use the net just for distribution. "tours of iconic landmarks relevant in the books"; landmarks are relevant to the books. "Pottermania is an informal term dating to about 1999"; "Pottermania is an informal term first used..." or "Pottermania is an informal term dating back to about...". "The fandom is facilitated by many different forms of media"; the fandom shares their ... through many different forms of media. Why aren't Draco and the Malfoys or any of the other wizard rock bands mentioned? I think JKR sharing plot info with a dying girl should also be mentioned? The excessive lines with film auditions? Also, what is an article about HP fandom without a mention of "towel girl"? There's quite some things missing. - Mgm|(talk) 18:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I haven't gotten to cover this yet -- I encountered quite a bit of unexpected work this week. I suppose with the comment below I'll work on this after the nomination fails and the article undergoes copyediting. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. I concur this article needs a serious copyedit. It seems relatively comprehensive to me, but there are a great number of odd sentence constructions. There are too many for me to list here, but I've included a few of the larger ones, and I recommend that you talk to the WikiProject:League of Copyeditors about helping. Karanacs 13:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Awkward sentence: "Pottermania is an informal term first used in about 1999 describing the craze Harry Potter fans have had over the series"
- This sentence needs to be reworked: "There are many fan web sites about Harry Potter on the Internet" (where else would web sites be?)
- Sentence on Godric's Hollow website needs work; "strangely?"
- The paragraph about Warner Bros trying to shut down the sites does not flow well
- The paragraph describing fan web sites in general should probably be at the top of that section instead of the bottom
- The Podcasts section probably need to be reworked; I would first describe the podcasts and then talk about their award nominations
- There should be no external links in the body of the article; these go in the external links section
- awkward: "new posts of which are subscribed to by over 5000 people"
- Need a citation after Emerson's quote about delusional
- In your citations, don't put (English) - that is the default
Karanacs 13:53, 28 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 17:40, 30 September 2007.
Emma Watson
This is a self nomination on behalf of the Harry Potter WikiProject. This article is certainly our best work; it passed its GA with flying colours, has been rewritten completely and copyedited several times by myself (Happy-melon) and Onomatopoeia. I consider it to be a strong candidate for Featured Article status. Happy-melon 21:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Looks good, meets the criteria. Judgesurreal777 21:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This reviewer offers conditional support below.
- Support (WP:HP editor) I read through it all, and it seems to be comprehensive and well written. I didn't noticed any unsourced statements. Layout appears clean. – Basar (talk · contribs) 03:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: Subject is too young and article may be unstable for FA. Alientraveller 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)- I don't see how her article will change anymore than older living people, especially not in such a dramatic way that will destabilize it to non-compliance with criterion 1e. Remember, criterion 1e says being stable "means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day". Her article does not need changing day to day just because she is 17 years old. – Basar (talk · contribs) 00:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Fair enough. Structurally, would it not make sense to give all the information on Harry Potter into one section? That's her career so far, and considering her age it may be better to merge her childhood and personal life into one section at the top. The lead provides chronology anyway, so there'll be no trouble if it looks a little jumpy. Alientraveller 18:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how her article will change anymore than older living people, especially not in such a dramatic way that will destabilize it to non-compliance with criterion 1e. Remember, criterion 1e says being stable "means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day". Her article does not need changing day to day just because she is 17 years old. – Basar (talk · contribs) 00:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- See my comment below regarding how such a merge does not read well. I think a short opening section does not disrupt how the article reads/flows, but putting these two sections together just to keep a section from being short has nothing to do with readability/flow and puts less important personal information (i.e. her grades) ahead of important career landmarks which also happened to occur first. She's a child actor, so it's not so shocking that the opening section would be brief. --Melty girl 19:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support: Fair enough again, apart from that, the article is fine. Alientraveller 20:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have to say, I'm quite impressed. Support, a well-written and engaging article. I'll leave it to others, perhaps more knowledgeable about Watson, to say if the article is comprehensive enough, but it seems that way to me, and avoids cruft or in-universe pitfalls. Sources look good. — BillC talk 22:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose: While the article itself is good, I am concerned about it being a FA because it is a high traffic page, and because it is especially prone to simple vandalism as well as the fact that unsourced fan cruft is constantly inserted into the article by throw away accounts. I mean, since she is a teen idol and all, there is too high of a risk and too much of a challenge to keep the page's integrity from being bogged down by fancruft. Karrmann 03:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- This page does not have any exceptional characteristics compared to other, much more difficult, featured articles such as Islam and Hurricane Katrina. – Basar (talk · contribs) 04:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- I concur. Raul654 21:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Also, since when was prone to vandalism a reason not to promote the article? If the content itself is featured quality, then it's worthy of featured recognition. If the page becomes suscepitble to vandalism, we'll protect it. That's certainly not a reason to Oppose. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- This page does not have any exceptional characteristics compared to other, much more difficult, featured articles such as Islam and Hurricane Katrina. – Basar (talk · contribs) 04:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Inconclusive Comment It might be a good idea to merge "Early years" and "Personal life", which read similarly. Yes, "Early years" deals with her life before stardom, but the section is so short (and likely to remain so) that keeping it separate seems unnecessary. —Verrai 19:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The redistribution of headings was discussed briefly at Peer Review. It was concluded that much more amalgamation would unbalance the table of contents, leaving too few top-level headers. However that combination is one that appeals to me somewhat, so if there is significant approval I will implement it. Happy-melon 20:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I strongly disagree with this combination because when the combined section was placed at the end, the article was out of chronological order, but now, placed at the front, it likewise disrupts the chronology and puts less important personal information (her grades) ahead of career landmarks, which are far more notable. I feel that these two sections should not have been combined. Yes, the "Early years" section was short, but that's because she's a child actor, and that's simply how it is. --Melty girl 15:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The redistribution of headings was discussed briefly at Peer Review. It was concluded that much more amalgamation would unbalance the table of contents, leaving too few top-level headers. However that combination is one that appeals to me somewhat, so if there is significant approval I will implement it. Happy-melon 20:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I doubt that vunerability to vandalism is a factor in determining whether or not the article should be featured. then that would just ruin the concept of featured articles. It meets all of the criteria. I support it. Reginmund 23:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I am a main contributor, ok, but I feel it meets WP:WIAFA. Subject is "only" 17, but so what, also older actors make films and the content is stable whilst being updated constantly. "Fancruft" can be killed as of WP:RS. "Prone to vandalism" is not an argument at all. Just look at global warming, it is subject of vicious edit wars since years (!!) and still a FA. It is rather an argument to protect it. —Onomatopoeia 06:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
- Does the Daisy Pratt Poetry Competition have any real relevance? It doesn't seem to be notable in its own right, nor is it related to her becoming an actress, so is it needed?
- I second this concern. The poetry contest mentioned is not placed in sufficient context, and is not notable enough for mention. I Googled it, and it's only a school contest, yet the way it's presented by name only implies that it's a regional or national contest of importance. It's also not on topic in terms of her trajectory toward becoming an actor. It seems too trivial for mention. --Melty girl 00:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Done Happy-melon deleted the sentence. --Melty girl 04:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done I would approve of merging "Early years" and "Personal life"; the distinction isn't always clear and neither are particularly long.
- Done "Acting career" seems to specific a title considering it veers into exam results and the FHM stuff, so possibly change to just "career"?
- It looks pretty good in general. Trebor 13:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done Oh, and some of the sources don't have full information; *14, for instance, doesn't have the author or publication date. Quick run through of them would be good. Trebor 13:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Done Thanks. I would put personal life first (although if people disagree, that's fine), and cut the "See also" section since it only contains one link (and many of the the people on the list are already linked to within the article). Trebor 14:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have removed the see also, but I'm less convinced about moving the personal life. Let's be honest - most readers are purely after her acting career (or they just want to marry her :D). Happy‑melon 14:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well if we're trying to please the readers, let's move the bit on nude scenes to the lead :D I'm not too bothered, it's just the norm for biographies to start with childhood after the lead. But looks good to me, Support. Trebor 14:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support - meets criteria. Couldn't spot any obvious prose fixes and article is comprehensive. Changeability of subject matter (rather than article) is not an issue. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose with specific (if numerous) reservations, which ideally, can be addressed so that I may remove my opposition. There are many writing and style rule issues I want to raise. Though the article is good, I think FA calls for more scrutiny, and it hasn't received that here as of yet. Some of the issues I raise call for easy fixes, some call for discussion and careful reworking. I don't think the writing is "brilliant" or "of a professional standard" yet. No ill will is intended; the article is good, but I think that for FA, more work needs to be done. I will discuss issues in order, from top to bottom of the article (not from biggest problem to smallest). [NOTE: I have a request for the editors of the article: please do not place " Done" in front of my paragraphs. Instead, please place " Done" (or "
Not done") below each comment along with your explanation and signature. Thanks.] --Melty girl 07:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Throughout the article, there often seems to be the assumption that all readers already have a full understanding of the Harry Potter universe; for a first example of this issue, the second sentence of the lead section should specify that the role of Hermione is one of three starring roles. Simply stating that Watson plays "Hermione Granger" does not provide enough quite information for the reader for those who don't know the character's name or significance.
- I have corrected the second sentence of the LS as suggested since I agree that clarification was needed, but I think I'll leave further modifications to Happy-melon. – Basar (talk · contribs) 06:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Doing... Your modification is good, Basar. It's not my article, of course! If I had a concern to raise about this article it would be that the lead is short. However, I'm not sure what else we can put in there that is notable enough. Happy‑melon 14:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I added the modifier "hugely successful" before "the Harry Potter film series", and I feel that with this and all the changes everyone has recently made, my above problem with the lead has been now solved. But are you still working on the rest of the article having assumptions about the reader's HP knowledge? --18:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melty girl (talk • contribs)
- Here's an example of awkward writing (also from the lead): "Originally a child actor in minor school plays..." is not the strongest way to open the sentence about her casting in Harry Potter. Not only are school plays are always "minor," but one is usually not considered a "child actor" unless one acts in some kind of professional context. I would suggest rewriting the sentence along the lines of "At the age of
elevennine, having previously acted only in school plays, Watson beat out thousands of other candidates for the role of Hermione."
- I see that this point has not been responded to. Perhaps you just haven't gotten to it yet, but is there a reason why my suggested sentence above is not acceptable? It could simply be used as drafted. The link your sentence provides to the child actor article confirms that a child who acts in amateur school productions is not a child actor, because a child actor is a professional. The usage is factually incorrect/misleading and should be edited out. I'm not sure if it's kosher for me to edit the sentence, given my role as reviewer, but if it's not a problem, I could go ahead... --Melty girl 05:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- The article later makes it seem like she was nine or ten when she was cast, yet the lead says eleven. Isn't eleven how old she was when it was released?
- I question whether her ranking as 98th in the FHM "100 Sexiest Women in the World" list is notable enough for the lead section. First, she only ranked 98 out of 100. Second, is her hotness ranking really one of the most important things to mention about this actor in the lead section? And is mentioning this poll the best way to get the idea of the nature of her celebrity across? If the answer to these last two questions is "yes" (which I'm not convinced it is!), then it would be good to note, for those who are not familiar with the poll, that it is a public vote -- otherwise, it just seems like one magazine's editors picked her, which is certainly not as notable.
- I rather like that sentence in the lead. I feel that part of the job of the lead is to establish the breadth of a person's notability, and I think the FHM poll shows how much her roll as Hermione has brought her to the attention of the public. I also think it's nice to establish this distinct aspect of her celebrity early in the article. For me, just the fact that people would vote for her is significant, even though she only made 98th. I have clarified that it is a poll by substituting the word list for poll. – Basar (talk · contribs) 06:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I also like it. Plus the lead is short enough already without us taking more out of it. Happy‑melon 14:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done Substituting "poll" is a nice clean fix. While I'm still not 100% sure it's worth mentioning in the lead in quite this way, this seems fine. --Melty girl 16:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- WP:$, as it's been explained to me, calls for only one currency to be used and only less familiar currencies to be converted in parentheses. Additionally, it calls for U.S. dollars to be the one currency used in non-country-specific articles; the question is whether this is a non-country-specific article or not.
- I would strongly argue that a British actress in an article written in British english should use pounds sterling. However, the MOS appears fairly inequivocal. Are there any other examples of legitimate exceptions to this rule? If not I will use USD, although I am loathe to do so. Happy‑melon 08:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I know this has been debated, but I think it's odd to begin the article with casting Hermione and not with the origins of Emma Watson herself. Seems more customary and more chronological to begin with where Watson was born, etc. I think it's odd that this info comes in the last section of the narrative.
- Inconclusive
Consensus seems to support this change. I have implemented it.Happy‑melon 08:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment above: Please note my problem with placing the merged "Early years" and "Personal life" section at the beginning. (It disturbs chronology and hierarchy.) --Melty girl 17:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Another example of awkward writing, this time about acting: "Following the literary depiction of Hermione, the producers sought a 'bossy' and 'self-confident' character and found that she fit this description perfectly." This seems to state that Watson herself is a bossy, self-confident character. Was she really cast because she demonstrated these personal qualities, or because she was able to portray them effectively as an actor? Additionally, this sentence displays a problem that I think the article has elsewhere as well: subtly making the qualities of Hermione the character of equal or more importance in this article than Watson herself. As written, this sentence is more descriptive of Hermione than Watson.
- I read the reference, and I believe it is saying that Watson is bossy and self-confident, matching Hermione who has the same qualities. – Basar (talk · contribs) 06:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done I see what you mean -- the source seems to suggest that they chose her based on her own personality rather than her ability to portray the needed qualities, which I suppose shouldn't be surprising for casting a child. Your re-wording is good. --Melty girl 16:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Concern remains The "Harry Potter (2001–present)" section launches in without first telling us anything about what Watson's role in the first film involved, how Watson's first performance was received, or how well the film did. There's no context. The main thing we get is Watson's perspective on herself and on Harry Potter, and this seems very unbalanced in terms of sources and perspectives. Hearing that twelve-year-old Watson said that "success hasn't changed her" seems more like fansite writing than FA Wikipedia/encyclopedic content. Continuing on, we hear Watson's opinions of her character, film plotting and of other actors, but we should be reading about Watson herself, about her work. Then we veer into the news that her early teenage years were hard, as were Daniel Radcliffe's -- but this is the Career section, not the personal section (or the Radcliffe article). Shouldn't we be learning about what this actress was called upon to do in her work in the HP films and how her performances were received? Next, more about Watson's opinions about other actors follows. But this article should be about Emma Watson, and this section should be about her work in the HP films; it should not be about what she thinks about other actors.
- As per the explain jargon style rule, I question whether "shipper" should be used in an encyclopedic context with only a link offered as explanation. It seems like fan jargon to me, as as such, should be explained. Additionally, once again, this part is veering into being an article about Harry Potter and not Emma Watson.
There is still an instance of "shipper" in the article, and it is not explained. Please take more care with this process; I don't feel that it is an FAC reviewer's responsibility to make sure that you've really addressed each issue that you say is "done". Please be more rigorous and thorough -- not only will the article will benefit, but it will be more likely to attain FA. --Melty girl 17:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done I have removed this also. I appologise for the sloppy editing the first time around - I was extremely busy today, hence my only attempting to address the more objective of your comments. As I have time tonight, I shall try and address some of the more substantial concerns. Happy‑melon 18:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Gotcha, thanks. --Melty girl 19:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- In Celebrity, the part that begins, "When Watson took GCSEs in 10 subjects, achieving straight As, it inspired comparisons to Hermione..." is about Watson's personal life (education), but even more so, it goes on to be about about Hermione and images of girls in the media. As written, it is not about Watson's celebrity.
Works for me Watson's results are discussed in depth elsewhere (currently in the first section). The inclusion is only to provide context for the media comparisons. Her being compared to anyone is information relevant to her celebrity status, IMO. Her comparison to other girls in the media doubly so. I question the desirability of focusing sections as rigidly on their headers as you fell is necessary, fearing for the fluidity of the article. While there are certainly sections which may need moving or restructuring, I fear that being so rigid will result in a very mechanical article with a loss of continuity. Happy‑melon 19:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Concern remains Perhaps a rewrite that sets this bit in better context would help. As it stands, I feel that its inclusion throws the flow of the section off. One minute you're talking about how the public perceives her as a sex symbol, but the next you're talking about her grades and how she's personally like her character. Next comes the fact that she's a feminist, which are her personal politics. Then we're back to her wealth, which flips things back to the flow you'd expect as a reader from the section name and how it opened. And if, as you note, her grades are mentioned in the Personal life section, why dwell on them again here? About your concerns re my "rigidity" on sections, all I can say is that your perspective on "fluidity" concerns me for the current and future coherence and stability of the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a magazine, and the sections need to be divided sensibly and clearly in order to read well. Still, sharp clarity of organization need not result in a mechanical read so long as the text is crafted skillfully. To be FA and to remain stable, this article must have a solid set of logical, coherent hierarchical sections. If organizational clarity is not strongly built in, users will put new text anywhere, and the article will not be readable or stable for long. In the case of this particular issue, the "Celebrity" section, the text doesn't flow coherently, to my mind. Perhaps you need to adjust the name of the section itself, but even still, the flow between the items mentioned needs to be given better context/segue. --Melty girl 00:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Next, the phrase "She admitted that there is quite a lot of herself in the confident and bookish Hermione," is a verbatim lift from the sourced Parade article, but the quote is not attributed. The article should be closely scrutinized for other such accidental plagiarisms, and they should all be properly quoted or rewritten.
-
- Done Happy-melon indicated below that this is done. --Melty girl 18:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- The section Professional relationships contains topics that do not relate to her professional relationships: how she copes with fame and whether she'd do nudity. And much of the stuff about her professional relationships boils down to Watson's opinions of other actors, which is, once again, tangential to the subject at hand. Some of this section should be eliminated, and other parts should be moved to other sections.
-
- Concern remains/suggestion OK, here's a modified, more specific suggestion for you. There are two short things in this section that don't belong in this section, and the first in particular is jarring to the reader: "Asked how she copes with her success and fame, Watson also credited her family as a source of support." This sentence follows sentences about her relationships with Radcliffe and Grint, and simply doesn't make sense as the final sentence in the paragraph, because it has nothing to do with what precedes it -- and it also interrupts two sentences that do belong next to each other. This "copes with fame" sentence belongs under either "Celebrity" or "Personal life", because it has nothing to do with professional relationships. Second, there are the two sentences about nudity, which also have nothing to do with "Professional relationships" and don't flow logically from the sentences they follow. Perhaps they should go under "Future plans," since they discuss what she's willing to do in her career in the future. --Melty girl 16:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Filmography "Notes": exact film release dates seem unimportant for the purposes of this actor article (and certainly, they can't be the release dates for the entire planet anyway). Year should suffice. It's fine to leave the Notes column blank for certain roles.
Actually one past film release date is still there. Also, the date a film was announced seems similarly trivial -- I would delete that too and instead allow a citation to provide that information. "(voice)" seems like a true note about the part; I would delete that from the Role column and instead note that it's a voice part in the Notes column. --Melty girl 16:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- The Awards section is sloppy. Nominations come before wins, some dates are missing, some roles may be missing, and some award category titles are in quotes while others aren't (I think none should be). Also, sometimes the awarding body's name comes first, while sometimes the award comes first. Please pick a style, preferably something used on many other actor pages, and stick with it.
The table looks very nice. There's still something missing, however -- where the award was for a specific film, that should always be noted. You need one more column for Film. See Jake Gyllenhaal for an example. --Melty girl 17:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Included. Do you think it needs column headings, or is it sufficiently self-explanatory? Happy‑melon 18:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done Though I prefer the presentation of the awards table at Jake Gyllenhaal, I think this is adequate. --19:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- The References are quite substantial, but there are little inconsistencies in formatting. Occasionally, the name of an article is missing (i.e. a news article from Watson's site), sometimes commas are used where periods are used in other cases, capitalization is inconsistent, and news source naming seems inconsistent (sometimes it's "bbc.com", sometimes "BBC", etc.). All citations should be reviewed carefully; it should be easy to fix.
- The majority of minor formatting 'error's are hardcoded features of the templates {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}, which have slightly different syntax (including, as you noticed, periods in one and commas in another). I am fixing them as far as possible. Question: should the 'one link rule' apply to references? Should the publisher "BBC" be linked only in the first reference it appears in? I would suggest that, since references are the one section of the article that is never going to be read from top to bottom, each instance should be linked. Comments? Happy‑melon 21:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- NEW Comment How did you decide when to use {{cite web}} versus {{cite news}}? For example, why wasn't AskMen's reprint of IGN's interview considered news? Isn't an interview with the press news by definition? I have to say, this is why I prefer to simply write the citations myself -- that way, the format is the same for all of them, and the resulting reference section is easier to read. But leaving that aside, I am wondering if there is any internal consistency here for the use of {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}. --Melty girl 18:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, {{cite news}} is used here to reference printed material (although a web version is usually provided). That is to say, the interviews which appeared in print, usually in broadsheet newspapers, use the news template. All other web sources use {{cite web}}. If you can see any references that do not follow this 'rule', let me know and I'll get them fixed, although I don't think it's really a major (or even minor) issue, given that we're not aiming for perfection, just "the best". In any case, something like this seems fairly minor in comparison to the other concerns you've raised (some of which I have asked for your comments on, check this diff). Happy‑melon 18:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- I always exclude references and captions from the one link rule, but I do not know of a formal guideline on this; I support linking each instance. – Basar (talk · contribs) 00:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't used templates for citations, but I understand what you're saying. Perhaps this is a limitation of using templates, and that's why some people argue against them? Not sure what to say about that. I will say, however, that because you have a link on the article name, an additional link on the publication name seems unnecessary, since the article name link leads to the same place. If you go with this strategy, the "one link rule" becomes moot. --Melty girl 00:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Except that the title link is an external link to the story and the publication link is a wikilink to the organization's article. – Basar (talk · contribs) 01:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yes, of course you are right! But the articles I've studied for citation formats have not included the Wikilinks. A References/Notes section doesn't necessarily seem to be the place where people will be reading for Wikipedia articles. But it certainly can't hurt. And if you're going to include Wikilinks, I think the point about linking them all is sensible. --Melty girl 06:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Right. Well, I quickly browsed through a few FAs, and I see both. I agree with your observation that for the most part people are not looking for Wikipedia articles in the reference section, so for lack of knowing an established guideline on this issue, I would support either linking or not linking. – Basar (talk · contribs) 21:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done
I shall work on this and plagiarism tonight. Happy‑melon 19:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC) - I think I have got every little error here. Let me know if I've missed anything. I haven't found any more plagiarisms but, of course, that doesn't mean they aren't there. Happy‑melon 19:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- The External link Guides: Harry Potter Actors should be identified as BBC-authored.
- NEW Comment Upon consideration, I think the subsections for each HP film clutter things up a bit. Also, I think it's best to write out the full title of each film when you introduce it into the narrative, rather than to cut out the "Harry Potter and the...". (Not sure where things are headed with other issues in this FAC...). Melty girl 03:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- I expressed doubts on the subsections in the edit summary when I added them. I don't think that they clutter things up, but I do think they break up the text in a way that makes the other details (First Light film awards, Queen's Handbag, etc) look rather out of place. I'm fairly sure that this (massive) section needs some subdivision, however, but I'm not sure how best to do it. Any suggestions? I have expanded the film titles as you suggested. Vide the other comments throughout this FAC, I am rather losing track of what's done, what's not, and what's still to do! Your implementation of line breaks is helpful, so thanks for that. I'll have to have a good read through and work out what's still outstanding. Happy‑melon 13:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comments about prose quality
- My copyedit just before FAC was the third time I have gone through this article with a red pen. I do not feel I am personally capable of improving its wording. If you maintain your concern, I will advance it to the League of Copyeditors when all other concerns have been addressed. Happy‑melon 19:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds like a great final step. There are definitely some issues that I see, but I didn't want to get into the finer details given the larger issues I was raising. --Melty girl 20:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Over-focus on Hermione Granger
- While I fully accept your first point, about the article assuming familiarity with the Harry Potter world, I disagree with your concern about the article veering towards a description of Hermione rather than Watson. Firstly, I do not think that the phrases you have mentioned or the article in general (apart from the "following the literary depiction of Hermione" line, which is perhaps poorly phrased) suffers much in this regard. Secondly, Watson has been typecast: in a very real sense, she is Hermione Granger. Through the phenomenal sucess of the films (which I agree we need to mention more of), vice versa is also true. That is not just a perspective issue. The articles on Pierce Brosnan and Sean Connery display something of the same 'problem', although weaker as their typecast is not as pronounced. I agree that the line I mentioned above needs rephrasing. There may be other specific examples, which I will be delighted to correct if they geniunely represent a problem. Happy‑melon 19:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Emma Watson is not, in any real sense, Hermione Granger. Period. To write successfully about her, you must be able to keep an eye on getting confused between which entity you're writing about/emphasizing, the actor or the character. I took a look at the articles you mentioned; Sean Connery is a B-class article, so I didn't consider it carefully, but I read Pierce Brosnan and it does not suffer from the syndrome I am raising here. Yes, there's a lot about Brosnan's work in the James Bond series, but the focus is firmly on Brosnan as an actor negotiating contracts and appearing in films, and it gives critical opinion of his performances and box office finances for his films. It does not, as this article does, focus on the personal qualities of the Bond character, or veer into extensive quotes from Brosnan giving his personal feelings about all his co-stars and the Bond character, or present Brosnan as the primary source for the article on him. OK, I'm going to leave this topic there for now, in order to let you and the other editors consider this issue and review the article for where you might be writing about things in a way that gives more primacy to Hermione, HP and other actors than to providing information about Emma Watson the actor. And I would also hope to hear from other FA reviewers about the issues I've raised. --Melty girl 01:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not at all stable. In 3 months her latest film will come out which no doubt will warrant extensive editing. - Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I disagree strongly with that definition of "stable". The article is not "the subject of ongoing edit wars" and the content does not "change significantly from day to day". If the future release of information were prohibitory to FA status, no living person, ongoing event, or non-complete theory or concept could attain FA status. That would preclude such articles as Angelina Jolie, Economy of India, and Asthma, amongst many others. There is no reason why, once information on Ballet Shoes becomes available, it will not be formatted, referenced, and included at as high a standard as the rest of the article. I will certainly be maintaining this article on my watchlist to ensure that that happens. Happy‑melon 13:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I also disagree strongly with this reasoning. If this logic were the case, then articles on all working artists would not be eligible for FA. And living politicians wouldn't be eligible because they might run for office again, and television shows might have a new season, and so on and so on. I think an argument would have to be made about how, in the past, the article itself has not been stable due to edit wars, etc., in order to support any concerns on the stability issue. --Melty girl 15:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent article. Keep it up. All Hallow's Wraith 09:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Well-cited and comprehensive. However, the article is full of stubby paragraphs (one in the intro, the entire early childhood and celebrity sections, etc.) that are not suitable for FA. --Nat91 17:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Does the FA criteria "(a) "Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" mean that paragraphs can not be short where appropriate for the paragraph's topic? Does engaging, even brilliant writing = long paragraphs? Or does professional writing = long paragraphs? Could you please clarify/elaborate? For example, if the editors combined all instances of adjacent short paragraphs would that make this article suitable for FA to your mind? Or do you feel that the stubbiness of the paragraphs shows that the subject matter itself is too thin? Or is there some other concern you have that relates to FA criteria re "well written"? Thanks, Melty girl 18:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I must agree with Melty, as an outside observer. A paragraph should have a single subject; jamming irrelevant paragraphs together is bad writing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Does the FA criteria "(a) "Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" mean that paragraphs can not be short where appropriate for the paragraph's topic? Does engaging, even brilliant writing = long paragraphs? Or does professional writing = long paragraphs? Could you please clarify/elaborate? For example, if the editors combined all instances of adjacent short paragraphs would that make this article suitable for FA to your mind? Or do you feel that the stubbiness of the paragraphs shows that the subject matter itself is too thin? Or is there some other concern you have that relates to FA criteria re "well written"? Thanks, Melty girl 18:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. I like this article. It's very well written and flows beautifully, but I have a few issues relating to structure:
- I don't like the term "early childhood" as it sets her apart from other cators, even other actors who found fame in their childhood. I'd rather see that section as "early life" even though it only encompasses 10 years.
- In the filmography section, her character, even though it's the same, should not be rowspanned, it should be row for row and repeating the character name in each line. It looks untidy and, even though the bulk of her films have been harry potter centric, this should not appear as such.
- The lead is far too Harry Potter centric. You don't really need to mention that the Harry Potter films are based on JKR's books. It becomes overinformation in the article at all to have that sort of information (since that info can be found on the film series' page in the lead there, where it belongs) but it only vaguely should belong in this article, but definitely not in the lead. I would explain in the lead also that playing Hermione is not Watson's only role, even though it's her main claim to fame, it's not her expanse, because the lead does seem to play her like a one trick pony, even though the rest of the article seems balanced in that respect.
- Works for me Not too far above this, Melty girl raises the legitimate comment that some sections, including the lead, do not provide enough detail about the Harry Potter series and Hermione's place in it. While it is probably true that 80% of the world population know exactly what the HP film series is and who the character of Hermione is, an encyclopaedic article cannot afford to make the assumption. In many places in this article, what is needed is more HP context, not less. Happy‑melon 13:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying the article's too HP centric, I'm saying simply the lead is. There's such a thing as overlninking. There's about five links to Harry Potter articles that are circular linked amongst themselves. I think it would suffice to say that she was one of the three central characters in all five HP films and is set to star in the remaining two films. I don't have a problem with you liking to each of the remaining films and the link to the film series, but to like to JK and to the books is superfluous. Once a person gets into the article, then it's fine to mention that the films are based on books. It's also fair to assume the person interested in looking at what Harry Potter films are will click the link and see that the films are based on the books. This article is to discuss Watson, her impact on the world and therefore her impact upon the films. She has had no direct impact upon the books, except the fact that since the films have been made, the books readership base has marginally widened (mind you, the majority of the readership was in place before the films, but that's by the by). It's hard to argue that she has had any profound impact upon the books. I hope you don't take what I'm saying here as being harsh, but I'm simply stating that I don't believe there's justification for the lead to have that kind of information when there's ample other things that could be listed there, even if it's simply to indicate that "Outside of the HP world, Watson has finished filming a telemovie for BBC1 called "Ballet Shoes" and is set to appear in another cinematic release feature film in 2008." or something to that effect. --lincalinca 13:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Clarification Just to make sure this is clear (since this page has gotten so long): I was not suggesting that the article needs more Harry Potter/Hermione info or "more HP context," as Happy-melon put it above -- all I meant was that some modifiers were needed to place HP mentions in context instead of assuming that all readers know their significance. But there are two context/focus issues that make it hard for me to remove my opposition. I will clarify with two major points:
- (1) LincaLinca echoes my criticism when he says, "This article is to discuss Watson, her impact on the world and therefore her impact upon the films." A focus on Watson must be maintained; there shouldn't be too much about Hermione, HP or other HP actors, because they have their own articles (see above for some specific instances of this problem).
- (2) At this stage of the FAC process, I still have several other (unanswered) concerns regarding the "well-written" criteria (see above), but I feel that my biggest obstacle to FA support is the missing global context: critical opinion of Watson's performances and box office information about her films. Her place in the entertainment industry is a must for an encyclopedia entry about her, and that information simply is not here. There's no outsider opinion on Watson in the article at all (Rowling is not an outsider, and it's not a quote from Rowling anyway). As it stands, Watson herself is the primary voice here, and that puts this article more into the territory of magazine interview writing. To be encyclopedic, the article must reveal what critics think of Watson the actor (good and bad) and how audiences have responded to the films she's been in with their ticket money, or we don't have a context for who Watson is in the world. Many basic questions for the Career section are unanswered here: How was her debut performance received by critics? How was each subsequent performance received? Is her acting overall well-received, or are there some naysayers? Do critics feel that her skills as an actor have grown as she's gotten older? Do critics feel that she will be able to build a career as an adult? How did each film do financially? Did the series grow in popularity, remain steady or shrink? To me, this missing critical and financial context means that the article falls down on the FA criteria, "(b) 'Comprehensive': the article does not neglect major facts and details." (Please refer to some of my above unanswered comments for further specifics about this criticism.) --Melty girl 20:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- The awards section separates everything into awards won and ceded nominations. These should be listed simply in chronological order and each should be indicated whether it won or lost on its own line (see some awards article for examples, such as the list of Crowded House awards).
| Year | Organisation | Award | Film | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | Young Artist Awards | Best performance in a Feature Film – Leading Young Actress | Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone | Won[1] |
| Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films | Saturn Award | Nominated[2] | ||
| Empire magazine | Empire Award | Nominated[3] | ||
| American Moviegoer Awards | Outstanding Supporting Actress | Nominated[4] | ||
| Young Artist Awards | Best Ensemble in Feature Film | Nominated[1] | ||
| 2003 | Otto Awards | Best female Film Star (Silver) | Won[5] | |
| 2004 | Otto Awards | Best female Film Star (Silver) | Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban | Won[6] |
| Total Film Magazine | Child Performance of the Year | Won[citation needed] | ||
| Broadcast Film Critics Association | Best Young Actress | Nominated[7] | ||
| 2005 | Broadcast Film Critics Association | Best Young Actress | Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire | Nominated[8] |
| Otto Awards | Best female Film Star (Gold) | Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban | Won[9] | |
| 2006 | Otto Awards | Best female Film Star (Bronze) | Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire | Won[citation needed] |
- Just edit the source of this page and copy and paste, if you would like to use that. lincalinca 14:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't explain myself very well when re-reading my original suggestion. Each award should contain its own line. The only thing that generally should span more than one line (i.e. row) is the year in which the award was granted. This improves readbility. Another change I made was to include the presenters of the Saturn Award and the Empire Award, as per the table's own headers, and lastly to mvoe the refs to the results. Lastly, it's more of a visual thing (I like to use red and green, but that's a matter of preference also) I like to separate the colours of the wins from nominations so they can be easily distinguished at a glance as to which is which. One last thing is that I've indicated that a reference may not be provided for two of them (even if it's in the article, there's an inline missing and for FA, every award needs to be referenced; it seems I missed that in my first sweep over the article). --lincalinca 14:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's fine spanning the film. Generally I'd try to lean away from that, but definitely only span as little as possible and replicate as much as possible. In these cases, I can see it being beneficial to span, but not for the awards themselves. It's also more accessible to the viewer associating the reference and award together. Otherwise, I think you're getting the hang of what I'm trying to get across. Nice work on being receptive to these comments. --lincalinca 14:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, you never know: it could get the attention of the artist. Neil Finn mentioned the Crowded House wiki article on Denton, and that's an article I almost completely wrote myself, so they do read these things, you know! Anyway, just a few more squirrely things from me and you'll have my support. --lincalinca 15:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Other than these points, I believe it's a great article, but needs these matters attended to before can justifiably pass FA. --lincalinca 04:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm sorry not to have mentioned this before, but I feel that some of the personal life section should be relocated into early life. Early life is something of a bio, whereas personal life should indicate a person's current personal status. In here, you indicate about her French lineage through her grandmother and such. I just think it needs a jig. Being unfamiliar with the subject matter as closely as you guy editing here, I can only say it looks somewhat more jumbled than it possibly could be. What's there is mostly well written (a few nuances here or there that're probably just a matter of personal issues). I think in particular "After moving to Oxford with her mother and brother, Watson attended The Dragon School, a private preparatory school, until June 2003 and then moved to Headington School, a private all-girls school, also in Oxford." could go into early life. Alternatively, it could be worked into the general career section. Your edits here have been very well attended and I'm impressed. Attend these last few things, plus find the two references for those awards as mentioned before, and you'll gain my support. --lincalinca 15:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- This issue has been much discussed in this review, so in the interest of helping us to not get stuck on this issue again, I made some slight adjustments myself. You'll see that I disagreed about moving the school stuff, just in the interest of maintaining chronology: "Early life" should be all pre-acting career, and the school stuff is mostly not, just because she became an actor at nine (I had named the section "Early childhood" to underscore that). Please see the above discussions for more about chronological and topic priority concerns re this placement issue. Additionally, I strongly disagree with integrating school stuff into the Career section, since it's not career-related, and thus could not simply be dropped into the section without careful re-writing for flow. On a different topic, I would be interested in getting your feedback about my above comment today responding to you and Happy-melon, particularly my second point, where I outline major missing facts. You might also want to refer to my disucssion with H-m comparing this article to Pierce Brosnan. --Melty girl 20:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Object. WP:LEAD isn't even close. Also, what does "Watson's work in the Harry Potter series has amassed a combined £10 million" even mean? Her work alone ammassed that? How do you separate that out? And then what does combined mean? Those problems that early do not lend confidence. The rest of the article also feels poorly organized and prioritized. A lot of random bits that don't seem connected. - Taxman Talk 03:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well since she hasn't done any other work it's fairly obvious that her fortune must be from HP - unless she got lucky on the lottery or something! General prose quality is something we're working on - it's getting worse at the moment rather than better as I'm trying to deal with other concerns vis missing detail etc. Happy‑melon 09:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think what he's saying (and it's a valid point) is that it suggests the films have made a combined £10 million, thanks to her contributions. I didn't think of it in that way, but he's right. It should be re-worded to state "the success fo the HP films has earned Watson alone over £10 million from her work on the series to date." or something to that effeect. Correct me if I'm wrong, taxman. --lincalinca 13:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- The last time I really looked at it, it said "... has ammassed her a combined £10 million..." - at some time in our changes, that crucial pronoun got lost somewhere. You're right, taxman, it does (currently) need rewording. Happy‑melon 14:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Makes sense, but really the other issues were the bigger ones, especially the lead. In addition now I see a lot of poor prose flow, with little to no transitions between sentences. Part of the issue is due to paragraphs that have no cohesive idea and are too short to have one anyway. Merge, expand, or remove them if they are not important enough to devlop more fully. - Taxman Talk 03:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Overall, this article seems in very good shape, but I still have some issues with it. The most glaring problem to me is the "Professional Relationships" section which is not encyclopedic in tone and reads like a gossip magazine. There is no need for an encyclopedia article to talk about interviews asking how an actress feels about having to kiss someone onscreen or who she particularly enjoyed working with. The "celebrity" section has the same problem and should probably be eliminated entirely. Indrian 18:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you think the "celebrity" section is not relevant... I agree some of it might need a little clearing up, but the chineese theatre, FHM poll, sydney herald article, are all essential for an encyclopaedic coverage of her growing fame, surely. The difference between the "professional relationships" section and a gossip magazine is, of course, the letter V. Why is her reliably sourced concern about an anticipated future work not relevant, exactly? Happy‑melon 20:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really get your opposition. A gossip magazine would have unsourced rumors; this article is sourced and usually it's based on what she has said. It seems reasonable that a biography on someone would include writting on their life experiences, opinions, personality, and so forth. Sharing how she felt about a movie she worked on would help flesh those things out. – Basar (talk · contribs) 02:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you don't understand why information on kiss scenes and the like is not encyclopedic material, I am not sure you should be trying to bring an article to featured status. Most of the article is fine, but we are not running a magazine for teenagers where they can catch up on what their favorite stars are on about. Verifiability is not the issue. The problem is that such information is not relevant to an analysis of Watson's life or career. As for the celebrity section, I will clarify my remarks from above. Certain pieces of information such as the sexiest poll should be integrated into other sections of the article. Stuff like a quote from her about dressing up not running her life should be cut. The section is so small when the fluff is removed that I feel it does not merit its own section and the good material should be integrated elsewhere. Indrian 03:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Indrian, this strongly echoes criticisms I've made throughout this process, about tangents, tone and relevancy. I'm at a loss for how to get this message across any better than I've already tried. I can sympathize that the editors are reluctant to let go of some of the material, and I've really tried to make helpful suggestions to help the article succeed, but there are still some serious problems that it may take a while to address. --Melty girl 03:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is perfectly relevant and appropriate to be talking about a "kiss scene" if it is part of Watson's career -- and it will be, as the quote explains. The comments about kissing and nudity are included because they are Watson's own comments on where she thinks her career may go. Personally, I don't know if they belong in this section ("professional relationship"? might be more appropriate in "celebrity" or something, not sure), but they are pertinent to her future film career. The dressing up/dictating her life quote is a reference to the fact that she loves acting ("dressing up") but it's not her only goal in life, and she is definitely open to other careers besides acting. What's wrong with any of that? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, just read the source from which the dressing up quote comes from. I thought dressing up was an allusion to acting, but it appears to be what it says -- dressing up in clothes. In that case, I have no real strong feelings to the quote. However, she has mentioned in the past that acting is not the only thing she wants to pursue, which would be an appropriate quote. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think you have misunderstood my objection slightly. Stating that she has interests other than acting is fine and useful. How she feels about kissing Rupert Grint is trivial to the subject. I challenge you to find any professionally producced encyclopedia that would include info like that. It lowers the quality of the article by giving it the tone of a gossip magazine. Once again, this is a tone issue not a verifiability issue. Indrian 03:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose But only until that difficulty about Emma matching the role is fixed. I otherwise enjoyed the article. The Problems- 1. What the article says and what the source says are different- "Emma Watson seems to implement these requirements, because she seems to be really self-confident." This is what the original says. It doesn't mention bossy. It doesn't say she was "perfect" for the role. It says that she seems to implement the requirements, because she is self-confident. 2. The way it is written in the wiki article is a bit of a slur on Emma, who admits to being like Hermione in some ways (straight As, for example) but not in others. Therefore, It needs accurately quoting and accurately citing. The sentences above and below this one are is no way sensitive, but both have citation This is the sentence that requires citation. Neither of the other two are likely to be challenged, but this sentence has been considerably challenged. Amandajm 16:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done I have reworded it to remove the controversial "bossy" - although the source does mention it. I don't want to quote she source verbatim because the grammar is horrible and we'd have to throw "[sic]" around everywhere to make it make any sense at all. What do you think of the new version? Do you have any other conerns? Happy‑melon 17:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It's inappropriate to actually have the term "sic" anywhere in an encyclopedia article unless absolutely necessary. It's more appropriate to provide a direct quote or to not quote at all and to summarise the intentions of the message being given. The other situation may be where a translation is provided. I have a new concern with this article which is that there's a user-defined translation of text, which is inappropriate. It will only be an acceptable excerpt if there is a reliable third party source that has translated the text, not simply a Wikipedia user. --lincalinca 01:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Response The word "sic", short for "sicut" meaning "just so" is used in professionally written articles to indicate that a spelling, grammar or stylistic error is copied verbatim from an original source material and is not the result of poor literacy on the part of the article author. As such, an encyclopaedic article containg a quote from a source of questionable literacy is the only time you would find [sic] in most modern literature. The relevant text from the source is "the casting directors looked for a bossy person. Emma Watson seems to implement these requirements, because she seems to be really self-confident" - I can see at least two places where the addition of [sic] is necessary lest readers think that the poor grammar is the result of Wikipedia editors. As I do not like the quotation anyway, and I don't really want to throw Sic around, I have reworded it so as not to need a direct quotation. Vis the user translation, I am really not sure what the issue is. Foreign-language sources are in no way excluded from the coverage of WP:V. While WP:RSUE does state that English language sources are "preferred", it does not exclude foreign sources - indeed its listing of additional points to consider clearly implies that foriegn sources are acceptable if no english alternative exists. Its comments on translations are worth reading: the implication is that any quoted translation is subject to error, no matter who authored it, and that all editors who can read the original version should work from that rather than a translation. In essence, Onomatopoeia's translation is provided only for convenience, and does not represent the source - the reliable source is the original german text. Happy‑melon 07:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Conditional support - The Harry Potter image is far too dark, we need a better quality image for a featured article. Judgesurreal777 21:50, 28 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 17:40, 30 September 2007.
Real Madrid C.F.
I think the article is good enough for FA. --Hadrianos1990 14:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment please remove the nomination for GA if you wish to pursue this. The Rambling Man 14:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done i've removed the nomination --Hadrianos1990 15:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
As the previous nom was closed as recently as 19th September (archived here) doesn't this seem a little premature? --Dweller 16:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
Oppose - issues:
- Still a number of WP:MOS issues - particularly WP:CITE - citation placement.
- Done I think this is done.--Hadrianos1990 14:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Insufficient citation for both Statistics and Supporters section.
- Done More citations added.--Hadrianos1990 14:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Did Johnson and Carcel really manage the club for zero games?
- Done Problem resolved.--Hadrianos1990 14:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Are presidents useful to the article? Consider creating a sub-article and writing prose here about the notable ones. Ditto with the managers really, talk about the notable ones but create a sub-article with the whole lot.
- Done Reorganize managers section.--Hadrianos1990 14:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done Deleted presidents section.--Hadrianos1990 14:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- The honours section looks awful. Re-organise, write some prose and cite record.
- Done Citations added. Reorganized.--Hadrianos1990 14:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Hope these help. The Rambling Man 18:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment
- "The Bernabéu has the proud record of having hosted the European Cup final (in 1957, 1969 and 1980), the 1964 European Championship final (1964), and the FIFA World Cup final (1982)." Why are the years in brackets? Also "proud" is redundant. Buc 08:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done Problem solved. Phrase re-formed.--Hadrianos1990 14:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well just passing by, I think that should be in the Bernabeu article in anycase, since hosting the UCL Champions League final and the WC final is not related to the performance of RM. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment
- Lead is just 8 sentences, forming two paragraphs. Five of the sentences start with Real Madrid... three start Real Madrid is... too many sentences starting the same isnt good prose.
- Done Problem resolved --Hadrianos1990 17:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Madrid is link twice in the lead once in each paragraph
- Done Problem resolved --Hadrianos1990 17:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- a Spanish professional football club based in Madrid, Spain redundant Spanish/Spain
- Done Problem resolved --Hadrianos1990 17:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Also the section called notable players, appears to be redundant as there is any commentary maybe the link should be at the top of the section Players.
- Done Problem resolved --Hadrianos1990 17:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
In its current form I'd opposeGnangarra 11:20, 30 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 01:38, 29 September 2007.
Mana (series)
Article provides a global view of the series (including information about the Japan-exclusive media), is factually accurate, neutral, and very stable. Kariteh 10:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- It seems a little odd that the "Games" section is so far down the article. Why is this? --- RockMFR 03:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comments. Yep, the "Games" section should be one of the earlier/first sections since it's essentially a synthesis article of a video game series. They need to be mentioned in order to set the tone and context of the article. Shrumster 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Oh, and the lead needs to be bulked up some more. Structurally, it's too short. Content-wise, it could benefit from being expanded. Remember, the lead should be able to stand on its own as a summary of the entire article. Shrumster 20:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'll fix the lead as soon as possible (unless someone wants to do it). The "Games" section used to be closer to the top but it was kind of pushed down when the "Audio" and (especially) the "Common elements" sections were added. Should it be placed just before the "Audio" section, or just after it? Kariteh 21:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Personally, I believe it should be the first section. Shrumster 22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Really? I think the Creation section is best at the first place since it gives the origins and an overview of the games of the series. I moved the Games section just after it for now, but it can still be discussed and changed I guess, if people want. Kariteh 08:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've now expanded the lead with information from the article. Kariteh 09:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I helped argue for the merging of several articles into this one, and after dramatic improvement of this article and debates about all aspects of what it should be called and what should be included, it is ready for FA status. Judgesurreal777 04:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comments - The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- 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.
- See if possible if there is an image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
- 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==.
- The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, Isn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
- 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.[14]
- You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, 203.134.184.168 15:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done all of these points. There is no single image that could represent the entire series and be put on the top right corner of the page though (no common logo, etc.). Kariteh 17:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Could this image from the Indonesian Wikipedia possibly be used for such an image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.194.232.191 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's the logo of the first game's Japanese version; it doesn't represent the whole series, so using it would be purely decorative (=against Fair Use guidelines). Kariteh 21:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Anything else? Kariteh 15:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Conditional support - please fix or comment upon the following:
- What is it with the bold links to the elemental spirits? They link to articles on the roman goddess of the moon, some paranormal effect, and an article about garden objects. The usual style of linking per WP:MOS leads the reader to believe that these links would lead to articles on the spirits themselves. Remove the links or change them to articles on the characters. I would even suggest removing this whole list, as it is just some name dropping without out of universe context.
- Why is "Ring Command" bold?
- Image:Rabite plush.jpg is a replaceable fair use image. Finding a free license image would also enable this article to feature on the main page.
- The article needs an image in the lead section.
User:Krator (t c) 17:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done - Good point about the elemental spirits; I removed the list and replaced it with a more general sentence saying that their names are homonymous with mythological beings or phenomena. I can't find any free license image of a Rabite plush on the web, but it's not impossible to in theory, so I removed the current plush picture as its fair-use rationale is not justified. Kariteh 10:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Object—1a. Here are random examples from the lead suggesting the density of the problems throughout. Please locate another copy-editor. Beautiful artwork, though.
- Probably a comma after "dropped" would be smoother.
- Remove the first "also" as misleading. Ask me why if you don't see that. The second "also" is a wart that needs removing.
- "Various different"?
- "Linked together"? Not linked apart ...
- "As of 2007, the Mana series comprises eight console games, two mobile games, in addition to four manga and one novelization." Is there an "and" missing?
That's a lot for just three short paras. It's saveable, so please try. Tony 14:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, I copy-edited what I could in the article, although I don't know if it's enough. I'm having a hard time finding another copy-editor. Kariteh 17:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose.
Incorrect use of bolding, see WP:MOSBOLD. Please review WP:MOS regarding punctuation on image captions, sentence fragments aren't punctuated.Copyedit issues as mentioned by Tony,for example, I can't figure out what the "long" here is: In 1995, Kikuta released an experimental album of arranged music from the two installments, titled Secret of Mana +, which features a unique track long of 50 minutes.On the plus side, the sourcing looks good(except for the bolding and all caps in footnotes, see WP:MOSCAPS#All caps).SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've fixed the incorrect use of bolding, punctuation, and caps, and reworded the Secret of Mana + sentence. Kariteh 09:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Very nice, and fast, work. Once Tony is sastisfied on copyedit (I had to add a hyphen, for example), my Oppose can be considered struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 13 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 01:38, 29 September 2007.
Giotto di Bondone
self nominationThis article which is a top importance art article and a core importance biography has ben rewritten and properly referenced by an art historian. It is stable apart from continual kiddy vandalism! Amandajm 07:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, nice article, but parts of it lack citations.Grahamec 11:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Grahamec 14:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done Added more citations Amandajm 13:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Can you inline the citations in the part where it says "section references:"? That's really strange style for Wikipedia; the references should go on the sentences or paragraphs that they serve. — brighterorange (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment:You seem to have nominated a lot of pages recently claiming they are written by architectural or art historians. I find this concerning as I see no well known architectural historians in the history. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia has to be beyond reproach in its claims - I would like to know who these people are and their proven qualifications (or list of publications) to be so termed. If these facts are not available I don't think the claim of qualified authorship should be made. I have commented in full on only one of your nominations as I feel you should concentrate on one page at a time. Multiple nominations are discouraged. Giano 13:40, 28 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 01:38, 29 September 2007.
Fra Angelico
self nominationThis art article has been almost entirely rewritten from the flowery prose of Britannnica by an art historian. Amandajm 07:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Remove all inline external links, and replace them with references. Also, this whole article needs more references. 7 references for a FAC is way too low. You definitely need to add more inline references to this article. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Reply I will add a few more references. The main source was the pre-existent article taken from Britannica which I rewrote, retaining all the factual material. So, most of the facts, unless otherwise refereneced come from Britannica. Those parts that do not come from Britannica are things like the detailed description of the form of his name, and his Beatification, which was recent.
- I used a number of books, about 7 or 8, in addition to the Britannica article. The Britannica article was packed full of info, but was horribly POV. Basically, the writer couldn't stand the good Friar, and thought anyone who liked his painting had appalling taste and didn't mind telling the world that this was his opinion.
- Done added some more inline references. had a go at the inline external links (They weren't mine). Amandajm 15:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose This article has too many MOS violations that need to be improved. Here is a sampling Karanacs 19:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- You need inline citations. Having a list of works consulted makes it extremely difficult for someone to verify a fact if they wanted, and makes it much easier for subtle vandalism to be inserted into the article.
- The references that you do have are not formatted properly. See WP:CITET for ideas. This includes both the external links that are used as citations (should never be that way) and the inline citations that are formatted improperly in the references list.
- All full dates need to be wikilinked. Single years should not be wikilinked. Month names should not be abbreviated.
- Quotations should not be italicized (per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Italics)
- The lead needs to be rewritten. It should be a summary of the article, and it is currently not. Information in the lead should also be incorporated into the body of the text (and that includes quotations).
- Don't bold his name in the body of the article (only in the lead).
- Watch for POV. Potentially POV statements need to be cited and properly explained. "superb example"
- The article is not consistent in how it refers to him. Sometimes he is referred to as Angelico and sometimes as Fra Angelico.
- All quotations must have a source.
- Please see WP:DASH.
- A Gallery of images should not be included in the article. There are a lot of images already, and these should be able to be deleted without taking anything away from the article. Karanacs 19:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
- 2a—the lead is choppy and inadequate in scope.
- MOS:
- Don't put entire quotes in italics.
- No final period for captions unless whole sentences. The first, for example, is just a list.
- No linking of titles.
- "£200 20 years ago"
- Epitaph is a whole section, with just the four-line engraved text? There are other section stubs, too.
- Very listy. Why no info about the late works?
- Needs a copy-edit. Tony (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Response Don't think it will meet the standards without a lot of work!
- How do I go about withdrawing it from FAC? Thanks for your comments>Amandajm 13:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment:You seem to have nominated a lot of pages recently claiming they are written by architectural or art historians. I find this concerning as I see no well known architectural historians in the history. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia has to be beyond reproach in its claims - I would like to know who these people are and their proven qualifications (or list of publications) to be so termed. If these facts are not available I don't think the claim of qualified authorship should be made. I have commented in full on only one of your nominations as I feel you should concentrate on one page at a time. Multiple nominations are discouraged. Giano 13:40, 28 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 01:38, 29 September 2007.
Sistine Chapel ceiling
'self-nomThis article of top importance has been entirely rewritten and fully referenced by an art historian, incorporating earlier input. It has many new pics and two diagrams created for the article. Amandajm 07:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- The restoration section is literally empty. It should include at least a summery of the other article. Raul654 14:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done added summary and cited refs Amandajm 14:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support This has undergone an excellent expansion. Great work. JNW 03:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment (Conditional oppose): there are no page numbers for any of the references, which makes them as a practical matter nearly unverifiable. Also, could you make a separate notes and references section, because many sentences appear to be referenced when they just have a note instead (which is also often unreferenced)? Calliopejen1 20:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment:You seem to have nominated a lot of pages recently claiming they are written by architectural or art historians. I find this concerning as I see no well known architectural historians in the history. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia has to be beyond reproach in its claims - I would like to know who these people are and their proven qualifications (or list of publications) to be so termed. If these facts are not available I don't think the claim of qualified authorship should be made. I have commented in full on only one of your nominations as I feel you should concentrate on one page at a time. Multiple nominations are discouraged. Giano 13:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- ResponseI'm overwhelmed! Amdit foolishness of putting up to many articles in one go! withdraw this one.
- 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 14:14, 17 September 2007.
Kraków
New improvements include: a much deeper copyedit with extended list of quality references complemented by inline citations, especially scholarly print sources and university/conference publications for the History, Economy, Government and Geography sections. The lead was expanded as an overview, summarizing most important points of the article. More informative captions were added to pictures. TOC was reduced in size due to greatly improved sections like Etymology, Economics, Transport, Geography and climate, Sports and the Administrative districts for which I've written two dozen new "daughter" articles (eight of them featured as DYK's). Since the last nomination all sections, especially the ones mentioned above, have been expanded upon according to reliable sources and balanced out in proportion to their prominence whenever necessary. Sections Government and Education were again, rewritten from scratch in a comprehensive manner. Images in all sections have been exchanged for quality ones based on new photo galleries in Wikimedia. The templates listed were also improved. The entire topic has been thoroughly covered in accordance with the featured article criteria not to mention numerous constructive comments provided by reviewers. --Poeticbent talk 16:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support
Object. The article has been significantly improved, and I believe in terms of content coverage it is comprehensive.But inline citations are still lacking. I count at least 15 paras w/out a single citation, some sections near the end are completly w/out citations. I will see what I can do about adding some citations, but I don't think I can find all that are needed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)- I will gladly help with all that. Please indicate where you find additional citations would be helpful, and I will start with the search right away. --Poeticbent talk 17:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I will work on the history section; please add at least one ref for each paragraph in the following sections that has no citations.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done All sections and all paragraphs regardless of size are now supported with inline citations (almost 30 new items between the two of us). Additional sources can be found in most "daughter" articles. Thank you, Piotrus. --Poeticbent talk 23:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, great job. Changed to support.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 03:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not so great :-(( First of all see my comments on citations on the Talk:Kraków page. Secondly, it seems that the editors were bent on finding a different source as a reference for each, no matter how trivial, point. For example, the reference to the history of Jagiellonian Uni. was pointing to about half a sentence on a York (Canada) University page on student exchange. There is no shortage of primary sources (i.e. not regurgitated webpages), some of them are used in the article (e.g. A Concise History of Poland or Encyklopedia Krakowa) - why they are not used more extensively, possibly with page nnn added to facilitate searching? --Jotel 14:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose, most (if not all) concerns from the above have been already taken care of with your active participation, Jotel. Let me extend my personal thank you for your many happy returns. --Poeticbent talk 00:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- I will gladly help with all that. Please indicate where you find additional citations would be helpful, and I will start with the search right away. --Poeticbent talk 17:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose Neutral : although it looks nice and is almost ready for FA, I'm not very sure about some things: 1. is the list of airlines serving the Kraków airport so important in the main article?
2. I think list of Sejm members from Kraków constituency belongs to some sub-article.
3. I'm not also very sure if various budget details (except for general ones) aren't better for detailed article. MarkBA t/c/@ 15:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done These are excellent comments. Thanks. The whole paragraph on airport has been revamped accordingly. Section Economy (including city budget) has just been rewritten with new features and only general information about detail. The list of Sejm members from Section Government has been turned into a sub-article and replaced with relevant data. --Poeticbent talk 18:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
MOS breach – refs should immediately follow word, phrase or punctuation. Please also check and add missing retrieval dates as necessary to web sources. I can't work out for what is good comparing Kraków's population with voivodeship or nation-wide ones. I'd like to see some more detail on purely Kraków statistics and, if possible, some historical population. MarkBA t/c/@ 19:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Oh, and I'd suggest some re-arranging, particularly in Symbols and twin cities section (so ref list won't be blocked) or in Culture section. MarkBA t/c/@ 20:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done MOS breach has been fixed and section Symbols re-aranged. I removed regional and national statistics from section Demographics and replaced them with local ones going back 30 years, including new relevant data about population density in various districts. --Poeticbent talk 00:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Good job so far, but there is still work to do. Some refs (e.g. 19 or 23) do not have retrieval dates or other information (and be sure to link full dates as well). The word "south" isn't capitalised (Culture). I'm not sure if that UNESCO box is still needed as it is in both old town and Kraków articles. However, I feel that nominator made an effort to fix issues, and as such I'm changing my vote to (conditional) neutral, pending fixes. MarkBA t/c/@ 12:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)- Now I feel that this article is becoming more and more ready to the FA status, but still I see few things that do not fit well in my opinion; what strikes to me is this passage from Parks – "Planty is the best known park in Kraków" (wording/no reference) and lead, third paragraph – "It is a major centre of...Famous landmarks include..." reads like from a tourist guide (though section dedicated to architecture wouldn't be bad). MarkBA t/c/@ 19:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. There is an ongoing revert-war on the page. Some folks prefer to remove any mention of the fact that, unlike Warsaw or Dresden, Krakow was spared the ravages of WWII owing to the well-calculated manoeuvre of Ivan Konev. Furthermore, this vital fact from the city's history is replaced with commonplace rant about "Stalinist atrocities". I don't think the article should be promoted as long as this dispute is not resolved. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above fact is mentioned with wording that sounds neutral at present. The particulars of that fortunate though still debated episode in city's history are being worked on by editors in a "daughter" article called History of Krakow. The final take, I believe, will probably remain neutral, with only general historical highlights for the section as per FA criteria. --Poeticbent talk 15:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that a stable compromise has been reached; as Poeticbent noted, controversial details were split off to subarticle and them main article should be stable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral - This is generally an excellent article but I have a couple of reservations. First, Poeticbent, something you can and should do on your own is to bring the history up to date. I know there's a daughter article, and that's where this topic should be developed in full, but the city's history did not stop in the Bierut era. Probably 3-4 sentences will be enough. Second, and this involves Molobo, Piotrus, Irpen and all the usual suspects: do find a compromise version because the article should be relatively stable. (As an aside, Ghirlandajo: the mass rape, pillage and murder were real. No reason to dismiss mention of them as a "commonplace rant about 'Stalinist atrocities'", complete with scare quotes, though if your concern was purely an NPOV one I can respect that.) Third, maybe something on crime? How safe is the city, and do we have statistics on major offences? Finally, maybe the religious demographics. A table would be nice showing their evolution, but at least try to give present-day numbers (I assume most everyone's Catholic, but the word "Catholic" doesn't even appear in the article. It should). These are minor concerns, though, and I'm ready to support when they're addressed. Biruitorul 03:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Doing... A new paragraph on crime and public safety with official statistics and local sources has been added to section Government. Meanwhile, a new paragraph on religion, with some eye-opening statistics on catechism, was added to section Demographics. --Poeticbent talk 00:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Religion: not done properly. I do not care whether this subject is, or isn't, mentioned here. but if it is, the information should be pertinent to Cracow. Some "eye-opening statistics on catechism" are possibly interesting, but certainly not related to the town in question. The fact that the source is published in Cracow is neither here not there. --Jotel 10:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Jotel, please stop plastering multiple “oppose” votes in addition to the one you already put in earlier. It is dishonest to try to create an impression that there are even more “oppose” votes listed in this nomination. Going back to the question at hand, Kraków is the second largest city in Poland and as such, reflects all national trends. It would be impossible to separate the people of Kraków from the entire nation in terms of their religious affiliations and/or demographic profiles (as oppose to citing a glossary of local church buildings and other dead meat). I was encouraged to add a new info about religion in Kraków, and that’s what I did, using national statistics and not the local ones, because local ones don’t exist and won’t exist until Kraków turns into a city-state like Vatican. There’s no religion in Kraków aside from the religion in Poland, whether in schools, at peoples’ homes, or in churches, especially in teaching of catechism, and other country-wide programs. Readers who wish to learn about the city, will learn about the country of Poland as well, which isn’t difficult to understand. Now, for those reviewers who’d like to read my write-up on religion, please go to the history of the article (here) because Jotel deleted what I wrote. Repeatedly... just like the first time around.[6] --Poeticbent talk 22:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Religion: not done properly. I do not care whether this subject is, or isn't, mentioned here. but if it is, the information should be pertinent to Cracow. Some "eye-opening statistics on catechism" are possibly interesting, but certainly not related to the town in question. The fact that the source is published in Cracow is neither here not there. --Jotel 10:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Very close, but not quite yet. I agree with Biruitorul that a section on crime might be a good addition, and I definitely support adding a section about religious demographics and any related important historical/cultural information. Such a section is (IMHO) a good addition to any city or country article, but especially here since Poland is one of the more religious countries in Europe (at least from what I can tell.) The earlier disputed bit about the Red Army at the end of WW2 seems to be in pretty good shape right now, not too biased towards either side. It could stand a bit more detail though. All in all a very good article and just a hair's breadth away from getting my support vote. K. Lásztocska 04:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done and done. I found all your comments quite inspiring. Paragraph on crime including local statistics can be found in section Government. I expanded on section Demographics by adding a whole new paragraph (+1,635 char.) devoted to religion with some interesting statistics and census reports, supported by several new references and sources. --Poeticbent talk 00:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not yet. First of all, it requires a proofread for content:
- Did Napoleon really found the Duchy of Warsaw in 1815, as the article now says? On which of the Hundred Days did he do so? (Note: I doubt this is the date of the fall of the Duchy either; the Allies were at Leipzig by 1813.)
- The sentence in which this stands should be recast. Final prepositions are not forbidden, as the superstitious think; but it is clumsy.
- Is the Biennial Graphics Festival really an annual event?
- There are probably others.
- Second, we need to have the naming debate. The Polish Wikipedia uses pl:Nowy Jork and pl:Londyn; we really should Use English and say Cracow; it's embarassing not to. (This may require a decision to overrule the present guideline to accomplish its purpose; this is separate from other naming debates, in which it has been ignored altogether.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I rather strongly disagree that "Cracow" is the proper name to use for this article. "Krakow" (usually without the diacritical, but whatever) is how I've always seen it in modern English-language publications and thus apparently is (modern) common parlance in English. K. Lásztocska 02:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I would appreciate the opinion of an anglophone on this point; this English Wikipedia is, after all, intended for them. Webster's Third, btw, shows Cracow pronounced as [krā'kō]; it would be nice to see this included. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I rather strongly disagree that "Cracow" is the proper name to use for this article. "Krakow" (usually without the diacritical, but whatever) is how I've always seen it in modern English-language publications and thus apparently is (modern) common parlance in English. K. Lásztocska 02:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done Thank you Pmanderson for your insightful comments. The wrong date, the final preposition and the Biennial have been fixed. Btw, the Duchy of Warsaw remained in existence for a short period following Napoleon's ruinous retreat from Moscow and was partitioned again at the Congress of Vienna in 1
9- Addendum: There's nothing as reassuring in Wikipedia as the participation of even more contributors in our ongoing discussions. I'd like to encourage you Pmanderson to allow for this article to be acknowledged for what it is worth and brought to the attention of outside viewers in the process of refining our WP:NCGN guidelines. --Poeticbent talk 18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done is premature; I recommended a full proof-read. If Casliber or the WP:LC can say they've done one, that much can be struck. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Addendum: There's nothing as reassuring in Wikipedia as the participation of even more contributors in our ongoing discussions. I'd like to encourage you Pmanderson to allow for this article to be acknowledged for what it is worth and brought to the attention of outside viewers in the process of refining our WP:NCGN guidelines. --Poeticbent talk 18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've massaged the text a bit and supported below after my excellent tweaks (hehehe) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I forgot to mention also that the full proof-read was already performed once by our American colegue, Art LaPella from Template talk:Did you know, as of 22:18, 5 September 2007. My special regards to our friend Casliber. As a side note, watching the most recent edits to Infobox, I would appreciate if you, Pmanderson, consulted with our community, since that is the whole point? I do not understand why the American Heritage Dictionary is being promoted ahead of countless sources we've been discussing for months? --Poeticbent talk 21:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Then let him say so.
- I did not consult the American Heritage Dictionary, but the Pronouncing Gazeteer to Webster's Third; the OED doesn't have one. If there is a British equivalent, do add it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I forgot to mention also that the full proof-read was already performed once by our American colegue, Art LaPella from Template talk:Did you know, as of 22:18, 5 September 2007. My special regards to our friend Casliber. As a side note, watching the most recent edits to Infobox, I would appreciate if you, Pmanderson, consulted with our community, since that is the whole point? I do not understand why the American Heritage Dictionary is being promoted ahead of countless sources we've been discussing for months? --Poeticbent talk 21:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've massaged the text a bit and supported below after my excellent tweaks (hehehe) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, here I am and here is my edit. I have little experience with Featured Article procedure, but I have often rewritten foreign-sounding articles to sound as if an American had written them, along with other routine proofreading, and I have plaques and a trophy from winning spelling bees (but that's mostly automated these days anyway). Is that what you want to know? As for how Americans spell Krakow, I live near Seattle, U.S., which is almost as big as Krakow, and the Polish Wikipedia article is of course pl:Seattle. If Poles had another way to spell Seattle, how many other Poles would remember that spelling? How many Poles even know that Seattle is on an arm of the Pacific Ocean? My globe says Cracow and the map in my hall says Kraków (both say Warsaw not Warszawa). I asked my wife and she knew Krakow was in Poland (which is unusual - she once worked for Airborne Express) but she had no idea how to spell it. I finally coaxed her into trying and she said "Krackow". Due to immigration, Americans are familiar with Polish surnames using our own alphabet. They are long and full of seemingly random letters, especially z, w and c. Even I missed Brzezinski in a spelling bee. My point is, Americans are likely to look up the spelling of anything Polish, rather than try to remember it. Art LaPella 05:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks; your edit looks very useful. But it is for style; not for content, which is what I requested. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Congress of Vienna in 1915 ???--Jotel 09:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done Oops, sorry. I meant 1815 of course. --Poeticbent talk 18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fixes needed - hi. looks good. I've begun massaging the prose a bit to improve flow as it is clunky in places and needs to be more polished before it can get across the FA finish line (well, in my opinion anyway). I felt it was too time-consuming to list all examples - happy for me to continue? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- See here :-) --Jotel 12:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done I’d like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the tremendous amount of work you put into Kraków recently. Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 16:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support—But can you audit the spelling out of large numbers? I see "11", but "five thousand"; then "30,000". No period at end of captions that are not complete sentences (MOS). Tony 01:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Numbers, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Captions. Thanks, Tony. --Poeticbent talk 16:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support— prose vastly improved :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose on the grounds that, for an FA, the references are in a mess. Too often the quoted source does not support the article text and/or the source is effectively an open blog &c. I've tried to weed out some cases of this type, but my patience, enthusiasm and expertise are running out. --Jotel 14:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Needless to say I would like to help as much as I can. I would also like to work on parts of the article mentioned in earlier comments, that’s why knowing whether your vote is final would greatly improve my schedule and perhaps save a whole lot of time. You’ve been removing references supporting critical claims [7] with expressed opposition from other editors like myself and Piotrus, who requested Wikipedia:Verifiability and who already supported this nomination. Also, you’ve been deleting the work of others without replacing it with anything of substance.[8] I’m in a quandary here. Would you be interested in adding quality references when appropriate? Let us move just one step at a time and help each other if possible. --Poeticbent talk 17:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- If ref. 1 you mention contains any reference to the E&Y report, it must be well hidden somewhere on the site, anyway I could not find it. I'll be happy to see a clear link to the said report; as it was, the page the removed ref. was pointing to is a +- generic estate agents' blurb. Ref 2 was deleted because the document talked either about the voivodeship (or possibly the whole country), there was nothing there specific to Cracow. Yes, I'm guilty of deleting the work of others without replacing it with anything of substance as charged, but (a) that the WP's way (b) everybody is free to criticise the work of others without being able to do a better job oneself (a badly tailored suit comes to mind....). --Jotel 17:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- My answer Part 2: My vote is as final as is any WP article....I mean the text (references included) could change any time. If it does, I'll reconsider. As I said earlier, I'll try to find some better references but do not promise (a) to correct every occurrence of what I find unsatisfactory (b) any time-scale. To be blunt, I would not bother with all my editorial contributions if it weren't an FA candidate. The article, as it stands now, is of good quality, well above the average, and many miles better than what I ever wrote (or hope to write) for WP. But if an editor puts 'his/her' article forward as a shining example to the Wikipedians, it's (s)he who should put the most effort to satisfy reviewers. --Jotel 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- On the whole, the links Jotel removed in this compound diff don't seem very good; one of them is indeed a chat room in Polish, others are the city web site. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Needless to say I would like to help as much as I can. I would also like to work on parts of the article mentioned in earlier comments, that’s why knowing whether your vote is final would greatly improve my schedule and perhaps save a whole lot of time. You’ve been removing references supporting critical claims [7] with expressed opposition from other editors like myself and Piotrus, who requested Wikipedia:Verifiability and who already supported this nomination. Also, you’ve been deleting the work of others without replacing it with anything of substance.[8] I’m in a quandary here. Would you be interested in adding quality references when appropriate? Let us move just one step at a time and help each other if possible. --Poeticbent talk 17:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The article is great, but at first glance the leading picture in the infobox is pretty bland. It looks like it could be any one of dozens of European cities seen from a hill. Any chance of improvement there? Deuar 20:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done Below are but a few interesting pictures from the gallery in Commons,[9] with the new and the previously featured photograph. --Poeticbent talk 23:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
-
Just in from Commons. My most favourite alternative, now featured at Kraków -
-
-
My second most favourite alternative -
-
Former leading picture
- The second picture, the large yellow building with the arcade, is much the best image. The third could be any city with a glass box. I presume the large red domed building is Cracow Cathedral, but none of the images is striking, and the picture on the Cathedral's own article shows nothing else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's not the main, well known, cathedral. Soem other church in the old town I suppose. Deuar 21:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Out of the offers in the gallery, I'd vote for the Cloth Hall (PMAndersons's choice too). If suggesting anything else is allowed here, my vote would be for either the first or the last photo in the Main Market Square, Kraków article, with the latter being the final winner (just by a whisker...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotel (talk • contribs) 20:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- That last one of the Market Square is an excellent picture, probably a better representation of the city; but could we have the caption in English, please? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just so its easy to compare, here are those other two mages mentioned.
The first is the most visually appealing image imho, but I'm not sure how a wide one like that will match with an infobox. Failing that I'd go with the second of these, it gives a fair idea about both the old town, and the suburbs, and is not too bland. Deuar 21:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. This article is really improving, but it still fails on the following criteria:
- 1b. Comprehensiveness. Information about the city's industry, pollution, and large parts of history is missing.
- 1c. Factual accuracy. There major (and easy to correct) errors in the history section.
It could also use some more copy-editing. A more comprehensive list of possible improvements is on the to-do list below. — Kpalion(talk) 21:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Priority 1 (top)
|
Kpalion, what do you mean by the balloon statements, like: “There are still minor problems with grammar and style”? Please list the examples. I suggest you plunge into editing and claim at least some of the credit for your advanced skills of observation rather than spend time colouring boxes. Please look at how User:Jotel has been deleting virtually every paragraph I put into Kraków during both nominations; first about universities, than about demographics, religion, transportation, even women ratio, not a single new paragraph came through during last candidature. Do you really think you’re actually helping to bring this article closer to being featured? --Poeticbent talk 07:05, 17 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 14:14, 17 September 2007.
Das Boot (film)
Self-Nomination: For me, this was one of the most powerful movies I have ever seen. It is a culturally significant film. I feel that the page is of appropriate length, the plot does not spew out all unnecessary facts, there are very good images, and it is very well linked.- JustPhil
15:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The subject is undoubtedly deserving, and the article is informative if somewhat overladen with jargon, but there are too many fair-use images for my liking. I think this should be given a peer review first. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, primarily due to a leghthly plot and lackluster referencing. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, article needs way better, inline, referencing. And are there really only 4 suitable sources that can be used for this article? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - The short Reception section is unsourced, saying one of the most important things about the whole movie, and such a short Reception section compared to the criticism doesn't give the impression this was a successful movie, even though it says it was (the criticism should be inside the Reception section). The article needs to be restructured—so many sections about trivial things (the accent..?) gives it a choppy read: those things should be integrated into Production. The Cast table is rather unwieldy, try a bland list like that of Casablanca. Two third party references isn't going to cut it. This is the kind of cleanup you need at Peer Review to pass at GA, so I'd highly recommend going there first. ALTON .ıl 06:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose for multiple reasons, listed below:
- Plot section is too lengthy, with unnecessary subsections and insufficient fair use rationale for all the non-free images used. Images used in the Plot section or elsewhere need to meet #8 at WP:NFCC to avoid being considered decorative, as it is here.
- The Reception section is pretty much nonexistent. There are no independent reviews stating why this film was so good, and such a section is of complete importance for such a prominent film.
- The Criticism section is hardly cited and not written in a very encyclopedic tone. This section has potential with its content, but a lot of work needs to be done to make it the best that Wikipedia has to offer.
- "German regional accents" should be cited and merged as part of Production since the director chose specific nationalities for his film.
- Music, if it really was a prominent part of the film, should be part of the Production section.
- Versions also needs citations and copy-editing. It should be in a Release section as to cover the topic better. Dubbings and subtitles should go to a Release section as well, with citation.
- Special effects / Sets and models should be part of a Production section, and "Special effects" is very misleading, from what I can see in the content -- this has more to do with production design.
- Special camera needs to go under Production, and content in both sections also need citations.
- The Cast section probably broaches indiscriminate territory, as most of the cast members are not notable for listing in an encyclopedic article. Generally, notable roles are those that have been commented upon independently, and this will usually be focused on the leading roles. Also, Das Boot as a career boost should be cited and combined with the appropriate Cast entries. There's no verifiable backing that Das Boot boosted these men's careers.
- This article fails to provide adequate referencing overall.
- This article has multiple non-free images which do not provide sufficient fair use rationale -- there are only brief descriptions and licensing tags for each image.
- Copy-editing is another concern, but the primary issue is that the content needs to be verifiable.
- A much better job can be done. I would suggest reviewing WikiProject Films' recent Featured Articles to serve as guides. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose this is probably the best submarine movie ever made, I've seen the English and German versions, but the article, just to start, needs better references.Rlevse 21:00, 15 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.
FC Steaua Bucureşti
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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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:
- 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)
- 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 ([10]) 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 02:18, 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,[13] 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,[14][15] 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 [16], and the French Center of Development in Arts and Medieval Culture [17]. 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 [18]. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 [16], and the French Center of Development in Arts and Medieval Culture [17]. 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 [18]. 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)
- 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, DurovaCharge! 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 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)
- Lyrics have been expalained in many song articles. I got a similar feeling with Hey Ya!. 17Drew 05:45, 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 04:56, 3 September 2007.
2007 Canadian Grand Prix
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Is "Possibly" a WW? Buc 19:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Have you read WP:WEASEL? Pyrope 18:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- What's wrong with it?
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Never said it was. Buc 18:04, 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)
- Are you saying the article would have to be entirely re-written to become a FA? Buc 20:00, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- FA is not peer review. Am I supposed to rewrite the whole article to demonstrate my point? Besides this probably being beyond my ability,
- Do you have any specific to piont out so I can change it? Buc 18:04, 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.
London
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 [citation needed] tag (Economy) and uncreated category (Government). MarkBA t/c/@ 15:59, 30 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)
- 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.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 [20], 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)
- That's the definition of original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 8 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)
- 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)
(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)
- 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)
- 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 historyis 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)
- 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
- Guilty. That was before gaining an understanding of WP:SS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:28, 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)
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.) – I took care of ERA. Let me know if you see other instances--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Resolved - "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)
- 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)
- 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.)
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
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.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- ^ a b "2002 nominations and winners". Young Artist's Awards. Retrieved 2007-09-13.
- ^ "2002 Saturn Awards". IMDB. Retrieved 2007-09-13.
- ^ "2002 Empire Awards". IMDB. Retrieved 2007-09-13.
- ^ "American Moviegoer Award nominations". Time Warner. Retrieved 2007-09-13.
- ^ "Bravo Otto Awards 2003" (in German). Retrieved 2007-09-13.
- ^ "Bravo Otto Awards 2004" (in German). Retrieved 2007-09-13. "DanRadcliffe.com News". Retrieved 2007-09-13.
- ^ "Prisoner of Azkaban awards". Broadcast Film Critics Association. Retrieved 2007-09-13.
- ^ "Goblet of Fire awards". Broadcast Film Critics Association. Retrieved 2007-09-13.
- ^ "Bravo Otto Awards 2005" (in German). Retrieved 2007-09-13.
- ^ 1
- ^ 2
- ^ 3
- ^ 4
- ^ See footnote
