Wikipedia:Featured article candidates: Difference between revisions
- Afrikaans
- Alemannisch
- አማርኛ
- العربية
- অসমীয়া
- Azərbaycanca
- تۆرکجه
- বাংলা
- 閩南語 / Bân-lâm-gú
- 閩南語 / Bân-lâm-gú
- Башҡортса
- Беларуская
- Беларуская (тарашкевіца)
- Беларуская (тарашкевіца)
- भोजपुरी
- Български
- Boarisch
- Bosanski
- Català
- Čeština
- Cymraeg
- Dansk
- Deutsch
- Eesti
- Ελληνικά
- Español
- Esperanto
- Estremeñu
- فارسی
- Français
- Frysk
- Gaeilge
- Galego
- 한국어
- Հայերեն
- हिन्दी
- Ido
- Bahasa Indonesia
- Íslenska
- Italiano
- עברית
- ქართული
- Қазақша
- Latviešu
- Лезги
- Lietuvių
- Magyar
- Македонски
- മലയാളം
- Malti
- मराठी
- Bahasa Melayu
- Minangkabau
- Mirandés
- Монгол
- Nederlands
- नेपाली
- 日本語
- Napulitano
- Нохчийн
- Norsk bokmål
- Norsk nynorsk
- Олык марий
- Oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
- Pälzisch
- Plattdüütsch
- Polski
- Português
- Română
- Русский
- Саха тыла
- Shqip
- සිංහල
- Simple English
- سنڌي
- Slovenčina
- Slovenščina
- Soomaaliga
- کوردی
- Српски / srpski
- Suomi
- Svenska
- Tagalog
- தமிழ்
- Татарча / tatarça
- ไทย
- Türkçe
- Українська
- اردو
- Vèneto
- Tiếng Việt
- 文言
- Xitsonga
- 粵語
- 粵語
- Zeêuws
- 中文
→Nominations: Add Connie Talbot nom |
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) withdrawn |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Before nominating, please make sure the article meets the FA criteria. --> |
Before nominating, please make sure the article meets the FA criteria. --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Connie Talbot}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Connie Talbot}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liberty Bell}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Conan (2007 video game)}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Conan (2007 video game)}} |
Revision as of 23:09, 21 July 2008
- Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache |
Featured article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools: | ||||
Nominating
Commenting, etc
|
Nominations
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:41, 15 November 2008 [1].
Connie Talbot
Third time lucky. I have nominated this twice before, but both nominations have failed. I have worked with the suggestions from the past two nominations, and hope that the article is now ready for featured status. I have also kept the article updated. J Milburn (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I feel that the prose still needs work, preferably a thorough review by an experienced copyeditor. Some examples:
- Despite being received negatively by critics... How about "Despite its negative critical reception..."?
- In October 2007, it was reported by the Express & Star that... This is still passive voice (presumably changed from the last FAC), even though we now have a subject. The subject should be the focus of the sentence: "In October 2007 the Express & Star reported that..."
- Talbot has said that the belief her grandmother was watching gave her confidence... Keep it simple: "Talbot drew confidence from the belief that her grandmother was watching..."
- These are a few random examples. I recommend having the entire article copyedited carefully by someone with a careful eye and significant distance from the evolution of the project. You can probably find someone to help on the peer review volunteers page. (I looked but didn't see evidence of such an outside-perspective copyedit prior to the FAC.) Good luck! Scartol • Tok 18:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:Looks like it's almost there. The prose isn't professional though, which is a requirement of a FA. You might want to consider aiming for GA status first because it's more lenient with the prose. TKGD2007|TALK 20:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- This oppose is rather vague. What about the prose, exactly, needs work? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeProse needs significant work, but featured standards are within reach. Comments through halfway of the Over the Rainbow section:- Talbot had been destined to sign with Sony BMG but the label pulled out of the deal due to her age. - "Had been" → "was".
- Songs from the album are to feature in an upcoming video game about Talbot. - "Are to featured" → "are to be featured".
- Despite its negative critical reception, the album has sold over 250,000 copies worldwide and reached number one in three countries. - Which album?
- On top of her musical career, Talbot continues to attend primary school, and lives in Streetly with her family. - "On top of" → "aside from".
- Although auditioning for the first series of television reality show Britain's Got Talent was originally a family day out, Talbot's confidence increased when Simon Cowell, whom she is said to have idolised,[2] described her as "pure magic" and said that he would make her earn "£1 million-plus this year". - What is a "family day out"?
- Despite her never taken singing lessons, and the judges expecting a "joke" performance, Talbot's initial performance received international press coverage. - "Despite her never taken singing lessons" makes me cringe, unfortunately. Change to "Although she never took singing lessons".
- She reached the final after winning her semi-final with a live performance of "Ben" by Michael Jackson. - Sounds like there's a word missing after "final". The final what?
- According to journalist and Britain's Got Talent judge Piers Morgan, it was thanks to Talbot that so many children, including Faryl Smith, auditioned for the second series of the show. - "It was thanks to" doesn't really sound encyclopedic.
- Series 2 winner George Sampson spoke after his victory of his participation in the first series - Change to "After his victory, Series 2 winner George Sampson spoke of his participation in the first series".
- Cowell had preliminarily agreed to sign Talbot with his own record label, Sony BMG. After recording two songs in London with Talbot ("Over the Rainbow" and "Smile"[2]), the company changed its mind. A company doesn't have a mind, nor does it change it.
- In October 2007 Talbot signed with the Rainbow Recording Company for a six-figure deal. - "Six-figure deal" is vague. Was it as low as $100,000, or closer to $999,999?
- A schedule was worked out so that Talbot could continue with her normal school activities while recording the album in her aunty Vicky's spare bedroom, which her mother described as "a better solution [than Sony BMG offered] which has not robbed her of her childhood". - Using "that" in this context is one of my pet peeves; more importantly, it's redundant.
- Although Arnison claimed he did not "want to put her through the promotional grind which most artists go through because she is too young", plans were laid out for appearances on daytime television programme This Morning and perhaps even The X Factor, as well as an appearance on Children in Need on 16 November 2007. - The plans were literally laid out on the ground?
- Try to avoid "the album...the album...the album" to begin sentences.
–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Talbot drew confidence belief her grandmother was watching? Kaldari (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support - For now. It's incredibly hard to fix the volume of prose needing a touch-up from the last FAC. I'll try to copy edit, but I doubt that this will pass at this time. —Ceran♦(Sing) (It's snowing in NJ already!) 22:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by MacGyverMagic (I've run through the article and done a copyedit. If the following points are addressed adequately, I will support - please inform me on my talk page if you do):
- The lead says: "Despite its negative critical reception, Over the Rainbow has sold over 250,000 copies worldwide and reached number one in three countries." Neither the lead nor the section on the album mention those countries by name. - Mgm|(talk) 11:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They're mentioned in the discography section. Should they be moved into the prose? I just felt that sort of specific information should be reserved for the album article. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Telling were the album reached number one gives an indication of how many people know her as well as how succesful the album was. Also, telling there are three countries will generate the question which in the reader and it is not immediately evident where to find it (I was expecting it to be in the section about the album) - Mgm|(talk) 12:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They're mentioned in the discography section. Should they be moved into the prose? I just felt that sort of specific information should be reserved for the album article. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Arnison claimed he did not "want to put her through the promotional grind which most artists go through because she is too young", plans were made for appearances on daytime television programme This Morning and perhaps even The X Factor, as well as an appearance on Children in Need on 16 November 2007." The words perhaps even are speculative and the reference does not mention the X-factor. - Mgm|(talk) 11:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- She didn't appear on the X Factor, and I'm not aware of any plans for her to appear on this series. I'll just remove the mention. The source does mention it- the DM interviewer asks Talbot "Are you scared of the television appearances on This Morning with Fern and Phil, and possibly even X Factor which are coming up to promote your album?" J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "It was later announced on Talbot's official website that the release date for the U.S. version would be 14 October, and that Talbot and her family would be travelling to the U.S. at the start of the month." This line should be updated. - Mgm|(talk) 11:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead says: "Despite its negative critical reception, Over the Rainbow has sold over 250,000 copies worldwide and reached number one in three countries." Neither the lead nor the section on the album mention those countries by name. - Mgm|(talk) 11:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. My concerns have been addressed. - Mgm|(talk) 16:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: Despite the "free" images, I question if the article requires three photos showing the same subject. If they displayed her at significant stages of her life, it would be great. They are, however, of a child who has not changed much. Since for images, we are asking for the best representation of the subject or idea, what do Image:ConnieTalbot3.jpeg and Image:ConnieTalbot2.jpeg have that Image:ConnieTalbot1.jpeg cannot hope to serve as? Jappalang (talk) 05:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image three (the one in colour) shows her recording with Sony BMG, while the others are with Rainbow, so does illustrate something a litte different. The one with the band in the background is obviously a good "this is what she looks like" photo, and I feel that the other is a good one to show the recording (well, it shows the recording equipment) and the way that she is portrayed by her management. As the images are free, I don't think there is any problem with using multiple images- they all display the text that they are next to, and liven up the article a little. As it happens, I am currently talking to Talbot's agent about getting some more images, specifically of her trip to Jamaica- something that is mentioned in the article but not illustrated. J Milburn (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I acknowledge their "freedom" (heh), but question their indiscriminate use. I fail to see the relevance of her recording or the recording equipment requiring a photo to add additional information (unless the article specifically states that her singing is enhanced or altered by those equipment). How are those photos supposed to show her portrayal by her management? If she was in costume, or in a publicity shot that is free and different from her everyday persona, that could be valid. As it is, the three photos show the same girl (I will even hazard that she is wearing the same dress in all three photos). I would think that "free" pictures are given a looser reign for use on Wikipedia but still need to be justified in their use. The infobox's picture is good enough to identify her. There is Commons to host a collection of free photos of Connie for others to peruse at their pleasure. Jappalang (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image three (the one in colour) shows her recording with Sony BMG, while the others are with Rainbow, so does illustrate something a litte different. The one with the band in the background is obviously a good "this is what she looks like" photo, and I feel that the other is a good one to show the recording (well, it shows the recording equipment) and the way that she is portrayed by her management. As the images are free, I don't think there is any problem with using multiple images- they all display the text that they are next to, and liven up the article a little. As it happens, I am currently talking to Talbot's agent about getting some more images, specifically of her trip to Jamaica- something that is mentioned in the article but not illustrated. J Milburn (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, now that my concerns have been addressed via a copyedit. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Image:ConnieTalbot1.jpeg - Could we get a direct link to where on the website this image appears?Image:ConnieTalbot3.jpeg - Could we get a direct link to where on the website this image appears?Image:ConnieTalbot2.jpeg - Could we get a direct link to where on the website this image appears?
Hopefully this is easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the point of a direct link? They were supplied via OTRS, so there are no sourcing issues, and the indirect link allows people to see the captions. I would provide a link if I was on my own laptop, but I'm not going to the site here- I'm on a college computer. They should be easy enough to find, they'll be somewhere in the pictures section of the official website. They're early photos, so they'll be on the oldest pages. J Milburn (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, there are three different date formats in the citations: unlinked ISO dates, linked dates and unlinked day month year dates. Please work to standardize these over time to one format. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:14, 6 August 2008 [2].
Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale
As I said before, thank you to everyone who reviewed Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories. The article wasn't promoted but all the comments were useful and the article certainly improved as a result of the reviews. Hopefully, this article will meet with greater favour! DrKiernan (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
What makes http://www.heraldica.org/intro.htm a reliable source?
- Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Francois Velde is an amateur herald who lists his references: he indicates that the information on Albert Victor can be found in Neubecker, Otto: Heraldry: Sources, Symbols and Meaning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976. While Velde's academic work is in other areas (e.g. http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7306.html), he is a professionally-trained scholar, so I have always assumed him to be reliable. DrKiernan (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably borderline under WP:SPS. I don't have that work on heraldry, unfortunately. Does the College of Heralds or whoever it is that currently regulates that in the UK not have a site? And Albert Victor's not on the monarchy site? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My library has a copy of Neubecker's book. I've checked it and confirmed that the heraldic label given for Albert Victor is as shown on the Heraldica site (which is what the site was cited for). Consequently I've updated the article to use the book for this reference, rather than the website. Dr pda (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably borderline under WP:SPS. I don't have that work on heraldry, unfortunately. Does the College of Heralds or whoever it is that currently regulates that in the UK not have a site? And Albert Victor's not on the monarchy site? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "born two months prematurely" → "born two months premature" as the premature is describing the "two months" and not the "born" if it's placed after it
- remove the bold in "Prince Albert Victor of Wales from birth." as bold formatting should be used sparingly (usually only in the lead), and I don't think it's necessary in this case
- "on 10 March 1864 by " – link the date; there are a few more unlinked dates. if you choose to link dates in the article then link them all
- link the dates in the references per the above point
- is there a ref for "A pair of alternative history novels, written by Peter Dickinson," paragraph?
Gary King (talk) 04:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I cleaned up a few unlinked dates, but otherwise found the article excellent in all particulars. Very well done! Coemgenus 13:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per comment above (Dates unlinked) and this diff, Dr Kiernan has chosen not to link dates, following the recent change to the Manual of Style which made it optional. I've reverted your changes. Dr pda (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Current refs 77 (David Duff) and 95 (Alison Weir) appear to be to books, and give the full bibliographical information. For consistency with other book sources shouldn't these appear as author, page no. in the inline citation, with the full info in the references section?
- The bibliographical information for the Alison Weir reference needs checking—it is lacking an ISBN; a worldcat search gives the title as Britain's royal families : the complete genealogy, i.e. the not a, and shows editions of 1989 and 1996, not 1999 as referenced (though of course there may be a 1999 edition).
- Concerning ref 75 Official statement released to the press and quoted in many newspapers, it would be nice to have a reference to one of the newspapers.
- Ref 80 (Mark Roskill) is the only place in the article where a citation template is used. I'm not sure if the 'consistency in citation style' requirement means this should be replaced by a manually-formatted citation or not.
- The honorary doctorates and honorary colonelcies appear to be unreferenced. Dr pda (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very well-done article. Two small issues:
"he was excused examinations" - I'm not sure what this means"Much of Albert Victor's time was spent in drilling at Aldershot, which he disliked, though he did like to play polo." - I'm unsure if this says that he disliked drilling or Aldershot"was a cover-up at the highest levels " - are there any details about the cover-up? This makes it sound as if there might have been evidence against Albert Victor if not for the cover-up, also, and I'm unsure if that is what is meant.
Karanacs (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks!
- It means he didn't have to take any examinations.
- The drilling! Now reads: "Much of Albert Victor's time at his post in Aldershot was spent drilling, which he disliked, though he did like to play polo."
- Changed to "none of the clients were ever prosecuted", also added "At the time, all homosexual acts between men were illegal, and the clients faced social ostracism, prosecution, and at worst, two years imprisonment with hard labour." DrKiernan (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I peer reviewed this and thought it was close to FA quality then and has since improved. My only quibble is that the last chapter of Fictional portrayals needs references (presumably full bibliographic info for the novels and story mentioned). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:29, 22 August 2008 [3].
Conan (2007 video game)
- Nominator(s): User:Jappalang
- previous FAC (01:14, 6 August 2008)
For this nominated article, Conan, did you know that ...
- Conan was designed to be as faithful to Robert E. Howard's literature as possible?
- the visual style of Conan was based on that of Frank Frazetta's portrayals of the barbarian and the Hyborian world?
- Arnold Schwarzenegger, who played Conan in the 1982 film, is backing a law to regulate the sales of Conan and other M-rated video games?
With your attention captured, please take a look through this comprehensive article (reliably sourced to boot) on the video game and judge its suitability to be a Featured Article. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support All my concerns were ironed out at the last FAC, and subsequent peer review before the renom. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look good, all links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pending support - I only have some very, very nitpicky issues with the prose, some of which are highly debatable. I haven't looked at the Development and Reception sections yet, though. —This is part of a comment by Nousernamesleft (of 00:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
- "To defeat the boss, players have to complete interactive button-pressing sequences after Conan has inflicted heavy damage on it." - I would assume that the damage is inflicted before the key sequence, but that doesn't support this type of sentence structure. Something like "After inflicting heavy damage on the boss, blah blah blah...".
- In the previous FAC, User:Laser brain said that there should be a clear distinction between the player and the character (Conan); there should be no mixup between their actions. In this case, Conan (and not the player, though under the player's control) attacks and damages the boss, but it is the player who has to press the buttons in a sequence to defeat the creature. There is particular difficulty in fitting a leading clause without getting mixed up between the subjects. In any case, I have reworded this statement into three and hopefully, it is clearer now in its meaning. Jappalang (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that "After inflicting heavy damage ..." would be the most graceful construction, but given Laser brain's requirement, I think Jappalang has done a good job. here --AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 13:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that "After inflicting heavy damage ..." would be the most graceful construction, but given Laser brain's requirement, I think Jappalang has done a good job. here --AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 13:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the previous FAC, User:Laser brain said that there should be a clear distinction between the player and the character (Conan); there should be no mixup between their actions. In this case, Conan (and not the player, though under the player's control) attacks and damages the boss, but it is the player who has to press the buttons in a sequence to defeat the creature. There is particular difficulty in fitting a leading clause without getting mixed up between the subjects. In any case, I have reworded this statement into three and hopefully, it is clearer now in its meaning. Jappalang (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The inspiration for Conan's moves came from several sources, chief among which was Frazetta's artwork." - I'm not sure this is grammatically correct. In any case, it certainly reads very awkwardly.
- You use commas extremely sparsely; this decreases readability in several areas. I recommend that a look be taken at this.
- Are there any outstanding examples? I have also asked AnnaFrance, the copyeditor of the article, to help me take a look at this. Jappalang (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually the complaint is about too many commas and I spend a lot of time removing them. Can you point out the areas you don't like? --AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 13:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, I swear I had some, but can no longer find them. Anyways, it's not that big of a deal. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually the complaint is about too many commas and I spend a lot of time removing them. Can you point out the areas you don't like? --AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 13:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any outstanding examples? I have also asked AnnaFrance, the copyeditor of the article, to help me take a look at this. Jappalang (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One last comment: "Although architectures of the two consoles were very different," - should that be "the architectures"...? Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not certain either. Would it be redundant if we insert a definite article before "architectures"? Can anyone offer help on this? Jappalang (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch, Nousernamesleft. I'll make it so. --AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 12:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—There might be a couple of minor issues with some of the text, but overall this article has addressed the issues raised during the first FAC. I think it covers the subject nicely and satisfies the FA criteria.—RJH (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:39, 29 July 2008 [4].
Pendle witch trials
- Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum (talk)
I've been working on this article on and off for some time, and now I think it's ready to be considered for promotion to FA. I hope you agree. The Pendle witch trials are among the best-known and best-documented of the 17th-century English witch trials, thanks to an official published account written by the clerk to the court, Thomas Potts. Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with minor reservations: The article is very informative and well-sourced. I have only a handful of concerns that no doubt can be quickly addressed:
- Citations: Since the sources provided are mostly published references, I cannot determine off-hand whether the citations provided source all the material proceeding them. For example, in the first paragraph under "Religious and political background", the article claims that James I "had become convinced that he was being plotted against by Scottish witches" and other surprising details of his fascination with witchcraft. Yet the next source provided doesn't come until three sentences later when a citation is provided about a new anti-witchcraft law. I'm sure the sourcing is adequate, but on first read it just seems like a lot of information to come from a single page in a book.
- I'll check and increase the citation density where necessary. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The last paragraph under "Religious and political background" is a bit unclear, at least to me. I'm not certain what "King James' attitude towards witchcraft was perhaps difficult to understand for the two judges hearing the trials of the Pendle witches" means. What I gather it to mean, given the surrounding text, is that the jurists who were to hear the cases might not have been clear as to what the King actually thought to be witchcraft, and that somehow this led to the wrongful execution of the nine accused...
- I meant it to mean that the judges weren't certain which course of action would gain them favour with the king; whether to be sceptical in examining the evidence, or to encourage the convictions. I've rewritten the last paragraph to try and make that clearer. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Awkward sentence here: "The event which seems to have triggered Nowell's investigation, culminating in the Pendle witch trials, occurred on 21 March 1612, when Alizon Device encountered John Law."
- I've rewritten that sentence, hopefully better now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise I think this is a great little article. I like the family tree illustrations (much preferred than repeatedly referencing family members in the prose) and the tables at the bottom. I think the graphics and illustrations are adequate for an article of this length, and the three web sources present I believe are appropriate for the information referenced. Best, epicAdam (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Given the revisions, the article appears to be a great FA candidate. Best, epicAdam (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. I'll just note the assumption (at least on my part) is that any information given before a footnote is sourced to that footnote, whether it's one phrase or a whole paragraph. That's been the assumption for my FACs, also. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's my assumption too, and I've double-checked to make sure that's the case with this article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support tried hard to find something with which to bring an opposition with, but to me, this is a flawless piece, and an enjoyable, informative read. MOS, CITE and IMAGE compliant (AFAICT). Well done, --Jza84 | Talk 12:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: This is a very interesting article about a subject I previously knew nothing about. Although well written and obviously well sourced, I'm not sure the lead section gives an adequate summary of the entire article. In areas it is a little too detailed (One of the accused, Jennet Preston, lived in Gisburn, just over the border from Pendle, in Yorkshire) and some of the information (fewer than 500 witches were executed, so this one series of trials over three days in the summer of 1612 accounts for more than 2% of that total) is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. The "Modern interpretation" and "Aftermath and legacy" sections are not represented nor is Thomas Potts' written account, which seems to be a major part of its legacy, is not explained. Because of these deficiencies, I think the lead should be rewritten. María (habla conmigo) 12:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rewritten the lead as per your suggestions. Hopefully it's closer to what you have in mind now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I have read several books on this particular subject and this article provides an excellent summary of all the major points that need to be covered. An enjoyable read, and highly informative.-- Seahamlass 18:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I have seen this article after the suggestions made on this page have been incorporated into it. It reads well, conforms to MoS issues, and its coverage is very good and detailed enough. I think it deserves to succeed here. DDStretch (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Firm Oppose
for now: Generally good and comprehensive, but needs retouching at a number of points to make FA standard, plus more depth and better flow. The sources are very thin for an FA, nearly all of them being papers in the same book. After that we are down to the Pocket Essentials The History of Witchcraft. The nominator seems unprepared to improve the article, or even to believe that is possible, so progress seems unlikely. Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "William Harrison Ainsworth, a Victorian novelist considered in his day the equal of Dickens ..." (repeated later) - no such claim at his article & I very much doubt this was a generally held view.
- I would suggest that whatever is claimed at his wikipedia article is irrelevant. The claim is fully supported by reference to a respectable academic source. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually "Richards 2002" is not in the refs. Where is that link supposed to go? Is he an Eng Lit academic? Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The link's there now. He's Professor of Cultural History at the University of Lancaster. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Prof Stephen Carver, who wrote the book on Ainsworth says "His brief period as Scott's successor in the eyes of the press after Rookwood had also given way to Dicken's meteoric rise, a literary superiority to which Ainsworth cheerfully deferred" here. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not contradict the information to which you appear to have some objection. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "the people of Pendle remained largely faithful to their Roman Catholic beliefs and openly reverted to Catholicism on Queen Mary's ascent to the throne in 1553." - the great majority of the population did so, under intense government pressure.
- Forgive me, but that sounds like an opinion, WP:OR even, and it is not what the sources used claim. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's GCSE history. What you have is like saying people were "openly" obeying the speed limit. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps. I am going to stick with what the cited source says though, if that's all the same to you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Protestant establishment, however, regarded Catholic practices as little more than conjuring, and their prayers as charms.[2]" Reference or not, this is an unacceptably crude way to describe the very complicated attitudes of "the Protestant establishment" in 1612. Such views were much more likely to be held by non-conformists, themselves also practicing a form of religion heavily discriminated against by the Govenment.
- Perhaps. But until you write your book I'd prefer to go with the sources. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear. We'd better have a quotation then. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I realise that you have some vested interest in any article that mentions the word "Catholic", but everything in that sentence to which you are apparently objecting is appropriately attributed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Link Anne of Denmark
- Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- " but he had recently been accused of a miscarriage of justice at the York Assizes, which had resulted in a woman being sentenced to death by hanging for witchcraft" needs clarifying. Presumably:"but he had recently been accused of a miscarriage of justice at the York Assizes, when he had sentenced a woman to death by hanging for witchcraft"
- That would be going beyond what the source actually claims; it doesn't say that Altham had sentenced a woman to death, although one could speculate that's what had happened. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Neighbouring Cheshire, for instance, also suffered from economic problems and religious activists" - there must be better ways of putting this!
- Do you have a suggestion? It seems perfectly fine to me as it is. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did the "witches" actually live? Were they actually recusants?
- They lived in the area around Pendle, as I thought the article made clear. Can you suggest any way of making that clearer? Whether or not they were recusants is unrecorded, although one could speculate that they very likely were. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody lives on Pendle Hill itself, and the now largely vanished forest of Pendle is ill-defined. I see you removed, after a comment above, the fact that one lived at Gisburn. Don't we have better information on the others? Where was Malkin Tower for example? Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really struggling to understand your point. The "witches" lived in the area around Pendle Hill. Nobody knows precisely where Malkin Tower was, other than that it was somewhere in the Pendle area. It has long since disappeared. I only removed the "Gisburn" fact from the lead, after an earlier objection about there being too much detail in the lead. It is still there in the Trials section. The Gisburn fact was in any case only relevant to explain why one of the accused was tried at York Assizes but the others were tried at Lancaster. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A bit more on the wider perspectives of what modern historians make of the witch trial phenomenon is needed really.
- My view is that this article is not the appropriate place for that wider discussion. The pupose of this article, in my view, is to explain the Pendle witch trials. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The prose is sometimes a bit clogged up, though I would not oppose on this alone.
Johnbod (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could give an example of where the prose is "clogged"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The third para of the lead will do for an example. I realize there are lots of relationships and facts to get in, but this & many other passages make for a knotty read. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again we will have to agree to disagree. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments- Very interesting article. Karanacs (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]Is there any information about the kind of evidence that Jennet Device gave, beyond just naming people who attended the meeting?There is, and I'll expand a little on that where appropriate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that fond of the tabular format of the trials. That is a large chunk of the article text, and I think it would be better served in prose.How strongly do you feel about the table format? I quite like it (obviously), but I'm not wedded to it if you see it as being problematic. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What was the result of Jennet Device's later trial? Was she found guilty or not guilty?The evidence is sparse, not helped by the fact that many of Lancashire's court records were destroyed by fire. It's not absolutely certain that it was the same Jennet Device who was tried for witchcraft in 1634, but most researchers seem to believe that it likely was. The result of the trial was that she was found guilty, but the judges refused to pass the death sentence and referred the case to king. Device was detained in Lancaster jail, and was recorded as still being there in 1636. Nothing else seems to be known about her; the most likely outcome is that she died in jail. I'll expand on that a little, as it does round off Jennet Device's story. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Summary I believe that all of the actionable comments have now been addressed, perhaps with the exception of one. I am unwilling to extend the scope of this article to include a discussion of the general witch trial phenomenon because I believe that would be better described elsewhere, as in fact it is. This article is about a specific event that happened in the summer of 1612, in what was then a remote part of England. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:22, 3 August 2008 [5].
Domitian
This article has taken a lot of time and effort. As I believe it currently fits all the criteria for a Featured Article Candidate, I'm proud to put this up for nomination. Style should be good, structure is clear, images are free, treatment is comprehensive without going into unnecessary detail, etc... I would like to pre-emptively address three possible criticisms though:
- Size: the current article size is 92kb, however readable prose only constitutes about 65kb. So I see no problems with the current size of the text. There is little that could be shortened in the current format anyway, since several terms relating to Roman history, especially in the opening sections, need at least some clarification for uninitiated readers.
- Ancient sources: the use of ancient sources is generally discouraged as a primary source for a Wikipedia article. In some sections, I *do* cite ancient authors, but I have tried to use these sparingly, and only when a) the statements are uncontested, b) are used as a direct quote, or c) are used to highlight a controversy.
- Modern source: some may criticize my "overreliance" on Brian Jones' The Emperor Domitian as the main source of reference for this article. However, as noted even within the article: book length studies of Domitian are few and far between, with the only other notable books either written over a hundred years ago (Gsell, 1894) or largely based on the work of Jones itself (Southern, 1997). At present, the work of Brian Jones is simply thé most authoritative source on the Domitianic era.
Any other objections I'd be very happy to discuss! Regards. Steerpike (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from epicAdam (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for starters, here are some WP:MoS problems that can be dealt with fairly quickly:
- The article jumps between British and American word spellings... choose a variation and then make sure all the following words match up: armor/armour; neighbor/neighbour; meter/metre; defense/defence; offense/offence; pretense/pretence; organize/organise; criticize/criticise; ization/isation; equaling/equalling; traveled/travelled; fulfillment/fulfilment; program/programme
- There are areas that need non-breaking spaces (i.e. ) between numbers and their units of measurement.
- Units of measurement should be spelled out in the main article text and converted both between US standard and metric units. (i.e. "My house is 15 miles (24 km) from the store." Not, "My house is 15 mi (24 km) from the store.")
- When providing dates, don't write "the 13th of January" write instead "13 January" or "January 13" (depends, again, on British v. American grammar)
- You have a number of wikilinks that lead to disambiguation pages... you probably want to take care of those as well: Arx; Bath; Corruption; Dacian Wars; Domitian; Expedition; Flavia Domitilla; Forth; Illyricum; Lucius Aelius Lamia; Nominal; Odeum; Parthenius; Play
I'll check over other parts of the article in a bit, just wanted to give you a head start.
- Ok, I went with British spelling and fixed consistency and measurement units accordingly. Non-breaking spaces added and disambiguation pages removed, except "Odeum", which can't lead anywhere else. Should I put a non-breaking space between "80,000 soldiers"? The dates still have to be addressed. --Steerpike (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All dates have been checked and fixed now. --Steerpike (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have no problems with this article's size, but for future reference, long articles can be split into subarticles. For example, you can split material from the "Emperor" section by creating "Domitian as Roman Emperor". Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
For authors like Eusebius of Caesarea. you usually alphabetize and/or list in references as Eusebius, not "of Caesarea".Current ref 113 is missing a page number (Thompson, Leonard L.)Current ref 94 is missing a page number (Di Martino, Vittorio)- http://www.livius.org/cao-caz/casperius/aelianus.html what makes this a reliable self-published work?
- Also, I know you discussed this above, but there is a LOT that is sourced to primary sources. I don't have a problem with reliance on one secondary source, sometimes folks just don't write about what we want them to, but it's pretty much a given that Suetonius and Tacitus has axes to grind and too much reliance on them leaves you open to OR.
- Otherwise links checked out with the link checker, sources look okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed Eusebius and replaced refs without a page with better alternatives. The pageless citations were basically a remnant from a past version of the article. As for "Livius.org", the author, Jona Lendering, has adequate credentials to be considered reliable, I believe. But just to make sure, I've replaced the citation with one from Grainger. As for the ancient authors, I agree that relying on primary sources is dangerous with regards to OR. But I've expressly tried to avoid piecing together the article based only on classical authors. Whenever I do cite these primary sources, it's always for the reasons I mentioned above. But I could cut back on them if you like. I do like to include some references to ancient authors, as their texts are not only very interesting, but still widely read and hugely influential. --Steerpike (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On livius.org, to determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.
- On the ancient sources, I totally understand the desire to add some ancient sources, it's just that if you rely on them too much (which is a fine line and something that varies from article to article) you're treding into OR territory. I tend towards the "use them as sources the absolute least you can" school, but that's something that's a personal preference. My rule of thumb is I use ancient/medieval sources for quotes and color, and try to rely on modern historians for facts and all other information. That doesn't always work out, (I had to use Bede a LOT with Augustine of Canterbury, and I certainly can't see forcing you to change out the sources just because of my whims. I'm hoping to find time to actually review the whole article in the next couple of days, we'll see how it goes. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed Eusebius and replaced refs without a page with better alternatives. The pageless citations were basically a remnant from a past version of the article. As for "Livius.org", the author, Jona Lendering, has adequate credentials to be considered reliable, I believe. But just to make sure, I've replaced the citation with one from Grainger. As for the ancient authors, I agree that relying on primary sources is dangerous with regards to OR. But I've expressly tried to avoid piecing together the article based only on classical authors. Whenever I do cite these primary sources, it's always for the reasons I mentioned above. But I could cut back on them if you like. I do like to include some references to ancient authors, as their texts are not only very interesting, but still widely read and hugely influential. --Steerpike (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "between 69 and 96, encompassing the reigns of Domitian's father Vespasian (69–79), his elder brother Titus (79–81), and finally Domitian
's own." - "...whose brief reign came to an unexpected end on 13 September 81." - tantalizing, but could you be a little bit less vague, even in the lead?
- "The following day, Domitian was declared emperor by the Praetorian Guard, and began a reign which lasted more than fifteen years" - I'm not quite sure what's wrong with this sentence... maybe nothing is. However, I think that "and began a reign" seems not to use Domitian as a subject. Maybe "...Guard, beginning a reign..."?
- I wonder why there's a citation for exactly one sentence in the lead? Is it a highly contentious statement?
- "Domitian was born in Rome on 24 October 51, as the youngest son" - how about "...on 24 October 51; the youngest son..."
- "Modern history has refuted these claims
however, suggesting these stories..." - You seem to use commas very liberally throughout the article. While I don't think this is grammatically incorrect, it does make the reading a bit difficult sometimes. Would you clean this up a bit?
- "
A number ofancient authors have implicated Domitian in the death of his brother..." - "...suggesting the latter had played some part in uncovering the conspiracy..." - "some part" sounds strange - how about "a part"?
- "A highly detailed account of the plot and the assassination is provided to us by Suetonius," - is provided to "us"? How about simply "is provided"?
Excellent article overall. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most points have been addressed in my last edit. With regards to the citation, I think someone once made a fuss about the statement in the lead not being sourced. But I've removed the citation now. As for the commas, I used these with the intention to improve readability, especially when the sentences are long, and contain a lot of information. But I'll see what I can do. --Steerpike (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support all of my image concerns have been addresses/addressed as fully as possible, so there are no image formating problems when reading the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MoS problems - sandwiching. Images shouldn't "sandwich" text between them. This happens six times. Also, comments in the image descriptions are lengthy, unnecessary, and sometimes include speculation/"weasel words", for example: "According to some authors, Nerva took part or had advance knowledge of the plot against Domitian. Immediately following the assassination, he was proclaimed emperor by the Senate." The phrase "according to some authors" jumps out, especially without citations to show that there are authors who believe such.Ottava Rima (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandwiching probably depends on screen resolution. I have a 1024 x 768 monitor, and it looks fine to me. So I'm not sure if this can be fixed. I like to include a little more elaborate commentary in images than merely state "what it is". I think this is a bit more informative. And I don't usually cite sources in image descriptions because it's already mentioned in the text. But I could source it if you like (or change the wording). --Steerpike (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That wouldn't make sense. I have a tight resolution and it sandwiches. There is one image that is only a few lines apart, which would mean even with an extremely tight resolution, it should probably sandwich. I just moved the size to half of my screen width and it sandwiches at ceremonial heir. By the way, MoS does not allow images on the "left" to be directly under a heading, so thats a problem there. All you have to do about the wording is to drop the "some scholars" type of beginning. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your text size then? Anyway, here's a proposal for a different alignment of images: User talk:Steerpike/Sandbox. Would that be better? MOS prefers that multiple images be staggered alternatively left and right. BUT, it also discourages left-aligned images under second level headings. I'm not sure if my proposed solution actually solves this, but otherwise I think aligning all images to the right will look awkward. I've also edited some of the captions, and cut the images of Vitellius and Titus altogether (in my alternative version). What do you think? --Steerpike (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Better. Now, to finish - 1) Under family, first paragraph, add a sentence or two extra. That will open the formatting up and the first paragraph is rather tiny. 2) Year of the four emperors - Move the picture down to the next paragraph, or split the top paragraph in half and move the picture infront of that new second paragraph. Add four lines or so to the second paragraph marriage section, split the top paragraph, move the picture down to the new second paragraph. I say this because the section is a little short and you can go into more detail about the state of the marriage. 3) In the administration section, move the picture down to the second paragraph, split the second paragraph, and add about two more lines. That section is a little brief, even though there is a lot you can say. 4) Military activity picture is 250 px, but other left pictures are 200px. Perhaps shrink it? Also, don't let pictures push the headings to the right, which it appears to do on my screen (Military activity and Dacian war, for example). Add a few lines about the state of military forces, what kind of patterns, leaders, etc. This will give you a new paragraph and you can move the fort picture down accordingly. 5) Standardize the image sizes, they tend to range a lot. If needed, crop the "excess" off the pictures. Domitians statue has a lot of extra hanging around that just takes up space. So does the stone face. Try that for now. It will fix a lot of the problems and fill out the article nicely. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, the new version is currently in progress, but not yet completely finished. A few notes:
- I've moved the dynasty box to the Emperor section. This will clear up some image space in the introduction, and fits better contentwise.
- I've expanded the marriage section in accordance to your wishes, and cut back on the caption text in the image.
- Most other images have been moved to fit better with the text-structure. There should be next to no sandwiching left now.
- You asked to expand the administration and military section, especially with regards to the image placement in the text, BUT there really isn't that much left to say. At least nothing that isn't already mentioned either a) in the section or b) somewhere else.
- I haven't yet standardized the image sizes. I picked a different size for each image depending on how much detail should/can/needs to be shown. Busts are obviously going to be smaller than full length statues or maps. Images of coinage are naturally wide.
- I have cropped the statue from Vaison-la-Romaine.
- EDIT: the rock sculpture has been removed because apparently, it was subject to a special Romanian copyright. I've replaced it with a map, although I will see if I can find a better one yet.
- Tell me what you think. --Steerpike (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandwiching probably depends on screen resolution. I have a 1024 x 768 monitor, and it looks fine to me. So I'm not sure if this can be fixed. I like to include a little more elaborate commentary in images than merely state "what it is". I think this is a bit more informative. And I don't usually cite sources in image descriptions because it's already mentioned in the text. But I could source it if you like (or change the wording). --Steerpike (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I leave matters to technical accuracy and referencing to those more well versed in the topic than myself. Otherwise, excellent work: generally very well written and well illustrated. Please address the following issues in the lead:
- "While Titus shared almost equal powers in the government of his father, Domitian was left with honours but no responsibilities." Titus' powers were equal to whose?
- "encompassing the reigns of Domitian's father Vespasian (69–79), his elder brother Titus (79–81)
,andfinallythat of Domitian himself."
I have made a few other copyedits but the text is well structured, flows well and is involving. Fully supporting the article for featured status is pending completion of the minor copyedits that remain. Dhatfield (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentences you mentioned have been fixed. --Steerpike (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did go back and alter one or two of your copyedits. I think "foreshadowing what was to be his role for at least ten years" is less ambiguous than "foreshadowing his role for at least ten years", which could be read as if the foreshadowing lasted ten years. Also "was carrying on an affair", instead of "had carried on", in the Marriage section. The rumours of the affair were concurrent with the exile and return of Domitia. --Steerpike (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One thing that has been bothering me for a while is this: when do you capitalize the word "Emperor", and when not? I'm afraid capitalization is slightly inconsistent at the moment. --Steerpike (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support changed from Slight oppose I think it's got the basics, just needs some work. Still some concerns over overlinking and jargon, but able to support now.
- It probably could do with a good copyedit by someone better at it than i am. The prose is servicable, but might be a bit wordy at times.
- Need to explain what Domitian being hailed as Caesar meant.
- UPDATE: I don't think I'll ever be able to fix this. Much as I tried, it would probably take a long and awkward paragraph to adequately explain what the significance of Domitian being hailed as Caesar was. I'm just going to have to assume that it is clear from the context that it is a title connected to the imperial power. The word caesar is not thát obscure anyway. --Steerpike (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Same as above about linking revolted and Batavian revolt.
- Jargon alert - the whole article is full of it. Folks aren't going to know what a suffect consul is, or what the various titles of magistracies are or anything like that. I strongly suggest having someone unfamiliar with Roman history read through the article. I'm too familiar to catch all the jargon.
- Ok, general comment about the "jargon" complaints. I'll try to cut back on jargon wherever I can BUT, I can't and won't stop to explain every Latin/Roman term in the article. Not only would that make the text hopelessly convoluted (you should try to work in a definition for client in that paragraph), it would go against FA-criteria which ask that articles don't delve into unnecessary detail, and perhaps most importantly, would kind of beat the whole point of wikilinking, and Wikipedia in general. I don't think there's an elegant way to write an involving narrative on Domitian's life, AND at the same time digress to explain terms like quaestor, suffect consul, client,... I've checked the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on Domitian (otherwise far inferior to this article, if I may be so bold), and they also use terms like Praetor without explanation. Most of the times, it's clear from the context what the terms refer to (titles, offices), and if not, the explanation is only a click away.
- While I sympathize, I only do so to some extent. I write FAs on almost as obscure topics (medieval English bishops, anyone? Quarter Horses?) and get constant requests to explain in the text things that I'd rather just wikilink. In all fairness, Domitian is probably a bigger topic (and more important topic) than Easy Jet, so it needs to be understandable to folks without having to leave your article to figure things out. Suffect consul should be explained, I would think, otherwise people aren't going to realise that while its an honor, it's not as big an honor as being named the main nominative consul for the year. I can see that maybe not so much need for praetor, etc., but when Domitian is acclaimed as Caesar, while it is clear from the context that this is a title, it's not clear why this acclamation is important. If it was clear that Caesar was the title right below Augustus, it would be more clear what the entire context of the event is. As far as client, if you can't explain what the it means in that sentence, you might just go for "spent the night hiding with a supporter of his father" which expresses what a client is without bogging the article down with uneccessary detail. As a last note, the idea is your article is so engaging and interesting that they don't WANT to click away to figure out what a term is, right? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As with caesar, I'm having a hard time fitting in a good explanation of "suffect consul". I don't think it's quite as difficult to do as caesar, but I haven't yet worked out a good new paragraph. --Steerpike (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the definition from the Oxford Classical Dictionary: "suffectio was the procedure by which a substitute or suffect (suffectis) was appointed whenever a Roman magistrate resigned or died in office." then later "Under the empire consuls ceased to hold office for the full year; those appointed after the original ('ordinary') pair were suffecti. They did not give their name to the year, unlike 'ordinary' ones, although they had the appropriate rank and title of consularis." (I can supply the exact page number and stuff if you like) It might work well as "...suffect consul, or replacement consul..." in the text with a longer explanation in a footnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, general comment about the "jargon" complaints. I'll try to cut back on jargon wherever I can BUT, I can't and won't stop to explain every Latin/Roman term in the article. Not only would that make the text hopelessly convoluted (you should try to work in a definition for client in that paragraph), it would go against FA-criteria which ask that articles don't delve into unnecessary detail, and perhaps most importantly, would kind of beat the whole point of wikilinking, and Wikipedia in general. I don't think there's an elegant way to write an involving narrative on Domitian's life, AND at the same time digress to explain terms like quaestor, suffect consul, client,... I've checked the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on Domitian (otherwise far inferior to this article, if I may be so bold), and they also use terms like Praetor without explanation. Most of the times, it's clear from the context what the terms refer to (titles, offices), and if not, the explanation is only a click away.
In the lead, I THINK the MOS still says that date ranges have unspaced ndashes, but I'm not sure, so double check that with someone. I went through and changed them all that I saw to unspaced dates, since that was what was being used elsewhere in the article. If I'm wrong, feel free to revert.
- Endash is spaced when either of the two parts contain a space (e.g. New York – San Francisco)
Might be a bit too much detail in the lead about Vespasian and Titus. It tends to overpower the rest of the lead which should be about Domitian. You discuss nothing of what Domitian DID, like the rebellions he faced, etc. It's all him overshadowed by his brother/father and what people thought of him.
- Well the fact is, he was overshadowed by his brother and father during the 70s. His role in the civil war was limited, he had no active part in crushing the Batavian rebellion, and after that time his function was largely ceremonial. That's pretty much the point of the entire section. The only event of significance in Domitian's life during the 70s was his marriage to Domitia. But I've reworked the lead to include a bit more on Domitian's policies as emperor.
- I just found it odd to have so much in the body of the article on what he did, but very little in the lead. I've gone ahead and marked this resolved, but you could add another paragraph if you really felt the need for more. The article is big enough that four paragraphs in the lead wouldn't be amiss. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will probably rework the lead sometime soon anyway. It doesn't quite flow well enough yet. --Steerpike (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the fact is, he was overshadowed by his brother and father during the 70s. His role in the civil war was limited, he had no active part in crushing the Batavian rebellion, and after that time his function was largely ceremonial. That's pretty much the point of the entire section. The only event of significance in Domitian's life during the 70s was his marriage to Domitia. But I've reworked the lead to include a bit more on Domitian's policies as emperor.
Third paragraph of the lead "Traditional views hold that Domitian.." seems a bit awkward to me, perhaps change it to "Traditionallly, historians hold that ..."?
- Fixed.
Need to explain what a gens is. (Family section)
- I've added a sentence here, but I think it's clear from the context that a "gens" is a family line.
- Never assume on the reading abilty of 12 year olds. (I always wonder how many 12 year olds are assigned papers and run immediately to Wikipedia...)
- I've added a sentence here, but I think it's clear from the context that a "gens" is a family line.
Need a citation for the older siblings. Are they twins? they are given the same birth year. Do we know their birth dates exactly? If so might list those...
For Helvetia (and all the Roman provinces) it would be nice if you gave modern locations also, so folks don't have to click through to the province articles. Not everyone has a grasp of Roman geography.
- Fixed.
- Probably a bit of overlinking going on. I noticed links for poverty, propoganda, adolescence, poetry, law, bow and arrow, baldness, wig, suicide, anarchy, bodyguard, seige/beseiged, literature, exile, heir, horse, divorce, adultery, democracy, culture, taxes, political corruption, debt, surplus, banquet, dwarf, swamp/marsh, gold, silver mining, chapel, morals/morality, satire, dagger,
- Not yet addressed, but I'll see what I can do. I do like to wikilink less obvious terms in the article too, and certainly broad concepts like "democracy", "culture", "taxes", etc.
Explain who Britannicus is folks don't have to click through to the article.
Family section, you've linked "revolted" to the First Jewish War article. You'd be better off saying "The same year the Jews of the Judaea province revolted in the First Jewish War... " or whatever the title of the article is. The current link is titled revolt, and doesn't give any inkling that it links to something besides the definition of revolt. I'm afraid most folks won't click through to the hidden title.
- Fixed.
Per the MOS, curly quotes are not used for block quotations.
- Switched to "Quotation" template.
Need a citation for the last two sentences of Youth and character.
Year of the Four emperors section - need to briefly explain princeps.
- Switched princeps to emperor.
Same section, you use Egypt at first, then switch to Ægyptus. Pick one and stick with it, I lean towards Egypt, myself.
- Fixed.
Same section "Vespasian accepted, and through negotiations by Titus joined forces..." is awkward, consider rewording.
- Fixed
Same for "... leaving Titus in charge to end the Jewish rebellion." Perhaps "...leaving Titus in charge of ending the Jewish rebellion."?
- Fixed.
Same for "Support for the old emperor was quickly wavering however.." Perhaps "Support for Vitellius was waning, however, ..."?
- Fixed.
Year of the Four emperors - explain what the Arx is?
- I've edited this out. Only a minor detail after all.
You need to explain that a client in Roman usage wasn't the modern usage, otherwise folks are going to think that after Domitian's escape from the Capitol, he spent the night with a business client of his father's.
Aftermath section... first paragraph, are you referring to only Rome or to the whole Empire? It implies Rome, although you don't specify where Vespasian returned to, which should be done.
- Fixed.
Need to explain who Tacitus is.
- Fixed.
If Domitian's son died between 77 and 81, he was 4 to 8 years old and no longer in infancy. Childhood would be better description.
- Fixed.
Need a citation on the last sentence of the first paragraph of Ceremonial heir.Need a citation on the last sentence of the second paragraph of Ceremonial heir section.Need a citation on the last section of the fourth paragraph of Ceremonial heir.Need a citation for the last sentence of the third paragraph of Economy sectionNeed citation for the last sentence of the fourth paragraph of the Religious policy sectionNeed a citation for the last two sentences of the first paragraph of the Revolt of Saturninus section.
- All citations fixed.
I have some qualms about the reliance on the ancient sources for the basic biographical details of the life. It might be best to rely on modern scholars for this, especially as the subject is Domitian and the ancient authors are biased.
- Well the problem is that there are no modern sources to provide basic biographical details of Domitian. A historian like Jones has to use the same information from Suetonius as presented here. But I repeat, whenever there is a controversy regarding statements from ancient authors (as in the alleged Flavian poverty under Nero), or bias comes into question, I do NOT quote these writers as presenting factual information.
- The major problem is that Wikipedia guidelines want folks to use secondary sources for this sort of information. I'm not going to necessarily oppose based only on this, but it's going to be an issue if it makes it to the main page. There will be some folks that scream because the article uses primary sources and thus could be OR. Using secondary sources protects you from charges of OR. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cut back on ancient sources. The Year of the Four Emperors is still a sore point (I really need Kenneth Wellesley's The Long Year 69 for this section), but otherwise citations to ancient authors were either replaced by modern sources, or are now accompanied by a second, modern citation. But this work is still in progress. --Steerpike (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the problem is that there are no modern sources to provide basic biographical details of Domitian. A historian like Jones has to use the same information from Suetonius as presented here. But I repeat, whenever there is a controversy regarding statements from ancient authors (as in the alleged Flavian poverty under Nero), or bias comes into question, I do NOT quote these writers as presenting factual information.
- MAy I suggest the following sources?
- Domitian, the Sentate and the Provinces
- Gods and Emperors, the Greek Language of the Imperial Cult
- Statius' Adultation of Domitian
- The Character of Domitian
- The Communication of the Emperor's virtues
- Civilis Princeps: Between Citizen and King
- Elite Mobility in the Roman Empire
- Emperors, Aristocrats and the Grim Reaper
- The Jews, the Christians and the Emperor Domitain
- Imperial Finances under Domitian, Nerva and Trajan
- Taxes and Trade in the Roman Emprire
- Emperors, Frontiers and Foreign Relations
- Economic Stagnation in the Early Roman Republic
- An Aspect of the Emperor Cult
- Roman Public Feasting
- Limits of Roman Strategy
- Sports Violence in the Roman and Byzantine empires
- A group of Domitianic Treason Trials
- The Origins of Roman Imperial Hunting Imagry
- Dio of Prusa and the Flavian Dynasty
- Domitian and Roman Religion
- Agricola and Domitian
- Roman Military Pay from Caesar to Diocletian
- Tacitus, Agricola, Domitian, and the Problem of the Principate
- Thanks for the links, but note that I did use some of these sources in the article, such as Agricola and Domitian, Imperial Finances under Domitian...,... In any case, The Emperor Domitian is already an excellent synthesis of all pre-1992 material.
- Comments between your text. Regards. --Steerpike (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- UPDATE: I've cut back further on ancient sources. Out of 153 references (not counting duplicates), "only" 32 are still sourced to ancient authors, as opposed to 56 in the original version. But only a few of these are actually used a direct source of "fact" (I'd have to order a new book to fix these). The others are usually sources to direct quotes, and accompanied by references to modern authors. --Steerpike (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. All the images are fine, copyright-wise. The png diagram and maps are unreadable in the thumbnail versions, though. SVG conversions would be helpful.--ragesoss (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes, WP:OVERLINKing. Why are solo years and centuries linked throughout (see WP:MOSDATE, WP:MOSLINK and WP:OVERLINK). Why are common places known to everyone, like Greece, Scotland, Spain and Rome linked? Why are common words known to most English speakers (like democracy, law, taxation and morality) linked? (These are samples only, the overlinking is throughout.) Image captions are incorrectly punctuated, see WP:MOS#Images for the difference in punctuation between full sentences and sentence fragments. There are date issues throughout; I fixed a few (see my edit summaries), and please read WP:MOSDATE regarding samples like ... a crisis in October of 97, when ... solo years aren't linked, and I believe the "of" shouldn't be there (not certain, pls doublecheck). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The reign of Domitian has some importance in the history of Scotland, so it would make sense to link it in this article. Maybe not so much Greece or Spain, but certainly Rome. Aside from the fact that Domitian's reign significantly changed the face of the ancient city of Rome, it seems beyond absurd not to link Rome in an article on a Roman Emperor. But I was already fixing the overlinking while you posted this. By the way, you linked "18 September 96" in the third paragraph of the lead, but this date already has a link at the top of the lead. --Steerpike (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dates are not linked or not because they were previously linked: they are linked or not so they will display consistently per user preferences. By linking one, and not the other, one of them displays for me as September 18, while the other displays as 18 September. See WP:MOS; either link all month-day combos or delink all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed + overlinking in general. If there's anything else that should be (de)linked, feel free to change it. --Steerpike (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The reign of Domitian has some importance in the history of Scotland, so it would make sense to link it in this article. Maybe not so much Greece or Spain, but certainly Rome. Aside from the fact that Domitian's reign significantly changed the face of the ancient city of Rome, it seems beyond absurd not to link Rome in an article on a Roman Emperor. But I was already fixing the overlinking while you posted this. By the way, you linked "18 September 96" in the third paragraph of the lead, but this date already has a link at the top of the lead. --Steerpike (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boy Scouts of America
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:03, 20 August 2008 [6].
Insane Clown Posse
- Nominator(s): Ibaranoff24
- previous FAC (08:03, 9 August 2008)
Much work had been done during the previous nomination, and it was just beginning to gain support, but it was not promoted. A few minor changes have been made since, and I don't think there's much more that needs to be done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Support Per my vote at the last FAC, which fell mainly due to ce and MOS concerns. It is much improved since on that side, and remains strong on content. Ceoil sláinte 18:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support: Well Done. Kensplanet (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Images and sources were reviewed in an earlier FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support pretty good now jimfbleak (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looking much better now. I'll just give a couple brief notes. Great job overall.
- World Wrestling Federation involvement: "They were also informed that their commercial would air the very next week, which had still not aired after three months of being involved with the WWF." The order could be improved. Try "They were also informed that their commercial, which had still not aired after three months of being involved with the WWE, would air the next week." Very is unneeded here.
- The Amazing Jeckel Brothers: Is the logical punctuation correct in two instances by ODB's appearance? Got to keep this clean for the kids. :-) Also check "The Lotus Pod." later. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Is ICP a "they" or an "it"? Zagalejo^^^ 08:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "It" refers to the group as a whole. "They" refers to the individual members. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:36, 31 July 2008 [7].
Warwick Castle
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it fulfils the FA criteria. It's an important article about one of England's best known castles, however there are no articles about castles of FA quality so this is a bit experimental. I believe it's comprehensive and has benefited greatly from a peer review and a copy edit. All comments and suggestions for improvement are welcome. Thanks in advance. Nev1 (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
This ref is actually a book. Should be formatted as given in the citation note at the top of the webpage. British History Online just hosts the reprint, they weren't the publisher of the original work. Same for http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=16047 and http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=45121
Generally galleries of pictures are frowned on, but I don't religiously follow the MOS, so I may be incorrect on this.
- MOS:IMAGES does not explicitly say "do not use galleries" but since there is a link to commons, I have removed the gallery. Nev1 (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise links checked out with the link checker, sources look okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nev1 has responded to all my major concerns.
Comments Opposing for now
I need to be convinced that the references support the statements in the article. GrahamColmTalk 18:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence is too long. There is too much information here; please try to make at least two sentences.It is traditionally associated with the earldom of Warwick, one of the oldest in England, although it was not in their possession between the early 17th and mid-18th centuries. — There's a singular/plural problem with earldom, which makes the sentence sound wrong. Try using something like the Earls' possession.Please be more specific about the 1970s; it wasn't that long ago.- The castle was taken by Henry of Anjou, later Henry II, in 1153 when the Earl of Warwick's wife was tricked into handing over the castle, and was again lost temporarily in 1264, following a surprise attack during the Second Barons' War. — If you were new to the article, and had strategic distance, you would instantly see how funny this is. It is the ownership of the castle and not the castle itself.
- When was it used as a prison?
It don't think the castle "demonstrated" power; it was a symbol of power perhaps?Please do not use "various", it adds no information.When Fulke Greville gained ownership of the castle in 1604 it was ruinous; £20,000 was spent on its restoration. — Do you mean it was ruined, or a ruin even? And, what's twenty grand in today's money, both sterling and dollars?In the 17th century the grounds were landscaped and turned into a garden. — I think in this context landscaped and turned into a garden mean the same thing.The castle was the subject of several paintings and drawings by the Italian master Antonio Canaletto — As the paintings still exist, please use the present tense.- I think the "haunting" sections lower the quality of the article. Does it really need them?
I will have more to say about this FAC later. GrahamColmTalk 17:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made these changes addressing your concerns. I think the outstanding issue is concerning the 'haunting' section. Hauntings have become part of the folklore surrounding Warwick Castle with attractions pandering to the public's curiosity on the subject, and some readers will be coming to this article in search of this information. I have attempted to avoid adding bias either way to this section, I have also taken steps to prevent the addition of unsourced material to the section by adding an unsourced comment. If consensus emerges that the section is inappropriate, I think the information should be integrated elsewhere into the article. Nev1 (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
- Warwick Castle is situated on a sandstone bluff in a bend of the River Avon, making it a naturally defensible site. — The source says that the river and cliff form natural defences, which is better.
- The castle's position made it strategically important in safeguarding the Midlands against rebellion. The military significance of the castle diminished as the Normans secured their control of England. — I can't find this in the source given, and shouldn't this be in the history section?
- Kenilworth Castle – a castle of comparative size, cost, and importance — has castle twice. GrahamColmTalk 17:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
- legend has it that the construction of the fortifications was instigated by Ethelfleda, daughter of Alfred the Great. — Why do you call this a legend? It seems to be true.
In 1088, Henry de Beaumont was made the first Earl of Warwick.[4] A Church of All Saints was founded by the first Earl of Warwick within the castle walls by 1119; the Bishop of Worcester, believing that a castle was an... — There are two occurrences of Earl of Warwick close together.
- Changed to "In 1088, Henry de Beaumont was made the first Earl of Warwick.[4] He founded the Church of All Saints within the castle walls by 1119"
In 1153, the wife of Roger de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Warwick, was tricked into believing that her husband was dead, and surrendered control of the castle to the invading army of Henry of Anjou, later King Henry — Reference 4 has this:
On the arrival in England of Henry of Anjou in 1153, the garrison was tricked into handing over the castle to Henry's men, possibly at the instigation of the Countess Gundred in the absence of the earl, who supported Stephen and is said to have died of chagrin on hearing the news.
- We have lost the castle again.
- That phrase only occurs once in the article, do you mean something else? Nev1 (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lost control of the castle? Lost ownership of the castle? GrahamColmTalk 21:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I've changed it to "handed over control of the castle". For anyone reading out of context, that may seem like a complete change of tone, but the original sentence read "According to the Gesta Stephani, a 12th-century historical text, Roger de Beaumont died on hearing the news that his wife had lost the castle". Nev1 (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
During the barons' rebellion of 1173–74 Warwick Castle was under the control of King Henry II and was used to store provisions. — I can't find this in the source.
The castle and the lands associated with the earldom passed through six generations of the Beaumont family until 1242, when King Henry III gained ownership of Warwick Castle. — Again, can you point out where this is in the source?
- From the online source: "Thomas the 6th earl, who died in June 1242 without male heirs. He was succeeded by his sister Margery, whose husband, John Marshal, was given seisin of her lands and of the castle but died in October of the same year. (fn. 7) The widow agreed not to remarry before the following Ascension Eve on pain of forfeiture, (fn. 8) but the castle was nevertheless ordered to be taken into the king's hand as a pledge for a suitable remarriage". Sorry that bit's rather long. I took the 6th earl of Warwick to imply there had been 6 generations, although on reflection this may have been incorrect and I have altered it slightly. Nev1 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly this: During the Second Barons' War of 1264–67, William Maudit, 8th Earl of Warwick, was an inactive supporter of King Henry III.
- From the online source: "At an early stage of the Barons' Wars, in which the earl [William Maudit] was an inactive supporter of the king, Warwick Castle attracted the attention of John Giffard of Brimpsfield who in 1264 was holding Kenilworth Castle for Simon de Montfort." Nev1 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And this De Montfort ordered the walls along the northeastern side of the castle to be slighted so that it would be useless to the king.
- From the online source: "He [John Giffard] took Warwick Castle in a surprise attack and, in the words of John Rous, 'for that it should be no strength to the king, he beat with his fellowship down the wall from tower to tower, which unto Earl Thomas's days after was hedged'". I have removed mention of de Montfort ordering it. Nev1 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
was captured by Guy de Beauchamp, 10th Earl of Warwick, and imprisoned in Warwick Castle until his execution on 9 June 1312. — The source does not give the date.
This work was performed under Thomas de Beauchamp — Where in the source does it say this?
GrahamColmTalk 18:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I have read about half of the article and I will add further comments later. GrahamColmTalk 18:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few more comments These refer to the section 'A country house and following sections:
- The article suffers from a lack of commas, particularly this section.
- In this sentence, Fulke Greville spent over £20,000 (£3,000,000 or $6,000,000 in 2007)[25] renovating the castle to make it "a place not only of great strength but extraordinary delight, with most pleasant gardens, walks and thickets, such as this part of England can hardly parallel" according to William Dugdale, a 17th century antiquary. — The according to might be better a the beginning of the sentence.
- Please check the article for endash and emdash usage, I think I saw a couple of misuses.
- There is an odd double bracket, in 2007)34).
- This sentence, Restoration and reparations carried out by Salvin during 1872–75 cost £9,651, which were subsidised by donations from the public, needs some attention; it's not clear what the "which" refers to.
- A large visitor attraction business — does not sound idiomatic.
- 15 tons of ice — please check what, if anything, WP:MOS has to say on starting a sentence with a number.
- The first record of formal gardens belonging to Warwick Castle is in 1534. — ? is in 1534, sounds odd.
GrahamColmTalk 16:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These edits have been made. Could you be more explicit in your concerns about dashes? All endashes between words are spaced, and not when linking numbers (ie: in dates) and emdashes are generally avoided. MOS does not mention numbers at the start of sentences, but I have changed it anyway. Commas? {{sofixit}}. Nev1 (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for an interesting FAC and the invitation to edit :) But I think I've spent enough time on the article for now. Best of luck with the rest of the candidature. Graham. GrahamColmTalk 18:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All images are tagged and used appropriately; the nonfree image has an appropriate fair use rationale and meets WP:NFCC. —Giggy 11:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The taller than wide thumbnail images should use the upright tag (see Wikipedia:Extended image syntax)I would prefer that the images were alternatively right and left aligned per WP:MOS#Images. This is only a suggestion.GameKeeper (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support—My Concerns have been addressed, so I changed my preference to support. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I think this article needs a thorough copy-edit. Some notes:
"It is traditionally associated with the earldom of Warwick, one of the oldest in England, although it was not in its possession between the early 17th and mid-18th centuries." I find this sentence to be rife with ambiguities. One of the oldest castles or one of the oldest earldoms? Does the second it refer to the castle or the earldom? Please clarify the text."It was again lost temporarily in 1264..." It was regained prior to 1264? Unclear."...lands associated with the earldom passed through the Beaumont family..." Does this mean it was returned to the Beaumont family, or that they did not have control?"...has eroded the rock the castle stands on into a cliff." Seems awkwardly worded."During the 12th century, King Henry I was suspicious of Roger de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Warwick. To counter the earl's influence, Henry bestowed Geoffrey de Clinton with a position of power rivalling that of the earl." It is unclear what this has to do with the surrounding text, or the location of this castle. Please clarify in the article."...handed over castle." 'The' castle?"...are both machicolated and were residential and are considered..." Too much switching of tense and too many 'and's.
&c. &c. I stopped checking about a third of the way down.—RJH (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following text, while interesting, makes for a jarring break in continuity: "The conspirators involved in the... ...to help in their escape." The paragraph begins with the conversion into a country house, then the theft of horses for the Gunpowder Plot, and finally back to a discussion of the conversion. Please could you fix it?—RJH (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean, I'd already tried (unsuccessfully) to integrate that brief mention. I'd like to put it into it's own paragraph, but it's only a couple of sentences and I can't find any more on the event. How about if I changed it to this (added text in bold):
In 1604, the ruinous castle was given to Sir Fulke Greville by King James I and was converted into a country house. Whilst the castle was undergoing repairs, it was peripherally involved in the Gunpowder Plot of 1605. The conspirators involved awaited news of their plot in Dunchurch in Warwickshire. When they discovered the plot had failed they stole cavalry horses from the stables at Warwick Castle to help in their escape.
- Comments
Weak oppose.The article is pretty good, but I think that there is a bit of detail that should be added to help readers unfamiliar with the history and the workings of castles. The images are absolutely beautiful.
- The last paragraph of the lead may need a bit of organization work. The sentence about the paintings seems out of place in its current location - I'd move it to become the last sentence of the lead.
- In the location section, I am a bit confused as to why the information about Geofrey de Clinton and Kenilworth are included. This seems to be better situated in the history section somewhere.
The article mentions that the wife of the 2nd Earl of Warwick surrendered the castle, but later mentions another Earl of Warwick who supported Henry II. There may need to be a brief explanation of how they got the castle back.
- I think there should be some rewording and a bit more explanation of the events of 1242. Perhaps explain that the Xth Earl died, and while his eldest daughter looked for a husband the King oversaw the castle... Readers who are not familiar with this time period may be confused.
- I've made this change to hopefully better explain what the situation was. Nev1 (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a sentence about why Piers Gaveston was captured, imprisoned, and executed? It sort of sounds in the article like Beauchamp took matters into his own hands.
I realize that a lot of the terms are wikilinked, but I think that some of them should be explained a bit in the article, too. Otherwise there just seems to be too much jargon. For example, machicolated, barbican
- "
The reconstruction of the gatehouse and the east façade was also funded by the spoils of the Battle of Poitiers in 1356." - this implies that we've been told an additional funding source for the reconstruction, but we haven't
The paragraph that starts with Anne de Beauchamp dieing does not flow very well. There is a lot of repetitive wording.
Why was Edward Plantagenet executed? We find out that he was two and then that he died.
I'm not entirely sure what this means "the last Earl of Warwick on its first creation"
Per WP:MOSQUOTE, short quotations (less than 4 lines) should not be offset as block quotes, but should be in the paragraph.
- I've removed the quote template from one quotation, but the remaining three I have left as they are for now. The problem with the MOS conditions (ie: 4 lines) is that it's subjective. The quotes are all about 3 lines on my screen but other readers with lower resolution monitors may see more. Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "
Ambrose Dudley, 3rd Earl of Warwick, left the castle during the Queen's visits" - does this mean he joined her at the timber building or that he was rude and totaly left the area?
- Is it necessary to use Image:Plan of Warwick Castle.JPG as a fair use? I wonder if it would be possible to recreate the image
- GamerKeeper is currently developing a free use version. Nev1 (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's now a suitable plan thanks to GameKeeper. Nev1 (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any more information available about the rooms inside the castle? The history is told in good detail, but I feel like the structure itself is more glossed over.
Karanacs (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The first thing I do when looking at a FA candidate is look over the references. But I saw no problems here, great job with the article. Well-referenced, kind of short for an FA but sweet and to the point. Well done. --Meldshal [T] {C} 20:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:31, 31 August 2008 [13].
Mangalore
- Nominator(s): Kensplanet - Talk
- previous FAC (08:03, 9 August 2008)
Well the article was not promoted last time due to some overlinking issues and due to mixing of cite xxx templates with citation templates. I have corrected it. After a thorough copyedit by User:Epbr123, I think the article is ready for a FAC. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Like the last time. Remove excess images from the page. Seems to be flooded with unnecessary ones. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed New Mangalore Port, tiled-roofed, neer dosa Images. If some more images need to be commented out, then do inform us Kensplanet (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on images
Please see MOS:IMAGES and WP:PICTURE for image arrangement. Text is sandwiched by images in this article and the images could be alternated in some places. I also think there are probably too many images in the article.—This is part of a comment by Awadewit (of 18:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
- Done. Each section has maximum 2 images now. I hope there are no too. many images now. Kensplanet (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Www.kamat.com 13034.jpg - Please strengthen the fair use rationale - why is this image necessary for the article? Why does it significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the article topic? (WP:NFCC) Is there no free image of the town hall?
- A free image of the town hall is available. I have modified it in the article. Image:Www.kamat.com 13034.jpg can now be deleted. Kensplanet (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mangaladevi.jpg - Please add a description to this image. Also, I think "clicked by self" means the uploader and the photographer are the same, but I just wanted to make sure.
- Well, I am not the uploader. Do Wiki policies permit me to add a description? Kensplanet (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:View from our Balcony - Industrial Mangalore.jpg - This image needs a description.
- Done. Kensplanet (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mangalore fishing.JPG - Are we sure the photographer and the uploader are the same?
- Done. This Image has been commented out and replaced by Image:View from our Balcony - Industrial Mangalore.jpg, a free Image from Flickr. Kensplanet (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Demon Yakshagana.jpg - The source link to Flickr is broken and this image was never reviewed. If we cannot find the source again, we cannot use it.
- Done. Replaced Image:Demon Yakshagana.jpg with Image:FullPagadeYakshagana.jpg, a free image. Kensplanet (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The uploader and the username in the copyright release are not the same name or link to the same names. Are these the same people? How do we know that the person listed as the copyright holder has released the image? You might try leaving the uploader a message and see if s/he can clarify the issue. Awadewit (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Image:FullPagadeYakshagana.jpg has been replace by Image:Neer Dosa.jpg, a free Image. Kensplanet (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The uploader and the username in the copyright release are not the same name or link to the same names. Are these the same people? How do we know that the person listed as the copyright holder has released the image? You might try leaving the uploader a message and see if s/he can clarify the issue. Awadewit (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Neer dosa03.jpg - Are we sure the uploader and the photographer are the same?
- Done. Well, this image has been commented out. Kensplanet (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mangalore City Corporation.jpg - This image needs a description. Also, are we sure the photographer and the uploader are the same?
- Do Wiki policies permit me to add a description? Yes, the photographer and the uploader are the same. The uploader is User:Crazysoul. All the images have been clicked by his camera. His Image contributions can be found here: User:Crazysoul#Images uploaded by me. Kensplanet (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:NITK.jpg - This image needs a description. Also, who is the photographer?
- Uploaded on Commaons and provided a description. The photographer is Electronixid. Kensplanet (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All free images should be copied to Commons so that other Wikiprojects can use them. See this dispatch for advice about how to describe and tag self-made images. I'm sure resolving these issues will be easy. Awadewit (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again do Wiki policies permit me to do those things. 13:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- A few basic points: I'd prefer that the first (Sura books) source in the etymology section be replaced, if possible, as I am unable to verify its reliability. In the history section, I'd prefer if the "legend" sentences were compressed a bit. Other than that, it needs someone to run through it a couple of times and tighten the prose. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sura book thing is done. Can you specify which all sections need to be condensed. Kensplanet (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Current 'footnote 8' says "Mangalore City Corporation, p. 5" - but in the reference section there are 2 Mangalore City Corporation articles listed ("Description of Environment" and "Integrated Solid Waste Management Operation & Maintenance report"). Which is footnote 8 referring to? maclean 03:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as you have checked it's properly linked. Here, we don't have any other option. There are many cases in which the Author and the Publisher both are the same. Mangalore City Corporation is the author for the 2 Refs. Kensplanet (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, ref #109 (http://www.mangaloreuniversity.ac.in/accredition.html), takes me to a dead link. D.M.N. (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. The Page was just moved from http://www.mangaloreuniversity.ac.in/accredition.html to http://www.mangaloreuniversity.ac.in/xampp/accredition.html. Kensplanet (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and one comment the sister links may not be necessary as it does nt have any real links currently Taprobanus (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou for your comments. Sisterlinks has been removed. Kensplanet (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I first read this article during its first peer review. I can see that Kensplanet has taken great care in putting this together, especially with respect to comprehensiveness. I have been slowly going this over the past few days and I can say it definitely is one of the better Indian city articles. The one thing that kind of bugged me was the reliance on the word "popular" (used 19 times in the article). Otherwise, a very well-constructed article. I look forward to seeing further articles at FAC from Kensplanet. --maclean 04:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Columbia, Missouri
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Raul654 04:11, 19 February 2009 [14].
Ozzie Smith
- Nominator(s): Monowi
- previous FAC (01:21, 3 August 2008)
After two peer reviews and work on NPOV and copyediting, I believe this article now meets the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Monowi (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Ozzie Smith suit.jpg and File:Ozzie Smith Doubleday.JPG are pretty much okay (although it would be nice to have the uncropped image of Ozzie Smith suit.jpg with EXIF). However,
- To any future editors who may read this, I've made a personal choice not to post the uncropped Ozzie Smith suit picture. Sorry! Monowi (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ozzie Smith statue part.jpg requires a stronger rationale than just "shows his statue". This is based on the Significance criteria of WP:NFC. If the image is just to "show his statue", then obviously removing it from the article would not be detrimental, since the text has said that a statue of Smith exists. One way to beef the rationale would be to "show a statue of Smith in his trademark style/pose/action or most memorable moment" and expand from there. This, however, has to be backed up by reliable sources and mentioned in the text (as critical analysis). For the moment, this image can serve as an identifying picture for an article of its own (Statue of Ozzie Smith), but seems decorative in the article about Smith.
- Use of the beefed-up rationale you have kindly suggested might be a bit challenging to pull off in the article. I have references that can confirm Smith's trademark to be his backflips, but of course that's not what this statue depicts. I wonder; would it be acceptable to alter the rationale by saying the statue is representative of his defensive skills via this action pose, and using a reference that cites him being a proficient defensive player? I am interested to hear any thoughts on this matter. Monowi (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect what you need is to integrate more information from the "Cardinals Unveil Ozzie Smith Statue" newspiece, specifically what pose the statue is in and why the sculptor chose that pose, into the article. That will serve as critical commentary, and in the rationale for the statue, state what aspects of the pose it is supposed to capture that words could not fully express, and it might work. Jappalang (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ozzie sidewalk.JPG seems to be incorrectly licensed. The statue's photo could not be a "free" image because there is no "freedom of panorama" in the US. This tablet is a work of art. It is engraved in stone (thus 3-D piece of art) and there is the top logo (birds, baseballs, and bats) and the copyrighted Mastercard logo to be concerned with.
- Thanks for pointing this out. I had been wondering about it since it was mentioned in the article's previous peer review. I plan to re-post & re-license the picture under non-free use within the next day. Monowi (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have updated the license for the picture to non-free use art. The current revision of the rationale is admittedly not strong, as I will probably need to take the ideas used to update the above picture and use them here. Since the picture can't be licensed under GNU, my instinct is to remove the picture from the article, as I feel the picture of the sidewalk paver/stone didn't add that much to the article in the first place. I'm interested to hear what other editors think. Should this picture stay in the article or be removed? Monowi (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:CardsRetired1.PNG might be incorrectly licensed as well (though very likely free). Would a border around a simple number constitute enough artistic creativity to void {{PD-text}}? If not, then {{PD-text}} should be the license for this image.
- This illustration was part of the article prior to my first edits to the article in 2007, posted by User:Silent Wind of Doom. I agree that {{PD-text}} would be more appropriate in this case, but I feel wary of changing the license of another user's creation. I will attempt to contact User:Silent Wind of Doom about this issue. Monowi (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with any changes, however looking at this now (my second such work, after the Yankees ones) I see that all of them are woefully innacurate and just plain bad. I'm currently rehauling the images, which will be more than numbers with borders. Should be done by tomorrow night at the latest.The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The changes have now been made. I don't have the best knowledge of the vaious lisences, so if you feel that there should now be a change, just tell me, and such a change will be made.The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Silent Wind of Doom, but you cannot upload that version.[16] It is a derivative work of the wall itself (due to the artwork of Smith in action in the background).[17] That would be a copyviolation. I advise you to revert all such changes and call for an administrator to remove those versions from the history. Jappalang (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The changes have now been made. I don't have the best knowledge of the vaious lisences, so if you feel that there should now be a change, just tell me, and such a change will be made.The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with any changes, however looking at this now (my second such work, after the Yankees ones) I see that all of them are woefully innacurate and just plain bad. I'm currently rehauling the images, which will be more than numbers with borders. Should be done by tomorrow night at the latest.The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting feedback and comments. Jappalang (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At the present moment, only one image issue remains, the retired card number.
I am tagging the images for copyright violations as derivative works.Jappalang (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source review:
- Ref #117 (all-century team final voting) is dead. Other refs check out error-wise. Wizardman 19:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - As someone who has reviewed this in the past, I'm quite impressed with it. A few prose nit-picks in the first few sections, but it's a good read overall.
Link National League on its first use.
"and also won the National League Silver Slugger Award as the best hitter at shortstop in 1987." That will get rid of some wordiness.
Early life: "moving in closer to reduce reaction time with each throw.[8]When..." Space needed.
Give the full name of the NBA in this section, as opposed to just using initials.
- Done. It does make the sentence a bit longer, but it is worth it for users who might not be familiar with NBA. Monowi (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
San Diego Padres: I doubt the American dollar needs to be linked.
Remove the second Padres link to help cut down on the number of repetitive links.
- Wow, I didn't even know that was there. Thanks for pointing that out! Done. Monowi (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth paragraph of Padres section: One instance of "get" and one of "got". I'd change the first to "record" and the second to "entered" or similar. Those would be more formal language, which is always better.
If the Yuma Daily Sun is (was) a printed publication, it should be given in italics. Check for this in the references too.
- Italics added. My cited reference can confirm the Yuma Daily Sun was a printed publication at the time it did the specific article about Smith. Thanks again for pointing it out; it really helps to have another set of eyes look over things! Monowi (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delink the dates in a couple of the references.
- Could you possibly help point out examples of this in the article? Right now the only date links I see are for links from specific years to articles detailing specific MLB seasons. For instance, I've wikilinked "1985" to 1985 St. Louis Cardinals season. I have removed wikilinks to seasons Smith did not play in, such as 1997 & 1999 in the "Post-playing career" section.
Actually, I meant the links for access dates in references 106 and 123, and the publication date in the latter. The year links for teams and seasons are an entirely seperate debate.Giants2008 (17-14) 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to come back and read more later when these are done. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time to look over the article so far. I really appreciate it! Monowi (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The bad part about having a limited number of active reviews is that I often find myself waiting for something to do. The good part is that nominators get fast return visits from me. Here's a second round.
Trade: Consider linking no-trade clause. I find that phrases like this, which could be considered jargon, are good candidates for explanatory links.
- Done. I remember trying to previously wikilink a long time ago; guess the article hadn't been created yet when I last checked! Monowi (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1982 season: Consider adding a best of seven disclaimer for the World Series. This might be confusing for non-baseball fans who have just read about the shorter playoff series. Also, check to see if "best of five" in the LCS should have hyphens. A similar usage later has them.
- Hyphens & "best-of-seven" text added. I found an MLB.com article here[18]that used the hypens, so I went with that. Monowi (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
En dash for 3-1 score in Game 7 of the World Series.
- I honestly can't tell the difference between the dashes, so I hope I put the right one in. Monowi (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the right one. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go crazy folks: Flip wrist broken to broken wrist.
Don't think Busch Stadium needs a link there, with one in a prior section.
"After the Cardinals took a 3-games-to-2 advantage". Consider changing the numbers to words. Numbers less than 10 are usually spelled out, but editors have differing opinions on this. Note that the "2 for 23" earlier is fine, since it's a compound element. No, this isn't confusing at all. :-)
- Done. I originally had the numbers written out, but they were apparently changed by another editor somewhere along the way. Monowi (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another en dash for "July 11-14", when Smith tore his rotator cuff.
- Note that I'll be doing something new in this FAC. When I provide further comments, I'll be doing so on a talk page to avoid clogging up FAC any more than necessary. Of course, I'll provide a link here for the convenience of everyone involved. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The bad part about having a limited number of active reviews is that I often find myself waiting for something to do. The good part is that nominators get fast return visits from me. Here's a second round.
- Support - I was around for the second of the article's two FACs, and the improvement in quality between then and now is quite noticeable. After a large amount of work, in the previous FACs and here, I think it's ready. The talk page review is done too, for anyone interested. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time to do that; your help is appreciated! Monowi (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Extremely good article with top-nouch sourcing. I have a few comments before I could support this article. I'm not going to comment on grammar and so fourth, as that's my weakness.
- I personally think the Amos Otis growing up in his neighborhood is irrelevant, unless Otis helped influence Smith's baseball career.
- What got him into baseball, the early life doesn't mention that?
- I've added in a sentence that addresses this topic. The sentence reads, "Smith played a variety of sports in his youth, but considered baseball to be his "favorite."" Adding in this sentence gave me a chance to split the first part of the "Early life" section into two paragraphs as well. Monowi (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In high school and college, did he made receive any awards playing baseball, All-American or All-District for example? (skip if he didn't)
- A sentence on why the Padres and Tigers decided to draft Smith, did he had some sort of special skill (obvious to us baseball fans but not to the average non-baseball fan reader) to get him drafted this high.
- I don't have a direct reference about the thought process of either the Tigers or Padres in drafting Smith. Mention of Smith's All-American status in college, not to mention the school records he set, seem to be the best evidence that can currently be offered as to why the Tigers and Padres drafted him. If anyone can find a reference or two that can address this issue, it would be very welcome. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When did Smith and his wife gets married?
- Short of finding their marriage certificate, I don't have a concrete reference for the year they married, so I decided not to include a specific date in the article. My research for the article leads me to believe it was around 1981, but as I said, with no reference to back it up, I'm kinda stuck on this one. Monowi (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a source that it's in October/November 1980 http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/684993992.html?dids=684993992:684993992&FMT=CITE&FMTS=CITE:AI&date=Nov+25%2C+1980&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=Padres%2C+as+Good+as+Gold+at+Short%2C+Go+After+Catcher&pqatl=google but I don't have access to those archives, maybe if someone can? Secret account 15:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Short of finding their marriage certificate, I don't have a concrete reference for the year they married, so I decided not to include a specific date in the article. My research for the article leads me to believe it was around 1981, but as I said, with no reference to back it up, I'm kinda stuck on this one. Monowi (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stats would be nice for his second place in ROY, just like how you provide stats for his Silver Slugger Award season.
- What happened to the 1985 and most of the 1986 regular season?
- "From 1993 onwards, injuries started to creep up on Smith." What injuries did he get in 1993? Also by the sentence it seems to the reader that he was also injured in 1994, but he played what seems to me a complete season only missing about 10 games.
- Thanks for pointing this out. After reviewing this issue, it was clearly a weak point of the article. After further research, I removed the "From 1993 onwards..." sentence in the lead, and instead mentioned that he missed nearly three months of 1995 after his shoulder surgery. I also replaced a reference from ESPN that listed his stats with a specific one from Retrosheet that listed what games Smith made an offensive appearance in during the 1995 season. Definitely check out both the last paragraph of the lead section and the second paragraph of the "Torre era" section to view the changes. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why the divorce from his wife?
- That's a great question, one that I wish I could answer. Any comments I could make about that would simply be conjecture, because I don't have a reference for this specific issue. Even some of the more recent references cited in the article tend to overlook or dance around the issue. Monowi (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did he had success from his business ventures or did it failed?
Thanks Secret account 21:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Overall this is a great article, however I have one caveat. "While Smith was attending junior high school, his parents decided to divorce.[5] A Los Angeles Dodgers fan during his childhood, Smith would ride the bus for nearly an hour to get to Dodger Stadium, attending about 25 games a year.[5] Upon becoming a student at Locke High School, Smith played on the basketball and baseball teams." The sentence on the Dodgers feel out of place thrown in between middle and high school. If it was intertwined a little better with the childhood section of the article I would support this as an FA. Wizardman 17:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have re-phrased the sentence mentioning Smith's attendance at Dodger games in the following way: "Continuing to pursue his interest in baseball, Smith would ride the bus for nearly an hour to reach Dodger Stadium, cheering for the Los Angeles Dodgers at about 25 games a year." I think this phrasing works well because the previous paragraph now mentions Smith's interest in sports, and that baseball was his favorite sport during his youth. Monowi (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, 1a. This looks OK, but I quickly got mired in prose issues indicative of article-wide problems. Below are samples; please get someone to go through the whole article and look for other instances. I see that you had two peer reviews, but they don't look very substantive.
- Is the backflip thing really important enough to mention in the lead?
- Yes, I believe it is vital to mention Smith's backflip trademark in the lead section. I would assert that Smith's backflip brought him more fame than some other aspects of his baseball career. To demonstrate the importance of the backfilp, I can cite his Baseball Hall of Fame plaque[19], which mentions the backflip. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "When turmoil with Padres' ownership developed ..." Do you mean conflict?
- No, I don't. According to Webster's definition, turmoil is, "a state or condition of extreme confusion, agitation, or commotion." Indeed, it was the extreme agitation the Padres felt from Ed Gottlieb's antics (like taking out a help-wanted ad) that makes the use of the word turmoil appropriate in this instance. In fact, the article later mentions that Padres General Manager Jack McKeon expressed how agitating Gottlieb was, telling Whitey Herzog it was part of the reason the Padres were now willing to trade Smith. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I misread this. I thought you meant turmoil between ownership and Smith. But you mean turmoil among several people, correct? Can you reword to "When turmoil among the Padres' organization developed ..." or similar? --Laser brain (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, by using "turmoil" the sentence is conveying conflict among several people, but you make a good point that the sentence isn't phrased to explicitly express that. With that in mind, I'm hesitant to have to explain that the turmoil was between Padres ownership & the combination of Smith & his agent, especially when the goal is to make the lead concise. In that sense, use of the word "conflict" would be more appropriate because it would still accurately describe the relations between Smith and the organization at that time, and leave the more detailed antics of Gottlieb to the body of the article. So, I replaced "turmoil" with the word "conflict" in both the lead and later in the article. Thanks for the tip, and the healthy discussion. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I misread this. I thought you meant turmoil between ownership and Smith. But you mean turmoil among several people, correct? Can you reword to "When turmoil among the Padres' organization developed ..." or similar? --Laser brain (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't. According to Webster's definition, turmoil is, "a state or condition of extreme confusion, agitation, or commotion." Indeed, it was the extreme agitation the Padres felt from Ed Gottlieb's antics (like taking out a help-wanted ad) that makes the use of the word turmoil appropriate in this instance. In fact, the article later mentions that Padres General Manager Jack McKeon expressed how agitating Gottlieb was, telling Whitey Herzog it was part of the reason the Padres were now willing to trade Smith. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Born in Mobile, Alabama, Smith was the second of six children (five boys and one girl) born to his parents Clovis and Marvella Smith." This needs revision so there are not two "borns"
- "... while his mother became an aide at an Armenian nursing home." This suggests the nursing home was either in Armenia or somehow of Armenian ownership, which I'm sure wasn't the case.
- "Developing quick reflexes through leisure activity, Smith would bounce a ball off the concrete steps in front of his house, moving in closer to reduce reaction time with each throw." This is oddly worded, suggesting he developed the reflexes and then did the bouncing. Also, in the lead you say "athletic activity" and here you say "leisure activity". Those aren't really the same thing.
- I changed the sentence you refer to in the "Early life" section to read, "Smith developed quick reflexes through various athletic and leisure activity, such as bouncing a ball off the concrete steps in front of his house, moving in closer to reduce reaction time with each throw." Do you believe this is an appropriate way to phrase this sentence, and I was also wondering your opinion on keeping the phrase "athletic activity" unaltered in the lead section in light of this sentence revision. Any comments from editors are welcome too. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are too many sentences with the same structure: "Developing quick reflexes via childhood athletic activities, Smith played ...", "Drafted as an amateur player by the San Diego Padres, Smith made ...", "Developing quick reflexes through leisure activity, Smith would ..."
- "Smith went on to be named an All-American athlete" For any such phrase, "Smith was named" is much simpler and cleaner.
- That's a great suggestion. I took the extra step of re-phrasing the sentence so that it now reads, "Later named an All-American athlete, Smith established school records in career at-bats (754) and career stolen bases (110) before graduating in 1977." Is this wording ok, or would you suggest another approach to phrasing this particular sentence? Monowi (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Smith credited Padre manager ..." You say "Padres" everywhere else - why not here?
- --Laser brain (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. After finally getting around to reading this article, I am satisfied with how it is. It reads very well, the quote boxes are used well, and right spots are accentuated, and there's not too much statistical information thrown in, which I would actually consider a positive, since it shows that there has not been any unnecessary padding in the article. I'd liek to see more of that, yes, but it's not really necessary, as this article was very enjoyable to read. Wizardman 05:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:15, 31 July 2008 [20].
2007 Atlantic hurricane season
- Nominator(s): Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone
The article went through a PR recently, passed GA today, and now I'm taking the final step in the process. That said, I feel it is certainly good enough, but I am often proven wrong in these cases. So, tell me what needs to be done. Thanks, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Otherwise links checked out with the link checker, sources look okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deadlink removed. Thanks, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All images check out fine; appropriately tagged etc. I'll try to take a full look tomorrow. —Giggy 12:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Very nice and clean without autoformatting and thorough use of NBSPs. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as it seems to be well done. I have just a few concerns.
- Some passive voice
- Forecasts of hurricane activity are issued each year by noted hurricane experts Philip J. Klotzbach, William M. Gray, and their associates at Colorado State University
- Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Klotzbach noted that while the team was predicting an active season (okay, not technically passive, but why not "team predicted"?)
- Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions were also noted to have been slightly cooler (this one might be justifiable)
- I think the emphasis should be on El Niño on this sentence, so I would prefer passive voice there. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 15 people were killed and hundreds of homes destroyed after the passage of Hurricane Dean
- Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Six deaths were reported there, and in Puebla, 169 houses were destroyed
- Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- United States was affected by five Atlantic storms during the season
- Fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The names Dean, Felix, and Noel were retired by the World Meteorological Organization
- Fixed, sort of. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Forecasts of hurricane activity are issued each year by noted hurricane experts Philip J. Klotzbach, William M. Gray, and their associates at Colorado State University
- Possibly more, but it looks overall pretty well-written. Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some passive voice
Comment - Just a picky little thing from a stat-geek. In the "Pre-season forecasts" section you say that "[t]he potential for at least one major hurricane to affect the U.S. was increased" when in fact you mean the estimated potential. The scientists don't know the actual potential, just their estimate of it. My first stat professor drilled this into my brain. The sentence is also in the passive voice, but I'm not too concerned about that. Plasticup T/C 03:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, got it. Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppot; chose a section at random and the prose was excellent, only had to make one minor change. I think it meets all criteria. —Giggy 09:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season was an active Atlantic hurricane season I recommend changing "active" to "busy". Just kidding, the article looks great. Here are my thoughts:
- Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale is linked to three times, plus once in the infobox and twice more in the "Season Impact" tables. I don't have a problem with the links in the templates, but just one wikilink in the body of the article should suffice.
- Since you calculated the season's total damage, Hurricane Dean has been revised downwards. Sources now say that the storm caused US$2.2 billion of damage. See the storm article (and its talk page) for details.
- Units:
- The first instances of "miles", "km" and "mbar" are not wikilinked. It also spells out "miles" twice before switching to the abbreviation "mi". WP:MOSNUM says to spell it out once, as you did with most other units.
- You may want to add inHg conversion for the mbars that have already been given.
- In "October–December" nautical miles are used for the first time. It might be less confusing to stick with statue miles (and km) throughout. If not, the first instance of "nmi" needs to be spelled out and wikilinked.
- The first instances of ft and m (in the Impact section) need to be wikilinked. "Feet" should be spelled out in its first instance.
- In the ACE section knots are mentioned for the first time. It makes sense to use knots here as that is how ACE is defined, but you should wikilink its first instance.
All in all, very good. Do you have intentions of building a Featured Topic, a la 2003 Atlantic hurricane season? Plasticup T/C 18:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done with everything. I am considering working on a featured topic for the season, but it depends on whether the Hurricane Dean article is brought up to at least GA status by somebody. ;-) Thanks for the comments, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Be careful, that editor working on Hurricane Dean is a bit sketchy. Changes look good, adding my support. Plasticup T/C 21:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice job Julian. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 11:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:07, 28 July 2008 [21].
Michael Jackson
- Nominator(s): User:Realist2
- previous FAC
I'm nominating this article for FA. Just a reminder, English is not my first language, if reviewers have comments could they please write in clear, full sentences to avoid confusion on my part. — Realist2 (Speak) 11:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note of interest to reviewers. Because this article was slightly long, we removed a few things to keep it all tight and neat. A few of the things removed were on the topic of Jackson's appearance and health. To help the FA review, we removed some of these details and I set up a new article for it which has been nominated for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical appearance, health and diet of Michael Jackson The article was nominated because it was "controversial and pov", we have reviewed this article and have all agreed that content was of an FA standard in it's own right. If the article is deleted we are going to have to bring some of the info back, wasting our hard work trimming. For those editors who understand the article and the content please help, that info needed its own article because of this article's length. — Realist2 (Speak) 23:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments regarding MoS compliance:
- The Dangerous album had seven million shipments in the US, sold two million copies in the UK and sold twenty-seven million copies worldwide; sales figures were slightly lower to those of Bad.[43][14][22] Not a big deal, but try to keep blocks of references in numerical order.
- Shortly thereafter it was announced that Jackson was producing an all-star charity single — entitled "I Have This Dream" — to help raise relief funds for victims of Hurricane Katrina. The single has not yet been released. em dashes need to be unspaced.
- Image shouldn't be left-aligned directly under section headers like in the "Legacy, influence and artistry" section, but again, not a huge deal.
Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - I provided some feedback at the peer view. This is looking very good. But there are some problems with the prose, and other things (I am focusing on the "Legacy, influence and artistry" section):
"He broke down racial barriers, transformed the art of the music video and paved the way for modern pop music in his own country." - This is unsourced, and quite a few things are being said here.- The reason that is unsourced is because I go onto describe these things in there relevant descending section. The music video section below it, shows all the details on breaking down racial barriers and transforming the music video. Also the Thriller section of the article talks about his visit to the White house and how that broke down racial barriers (again sourced). Is resourcing for the sake of resourcing absolutely necessary when the article is sourced an absurd 300+ times. I could resource it but then I would be accused of reusing web links :-). — Realist2 (Speak) 14:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor redundant words throughout: "Before the success of the Thriller album, Jackson
hadstruggled to get MTV airing because he was African American.[166]" - I'm not sure how to reword it, but "to get MTV airing" sounds terrible.- D0NE
- "When the fourteen-minute
longThriller video aired, MTV ran it twiceanevery hour to meet demand" - "ran it" -> "played it" (and also, change 'an' to 'every')- DONE
- "He would occasionally grab or touch his chest, torso and crotch." -> "He occasionally grabbed or touched his chest, torso and crotch."
- DONE
- "Jackson hired Martin Scorsese to direct the eighteen-minute music video; it sparked controversy, as Jackson's physical appearance had changed significantly" - This sentence really confused me at first. At first, I thought it meant the decision to hire Scorsese was controversial, not the music video itself. Needs some clarification, maybe?
- "Although the music video for "Leave Me Alone" was not officially released in the US" - Why not?
- I have absolutely no idea, and probably never will. It was probably the labels decision, but as it was some 20 years ago I don't think anyone knows aside - Sony. After reading multiple books, studying this guys life for a number of years, I have no idea. — Realist2 (Speak) 14:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The entertainer was given the MTV Video Vanguard Artist of the Decade Award" - Why is Jackson now being called "the entertainer"? - Let's keep some consistency.
- "In 1995, it gained a record breaking eleven MTV Video Music Award Nominations; winning three in total." - I would add a footnote for this, who says it was record-breaking?
- I'm going to stop here. There are many other examples of minor, but still important things which need addressing with 1) the prose and 2) the citations. I suggest you get someone from WP:PRV to copyedit this.
— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have resolved or replied to what you are willing to talk about, however since the article has been checked by multiple editors on and off of PRV and you haven't left further specifics yourself I don't know how to resolve your weak oppose. If you care to make more suggestions that I can work with please do, either here or on my talk page if you like. After being checked so many times by some many editors I'm interested to know what they missed. — Realist2 (Speak) 15:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's quite simple. The examples I found were in one section. There are many other sections. This article has failed FAC several times already because of prose problems. It doesn't hurt to ask someone to go through and copyedit the whole article (there's no rush, FACs last quite a while), checking for misuse of commas, redundant words and choppy prose. I'm not asking you to copyedit it yourself—get someone new to the text. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, User:Kodster has taken it upon himself to copy edit it, considering the article length that will take him a few hours, interested to know what you think when he is done. — Realist2 (Speak) 15:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in the middle of copyediting the article, especially looking for redundancy errors and such. (Look at my edit summaries in the history.) :-) I still have a long way to go, but I'll post here when I'm done. All the best, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 16:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have FINALLY finished copyediting the article, and I feel that the prose is up to FA standard. All the best, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 18:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in the middle of copyediting the article, especially looking for redundancy errors and such. (Look at my edit summaries in the history.) :-) I still have a long way to go, but I'll post here when I'm done. All the best, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 16:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, User:Kodster has taken it upon himself to copy edit it, considering the article length that will take him a few hours, interested to know what you think when he is done. — Realist2 (Speak) 15:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's quite simple. The examples I found were in one section. There are many other sections. This article has failed FAC several times already because of prose problems. It doesn't hurt to ask someone to go through and copyedit the whole article (there's no rush, FACs last quite a while), checking for misuse of commas, redundant words and choppy prose. I'm not asking you to copyedit it yourself—get someone new to the text. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am a complete novice when it comes to Michael Jackson, so I was looking for more info in your notes list and - sorry - found some I didn't really understand. There are several refs that just read "Taraborrelli, p. 464–471 or "a b Campbell (1995), p. 53". Please excuse my ignorance, but are these books or magazine articles or something else entirely?-- Seahamlass 16:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, they are all published books. The full details of their publication can be found further down, by here. Sorry if that confuses you. When an article is sourced so many times it becomes impractical to write the full book detail out every time. The style of notation is perfectly within wiki policy. The taraborrelli book in particular is very well recieved, easily the most comprehensive book on the singer, although not a favourite amongst fans of Jackson. — Realist2 (Speak) 16:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou. I was just reading the (recent FA promotion) Mary Shelley article, and the editors there had done exactly the same thing as you. Now I know why!-- Seahamlass 16:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's OK, glad I could clear it up for you. :-) — Realist2 (Speak) 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This might be a reason to implement the usage of the Harvard citation template, which helps readers find which book a footnote is referring to. See Template:Harvard citation no brackets. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that not what is being implemented in this article? All the best, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 17:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I cant make heads or tails of that link, if it involves altering every single book ref I have used, my reply would be (as MJ once said himself) "No Way In Hell". The refs are accurate and reliable and it seems like a lot of unnessary work for nothing. — Realist2 (Speak) 17:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This might be a reason to implement the usage of the Harvard citation template, which helps readers find which book a footnote is referring to. See Template:Harvard citation no brackets. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's OK, glad I could clear it up for you. :-) — Realist2 (Speak) 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou. I was just reading the (recent FA promotion) Mary Shelley article, and the editors there had done exactly the same thing as you. Now I know why!-- Seahamlass 16:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All FAs must meet the criteria:
- (a)-Well written:Kodster is copyediting the article now and after reading the article several times I did not find any major problems
- (b)-Comperhensive:The article is 108 KB long and covers his entire life and career,IMO that covers all the major facts and details
- (c)-Factually Accurate:The article has 190 notes 14 books and 10 external links as references.IMO that is more than enough to verify the facts in the articles.
- (d)-Neutral:Considering the controversy that Michael Jackson has gone through before, this article provides a neutral point of view and does not takes sides saying, "Michael Jackson is bad" or "Michael Jackson is the best singer in the world" instead it's "Michael Joseph Jackson (born August 29, 1958) is an American musician and entertainer. "
- (e)-Stable:The article has not had any major edit wars recently rather it has only improved over the last few days.
- (f)-A Lead:The article has a nice long lead though I am not sure if it really "summarizes" Michael Jackson.
- (g)-Appropriate Structure:The article covers Michael Jackson's life and is excellently organized by the years of his life. The table of contents is of an acceptable length.
- (h)-Consistent Citations:With well over 190 citations the article is well cited throughout the article.
- (i)-Images:The article has 8 images and 2 audio files, enough for this article.In addition all the images have the correct rational.
- (j)-Length:I do not feel that this article goes into unnecessary detail.
Comment: There are some minor WP:MOSNUM issues, or at least stylistic issues that can be resolved by referring to MOSNUM.
*It's nice to have the dates fully formatted for date preference settings.
- Non-breaking spaces in spelled-out numbers is always a plus, e.g $95 million.
- Sorry, could you clarify what you would like me to do hear please, I don't understand.
- $95 million. This will make sure that $95 and million always stay together, rather than million hopping down to the next line if $95 happens to be as far to the right that it can go. --Elliskev 20:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's done, I got most of them. By the way, in this article, since numbers less than 100 are spelled out (i.e, "ninety-five" not "95"), should it be "ninety-five million dollars" or still "$95 million"? All the best, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 20:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe. According to the Manual of Style "In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words, when none of the other reasons indicate otherwise; numbers greater than nine may be rendered in numerals or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)." and "Careful readers may object to the use of 100,000 troops as a rough description of a force of 103 thousand; it is preferable to use one hundred thousand for such approximations." So I guess it depends.--Elliskev 20:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through it added about 6 or 7 but couldn't find more (I'm new to using that symbol so I might have bee a little conservative in my usage.) Hope that's ok now? — Realist2 (Speak) 20:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't go back and check, but I'm sure it's fine. It's really a preventive measure. To see how it looks without the non-breaking space, take a look at today's (7/17/08) FA on the main page. World War II really should be all on the same line. With my browser size, World War and II are broken. You can see it by resizing your browser. Adding the nbsps just makes for a more professional presentation. Maybe you can nbsp Billboard Hot 100. I don't think you have to, but it makes it better. --Elliskev 21:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through it added about 6 or 7 but couldn't find more (I'm new to using that symbol so I might have bee a little conservative in my usage.) Hope that's ok now? — Realist2 (Speak) 20:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe. According to the Manual of Style "In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words, when none of the other reasons indicate otherwise; numbers greater than nine may be rendered in numerals or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)." and "Careful readers may object to the use of 100,000 troops as a rough description of a force of 103 thousand; it is preferable to use one hundred thousand for such approximations." So I guess it depends.--Elliskev 20:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's done, I got most of them. By the way, in this article, since numbers less than 100 are spelled out (i.e, "ninety-five" not "95"), should it be "ninety-five million dollars" or still "$95 million"? All the best, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 20:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- $95 million. This will make sure that $95 and million always stay together, rather than million hopping down to the next line if $95 happens to be as far to the right that it can go. --Elliskev 20:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, could you clarify what you would like me to do hear please, I don't understand.
- There is at least one instance of of between a month and a year (I found one in the 1995–1999: HIStory, charity, second marriage and fatherhood section). --Elliskev 19:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I resolved that one, I couldn't see any others, cheers. — Realist2 (Speak) 19:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There were no others (except "November of that year", which I believe is acceptable). I used the "Find" feature and searched for all 12 months plus "of". This is done. All the best, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 20:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I resolved that one, I couldn't see any others, cheers. — Realist2 (Speak) 19:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been editing this article a very long time (just check my history, it goes back!)[22]. In the years i've worked with it, I've seen constant edit wars, agenda pushing either side of the spectrum and bizarre, bizarre editing from every possible source. This however (without gushing too much) changed when Realist2 got some experience in wikipedia and began editing the article properly. In the past months (not years, months - such is the degree of remarkable transformation) this article has had something done to it I didn't think was possible - it's actually bloody neutral. It's neutral. I cannot overstate this enough. Neutral!
I personally could not have done this, and anyone reading my comment should kindly take a look and see that this article is well written prose of the highest degree - deep, well written, practically existential at certain points! It's a work of actual art. The liberal use of photographs brings it into a class unto itself, the sourcing is just, plain, incredible. It's had zillions of people check, re-check, add more sources and change them over the years. In short it's a paradise of well written factual information.
The articles lead is so good I find myself re-reading it and pinching myself each time. It's better than the Britannica article, hell, it's better than the Taborelli book's intro (one of the best books on Jackson). Structure is exhaustingly well studied, overhauled. I've been part of a recent mind mapping in the themes section, we first theorised appropriate material in a mind map at mind domo. Realist2 found plausible sources and we ransacked them for information, before Realist2 wrote it into perfect prose. It was by far the most interesting and satisfying experience I've had on this article, and I've been working on it for years. So you see, this article has been sourced from good material ground upwards. This is so far beyond original research, it's unbelievable. Because 2 years ago, it was a hive of OR rubbish.
It's exhaustingly comprehensive. This mans' been places, and this article covers this man. Properly. There have been no edit wars going on 6 months, if not more. The current bunch of editors and moderators of the article are in-tune with each other, helpful to new users and encouraging to previous editors to continue the articles transformation, which whilst not complete is now by far and wide more than enough and actually representing a powerful achievement. Neutrality with such a cult, mainstream and notorious figure. This is beyond FA, it's been beyond FA for over 2 months now. If there's something above FA standard, this article is trekking boldly towards it. To think a couple over 8 months ago it was so bad I wanted GA status delisted! [23]. How the article has changed! Unquestionably - Support.--Manboobies (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been working on this article a lot (it's my second most-edited article, in fact). And I've seen it change. I've changed too. I supported an FA the last time, but I wasn't as experienced an editor as I am now. The MJ article that went up for review last time wasn't an FA (though I thought so at the time). Now it is. Let's run through the Criteria:
- Well-written: I've been copyediting this article ever since I've seen it, revising and revising until the prose was brilliant. I just did my last copyedit this morning, and I was stunned at this excellence of the prose that I was reading. It was incredible; literally beyond Brittanica.
- Comprehensive: 108 kilobytes of Michael Jackson. Nothing less.
- Factually Accurate: 190 reliable sources, nine books, no filler. It is factually accurate to the decimal, no doubt.
- Neutral: This is to be applauded. I mean, this is Michael Jackson we're talking about here. I've seen people with death wishes for this guy. And yet, this article manages to keep a neutral, informative, encyclopedic tone. This is sheer genius.
- Stable: No edit wars on the Michael Jackson page. Another mystery of geniusness.
- Lead: The lead summarizes the beauty of the article with an inherent beauty of its own. It's succinct, yet intriguing.
- Appropriate structure: Logical system of his biography followed by his legacy
- Consistent citations: Every citation is marked to perfection.
- Images:Images are used appropriately and with relevance to the article, and the two audio samples highlight some of Jackson's great work
- Length:108 kilobytes of Michael Jackson. No more. No less. Sure, the article is long, but this is Michael Jackson we're talking about, not John Power. Michael Jackson is one of the most influential, controversial, talked-about people of all time. There's so much to say. But still, there's no "bull" in this article, and nothing less than the best.
That's all I have to say. This is from a completely objective point of view actually, not taking into account any work that I took place in this. Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 23:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yeah. Support. :-) Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 23:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I share the concerns about using allmusic for a biography. While it's generally a reliable source for album information, it's not as reliable for biographical details that might be controversial.
Another concern is using google books snippets for sourcing information on a living person. The problem with google books is that it doesn't always allow you to get the whole context of the information you're shown. You really should read the whole book for information, not just a excerpt.- I shall eliminate this concern for you. I could have used the Taraborelli book that I own all the way through, it literally contains everything I could need. However I also used a few book from Google to mix it up a little. If you check out the two book by Campbell on Google it is an almost complete preview only about 20 pages are off limits from each book! (Seriously that's not bad for Google books). I only used info from books on Google if it was also corroborated by the Tababorelli book of if it was clear that the full context was available. — Realist2 (Speak) 14:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through changing a lot of refs for the career overview written by an acclaimed writer on R&B/Hip hop artists. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Err.. who was the author and what source did you change it to? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- George, Nelson (2004). Michael Jackson: The Ultimate Collection booklet. Sony BMG. — Realist2 (Speak) 13:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Err.. who was the author and what source did you change it to? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through changing a lot of refs for the career overview written by an acclaimed writer on R&B/Hip hop artists. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I shall eliminate this concern for you. I could have used the Taraborelli book that I own all the way through, it literally contains everything I could need. However I also used a few book from Google to mix it up a little. If you check out the two book by Campbell on Google it is an almost complete preview only about 20 pages are off limits from each book! (Seriously that's not bad for Google books). I only used info from books on Google if it was also corroborated by the Tababorelli book of if it was clear that the full context was available. — Realist2 (Speak) 14:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.songwritershalloffame.org/exhibit_home_page.asp?exhibitID=116 deadlinks- What ref # are you looking at? The only time I see that site is using this link http://www.songwritershalloffame.org/exhibits/era which works fine.
- It shows up as dead with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced with George, Nelson (2004). Michael Jackson: The Ultimate Collection booklet. Sony BMG. I cant see any more sources from that web site. — Realist2 (Speak) 00:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It shows up as dead with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What ref # are you looking at? The only time I see that site is using this link http://www.songwritershalloffame.org/exhibits/era which works fine.
- What makes the following sources reliable?
http://www.everyhit.com/index.htmlhttp://www.subzeroblue.com/archives/2006/04/new_michael_jackson_.htmlhttp://www.stuff.co.nz/- Stuff is very reliable, seeming as they are the company that fans must go to in order to select the albums track list.
- To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stuff is very reliable, seeming as they are the company that fans must go to in order to select the albums track list.
- Comment I just stumbled across this and I'm not sure if my input here is warranted, however I would just like to point out that stuff.co.nz is owned by Fairfax Media, the biggest media corporation in New Zealand and Australia. Also holds the title of New Zealand Website of the Year 2008. Very reliable source. ~ Ameliorate U T C @ 09:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see issues with some of the books that are used, and I think it would be better if you could substitute in more refs from Taraborrelli, which seems to be by far the most reliable-looking book source you have. The article relies heavily on two books by Lisa Campbell published by Branden. I cannot find anything about Campbell's credentials, the books look like extremely low-budget productions, and the publisher's website doesn't reassure me that they are reputable. The Lewis and Jones books are likewise published by somewhat marginal publishers. Any facts that could be instead sourced to Taraborrelli would be good, because he is clearly an established, reputable author in the field. Mangostar (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While Taraborrelli is an acclaimed writer, the only acclaimed writer who has dared to write a complex biography on Jackson, I have surely used that book enough? Are there specific, controversial issue that you think should be sourced by Taraborrelli over Campbell? For the vast most part, I have not used the Campbell books for controversial material. — Realist2 (Speak) 14:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A featured article should use the highest-quality sources available, even for facts that are not particularly controversial. I have much more confidence in Taraborrelli's (and Taraborrelli's publisher's) fact-checking than Campbell's or Lewis's. (By the way, Jones wasn't used in the footnotes so I removed it... perhaps it should be added to further reading.) If you are worried about relying too heavily on a single source, I would double-cite these. I don't think concern over relying heavily on a single source is really an issue though, since it is clearly the best biography there is. Mangostar (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through changing a lot of refs for the career overview written by an acclaimed writer on R&B/Hip hop artists. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for replacing so many of these. I still think it would be better to replace the remaining Campbell/Lewis refs, but they're not the end of the world and I don't think it's anything worth opposing over. I haven't read the whole article thoroughly, so I can't support or oppose at this time. Perhaps some of the prose may need a bit of polishing. Mangostar (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through changing a lot of refs for the career overview written by an acclaimed writer on R&B/Hip hop artists. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A featured article should use the highest-quality sources available, even for facts that are not particularly controversial. I have much more confidence in Taraborrelli's (and Taraborrelli's publisher's) fact-checking than Campbell's or Lewis's. (By the way, Jones wasn't used in the footnotes so I removed it... perhaps it should be added to further reading.) If you are worried about relying too heavily on a single source, I would double-cite these. I don't think concern over relying heavily on a single source is really an issue though, since it is clearly the best biography there is. Mangostar (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While Taraborrelli is an acclaimed writer, the only acclaimed writer who has dared to write a complex biography on Jackson, I have surely used that book enough? Are there specific, controversial issue that you think should be sourced by Taraborrelli over Campbell? For the vast most part, I have not used the Campbell books for controversial material. — Realist2 (Speak) 14:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image Review
- Image:Michaeljackson (cropped).jpg -- problem here. This image is obviously not cropped from the image it claims to be cropped from. The correct source needs to be located.
- It was taken by the same man/family here [24]. He has given away the rights to it. We need to upload it and have the crop linked to it. Can you help with that I can't do pictures.
- Ah, I see. Good find! I'm just heading out for the evening but I can fix that tomorrow. Actually, I can go ahead and fix the star as well. So no worries, all images are okay. Too bad we couldn't find one of him in concert, or at the superbowl that one year. --JayHenry (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I look forward to your help. I agree, I wish we had more pictures. Michael Jackson's art is a lot to do with his dancing, costumes and music videos. He uses imagery as his art form, unfortunately with wikipedias policies it is almost impossible for the reader to understand how captivating he is. It is a shame that we cant use more music video pictures or something. Instead we must settle for words. How does one describe a performance such as the Super Bowl or Motown 25, I will never know. It is somewhat tragic that the reader cannot see the guy moonwalk or spin or simply grab his crotch (OK the last one was a joke)--— Realist2 (Speak) 00:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. Good find! I'm just heading out for the evening but I can fix that tomorrow. Actually, I can go ahead and fix the star as well. So no worries, all images are okay. Too bad we couldn't find one of him in concert, or at the superbowl that one year. --JayHenry (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was taken by the same man/family here [24]. He has given away the rights to it. We need to upload it and have the crop linked to it. Can you help with that I can't do pictures.
- Image:Michael Jackson with the Reagans.png -- Properly identified public domain image.
- Image:Michael Jackson fans waving posters in support of MJ.jpg, Flickr image, appropriately licensed
- Image:Wj46nxya.jpg -- user created, appropriately licensed
- Image:Vitiligo03.jpg -- user created, appropriately licensed
- Image:MJ Star.jpg -- Flickr image. It's identified on flickr as {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}, which is an okay license to use, but it's uploaded to Commons as CC-by-2.0. The image is okay, but the tag needs fixed. Might want to ask a commons person how to do that. User:Giggy would know.
- Image:Smooth criminal patent.png -- Hilarious. PD as non-disclaimed part of patent application
- Image:Scream video.png -- Fair use image, but with appropriate rational and it's an iconic video, discussed in the text
- Image:Michael Jackson Thriller.ogg -- fair use audio, iconic song, low quality and brief, appropriate rationale
- Image:Smooth Criminal by Michael Jackson.ogg -- fair use audio, slightly less iconic song, but still important enough to merit fair use, low quality and brief, appropriate rationale.
- Image:Michaeljackson (cropped).jpg -- problem here. This image is obviously not cropped from the image it claims to be cropped from. The correct source needs to be located.
- Only real issue is properly sourcing that first image and fixing the tag on the star. --JayHenry (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Jay, I'm going to have to disagree on the current usage of Image:Michael Jackson Thriller.ogg and Image:Smooth Criminal by Michael Jackson.ogg being suitable. The fair use rationales are fine but the in article descriptions are inadaquet; how is "Excerpt of the album's title track, and one of Jackson's signature pieces, "Thriller" released as a single in 1984." "critical to the understanding of such a performer" as asserted by its fair use rationale? Same applies for the "Smooth Criminal" caption (though that's minorly better, it still needs more detail. Let me know if you'd like some good examples.). —Giggy 07:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm reviewing for WP:NFCC 1-10. This satisfies NFCC. Editors are welcome to go above and beyond if they so desire. To be frank: the reason some other image reviewers burned out is because they were demanding that editors go sometimes radically beyond what's required. I'm not here to do that. If you'd like to encourage the editors to spiff up presentation that's cool. You're not talking about NFCC issues though. It'd be ludicrous to suggest someone could understand Michael Jackson without hearing a note of Thriller, that's enough for NFCC#8 right there (never mind that thriller isn't discussed only in the caption). --JayHenry (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, you're right, this is fine in terms of WP:NFCC (and I certainly wasn't criticising the excellent work you've done); my comments are based on Wikipedia:Non-free content#Audio clips, first point ("...when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary..."). —Giggy 08:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, sorry if my tone seemed prickly. I didn't take the comment as criticism. I'm familiar with NFC guidelines as well (hence my specific use of the word iconic above). It is noted in the captions that both are signature songs, and there's further discussion of the songs in the text outside the captions--sourced commentary on both. Now, perhaps the article would be better with more commentary on his iconic music--I don't dispute that. Like I said, definitely go above and beyond and make it as perfect as possible! Some examples where you feel NFC is executed really perfectly would probably be of great help to Realist. Actually would be useful for me as well. In future I could present it as: "X satisfies guidelines and policies, but here's an example of what's perfect." --JayHenry (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, damn, you asked for "perfect", that means I can't give any of the articles I've worked on;-) Anyways, check out Silverchair, for instance; the "Luv Your Life" sample in the "Diorama (2001–2002)" section contains piano and an orchestral arrangement... and so does the caption. The "Straight Lines" caption (at time of writing) probably needs improvement and the sample itself isn't that great, but hopefully you get the idea from the first sample. Hmm... just browsing, Odyssey Number Five contains some pretty good captions, though I say so myself. —Giggy 09:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi guys, to clarify, is the lead picture and star now fixed? Do I need to do something with those audio samples? If and when this is all cleared up can it be struck as resolved? — Realist2 (Speak) 13:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I'm aware the lead image issue is resolved (Jay said he was happy with everything so I'd say it's all done). I fixed the star issue on Commons, so that's fine. There's just the audio samples still to fix, in my opinion; basically the captions need better descriptions of the music on them, and on the significance of this music (they talk about significance at times, but not about the music itself). —Giggy 05:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi guys, to clarify, is the lead picture and star now fixed? Do I need to do something with those audio samples? If and when this is all cleared up can it be struck as resolved? — Realist2 (Speak) 13:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, damn, you asked for "perfect", that means I can't give any of the articles I've worked on;-) Anyways, check out Silverchair, for instance; the "Luv Your Life" sample in the "Diorama (2001–2002)" section contains piano and an orchestral arrangement... and so does the caption. The "Straight Lines" caption (at time of writing) probably needs improvement and the sample itself isn't that great, but hopefully you get the idea from the first sample. Hmm... just browsing, Odyssey Number Five contains some pretty good captions, though I say so myself. —Giggy 09:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, sorry if my tone seemed prickly. I didn't take the comment as criticism. I'm familiar with NFC guidelines as well (hence my specific use of the word iconic above). It is noted in the captions that both are signature songs, and there's further discussion of the songs in the text outside the captions--sourced commentary on both. Now, perhaps the article would be better with more commentary on his iconic music--I don't dispute that. Like I said, definitely go above and beyond and make it as perfect as possible! Some examples where you feel NFC is executed really perfectly would probably be of great help to Realist. Actually would be useful for me as well. In future I could present it as: "X satisfies guidelines and policies, but here's an example of what's perfect." --JayHenry (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, you're right, this is fine in terms of WP:NFCC (and I certainly wasn't criticising the excellent work you've done); my comments are based on Wikipedia:Non-free content#Audio clips, first point ("...when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary..."). —Giggy 08:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm reviewing for WP:NFCC 1-10. This satisfies NFCC. Editors are welcome to go above and beyond if they so desire. To be frank: the reason some other image reviewers burned out is because they were demanding that editors go sometimes radically beyond what's required. I'm not here to do that. If you'd like to encourage the editors to spiff up presentation that's cool. You're not talking about NFCC issues though. It'd be ludicrous to suggest someone could understand Michael Jackson without hearing a note of Thriller, that's enough for NFCC#8 right there (never mind that thriller isn't discussed only in the caption). --JayHenry (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I gave this article a copyedit a while back, right around the time when User:Realist2 really did some amazing work with it. Okay, I'll take credit for my small part with the lead, but Realist was definitely the power behind the throne and has done wonderful things with the article. I congratulate him/her, and feel that that the Michael Jackson article definitely fulfills all the featured article criteria. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "He has been the subject of long-term financial difficulties and health concerns."? I'm not sure what this means. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for any confusion, it means that for a very long time MJ has had money problems and health problems. There are sections of the article dedicated to this. Should I reword the sentence or have I cleared that up? — Realist2 (Speak) 23:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A rewording would be appreciated, thanks. I'll take a more in-depth look later. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I made it clearer, but by all means, feel free to tinker with it if it doesn't quite flow for you. — Realist2 (Speak) 23:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But now it says something different. Has he had these difficulties for a long time, or just in his later (you have "latter", but the way, but I won't change it in case the sentence itself is wrong) i.e. more recent, years? Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I made it clearer, but by all means, feel free to tinker with it if it doesn't quite flow for you. — Realist2 (Speak) 23:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A rewording would be appreciated, thanks. I'll take a more in-depth look later. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's a lot of extraneous details best reserved for song, album, or other such articles. One example is an entire paragraph devoted to the name change from the Jackson Five to the Jacksons. That kind of detail doesn't belong here. I was telling Realist that this needed to be addressed before the article underwent another FAC. This article needs more focus, especially with a subject so well documented. This article needs to be as effective as possible, but it still needs some work.WesleyDodds (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I appreciate your advise, you told be that you wanted to remove aproximately 20,000-30,000 bytes, with the community consensus of only yourself, (if that was a slight joke or an exagoration then I didn't get it, I thought you were being serious). I am not of the opinion that much details needs removing and do don't believe it to be in the best interest of the reader, since I have actually studied Mr Jackson. I always made is a goal of mine to stick to a square 100,000 bytes which I am happy to support, but bringing it down to 80k is absurd. There are many FA article above 100,000 bytes. — Realist2 (Speak) 13:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up I've gone through and removed a lot of details better suited to subarticles. At this point the biography section is pretty good, with everything from the early life through Thriller more or less perfect. There are some issues I have in latter portions of the bio, but I'll get to that later. I was trimming down the music videos section, but Realist kept revert me and even removed the in-use template at one point. Now, that's just not very nice, especially since I'm more or less working on this because Realist has asked for help in the past, but I'm not going to dwell on that. There are still some issues that need to be dealt with, and the entire second half of the article should probably be restrucured and definitely trimmed of detail. I don't feel like touching the "Themes and genres" section right now; I was going to remove a lot of unnecessary detail, but I realized that would have left nothing about Bad. In contrast, there's nothing about Jackson's voice. He has a very distinctive voice and phrasing, and I know there's commentary about that. The "Physical appearance" and "Finances" sections should be merged into the rest of the bio. I'll come back in the next day or so listing more specific items that need to be fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree completely. Detail levels are perfectly appropriate, and there's nothing about Jackson's voice because nothing authoritive exists about it that has been written. Simple, really.--90.213.175.101 (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a section on his vocal style. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Intergrated "finances" and "physical appearance" sections. — Realist2 (Speak) 20:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Article is now at 53,000 bytes for readable pros, perfectly acceptable considering the nature of the topic. — Realist2 (Speak) 02:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern was never the exact length. My concern is over how much of the material is actually necessary or pertinent to this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree some areas could be trimmed but removing chunks seems wholely inappropriate when quite a number of editors (some of whom have FA articles or are regulars on the FA circut) already feel the article is up to standard. The vast majority of them have voiced their delight at seeing an article on Mr. Jackson that is neutral, a good read, well written, "better than Brittanica" (two people have said that, one of whom was a long time critic of the article) and tells the whole story. I am interested to know what you think of the various improvements I made since yesterday at your suggeestion? Have the alterations further improved the article? — Realist2 (Speak) 03:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern was never the exact length. My concern is over how much of the material is actually necessary or pertinent to this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree completely. Detail levels are perfectly appropriate, and there's nothing about Jackson's voice because nothing authoritive exists about it that has been written. Simple, really.--90.213.175.101 (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but there's still work to be done. It's not FA-worthy quite yet, but it's closer. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not a fan of MJ but this is an article that every great encyclopedia must have. I was invited to review the article by the nominator, (see my talk page), and I reluctantly agreed. Reluctantly because, well because this is about Michael Jackson and I was expecting problems of neutrality and so forth. But I was pleasantly suprised; this is a great article, well-balanced, neutral, comprehensive and quite a good read. I noticed a couple of glitches:
The musician then released... — presumably this is Jackson?
- Not a problem. GrahamColmTalk 17:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jackson has been observed in public spending large amounts of money in an apparently frivolous manner, such as in 2003 when he spent six million in a single store, or from money given to charity. — There is no logical connection betweeen the two halves of the sentence; it needs to be split or otherwise fixed.
GrahamColmTalk 17:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
- "The son of Joseph "Joe" Walter and Katherine Esther (née Scruse),[2] he was the seventh of nine children. His siblings are Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, Marlon, Randy, Janet, La Toya and Rebbie" - why the sudden change in tenses?
- You mention the term "gigs" in the first section - some people (including me, sort of) might not know what that means, could you use either a clearer word or explain in-text?
- "An unusually candid ninety-minute interview with Oprah Winfrey occurred in late 1992, Jackson's first interview in
a number ofyears" - one of the most clear-cut cases of redundancy I've seen. - "Huey asserts that throughout his solo career, Jackson's versatility has allowed him to experiment with
a number ofthemes and genres." - as above. Not nearly as clear-cut, but still probably redundant. - "Jackson was charged with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent in order to commit that felony; all charges regarded the same boy, Gavin Arvizo, who was under fourteen at the time of the alleged crime." Also, this is the topic sentence of a second paragraph that seems to have nothing to do with the first paragraph in the section - the transition is a bit choppy. This happens a few times in the article; could you please rearrange the paragraphs or reword the sentences to make the article read better?
Good work overall. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Now, let me say right off the bat that my oppose is for technical purposes. I don't like to render an "Oppose" at an FAC unless the article is nowhere near FA status. However, given a number of supports that have been listed it's only prudent to note that the article still has deficiencies which need to be fixed. A lot of work is still needed. I've been helping out for two days and I'm really exhausted. Now here's my attempt to to list as many issues as possible that need to be addressed.
- The paragraph on Thriller should mention that it's one of the best-selling albums of all time. Also, the other sections mention the album singles, so it would be appropriate to at least mention the top hits.
- On a related note, no mention of "Say Say Say"?
- Done, connected it in with the stuff on the beatles catalog.
- The sentences "On May 14, 1984, Jackson was invited to the White House to receive an award presented by American President Ronald Reagan. The event, notable because an African-American met a Republican president at the White House in the 1980s (a time of racial tension), was seen as a positive move forward in social views towards race." is really blowing things out of proportion. Compared to previous decades, the 1980s weren't any more a time of racial tension", and it's doubtful that Jackson meeting Reagan had any sizable effect. Find a more objective source to describe the event.
- When did Jackson purchase Neverland Ranch?
- Done
- "Jackson renewed his contract for $65 million; a record breaking deal at the time." Date?
- Done
- The item about Jackson in a wheelchair at the 1993 Soul Train Awards seems out of place. Possibly remove it completely, as well as the following sentence about the awards he received there. Jackson has received many awards during hsi career; keep it to the most notable.
- Removed the awards sentance, keeping performance, it was a noteworthy event.
- The paragraph about Ryan White should be cut. Their friendship isn't necessarily important to mention in this article. The part about the "Gone Too Soon" dedication belongs in that single's article. The most relevant thing about the paragraph is Jackson pleading for more HIV/AIDS research funding. It could possibly be paired down to a sentence like "Inspired by his friendship with AIDS victim Ryan White, Jackson publicly pleaded with the Clinton Administration to give more money to HIV/AIDS charities and research at the Inaugural Gala in 1992", and inserted as part of another paragraph.
- Cut
- There's a lot of detail in the 1993 sexual abuse allegations section, much of which can be transferred to the sub-article. What especially worries me is the way many of the details are presented, which favors Jackson and really paints a bad portrait of Evan Chandler. My suggestion to Realist was to cut it down to the barest facts (Jackson was accused of molestation, the news became public, public opinion turned against Jackson, Jackson settled and he was never prosecuted) in oroder to maintain as neutral a POV as possible.
- There are no neutrality problems with it, I provided all the evidence from both sides of the story, if that makes Jackson look innocent, too bad. Since they searched both his homes, found nothing, since they closed the case citing lack of evidence and Jackson was never ever charged it's quite bloody hard to make him look guilty. I provided the stories and evidence of both parties in their full, it just so happens they couldn't nail anything on Jackson. I provide the full facts of both parties, I have tried to avoid inappropriate tone. Its all factually accurate, sorry. Also on the talk page I have been encourage to write more, expose the full strong, something you dont hear in the tabloids where they only tell the accusers side of it. If the truth in controversial too bad. — Realist2 (Speak) 12:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The detail on the courtship of Lisa Marie Presley is a bit much. Cut that down ([retty much, just say how they met, how they reconnected, and why they got married) but expand on where they were married and public reaction to the marriage (which was huge).
- "In 1995, Jackson merged the catalog with Sony's publishing division a decade later, retained half-ownership and earning $95 million in the deal as well as the rights to even more songs". I put 1995 as the year, but the sentence should be rewritten to better describe the event as it happened.
- It reads clearly to me, seems accurate. No need for rewording.
- "In 1995, Jackson merged the catalog with Sony's publishing division a decade later" Was the year 1995? Either way the "decade later" part needs to go. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing about the atmosphere in which Invincible was released. At the time, it was touted as Jackson's big comeback. Then it disappointed everyone (including me; man, was that a waste of money).
- The sentence "While most reviewers felt that the album was one of Jackson's least impressive, negative reviewers often discussed the singer's perceived eccentric image rather than the music" is too vague and gives the impression of dismissing the negative response to Invincible. Possibly quote some reviews instead.
- Wasn't there some controversy about the release of "What More Can I Give?" I remember it kept getting pushed back and atatched to different charities.
- Yes, sony pulled it's release because they didn't want it competing with the Invincible album. Then there was an issue about the director being involved with gay porn which caused a number of companies like McDonalds to pull out. Jackson eventually released it 2 years later. I don't think its important though, in the near future it will have completely vaded from public memory. — Realist2 (Speak) 12:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The paragraphs about Number Ones and Visionary are really short. Possibly combine these two into one paragraph at the beginning of the section.
- "Reports of financial problems for Jackson became more frequent in 2006 . . ." This seems to indicate there were financial troubles for Jackson beforehand, but I can't find any mention of them previous to this.
- done Took out the "more". Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 15:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The bit about Jackson returning to the US for James Brown's funeral is only necessary if it indicated a permanent return to the country. Right now it seems pretty vague: did he return just for the funeral, or did he return and stay afterwards?
- Cut down on the details for Thriller 25. It's a reissue anyways.
- The sentence "Fortress considered a foreclosure sale of Neverland Ranch to service the loan, but ultimately sold the debt to Colony Capital LLC in May of that year" just hangs there at the end and could possibly be cut.
- Ok, the musical style section. This will need some serious work. The main problem is the "Themes and genres" section spends an awful amount of space describing styles and meanings from specific tracks, often to the point of detailing entire albuum tracklistings. In contrast, the "Vocal style" section is more effective. Use the "Vocal style" section as the basis for the musical style section. Cut the "Themes and genres" section, and readd relevant details from that section to the vocal style section. The sentence "Unlike many artists, Jackson did not write his songs on paper. Instead he would dictate into a sound recorder; when recording he would sing from memory" is definitely worth keep; most everything else can go to the song articles. Instead of describing the sound and meanings of various songs, try to summarize typical styles and lryical themes Jackson uses often. Also, mention something about how Jackson arranges songs; there were some details about this on the Off the Wall reissue disc.
- There should probably be a section on Jackson's dancing. See Joy Division for reference, where there's a "live performances" section to describe an important element of the band.
- I wont be commenting on his dancing unless I'm allowed the assistance of a video clip, his dancing and the power it has over an audience are too hard to explain in pro's alone and wouldn't do him justice. — Realist2 (Speak) 12:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You won't be able to include a video of him dancing, but there needs to be more discussion about his dancing in order to be fully comprehensive, since it's a major part of his performance style. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wont be commenting on his dancing unless I'm allowed the assistance of a video clip, his dancing and the power it has over an audience are too hard to explain in pro's alone and wouldn't do him justice. — Realist2 (Speak) 12:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure there's plenty more to say about his dancing ability besides that. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The music videos section needs to be more concise. See The Smashing Pumpkins and Tool (band) for effective subsections about artists' impact with music videos. Just like with the musical style section, don't describe each and every video. Summarize and talk about recurrent approaches/themes, then get specific when you absolutely have to. I would also strongly insist the screenshot of "Scream" be replace with one from, say, "Billie Jean" or "Thriller". There's plenty of talk about the fact that they were important videos, but next to nothing about why they were important (In the case of "Thriller", it was a big expense\ive shot with lots of extras in complex makeup); a screenshot of either of these would be more helpful to someone who hasn't seen much of Jackson's videograpy.
- I won't be changing the scream shoot (although I would be ok with a shoot from "Black or White"). We have 3 pictures of Jackson in the 80's and only one from the 90's. If we do what you want that will make it 4 pictures from the eighties and there will be no pictures of his changed appearance in the 90's. NO MORE 80'S US NOLSTALGA. Like I said though, if you can help get a pic of the black or white video (that is a good pic), I will go with that. — Realist2 (Speak) 09:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the desire to try and cover as broad a scope image-wise, but frankly videos from Thriller are the most important. "Black or White" could possibly work, but it might be hard trying to screencap the most notable aspect of that video, the "morphing" bit. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's my offer, actually the end sequence is also very noteworth and I could write some great pro's on the sexual imagery, the dancing and the banning of the end segment on MTV. If not "scream" is staying but I am actually warming to the idea of black or white. — Realist2 (Speak) 09:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's more about the controversy about the end segment "Black or White" than Jackson's approach to making videos. Remember, the point of screencapping a video in this article is to illustrate to the general reader unfamiliar with the article's subject Jackson's impact through the music video medium. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes and it was also one of the artistic highlights of the video, it's up to you, I've compromised as far as i'm willing to go, the scream video was considered fine and has sufficient rational. If not I will just have to bit my lip and accept your oppose. — Realist2 (Speak) 09:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's a better image from "Scream" to post, go ahead. But the one that's currently there . . . it's just Michael and Janet, in black and white. It's not very enlightening to an unfamiliar reader. Compare that to say, Michael dancing with zombies or Michael touring in stop-motion inside a theme park version of himself or Michael transforming from a pile of sand in Ancient Egypt. Do you understand what I'm getting at? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well bookkeeper showed us a much better version of "scream" but you haven't commented on it (as far as I'm aware). Maybe "Remember the Time" would be better, his fashion sense and graphics are very inique in that. I suggest we arrange a consensus on my talk page unstead of here as this is taking up a lot of room. — Realist2 (Speak) 09:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's a better image from "Scream" to post, go ahead. But the one that's currently there . . . it's just Michael and Janet, in black and white. It's not very enlightening to an unfamiliar reader. Compare that to say, Michael dancing with zombies or Michael touring in stop-motion inside a theme park version of himself or Michael transforming from a pile of sand in Ancient Egypt. Do you understand what I'm getting at? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes and it was also one of the artistic highlights of the video, it's up to you, I've compromised as far as i'm willing to go, the scream video was considered fine and has sufficient rational. If not I will just have to bit my lip and accept your oppose. — Realist2 (Speak) 09:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's more about the controversy about the end segment "Black or White" than Jackson's approach to making videos. Remember, the point of screencapping a video in this article is to illustrate to the general reader unfamiliar with the article's subject Jackson's impact through the music video medium. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's my offer, actually the end sequence is also very noteworth and I could write some great pro's on the sexual imagery, the dancing and the banning of the end segment on MTV. If not "scream" is staying but I am actually warming to the idea of black or white. — Realist2 (Speak) 09:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the desire to try and cover as broad a scope image-wise, but frankly videos from Thriller are the most important. "Black or White" could possibly work, but it might be hard trying to screencap the most notable aspect of that video, the "morphing" bit. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's most of the pressing concerns. I would like more editors to take a look at the grammar. I'm also somewhat wary of some of the book sources. Ssome of these titles (The Magic and the Madness, Michael Jackson: The King of Pops Darkest Hour, Michael Jackson, the King of Pop: The Big Picture : the Music! the Man! the Legend! the Interviews!) are rather sensational, and I'm curious as to if these are the most credible bios about Jackson available. I'm busy with the article prose, so I would like someone else to check out the credibility of those sources. There's lots of work still to do here, but we might very well get this done. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The books have already been checked once, all books on Jackson have sensastional titles, even the very best book ever written on him The Magic and the Madness is a "sensasational" title. He's had an interssting life unlike the beatles. :-) — Realist2 (Speak) 08:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wanted to make sure because given he's one of the most famous celebrities of the 20th century, there are a lot of subpar bios created for sensational/monetary purposes floating around. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wesley, Have you actually looked into the sources in detail or are you going on a gut feeling? It seems you are judging these books by their titles, rather than the author and/or publisher's credibility for accuracy and knowledge on the subject. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I ask because I haven't had time to look at the sources myself since I've been heavily editing the article, which is pretty difficult on its own. If someone else can vouch for the books, great. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Guys don't argue, we have done the source checking already, lets get on with sorting this article before I give up.— Realist2 (Speak) 09:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ about the Beatles not being interesting (;-)), but the sources have already been checked, so it's a moot point. Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 15:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Guys don't argue, we have done the source checking already, lets get on with sorting this article before I give up.— Realist2 (Speak) 09:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I ask because I haven't had time to look at the sources myself since I've been heavily editing the article, which is pretty difficult on its own. If someone else can vouch for the books, great. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wesley, Have you actually looked into the sources in detail or are you going on a gut feeling? It seems you are judging these books by their titles, rather than the author and/or publisher's credibility for accuracy and knowledge on the subject. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it worth mentioning [25]; #35 on the Rolling Stone Immortals list? (Also, why don't the internet references have access dates?) —Giggy 09:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone removed them two days ago, I let it go without reverting, I assumed it was an FA thing, I can dig up the edit and revert it? — Realist2 (Speak) 09:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see many examples of the prose tightening needs mentioned by Wesley Dodds, example: "He was referred to Dr. Steven Hoefflin, who performed Jackson's second rhinoplasty as well as more throughout his career." More ... rhinoplasty? More ... surgery? Only throughout his career, or throughout his life, and what is the difference ? WP:MOSNUM attention still needed, as mentioned above (is it 25 or twenty-five? what is the boundary on spelling out numbers)? Eleven years or 11 years ? mid-1980s needs a hyphen. Little glitches like that are easy to find: User:Epbr123 might be willing to help with the MoS issues, but prose tightening is also needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thats it, I have had enough of this stupid number business, different people are giving different advise. Sandy, I trust you, what pattern should I follow for the numbers and I will do it now, but I need it down in words so I can say "Sandy said so", every other week someone has a different opinion on it and they get changed according to that preference. Someone give me a cystal clear system and I will implement it. I'm tired of changing the numbers every other day. — Realist2 (Speak) 01:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read your talk page, the article talk page, and this page, and I can't find the contradictory information; can you point me to what you were told by others? We just need a consistent boundary, that doesn't disagree with WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words. For example, you spell out many numbers, such as twenty-five, but then we find, " ... Although the group scored several top 40 hits, including the top five disco single "Dancing Machine" and the top 20 hit ... " where five is spelled out, but numerals are used for 20 and 40. It's not clear what your boundary is for spelling out vs. using numerals. Perhaps you've decided to spell out most numbers to avoid too many digits because of The Jackson 5? If so, you just need to be consistent in choosing a boundary for spelling out vs. using digits that is consistent with MOSNUM. Also, see WP:HYPHEN on -ly adverbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thats it, I have had enough of this stupid number business, different people are giving different advise. Sandy, I trust you, what pattern should I follow for the numbers and I will do it now, but I need it down in words so I can say "Sandy said so", every other week someone has a different opinion on it and they get changed according to that preference. Someone give me a cystal clear system and I will implement it. I'm tired of changing the numbers every other day. — Realist2 (Speak) 01:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see an image was added: can you make sure someone checks the licensing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure it was a different shot from the same music video, we swopped it as opposed to adding one. I will get Giggy or someone on it. I'm off to bed now. — Realist2 (Speak) 02:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MOS#Captions on punctuation on image captions. Also, the grammar in this caption needs attention (I'm not sure how to best fix it, but their status didn't display frustration) ... Michael Jackson and sister Janet Jackson display their anger and frustration suffered by their status as celebrities in the acclaimed music video for "Scream", primarily a retaliation against the media for misrepresenting them to the public SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Fair Use rationale on this image would be okay except that as far as I can tell, the information in the caption is not cited anywhere. Is there a citation that they intended the video/song as a retaliation against the media? Once that's cited, I think we're okay here. I believe the caption has been rewritten since Sandy's remark, as it reads well to me and is punctuated correctly. Just need that citation... --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is the picture isn't needed to get the point across that the video is a retaliation against the media, so it's fair-use rationale is shaky. Additionally, that's more appropriate for the "Scream" article than for this one. This is why I'm saying a different video screenshot should be used if any at all, because trying to illustrate this point about the "Scream" video is unnecessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd disagree with "shaky" because in addition to illustrating the retaliation, it's also a striking image from an iconic video. And, I'm really just saying that the Fair Use rationale is valid. Whether or not there's possibly better images, or better places to use this one, is more of a content decision than a matter of satisfying Fair Use guidelines. Does it satisfy WP:WIAFA#3? WP:NFCC? In my opinion, very clearly. That's not to say Wesley's points are incorrect, just that they're not something I consider critical to my (limited) review of Fair Use. May still be relevant toward having the best possible article, but I'm agnostic on that point. --JayHenry (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is the picture isn't needed to get the point across that the video is a retaliation against the media, so it's fair-use rationale is shaky. Additionally, that's more appropriate for the "Scream" article than for this one. This is why I'm saying a different video screenshot should be used if any at all, because trying to illustrate this point about the "Scream" video is unnecessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An article that deserves an FA rating, IMO.--andreasegde (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- A lot of work has gone into this article, but since it's about Jackson, it has to be better than good.
- Overall organization. It might assist to separate Jackson's musical career from his personal life in the article. Instead of a biography encompassing the two, try a non-musical career biography, then one about the career.
- The article reads like a publicity bio of Jackson. While I understand Realist2 is a big fan, and only the insanity that comes with being a fan will allow the kind of time and effort in getting an FA, it might also cloud judgment in the more human aspect of Jackson's development as a person and a musician.
- I don't think it's necessarily biased, but it's incomplete. And it's not as compelling as it should be. You have described Jackson's major accomplishments, of which there are many, without giving the reader insight into his development and creative process. Michael Jackson is one of the very few superstars that puts him on a plane that is very difficult to understand. His immense popularity has clearly affected his personality and how he deals with people and events. But he is still the son of a Gary, Indiana working class family. You have to take your reader from relating to the kid in Gary to the mask-wearing monster of a publicity machine. Walk us through it step by step. I see you've already expanded the abuse section in his early life. That's a good start. --Moni3 (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1958–1975: Early life and The Jackson 5:
- I know Jackson's siblings are famous, but the sentence naming them all is odd, kind of halting the flow of words.
- You're building a framework here to address Jackson's eccentric behavior and motives for his alleged molestation. You need to be very specific about the kinds of abuse Jackson endured. Everything must be cited well.
- 1976–1981: Move to Epic and Off the Wall
- Open the paragraph about The Wiz (which is one of the scariest movies I have ever seen, btw, but not because of Jackson) with a topic sentence about Jackson getting into acting. This was based on the Jackson 5's multiple TV appearances on variety shows, yes? Can you tie that in?
- Yes, he definately wanted to break into movies, not so much acting, he got a grip of that just from his general music videos. But, yes, he did want to take it one step further but that wasn't until the mid 80's. Jackson actually hated all those variety shows, he was gutted when it was successful enough to go into the second year. However the point of the Wiz wasn't so much about getting into movies (like I said that was the mid-1980's), it was more about Jackson leaving the family setting, travelling and getting his first taste of independancy. I can certainly add those details if you like. — Realist2 (Speak) 15:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1982–1985: Thriller
- I think you really, really need to supply the article with a very powerful paragraph about how big Thriller was. Thriller, by the way, was monumental, and anyone who was listening to music at the time—I don't care if it was Merle Haggard or Yo Yo Ma—stared at the radio and thought, "Wtf is this??" Provide quotes and statistics from the music industry. Have you researched Rolling Stone for their literature on Jackson's early solo career? His videos for "Billie Jean", "Thriller", and "Beat It" on MTV stopped action because they were so unlike anything ever seen, and they probably kept the fledgling station alive. It's my opinion that if Jackson had done nothing after Thriller, that alone would have earned him his second induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
- I felt the level of detail about Thriller was already sufficient, getting the main points across. some of the detail needs to be trimmed, or else this article is not using summary style effectively. Remember, there's always the article for the album itself. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wes, I'm going to ask you to step away from the article, you are over complicating my job. You have overhauled the article to meet your personal taste way more than awayone else. If you have further problems to with the article then add it to your list of opposing reasons. You have a vested interest in this article and it's unhealth for the process at this point. If you oppose the article that is your perogative. — Realist2 (Speak) 01:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I felt the level of detail about Thriller was already sufficient, getting the main points across. some of the detail needs to be trimmed, or else this article is not using summary style effectively. Remember, there's always the article for the album itself. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the Michael Jackson Burn Center?
- Oh, I don't agree that Jackson paved the way for Prince. If that guy thinks so, then put his name in it as in, "Richard Harrington from The Washington Post says..." then I can write to him and tell him he's wrong.
- I forgot to comment on this. The comment about getting black music back on the radio is inaccurate; there have always been "black music" formats on American radio. If anything Jackson allowed it to "cross over" (as they like to say in the music industry) to "white" radio. I'd be in favor of just excising the Washington Post comment. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What award did Jackson receive from Reagan?
- I don't now the name of the award and I have previously done research on it. However I did add what the award was for. In all honesty though, it was really just an opportunity of the Reagans to meet Jackson. I'm personally of the opinion that Jackson should have run for President around 1985. No-one really knows if he is a democrat or a republican though. Hmm.— Realist2 (Speak) 16:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you also need to discuss Jackson's publicity stunt-like behavior here. I don't know if it was a reaction to the very strong fanatical following he earned, or if he cooked that up, but his oddball style started to come out at this point: the one white glove, the quasi-military costumes, and the legions of screaming fans. In later videos and concert footage, it's not clear if his publicity machine supplied these screaming folks, or if they came out and screamed of their own volition, but the immense popularity that Thriller earned him set him so far apart from anyone else that it increased his loneliness. Hence, Bubbles, Liz Taylor, and the rumor machine starteth.
- Added more info about the oxygen chamber, elephant mans bones and bubbles. I'm not getting into clothes or his choice of friends. Considering the number of mental problems that he has been sourced as having it is impossible to prove that he is acting that way for attention. A number of people who know what they are talking about say he has no understanding of how he is perceived and has the mental state of a ten year old. Considering that, I think it goes against the concept of basic human dignity to imply he his behaving in a deliberate manner without strong proof. I disagree with complying with the tabloid sentiment that he is an attention whore. There is strong evidence that suggests he has little control over this behavior. I also feel some of this stuff would cross into original research or be totally subjective or suggestive. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it also contradicts the truth, Jackson it not an egotist, he is the complete opposite. He is shy, reclusive, hates his own appearance and it quite evidently depressed. He lacks self esteem not has too much. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, regarding the glove, sunglasses and the mask, having done some research on the disease vitiligo and after viewing statements made by Jacksons makeup artist, it is very possible he was using these to cover up vitiligo. Around the mouth and eyes vitiligo is very hard to cover, purple patches can appear. We know looking at Jacksons finger tips that covering the vitiligo is almost impossible. Of course you won't hear this in the tabloids, who blindly continue to refute photographic evidence, legal evidence & medical evidence. — Realist2 (Speak) 17:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jackson royally pissed off McCartney by outbidding him. You need to expand that. That's serious stuff, and probably keeping Jackson afloat financially today.
- 1986–1990: Bad, autobiography and films
- Moonwalk is mentioned, but not cited. Why? Specifically in terms of abuse Jackson endured.
More to come... --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not necessarily the place to bring it up, but will someone please ask Realist to not revert me when the "Under construction" tag is on the article? It's very discourteous and frustrating, especially since I edit this article primarily in large blocks of time. I've asked Realist a few times to refrain from reverting while the tag is on the page but he continues to do so. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are disregarding the requests I resolved of other editors. You are being controlling and over powering, you have said your piece. If you continue I will withdraw this nomination. — Realist2 (Speak) 01:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I simply ask that you assume good faith and don't revert when an under construction tag is on the article. You can revert afterwards. Reverting while I'm editing really throws things out of wack. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No Wesley, I have worked bloody hard on this article today for Moni3 and I specifically asked that editor to review my additions. Instead you revert them because you don't like them. BACK OFF. If you have more problems with the article add it to your already accessive wine fest above. You are over stepping the mark, making my job harder and more confusing. Unfortunately this has all made me ill from lack of sleep. Stop now. — Realist2 (Speak) 02:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I simply ask that you assume good faith and don't revert when an under construction tag is on the article. You can revert afterwards. Reverting while I'm editing really throws things out of wack. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are disregarding the requests I resolved of other editors. You are being controlling and over powering, you have said your piece. If you continue I will withdraw this nomination. — Realist2 (Speak) 01:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I remember the previous FAC. I don't see any major image or formatting problems. Only one image tends to overlap a heading, and thats in a section that will slowly expand and resolve (the 2008 section). The article appears to be long and comprehensive. Plus, the primary editor has proven themselves as willing to fix any minor problems and is devoted to making the page as good as it possibly can be, which shows after multiple FAC and Peer Review edits. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen enough to have a guess, and your situation normally leads an editor to stop trying. That shows a lot of commitment. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support to make all of his life and career comprehensive, it's simply 106kb long, but manages to be well-referenced and written. igordebraga ≠ 19:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I worked extensively on this article a while ago, and although it had some serious problems back then, most of these have been resolved now by Realist, who has been a tireless contributor to all things Michael Jackson on Wikipedia.UberCryxic (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Comprehensive and well-written. Even better now than it was when this FAC started!:) Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Space Pilot 3000
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:13, 22 July 2008 [26].
Pulmonary contusion
Pulmonary contusion is the most common potentially lethal chest injury. This article's had a peer review as well as several reviews on the talk page. In addition, three chest trauma experts have read it and said it's good or made minor suggestions that I've addressed. I believe it meets the FA criteria, but please let me know how it can be improved! delldot talk 17:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I first became involved with this article when delldot submitted it for "Good Article" nomination. Delldot has brought it to an exceptionally high standard, on a par with other medical featured articles. The content is accurate and the references are of good quality. I am happy to assist delldot with any further comments or suggestions. Axl (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - This is a good start, but this is overlinked. Here's some words which are linked, but should not be: "bruising", "shotgun", "World War I" and "World War II", "consolidate", "sensitive" and quite a few others. Please keep links minimal and relevant. Words like bruising and shotgun should not be linked because we know what they mean, and World War I and II we know about, and it doesn't have direct relation to Pulmonary contusion. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair points, thanks. Although in this context, "sensitive" refers to the statistical meaning. Axl (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks for pointing this out. I've removed the ones you mentioned and others I found when looking over the article (e.g. "ribcage"). I left the link to Consolidation (medicine), because I don't think it's a familiar concept to lay readers. delldot talk 19:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
}}
- Support - Very well written and fully referenced, meets the criteria nicely. These are both hard to do when the subject is as technical and difficult as this one. Well done! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is a little point. The use of a dash just after a footnote is regarded unfavorably. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You had it right initially, Delldot, and this change resulted in incorrect punctuation, so I restored your original, correct punctuation. See WP:FN#Ref tags and punctuation: "Footnotes at the end of a sentence or phrase are normally placed immediately after the punctuation, except for dashes, as recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style and other style guides." This application is common. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just going by what Tony1 said on a recent article that it was clumsy. I guess editors differ. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, in that article it was clumsy because there was a lot going on in the sentence; in this case, it's fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it's no big deal either way, but would this make everyone happy? "The severity can range from mild to deadly: small contusions may have little or no impact on the patient's outcome,[3] yet pulmonary contusion is the most common type of potentially lethal chest trauma.[4]" delldot talk 21:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That works, too. The problem before was that the change left the clause opening with a dash but closing with a comma, which isn't correct. There's nothing wrong with the way it is now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it's no big deal either way, but would this make everyone happy? "The severity can range from mild to deadly: small contusions may have little or no impact on the patient's outcome,[3] yet pulmonary contusion is the most common type of potentially lethal chest trauma.[4]" delldot talk 21:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, in that article it was clumsy because there was a lot going on in the sentence; in this case, it's fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just going by what Tony1 said on a recent article that it was clumsy. I guess editors differ. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments (ec) Regarding MoS compliance:
- Per above, be sure not to overlink. Some words not mentioned yet include explosions, seat belts, and airbags is linked twice.
- In the "X-ray" section, images shouldn't be left-aligned under section headers.
- It takes an average of six hours for the characteristic white regions to show up on a chest X-ray, and the contusion may not become apparent for 48 hours.[29][43][14] Keep the block of references in numerical order from lowest to highest.
- Chest injuries may also contribute to hypoventilation (inadequate breathing) because the chest wall movement involved in breathing adequately is painful.[59][58] Ditto.
- The severity can range from mild to deadly—small contusions may have little or no impact on the patient's outcome[3]—yet pulmonary contusion is the most common type of potentially lethal chest trauma. Try not to use dashes following a reference.
- Otherwise looks good at a glance. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "These two signs, as well as wheezing, may be present for 24 hours." Do you mean just for 24 hours? Somehow, this doesn't quite make sense to me. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, why couldn't the symptoms be present after 24 hours? The source (PMID 15732422) says "Auscultation of breath sounds may reveal decreased breath sounds, rales, and wheezing over the next 24 hours", but the 24 hours thing isn't that vital so I'll take it out. delldot talk 21:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment what is a "frank tear" (in the intro)? Please link to an appropriate wiktionary or wikipedia article for non-experts. Mangostar (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Difficult content very clearly explained to the best attainable level. Tightly supported with references. Only one question: do we still want to mention Swan-Ganz catheters (refs 13 & 55) now that there is strong evidence from various studies that these do more harm than good (see PMID 1450833)? JFW | T@lk 21:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind taking this out if you think we should. Are you sure you linked the right article? I can't get it, but I don't see anything in the abstract about catheters. The review (ref 13) is from '07, so it's doubtful that more recent info has come up to change the practice (e.g. this is from '03). Anyway, I'm happy to take those sentences out if you think it's best. delldot talk 22:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- JFW, your pubmed reference: "One-view versus two-view mammography in baseline screening for breast cancer: a review". Perhaps you entered the wrong number? Of course JFW is right to remind us of the pulmonary artery catheter controversy, particularly with the arrival of LiDCO. Part of the problem was that PA catheters were being inserted into everyone arriving in ITU, whether they needed it or not. Most intensivists would still regard PA catheters as useful in very selected cases. For this article, I think that it is acceptable to include those two sentences that mention the PA catheter for patients who "require large amounts of fluid". Axl (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I agree with the above evaluation. I have been fascinated by the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is a small complaint. You have intubation linked three times in the article, under slightly different wording. I personally don't mind, but if there is a concern with overlinking you may want to look at that. Also, I'm curious if viral pneumonia is a concern in hospitals. Another question, I notice that you mention pain under treatment. Is pain ever used as a sign or symptom in the beginning? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for catching the overlinking, I gotta watch out for that! I've never seen anything about viral pneumonia in any of the sources I've read, it's all been about how contusion creates an environment that's favorable for bacterial growth. Pain would be due to associated chest wall injuries rather than contusion itself (at least I've never seen anything saying the contusion itself is painful). I've clarified this under Signs and symptoms. delldot talk 22:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "I'm curious if viral pneumonia is a concern in hospitals." I presume that this is in the context of pulmonary contusion? The short answer is: no. The majority of cases of viral pneumonia are self-limiting. Many cases are due to influenza, RSV and adenovirus. Immunosuppressed patients are at risk of life-threatening viral pneumonia including HSV, CMV and chickenpox. However this is not relevant to "Pulmonary contusion". Axl (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Needs more copyediting. In an encyclopedia article, substitution of terms for the sake of variety probably should be avoided. It causes confusion and, if the terms cannot be expected to be familiar to the reader, requires overlinking. Eg: contusion, bruise, injury, lesion, etc. If you mean exactly the same thing, it is okay (even preferable) to use exactly the same word. --Una Smith (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, good point, thanks. I've replaced all instances of 'lung contusion' and 'lesion' in the body with 'pulmonary contusion'. Where 'the injury' was used to mean 'pulmonary contusion', I've replaced it; I left 'injury' where it referred to the causative event or more general conditions (e.g. 'lung injury', 'chest injury'). So hopefully it's more precise now. delldot talk 15:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments regarding images:
- Image:AARDS X-ray cropped.jpg based on Image:ARDS X-Ray.jpg states "Chest X-ray of a patient with ARDS. Signed release into public domain, and licensed under GFDL as such". I'm going to ping Stevenfruitsmaak since he wrote the patient images essay to see what he thinks. Since there is nothing identifiable about the patient I would think there isn't an issue, but I'm not certain so I want to see if he has any feelings.
- As far as I know, there is no clear consensus on the copyright status or the medical ethics of these images. Personally, I think Samir can be trusted with this statement (although I'm a bit confused by his PD - GFDL statement). As you say, identifiability is of primary concern. Currently, I don't see any reasons why this image would prevent FA status. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Giambattista morgagni.gif, is missing an info tag could you please add a Commons:Template:Painting to specify as much information as possible, but especially source and date. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't able to find the author or date for the image, so I replaced it with Image:Morgagni portrait.jpg. I still don't know the artist's name, but it was published in Morgagni's 1761 book. As I understand it, the author info isn't essential as long as it's known to be in the public domain because of its age, am I wrong? delldot talk 15:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think it's ok as long as you know that it was published in a 1761 book and that it was retrieved from the linked Italian site is enough to safely assert that the image is in the public domain and from a verifiable source. In general though I think that is everything as far as images goes that covers it. Nice work on the fluid-filled alveoulus by the way, and thanks to Stephen. That does it for me Support -Optigan13 (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — This is a little biased as I have done a little work on the article too but I think it's an excellent piece of work from all editors involved! —CycloneNimrodTalk? 21:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look good. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see any interwiki links, is that normal? Randomblue (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's too obscure of a topic to have an article in any other languages, unfortunately. For example, it doesn't exist on es. Until April, it didn't have one here either. Of course, I'm not sure how I'd verify that for every language, but I think it's a safe bet that this is the only article on pulmonary contusion in any of the Wikipedias. delldot talk 15:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That said, i'm sure the offer is there for anyone who is willing to translate the article for other projects ;) —CycloneNimrodTalk? 23:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In one paragraph you have "compliance" wikilinked twice. Once it goes to Pulmonary compliance and the other to Compliance (physiology). Each article is tagged to be merged with the other. Perhaps it would be better to choose one wikilink and do away with the other. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes sense, I'll go for pulmonary compliance in case it gets expanded, it should cover the more general compliance concept in that article whether or not they get merged. delldot talk 16:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, you discuss "consolidation" in two places: under the heading Consolidation and collapse and then you expand further on the explanation under X-ray. I suggest putting the complete explanation in one place for the sake of lay readers like me. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Still having trouble with terminology, especially the distinctions under Classification. I notice that collapsed lung, if it were wikilinked, would link to pneumothorax. However, you have "A collapsed lung can result when the pleural cavity (the space outside the lung) accumulates blood (hemothorax) or air (pneumothorax) or both (hemopneumothorax)." I am confused whether "an injury to the lung tissue" is the same as a "lung injury" and therefore a "collapsed lung" would qualify. However, you say "Pulmonary laceration" is not the same. That must be because there is no "injury to the lung tissue"? I am not clear, still, on how pulmonary contusion differs from these other conditions. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly right about pneumothorax etc. Reorganized the section, is it clearer now? I emphasized that pneumothorax etc are not lung injuries per se (I believe they're classed as pleural injuries). Let me know if it needs further work. delldot talk 19:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just one more question. You say, "An indication of more severe damage to the lung than contusion, a hematoma also takes longer to clear." This seems to minimize a contusion, but in the intro above that you have said, "yet pulmonary contusion is the most common type of potentially lethal chest trauma." Am I confused? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't think it's a contradiction. Pulmonary contusion is more common than laceration (which can cause hematoma), but less severe. They're both potentially lethal, though. I was actually thinking of moving the sentence you quoted to pulmonary hematoma though, what do you think? delldot talk 21:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any particular reason why sometimes you use "pulmonary contusion" and sometime you use "bruising"? From my point of view as a lay person, you can't use "pulmonary contusion" too much as then I know exactly what you mean! I am assuming that "pulmonary contusion" and "contusion" are the same thing in this context. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, thanks for catching that, I meant to replace all of these when Una Smith brought it up above, guess I missed a few. I've replaced the instances of 'bruising' now. Is it OK that I've left 'contusion' instead of 'pulmonary contusion' in cases where it's clear from context that we're talking about lung tissue? It's just that so many instances of 'pulmonary contusion' is wicked repetitive. delldot talk 22:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:35, 23 July 2008 [27].
Flood (Halo)
- Nominator: --David Fuchs
- FAC 1, FAC 2 (18:32, 1 January 2008)
Article has failed last two FACs because of lack of responses, concerns about meeting WP:WAF, and own nominator ignorance. However, it has gone through peer review, been copyedited twice by me (although I admit I might have missed some minor things), and I added in three paragraphs of out-of-universe information, so I believe all the bases are covered. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Ah, the Flood - I hated them when playing Halo 1! Couple of minor things, mostly good though:
- Concerns of comprehensiveness issues relating to criteria 1b in the first and second FAC nominations have been resolved from what I can see.
- The article mentions cultural impact and development. This is referenced to reliable third party sources including most importantly several published books, MTV and GameSpot.
My only concern with the references is http://www.cmdstore.com as a source, as it is a commercial website.When citing the same book more than once, there is no need to repeat the book title, publisher, ISBN and first author name. Instead, use this format: "Nylund (2003). p. 199."- It also looks like the prose has been improved since the last FAC, but there might be minor stylistic things I have missed.
It would be nice if you could add 'p.' and 'pp.' appropriately before page numbers in the footnotes, to avoid any confusion.- It would also be nice if you could add a little bit more detail to some points.
The merchandise, did it sell well?Also, when was each action figure released onto the market? Minor prose issue: "rather than something the player happens upon and shoots." - happens upon?— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I'm on it. I'm not sure if I can replace all the Cmdstore refs, but I can at least do one or two. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - So far there's a good flow, although
- The second paragraph of the section Appearances, subsection Halo: Combat Evolved is a bit confusing. I only understood it as I have played Halo.
- You should put a quick mention of the Flood in the Halo 2 subsection when it infected the heretic faculty. And of a mention of the Flood in the novel Halo: Ghosts of Onyx.
- In the Halo 3 part, put a couple of examples of the new Flood forms.
Otherwise, I don't see anything to really add to the article. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From your first point, I assume you mean where the Flood cycle is explained. I've condensed it and reworded; is it better now? I've also added a passing mention to their appearance on the faculty, their confinement as of Ghosts of Onyx and a bit about the pure form. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it seems to be better now. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Prose seems to comply with MoS at first glance. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It would seem that this article's peer review is still open. Per the instructions, "An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time." María (habla conmigo) 20:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Augh! I removed the peer review tag and removed the links to the page, how am I supposed to close it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I closed the PR for you. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Instructions are at Wikipedia:Peer review, where it says "How to remove a request". — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Augh! I removed the peer review tag and removed the links to the page, how am I supposed to close it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still some issues at the peer review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Flood (Halo)/archive1) that haven't been resolved/responded to; eg. the Gamecritics.com question. —Giggy 12:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gamecritics.com is an independent reviews site operating since 1999; in an email requesting info about their writing policies, site owner Chi Kong Lui wrote that: "...For our reviews and feature articles, [we do fact-check]. We expected our writers to fact-check and content is reviewed by two [other] editors before publication. [...] absolutely, we would post corrections and retractions if errors are found." I consulted User:Ealdgyth about the sources, and the rationales were good enough for him at least :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Some other unresolved issues from the PR; 4th bullet point (long and confusing sentence), 2nd last bullet point; http://www.teamfremont.com/reviews/Halo2.shtml. —Giggy 23:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded; as for the review; per contact with the site team (their about us page doesn't seem to work) they've been around since 2001, and do fact checking on their features (though this is not a feature, it's a review, and it thus meets WP:SPS as verified, non-contentious material: it's their opinion, and is clearly denoted as such in the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Some other unresolved issues from the PR; 4th bullet point (long and confusing sentence), 2nd last bullet point; http://www.teamfremont.com/reviews/Halo2.shtml. —Giggy 23:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gamecritics.com is an independent reviews site operating since 1999; in an email requesting info about their writing policies, site owner Chi Kong Lui wrote that: "...For our reviews and feature articles, [we do fact-check]. We expected our writers to fact-check and content is reviewed by two [other] editors before publication. [...] absolutely, we would post corrections and retractions if errors are found." I consulted User:Ealdgyth about the sources, and the rationales were good enough for him at least :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I did look over the sources at the peer review, and they looked fine. (I'm a she, btw, David!). Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sentences at the end of Flood (Halo)#Halo 2 and Ghosts of Onyx and Flood (Halo)#Halo 3 do not appear to be cited though. However, the article imo easily passes the FA criteria regardless. Thingg⊕⊗ 16:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added the citations for the two pieces in question. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, great work! --Laser brain (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments, leaning toward support. I corrected a few problems as I was reading, but it is basically ready. A couple questions:[reply]- "... the ancient Forerunner are forced to kill themselves" Here you use Forerunner as a collective noun but in the linked article, there are two versions ("The Forerunner are" and "The Forerunners are") Which is correct?
- "The 2006 one-shot comic ..." Unsure what this means. --Laser brain (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's mentioned both ways, so i just changed it to plural to standardize and ill do that to the other article as well. I removed 'one-shot' as it didn't really add to the comprehension anyhow (one-shot meaning it was a single issue, not a series.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:22, 3 August 2008 [28].
Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)
- Nominator(s): Blackngold29, Gary King (talk), Rezter
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. Gary King (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that release history table at the bottom needed? Its completely unreferenced, and of no conceivable interest to the lay reader. Wikipedia isn't a repository of release dates and catalogue information, you know. indopug (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is there because of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Release history. If it shouldn't be there, then someone should probably tell WP:ALBUMS to remove it. Blackngold29 04:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments regarding MoS:
- Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) is the third studio album by American metal band Slipknot. It was released on May 25, 2004 by Roadrunner Records, and a Special Edition version of the album containing a bonus disc was released on April 12, 2005. Why is "Special Edition" capitalized?
- Done
- Add non-breaking spaces throughout.
- After the album was complete, the band expressed that these side projects "saved the band" and "helped [them] break out of the box [they] were in". The period goes outside of the quotation when only a segment of the sentence is a quote. I see this quite a bit in the article, so instead of me listing every one, just make sure to read up on WP:PUNC.
- I think I got most of them. Let me know if there's anymore. Blackngold29 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still see at least two, but it's getting better. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I undid them. Logical quotations are flexible with regard to the ones in this article. Particularly, in WP:PUNC, it says "When quoting a sentence fragment which ends in a period, some judgement is required: if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside. The period should be omitted if the quotation is in the middle of a sentence." A lot of the quotes in this article are in interviews and are sometimes smack dab in the middle of sentences, so unless the quote is an entire sentence, like: John said "our band wanted to do this." Then if you take "Our band wanted to do this" it is a full sentence, so the period is appropriate there. Otherwise, it's pretty flexible and so I would prefer the way we have it now. Meaning only include the punctuation for full sentences. Gary King (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still see at least two, but it's getting better. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I got most of them. Let me know if there's anymore. Blackngold29 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, it seems to comply with the MoS. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
What makes www.everyhit.com a reliable source?- A lot of FLs use it, so I'm pretty sure it's uncontested (Slayer discography, Slipknot discography) REZTER TALK ø 16:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please list the language that non-English websites are in in the references.
- Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the reliablity of the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of FLs use the same sources as we have (we also used them on Slipknot's discography) see Sepultura discography, Metallica discography, Nine Inch Nails discography. REZTER TALK ø 16:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a lot of FL's use them, doesn't mean that the source itself is reliable. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I can't determine how reliable they are, but my point is that if there is so much featured content using the same sources they must have been challenged before and found reliable. If the case is that this article isn't considered FA quality based upon these sources then all articles sourcing these sites should be challenged too. REZTER TALK ø 00:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to everyhit.com's FAQ page To anyone who submits info: "Please quote your source as we're keen only to print factually accurate information and may need to check it." Seems reliable to me. Blackngold29 03:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but they don't give their sources on the pages themselves. And I'm not seeing that anyone else uses them as reliable, such as Rolling Stone or one of the UK magazines. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following FAs all use the site: Californication, Dookie, Blood Sugar Sex Magik, Year Zero, and that with hardly looking. If there is even another site that offers the same info, I cannot find it. I would find it difficult to believe if the topic of UK album sales has never come into play before...and from what I can see everyhit is the only consistant source used. Blackngold29 16:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but they don't give their sources on the pages themselves. And I'm not seeing that anyone else uses them as reliable, such as Rolling Stone or one of the UK magazines. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to everyhit.com's FAQ page To anyone who submits info: "Please quote your source as we're keen only to print factually accurate information and may need to check it." Seems reliable to me. Blackngold29 03:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I can't determine how reliable they are, but my point is that if there is so much featured content using the same sources they must have been challenged before and found reliable. If the case is that this article isn't considered FA quality based upon these sources then all articles sourcing these sites should be challenged too. REZTER TALK ø 00:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a lot of FL's use them, doesn't mean that the source itself is reliable. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of FLs use the same sources as we have (we also used them on Slipknot's discography) see Sepultura discography, Metallica discography, Nine Inch Nails discography. REZTER TALK ø 16:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the reliability of the source http://www.everyhit.com , whether it is used in other articles is not relevant here, and please see this:
It all began with Janet Jackson. No; not that one! My mum! She had a wind-up gramophone and a wad of 78 singles; 12 inch discs, the 'modern' ones made of thick pure vinyl, the older ones manufactured from brittle shellac. Quite why I was drawn to these as a very young child is unclear. But the combination of the technology, the fusty smell and silky texture of the vinyl and, above all, the magical way in which the music was made was an irresistible draw.
- My parents were (and still are) great music lovers. Having been teenagers through the rock 'n' roll era, they had amassed vast record collections. These were carefully stored and catalogued. They were keen that I - and my brothers - developed an appreciation for music and soon we were off to buy our favourites with every last bit of pocket money. Our complimentary tastes worked well and the record collection swelled. We realised that, with our combined tastes and pooled resources, we were building the definitive (post) rock 'n' roll record collection; every track ever to have hit the Top 40.
- As a student, I took a job in a record shop. I never saw money in my wage packet. The management cut out the middle man and paid me in vinyl! The staff discount came in handy for family and friends too. The collection swelled. Now, in the 80s, I was purchasing every track to hit the Top 40.
- This habit has continued through to this day. Happily, I find myself in the lucky position of getting each new release through the promotions mechanism of the great British record industry.
- I have no opposition to just removing the three charts cited to the source, that would be easier (until a better one can be found of course). But I still find it difficult to believe that there is no site comprable to Billboard in the UK. Especially with the large number of albums that are included throughout WP that list UK charts; thusly we are essentially saying that there is no UK singles chart. Blackngold29 22:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not exactly sure how much of a difference this makes but on the Discographies project page they list all the sources you have provided as "reliable". See Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#Useful_resources:. REZTER TALK ø 09:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for a discussion of why various wikiprojects useful sources lists don't always translate into reliable sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not exactly sure how much of a difference this makes but on the Discographies project page they list all the sources you have provided as "reliable". See Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#Useful_resources:. REZTER TALK ø 09:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
- "It is the first and only album" - if it's the only of course it's the first
- "Nevertheless, they eventually managed to write more than enough material for the new album, releasing five singles" - the two parts of this sentence are pretty unrelated
- Pleased don't use the metacritic score in the lead; instead summarise reviewer opinions
- Is "exercised other musical projects" correct phrasing? Don't think excercised is a good word here.
- "The musical style of Slipknot is often difficult to pinpoint because of the genres their music covers; however, Vol. 3 is regarded as their most diverse album." – why however; the statements agree?
- Why is the audio sample in the reception section?
- Sometimes it’s referred to as Vol. 3, sometimes as the full name. Be consistent.
- Some of the reviewers in the reception section are wlinked, some aren’t. Be consistent (I don’t think any are linked earlier in the article)
—Giggy 02:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeper 1c, as certain statements aren't "factually accurate", but are opinions. More specifically;
- "The musical style of Slipknot is often difficult to pinpoint because of the genres their music covers, and Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) is regarded as their most diverse album." - According to whom?
- Removed
- "The lyrics of Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) include strong use of metaphors and touches upon themes including anger, disaffection, and psychosis.[16]" - According to whom?
- "However, songs such as "Pulse of the Maggots" and "Before I Forget" use the band's usual "pounding metal" style.[15]" - According to whom is this "usual"?
- "Other tracks such as "Blister Exists", "Three Nil", and "Opium of the People" combine the two extremes of their recognizable metal edge with melody, with the most apparent shifts being in Taylor's vocal style.[16]" - According to whom?
- Me, ;) Removed
- "Despite the initial problems, the writing process eventually became extremely productive." - According to whom was the writing process "extremely" productive? What can be regarded as "extremely" productive? The composition of 10 songs? A 100 songs? The use of the word "extremely" isn't warranted.
- Reworded
LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to state that I don't feel my objection has been fully addressed, and deem it valid still. At the end of the day, comments as regards lyrics are opinions, and not factual. Therefore, they need to be accredited. I am vehemently against quotes being misused, and am frankly fed up of seeing them in FACs. Take this from the lead as an example; ".. some critics also added that the album was "a triumph"". That's absolute rubbish, as any minor investigating can tell. Only Q uses the words "a triumph", and as far as I am aware, one magazine does not constitute "some critics". LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have accredited the reviews in the intro, as well as the lyrical themes to Allmusic. Blackngold29 20:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My concerns still remain unaddressed: "However, songs such as "Pulse of the Maggots" and "Before I Forget" use a more "pounding metal" style.[17] Other tracks such as "Blister Exists", "Three Nil", and "Opium of the People" combine the two extremes of their recognizable metal edge with melody, with the most apparent shifts being in Taylor's vocal style.[2]" These are opinions, and not facts, so need to be attributed to the journalist's opinion. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, leaning to Oppose
Some complete dates dont have links (WP:DATES).- Some quotations are not using the logical quotation style (WP:PUNC).
- I have unlinked all dates. That punctuation used in that quote is correct because it stands as a full sentence on its own, so the period belongs in the quote. Gary King (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The precedent "that" means that the quotation is quoted not in full. Also, what is the rationale behind unlinking full dates? --Efe (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm certainly no expert on punctuation marks but that's how I interpret "When quoting a sentence fragment which ends in a period, some judgement is required: if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside. The period should be omitted if the quotation is in the middle of a sentence." Full dates are unlinked in this article because they are optional. Gary King (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The precedent "that" means that the quotation is quoted not in full. Also, what is the rationale behind unlinking full dates? --Efe (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have unlinked all dates. That punctuation used in that quote is correct because it stands as a full sentence on its own, so the period belongs in the quote. Gary King (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are parts in the first section called "Recording and Production" that are obviously off-topic. "To promote the album, the band toured on Ozzfest and the Jägermeister Music Tour, and made an appearance at the Download Festival. The album's record label, Roadrunner Records, posted an MP3 of "Pulse of the Maggots" in its entirety (excluding the fadeout transition from "Vermilion") on the now defunct SK Radio website for free download for only one day on March 30, 2004. Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) was finally released on May 25, 2004,[14] and a special edition version of the album containing a bonus disc was released on April 12, 2005." --Efe (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it that there is a chart for the singles? This is about the album and not its singles. --Efe (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just following the precedent set by other FAs. The vast majority that I see also include singles. Blackngold29 17:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Efe, your own statement should answer your question. "Its singles", meaning "the singles of the album". The it in your statement is the album. Why would the singles of an album be mentioned in an article about the album? It's like asking why the states of a country would be mentioned in the country. --JayHenry (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your so hot. --Efe (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Commercial performaces (chart performances) of the album's singles is crucially one of the important factors to achieving comprehensiveness but making a chart for the singles is a no-no. This is the article of an album and not of the single(s). YOu can mention them in the prose but never a table. --Efe (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your so hot. --Efe (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just following the precedent set by other FAs. The vast majority that I see also include singles. Blackngold29 17:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The section Artwork only explains the main cover and not the alternate cover. Therefore, the latter fails to comply WP:NFCC#8. --Efe (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not exactly sure how much we could add for a simple picture of the band, let alone any sources. Would simply stating that it is a picture of the band be enough? Blackngold29 04:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily. Even main covers of albums and songs are deemed NFCC non-compliant. How much more if its just an alternate cover. Also, this is not about the band. The image must increase reader's understanding why the cover is presented like that (especially that its an alternate cover). --Efe (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not exactly sure how much we could add for a simple picture of the band, let alone any sources. Would simply stating that it is a picture of the band be enough? Blackngold29 04:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The audio sample Image:Slipknot - Vermilion.ogg's fair use is just a copy and paste. The inclusion of this sample is not well-explained in the purpose parameter and in the article itself, it is not mentioned. Therefore, it fails WP:NFCC#8. --Efe (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No Efe, that's not a correct statement. The song is mentioned several times in the article itself. There's no problem with the rationale here. --JayHenry (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mentioning the song throughout doesn't warrant a fair use. The sample is used to present the kind of music the album is featuring, or part of the album. And I see no discussion in the section "Musical and lyrical themes" that corresponds to the caption of the sample as well as its fair use purpose. Also, the audio samples lacks copyright information. --Efe (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion that just doesn't have anything to do with WP:NFCC#8. The caption of the sample doesn't need to be repeated in the musical and lyrical themes section (what would be the sense of requiring information to be repetitive?) nor does it need to repeat the image page. NFCC#8 says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This easily, easily clears that hurdle, and is thus a valid rationale and valid use. It's actually a bit silly to suggest that someone could understand a band without hearing any of their music. The source of the audio is clearly identified as Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) and the record label (which by definition administers the copyrights) is also clearly identified. There is nothing to suggest this sound clip is inappropriate. --JayHenry (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- using the sample, what do you want to convey to the readers? or enhance their understanding in connection with what is being discussed in the article? --Efe (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you seriously not know? 1) I've never edited this article and don't like Slipknot. I'm a neutral reviewer. I personally don't want to convey anything. 2) It's obvious that the authors of the article included the music sample so that someone can hear the song being discussed and the band that performs it and specifically the song's use of guitar solos and some more melodic song structures which were previously absent. This is all explicit. You cannot argue that a musical sample of an album does not enhance one's understanding of an album. -JayHenry (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sir, I am only 18 years old and I may not fully learned the nitty-gritty of WikiPedia yet. But somehow, with my constant editing/contribution, I have learned little by little.
- "The caption of the sample doesn't need to be repeated in the musical and lyrical themes section" I didn't say you have to repeat it. The gist only.
- I read the first and section and I see no better warranty of the sample's inclusion.
- This is about the album so the audio sample have nothing to do with presenting who's band is singing. So what about Slipknot? Hmmm. Maybe the vocals. But I can see nothing in the text that explains their, for example, their blah blah blah vocals.
- "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This statement does not mean that because you mention the guitars and whatsover of the song, the sample will help readers increase their standing. Besides, its not deterimental to our understanding if the editor will take out the sample (not to mention the sample is "Vermillion" and the text always mention "Vermillion Pt. 2"). --Efe (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't inquire about your age. But I am concerned because you're making distinctions that appear to me to have no meaning. This album is a collection of songs by a band. So a sample of a song is a sample of the album. Hearing the band play a song on the album is hearing the album. Presenting a band's album is the same as presenting the sound of a band as heard on the album. Do you see what I'm saying? The things you're talking about don't have anything to do with image criteria. Slipknot's "blah blah blah vocals" has nothing to do with anything. Look, an album is primarily an auditory thing. You listen to it. Therefore listening to it significantly increases ones understanding. Could someone who has never listened to Mozart truly understand his music? Of course not. That's actually ludicrous for me to suggest, is it not? Despite the vastly lower standard of artistry, the same thing holds for Slipknot. This is very simple, very basic, completely valid fair use. --JayHenry (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sir, I am only 18 years old and I may not fully learned the nitty-gritty of WikiPedia yet. But somehow, with my constant editing/contribution, I have learned little by little.
- Do you seriously not know? 1) I've never edited this article and don't like Slipknot. I'm a neutral reviewer. I personally don't want to convey anything. 2) It's obvious that the authors of the article included the music sample so that someone can hear the song being discussed and the band that performs it and specifically the song's use of guitar solos and some more melodic song structures which were previously absent. This is all explicit. You cannot argue that a musical sample of an album does not enhance one's understanding of an album. -JayHenry (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- using the sample, what do you want to convey to the readers? or enhance their understanding in connection with what is being discussed in the article? --Efe (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion that just doesn't have anything to do with WP:NFCC#8. The caption of the sample doesn't need to be repeated in the musical and lyrical themes section (what would be the sense of requiring information to be repetitive?) nor does it need to repeat the image page. NFCC#8 says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This easily, easily clears that hurdle, and is thus a valid rationale and valid use. It's actually a bit silly to suggest that someone could understand a band without hearing any of their music. The source of the audio is clearly identified as Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) and the record label (which by definition administers the copyrights) is also clearly identified. There is nothing to suggest this sound clip is inappropriate. --JayHenry (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mentioning the song throughout doesn't warrant a fair use. The sample is used to present the kind of music the album is featuring, or part of the album. And I see no discussion in the section "Musical and lyrical themes" that corresponds to the caption of the sample as well as its fair use purpose. Also, the audio samples lacks copyright information. --Efe (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No Efe, that's not a correct statement. The song is mentioned several times in the article itself. There's no problem with the rationale here. --JayHenry (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review
- Image:Slipknot - Vol. 3- (The Subliminal Verses).jpg -- This is a visually arresting image. Both the article and the fair use rational would benefit from some discussion of this piece of cover art.
- Image:Slipknot - Vol. 3- (The Subliminal Verses) Special Edition.jpg -- I'm less enthusiastic about this image. It's just a picture of the band. Many albums have alternate cover art, but without discussion of the cover art or any evidence of its significance I'm not sure it's really following the letter or spirit of the guidelines to include this. This looks like just a picture of the band to me, and they more-or-less always look like this in their pictures, so I'm not sure it's even very distinctive. I dunno... thoughts?
- My opinion on this is the cover art is very different from the original and it should be used to help visually identify the product. The content of the cover (for example you saying it's just a photograph of the band) is beside the point. It isn't a limited product, it's a deluxe edition of the album which was released about a year after the original and includes an additional disc. REZTER TALK ø 01:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Slipknot - Vermilion.ogg -- The official style guideline is: "Copyrighted, unlicensed music samples should generally not be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter." In this case, 10 % would be about 25 seconds.
- The Original track is 5:16 (316 minutes) 10% of that is 31.6. So 30 seconds is shorted. REZTER TALK ø 01:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I had taken this information from Vermilion (song) which says it was 4:16. I guess the single had a different mix. I do see that it's listed at 5:16 in the track list on the album. Apologies. --JayHenry (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Original track is 5:16 (316 minutes) 10% of that is 31.6. So 30 seconds is shorted. REZTER TALK ø 01:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thoughts welcome. --JayHenry (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Special edition" is discussed in the second sentence of the article; in addition to the track listing. The FUR of the regular cover art, seems pretty on par with other album covers to me. Blackngold29 01:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So there are two schools of thought on Wikipedia. One is that an album cover is fair use for an article about the album as identification. The other, more conservative school of thought, is that you really ought to have discussion of the cover art itself to justify the rationale. With the first image it's actually more of a content issue. That's a really interesting image on the cover--what's the story behind it?--inquiring minds want to know! With the second image it's trickier, because another goal is that Fair Use should be limited. Very many albums have alternate covers, or different covers in foreign countries, etc. Most people will grant you the first image without any discussion. Is it acceptable Fair Use, however, that every single alternate cover is automatically allowed, even if the image is unremarkable? I think most Wikipedians would agree that's going too far. In my opinion the second image is really borderline: just a non-significant image of the band on a fairly typical alternate issue... --JayHenry (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Special edition" is discussed in the second sentence of the article; in addition to the track listing. The FUR of the regular cover art, seems pretty on par with other album covers to me. Blackngold29 01:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoaaa, I see non-breaking spaces added to double items such as "12 reviews"; please see the MOS and MOSNUM guidelines on this. Only add hard-spaces where it's likely to be ungainly or confusing for a number to appear on the next line. This is hardly the case in 21 chairs or 12 reviews. The disadvantages of adding willy-nilly all over the place are possible text-stretching (especially adjacent to images), more work for editors, and clunky edit-windows. Tony (talk)
Comments—<frowns and grimaces>
- FU justification of audio file. There's only one in the article, which is good. Caption: ""Vermilion", the album's second single, makes use of guitar solos and some more melodic song structures which were previously absent from the band's discography." This is not well-written. "Makes use of" --> a single word? Song structures absent from discography? No, songs might be absent or present, but style and structures are something within songs. By "structure", do you mean the formal structure of repeating segments of the music/lyrics? What was different or unusual? Guitar solos: so their first album didn't have these; does the second album stand as unique in this respect, or did it establish this use as a hallmark of their style thereafter? Trying to get a grip on why this FU satisfies NFCC#8 (inclusion leads to a significant understanding).
Prose: Gary, where are your word-nerd collaborators?
- "Taylor made a point of avoiding the use of profanity in response to people claiming that he relied upon it". The old noun plus -ing, and here, rewording is the best option—"in response to claims that". See: easy! Can we make "upon" just "on", in 2008?
- "the lyrics of Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) include metaphors and touches upon themes including"—the lyrics touches? "Upon" again.
- Stylus magazine—would italics make it clearer for the readers?
- No. Stylus Magazine is not actually a printed magazine. --Efe (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This—> Stylus Magazine called it the most "depressing and emotional" track on the album. The magazine also concluded that "the riffs have lost none of their impact, but it seems like finally the group also wants you to appreciate their vocal and lyrical impact."—Dot after the closing quote would be less clunky, and MOS-compliant. But more importantly, you've lost me on the logical flow. Why "but"? The quote is pretty crappy, so what about paraphrasing the gist of it and making both quotes flow into a cohesive run of statements (with the same ref. number).
- The "Artwork" mini-section. I've had a go at trying to fix it. Please check my "whenever".
I believe User:Deckiller might be copy-editing at the moment. He's very good and knows the field. Tony (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- GrahamColm has given the article a c/e. I've believe I've fixed the remaining concerns that you have raised. However, about the non-breaking spaces: Earilier in this review Juliancolton stated that they should be added, so they were, now you're saying to take them out. Which is correct? Blackngold29 03:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems with the criteria. Prose and aesthetical details can always be more or less improved of course, but the current version is definitely well written enough for FA status. Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — I had previously ignored the article, but looking over it, I'd say that it is very good in terms of writing, formatting and sources. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Comments: I'm not familiar with too many music related FAs, but there are some issues which stood out to me.
- Organization: The flow of the information in the article seems off to me and I think the structure of the article can be rearranged to improve this.
- The "Artwork" section seems too small to stand on its own. I would try to integrate the content into the rest of the "Production and promotion".
- The "Personnel" section seems out of place at the end of the article. I would consider moving it to be a subsection of "Production and promotion". Also, what do the numbers beside each band member's name mean? If those numbers remain in the article, I think some kind of brief description should be included.
- "Chart positions" looks like it should be a subsection of "Reception". I know in video game articles, a table of review scores is included to the right in the reception sections. maybe something similar could be done here as well.
- As ended an article with a "Reception" section is general practice on Wikipedia, I would suggest moving the "Track listing further up in the article. Either before or after "Musical and lyrical themes".
- Excessive use of quotes: I would summarize some of the quotes in the "Reception" section. Some are hard to follow. I'm not sure what "Slipknot still bring the noise" exactly means; I'm assuming something positive.
- Organization: The flow of the information in the article seems off to me and I think the structure of the article can be rearranged to improve this.
- Overall the article is good and informative, but not quite Featured quality. I'll check back later to see if they are addressed and to check refs/other loose ends. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Reply to Guyinblack25
- Most album articles put the prose before the "listy stuff" (track listing, band members, chart info). I guess it could be changed if you still want it to be, but it would be the first time I've seen it like that. The numbers are explained in their article, I don't think too much info should be repeated. Blackngold29 16:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really agree with that style of organization; all prose then all lists. But I'm no music article expert, and if it works for others, then it can't be all that bad.
- I still think some explanation should be provided for the numbers, either that or exclude them as it was very puzzling seeing them there. That and the long quotes are the only style issues I think should be addressed. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Things are looking better, but I still think there are too many long quotes in the reception section. I believe such content should be summarized as often as possible. For example:
- Instead of John Robb of PlayLouder proclaimed "Slipknot defied all kind of logic by becoming one of the biggest groups in the world", try John Robb of PlayLouder complimented Slipknot's unexpected rise to become "one of the biggest groups in the world"
- Instead of Robb went on to add, "Its differing textures make it far better than Iowa.", try Robb added that this album is better than their previous album, Iowa, citing its "differing textures".
- It looks like the reliability of everythit.com has not been completely addressed above. I would also like to know what makes artistdirect.com a reliable source? I didn't look too deep, but I didn't find much info about them on their website.
- These are minor issues:
- Some of the magazine references, like Q and Kerrang!, include the "accessdate" parameter. I've come to understand that accessdate refers to the date a webpage is accessed. I believe this is normally reserved for when the "url" parameter is used.
- Some of the magazine references, like Kerrang! and Revolver use the {{cite news}} template instead of {{cite journal}}. This is certainly nothing to oppose over, just my slight OCD desire for uniform formatting.
- Those are the remainder of my concerns. I'll check back in later. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- While the {{cite journal}} template does include a space for accessdate, I think I'm gonna agree with you that there's really no point for a non-internet source. I removed them, and cleaned up the news/journal cites. I understand better what your saying about the quotes/prose, I made a few adjustments, including your suggestions. I hope it's enough, let me know if it isn't. Thanks. Blackngold29 19:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are some good steps forward. I wouldn't be opposed to the negative comments in the "Reception" section getting the same treatment and summarized more. My only major concern left is the reliability of everythit.com and artistdirect.com. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- While the {{cite journal}} template does include a space for accessdate, I think I'm gonna agree with you that there's really no point for a non-internet source. I removed them, and cleaned up the news/journal cites. I understand better what your saying about the quotes/prose, I made a few adjustments, including your suggestions. I hope it's enough, let me know if it isn't. Thanks. Blackngold29 19:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Things are looking better, but I still think there are too many long quotes in the reception section. I believe such content should be summarized as often as possible. For example:
- Support: All of my major concerns have been addressed. My only remaining issue with the article's structure is more of a personal preference. The article looks to be well-written, well-sourced and comprehensive. Nice job. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of rugby union matches between All Blacks and France
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:50, 30 July 2008 [29].
Battle of Tory Island
Self-nom. I wrote this article on a minor naval action of the French Revolutionary Wars back in March when I didn't really have time for an FAC. Now I do, it has passed for GA and I think this meets the FA criteria, so let me know what you think. Jackyd101 (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look good, links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've audited the dates and removed the autoformatting to allow your high-value links to breathe. MOSNUM no longer encourages date-linking. No glitches in the formatting, BTW, which is uncommon!
- This is an interesting article indeed. The prose needs a little work, though. Here are random examples:
- "Ireland was seen on the European continent as a weak point in Britain's defences because unlike in Britain herself, a landing of foreign troops in Ireland could count on the support of a large proportion of the native population."—"unlike in Britain" is clumsy. Needs recasting, possibly with a colon in the middle.
- "Such a force would also expect"—stronger without "also".
- "The divided nature of French politics"—whenever I see "nature", I quail. Is this better? "Divisions in French politics". the operation, not this.
- "These failures bred a negative mentality amongst the French officer corps which had survived The Terror and discouraged adventurous strategic thinking." What is "The Terror"? Explain briefly: we shouldn't have to hit the link or look up the ref to find out.
- "with 13 ships lost and over 2,000 men drowned"—after "lost", it sounds as though the men were drowned as you do to unwanted kittens in the bathtub.
- "The following year, Tone and his companions attempted a second time to land troops in Ireland, persuading the government of the Netherlands, then under French occupation, to prepare their own expedition." Why not "companions again attempted"? I can't quite get why the persuasion of the Dutch is relevant in this sentence. The Dutch haven't yet been mentioned.
- Grammar aside, this paragraph is important because the section is disscussing the efforts of the United Irishmen to persuade France (or in this case a French client state) to inavde Ireland. Camperdown was the second of three failed attempts to successful invade Ireland, the final one of which is the subject of this article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And lots more. I have high hopes for this article, but the prose needs to be significantly improved. I can't stress enough how important it is to bring on board fresh editors—word-nerds if possible. Identify them through the edit history pages (edit summaries give them away) of articles on similar topics. They could be valuable future collaborators, too. Oh, and there are rather a lot of red links. Do you think you could write stubs for some of them? Wouldn't take long, surely. TONY (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. I've dealt with you immediate issues and will go over the article again soon. I do have some regular copyeditors but they all seem to be a bit busy at the moment, I'll try widening the net. Regarding date formatting, I'm now very confused. Can you link directly to the relevent bit of WP:MOSNUM so I can understand it for future reference?--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Ah yes, there now seems to be a lack of copyeditors. I can barely find any for the main article I'm working on McGill
It seems quite good actually, and I can only find a couple of errors.
- One tiny thing, it would be better in paragraph one, in the section Warren's Pursuit, line four,
- After arriving off the coast...
Just take out the after. I'll reread the article later. Others, good job. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I haven't really read the article yet, but at first glance I noticed that in the sentence, Saumarez immediately gave chase to Savary's force, and the squadrons exchanged long–distance cannon fire throughout the day., the en dash should be changed to a hyphen in this case, per MoS. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I noticed this article was a FAC so I went ahead and recreated the PNG battle map in SVG format. This way if it makes it onto the main page, now there is a more visible, scalable map that can be used as a thumb to accompany the article. I haven't read through the article yet either though so I can't really say much about the content. TIM KLOSKE|TALK 01:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou, I wonder if you would be willing to do the same for Image:Battle of Lissa 1811 Map.png? The article it represents passed FAC a couple of weeks ago but I didn't know how to svg the map. Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: a number of editors have performed copyedits on this article or parts of it, particulaly User:EyeSerene, to whom I am indebted. Please let me know of any further problems.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image Review
- Image:Tory_Island_Cliffs_2005_08_10.jpg -- user created, appropriately licensed.
- Image:Vinegar hill.jpg -- Definitely public domain. It's too bad it's not higher resolution, but that's not required.
- Image:Battle of Tory Island.svg -- user created, appropriately licensed. Jacky, I see you created the original version of this image. Great work going the extra mile like that!
- Image:Admiral Warren Oateborl.jpg -- Definitely public domain.
- Image:Theobald Wolfe Tone - Project Gutenberg 13112.png -- this is definitely public domain, but could we get a year of publication on the image page?
- Everything checks out. --JayHenry (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I did a bit of minor copyediting, but I found the article to be very interesting. Good work. Karanacs (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. In the interest of fair disclosure , I contributed the original png version of the current battle location map (now svg). I find it meets all the FA criteria. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—It is FA-worthy and I could find no significant issues. A more tactical map or two would have been helpful to follow some of the action, but I can understand if none are available.—RJH (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:02, 4 August 2008 [30].
Willie Wagtail
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is comprehensive, the prose is good (having been reviewed and/or copyedited by t least 3 others) and it is amply illustrated with free images from commons. Please let me know how I can improve the article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look good, links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - with a few points. Nitpicking really.
- You seem to tippietoe around whether the fantails as a group are a family or not. No mention of the family in the intro and noncommittal as to subfamily or family in the taxonomy section. Yet if I recall the discussions as to breaking up the Dicruridae the problem was not so much the fantails as the break up of the monarchs - I don't think it would hurt the article to described the fantails as a family, while mentioning other points of view.
- Guilty as charged - I did focus on genus classification, though I did mention the 3 families in para 4 of the taxo section.
I will place a sentence in the lead. OK, I added 'Within this group, fantails are placed in the family Dicruridae or their own small family Rhipiduridae.' to the lead. Question is, should I add note on Corvidae as I have seen some taxonomic arrangements lump all the corvines into a large broadly defined Corvidae family or is that view uncommon enough to leave out?- The superlumping approach has not been widely adopted, I'd leave it out of the lead. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Guilty as charged - I did focus on genus classification, though I did mention the 3 families in para 4 of the taxo section.
- The Wagtail is very "chatty" with a number of distinct vocalisations and can be quite noisy - should be the Willie Wagtail, and what do you mean by noisy? Loud? Intrusive? Obnoxious?
- Aaawww, never heard of them being classified as obnoxious, they are noisy in a quiet sorta way really...
- Noisy is seldom complementary; if they are loud or insistent those would be better words to use. Noise is loud sounds that annoy (to my mind). Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaawww, never heard of them being classified as obnoxious, they are noisy in a quiet sorta way really...
- but avoids densely forested areas such as rainforest even in New Guinea? Some birds that avoid rainforest in Oz are less picky up there.
- The PNG books indicate it prefers cleared areas there, but is not clear on how absoloute this is.
I will clarifyI put in an extra line due to it being quite a different environment and thus notable to specify- Fair enough, I wasn't sure. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The PNG books indicate it prefers cleared areas there, but is not clear on how absoloute this is.
- Although the Willie Wagtail is a successful species, predators do account for many eggs and young. , any student of biology will tell you that common and successful species ar common prey items. The whole sentence seems slightly redundant.
- What about European settlers - I seem to recall them cropping up in children's books, but I could be wrong.
- Yep, forgot about them. There is a Willie Wagtail in Blinky Bill and Dot and the Kangaroo. I could have sworn it'd be in the May Gibbs stories too but I can't find my old copies of them and there is nothing online
- Otherwise, grand. It was hard finding much to fault. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Right-align the image at the top of the "Breeding" section per MoS. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review
- Image:Willy wag tail.jpg -- great image, user created, appropriately licensed
- Image:WillieWagtailRangeMap.png -- user created, released into public domain
- Image:Wag tail on nest closer.jpg -- user created, appropriately licensed
- Image:Will wagtail flight.JPG -- user created, released into public domain
- Image:Willy Wagtail nest.JPG -- user created, appropriately licensed
- No problems here. --JayHenry (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and comment Nice article, couple of comments
- It is unrelated to the true wagtails of the genus Motacilla; instead it is a member of... not convinced "instead" is the right word here
- ...Isle of Man, as well as Northern Ireland. why not just "and" (those pesky conjunctions..)
- Reference 54 Bill Blinky Bill Grows Up'. I'm not sure why this is bold in ref? (it is the volume within the book, which is a compilation of 3 books.not sure what to do meslf here..)
There are rich opportunities for improving the prose in the lead. This doesn't augur well for the whole article. 1a is at issue. Please bring in one or more of your wordish collaborators, Cas.
- Measuring 19.0 to 21.5 cm (7½–8½ in) in length"—Either use "From" at the start or "19.0–21.5". (fixed)
- Semicolon after the second "underparts" to avoid sentence-stub. (fixed)
- "islands north of Australia"—vague: Papua? Borneo? Timor? I'd say "Papua and numerous small islands in its vicinity", or something like that. (fixed)
- Comma before "including", or better "group that includes". (fixed)
- "Within this group, fantails are placed in the family Dicruridae or their own small family Rhipiduridae." Remove "placed". I don't get the "or". Is it "either ... or"? Is this a family within a family? If so, please clarify succinctly. (see below)
- "It is insectivorous"—What is "it", especially at the start of a para? (fixed)
- Remove "areas such as". Tony (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC) (fixed)[reply]
- OK, I dealt with the points but need to explain classification. The genus of fantails (Rhipidura) lies in a large group of corvine birds, but with in it, some authorities rank them in their own family Rhipiduridae, while others reduce them to a subfamily of a larger family called Dicruridae. It is not acrimonious or particularly controversial, only an issue of where one places the Linnaean yardsticks into a newer understanding of relationships.
I need to sleep now but am happy to receive input on it plus look over text more tomorrow. I'll askReworded to Within this group, fantails are placed in the family Dicruridae, although some authorities consider them distinct enough to warrant their own small family Rhipiduridae.
- OK, I dealt with the points but need to explain classification. The genus of fantails (Rhipidura) lies in a large group of corvine birds, but with in it, some authorities rank them in their own family Rhipiduridae, while others reduce them to a subfamily of a larger family called Dicruridae. It is not acrimonious or particularly controversial, only an issue of where one places the Linnaean yardsticks into a newer understanding of relationships.
Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Thorough treatment of the subject, nicely supported by the included photos. Melburnian (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cold Feet (series 1)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:39, 29 July 2008 [31].
Planets beyond Neptune
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been recommended for FA consideration after completing its peer review. Serendipodous 20:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
and a mean distance from the Sun of 43 AU. Lowell assumed that, like the gas giants, Planet X would have a low density and a high albedo, and would thus present a disc covering one second of arc and have an apparent magnitude of between 12 and 13.
What does "high albedo" and "a disc covering one second of arc and have an apparent magnitude of between 12 and 13." mean? I consider myself reasonably educated in the sciences, and I have no clue. Provide wikilinks, or strike.
- Lo
well's sudden death in 1916 temporarily halted his observatory's search for Planet X. His disappointment at not locating the world, according to one friend, "virtually killed him"
I don't like the construction of this sentence. "his observatory's search for Planet X" doesn't read well. "disappointment at not locating the world" also doesn't read well. At least change world to planet--this isn't poetry here. Can one be disappointed at something? I thought "in" was the only option.
- Lo
The two images of each section were then placed in a machine called a blink comparator, which rapidly shifted them back and forth to create the illusion of movement of any objects that had changed position or appearance between photographs.
On February 18, 1930, after having searched for nearly a year and examined nearly 2 million stars,[1] Tombaugh discovered a possible moving object on photographic plates taken on January 23 and January 29 of that year.
A lesser-quality photograph taken on January 21 helped confirm the movement.
- The article is well sourced, and the sources are of a high quality.
Overall, I think the prose needs to be improved. Lwnf360 (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Please spell out abbreviations in your references when possible. Not everyone is going to know what the IAU ishttp://www.iau.org/Resolutions_5-6.398.0.html deadlinkshttp://www.johnstonsarchive.net/astro/astalbedo.html what makes this source reliable as a self-published source?Likewise for these sources http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/tchester/iras/no_tenth_planet_yet.html and http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~jewitt/kb/planetx.html
Weak Support - Because I am [once again] amazed by the comprehensiveness of this article, I support. However, Serendi, not everyone will overlook the fact that the article only has 35 references. --Meld§hal *talk to me* 17:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—I did a PR on this article and all my concerns were addressed at that time. It's a fine article on the subject and, as far as I know, comprehensive (considering that it is about something that may not exist). I'm not at all concerned about the reference tally as there is a fair amount of re-use. Another image or two might be nice, but it's okay now.—RJH (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. FYI, I can say from experience that locating a public domain image of a planet that doesn't exist is somewhat difficult :-) Serendipodous 16:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image Review
- Image:Percival Lowell-observing Mars from the Lowell Observatory.jpg -- It would be nice if we knew the date, but we can assume it's before 1916 and hence Public Domain. Okay from copyright standpoint.
- Image:ClydeTombaugh.jpg -- The image claims it is a work of the federal government. The source page says it's from Lowell Observatory, a private institution. I'm concerned the uploader may have inadvertently misrepresented the status of this image. Some evidence needs to be provided that this was ever a work of the federal government.
- Image:Pluto discovery plates.png -- this image is also from Lowell Observatory, but is uploaded with a proper and valid fair use claim.
- Image:EightTNOs.png -- user generated and appropriately licensed. Very nice.
- Only image of concern is Tombaugh. --JayHenry (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments...ok, diving right in..I think we are over the line here. Maybe a few more prose tweaks but no deal-brekaers for mine. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
::Since the discovery of the planet Neptune in 1846, there had been considerable speculation that a ninth planet might exist beyond its orbit. - something about this sentence bugs me, as there was speculation, then they found Pluto, Pluto is then 9th planet, then there's more, then we're back to 8. It simplifies things to the point they can be misconstrued. I do concede this is a hairy point and right now I haven't a clue how it can be rephrased but I am ruminating...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC) (addendum - maybe just 'another planet' or 'further planets')[reply]
::..the irregularities observed in Uranus's orbit were due to an incorrect measurement of Neptune's mass.. - could state here that it was an under or overestimate (more exact).
::Although many of the larger members of this group - erm, I thought it was only 4 or 5...(?) Do we have the exact number? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Multiple prose problems. Here are two almost at random: "Besides supposed gravitational effects, probability arguments have also been used to suggest the existence of planet-sized objects in the outer Solar System. Sedna's 12,000-year orbit is so extremely eccentric that, according to Mike Brown, who discovered it in 2004, there was only a one-in-sixty chance of it ever having been observed." The first sentence has a dangling modifier. The second is clearly nonsense: in fact the probability of it ever having been observed is 1; it has, after all, been observed.--jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Comment. This is a lot better, and I've been learning a lot as I've been going through it. The prose could still do with some polish, and (as per below) I do think that the referencing needs to be more exact. But I'm withdrawing my previous "oppose." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well researched and adequately referenced. Some minor prose issues such as the above, but worthy of FA jimfbleak (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—I agree with my colleague, Jbmurray. Here are just random examples from the top only.
- The bolded items scattered through Para 1 are very distracting. This is a classic case where the guideline on the bolding in the lead falls into an exceptional category, where the topic is hard to restate at the opening. I suggest you debold all three items.
- "The X in the name represents an unknown and is pronounced as the letter, as opposed to the Roman numeral for 10, as it would not, at the time, have been the tenth planet." What is "it"? The reader has to work too hard.
- "in fact"—redundant.
- Metric conversions, please.
- "no planet was found"—unnecessary passive voice; recast with the previous sentence.
- "... Lowell conducted a second search from 1913 to 1915. In that year ..."—Um, which year?
- "...(or half ..."—It's not either or, so remove "or".
- "low density (meaning large size)"—meaning? No, "indicating" or "suggesting" or "equated with".
And lots more. Someone new to the article needs to go through it carefully. Tony (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I participated in writing this article, I have not read the text for more than two weeks and therefore can contribute into the copy-edit. I have copy-edited several parts of the article and hope to finish the work tomorrow. Ruslik (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.
The article states of Robert Harrington: "He calculated that any Planet X would be at roughly three times the distance from the sun than Neptune; its orbit would be highly eccentric, and strongly inclined to the ecliptic—the planet's orbit would be at roughly a 90-degree angle from the orbital plane of the other known planets.[21]" However, reading the article cited, Harrington appears to say quite the opposite: "The history of previous searches increases the probability of a planetary orbit moderately inclined to the ecliptic, for a planet brighter than seventeenth magnitude. However the lack of discrepancies in the declination observations argues for a planet close to the plane of the ecliptic" (p. 63). Is this not saying quite the opposite? Indeed, I can't see anything in Harrington's article that supports any part of the sentence in the WP article. On the other hand, this is not my area of expertise at all. I could be quite wrong. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going on a quote from page 60 of Ken Croswell's Planet Quest, my main source for this article. It says, "[Harrington's] calculations indicated that the planet's mean distance from the Sun was about 100 times the Earth's, or a little over three times Neptune's, and it traveled on a highly elliptical orbit. The planet also journeyed far above and below the plane of the Solar System."
- Of course, Ken Croswell could be wrong, or Harrington might have revised his predictions. After all, he was looking for a non-existent planet, so theoretically it could be anywhere. I didn't sub that paper as a reference, and I can only read its abstract, so I can't comment on its differences.Serendipodous 09:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While we're at it: in general, the references should be much more specific, indicating page numbers, especially for direct quotations. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that it is not necessary to give a page number for every citation, because it inflates reflist out of all proportions. Ruslik (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:36, 8 August 2008 [32].
Midtown Madness
- Nominator(s): —Giggy
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've worked on it for the last few months and believe it meets criteria. It's a rather short article on a racing video game, which despite positive reviews wasn't the most popular thing in the world, hence there's only limited information available on it. Anyway, I'm happy to make changes based on any comments here, so thanks for reading!
- GA review: Talk:Midtown Madness/GA1
- WikiProject Video games peer review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Midtown Madness
Cheers —Giggy 09:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- "The game puts the player in a vehicle on the streets" I'm pretty sure that the player doesn't actually go in the car. Strange choice of wording anyway.
- Reworded to "The game is set in vehicles on the streets..."
- "internet" should be capitalised.
- I always thought it was a common noun but it seems I'm wrong. Thanks, done.
- Not sure how to interpret this one—criterion 2b specifies a system of heirarchical headings, yet this doesn't have one.
- Hmm... that's a problem. I can't think of any other sections/subsections to add, do you have any ideas?
- It's a strange one, so it will probably need someone more experienced than myself. I just remeber Bibliomaniac mentioning it at the first Melee FAC. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I may butt in completely uninvited: I don't interpret this to mean that there must be subheaders. If you don't have something to create a subsection on, there's no reason to create one, that would be an arbitrary requirement that doesn't add anything. The content is more important. I interpret the criteria to mean that content should be organized in a logical way, with any subtopics presented as such. Just my thoughts on that. delldot talk 21:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a strange one, so it will probably need someone more experienced than myself. I just remeber Bibliomaniac mentioning it at the first Melee FAC. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... that's a problem. I can't think of any other sections/subsections to add, do you have any ideas?
- "the player races against the clock". If there's a time limit, then state that. "Racing against the clock" is a little too informal for me.
- Reworded to "the player must complete the course within a time limit".
- "alter the in game weather" Hyphenate?
- Done.
- "Besides the change of environment, these alterations can affect the vehicle's performance." A technical one, but wouldn't the addition of rainfall make things more slippery, thus affecting performance?
- Yes, that's what happens in-game - my reading of the sentence says this, are you reading it differently?
- "Pedestrians are frequent throughout the city.[7]" Seems to appear randomly from nowhere. If you feel it's worth keeping, consider joining with the sentence referring to how traffic and police can be modified.
- Removed; it's somewhat duplicated by something in the previous paragraph.
- Not sure about my knowledge of vocabulary, but what makes "bins, parking meters, mailboxes, and street lights" novelty items?
- Novelty isn't the best word; my point was that they are done as "eye candy" to make the game look good... knocking them over doesn't help you win races. Can you think nof a better word?
- "which Clint Keith of Angel Studios said was the design team's favorite mode."" I'd question this statement's relevance; I don't see why such comments should be in "Gameplay" anyway.
- I couldn't think of anywhere else to put it but it seemed like some OK trivia. Removed.
- "Angel Studios, who at the time was attempting to sell Microsoft its 3D vehicle simulator. Keith notes Angel Studios were initially". Which one?
- "Were".
- If by "take up Microsoft on its offer" you mean "accept it", then write that.
- Yes, I do mean that, so done.
- "to reach the finish line before a faster car". "before a faster car" can be saved by writing "first".
- Good idea, done.
- "players can choose their car from half of the list of available vehicles" I don't understand—if all the cars are available, then why can the player only choose half of them? It might be just me, but I don't understand this sentence in general.
- The other half must be unlocked; I've reworded to make this more clear.
- "Furthermore, Angel Studios announced they were considering releasing a custom map designer, but this eventuated." Giggy, looking at these definitions, this isn't meaning anything to me.
- Oops, should be "...never eventuated".
- "IGN rated game's appearance highly" the?
- Yep, done. Darn touch typing. :-)
- "though generic looking portions of the city were noted." I'm not sure if "generic looking" should be hyphenated or not. This is a bit repetitive consider "noting"'s already used in the sentence. Finally, saying that something is noted means nothing, although I assume it is negative.
- I'm not aware of that needing a hyphen. I've fixed up the other issues.
- "third-person" is hyphenated in the WP article, so it probably should be here. Same for "first person".
- Both are fixed, thanks.
- "IGN described in-game narration by Marty Lennartz as a nice touch". "the" before "in-game". But mainly, I'm not sure about introducing such a concept in the Reception, as I thought that would have been mentioned first in "Gameplay". Apologies if I've made a mistake on this.
- Fixed the "the". Not sure where I can put a mention of him in gameplay; ideas?
- "pedastrians" Typo
- Fixed.
- What does the MobyGames link contribute?
- Not much, removed.
- For ref 15, I think a date is found if you click on the following page, in small red text.
- Thanks for picking that up, added to the ref.
Okay; I'll have another look once these issues have been resolved. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks heaps for your detailed review; I have replied inline. —Giggy 01:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some further discussion with Ashnard (as well as a reason for his not being able to support) at User talk:Giggy#Midtown Madness (permalink). —Giggy 10:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
What makes http://www.firingsquad.com/ a reliable source?Likewise http://www.sgn.cc/?
- Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for checking. FiringSquad (about page) is cited frequently on IGN; examples [33], [34], more and GameSpot, eg [35]. Does that suffice for FiringSquad?
- Still working on Sports Gaming Network. —Giggy 23:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC) (note: SGN done, see below Jappalang's massive post (thanks! :))[reply]
- FiringSquad's (FS) various articles are used as references for the following books:
- Dungeons and Dreamers: The Rise of Computer Game Culture from Geek to Chic by Brad King, John Borland (FS's interview with Alex St. John)
- Playing Video Games: Motives, Responses, and Consequences by Peter Vorderer, Jennings Bryant, and Encyclopedia of New Media: An Essential Reference to Communication and Technology by Steve Jones (FS's interview with John Carmack)
- Cost-Justifying Usability: An Update for an Internet Age by Randolph G. Bias, Deborah J. Mayhew (FS's presentation of Age of Empire II's designer notes)
- Der GaMeR_ by Achim Rüger (FS's opinion on Daikatana is used to open the passage on the game's poor commercial performance)
- .NET Game Programming with DirectX 9.0 by Alexandre Santos Lobão, A. Lobao, Ellen Hatton (FS is presented as a recommended source ala their article is a "must for anyone interested in creating games")
- Alice's Adventures: Lewis Carroll in Popular Culture by Will Brooker (FS is a source for the video games based on Alice)
- Gaming Hacks: 100 Industrial-Strength Tips & Tools by Simon Carless (FS is presented in the See Also section as a recommended reading for technical expertise on choosing the right power supply for a gaming PC)
- FS is also referenced in more than 30 scholarly articles,[36] including a European patent for a computer case.
- Besides frequent mentions on Gamespot and IGN (as pointed out by Giggy), FS is also:
- FS is also partnering with market analysis firm Evolution Research to increase the reliability of online sampling of gamers.[40]
- I believe the wide and many references to the site in printed and online material could be considered as vouching for FS staff's reliability on matters relating to the video games industry. Jappalang (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sports Gaming Network (http://www.sgn.cc/ / http://www.sports-gaming.com) isn't cited as often as FiringSquad, but it is cited in scholarly works; eg. From Gruden to Belichick: The AI of John Madden Football (pages 13 and 14 discuss an interview with the site) (full Google Scholar results). It's also used as a source in numerous books; Google Books (Playing Video Games: Motives, Responses, and Consequences, Game Plan: The Insider's Guide to Breaking in and Succeeding in the Computer and Video Game Business). —Giggy 03:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comments based on this revision of the article:
At a glance:
- The article intro really shouldn't be three small paragraphs, two (or better one) should be enough since the article really isn't that long.
- Hmm... would you suggest combining the first two paragraphs or something like that? I'm not really sure as to other things to do with it.
- Overall if the paragraphs throughout the article were the size of the paragraphs in Reception the article would look a bit cleaner.
- I've combined paragraphs in a few situations and will look to do more where possible.
- Is that really all the reviews there are for this game?
- That's all I've been able to find in reliable sources; as always if you can find others I'll try to use them where I can.
- The image's caption could be shortened, and the image could be enlarged a bit.
- Enlarged in terms of the uploaded file, or the display size of the the thumbnail? I trimmed the caption a bit.
- As in the thumbnail on the article itself, just to offset the rather large amount of text.
- OK, done.
- As in the thumbnail on the article itself, just to offset the rather large amount of text.
- Enlarged in terms of the uploaded file, or the display size of the the thumbnail? I trimmed the caption a bit.
Upon closer examination:
Intro:
- "personal computer" doesn't really need to be spelled out, PC should be fine. Either way, personal computers embody a number of operating systems. Does this game run on Windows, Linux, etc...?
- I clarified it to "Windows".
- "As well as" → "Along with"
- Fixed.
- Is "Internet" really suppose to be capitalized? I personally treat it like a noun.
- The Internet article has it capitalised even when not starting a sentence (ie. it's treated as a proper noun). I went by that.
- Gotcha.
- The Internet article has it capitalised even when not starting a sentence (ie. it's treated as a proper noun). I went by that.
Gameplay:
- "modeled on" → "modeled after"
- Fixed.
- Is there a wikilink for World's Deadliest Police Chases?
- I did some searching via google and the searchbar on the left and got nothing.
Clint Keith and IGN might have mixed up the title, which could instead beCould the show be the predecessor of World's Scariest Police Chases? Jappalang (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it was made after Scariest, actually. They collected all the video with fatalities I think. =\ --AeronPrometheus (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did some searching via google and the searchbar on the left and got nothing.
Development:
- "At the start of the game, players can choose their car from half of the vehicles available in the game—the others must be unlocked." seems redundant after the Gameplay section. Perhaps work this into the following sentence as a passing remark. The following sentence is hard to read and might need to be re-written.
- Thanks, I made some changes as suggested.
- "eventuated" → "happened"
- That's a better word, thanks.
The undercarriage:
- The code looks solid, there are a lot of unneeded spaces that could be coded out without changing the way the page looks though. Seperating the different teplates at the top of the page would make it easier for other editors to see what they're doing.
- Certainly not my strongest point, so you're welcome to make any changes you think would make editors' lives easier.
All in all, the articles structure is solid, you did a lot with small amounts of information. There's only going to be nitpicking between here and FA status. Cheers. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much, I have replied inline in italics. Cheers —Giggy 08:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I've done some copy-editing, but it needs more. Some phrases remains obscure, for instance:
"the game's non-player graphics were poor";"other 3D entertainment areas, such as the Nintendo 64 console";"considering releasing a custom map designer"; "unlock half of the cars available in the game". The prose is not yet FA quality. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I reworded the first three; couldn't think of a better wording for the fourth one at the moment. I'll give the article another fully copyedit (hopefully within 24h), hopefully that will alieve your concerns. —Giggy 05:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done another full copyedit of the article, I hope this helps. —Giggy 14:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A simple question: when was the game released? There's nothing mentioned in the body of the article itself, and the lead has the following (to me) nonsensical and ungrammatical sentence: "The game was released on April 30, 1999, and a downloadable demo on January 21, 2001." How was the game released two years before the demo?!— Preceding unsigned comment added by jbmurray (talk • contribs)- I was thinking exactly the same thing as you when I wrote the article; why was something labelled a demo released after the game? The only conclusion I could draw was that it was some sort of special edition release... in some cases a beta version of a video game will be released after the real thing as a collector's item of sorts. I haven't found any sources that deal with this indiscrepancy. I also reworded the sentence slightly. —Giggy 08:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather odd. In any case, there should be some discussion of the release in the body of the article; at present, there's none. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- It was already mentioned in the "Development" section (I didn't want to make a "Release" section with just that, and I've never seen a VG article with such sections (they mostly just keep the info in the lead)), I've added a bit more there. —Giggy 09:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the following paragraph is all off: "Midtown Madness was released on April 30, 1999. A demo of the game was released for download on January 27, 2001, featuring three vehicles (Mustang, Panoz Roadster, and City Bus), as well as all of the driving modes available in the full version.[12] The demo also included content not available in the final version, such as the ability to send billboards flying.[13] Numerous additional tracks and miscellaneous features were released for the full veresion on the day of the demo's release.[14] Angel Studios announced they were considering making a custom map designer, but this never happened.[15]" I think I introduced some of these problems a few days ago when I was copy-editing, as I presumed that the demo was an early version, and that there was then a subsequent final version. Can we get this straight? For instance, the original version (1999) had ten vehicles; the demo version had only three? Both version had the same number of modes? The (subsequent) demo added stuff with the billboards? What's with these "additional tracks and miscellaneous features"? (NB we have a tyop on that sentence, too.) And what's with the famous map designer, would it have been an add-on subsequent to the demo, that never happened? I don't understand...--jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- OK, wait, scrap all this. The dates are all wrong. I'm an idiot for not noticing this any earlier. I just realised that all the publication dates for the Computer and Video Games things were the same date; January 27, 2001. Why on Earth would they announce an upcoming demo at exactly the same time? [41]/[42]. With this in mind I checked some more old articles on that site, and found that in several cases, the publication date for stuff that should have been published pre-2000 was way off. I thus don't think those dates are reliable. I'm really sorry for the confusion and can't believe I never picked up on this before.
Anyway, I did some more searching, and found the demo was released on May 1, 1999 ([43]/[44]), followed by the real thing on May 27, 1999 ([45]/[46]/review published on that day). Modifying article accordingly. My apologies, again. —Giggy 00:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Now (hopefully!) sorted: [47]. —Giggy 00:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, wait, scrap all this. The dates are all wrong. I'm an idiot for not noticing this any earlier. I just realised that all the publication dates for the Computer and Video Games things were the same date; January 27, 2001. Why on Earth would they announce an upcoming demo at exactly the same time? [41]/[42]. With this in mind I checked some more old articles on that site, and found that in several cases, the publication date for stuff that should have been published pre-2000 was way off. I thus don't think those dates are reliable. I'm really sorry for the confusion and can't believe I never picked up on this before.
- It was already mentioned in the "Development" section (I didn't want to make a "Release" section with just that, and I've never seen a VG article with such sections (they mostly just keep the info in the lead)), I've added a bit more there. —Giggy 09:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking exactly the same thing as you when I wrote the article; why was something labelled a demo released after the game? The only conclusion I could draw was that it was some sort of special edition release... in some cases a beta version of a video game will be released after the real thing as a collector's item of sorts. I haven't found any sources that deal with this indiscrepancy. I also reworded the sentence slightly. —Giggy 08:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment are any Category:Streets in Chicago or Category:Chicago area expressways in the game?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Only O'Hare Ring Road rings a bell. Not every street is named and I suspect a few of the names are fictional (or else I just don't remember them). —Giggy 06:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. If it has something that obscure, it must have some other real ones.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Only O'Hare Ring Road rings a bell. Not every street is named and I suspect a few of the names are fictional (or else I just don't remember them). —Giggy 06:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak OpposeUntil further is done on this issue the article is not complete. The current main image looks like South Michigan Avenue with the Aon Center in the background and Auditorium Building on the left. Please do some checking on the streets and highways.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Tony, I'll be frank. I have no idea what the streets are. There are very few streets named in the game (I could only recognise one from that category), and adding information to the article along the lines of "the game contains the following streets: ..." would basically be gameguide content. Your oppose might be actionable, but I'm not seeing how it is, nor am I seeing what I can do about it. —Giggy 15:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you date all your refs so I can see when your information is coming from. ref #16 looks like it is a 2001 source and several others should have dates. It seems to me that critical reviews that were contemporaneous with the games peak would mention the realism by describing the streets. I am not asking for OR. I don't know vid games well enough to really judge how well you have exhausted sources. It seems odd that a game would not describe its realistic depiction in a press release that then makes it into several reviews.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The game's location is described to the extent that people have said "Yeah, it looks like Chicago, and it has these notable landmarks..." (landmarks mentioned in article). Nothing more, in what I've read. For the ref 16 thingy see my comment to jbmurray above (do a Ctrl+F for "00:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)"). (That applies to all refs from that site.) —Giggy 05:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is a bit short, IMO. Do video games have trouble finding extensive WP:RS? Can you enumerate the video game WP:FAs. If there are only a few also help me find a few WP:GAs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K. I just looked at the first two games I clicked on from Category:FA-Class video game articles (Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and Halo 2). I am on the verge of returning to weak oppose given that this article is not at a comparable level of detail, IMO. Can you explain why you have so much less text and so many fewer sources? I know we are not suppose to just judge on length, but I am not going to be able to say I believe this is comprehensive in comparison given its length.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those games were released in 2008 and 2007 respectively; Midtown Madness was released nearly 10 years ago, when there was a lot less in terms of video game journalism (there are two articles on it at WP:VG/M; I've gotten hold of one and used it, still waiting on a response for the other). Both of those games were ground breaking in their fields, were praised extremely highly, and sold extremely well. Midtown Madness got some good reviews but barely sold (I haven't found exact reliable figures but, what I've heard is that it wasn't great...). —Giggy 03:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportI now understand. I forgot to adjust for the pre21st century lack of easily accessible information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those games were released in 2008 and 2007 respectively; Midtown Madness was released nearly 10 years ago, when there was a lot less in terms of video game journalism (there are two articles on it at WP:VG/M; I've gotten hold of one and used it, still waiting on a response for the other). Both of those games were ground breaking in their fields, were praised extremely highly, and sold extremely well. Midtown Madness got some good reviews but barely sold (I haven't found exact reliable figures but, what I've heard is that it wasn't great...). —Giggy 03:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K. I just looked at the first two games I clicked on from Category:FA-Class video game articles (Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and Halo 2). I am on the verge of returning to weak oppose given that this article is not at a comparable level of detail, IMO. Can you explain why you have so much less text and so many fewer sources? I know we are not suppose to just judge on length, but I am not going to be able to say I believe this is comprehensive in comparison given its length.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is a bit short, IMO. Do video games have trouble finding extensive WP:RS? Can you enumerate the video game WP:FAs. If there are only a few also help me find a few WP:GAs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The game's location is described to the extent that people have said "Yeah, it looks like Chicago, and it has these notable landmarks..." (landmarks mentioned in article). Nothing more, in what I've read. For the ref 16 thingy see my comment to jbmurray above (do a Ctrl+F for "00:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)"). (That applies to all refs from that site.) —Giggy 05:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you date all your refs so I can see when your information is coming from. ref #16 looks like it is a 2001 source and several others should have dates. It seems to me that critical reviews that were contemporaneous with the games peak would mention the realism by describing the streets. I am not asking for OR. I don't know vid games well enough to really judge how well you have exhausted sources. It seems odd that a game would not describe its realistic depiction in a press release that then makes it into several reviews.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, I'll be frank. I have no idea what the streets are. There are very few streets named in the game (I could only recognise one from that category), and adding information to the article along the lines of "the game contains the following streets: ..." would basically be gameguide content. Your oppose might be actionable, but I'm not seeing how it is, nor am I seeing what I can do about it. —Giggy 15:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fence Support: If this is really as full as the article can get then I put my vote in the hat... I still think the article intro needs to be one paragraph and not three broken ones. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work on the prose.
- "Before a race, the player can alter the race duration or the in-game weather (which can affect their vehicle's performance). Additionally, Checkpoint mode allows players to"—Isn't it stronger without the hedgehog "Additionally"? And there's an "additional" further down that may not be necessary.
- "The city in which the races are set is modeled after Chicago, and players pass notable landmarks such as the "El-Train", Sears Tower, Wrigley Field, and Soldier Field."—I had to hit one of those links to see that those landmarks are indeed in Chicago. I think you need to phrase it so the "and" connection is explicitly logical.
- Do we need a link for "traffic lights"?
- "LAN" is linked twice, not distant from each other, either.
- Order of ideas: "The original idea behind Midtown Madness, according to project director Clint Keith, came to two Microsoft employees while they were "trying to cross a busy Paris street"." Try 2,1,3, rather than 1,2,3, and lose a comma.
- "Keith notes that"—Unnecessary and laboured. Just remove it.
- "Ultimately, however, they agreed, and"—Put "however" first and lose a comma ... or two.
- "Gary Whitta of PC Gamer reported that the representation of the city was mostly accurate, though some landmarks were changed to improve the gaming experience." Ambiguous: you mean the change was on the basis of their feedback, or the real-life landmarks had been changed already?
- "some" raises alarm bells with me. "though some landmarks". What happens if you just get rid of it?
Who's the vid game edit guru? It's not a huge job, but attention to detail is required. Tony (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much for these comments Tony, I've addressed them. I think Deckiller is the guru; I'll contact him and see how busy he is. —Giggy 03:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, we want to be proud of this, so the rest needs to be massaged. Please locate word-nerds from vid g. FA edit summaries on hitory pages. They're around, these people. Tony (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made a few changes to the article to clarify areas. Hope they're moving in the right direction, but please tell me if there are any problems. Hope this helps, Gazimoff 12:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: Couldn't the lead be expanded to three paragraphs to give some info about development? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add a bit more meat to the lead now. There was some discussion further up (see Aaron P's comments here and on PR) where we agreed to two paragraphs (instead of 3). —Giggy 13:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a bit better. In my recent VG article I've been drifting towards three paragraphs, but as long as the lead meets WP:LEAD I'm happy. I'm continuing my spotting copyediting, I'll get back to you when I'm done. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further: All the references should have the author and date filled out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been done wherever known. (I'm not a fan of having "IGN Staff" as the author if nobody else is stated.) —Giggy 16:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mised refs 15-16 i believe. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been done wherever known. (I'm not a fan of having "IGN Staff" as the author if nobody else is stated.) —Giggy 16:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further: All the references should have the author and date filled out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on companies. It sounds to me that Angel was the developer, with MS higher-ups calling some shots (which is entirely normal for a publisher outsourcing contracts). The programming, art, level design, etc. appear to have been provided solely by Angel, which makes them the sole developer. Microsoft's involvement therefore does not constitute a role as co-developer. I also find no evidence that "Microsoft Game Studios" is a company, subsidiary or otherwise. It appears to be merely an internal organization and marketing label that Microsoft uses, in some ways comparable to Games for Windows. The lead and infobox could both be cleaned up to state more plainly (and perhaps accurately) that the developer is Angel and the publisher is MS. Ham Pastrami (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... Microsoft Game Studios calls it a subsidiary, but it took that name in 2002. My copy of the game (came in a bundle released in 2001, I believe) just says Microsoft. I've clarified accordingly. —Giggy 05:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by Sillyfolkboy: Maybe i'm being stupid but aren't full dates always supposed to be linked to let the software to the magic changy thing?
- "To unlock the other cars, the player must win several races in a specific mode" Does this mean just one specific mode or various times in each mode?
- Why does "World's Deadliest Police Chases" return so few google results? Is that the right name for the show? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, per recent WP:DATE changes date linking is optional and not recommended. The software only made those changes for people who set a preference, so for all non-logged in folk it would do nothing and get confusing.
- I've reworded the statement you quoted.
- I took the World's Deadliest Police Chases thingy direct from the source cited. The name also comes up here (IGN asks if the game will be like the show). I've never heard of the show but going by those two sources I assume it's real... —Giggy 05:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments (by BuddingJournalist)
- "reviewers praised the gameplay, but publications such as Allgame and Total Video Games criticized the graphics." If these truly are notable "publications", shouldn't they be italicized. And if so, why aren't they linked. If not, why are they mentioned in the lead?
- No, italics is based on MOS:ITALICS; it applies to magazines, newspapers, etc. The two you quote here are websites. I'm not sure why they're mentioned in the lead (and have taken them out), but Allgame has been wikilinked later on, while Total Video Games is just waiting for someone to get around to creating it (see also whatlinkshere). —Giggy 08:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- " Microsoft received permission from Volkswagen for the Beetle, and told IGN it was planning on using the Ford Mustang and F350,[11][12] both of which ultimately appeared in the game." Why is Microsoft telling IGN this information notable?
- Is there a consensus/guideline on refering to reviewers by their publication name rather than their actual name? ("Gamspot approved of...") I assume these aren't all editorials.
- It varies with different article; I usually go with publication name (authors are cited in the footnote, though), others go by author. I don't know of a strong consensus either way and am impartial to changing it if you have a strong argument one way or the other. —Giggy 08:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "city bus legitimately pulling out at a four-way junction can end your attempt instantly and tragically." How does this fit in with the sound descriptions of the rest of the sentence/paragraph? And what does "attempt" mean?
- "arguing that it felt as if cars "are often driving" Tense tension. BuddingJournalist 07:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "reviewers praised the gameplay, but publications such as Allgame and Total Video Games criticized the graphics." If these truly are notable "publications", shouldn't they be italicized. And if so, why aren't they linked. If not, why are they mentioned in the lead?
Comments - A racing video game. How did I miss this? Let me add some thoughts, keeping in mind that this is the oldest active FAC, meaning this will be shorter than most of my reviews.
- Gameplay: "Players have a choice of up to ten vehicles" Ten can be given as a numeral, although editors differ on this. This number happens to be the typical cutoff point.
- Yep, I generally spell out numbers up to and including ten.
- "This is a capture the flag style game" Hyphen after flag?
- Done.
- Development: Corrections needed. The Beetle in the game was the New Beetle. Yes, I did look that up. :-) Also, the F350 should be F-350, with hyphen.
- Both fixed; shows how little I know about cars!
- IGN could use a link here. Other reviewers could also use links, including GameSpot.
- Linked IGN; the others are linked in the reviews box and thus don't really need links in the reception prose.
- Reception: "generic looking" needs a hyphen.
- Fixed.
- "PC Zone praised Angel Studios for avoiding gimmicks,
butinstead..." But isn't needed with instead.- Fixed.
- I noticed a complaint above about "non-player cars". How about this: "However, it complained that cars not controlled by the player were lacking in details."?
- I like it :-) Done.
- "Total Video Games was critical of the setting; the review declared that cars "are often driving without noticing you at all."" Sounds more like an AI issue to this Gran Turismo 3 and 4 veteran. I can certainly relate.
- The context, I believe, is that traffic (and sometimes opponents, but mostly traffic) will continue driving despite the obstacles that end up in front of them (such as power poles, police cars, or you). I suppose it is more an AI thingk, reworded accordingly.
- Comma after and "fast and loose" would help break things up a bit.
- Done.
- "Reviews of Midtown Madness attributed most praise to its..." Attributed the most praise.
- Done.
Now a couple comments on prior issues: Back in 2001, people who play video games, like myself, were amazed that a city could be recreated in detail. To my knowledge, we weren't nit-picking every street corner like we do today. I do believe World's Deadliest Police Chases was a real show; it sounds like something Fox would have aired. That's it from me. 66.238.217.93 (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was me forgetting to log in.logged in on the wrong window (I need multiple windows for FAC work). Just wanted to clarify. :-( Oh, and the police chase show is real.[48] I knew it was a Fox show. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for your comments! I've replied inline in italics. And yeah, I was pretty impressed with this game's recreation back when I first played it, though I can't remember when that was... —Giggy 07:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After these changes, and one of my own (logical punctuation in a photo caption), I'm ready to support. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The prose is almost ready. I'll probably give it a final pass before I support. — Deckiller 01:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. — Deckiller 02:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:13, 22 July 2008 [49].
New York State Route 308
- Nominator(s): Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone
It may be short, but it sure is comprehensive, especially considering the short length of the road itself. It took quite a bit of research, and I think I've found every last bit of information about the route that there is to find. Comments are appreciated, obviously. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupportYou don't need to link common units of measure, like mile and kilometer. (I think I've gotten all of them already.)- The sole remaining one is in the infobox, which links it automatically, from what I can tell.
You might stub out Ulster and Delaware Turnpike or delink it to avoid a red link in the lead.In the lead section, "The earliest inhabitants of the route" sounds funny. I don't think of people living on a route. Similarly in the "History" section. (Is "on the route" a regional phrase, like "standing on line" vs. "standing in line", perhaps?)Also, same section, "the Native American Mohicans" sounds funny, too. Perhaps "the Mohicans, a Native American [group/people …]" (Also in section "History")What's the relevance of the bridge opening date in the lead section?I
mages should not separate headers from the beginning of the text, as Image:Downtown Rhinebeck, NY.jpg currently does.
"National Register of Historic Places" linked in back-to-back paragraphs in the "Route description" section.In the "History" section, "An estimated 8,000 Mohicans existed…" sounds kind of harsh and clinical. How about "An estimated 8,000 Mohicans lived…" or, even better, "The total population of the Mohicans was estimated at 8,000…"- In the Ulster and Delaware Turnpike charter quotation:
The river is spelled Susquehannah, and, as a direct quote, should appear spelled that way. Adding "[sic]" is appropriate.The parenthetical phrase "now Bainbridge" is not in the source linked, and should be in brackets. Also, "present-day Bainbridge" is a little more clear.Unless there is a good reason, wikilinks within quotes should be avoided, per MOS:QUOTE.
"NY 308 was assigned…" Since the article itself is about NY 308, perhaps say "The NY 308 designation was assigned…"- Several book citations are missing page numbers.
Examples: current notes 9–11, 10, 13. - Several book references are missing complete publishing data, such as location, publisher, and isbn. For those books without an isbn, other locator aids, like OCLC (available from Worldcat.org), are helpful.
- Those missing location
and/or publishing data: Notes9, 10, 11, 12, 13 — Bellhalla (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Those missing an ISBN: Notes 11, 13, and possibly note 10— Bellhalla (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]Those missing a year of publication: Note 10— Bellhalla (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those missing location
Note 3 is missing a publisher.Note 8 does not need to preserve the all caps of the title. Change to title case or sentence case, please.- Refs include a mixture of "Lastname, Firstname" and "Firstname Lastname" styling. I believe that the former is most common, but all should be consistent regardless.
— Bellhalla (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I think I got everything. If not, let me know. Thanks, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, it seems I missed quite a lot. I think I did get everything now except for finding a page number for one of the book refs. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look good (although it'd be nice to see the Milan Concerns source changed to something from a true historical society or suchlike, it's not a requirement), links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very good. This will hopefully be a quick pass. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 16:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments I think it would be worthwhile to include functional classification and traffic data for the route as this information is readily available. Also, the Ulster and Delaware Turnpike is not linked anywhere in the article. At a minimum, it should be linked the first time it is mentioned in History (even if it is currently a red link). --Polaron | Talk 01:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I think Route 982M should be mentioned in the history for completeness. --Polaron | Talk 02:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain how 982M is related to the route? I've never even heard of that route. Thanks, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 982M is the current designation for the former portion west of US 9. Also, I just checked the functional classifications of NY 308 and the two GIS segments are listed as "07" or rural major collector roads. --Polaron | Talk 14:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added bit about 982M. Not sure how to find traffic data and such, though. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain how 982M is related to the route? I've never even heard of that route. Thanks, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It may just be my web browser being weird, but the second image in the Route description section seems to push the History heading over. - Algorerhythms (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It works fine for me, but I added a {{-}}. Any better? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good now. - Algorerhythms (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, thanks. Any other comments? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That was the only major thing I noticed. Support. - Algorerhythms (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It works fine for me, but I added a {{-}}. Any better? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments—This is a very interesting article, and it should aspire to be the best summary source of information of its type in that part of the world. The writing needs scrutiny throughout; it's not too badly written, but there's certainly room for massaging to a professional standard. Here are random examples from the top.
- "a rural major collector road"; maybe I'm wrong—wouldn't you invert the order of the second and third words?
- Acres converted to sq. km, as opposed to hectares ... was just discussing this with Lightmouse. Normally I'd say small to small and large to large—I think it's 2.4 acres to the ha. But here, it's so large that maaaybe it's better. How many acres to the square mile? Do American readers have a better sense of point something of a sq. mile than thousands of acres?
- A portion of [the route]—wouldn't "Part of ..." be simpler? Portion sound like a kitchen recipe. There are others further down.
- The "also" in Para 1 is idle; stronger without. Every sentence is additional info. "Also" should only be used to mark additionality, to coint an ugly word.
- This is a long winding snake: "Indicated by artifacts found near Lake Sepasco, a small lake near NY 308, the highway began its history in about 1685, when a group of Native American Mohicans called the Sepasco built a trail known as the Sepasco Trail that ran from the Hudson River, eastward through modern-day Rhinebeck (then known as Sepasco), ending at Lake Sepasco." First off, use dashes so the reader doesn't think it will be a list: "Indicated by artifacts found near Lake Sepasco, a small lake near NY 308, and a marsh at the end of the route, the highway began ...". See what I mean? So "Indicated by artifacts found near Lake Sepasco—a small lake near NY 308—the highway began its history in about 1685, when a group of Native American Mohicans called the Sepasco built the Sepasco Trail; this trail ran from the Hudson River, eastward through modern-day Rhinebeck (then known as Sepasco), and ended at Lake Sepasco." Now you'v allowed them to rest momentarily at the semicolon and gather their thoughts. If you don't like two sets of dashes in two consecutive sentences, turn the next ones into commas.
- Talking of the next sentence, make it easier by removing "State of" (definitely) and "Town of" (maybe, see what you think). Shouldn't be caps, anyway.
- The last "also" in the lead: yep, that's a good one; it should always clearly relate to what has come before.
- "soon exiting Rhinebeck as it runs parallel to the Landsman Kill River"—"As" is a difficult word: is this a "while" or a "because" as? I think it's a "while" as, so "while running"? I avoid "as", usually. Non-native speakers have particular problems with it.
- MOS breach: no hyphen after "-ly".
- "inn in"—ha! Maybe try to avoid the juxtaposition, but it's no big deal. Inside the inn in Innsbruck.
- Bit stilted: "The Landsman Kill is noted for its numerous spawning runs of smelt, alewife, and blueback herring." (my italics). Who notes? The ref? I guess so. Just state the fact: "has numerous ...".
- "by way of an interchange"—"through", or even "via", although some people might object to the latter outside a scientific context (I don't). Via means route in Latin.
- Redundant wording: "carries an average volume of about 6,400 vehicles per day" --> "carries a daily average of 6,400 vehicles". See MOSNUM on approximations of large numbers.
- I'm not sure I follow about approximations. Should we change to "six thousand" (instead of 6400) and "four thousand" (instead of 3700)? I also think the word "volume" or "traffic" should be there since your phrasing is unclear as to what is being carried. --Polaron | Talk 04:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And more. I hope this ends up being promoted. Bring aboard fresh eyes? TONY (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. I think I fixed all the prose issues listed, so I'd appreciate if you could take another look and give me another set of examples. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source given doesn't seem to verify the claim of the oldest continuously operated inn (at least I couldn't find it there); anyway, this NY Times article can be used to source that text (noting that its wording is more in line with my thoughts, I'm not sure it's the oldest, but one of the many that claim to be). As Tony said, another run-through is needed; I found too many little things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Also tried to copyedit the article some. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:07, 28 July 2008 [50].
History of evolutionary thought
- Nominator(s): Rusty Cashman
- previous FAC (14:00, 15 December 2007)
It has taken a long time but I believe that all the issues that were raised during the December nomination have been addressed, and I think this article is now one of the best history of science articles on Wikipedia and fully meets the FA criteria. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I have yet to do a more thorough examination, but I've fixed a few simple things in the article to start: the hatnote has been standardized to use {{otheruses4}} instead of :''
, the references section now properly uses {{reflist}}, and I've fixed all of the links to disambiguation pages except one to Variation which is somewhat ambiguous as well in the text—I tagged it instead with a disambiguation-needed note. The article looks quite thorough based on my quick skim, though: I would say that criterion 1b will probably not be a problem. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for all the link disambiguation and template updates, I have disambiguated the variation link to point to genetic diversity which is the meaning of the term used throughout this article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The colons at the end of section titles that don't have anything after them look really awkward. Remove the colons when they are the last character in a section's title. Gary King (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing only image licensing: looks good,
though several images - Image:Great Chain of Being 2.png, Image:Owen geologic timescale.png, Image:Marsh Huxley horse.png, Image:Huxley - Mans Place in Nature.png - should say what they're actually from on the image page.I'm assuming any iTOL cortribution to Image:Collapsed tree labels simplified.png is ineligible for copyright. --NE2 11:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is correct, the TOL project supplied the data, but I generated the image. Data cannot be copyrighted. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I updated the image pages to show the original sources. The problem was that someone converted the original images from jpeg (or in the case of the great chain of being from GIF) to png and didn't copy over all the information. Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is correct, the TOL project supplied the data, but I generated the image. Data cannot be copyrighted. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
What makes http://www.hypatia-lovers.com/ a reliable source?
- I could make a case that hypatia-lovers.com is a reasonable source for material on a Greek philosopher, but I admit the point could be argued because the only conventionally published work (that I can find evidence of) by the author of the piece (Khan Amore) is a historical novel not a work of non fiction. Therefore I have replaced the originally cited source with an article from the Internet Enclopedia of Philosophy [[51]] that is written by a Professor of Classics at the Uninversity of Ireland, Maynooth, and which cites its own sources. The new source says the same things the old one did but in duller prose, and I hope it should be considered unimpeachable. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precursnatsel.html? This one looks like a usenet archive?
- TalkOrigins is a use group, but it is a very well known source for information on evolution and the evolution-creation-controversy and articles in its archives are routinely used as sources for artices on those topics (such as objections to evolution) here at Wikipedia, and some of their stuff has been published conventionally (The Counter Creationism Handbook is just a snapshot of TalkOrigins database of creationist claims and rebutals published in book form). I don't see any problem in using such a TalkOrigin archives article as a source for a routine translation of Aristotles comments on Empedocles. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is a problem using such a source in an FA. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I have a dead tree translation of Aristotle's Pysics from Britanica's great books at home. I will substitute that translation instead when I get home. Though I prefer a linkable web source the only 2 I can find are this one and the one at hypatia-lovers.com which has also been objected to as a reliable source. So I will go dead tree on this one. I don't like the implications of TalkOrigins archives not being considered a reliable source however. That could be a problem for other FA and future FA articles as not everything found there will have an alternative dead tree source. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is a problem using such a source in an FA. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok to avoid argument I have replaced the text of the translation with an almost identical translation from text of Aristotle's Physics from MIT and cited the new source. I still dislike characterizing TalkOrigins archives as not being a reliable source though. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For Talk origins, you'd have to individually show that the particular author of a post is well known in their field and published widely in the field with a good reputation. There can't be any blanket "reliablitiy" standard for usenet/web forum posts. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- TalkOrigins is a use group, but it is a very well known source for information on evolution and the evolution-creation-controversy and articles in its archives are routinely used as sources for artices on those topics (such as objections to evolution) here at Wikipedia, and some of their stuff has been published conventionally (The Counter Creationism Handbook is just a snapshot of TalkOrigins database of creationist claims and rebutals published in book form). I don't see any problem in using such a TalkOrigin archives article as a source for a routine translation of Aristotles comments on Empedocles. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 7 "Daoism and Nature" needs a last access date.What makes http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/Aristotl.htm a reliable source? Note that the author seems to be a biology professor, not a specialist in philosophy or the history of science?
- I also think I could have defended this source, but it turns out that it was redundant, as another source that was added later covered all the same points. Therefore I just deleted the disputed source. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 27 has the publisher in the title link. Please, for consistency with the other references, put it outside the link.
- Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
- Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe all of these comments have now been addressed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I wonder about this repetition first under Greek thought:
- This scala naturæ, described in History of Animals, classified organisms in relation to a hierarchical "Ladder of Life" or "Chain of Being", placing them according to complexity of structure and function, with organisms that showed greater vitality and ability to move described as "higher organisms".[4]
Then, a couple of short paragraphs down, under Middle Ages > Christian thought and the great chain of being you have:
- and of all potential life forms being present in a perfect creation, to organize all inanimate, animate, and spiritual beings into a huge interconnected system: the scala naturæ, or great chain of being.
—Mattisse (Talk) 17:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This has bee discussed on the article talk page. Aristotle's Ladder of Life was a biologic system of classification for animals. The Christian Great Chain of Being was a much bigger metaphysical idea that included both natural and supernatural elements. It is true that one was partly derived from the other, but they are not the same thing even if the Christian theologans happened to use the same Latin term, scala naturae, for both. The cited source is clear about this. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (
Comment—It's a good article and I'm leaning toward support. But I did find a few issues that could be corrected:)Why is there a year range for Plato and Aristotle, but not for other individuals?
- I have now provided dates for all the people mentioned in the Antiquity section although the dates for Anaximander and Empedocles are approsimate, and the best I could do for Zhuangzi wss that he lived sometime around the 4th century BC. I don't see any reason to provide dates for people mentioned in the other sections as there are other dates in those sections that provide chronological context. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To maintain the correct historical sequence, shouldn't the Islamic thought section go before the Christian thought section?
- Done. You are right, although Christian and Islamic thought developed in parallel the Islamic ideas discussed started earlier. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence seems confusing, or at least puzzlingly ambiguous, and I think it needs a re-write: "Unlike Cuvier, Buckland and some other advocates of natural theology among British geologists made efforts to explicitly link the last catastrophic episode to the biblical flood."
- I believe I have now clarified the sentence. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The various instances of "earth" should be capitalized to disambiguate them from dirt. "solar system" should also be capilalized.
- Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the "1920s–1940s" sections, please insert paragraph breaks for ease of reading.
- Thank you.—RJH (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rusty Cashman: I've marked some spots in the "1920s–1940s" sections where I think paragraph breaks would be most natural. I'm not sure of the reference structure, however, as those big paragraphs have their refs all at the end—so I've left off actually implementing paragraph breaks. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 19:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, and I clarified where the Mayr and Provine citations really applied. The Bowler and Larson citations really are global because they (quite reasonably) treat the subjects as closely related and cover them with entire chapters .Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I should say that I find the article fascinating and will support it. Also, on review, I might have been wrong about the source I criticized above and that you changed on my account. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well all is well that ends well and for a translation of a qoutation from Aristotle a full translation of the entire work probably does make a better source than an essay with a snipet no doubt taken from some other full translation. I do think there is some great material in the TalkOrigin archive though, and I am sure some other FA article will use it as a source, for something that can't so easily be found somewhere else. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- The use of "Darwinism" is inappropriate, unless it is in a historical sense or in discussing creationism. In the lead, it states that the term is "often used." In general, not by scientists. Darwinism is a pejorative term hijacked by fundamental religionists to imply that studying Evolution is like a religion. However, to confuse me and the reader, the editor uses Darwinism correctly later in the article to describe Darwin's specific theory of Evolution, which does make sense in a historical context. But if one reads the lead, one assumes that Evolution=Darwinism, but later in the article, apparently Darwinism (really meaning the early theory, not the totality of Evolution) is eclipsed. Well, I contend that Darwin's theories have not been eclipsed, just added to the overall Evolutionary synthesis, but worse is the fact that a casual, slightly biased reader would then say, "see, Darwinism is dead." And if this article is a history of evolutionary thought, it should clearly state that the word Darwinism has a different context today than it did 100 years ago. That alone indicates a weakness and possible POV in the article.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so it's clear, I think this is a great article, and should eventually become FA. It's just that the bias inherent to the word "Darwinism" has a negative meaning to anyone who studies Evolution. I think the lead needs to reflect the bias in the word. And again, if this is truly a history of evolutionary thought, why wouldn't we discuss how that term has changed in meaning? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rusty and I have reworded the lead a bit more. The misuse of the word "Darwinism" by creationists is probably better ignored in this article, since it deals with the history of genuine evolutionary theory, not religious-political maneuvering. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I agree that the creationist discussion doesn't belong here, but I thought if there was going to be some push-back on continuing to use Darwinism, then the historical context needs to be explained. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rusty and I have reworded the lead a bit more. The misuse of the word "Darwinism" by creationists is probably better ignored in this article, since it deals with the history of genuine evolutionary theory, not religious-political maneuvering. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the section titles are a bit clumsy, which makes it difficult to anticipate what it's going to discuss. Specifically "Anticipations of natural selection", "Unconventional evolutionary thought", and the remaining sections that use "thought" in the title. Usually, an individual has a thought. A people or group would have an "idea", "opinion", or "theory". When I looked at this article a few months ago, it bothered me then, but I think I was so obsessed with "Darwinism" I forgot to bring it up.
- I've either shortened the sections titles, ore replaced "thought", where appropriate, with "philosophy". Tim Vickers (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do wish the headings could be shortened and be more focused. Since Anticipations of natural selection is already under 19th century before On the Origin of Species, could it be shorted to Pre natural selection or something like that? Also, is Evo-devo a common term, as I have never heard it? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a common abbreviation, but you're right that we should use the full term as the subject heading. I've substituted "Evolutionary developmental biology" Tim Vickers (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do wish the headings could be shortened and be more focused. Since Anticipations of natural selection is already under 19th century before On the Origin of Species, could it be shorted to Pre natural selection or something like that? Also, is Evo-devo a common term, as I have never heard it? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've either shortened the sections titles, ore replaced "thought", where appropriate, with "philosophy". Tim Vickers (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm almost certain that the "other uses" redirecting to Evolutionism is inappropriate. Shouldn't that redirect to modern evolutionary synthesis or something to that effect? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has bothered me that the wikilink to modern evolutionary synthesis is so far down in the article and placed in a way that it is easy to overlook or ignore.I see that is no longer the case. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hope I am not being ignorant, but Plato (427/8–347/8 BC)? Are these normal dates?
- That was the way the dates are presented in Plato, however I have switched to (c. 428-348 BC) which is a more standard way of presenting approximate or uncertain dates per the MoS. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The first Muslim biologist and philosopher to put forth detailed speculations about evolution was the Afro-Arab writer al-Jahiz in the 9th century. He considered the effects of the environment on an animal's chances for survival, and described the struggle for existence." Is it right to wikilink Darwin here?
- I have removed the wiki-link. It was questionable because Al-Jahiz talks a great deal about the struggle for existence, but it is not so clear that he is talking about natural selection. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "He compared these early theories to the modern Darwinian theory of evolution of his time, arguing that the former were developed " - do you mean to wikilink Darwinism here, considering its meaning now, referred to above?
- I think this is Ok. Darwinism describes both the historical and modern meanings of the term, and we can't get away from the term here (because it is a quotation) and so it is probably best to link it for explanation. Especially since we no longer give the historical definition in the lead like we used to. In fact I think I will go back and link the term in the Huxley quote as well. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
—Mattisse (Talk) 19:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if Mattisse and OrangeMarlin could take a minute and let Tim and myself know if you feel any of your previous comments have not been satisfactorly addressed. Between the complex nested comments and responses here and the comments some other editors have been leaving on the talk page, I am afraid something might slip through the cracks or that there might be a misunderstanding about what has been addressed and what has not been. Thanks. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, my comments have been addressed. I still have a hesitancy about the TOC, that the section headings are needlessly long and inconsistent. However, I have been unable to find MoS statements specifically addressing this, so perhaps I am wrong about any requirement along those lines. I also have minor quibbles about the order in which topics are introduced; for example, Darwin seems to pervade the entire article although the evidence in the article shows that he was only one of many who contributed to the history of evolution. Also, the overlapping of dates is a little confusing, for example, in sections titled after a date range but not containing everything in the article within that range. Am I making sense? Anyway, these are my own quibbles and others may not agree. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue Mattisse raises seems to arise from minor and probably unneccessary references looking forward to Darwin in earlier sections – in the Islamic "He compared these early theories to the modern Darwinian theory of evolution of his time" could be simply "He compared these early theories to the modern evolutionary theory of his time", thus avoiding the diversion into all the various meanings of "Darwinism" (an article i'm in the midst of revising), and in the Great chain of being section the reference to "a saying which Charles Darwin often quoted: natura non facit saltum ("nature does not make leaps")" is not helped by the reference to Darwin – if mentioned at all, that should be discussed in relation to Darwin dealing with the saltationist ideas of his contemporaries, including Huxley. There may be other instances. . . dave souza, talk 19:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed or reworded those two early references to Darwin. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – The article overall appears excellent to me, at the moment I'm a bit bogged down in detail so may comment later. . . dave souza, talk 19:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "While transmutation of species was accepted by a sizable number of scientists before 1859" - I know the FAC editors do not like this kind of vague wording. Is "sizable number" most scientists? Also, there is quite a bit of unnecessary passive voice in this article. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed the wording to "By the 1850s whether or not species evolved was a subject of intense debate, with promininent scientists arguing both sides of the issue.", which I think is stonger and which closely follows (Larson 2003 p. 50). I can't get much more precise than that and remain faithful to the source. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
CommentProse is good, structure is good. A couple of points- Haldane's role in population genetics is noted but skipped in the modern evolutionary synthesis. Something that has been suggested as wilful neglect on the part of Ernst Mayr.(Unable to trace citation, but there is something in the last 5 years on this) It may be good idea to make amends and include him in the evolutionary synthesis part.
- It is true that there has been some controversy on this issue in the past, with some accounts (inlcuding that of Provine prior to the 1990s) treating the work of Fisher, Haldane and Wright in integrating Mendelian genetics with natural selection as if that was the modern evolutionary synthesis. However, the current consensus among historians of science as reflected in (Mayr and Provine 1995), which represents a shift it position by Provine, (Bowler 2003), (Larson 2004), and (Bowler and Morus 2005) is to treat the foundation of population genetics in the 1920s as a key step towards the synthesis but defining the synthesis itself as the work in the 1930s and 1940s by field naturalists, paleontologists, and botanists to synthesize their disciplines with the new ideas from population genetics to produce a new universal theory about how evolution worked. This is the position taken by modern evolutionary synthesis and I believe it represents current consensus among historians of science. Incidentally this issue was thrashed out in depth in talk page discussions on [[modern evolutionary synthesis] with me arguing the other side (based on older sources I had read) before I was convinced I was wrong.Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just checked the archives of the talk pages of MES but still find no discussions on Haldane's role although the page itself does not deny credit to him (as Mayr apparently did). The following has more on the issue - Sarkar, Sahotra (2007) Haldane and the emergence of modern evolutionary theory. Pages 49- In Philosophy of Biology by Mohan Matthen and Christopher Stephens. Elsevier. ISBN 0444515437 http://books.google.no/books?id=bVww2ZPO258C&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=Haldane+Sahotra+Sarkar&source=web&ots=38GlKX7EJV&sig=p7Ll8-15pmbxq_B23WeYLpY2r2Q&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result Shyamal (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion was not about Haldane specifically , but rather about the treatment of the work of Fisher, Haldane and Wright together as part of the story of the modern evolutionary syhnthesis. Mayr is stingy in his treatment of all of what he called the practitioners of "bean bag" genetics, which included Haldane, Fisher, (and to a lesser extent Wright). This was at least in part due to his frustration with earlier accounts that treated the creation of population genetics as if that was the entire evolutionary synthesis. However, this portion of the article does not follow Mayr (and only follows Mayr and Provine for a few specific points) rather the main account follows (Larson 2004) and (Bowler 2003) which treat Haldane's work as quite important (especially Larson) as does this article. I just don't see the problem with the current text of the article, which clearly says that the work of Fisher, Haldane and Wright was foundational to the field of population genetics and that population genetics was a key step in modern evolutionary theory. I just don't see what else would be needed or appropriate. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but the section on the synthesis makes it appear that the population geneticists did not know where their work fitted in the scheme of things and that Dobzhansky "bridged the divide between"... That "divide" seems to have been introduced by Mayr and that is where I feel amends must be made. Hope you found the piece above of use, not all pages seem to be visible on Google books, but I think that should be sufficiently relevant. The current text seems to fail to note the large number of players in the synthesis as indicated fairly well in the main article on the MES. Shyamal (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion was not about Haldane specifically , but rather about the treatment of the work of Fisher, Haldane and Wright together as part of the story of the modern evolutionary syhnthesis. Mayr is stingy in his treatment of all of what he called the practitioners of "bean bag" genetics, which included Haldane, Fisher, (and to a lesser extent Wright). This was at least in part due to his frustration with earlier accounts that treated the creation of population genetics as if that was the entire evolutionary synthesis. However, this portion of the article does not follow Mayr (and only follows Mayr and Provine for a few specific points) rather the main account follows (Larson 2004) and (Bowler 2003) which treat Haldane's work as quite important (especially Larson) as does this article. I just don't see the problem with the current text of the article, which clearly says that the work of Fisher, Haldane and Wright was foundational to the field of population genetics and that population genetics was a key step in modern evolutionary theory. I just don't see what else would be needed or appropriate. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just checked the archives of the talk pages of MES but still find no discussions on Haldane's role although the page itself does not deny credit to him (as Mayr apparently did). The following has more on the issue - Sarkar, Sahotra (2007) Haldane and the emergence of modern evolutionary theory. Pages 49- In Philosophy of Biology by Mohan Matthen and Christopher Stephens. Elsevier. ISBN 0444515437 http://books.google.no/books?id=bVww2ZPO258C&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=Haldane+Sahotra+Sarkar&source=web&ots=38GlKX7EJV&sig=p7Ll8-15pmbxq_B23WeYLpY2r2Q&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result Shyamal (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a little text making the point more explicit that the development of population genetics and the integration of Mendelian genetics with natural selection was the key first step in the synthesis. As to the gap Dobzhansky "bridged" most historians now believe that was real enough. The work of the population geneticists was highly mathematical and not read/understood by many field naturalilsts or paleontologists and the models the population geneticists used for real world populations were too simple, under estimating the degree of genetic diversity, and the importance of genetically distinct sup-populations. Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Edit conflict) I added some as well with a rewording that links to microevolution and macroevolution. If you think the phrasing needs an additional citation, you can use Mayr, E. (1988) TOWARD A NEW PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY: OBSERVATIONS OF AN EVOLUTIONIST, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA USA and he is quoted here http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html. Shyamal (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is true that there has been some controversy on this issue in the past, with some accounts (inlcuding that of Provine prior to the 1990s) treating the work of Fisher, Haldane and Wright in integrating Mendelian genetics with natural selection as if that was the modern evolutionary synthesis. However, the current consensus among historians of science as reflected in (Mayr and Provine 1995), which represents a shift it position by Provine, (Bowler 2003), (Larson 2004), and (Bowler and Morus 2005) is to treat the foundation of population genetics in the 1920s as a key step towards the synthesis but defining the synthesis itself as the work in the 1930s and 1940s by field naturalists, paleontologists, and botanists to synthesize their disciplines with the new ideas from population genetics to produce a new universal theory about how evolution worked. This is the position taken by modern evolutionary synthesis and I believe it represents current consensus among historians of science. Incidentally this issue was thrashed out in depth in talk page discussions on [[modern evolutionary synthesis] with me arguing the other side (based on older sources I had read) before I was convinced I was wrong.Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Microbiology has just recently developed into an evolutionary discipline is rather an odd statement. Indeed Luria and Delbrück's; and Lederberg's replica plating experiments should be pioneering. I suspect that the wording was intended to indicate that only with the advent of sequencing has microbial phylogeny been put on a firm footing.
- I have reworded the text. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gaia as an extension of the endosymbiotic theory is one way of connecting the ideas in this section to the earlier parts. I think the view may be found in some work(s) by Margulis herself.
Shyamal (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can the "c." before dates be expanded to either "circa" or "around"? and what is "d."?
- Please see WP:MOS; c. and ca. are preferred to circa. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can the "c." before dates be expanded to either "circa" or "around"? and what is "d."?
- Yes, and d. means died. It is used when only the date of death is known. Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes: final paragraph of "1859–1930s: Darwin and his legacy" is uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The sections on the Chinese and Romans need some work, I think. The Chinese paragraph especially is woefully short and doesn't really explain much, and both need to have their connections to evolutionary thought more thoroughly explained. Also, you shouldn't have a section in the plural ("Unconventional ideas") if only one example is present. And if only one unconventional idea exists, why not just make the Gaia hypotheses a top section of its own. But surely there is more than one unconventional way of thinking about evolution. There are Christians who believe that God guided evolution, for example, which I'm pretty sure has been written about. Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I renamed the section to "unconvential evolutioanry theory". Theistic evolution is addressed under "alternatives to natural selection". I will look at the Chinese tomorrow.Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I strengthened the Chinese section a little. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I renamed the section to "unconvential evolutioanry theory". Theistic evolution is addressed under "alternatives to natural selection". I will look at the Chinese tomorrow.Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 1)
The section on Lucretius is very misleading: the default expectation with anything in Lucretius is that it is Epicurean doctrine, not his own ideas. Some experts (Sedley) would go so far as to say that Lucretius is only reporting the doctrine of Epicurus himself and ignoring subsequent developments.You could partly avoid the problems by making the section "Greeks and Romans" (it's a continuous tradition in any case); but you should also be careful with the wording (don't imply that we know or even think that this is Lucretius' own idea). 2) The summary of Lucretius also looks wrong (e. g. if I remember correctly it's the evolution of society that Lucretius is talking about with humans, not some biological change, which is the impression that the reader gets from your text).3) Reference to primary sources, the actual place in Lucretius where he says these things, is desirable (alongside secondary lit., if it's reliable). There's a commentary on the relevant parts of Lucr. by Gordon Campbell, Lucretius on Creation and Evolution: A Commentary on De Rerum Natura, Book Five, Lines 772-1104, Oxford: OUP, 2004. ISBN 0199263965. N p holmes (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I found two good sources on Lucretius [52] and [53] I will reword the section based on these sources tomorrow. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I more or less completely rewrote the section on Lucretius. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't notice any inaccuracies in the rewritten section, though I still think you'd do better to put Lucretius at the end of a Greeks and Romans section. It's slightly lacking in detail now, perhaps. If the decision on Featured article status is going to take a while, I could suggest specific wording; but it'll do as it is. N p holmes (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I more or less completely rewrote the section on Lucretius. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I found two good sources on Lucretius [52] and [53] I will reword the section based on these sources tomorrow. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It's getting there. While not perfect in terms of balance, I think the material through the modern synthesis is in pretty good shape. I have some more major issues with the post-molecular biology sections that I'm in the process of describing on the talk page and trying to work out in the article.--ragesoss (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In the last three sections especially, there is too much use of the passive voice, from my point of view. Are there not any names that can be attached to varying views? It makes the more recent times seem dull compared to the contrasting views of individuals and schools in previous centuries. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that ragesoss's efforts will address some of these concerns. Hoever it is a simple truism that with history of science articles that cover big topics like evolution it is impossible to cover later developments in the same depth as it is possible to cover ealier ones. This of course is because of the exponential growth of scientific activity during the 20th century. The lack of historical perspective on recent developments hurts as well. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/India House
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 16:01, 29 August 2008 [54].
New York State Route 22
- Nominator(s): Mitch32(UP)
- previous FAC (00:39, 29 July 2008)
This is the article's 2nd FAC. It has been greatly improved since the last FAC, for which I was on vacation for. This article in my mind, now deserves a 2nd chance. Mitch32(UP) 20:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checkerd tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on images —This is part of a comment by Awadewit (of 19:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
Image:NY Route 22 map.png - The description needs to indicate the source for the map information.Also, ideally maps need to be in svg format.Image:NY 22 first reassurance shield.jpg - Link to the userpage is red.Image:NY 22 - US 4 concurrency signs.jpg - Link to the userpage is red.Image:NY 74-NY 22 split at NY 9N in Ticonderoga.JPG - Link to the userpage is red.Image:NY 9N-NY 22 concurrency signs in Ticonderoga.jpg - Link to the userpage is red.Image:145stbrfeb.JPG - No indication who the author is - is it the uploader?- Says that he is the copyight holder of the work in the licensing.Mitch32(UP) 16:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The licensing just says "I". Awadewit (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I replaced it with a more clear copyright image.Mitch32(UP) 23:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks just the same to me. Awadewit (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the status of this image? Awadewit (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, the image description says who the author is, the one who uploaded it. He even mentions his own name.Mitch32(UP) 20:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But it doesn't - are we looking at the same thing? Image:145stbrfeb.JPG Awadewit (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I said I had replaced the image with a more clear copyright one - Image:Harlem - W124st - Malcolm X - south.jpg.Mitch32(UP) 14:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But it doesn't - are we looking at the same thing? Image:145stbrfeb.JPG Awadewit (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, the image description says who the author is, the one who uploaded it. He even mentions his own name.Mitch32(UP) 20:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the status of this image? Awadewit (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks just the same to me. Awadewit (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I replaced it with a more clear copyright image.Mitch32(UP) 23:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The licensing just says "I". Awadewit (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Says that he is the copyight holder of the work in the licensing.Mitch32(UP) 16:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:NYSR22 WashingtonCty.jpg - Why do you believe this is in the PD?
- The source of the image here does say it is public domain. I do realize that may be insufficient for Wikipedia purposes but since I am not very familiar with image licensing, what do we need to do about this? Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 16:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mitch, if you don't have an account on Commons, you should link to your English Wikipedia userpage. Awadewit (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) Review me! 22:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any rationale for your support? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The reasons are listed above. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) Review me! 23:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any rationale for your support? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Leaning towards support, but it's disappointing to spot-check and find things to complain of so easily:
- "The highway gradually expands to three and sometimes four lanes as it passes
somebuilt-up areaswithof strip development." - "Past the village, the railroad tracks come closer to the highway as NY 22 enters the scenic Harlem Valley, which lends its name to the line.[5] The road starts to curve more gently and take longer straightaways, with less development." Which line—the railroad (oh, perhaps I'm missing a common US name for roads)? There's a lot of the word "come" around; try "edges close" here? Remove "starts to"? "with less development" is vague, and could even refer to the development of the road itself. Do you mean "with a lower density of commercial and residential development along its sides", or some such?
- "Located" is usually redundant: it is here.
- "Finally ends"—both words necessary?
- "Massachusetts takes Connecticut's place as the state behind Alander Mountain and the other peaks visible to the east." This notion of replacement is a bit laboured here. Unsure how to reword it.
- "on its way to state line-straddling Catamount Ski Center"—eeuuuw. Should be two hyphens, but it's an ugly duckling; rephrase to avoid the triple adjective. the CSC, which straddles ...
- "The highway gradually expands to three and sometimes four lanes as it passes
Hmmmm ... Tony (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The last two bullet points have indeed been somewhat difficult to phrase over the various versions. I'll try and see if I can come up with better phrasing tonight and post here again when changes have been made. The rest of your suggestions do indeed read better and we'll implement them as well. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 12:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- UPDATE: Improvements per above have been made. Regarding the 4th bullet point, I've changed the text to "North of the county line, Massachusetts becomes the state behind Alander Mountain and the other peaks visible to the east." Admittedly not the clearest way to say it but I think it is slightly better than the previous version. As for the 5th bullet point, I have reworded it to say "on its way to Catamount Ski Center, which straddles the New York–Massachusetts state line.", which is probably the best way to say it. Please let us know if these changes work. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 18:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, well done. A few glitches:
"Two miles from Pawling, the Appalachian Trail crosses the road next to its own flag stop on the line." Not crazy about the "its own" easter-egg link."... an area once the subject of a boundary dispute between New York and Connecticut." When?"Within the park, NY 22 mainly follows the lakeshore, closer to some of its more populated areas." People live in the national park?--Laser brain (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. I'll fix the first point to say "...next to the Applachian Trail flag stop..." and I'll also add the time period of the border dispute. As for the third point, yes, there are villages and hamlets located within the Adirondack Park lands.
- Support I'm sure I could find a bunch of things to nit-pick, but I read the article before the FAC, and it generally meets the criteria. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:11, 14 August 2008 [55].
Puerto Rican Amazon
- Nominator(s): Joelr31
This is the second article I created after joining Wikipedia and after some time without any improvements the article finally received some needed attention by User:Caribbean H.Q. and some copyediting by User:Casliber. I believe that all FA criteria are met and that any concerns will be promptly addressed. Joelito (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (moral or otherwise) as WP:Birds member and contributor to article, I note my bias but still feel the article meets criteria. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. One thing though, "Natural predators of the Puerto Rican Amazon include the Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), the Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo platypterus), the Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) and the Pearly-eyed Thrasher (Margarops fuscatus).[2]" - that reference only names the Red-tailed Hawk. An alternate reference that lists them all might be better. maclean 01:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:59, 26 July 2008 [56].
United Airlines Flight 93
Self-nomination. Seeing how poorly I performed in the 9/11 article FA review, I got a second wind to finish this article. Anyway, I have more than doubled the references, chosen reliable sources over blogs, and rewritten the article in fine detail. I am open to your criticism. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe that quotations inside blockquotes, or pull quotes in your case, are not supposed to have quotation marks.
Also, Load factor goes to a disambig page. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I've delinked load factor because the article I wanted to link to is uncreated. I've always seen quotes in the quote boxes with quote marks. El Greco, Flight 11, and Flight 77 are all FA with that style. -- 17:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Current ref 19 (Pauley, Jane "No greater love") is lacking a publisher
- Otherwise sources looked good, links checked out with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've read a few sections of the article, and it seems really great, overall. I understood the meaning of the words perfectly, but as I am very bad at catching minor errors, like Ealdgyth did above, I'll wait to see what happens later before supporting or opposing. However, I do have a minor issue about {{reflist}} in which I've left a note on the article's talk page. --haha169 (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Would you mind if the dates that are not full dates are delinked? The trend in FAC is to link as little as possible, and linking to specific days or years that are not full dates for no apparent reason is discouraged. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: No problem. I've gone over and delinked every partial date I could find. -- VegitaU (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is incorrect. Looking at what you've done, VegitaU, there seems to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Date autoformatting. If you use autoformatting (date linking), full dates, as well as month-day combos need to be linked so user date preferences will display consistently. Dates need to display consistently, both for logged in user with date preferences set, and logged out users, in raw format. Delinking only month-day combos is not correct, because they display according to user preferences, just as full dates do (for example, 27 June or June 27 and 27 June 1949 or June 27, 1949). What you've done now will display dates inconsistently, depending on user preferences, since some month-day combos are linked and some are not. For example, depending on a user's preferences, they could see September 11 in one case, and 11 September 2001 in another, because you've delinked them only partially. If you delink dates, you don't just delink dates that are not full dates; all full dates and month-day combos (not month year or solo years) should be linked or not linked consistently throughout the article, and the raw format should also be consistent. So, you have several issues now. You just delinked (incorrectly) month-day combos, without delinking month day, year combos, while the dates in the text are Month day, year format, but the dates in the citations are year-mm-dd format. To get back to a closer version of correct, you could revert the date delinking you just did. I'm not asking editors to fix the citation date inconsistency, since that's an issue with the cite templates, but you do need to link correctly and consistently within the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article is very compelling. You have outlined the sequence of events very well. Some of the direct quotes seem off, but I am assuming you have transcribed them correctly. An excellent article. I am sure to support. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a good article. I've cleansed it of date autoformatting—both full month/day/years and month days. It is highly appropriate that US formatting be used throughout: all English-speakers are used to hearing and reading September 11, 2001, and "9/11" as an iconic item. Date preferences should not be allowed to reverse this. It's still rather densely linked; I removed some trivials such as "cigarette lighter". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 16:54, July 12, 2008
- Tony, thanks for finishing the dates, but we still need to discuss (at the MOSDATE thread preferably) how to handle delinking when the citation templates aren't consistent. The article now has delinked dates in Month day, year format, while the citations have linked dates in the ISO format. As I explained at the MOSDATE thread, since that is a cite template issue, I'm inclined to overlook it for now, as long as the article and the citations are each separately consistent. Followup there, but on this FAC, we need to be sure there's no misunderstanding about partial linking/delinking within the article, which was the status last night. (VegitaU, since this is all somewhat off topic because of the guideline change, I'll move all of this delinking talk to the talk page later.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Just some suggestions to reduce the linking per User:Tony1 above. Perhaps Al-Qaeda could be delinked right before Osama bin Laden since it is linked in the Osama article anyway. Maybe you could pipe the names of some Florida towns, since Florida is linked on its own, e.g. Miami, Orlando. Also, does linking GTE right before airphones contribute anything? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with regard to well-written and engaging prose. Some observations:
- This might be a British thing but do planes lift-off or take-off?
- Was the expression "knifed" actually used?
- American euphemisms are well-known but you don't see bathrooms on planes, (we have the better "lavatory" elsewhere.
- I don't know what an "auto shop" is.
- We have "Captitol" not linked, then U.S. Capitol not linked and then United States Capitol.
- The penultimate sentence hangs, it's more like a prepositional phrase.
- (I wish that sound clip icon didn't have pretty little musical notes coming from the speaker).
Thanks for an interesting and valuable contribution. GrahamColmTalk 08:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support planes take off, rockets lift off, excellent work. Dincher (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Another featured article from the Wikipedia House of Mirth, VegitaU. Why must I stare at flowering vegetation for an hour or so after reading your articles?...In looking at sources, have you considered making #13 and #15 bibliography entries and citing page numbers instead? Practically, it helps readers find the place you're citing much quicker, especially if it's a substantial text such as the 9/11 Commission Report. Personally, I get nervous citing a source more than five times, and it helps allay suspicion that you're interpreting a large amount of text to your liking. --Moni3 (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note; there is a large amount of WP:NBSP work needed, not just on the delinked dates. (When dates are delinked, nbsps need to be added, but there are other nbsps missing as well.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is very impressive, although I find the generally short sentences to give a choppy feel to the text. ( Ceoil sláinte 21:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hard spaces and autoformat-free dates: well, I don't agree entirely with Sandy about the necessity of adding hard spaces between month and day, but I suppose in the larger scheme of things, it's preferable. Please consider doing this; a monobook should shortly be available that does this automatically (more news later). I've added the hard spaces to the dates in this article.
- I note that during the recent debate at MOS about how widely hard-spaces should be used, Sandy was on the wide-usage end; the argument that hard-spaces should be used judiciously won the day, i.e., in places where it's awkward to see a new line start with a number, or where it's awkward to read a word and its associated number over a line-break. As worded previously, MOS said "11 chairs" had to be joined by a hard-space—the consensus was that this was taking things too far, given that hard spaces can exert an undesirable stretching of words across a line, especially where the compound unit is a long string. TONY (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just saying what's in WP:NBSP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like hard spaces, either. Gary King (talk) 05:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We should take this conversation to WP:MOSDATE, but with autoformatting, it's built in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like hard spaces, either. Gary King (talk) 05:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just saying what's in WP:NBSP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that during the recent debate at MOS about how widely hard-spaces should be used, Sandy was on the wide-usage end; the argument that hard-spaces should be used judiciously won the day, i.e., in places where it's awkward to see a new line start with a number, or where it's awkward to read a word and its associated number over a line-break. As worded previously, MOS said "11 chairs" had to be joined by a hard-space—the consensus was that this was taking things too far, given that hard spaces can exert an undesirable stretching of words across a line, especially where the compound unit is a long string. TONY (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing only image licensing: can we be sure that all the trial evidence is public domain? --NE2 12:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All evidence was taken by the NTSB, FBI, FAA, or other federal agencies. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What about Image:ZJarrah.JPG? --NE2 16:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Picture from his passport, acquired by the FBI. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And German passport photos are public domain? --NE2 16:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- {{PD-GermanGov}} I would say so. The FBI doesn't have anything on their site about copyrights. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That template claims "statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment", which a passport photo doesn't seem to be. de:Amtliches Werk doesn't include the word "reisepass" (passport). --NE2 17:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- {{PD-GermanGov}} I would say so. The FBI doesn't have anything on their site about copyrights. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And German passport photos are public domain? --NE2 16:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Picture from his passport, acquired by the FBI. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What about Image:ZJarrah.JPG? --NE2 16:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I started a section at commons:Commons talk:Licensing#Image:ZJarrah.JPG. --NE2 18:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's cool, but if this is so, this and this will have to be redone. The FBI has probably assumed control of this work. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there resolution yet on the image issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure. User:NE2 brought it up on commons, but no one is talking. I'm dead-set certain the photo is public domain. It was released after the Moussaoui trial here and is not his passport photo seen here. My problem is I can't find where it came from besides the FBI site. -- VegitaU (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there resolution yet on the image issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Although the article is vastly improved, there are things to address.
- The "hijackers" section stops at June 27, when the last hijacker arrived, and then the article jumps ahead to the hijackers checking in for the flight on September 11.
- Some of the details in the "hijackers" section are excessive, such as that all three "muscle" hijackers arrived from Dubai.
- "Jarrah called his girlfriend..." - what girlfriend? nothing about her is mentioned previously in the article. That he had a girlfriend and was closer to his family was important. He is the one who had doubts and considered dropping out of the 9/11 plot.
- "It remained delayed on the ground and did not takeoff until 08:42" - this is a rather important fact, but the article doesn't say anything about why the flight was delayed.
- "Investigators found some debris scattered up to eight miles ..." - debris, such as what?
- A lot of disparate information is in the "Aftermath" section. How is Bin Laden, Atef, and KSM discussing targets something that fits in the aftermath section? This part of the article probably belongs elsewhere, with a subheading.
- Why did Flight 93 have only four hijackers? what about the "fifth" hijacker, and speculation surrounding that?
This is just a preliminary review, with some things to work on. I can do a more detailed review sometime this week. --Aude (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Alright, I've made as many changes as I could from your issues. Let me address them.
- It's hard to find notable information about the hijackers between their arrival and 9/11. Most of the stories come from witness testimony about running into the men in a hospital or apartment. I don't think that adds anything to the understanding of United Airlines Flight 93. How about you ask some questions where you aren't understanding instead of a vague statement, please.
- About Ziad's girlfriend: his having a girlfriend is nothing that comes off as jarring or sudden. He had a girlfriend in Germany. She doesn't have much to do with United 93, her info should be in Ziad's article.
- I don't feel two paragraphs on the intended target really warrants a subheading. Not everything in "aftermath" has to be written in post-attack tense—it just has to deal with post-attack investigation and the intended target was one of those investigative questions.
- I wrote about the 20th hijacker speculation. Sorry, I'm not sure why they went ahead with a four-man team. You'll have to ask bin Laden. -- VegitaU (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for working on these issues. The article is quite good and should pass FAC. But, I think the article needed/needs some tweaks to make it the best it can be, before it does pass. I apologize for being unavailable to help with the article. The best I can do right now is provide comments.
- Comment: Thanks for your suggestions. They're very helpful. -- VegitaU (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding Aysel (the girlfriend), Jarrah was the only one of the pilot hijackers with close family ties. And he had a girlfriend. Over the summer of 2001, he considered dropping out of the plot. I know there were arguments between Jarrah and Atta, and that according to the 9/11 commission, KSM sent Moussaoui to the U.S. as a possible substitute for Jarrah, should Jarrah drop out. I believe this is all very relevant about Flight 93, that he was the least committed of the four pilot hijackers and considered dropping out.
- Comment: I've added more info about his close contact with his family and how Atta was upset by this. I also added info on Moussaoui's possible replacement. -- VegitaU (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More about Aysel, I found this using Google Books search, from Inside 9-11: What Really Happened by Der Speigel, "Later he would phone Aysel nearly every day from America. He even called her from the cockpit of United Flight 93. Jarrah must have wavered until the last..." and "Whether or not Ziad Jarrah considered jumping ship" There is no ability to preview pages of the book other than the snippet. I do have the book, but it's in storage and can't access it right now. Terry McDermott's book, Perfect Soldiers also talks about this, but his book is not on Google Books either. I think Jere Longman also discusses about this in his book, Among the Heroes, which is also not on Google Books but is among my books in storage. It would have been nice for the article to come to FAC at a later time, so I could be more helpful to address this. Overall, the article is quite good and this issue shouldn't hold the article back, but this aspect about Jarrah should be addressed somehow, to some extent. --Aude (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the "20th hijacker", all we have is speculation, but that speculation is notable and relevant to Flight 93. What you added looks good.
- Here are some specific suggestions:
- In the lead, it says "The plane fragmented and investigators found debris miles from the crash site" - this is true, but the vast majority of the debris was found in and closeby to the crater. Debris found farther away mainly included pieces of paper which fell "like confetti". Instead of saying "investigators found debris miles from the crash site", maybe the lead should mention that the crash caused a crater.
- "Based on the 9/11 Commission Report, the aircraft impacted at approximately 580 miles per hour (933 km/h)." - this sentence is not needed. The 9/11 Commission Report isn't the best source for technical details such as this. They compiled their information from other sources. The NTSB and the flight data recorder is a good source, and sufficient.
- "Conspiracy theorists have accused her of manufacturing the photograph and are thought to have called and harrassed[58] her.[59]" - The references should both go at the end of the sentence, after the punctuation.
- This isn't the best time for FAC reviewing/assistance, but I may have some free time later this week to go through the article in detail. Please bear with me. --Aude (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More comments:
- "muscle" hijackers—unfamiliar term, to me at least. Is there a link to this? Or a ref? Who uses it? Is it a translation from the Arabic?
- "forty" but "27". nine/10 is the usual boundary between spelling out and rendering as a numeral, unless there's a good reason not to.
- "take off"—two words as a verb, one as a noun.
- This WP thing of "conditional-as-future tense": "he would not send the message to Flight 93 until 09:23"—too much of it here, so why not "did not send"? Check others, please.
- MOS hates --
- "Jarrah remained seated until the crew were overpowered and then assumed the flight controls out of sight from any of the passengers"—who assumed, Jarrah or the crew?
- Comment: These issues have been addressed. -- VegitaU (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I just wanted to let the reviewers know that I'm still dedicated to this, but I won't be able to edit this until this weekend (in 2 days). Thanks for you patience. -- VegitaU (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Holding, no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: These issues have been addressed. -- VegitaU (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - With the changes to the article, I think the article meets all the FAC requirements. I'm double checking sources and details. Some details with the article may have to wait until I come back to the states and cross check with non-web sources (e.g. Without Precedent by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton). Still the quality if the article is excellent and it should pass now. We can always make minor changes later. --Aude (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are just random shots. Although I supported, I recommend fresh eyes go through the whole text carefully to polish it: we want to be proud of this account, which should be the best on the Internet, yes? TONY (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I wholeheartedly agree. Please rip this article to shreds on here, if you feel it is anything less than exemplary work. -- VegitaU (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed Tony's specific complaints, except for the "muscle" hijackers. Also, many of the complaints in the comments above his are covered in the sub articles. My personal opinion is that the level of detail you have chosen to cover in the article is just right. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Tom Burnett made several phone calls to his wife beginning at 09:30:32 from rows twenty-four and twenty-five, though he was assigned a seat in row 4." According to Tony's rule: "nine/10 is the usual boundary between spelling out and rendering as a numeral, unless there's a good reason not to" - is not your sentence backwards? Or am I not understanding the spelling of numbers rule? —Mattisse (Talk) 15:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there anything outstanding that's holding this article back? I'm not sure where the NBSP and Date formatting discussion concluded at. Are there still problems with these? -- VegitaU (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The provenience of Image:ZJarrah.JPG is unknown. Sources do not support the claim of federal/FBI authorship; why, for example, would the FBI (the claimed author) have had cause or how would it have managed to take such a photo (pre-9/11, obviously)? Use in a federal document is not, in and of itself, indicative or demonstrative of authorship. Confiscating photos, further, is a transfer of physical property rights, not intellectual property rights. We simply can't use images with unknown authorship (claiming certainty isn't good enough; verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion). The image could be commented out pending closure of the Commons deletion request or replaced with Image:Ziad Jarrah Passport Photo.jpg (which would seem to provide some illustration and, for better or worse, be much more poignant). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I'm figuring you have some proof for the claim that the photo isn't in the public domain. There are photos released by the trial that are copyrighted, but these have been clearly marked. Are you insinuating that the government marked some copyrighted and some they just said, "fuck it"? I don't think so. And how is Image:Ziad Jarrah Passport Photo.jpg a suitable substitute? Did you read the discussion above? -- Veggy (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Images are presumed to be under copyright unless demonstrated otherwise. There is no burden on me to prove they aren't public domain; I can't prove a negative. I've explained why the sourcing provided is not acceptable indication of PD status. You needn't use the alternative; it was merely a suggestion. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From here: Information generated by the Department of Justice is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without the Department’s permission. What else do you want me to do—fly out to Washington and talk to the director? -- Veggy (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The photo was not "generated by the Department of Justice"; it was merely included in one of its reports. What you do in your free time is your business. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- VegitaU, pls, let's stay on task of trying to help sort this; Elcobbola is trying to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, the image is cleared, pending the resolution of this issue. -- Veggy (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the image, it's not public domain and not the work of the FBI. On the FBI most wanted page, they note that the FBI uses those photos, but they are not necessarily public domain. I think the same goes with photos of the hijackers. That said, I think the passport photo is usable on Wikipedia under fair use. --Aude (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding who has copyright to the image, I would say that Ziad Jarrah had copyright. Same if I go to the local Kodak photo store or Walgreens and get a passport photo. They take the photo, but I'm paying (or hiring them) to take it. It's a work for hire and I believe that I own the copyright of my passport photos. Same situation with Jarrah or anyone else. I'm not sure about tracking down further details on the source of the image. --Aude (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Museum of Curiosity
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:35, 23 July 2008 [58].
Lions (album)
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria for being an FA article...why else? ;) Zeagler (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Current ref 7 (The Black Crowes At Long Last they Have an album..) is lacking a last access date.- Fixed.
- What makes http://www.nudeasthenews.com/ a reliable source?
- Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support I think its quite good but needs a ce in places. I can tend to this, but it might be a few days. ( Ceoil sláinte 22:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By all means...although I did tweak your last edit. —Zeagler (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats fine. I'm grand with rewording, not so great when it comes to spelling.... ( Ceoil sláinte 23:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whats "in a special to" - in a special to The Washington Post.( Ceoil sláinte 23:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- It means the writer is not an employee of the periodical (and I think it's an unpaid submission?). See this example by Bill Wyman (not that Bill Wyman). —Zeagler (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of work since I read this last, its really come on in terms of prose, and meets all the other criteria easily (I'm fine with nudeasthenews.com on the basis that I broused it when Ealdgyth raised it above, and though its an site run by both freelance and amature writers, its quite impressive, all the writers are named and their credentials are listed). So, pleased to be able to switch to support. ( Ceoil sláinte 21:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing only image licensing:
I don't think the Late Show screencap adds anything.The other two look fine. --NE2 12:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments—> Support. Has potential, but please get someone fresh to the text to go through it in fine detail, so we can be proud of it. Here are random examples of glitches at the top. Deckiller might be able to point you towards a collaborator, or you might find one by searching the edit histories of similar articles. Word-nerds are obvious from their edit summaries. Try to gather long-term collaborators.
- "The album's critical reception was mixed; numerous reviewers found similarities to Led Zeppelin, with some approving and others not." Approving of the album overall or of the similarity?
- Similarity. Fixed.
- What's a "quality song"? Bit vague; can you express it in more concrete terms? Lack of originality? Lack of ...? Looking at the extraordinary diversity of star-ratings in the infobox, can you briefly summarise what drove these reviewers to such opposite conclusions?
- Replaced "quality" with "memorable" and added sentence about lowest rated reviews.
- Space the ... ellipsis dots, unless they come between sentences.... in which case, like that.
- Fixed
- "about his behavior"—whose?
- Pipien's. Fixed.
- "to hire someone with limited touring experience after the Pipien episode"—is it the hiring policy or the experience that "after the P. episode" refers to?
- I'm not appreciating the difference. Hopefully fixed anyway.
- "but the album title, as well."—no comma required; but why not remove the last two words?
- Fixed.
- "Lions is a symbol that stands for the fierce feeling and freedom that music allows you," proclaimed Chris.—Is the comma part of the original quote? Odd to include it within the quote, rather than after, as MOS wants.
- Fixed.
- "Frictive moments"—I'm looking up my dictionary. Is there a more common epithet?
- "Heated discussions". Fixed.
- Said Rich, "We must have recorded 'Come On' about five times in different ways. [...] Then [Was] just took it away with him and came back with this different mix," which impressed the band, leading to—Invert the first two words, unless you're being poetic.... Ellipsis dots like this, and only put the square brackets in if you really want to; they can be a little intrusive. Again, is the comma part of the original text? Best not to chop it off on a punctuation mark, so why not do this: ", which. TONY (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.
If you believe these fixes are sufficient, I invite you to continue listing concerns with prose. In the meantime, I'm waiting on a reply from Deckiller. Thanks for your help so far. —Zeagler (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ceoil has experience with music articles; maybe s/he can help. — Deckiller 03:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on images/media.
- Is the Promotion and release section image really necessary?
- I believe so. It provides a lot of information about the mise-en-scène easily that would be impractical to convey with prose. The vastness of the field. The highly saturated colors. The fact that Andy Hess and Audley Freed appear despite not playing on the track. The extras scattered throughout the background. Even stupid fanboy stuff ('Chris doesn't have a beard!'). You get a good feel for the concept of the video.
- "23 second sample from "Soul Singing" containing distinctly different chorus and verse; thus, Rich won the argument." - huh? The word "argument" is used nowhere else in the article. Audio sample captions should clearly have some educational value; this doesn't at the moment as I have no idea what the argument you're talking about is, or how it relates to the music I'm listening to.
- "25 second sample from "Young Man, Old Man" containing portions of the chorus and the "'Freddie's Dead' vamp" that is the verse." - Describe the music more. Just noting that it contains some of the chorus isn't enough for critical commentary/educational value.
—Giggy 10:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "memorable" rather than "quality" songs is going from the pot to the kettle: still what the grammarians call an "interpersonal epithet" (i.e., a personal judgement). Maybe it's acceptable to put it in quotes to show that you're (the critics were) using it in a manner of speaking.
- Image licensing status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know which it is; some dates are linked, some are not. Which is it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahem, Image:The Black Crowes - Soul Singing - Promotional Video.jpg doesn't even have a license? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:58, 6 December 2008 [59].
Ayumi Hamasaki
- Nominator(s): Ink Runner (talk)
- previous FAC (03:54, 24 September 2008)
Prose issues and a few MoS-related errors tripped up the last two candidacies, so I had someone streamline the prose. Other issues included the reliability of some sources and the number of fair-use music samples, but I believe these have been cleared up. Ink Runner (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Images and sounds - Free images are appropriately marked for commons. Sound samples are appropriately marked non-free (3 might be one too many for taste, but I'd trust the judgement of the editors that all three are needed). The only image that concerns me is the cover of "I Am" - since it is non-free and duplicating the free pictures of Ayumi, I'm not sure if this is really needed on this page. I'm not convinced outright if it is or not, however. On one hand, presuming she was the primary person composing that cover as the text suggests, that would be an example of her visual art style and would be appropriate. On the other hand, I would think that the discussion of the reason the artstyle changed that way in response to 9/11 is better suited on the album's page (where the cover already is). I don't know whether there is a way to have a stronger connection to the album cover in the text (the caption throws me, the "(Note the dove)" addition feels weird), a better rationale for its use on this page, or what. --MASEM 15:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I debated adding the picture, too, and decided that the record covers are an important aspect of her artistry (as stated in the Time source), so for the article to be comprehensive, it would need at least one example. (And I am... seemed to be the best choice.) Ink Runner (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with that (others may not, but...) I would explain this more in the rationale for this image on this page, to support it more, but it otherwise seems fine. --MASEM 15:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check. The rationale now reads "Illustrates an aspect of the artist's artistry (her artistic covers), as discussed in the article. According to a Time article, Hamasaki's covers are "an element [she] considers crucial to conveying her message" and are therefore a notable and important part of her artistry. Because covers are visual media, a picture would be the best way to illustrate this aspect of the artist's artistry." Ink Runner (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent. Again, I think the image is fine, but you may want to be ready if other reviews feel it is not appropriate (NFC on BLP is a very tricky subject and generally discouraged, but I think this is an appropriate exception per your reasoning and article). --MASEM 00:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check. The rationale now reads "Illustrates an aspect of the artist's artistry (her artistic covers), as discussed in the article. According to a Time article, Hamasaki's covers are "an element [she] considers crucial to conveying her message" and are therefore a notable and important part of her artistry. Because covers are visual media, a picture would be the best way to illustrate this aspect of the artist's artistry." Ink Runner (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with that (others may not, but...) I would explain this more in the rationale for this image on this page, to support it more, but it otherwise seems fine. --MASEM 15:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I debated adding the picture, too, and decided that the record covers are an important aspect of her artistry (as stated in the Time source), so for the article to be comprehensive, it would need at least one example. (And I am... seemed to be the best choice.) Ink Runner (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A comment on the prose. I wrote very uncomplimentary things about this article in its second FAC but decided to help it on its way. I'd like to think that the work I did on its prose in August improved it. (I didn't participate in its third FAC because I was unaware of this.) I'm not the only person to have worked on the prose, however, and Ink Runner has recently done a lot of good work on this article. As I look at the prose now I think that there are rather too many semicolons for my taste, but I also think that it's absurd to insist on the degree of polish that's required for, let's say, the corporate advertising or annual report of a criminally polluting or otherwise loathsome corporation. This is an encyclopedia, not some compilation of PR lubrication or belles lettres. While there may be occasional oddities (which reviewers shouldn't hesitate to point out or fix, the prose as a whole is easily good enough for the purpose. I'm no expert on Hamasaki -- actually I've hardly heard anything by her and have to say that what little I've heard doesn't appeal to me at all -- but the article appears to be very scrupulously done, and seems very informative while not going off the rails into trivia. I see no reason why this should not be featured, and so I'd recommend promotion. Morenoodles (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Article appears to cover all the important aspects of Hamasaki's life and career. It's definitely improved from when I last looked it over in the previous FAC. --Polaron | Talk 12:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support This article is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. It has an appropriate lead, structure, and citations. The citations have been formatted and used very well since Ink Runner began working on this article a year ago. It definitely stays on topic without going into other things. Now you might think, well... this is pretty typical, considering it is Wikipedia. But many articles do need help, particularly ones on Asian stars. This article used to be NPOV, unreferenced, full of red links, and just inconsistent and confusing with the prose and references. Ink Runner has been working really hard on this article for the past year. Check the edit history; he's been slaving away at this piece of artwork everyday with at least several edits! Thus, the references and prose just kept getting better! They've improved even more than from the last time this article was nominated for FAC. I'll have to continue this as a response to my own comment, because I can't for the life of me figure out how to create a new paragraph and keep it in line. Lady★Galaxy 04:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- However, some bits seem to be missing something. It just looks like it's not linked enough, but that can't be helped because you'd have to create new pages for the links (mainly clothing lines, clubs, and companies) and that probably wouldn't meet the Wikipedian notability standards. (As well as the fact that you'd have to dig up references for those as well.) My only other concern is that this article may use too many dashes, but it doesn't make the text hard to understand. On a last note, I went ahead and linked a few things in the lead that weren't already. I really hope this article passes FAC. If not, we'll keep working on it and fix what is needed to reach that status. Hopefully. Lady★Galaxy 04:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments—
- Prose issues: I think this article still requires copyediting.
There are several long snakes in it—"In 1998, under the tutelage of Avex CEO Max Matsuura, she released a string of modestly selling singles that concluded with her 1999 debut album A Song for XX, which debuted atop the Oricon charts and stayed there for four weeks, establishing her popularity in Japan." and "Though she originally supported the exploitation of her popularity for commercial purposes, a 2001 event in which Avex forced her to put her greatest hits album in direct competition with Hikaru Utada's Distance made Hamasaki reconsider and eventually oppose her status as an Avex "product"." for example.
- I went through the article and fixed such snakes. Some sentences, however, were left intact so as not to sound choppy. Ink Runner (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Because of" is not a good way to start a sentence (classic disapproval of starting sentences with conjunctions); this is found several times in the article.
- In those cases, "because" is a subordinating conjunction and introduces subordinating clauses. It's perfectly fine grammatically. (Starting sentences with coordinating conjunctions, such as "and", probably isn't, though.) Ink Runner (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, using ", as" as an explanation is not encouraged due to possible confusion when it comes to chronology.
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Several badly connected sentences. For example,
"When her agency representation ended, she needed somewhere to live. Hamasaki began acting and appeared in B-movies such as [...]: see the disconnection that results in a presented idea left to dangle."He persisted until the following year, when she finally signed on to the Avex label and began vocal training.": "persisted until the following year" implies failure, and yet she signs—could have been "He persisted and succeeded in the following year; she signed on to the Avex label and started vocal training." instead.
- The first example was a result of a copy-edit by karanacs, whom I believe is quite experienced at this prose thing. I streamlined it, though, so it flows more easily. As for the second example, "persisted until the following year" doesn't necessarily imply failure (at least in American English). Ink Runner (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue with the first example was not grammatical, but about the essence of it. Basically, the presented idea was "Hamasaki needed a place to live, so she started acting in B-movies." How does needing a place to live relate to acting in movies? Did she need money to rent a place? Was free accomodation given to actresses? Jappalang (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence now reads "Needing somewhere to live (she had previously lived in dormitories provided by her talent agency)...". Ink Runner (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It still does not address how acting in movies give her a place to live. Instead of explaining the dependent clause (why she needed a place to live), it should be the main clause that should be explained (why acting gave her a place to live). Jappalang (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a copyedit in which I removed the whole talk about her search for a "place to live". It was a bugbear in the context of the section. It was hard to form sentences around it that did not disrupt the flow. Furthermore, that sort of reason felt like a casual info (trivia). It had no impact on her career or thinking. More significantly, neither source provided talked about her housing problem in her temporary transition from singer to actress. With its removal, that sentence as an example is no longer valid. Jappalang (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of "noun plus -ing"s: e.g. "her first tour extending" and "concert celebrating"
- Fixed these. Ink Runner (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several cases where imprecision or confusion arise. For example, "she moved to Tokyo at fourteen to pursue"—at fourteen hundred hours or years of age?
"Hamasaki's popularity and influence in music and fashion extends all over Asia;"—I sincerely doubt that includes Russia, India, Kazakstan, and Nepal, which are Asian nations.
- Two FACs ago, Tony suggested I just use "fourteen" instead of "at age fourteen" etc. for conciseness. Changed to "age fourteen", though, for clarity. As to the second sentence: according to BusinessWeek, Hamasaki has "a sizable following across Asia"; the article doesn't specify a region, like the Orient or Central Asia. The sentence now reads "Because of her constantly changing image and tight control over her artistry, Hamasaki's popularity extends across Asia; music and fashion trends she has started have spread to countries like China, Singapore, and Taiwan." Ink Runner (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Source issues:
- Frankly, there seems to be a lot of primary sourcing to establish trivia (such as CM's use of Ayumi in their soft-drink commercials, Sanrio's Hello Kitty-Ayu tie up, etc), or background information (Avex-published magazines or sites for Ayumi's thoughts behind her albums). Wikipedia as a tertiary source is to primarily rely on secondary sources. Primary sources are fine if sparingly used, but that does not seem to be the case here.
- I see nothing wrong with using primary sources in the above mentioned instances. For example, it wouldn't really make a difference if Hamasaki's own thoughts were published in a primary or a secondary source. (For things like sales figures, though, Avex might "beef up" the numbers, so I don't use primary sources for sales figures, charting positions, etc.) I have replaced some of the primary sources with secondary sources, though. Ink Runner (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, there are some projects I would like to take on given the primary sources I have on them (interviews, behind-the-scenes episodes, etc) but "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Let us hear the thoughts of others. Jappalang (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I replaced most of the primary sources. Only nine of the sources are primary now. Ink Runner (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I would consider Drizzly Records
and Japan Airlinesto be clear primary sources since they are sourcing for events that are close to their goals (increased sales), so that makeseleventen primary sources. Jappalang (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced the JAL source. I couldn't find any (reliable) non-primary sources about Hamasaki's German releases, though. (Besides, it's not being used as a source for sales figures, charting positions, or anything like that.) Ink Runner (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I would consider Drizzly Records
I am fine with the use of foreign sources, but when they are sourced for quotes, the original sentences should be given in the reference for us (the ones who can read Chinese and Japanese) to check, especially since there is no provided online source. ("independence, rebellion, and conflict juxtaposed with [...] innocence" and for being "like the contents of [...] a diary" and "reflecting [their own] changing emotions" is really controversial. A Japanese example, "cheered on girls" and "began brimming with things to say" are sourced to Vivi.) Furthermore, The breakup ("[...]") between words leads one to wonder if the article had cherry picked words to translate. If foreign sources are going to be used for quotes, please put the original sentences or online copies in the references (via the quote field or otherwise).
- Okay, the original foreign-language sources of quoted material have been put in footnotes, since that seems to work best with the kind of citations used. Ink Runner (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all the foreign-language sources have been put in footnotes. Jappalang (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you missed out "honesty and freedom". However, on reading through, I have to raise one question. Are they all necessary? The quoting, could not some of them be rephrased or left without quotation marks? After all, one is already translating them from one language that conveys multiple meanings per word and situation to another. One usually quotes when a specific unique phrase and context cannot be rephrased without losing the feel of the original sentence. "Expressing determination", "something good", "relay the atmosphere", etc. Should such phrases be unique? Jappalang (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I use the quotation marks to distinguish that they're Hamasaki's own words, not my own or those of the magazine etc. Hamasaki's lyrics and explanations of her albums' themes and such are very vague, so I thought that rather than try to "interpret" them, for the sake of being objective I should put her own words (and mark them as such). I de-quoted (is that a word?) the phrases not open to a lot of interpretation, though. Ink Runner (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Sweetboxみたいな曲" is more "Sweetbox-like tune/music" than "song". Generally, a song comprise of music and words. It seems Ayumi was looking to modify an old tune to accompany new lyrics. Jappalang (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken; fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"世界共通語" is a global common language, but on its own, there is no connection to English, which is what the sentence is making a claim to. What does the source say about English in relation to this (the original Japanese sentences supplied also seem to be lacking a relationship to English)? Jappalang (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be several mix-ups between the normal tsu ("つ") and the small tsu (っ) in the quotes provided... Jappalang (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, my word processor doesn't output sokuons. Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that there are curly and straight quotation marks used in the article. "“Free & Easy”, “Voyage”, and “H”" are curlies for example. WP:MOS states to be consistent in usage and recommends straight quotes.Jappalang (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Additionally, her album A Best 2 -White- became the best-selling Japanese or Korean album of the year in Taiwan."—this is sourced to a music online shop. It is not clear whether the shop is referring to its best selling album or for the country. If it is a national seller, surely a publication would have listed it. I hope that this is an isolated incident and not the norm for other primary sources and sales ranking.
- Removed the sentence. All other charting positions use Oricon as the source, so there shouldn't be any other such problems. Ink Runner (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The references are inconsistently formatted and missing several pieces of information. Authors for newspaper pieces are absent. Such articles definitely have authors or are sourced to noted news agencies, and their reference should state them. Magazine articles, especially those that belong to established magazines, would list their authors and again, their reference should state them. Published references also seem to be missing page numbers or ISSN numbers. Publisher information also seems to be missing from some references.
- Most of the inconsistent formatting/missing publisher information is in the Oricon references; fixed these instances. Also, here in America (or at least in Sacramento, CA), the ISSN numbers are blanked out from the copies I have. Added page nos. and authors; however, some sources (like Oricon Style) don't list authors. Ink Runner (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are references that use "p. " for page prefix, while others use "pg." and "pgs.". What about authors for the newspaper articles? For quoting, several cite templates allow the use of the "quote =" parameter. Jappalang (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The references are consistent now; they use "p." for a single page, "pp." for multiple pages. I'll add the authors to the newspaper articles, and put the original text from magazines in footnotes. Also, Sin Chew doesn't list a person as an author, just "Sin Chew Interactive" (星洲互動); and The Straits Times just lists the news agency. Ink Runner (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sin Chew's reference is written in "raw" (i.e. without using a template), which I think would not be a big issue, but would be nicer to standardize with the others. The Straits Times's "J-pop Divas Fight It Out", however, is also written out in raw and lacks an author or news agency. Jappalang (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Tokyograph[60][61] used in the article again after it was deemed unreliable per Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ayumi Hamasaki/archive2? Jappalang (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gah, totally overlooked them. Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Electric New Paper (Miharu Chang's "Ayumi Spells Big Bucks") is not a newspaper. It is an online version of The New Paper. As such, the source indicates that there should be a site that hosts the article for verification. Where is it? Jappalang (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Another thing I missed. XP Ink Runner (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible conflict of interest—Lady Galaxy is the second most prolific current contributor to this article.
- I don't think there is a conflict of interest, since she isn't really a "regular" contributor, nor does she do much more than minor spelling- or punctuation-related stuff. Ink Runner (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- {
- Well, the Japan Times (one of the sources cited) says that she is compared to Madonna so often that "she's probably converted to Kabala [sic]." Ink Runner (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments — not wishing to keep splicing in new things above, I start this section for additional issues as I go through the text.
- Lead
- "Because of her constantly changing image and tight control over her artistry, Hamasaki's popularity extends across Asia;"
- This does not seem to be related... i.e. would a constantly changing image lead to her popularity's spread across a continent? It would be best to relate how her frequent makeovers made her popular with fans and how it extends across several countries. Now, what does "tight control over her artistry" mean, and how does it lead to popularity or extent of her influence? There seems to be an attempt to combine two ideas, two separate complete sentences—one that talks of her popularity, and one of the extent of her geographical sphere of influence (popularity)—into one sentence that proves to be puzzling to me.
- Well, first, CNN makes the relation. Second, I can see how her constantly changing image would lead to her popularity in Asia: she stayed popular in Japan by constantly reinventing her image, like Madonna, and Japan influences many other countries in fashion etc... (especially here in the U.S., we have a lot of people who take fashion cues etc. from Japan.) But this is only speculation: the source says that the two are related, but not how, and I don't want to violate WP:NOR. Ink Runner (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Hamasaki is one of Japan's best-selling singers. She is the Japanese female artist [...] She is also the only Japanese female artist ..."
- This seems repetitive, and it could have been avoided by establishing an encompassing context at the start such that following statements would be in respect to her achievements in Japan. See the sales achievements in the leads of Whitney Houston and Madonna for comparison.
- Removed redundant "Japanese" in paragraph. Ink Runner (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Childhood and early endeavors
"Hamasaki was born in Fukuoka Prefecture and raised by her mother and grandmother, because her father had left the family when she was three and never again came into contact with her."
- I pointed only two snakes above as an example. This is another.
- It could be rendered as, "Born in Fukuoka Prefecture, Hamasaki was raised by her mother and grandmother. Her father had left the family when she was three, never again coming into contact with her."
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"to earn money for the family"
- Suggestion: "to supplement the family's income."
- You're right, some might construe the sentence to mean that Hamasaki was the sole wage-earner. Changed. Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Although she originally earned good grades, she eventually decided that the subjects she was studying were of no use to her and her grades dropped drastically."
- This sentence, as it is, interrupts the two adjoining sentences that dealt with Ayu's modeling career. It seems to have no relation to either. It could be developed on its own. In the Japanese education system, it is compulsory for children to attend schooling until they finished lower secondary school, at which point they would be 14 or 15 years old... (see the idea I am getting at here?) So this sentence could be part of potential information that deals with Ayu's schooling history. Did she stop schooling after lower secondary (later text states she briefly entered a vocational school for arts)? What are her thoughts on education now (especially in regards to tertiary)? If no sources for these are available, it is advisable to reshape this sentence to some form that fits better into the section. I think the problem is that the subsection is taking on a strict proseline structure that limits the flexibility and structure of the ideas to be presented.
- How about something like this:
- "At age seven, Hamasaki began modeling for local institutions, such as banks, to supplement the family's income. At age fourteen, she moved from Fukuoka to Tokyo to take modeling jobs under SOS, a talent agency. Her modeling career did not last long; SOS deemed her too short and transferred her to Sun Music, a musicians' agency. As "Ayumi", Hamasaki released a rap album, Nothing from Nothing, on the Nippon Columbia label. When this failed to chart on the Oricon, the label dropped her. Hamasaki then took up acting and starred in B-movies such as Ladys Ladys!! Soucho Saigo no Hi and television dorama like Miseinen, which were poorly received by the public. Dissatisfied with her job, Hamasaki soon quit acting and moved in with her mother, who had recently moved to Tokyo.
- Hamasaki had earned good grades through junior high school; however, after taking up modeling, she decided that the subjects she was studying were of no use to her and her grades dropped drastically. After moving to Tokyo, she briefly entered Horikoshi Gakuen, a high school for the arts. After quitting her job and school, Hamasaki spent much of her time shopping at Shibuya boutiques and dancing at Velfarre, an Avex-owned disco club." Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea is good, but there are a few prose issues in the new second paragraph. With "after"s at the start of three consecutive sentences (discounting the "however"), the structure has become repetitive (underlined). Jappalang (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Something like this, then?
- "Although Hamasaki had earned good grades through junior high school, she eventually decided that the subjects she was studying were of no use to her and her grades dropped drastically. While living in Tokyo, she briefly entered Horikoshi Gakuen, a high school for the arts. After quitting her job and school, Hamasaki spent much of her time shopping at Shibuya boutiques and dancing at Velfarre, an Avex-owned disco club." Ink Runner (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea is good, but there are a few prose issues in the new second paragraph. With "after"s at the start of three consecutive sentences (discounting the "however"), the structure has become repetitive (underlined). Jappalang (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"At this time, she briefly entered Horikoshi Gakuen, a high school for the arts."
- This presents the same issue as above.
"The writing in her messages to him from New York impressed him, and he suggested she try writing her own lyrics."
- Suggestion: "The producer was impressed by Hamasaki's style of her writing in their correspondences, prompting him to suggest that she try her hand at writing her own lyrics."
- Changed to "He was impressed by Hamasaki's style of writing in their correspondences, prompting him to suggest that she try writing her own lyrics." Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1998–1999: Rising popularity
"was "unassuming": its singles [...] were not major hits"
- Well... instead of dwelling on the negatives all the time, how about a few proactive sentences!
- Suggestion: "was "unassuming": its singles [...] failed to break into the Top 10." Heh...
- Well, some of the singles did break into the Top 10; however they weren't considered "major" hits because their sales weren't that great (in Japan, it's considerably easier to score a high chart position than in the U.S., and high sales don't always mean high charting positions and vice-versa.) Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, sorry. I misread the Time source. As it is, her first two did not hit the Top 10, and her subsequent four only squeaked in... Can we say that they "failed to break into the Top 5." The Times did not talk about the sales of the singles, so "hits" should be considered on the chart position. Let me mull over this a bit... Jappalang (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, "major hits" covers probably is good enough... Jappalang (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, some of the singles did break into the Top 10; however they weren't considered "major" hits because their sales weren't that great (in Japan, it's considerably easier to score a high chart position than in the U.S., and high sales don't always mean high charting positions and vice-versa.) Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"were "cautious" and "unassuming" pop-rock songs."
- Repetitive use of "unassuming"?
- Removed the redundant "unassuming". Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"However, Hamasaki's lyrics, introspective observations about her feelings and experiences that focused on loneliness and individualism, resonated with the Japanese public."
- Suggestion: "However, Hamasaki's lyrics, filled with introspective observations about her feelings and experiences that focused on loneliness and individualism, resonated with the Japanese public."
"As a result, the album made her a success:"
- Strange part here... the singles were failures, but the album a success?
- Suggestion: "The songs had gained Hamasaki a following that was growing, and the release of the songs as an album was a success:" This would necessitate the change of "she" in the following sentence to "Hamasaki".
- All right. Changed to "The songs gained Hamasaki a growing following, and the release of the album was a success". Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"the singles released later that year were dance tunes and earned Hamasaki her first number-one single and first million-selling single."
- The referred source (RIAJ) listed only Loveappears and "A" (mistakenly) in the million-seller album list. According to her singles articles on Wikipedia, "A" is not her first number-one nor million-selling single. It is supposedly "Boys & Girls". Which is it? Jappalang (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Boys & Girls" is her first million-seller, but I don't state that because WP is about verifiability, not truth, and the RIAJ doesn't list B&G. Oricon, does, however, list B&G as a million-seller (in a list of Hamasaki's singles by sales, B&G is listed higher than "H", which sold a million), but Oricon's list of Hamasaki's albums lists Guilty as having sold more than (Miss)understood, so the source might be seen as inaccurate. ("Love ~Destiny~" is her first number-one; I included the source.) Ink Runner (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand our policy on verification. My concern is that the RIAJ source does not state Loveappears or "A" as her first number-one or million-seller (when the sentence is talking about that). The added Time reference only states "Love Destiny" as her first number one song and no mention of her first million-seller. Jappalang (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Should I include the list of RIAJ million-sellers of 1998 then, to verify that she had no million-sellers before 1999? Ink Runner (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand our policy on verification. My concern is that the RIAJ source does not state Loveappears or "A" as her first number-one or million-seller (when the sentence is talking about that). The added Time reference only states "Love Destiny" as her first number one song and no mention of her first million-seller. Jappalang (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Boys & Girls" is her first million-seller, but I don't state that because WP is about verifiability, not truth, and the RIAJ doesn't list B&G. Oricon, does, however, list B&G as a million-seller (in a list of Hamasaki's singles by sales, B&G is listed higher than "H", which sold a million), but Oricon's list of Hamasaki's albums lists Guilty as having sold more than (Miss)understood, so the source might be seen as inaccurate. ("Love ~Destiny~" is her first number-one; I included the source.) Ink Runner (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 2000–2002: Commercial peak
- "and a sense of shame of her public image."
- This sentence leaves the reader dangling. Why should she feel ashamed of her public image? Saying that the song focused on hopelessness is one thing (especially when such themes were mentioned earlier), and adding on that it was reflecting her disappointment that she failed to express herself is pretty fine. However, suddenly we are told she was ashamed over her image? This was not hinted at earlier, and not explained in this paragraph either.
- "the burden of her responsibilities."
- Less sudden than the previous examples, but still sudden on what responsibilites weigh on her? One could expect that she is expected to support her family, but recalling that the earlier example was about public image, was there some social pressure for her to be a role model? Again, it is not very clear here, and could be duplicative with the previous issue. Take care when addressing these issues.
- Hamasaki never really explained that. Like I said, Hamasaki is often vague in her lyrics/discussions about themes of her albums, and I just write down whatever she said so the reader can interpret for him/herself. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "in contrast with Loveppears, Duty was a rock-influenced album with "Audience" the only dance song."
Something niggled at me here.... I would say it is the sentence structure placing the song title up front... That could imply "Audience" was a common song between both albums.- Suggestion: "in contrast with Loveppears, Duty was a rock-influenced album that had only one dance song, "Audience"."
- Okay, fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"the "Trilogy" were "hit singles" ("Seasons" was a million-seller); the album itself became Hamasaki's best-selling studio album."
- The semi-colon is unneeded, redundant "itself", and a slight repetition of album
- Suggestion: "the "Trilogy" were "hit singles" ("Seasons" was a million-seller), and the album became Hamasaki's best-selling collection of original songs."
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still heavily proseline here, and the nature of the article here is strained with mentions of her personal relationships. Could these not be moved in the "Image" or "Other activities" section?
- Okay, I've moved the personal life stuff to "Other activities". Ink Runner (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "In an effort to have increased control over her music,"
- Suggestion: "In an effort to have greater control over her music,"
On a related note... "The lead single, "M", was the first of the many tracks from the album that she composed herself, under the pseudonym "Crea". In an effort to have increased control over her music, Hamasaki composed all of the songs on I am... except for "Connected"(April 2003) and "A Song Is Born" (December 2001)."
- Paraphrasing... "Hamasaki, as "Crea", composed many tracks on I am.... Hamasaki composed all the songs on I am... except two songs to have greater control over her music." See the redundant idea here?
- Suggestion: "She exerted greater control over her music by composing all the songs on I am..., under the pseudonum "Crea"; "Connected"(April 2003) and "A Song Is Born" (December 2001) were the exceptions."
- Changed to "Hamasaki increased her control over her music by composing all of the songs on the album under the pseudonym "Crea"; "Connected" (November 2002) and "A Song Is Born" (December 2001) were the exceptions." Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "I am... also showed evolution in Hamasaki's lyrical style: it was a retreat from the themes of "loneliness and confusion" of some of her earlier songs."
- Suggestion: "Her lyrical style had evolved in this album: she retreated the themes of "loneliness and confusion" to explore concerns that do not focus on oneself."
- Well, even though her lyrics took on more "worldly" themes, they didn't necessarily stop focusing on herself (for example, "Dearest" focused on herself.) And in Loveppears, the themes were more "loneliness and confusion"-ish , but she focused on other people in songs like "Appears". Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It was clear that Hamasaki's status as a trendsetter extended outside Japan as well: at the ceremony, she received the award for "Most Influential Japanese Singer in Asia"."
- Let us calm down and be less celebratory of her status.
- Suggestion: "At the ceremony, she was acknowledged for influencing fashion trends outside of Japan, receiving the award for "Most Influential Japanese Singer in Asia"."
- Well, I'm not sure the award was only for influencing fashion trends. I mean, though it was very likely she received the award for doing so, the article doesn't explicitly state that, and the award was for Most Influential Singer. Yes, it should probably be "toned down", though. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"the latter was her first tour held in outdoor venues."
- Is this a very significant achievement?
- Not really, I guess. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"In November 2002, as "Ayu", she released her first European single, "Connected", a trance song from I am... composed by DJ Ferry Corsten."
- Thus, I am confused (interestingly I missed this in the earlier part)..., how is a 2003 song part of a 2002 album? It deserves an explanation.
- Gah, I accidentally put April 2003 as the release date for "Connected". It should be November 2002. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still puzzled over how a song released in November can be part of an album released in January... Jappalang (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not all that common in Japan, but here in the U.S., recut singles are quite common. Usually, a lead single is released prior to the album, then recut singles are released after the album, like how Mariah Carey's "Touch My Body" was the lead single from E=MC2, then "I'll Be Lovin U Long Time" was released afterward. (A recut single is a single released after an album but whose A-side is a song from the album.) So "Connected" was a recut single. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still puzzled over how a song released in November can be part of an album released in January... Jappalang (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gah, I accidentally put April 2003 as the release date for "Connected". It should be November 2002. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"A short movie starring Hamasaki, Tsuki ni Shizumu, was created to be the video for "Voyage"."
- Get rid of the "noun plus -ing" construct and tweaked to start with an active voice.
- Suggestion: "Hamasaki starred in a short movie, Tsuki ni Shizumu, which was created to be the video for "Voyage"."
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"As part of the promotion for Rainbow, those who bought the album online could access a password-protected website that had a part of the instrumental version of the title track, which did not appear on the album. It later appeared on Hamasaki's 2003 ballad compilation/remix album A Ballads."
- How much of this is related to Hamasaki herself instead of the album? In other words, did Ayumi had any part to do with this or did it have a significant impact on her image or person? If not, why should it be here?
- Well, I guess it doesn't really have much to do with her image or person. I guess it reflects more on the state of the Japanese music market at the time: sales were starting to decrease (Hamasaki's single "H" was the only million-seller in 2002, and Rainbow was her first album since ASFXX not to break the 2 million mark) and I guess Avex felt it necessary to launch the promotional campaign. Removed since it does look kind of incongruous. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 2003–2006: Decline in sales
"Her mini-album Memorial Address (December 2003) was her first album to be released in CD+DVD format in addition to the regular CD-only format, a decision that came from her increased interest in the direction of her music videos and wish to "relay the atmosphere" of the A Museum concert."
- The quoted phrase "relay the atmosphere" is not really in the original sentence... Basically, the sentence states: "she started to get interested in audio-visuals (videos) and actively watched the works of various supervisors. In that year, Ayumi and her supervisors produced those 3 videos, which they showed to the producer. The producer then suggested to release the album in the CD+DVD format. In accepting his comment, Ayumi thought the feelings she had over the charm and potential held by that year's videos can be reflected in the form of the 7 PVs and a digested form of Amuseum recorded on DVD."
- Removed the quote. Ink Runner (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Memorial Address topped the Oricon chart and became a million-seller."
- Reduce the "become"s. Suggestion: "Memorial Address topped the Oricon chart, selling more than a million copies."
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "rather, she simply wrote freely and honestly."
- Suggestion: "instead, she wrote her songs according to her desires, uninfluenced by worldly concerns."
- Again, I don't want to put words in her mouth; she didn't say anything about "worldly concerns" so I think it best not to assume anything. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"She approached the composition of the music with the same freedom that she kept in mind while writing the lyrics. Because she liked rock music, the album had notable rock overtones."
- These two sentences can be moved in front of "She was so pleased with the result that she declared My Story the first album she felt satisfied with."; the first sentence can then be copyedited to reduce the redundancy ("same freedom per the lyrics").
- Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"her first tour based on an album."
- Suggestion: "her first album-based tour."
- Okay, fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Wanting to sing a tune like those of Sweetbox"
- Better to strap a descriptive to Sweetbox, e.g. group, singer, whatever.
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Though (Miss)understood also reached the top of the Oricon, it became Hamasaki's first studio album not to sell a million copies."
- Reduce the "become"s. Suggestion (taking into account the issue below): "Although (Miss)understood reached the top of the Oricon, the music chart company stated that it sold less than a million copies—the first of Hamasaki's studio albums to do so."
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"and "cheered on girls""
- I believe the original phrase was more of a noun than a verb; thus, quoting should remain a noun, unless it is rephrased...
- Suggestion: "and were composed to encourage female listeners."
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Secret was her first original studio album not to become an RIAJ-certified million-seller"
- It is sudden to introduce a RIAJ qualifier here to the "million-seller" term. It calls into question all the previous million-seller terms. Although there was a footnote at (Miss)understood to explain there were two ranking bodies, the situation is unanimous here between the two bodies. Hence, it should have been clarified at the earlier sentence that only one body considered (Miss)understood to be a million-seller.
- In addition to the change for (Miss)understood above, change this to, "Secret failed to sell a million copies, according to both Oricon and RIAJ."
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 2007–present: Foray into Asia
I failed to spot this earlier, but why are the titles of tours in italics?
- The MoS doesn't specifically say to put them in italics, but it does say to put things like orchestral works and plays in italics; it also doesn't say not to italicize them, so... Ink Runner (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I think a tour should not be in italics. It is the same performance (entitled to italics) that takes place in different locations. It is not a whole artistic workpiece, but a repetition of one. (Note: a media that covers a tour would be in italics.) FA Celine Dion's also has tour titles not in italics. However, as the MOS has nothing to cover this, it is not an issue. Jappalang (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"She performed not only in Japan but also in Taipei, Shanghai, and Hong Kong, making Tour of Secret her first tour with stops outside Japan."
- Suggestion: "It was her first international tour, and aside from Japan, she performed in Taipei, Shanghai, and Hong Kong."
- Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"As a result, the concerts became highly anticipated, and tickets for the one in Taipei sold out in two hours; tickets for her Hong Kong concert sold out in three hours."
- Suggestion: "Her foreign fanbase highly anticipated the concerts, and tickets for the Taipei and Hong Kong performances sold out in less than three hours."
- Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Unlike its predecessors, the writing of Hamasaki's ninth studio album, Guilty (January 2008), was not an emotional experience for her, nor did it have a set theme."
- Suggestion: "Unlike her previous works, Hamasaki had less of an emotional experience in writing Guilty (January 2008), her ninth studio album. Neither did she set a theme for the album."
"With first-week sales of around 432,000 copies, Guilty peaked at the number-two position on the weekly Oricon charts, making it Hamasaki's first studio album not to reach the top."
- Suggestion: "Selling 432,000 copies in its first week of release, Guilty peaked at the number-two spot on the weekly Oricon charts; it was Hamasaki's first studio album that failed to reach the top."
- Since other sections don't mention the first-week sales of albums, and the number isn't all that important, I just removed the "Selling 432,000..." part. Ink Runner (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The portion of the tour held in Japan spanned seventeen concerts and lasted from April until June;[15] the stops outside Japan were again held in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Shanghai."
- Suggestion: "From April till June, she toured Japan, holding seventeen concerts. Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Shanghai were again the foreign stops after the domestic performances."
- Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Hamasaki's forty-third single, "Mirrorcle World", was released on April 8, 2008."
- Suggestion: "On April 8, 2008, Hamasaki released her forty-third single, "Mirrorcle World"."
- Because "Mirrorcle World" ("the single") is the subject/theme of the next sentence, for parallelity, I made it the subject/theme of that sentence. If that's just an American quirk, I'll change it to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"To commemorate her tenth anniversary in the music industry, the single was released in two versions, the second B-side containing a remix of either "You" or "Depend on You"."
- This sentence is not gramatically appealing to me (possible dangling modifier and declaration of two versions but detailing only one). Furthermore, I question the significance of its role in the tenth anniversary commemoration. Would it hurt the article if this sentence was taken out?
- Probably not. 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Image and artistry
"Though her first tour with stops outside Japan did not take place until 2007, Hamasaki has been moving towards an Asian market since 2002"
- Suggestion: "Although Hamasaki did not hold concerts outside of Japan until 2007, she had set her sights on the Asian market since 2002"
- Well, her performances at the MTV Asia awards etc. are considered concerts. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"in addition to performing at the MTV Asia awards, she performed at South Korea's first joint performance among Asian singers and at a concert to celebrate Sino-Japanese relations."
- Overuse of "perform" in various forms.
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Style and influence
"She also admires Michelle Branch, Kid Rock, Joan Osborne, Seiko Matsuda, Rie Miyazawa, and Keiko Yamada;"
- I fail to see Michelle Branch, Kid Rock, and Joan Osborne in the reference given (her profile at Avex).
- Whoops. Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "these diverse influences have led to the variety of her own music."
- Suggestion: "the diversity of her taste in music has lent itself to her own compositions."
"She has employed Western as well as Japanese musicians; among those she has worked with are DJs Armin van Buuren, Jonathan Peters, Junior Vasquez, Above & Beyond, and Ferry Corsten; the Lamoureux Orchestra of France; and traditional Chinese music ensemble Princess China Music Orchestra."
- Bad usage of semi-colons. On another note, are we to name every DJ who has ever worked with her? I can understand the French and Chinese orchestras (to show a diversity of cultural music), but what do the DJs give as told here? Just prop up the DJs who had significant influences on her music.
- Okay, fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Having released over 100 songs (not including remixes), Hamasaki's musical style has changed over time; her music spans styles including dance, metal, R&B, progressive rock, pop, and classical."
- Suggestion: "Hamasaki has released more than a hundred original songs; through them, she has covered a wide range of musical styles, such as dance, metal, R&B, progressive rock, pop, and classical."
- Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"However, when writing "M", none of the melodies composed by her staff appealed to her, and she decided to compose."
- Suggestion: "However, she started to compose her own melodies after her staff had failed to compose a tune for "M" that appealed to her."
- Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Thinking that this let her get closer to what she had in mind, Hamasaki continued, most notably in her album I am..., mostly her own work; furthermore, she took control of nearly every aspect of her artistry for the same reasons."
- Suggestion: "Wanting to produce works faithful to her visions, Hamasaki took control of most aspects of her artistry. I am... is representative of this stage in Ayumi's career; its songs and videos were mostly produced under Hamasaki's direction."
- Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Later on in her career, however, she began delegating many of the tasks she had come to handle, including composition, to her staff."
- Suggestion: "Later in her career, however, she started to delegate many tasks, including composition, back to her staff."
- Huh, that wasn't my original sentence...must be a result of a ce. Changed. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Hamasaki is often involved in the artistic direction of her live performances; as a result, they are often lavish productions that use a variety of props, extravagant costumes, and choreographed dances."
- Great involvement from an artist does not result in lavish productions unless his or her personality are such (which is not mentioned here). The phrase "as a result" should be dropped.
- Done. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"As with her live performances, she is involved in the artistic direction of her promotional videos ..."
- Why not drop "as with her live performances" and insert "also" between "is" and "involved"?
- Done. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"... tries to convey the videos the meanings or feelings of their respective songs."
- A word is missing, the clause is inappropriately phrased, or "convey" is incorrectly used.
- Again, probably a mistake made during a ce. Added the missing preposition. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"anglophone"
- It would be wiser to link this word to either an article or Wiktionary, or render it in simpler terms.
- Linked to Wiktionary. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lyrics and themes
- "Hamasaki's lyrics, all her own, have resonated among her fans, who praise them as being honest and "expressing determination"."
- The sentence can be rephrased to exclude the clumsy "all her own"... "Expressing determination" is a bit too plain for a quote. Furthermore, "honest" seems to be used quite often later on...
- Suggestion: "Hamasaki has been praised by her fans for writing unpretentious lyrics that "incite listeners to dance" and "express the determination equal to one who is injured but insistent on overcoming his condition."" (the literal translation of "one who is injured but insists on starting to walk on his own two legs" is a bit clumsy).
- Public image
"Hamasaki's influence extends to other aspects of pop culture, including fashion, and she is often considered an icon and trend-setter in fashion, a status attributed to her tight control over her image."
- Redundancy in the ideas for "fashion".
- Suggestion: "Hamasaki's influence goes beyond music; she is often considered a fashion icon and trend-setter, a status attributed to her tight control over her image.'
- Changed to your suggestion. 16:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
"As well as appearing in fashion magazines such as ViVi, Popteen, and Cawaii, Hamasaki repeatedly wins awards such as "Best Jeanist", "Nail Queen" and Oricon's "Most Fashionable Female Artist"."
- Honestly... the awards sound corny for an encyclopaedia...
- Suggestion: "Besides her frequent appearances in fashion magazines, such as Vivi, Popteen, and Cawaii, Hamasaki has often been lauded for her trendy choices in apparels and accessories; Oricon has repeatedly named her the "Most Fashionable Female Artist"."
- Well, they're actually pretty prestigious awards...but OK, changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"This status has led to Hamasaki's shaping of Japan's fashion scene; many aspects of Japan's fashions—including clothing, hair, nails, and accessories—have in some way been influenced by her."
- Her status as a "fashion icon and trend-setter" does not lead to influencing the fashion trend in Japan, it already influences it; thus the first sentence is incorrect and can be dropped.
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Because of her status as a trend-setter, Hamasaki has been sought by numerous brands to endorse their products."
- Much in the way that companies have asked big-name Hollywood stars to endorse their products, her trend-setting achievement would likely not be the only factor that urges companies to seek her signature. The subordinating clause could be dropped.
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Other activities
This first paragaph comes across as a clumsy collection of "XXX featured song YYY." Why must it be in these details? The listings can simply be reduced and appended to the first sentence in this form: "such as Onimusha: Dawn of Dreams, InuYasha, and Shinobi: Heart Under Blade."
- Changed to your suggestion and moved the section to the "Image and artistry" section. Ink Runner (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph is heavy in proseline. Reorganize and group the concepts (I see clothing, television show, accessories, and what-nots), varying the sentence structure.
- Changed. Ink Runner (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personal life
"Rumors of a future marriage for Hamasaki and Tomoya Nagase (her boyfriend since her acting days) began to be circulated by the Japanese media by July 2007, nearly six years after the couple had made their relationship public. On July 13, 2007, however, Hamasaki announced that they had broken up."
- Not a good way to introduce the section.
- Suggestion: "Hamasaki dated singer-actor Tomoya Nagase since her brief acting career, and they publicly announced their relationship in 2001. Six years later, the media circulated rumors that the couple were about to get married; however, on July 13, Hamasaki announced that they had broken up."
- There are now four references clumped at the end of this. Source them properly to their statements. The Mainichi "Egos, abortion or mutts" is unreliable and should be removed because Mainichi disavows any responsibility for it (freely translate from WaiWai). Its "The Ayu-Nagase Catastrophe" could be removed since it was for investigating the ex-couple's "love mansion", which is no longer mentioned. Jappalang (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Shortly thereafter, Hamasaki revealed that she and Nagase were no longer living together."
- Uh, Hamasaki did not reveal this; it was Mainichi's investigations and speculation (although evidently true). Regardless, is this notable? It would be if she and Nagase kept living together after they had broken up, but it is normal (and therefore insignificant) that broken-up couples do not live together.
- You're right; removed sentence. Ink Runner (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"She disclosed that she had been diagnosed with deafness in 2006 ..."
- Change "deafness" here to "the condition" to avoid repetition with the preceding sentence.
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Supposedly as a result of her hearing loss, Avex shares went down by thirteen yen."
- This is really wholesale speculation and sensationalist journalism. It should be qualified by appending "according to United News Daily" to it if it is to be included.
- Removed. It doesn't have much to do with her personal life, anyways. Ink Runner (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Despite the setbacks"
- She is deaf in only one ear (she can still clearly hear with the other). How is that a setback (something which obstructs or throws off a plan/course)? Furthermore, the plural form would indicate there are other such problems. What are they?
- Hmm, I don't know why it was plural. Changed to singular. As to the condition being a "setback": the American Heritage Dictionary defines setback as "an unanticipated or sudden check in progress; a change from better to worse." Ink Runner (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, a "setback" requires a context unless obvious (if we follow the AHD's definition, then what is the progress that was disrupted?). Jappalang (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, her singing suffered... ([62]) Ink Runner (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a good source to include and possibly to expand on. Note that the newspaper piece has professional opinions that state two sides of the story. One side (singer and producer) states that the condition could affect live performance; the other (songwriter with deaf students), however, argues that it is a correctible condition. Jappalang (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, her singing suffered... ([62]) Ink Runner (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, a "setback" requires a context unless obvious (if we follow the AHD's definition, then what is the progress that was disrupted?). Jappalang (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I don't know why it was plural. Changed to singular. As to the condition being a "setback": the American Heritage Dictionary defines setback as "an unanticipated or sudden check in progress; a change from better to worse." Ink Runner (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Above are the issues found. Jappalang (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestion. Karanacs has already given the article a CE, and I have contacted a Peer Review volunteer to give the article a look. Ink Runner (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes, many of the sources are Japanese, making it hard to evaluate accuracy and reliability. Do any of the reviewers read Japanese? I wrote to a friend who speaks Japanese and received the following feedback:
- The Japanese and Chinese sources (including those of the quotes) have been reviewed by Jappalang, who reads both of the mentioned languages. Ink Runner (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks (good to know)! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I have not paid full attention to the sources yet, because I was concentrating on the prose (I looked further when something about the sentences bugged me). I will start looking in detail at the available online Japanese and Chinese sources now. Jappalang (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks (good to know)! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oricon and RIAJ are solid; Avexnet is from her label and hosts her website; Sponichi Annex is part of a major Japanese newspaper; Cawaii is a teen fashion magazine, Vivi is another one. Beatfreak is the Japanese version of an American teen magazine. rockin'on japan is a J-Rock magazine, likely simlar for J-Point, Casa Brutus, Girlpop, and Sweet. barks.jp website uncertain.
- Girlpop and Sweet are magazines aimed at teenage girls, J-point is a music magazine, and Casa Brutus is an architecture magazine, similar to Architectural Digest. (The article cited talked about Hamasaki's concert at the Yoyogi National Gymnasium and its setup etc.) Barks.jp is similar to MSN Music and it's owned by IT Media (アイティメディア株式会社). Ink Runner (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checking one for accuracy. "Oricon has repeatedly named her the 'Most Fashionable Female Artist'." The source says that she is the ベストジーニスト賞 or Best Jeanist; could be some hyperbole.
- The Oricon source does say in the text that she was awarded "Best Jeanist", but the poll was for "オシャレアーティスト" or "Most Fashionable Artist". Ink Runner (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further source comments — per the comments above, I went through the Japanese and Chinese sources. Those that have issues are listed below:
Source: "A Great Achievement — Hamasaki Ayumi Ties with Akina Nakamori for the Achievement of Five Crowns"[63] (2007-07-24)
- This reference cites the achievements listed in the lead. However, as the subject is living (and her competitors), I question if the text should focus on her "most"-est achievements. Being the first is understandable, as no one can likely be the first for that record again. However, selling the most and getting the most #1s can be eventually broken. Considering the nature of an encyclopaedia, it is in the best interest to rewrite the achievements to avoid rewrites later. As of 2007 according to this source, Hamasaki has 28 #1 singles, 9 years running to have a #1 single per year, 39 top 10 singles, 20.218 million copies of singles sold, and 5 million-singles sellers. This source also states "Love Destiny" as Hamasaki's first #1 single.
- For the 10 years running, you would want to use ref #73 http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/confidence/53725/full/, which also states "Love Destiny" as the first #1 singles, and 30 #1 singles as of 2008-04-15.
Footnote-3: "According to Oricon, "Boys & Girls" is Hamasaki's first million-selling single (its sales are listed as higher than those of "H", a million-seller); however, the RIAJ does not list the single as a million-seller."
- This footnote is sourced to http://www.oricon.co.jp/artists/s/246497/ for the first part. The source is a cumulative sales chart that seems to be updated as frequently as possible. Hence, this cannot support the assumption that the reference for the second part (http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/million_list/1999.html, a list of million sellers for 1999, which only shows Loveppears and "A"). Boys & Girls might have sold less than a million in 1999, but reached a million sales in early 2000 or later. Furthermore, http://www.oricon.co.jp/music/special/061206_03.html states that "Boys & Girls" was immediately #1 on its release; it was not Hamasaki's first #1 single. That #1 was "Love Destiny", as presented above by two Oricon sources.
- Thank you; I had overlooked the fact that Oricon's listing was according to current sales. Listed "Love: Destiny" as the first #1. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Duty resonated with fans: the "Trilogy" were "hit singles" ("Seasons" was a million-seller), and the album became Hamasaki's best-selling studio album."
- Allmusicguide does not seem to have any information pertinent to this sentence (http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/million_list/2000.html only showed "Seasons" as a million-seller). Do you mean http://www.oricon.co.jp/artists/a/246497/ ?
- Darn, they must have updated Hamasaki's page. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The single, a duet with Keiko Yamada, was released as part of Avex's non-profit Song+Nation project, which raised money for victims of the attacks."
- Umm... according to the source (http://www.avexnet.or.jp/songnation/index.htm), the proceeds from the album and 3 singles mentioned (one of which was Ayumi's) was donated to the United Nations for world peace and for the children (note the small letters...), not US's 9/11 victims. No specific charities were mentioned (I would presume UNICEF, but would not put that down).
- Changed the sentence to "raised money for charity" and replaced the primary source with a secondary source. (Since it requires paid access, I put the original text in a footnote.) Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The secondary source does not state where the proceeds would go to, it only notes that the song was resulting from the attack and that Hamasaki and Yamada were singing the duet (note: I read the full text of the source). It seems the primary source would be a better choice (unless another secondary source that speaks of where the money would go can be added). I would suggest adding back the primary source; the secondary source can then be used to reinforce the primary. Jappalang (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I re-added the primary source. Ink Runner (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The secondary source does not state where the proceeds would go to, it only notes that the song was resulting from the attack and that Hamasaki and Yamada were singing the duet (note: I read the full text of the source). It seems the primary source would be a better choice (unless another secondary source that speaks of where the money would go can be added). I would suggest adding back the primary source; the secondary source can then be used to reinforce the primary. Jappalang (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed the sentence to "raised money for charity" and replaced the primary source with a secondary source. (Since it requires paid access, I put the original text in a footnote.) Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"In support of I am..., Hamasaki held two tours, Ayumi Hamasaki Arena Tour 2002 A and Ayumi Hamasaki Stadium Tour 2002 A."
- This article (http://epochtimes.com/b5/2/6/19/n197226.htm) talks about Ayumi Hamasaki Arena Tour, whose last stop was in Yokohama. It only stated when the tour started (April), how many Japanese cities it had been in (11) and how many performances were given (21). Other than that, it only stated Ayumi's first outdoor performance will be given in Tokyo at the end of the month, and July would see her first new single. Oh yes, she also said that "[David] Beckham is so handsome!" (urgh). There is no mention of supporting I am... (though this can be inferred by year) or that there were two tours to support the album (no mention of a Stadium Tour).
- Sourced. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The album had three singles—"Free & Easy", "Voyage", and "H"; the last became the best-selling single of 2002."
- Actually, according to the source (http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/million_list/2002.html), it was the only million seller single in 2002 (heh), but if there are no other million seller singles, then it cannot be the best then (you need competition to be the best).
- As the only million-seller single, "H" technically was the best-selling single; the competition was every other single released in 2002. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Though (Miss)understood also reached the top of the charts, Oricon stated that it sold fewer than a million copies—Hamasaki's first studio album to do so."
- The source (http://www.oricon.co.jp/music/special/061221_03.html) only gave the numbers. Nothing about it as her first studio album not to sell a million copies.
- I included the Oricon sales of the other albums in their respective paragraphs. (Except for those of I am... and Rainbow, which are in a footnote.) Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Both of the album's singles, "Startin'" and "Blue Bird", continued her streak of number-one singles: "Startin'" became her twenty-sixth, setting a new record for most number-one singles held by a solo female artist."
- Should be sourced to http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/ranking/15343/ instead of http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/ranking/15339/ .
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Her sales, however, continued to decline: according to both Oricon and the RIAJ, Secret failed to sell a million copies."
- It (http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/gold/200611.html) did not explicitly state it, but having the million single/album stating (miss)understood, while Secret is left as a Gold record should be fairly safe. Raising this up for discussion.
- I included the sales of Secret, so it should be clear. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, there is no sales figure for Secret in http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/ranking/22658/ . Is this the correct source? Jappalang (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, how do I do these things? XP Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, there is no sales figure for Secret in http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/ranking/22658/ . Is this the correct source? Jappalang (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I included the sales of Secret, so it should be clear. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote: "However, Oricon's year only has fifty-one "weeks"—the first two of the year are combined. Kobukuro's sales for the combined two weeks were slightly higher than Hamasaki's, giving them the number-one position. "
- Umm... this source (http://web.archive.org/web/20080116220440/http://www.sponichi.co.jp/entertainment/news/2008/01/07/02.html) is talking about her ear problem, not the differences in accounting practices between Oricon and Kobukuro...
- Added a ref. Ink Runner (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The album's singles—"Glitter / Fated", "Talkin' 2 Myself", and Hamasaki's first digital-only single, "Together When..."—however, reached the top of their respective charts."
- This source (http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/rankmusic/48305/) talks about how Hamasaki's 29th number 1 single that is also her 40th Top 10 hit, made her the second among the industry in each area. How is this related to the sentence?
- The other source, a chart (http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/chart/w080120_1.html), shows Hamasaki's "Together when" as the first, "(Don't) Leave me alone" as the 46th, and "My All" (67th) on the chart for online distribution for the year. It does not state "Together when" is her first digital-only single...
- Well, her discography lists "Together When..." as a digital-only single, but to be sure, I sourced it. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no mentions of "Glitter / Fated", and "Talkin' 2 Myself" in either source.
"Hamasaki is also the first female singer to have eight studio albums that topped the Oricon."
- This source (http://www.oricon.co.jp/music/special/061206_03.html) was used as far back as April this year (or earlier) to source this sentence (and its earlier forms). However, I do not see any such acknowledgement in the source.
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Final comments: after going through the article for the several times noted above, I believe opposable issues with regards to sources, and comprehensiveness are resolved. Although the language is clear, I am not too enamored with the style and flow at certain parts (hence, my recommendation of another copyeditor). Still, this article is a good, neutral, and comprehensive read. I would not stand against its promotion to be an FA, but I think it could do with a bit more polish to its prose. Jappalang (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The prose is not facilitated by the mess of punctuation. Here's one example with ellipses, dashes, parentheses, quotations, colon and semi-colon, all competing with footnotes:
Hamasaki's debut album under Avex, A Song for XX (1999), was "unassuming":[1] its singles—"Poker Face", "You", "Trust", "Depend on You", and "For My Dear..." (all 1998)—were not major hits;[2] the tracks, composed by Yasuhiko Hoshino, Akio Togashi (of Da Pump), and Mitsuru Igarashi (of Every Little Thing), were "cautious" pop-rock songs.[2][1]
Some rewording might help avoid all the punctuation. This is only a sample. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have edited some sentences and moved the refs around to avoid their competing with the punctuation. The dates of releases were left in parentheses since other FAs also follow that practice, and it seems like the best way to streamline. Ink Runner (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crash of the Titans
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:43, 16 October 2008 [64].
Tokyo Mew Mew
- Nominator(s): AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs)
- previous FAC (03:13, 22 July 2008)
I'm renominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets all of the criteria for being an FA article and that all issues from the previous FA nomination have now been addressed. This article is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, stable, and properly follows the Wikipedia style guide and the Anime and Manga manual of style. It is thoroughly referenced from reliable sources and using a consistent referencing style. It has been peer reviewed, thoroughly copyedited, and is currently a GA article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
http://www.tv-aichi.co.jp/mewmew/kako/052/index.html deadlinks- There were concerns brought out in the previous FAC about brandnoise and the two CD retailers, which I left out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Check the FAC for the reasoning given for inclusion.
- Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Already fix the first with the addition of an archiveurl :) For the concerns over the two retailers, I still pretty much stand by my earlier remarks: CD Japan is the English language version of one of the largest CD sellers in Japan (Neowing). Kalahari is a South African retailer. While commercial sites are not the preferred option for the source, however they are only being used to cite the existence and releases of those CDs/DVDs, and in the absence of any other official or RS site, they are the best available source. The alternative would be to just pretend we don't know that the series was released in English in South Africa or that the CDs exist, losing valid information from the article. It is unfortunate, but with the series licensing issues, there is unlikely to be another source for any of this unless it is ever relicensed and re-released.
- For Brandnoise, as I noted in the previous FAC, it is a blog, but it is the official blog of a company, scenarioDNA, which is a market research firm and would seem to be RS for that sort of information. From my understanding of WP:RS, such a blog is considered a reliable source? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On references:
Many of the links for published works go back to their Wikipedia articles instead of the source itself, including Anime News Network, Manga Pacific, Miachi Daily News, Taylor and Francis, and Tokyopop.- The use of Amazon and CD Japan is being used to verify track listings? Can you use the actual CD inserts instead of these sites? Secondary sources should be used instead to report how the CDs were received. Are there reviews for the music on them?
- Is source #60: Forum Buzz actual news reported by reliable sources or press releases or the result of chat room gossip? It's difficult to tell with that source. --Moni3 (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the links, they are linking the name of the source, right? So Anime News Network? i.e. they are linking to the publisher's wikipedia article? That's not a problem, as long as they aren't linking to that for the sourcing, which I didn't think they were. They are just giving a link to let folks know more about the publisher, it isn't the source being cited. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, no problem. :) For the rest, I used the Amazon and CD Japan sites to primarily verify the CD release dates and general contents since the CDs were never released outside of Japan and would be difficult to acquire. I could not find information on them on any Japanese news sites or the like to use as alternative sources. I have not found any reviews on the series music at all, unfortunately, likely due to the lack of the international release for the CDs and the poor English release. :(
- The Forum Buzz is based on verified info posted to AoD's forums by site moderators so for that particular site, I would consider it a reliable source. I can drop the ref, if needed, as it basically just backs up the first. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose alone, not to say that a little polishing isn't possible.
- "It was originally serialized in Nakayoshi from September 2000 to February 2003 and later published in seven tankōbon volumes by Kodansha from April 2003 to May 2004." The longer the sentence, the more likely the insertion of an optional comma. Here, I'd put one after "February 2003", especially as it divides a repeated construction.
- What earthquake isn't sudden? You mean "powerful"? Tony (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a comma as suggested and removed sudden. It wasn't particularly powerful, just very quick and no aftershocks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, Giggy
- "Tokyopop licensed the manga series for English-language publication in North America and released the complete original series as well as the sequel; 4Kids Entertainment, meanwhile, licensed the anime series for North American broadcast" - I'd split this into two sentences.
- "Well received by English-language readers" - what about Japanese reception? Since it started in that language I'd give it priority.
- "Tokyo Mew Mew was generally well received by reviewers, who described it as cute and entertaining." - and then you give one review as an example... I dunno, I'd prefer if some more substance was put behind the claim
Giggy (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the first. Unfortunately, no Japanese reception information has been found. Its been a regular problem in the anime/manga articles, where except for the biggest series, even sales figures are difficult to find. For the third, I've fixed that. Somehow a la Mode ended up in the middle of the original's set of reviews :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Giggy (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there's no academic or peer reviewed literature out there about Tokyo Mew Mew? -Malkinann (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I've ever been able to find, no. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've actually never heard of Tokyo Mew Mew before, but I skimmed through this article and know a lot more about it. Sources seem fine (where they're needed,) no expansion is needed, I originally thought that more "reception" was needed, but I guess what's there is about all there is. Good job, whoever wrote this. Tezkag72 (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks :) I wish there were more reception as well. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:02, 4 August 2008 [65].
Alleyway
- Nominator(s): Kung Fu Man (talk)
- previous FAC 19:39 June 19, 2008
Addressed the issues brought up with the previous version of this article, including fair use rationales for the images that were more appropriate and requested (and subsequently received) a copyedit to improve the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- How does the Japanese text in the lead help most readers? There was a discussion about this a few weeks ago; could someone update us on the progress? Gary King (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - following a complete copyedit I have no issues. I'll be happy to help with any required changes as part of this FAC. —Giggy 03:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
What makes http://www.atarihq.com/tsr/special/el/el.html a reliable source?
- Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interview with one of Tengen's employees with the relevant statements echoed in the Game Over book.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To append that, Mobygames does link to two interviews conducted on the site (Ed Logg, Gregg Tavares). Tavares himself cited an article by him in his blog and links to tsr's site (notably in his links and to that interview). ClassicGaming cites them as a resource as well, as do many other websites. As far as the site owner I have no information on him: he apparently remained solely by that username online. Will this suffice?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the main owner of the site has chosen to remain anon, I'm uncomfortable with using it as a source, but as you have the information backed up by another source, I'd suggest moving the interview to an external link. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the ref then, it would be out of place as an external link due to most of the discussion revolving around Nintendo v. Tengen. The Game Over book covers the Tetris delay well enough on its own.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the main owner of the site has chosen to remain anon, I'm uncomfortable with using it as a source, but as you have the information backed up by another source, I'd suggest moving the interview to an external link. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Neutral:
- "for the original Game Boy." No need to sepcify which—if it was a different version then it would have been introduced by that name.
- That's nitpicking. To a casual reader Game Boy by itself could just as easily mean Game Boy Color or Game Boy Advance, such as you yourself are suggesting could be implied by the bit below.
- Yeah, but that's why the word is linked. The encyclopaedia can't cater to common misconceptions. As for nitpicking, that's pretty much what FAC is, although some problems are really obvious.
- "It is a Breakout clone and was one of the first four games developed and released for the system by Nintendo. It was a launch title for every release of the Game Boy.[1]" A couple of things here: firstly, the second sentence is confusing. Do you mean "for every release" as a regional thing, because this could imply the variations of the Game Boy. Secondly, both these sentences seem to say the same thing. If it was one of the first four released, then it must be a launch title.
- Fixed.
- "The game was first released in Japan in 1989,[2] and was later released in North America. It was eventually released Europe in early 1990." Don't know why these very similar sentences are separate; when was it released in NA?
- Fixed
- "Alleyway was released with limited advertising,
and receivedreceiving moderate to low scores from reviewers who compared itheavilyto games like Arkanoid.[5]" You know, review things like this to improve flow.
- Fixed.
- "The object of Alleyway is to clear all breakable bricks". Use more accurate English; "clear" could mean anything.
- Fixed.
- "The gameplay is similar to that of Breakout." Strange to have a standalone sentence like this that seems to appear randomly without explanation. Consider merging into first sentence.
- Fixed.
- Again with the prose: "Paddle speed can be changed by holding either the B or A button on the controller while moving the paddle,[9]
and the paddle'which can only move horizontally at a fixed height." Needs someone to copyedit prose to fix the other examples.
- Fixed...
- Just want to clarify what may be a personal misconception here: "a downward 45° angle". Maybe I'm getting my Mathematics mixed, but I don't understand this phrase. I know what a 45 degree angle is, but thinking this through, I don't know what this "downward" thing means in relation. I can only think of two variables: whether this angle is aimed left or right, but this article doesn't explain that. I'd appreciate it if you could clarify this.
- Reworded.
- "one thousand points scored, until the player has over 10,000 points". Inconsistency with number usage. Probably should be displayed in digits, per WP:MoS
- That's in line with the large numbers policy on the page you just linked to.
- No it isn't. I used probably as two words are allowed, although I wouldn't go there in the case of thousands. Regardless, the usage isn't consistent. "one thousand" and "ten thousand" or "1000 and 10,000", preferably the latter.
- "Because there is no battery-backed SaveRAM or a password feature, Alleyway must be completed in one sitting." Replace "must" with "can only". Suggests that everybody who buys the game must complete it.
Fixed.
- "The player's ball will only travel in fixed angles of 15°, 30° or 45°." No need to say that the ball belongs to the player. If you've given the three possible outcomes, then "fixed" is redundant.
- Feels more grammatically correct with the "fixed" there. Otherwise, fixed.
- One would have though that the "only" would have established the concept of constant, but nevermind.
- "The velocity is dependent on what brick type the ball comes into contact with." I'm not sure about this one. Technically there is a difference between speed and velocity, although I think that you're talking about the ball in regards to speed. I don't know if the two can be used interchangeably in an encyclopaedia.
- Fixed.
- "at a steep angle." Unsure about the English here; tehnically, the angle istelf is neither steep nor flat, only the line of movement.
- Not really another way to word that and get the point across.
- Well, it says the ball either travles at 15, 30, or 45 angles, so which is it? What's there is technically incorrect.
- "the player manages to get the ball with the bulk of the paddle before it falls into the pit below, it will bounce back into the playing field." Not sure about the word "bulk"; plus, it is dependent on interpretation.
- Replaced bulk with better descriptive term "body".
- Sometimes when reading I have the feeling that the article's going into unnecessary detail. It raises the question whether such detail would be used if the game had more substantial content.
- The detail is necessary to fully understand the subject in question, and is cited appropriately without original research. It's no different than the detail one could say on a game like Tetris.
- At an extreme example: "If the player can hit all bricks for every stage through one playthrough, the player will get 9276 points plus an additional 9700 from clearing each bonus stage, making the maximum possible/"perfect" score on a single playthrough 18,976 points."
- "twenty four" Should be hyphenated. Again, inconsistency with number usage as "32" is present in the aricle.
- Fixed.
- "Every three regular stages, the" Put "After" before "every".
- Fixed.
- "where the same pattern of bricks appears but behaves differently." Up until now, the concpet of bricks "behaving" in any way hasn't been explained. What does this mean?
- Seems kinda silly to point out they're normally stationary, no? There's not a really convenient way to reword that.
- "where the bricks move downward the height of one regular brick in short bursts, increasing in speed the more the current ball bounces off the paddle." Just generally an awkward sentence that needs rewording.
- Worded better.
- "As the player progresses through patterns" Why word it this way?
- Why not? Levels is inappropriate as the added gameplay elements only appear with the start of a new pattern set.
- "From the fourth stage on when the ball comes into contact with the top of the area, the paddle's size is halved until the stage is cleared or a life is lost" Needs a comma after "on", rearrange sentence so that it isn't begun with "when", if you know what I mean.
- Should be fixed.
- "Unlike regular levels, the ball will cut through the blocks in these stages without ricocheting, and contact with the ceiling will not affect the paddle." Don't understand. From what I read, the ball would just cut through everything, never returning. What's the point of this game then?
- I've clarified that a little.
- On scoring, the article really shouldn't go into specific number of points or the methods to achieve them. To be honest, I find the "Scoring" section to be totally useless.
- It's a principle part of the game, and the only real goal of the game is to get a high score. It's vital to understand what the game is about.
- Yeah, but giving the specific numbers and specific methods is needless.
- The part about Mario on the box is not cited, and is poorly written in parts: "at the controls, but despite this the"
- I have to cite the box even though it's clearly up there at the top of the article?
- My mistake. Apologies
- "well after the North American release." Watch out for informal phrasing. Try to be more specific too.
- Fixed
- Looking at "Development", I'm seeing very little of how the game was actually made.
- There isn't anything available. You can't fault an article when information simply doesn't exist: it was a Breakout clone. There isn't even a credits sequence to cite who the programmers were.
- The "Reception" coverage seems insufficient for an FA.
- There isn't anymore said though. People compared it to Arkanoid or enjoyed it as a portable Breakout clone. You can't cite what doesn't exist and won't exist; even EGM didn't give the game half a page when they reviewed it, only a single column on a page.
- I'm not sure about sources, but the instruction manual is given as a source published by Nintendo, even though it's given by way of another, assumedly unreliable site.
- It's a transcription of the manual. Transcriptions are, last I checked, perfectly allowed to give the article reader a sense of the context being cited, no?
- I was questioning the point that the information of the site wasn't included in the ref. I'm not an expert on refs, though.
It's a decent article, especially considering the game's age, but I just don't think it's ready yet. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed the issues the best I could.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Responded to some points, will take another look later. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, addressed the other issues mentioned to this point.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, all immediate issues seem to have been addressed, so I've declared nyself neutral. Regarding Reception and Development, that revolves around how the availability of information affects the comprehensiveness of the article in regards to 1b, but this seems to be a grey area. I personally feel that it's insufficient, but I suppose it would be unfair of me to oppose based on this. I still feel that there's too much unnecessary detail in the article. On a final note, the lead references the origin of the game's name, although this isn't mentioned in the main body of text. The lead is supposed to be a summary of everything in the body of text, so there shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't present further down. Good luck. Ashnard Talk Contribs 11:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, addressed the other issues mentioned to this point.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Responded to some points, will take another look later. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Alleyway-balls.PNG looks replacable with free content Fasach Nua (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well actually was created pretty much from scratch, but the diagram is still based in look upon Nintendo's, so I credited them under the free license tag to make everything smoother given it was an issue brought up in the previous FAC.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing only image licensing: I agree with the above comment on the balls image; the shadows definitely match the images on the Nintendo site. I'm not sure that the Japanese box art is necessary. --NE2 12:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Improved the caption to make the box art more relevant to the article section it relates to.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please ping one of the two image reviewers (above) to find out if they're satisfied now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by Nominator For the record, requested and received a copyedit for the article by Ashnard on the 13th of July.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - This has changed masses since the previous FAC. The prose has improved tremendously, and this is a very good article on what is a difficult subject (a very old game, hard to find reliable sources for). Well done. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments regarding images:
Image:Alleyway boxart.png needs a verifiable source (WP:IUP and WP:NFCC#10A) and a complete rationale (WP:RAT and NFCC#10C).- Image:Alleyway-balls.PNG contains contradictory information (permission asserts "Free to use for informative purposes. No copyright exercised on images", yet fair use is claimed). Image is not low resolution (NFCC#3B), but this may be moot as image appears to be replaceable with a free alternative (NFCC#1). A free alternative illustrating ball behavior could be easily created.
- Fixed. I was prepared in this case, so created a replica in advance of a smaller version of the image with limited colors, and changed it to use a public domain tag.
- The new image is still problematic (see derivative works). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Replaced free tags with non-free fair use and modified description to match item's status as a derivative work.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The new image is still problematic (see derivative works). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. I was prepared in this case, so created a replica in advance of a smaller version of the image with limited colors, and changed it to use a public domain tag.
Image:Orig-alleyway-art.PNG appears purely decorative (NFCC#3A and NFCC#8); how does seeing the Japanese cover contribute significantly to our understanding of the game or its development? Article discussion (i.e. prerequisite critical commentary) of the covers is minimal. Prose and the "international box" depicted in the infobox appear adequate.ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Removed the image...but I still feel it should be there as well to fully convey the game as a whole, as well as the one real difference between the Japanese and worldwide view of the game, as to the Japanese this was not presented on the packaging as a Mario title. Your call though. Either way, everything should be fixed and addressed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Better than the average video-game article, but the prose could still use some improvement. I've done some copy-editing, but more could be done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A follow-up... I still can't bring myself to support. There are some paragraphs that are still rather iffy, such as the second paragraph in the "Reception" section. On the other hand, I can't quite bring myself to oppose, either. It's basically not a bad article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, 1a. Concur with Jbmurray that it's better than average, but that's not good enough for FAC. Rough prose needs additional copy-editing and de-mystifying for our general audience.Will a general audience know what a "global launch title" is?
- Changed to worldwide...which is kinda funny because while that term is easier to understand, it redirects to global.
- I'm actually more concerned with "launch title", which I noted you have wikilinked somewhere else but it needs linking or explanation in the lead. --Laser brain (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kicked the wikilink up there so launch title is now linked in the lead.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm actually more concerned with "launch title", which I noted you have wikilinked somewhere else but it needs linking or explanation in the lead. --Laser brain (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It is a Breakout clone and was one of the first four games developed and released for the system by Nintendo." The addition of "by Nintendo" qualifies the statement and implies there were other manufacturers releasing games initially. Is that correct?
- Fixed, reworded a little to keep the fact that it is a Nintendo product intact without the noted implication.
Please find a better term than "used up" to describe the paddle stock.
- Changed to depleted.
"The player may have up to nine paddles at any one time." Why not "at once"?
- Fixed.
"The game lacks a continue feature ..." Video game jargon.
- Linked to Continue. Alternative would probably be much wordier and unnecesary.
"The ball will only travel in 15°, 30° or 45° angles." Surely "at" angles, not "in".
- Fixed.
The "type of brick type"?
- Fixed.
"... gray and black bricks increase its speed, while white and indestructible bricks have no effect." How does one discern an indestructible brick? You've described the first three types visually and the last type by behavior.
- Fixed, at least should be. The comma after square is to emphasize that it isn't implying there are more than one type of indestructible brick.
You've mixed the terms velocity and speed in the article, but they don't mean the same thing. Such statements as "The ball's direction and velocity ..." are inaccurate because direction is calculated in velocity. However, the term is used correctly in this statement: "Whenever the ball starts to loop between objects such as the ceiling, indestructible blocks and/or the paddle itself, its velocity will alter at a random point after the second cycle on its next collision."
- Fixed.
Regarding the second sentence above, recommend "change" instead of "alter".
- Fixed.
The whole explanation of high a score you can get is baffling. Non-video game people will not be able to parse "sprites" from Super Mario Bros.—please at least link the game title to ease their pain. Beginning with "Since the icon stops changing at that point ..." I'm completely lost. The term "rollover" also needs explanation and it is linked to a disambiguation page.
- Super Mario Bros. is wikilinked in the previous section. Reworded the bit after the icon point to be more direct and hopefully easier to understand. The definition of "rollover" is covered on the disambiguation page however, 9th definition there.
- Getting better, but I still don't understand "As a result the highest displayable score is 39,999, while the maximum score will only be displayed as 35,565." You've said 39,999 is "displayable", meaning it can be displayed, but then you say that it won't display. Unclear why? --Laser brain (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded it a little to state only four digits of the score are displayed, that should work with the subsequent icon description. Changed "display" the later parts stating what the highest visible score is to word it a little clearer.
- Getting better, but I still don't understand "As a result the highest displayable score is 39,999, while the maximum score will only be displayed as 35,565." You've said 39,999 is "displayable", meaning it can be displayed, but then you say that it won't display. Unclear why? --Laser brain (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Promotion of the title in Nintendo published material consisted of a segment taking up a third of the page they were on." Who or what is "they"? You don't refer to anything plural in this sentence.--Laser brain (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.
- Addressed everything tossed out here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments—The prose is OK.
- Position "only" as late as possible in a clause: "which can only move horizontally at a fixed height" (it can't sit horizontally, though). —>so should "only" come before "horizontally" or "at"? It changes the meaning. Only if either of those positions would give the wrong meaning would you retain the current position.
- "Alleyway was also re-released for download onto"—remove "also"? The "re-" does it, surely.
- "Reception of the game has been mostly negative."—Unlike the title above, a "The" is required; but probably better would be "Reviews of ...". Tony (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All three should be fixed and dealt with.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Writing, references and context are all very good. Excellent work. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:19, 25 July 2008 [66].
Ian Johnson (cricketer)
I believe this article—part of a Featured Topic drive focusing on the Australian cricket team in England in 1948—meets the featured article criteria. The article has had a peer review and is fully and widely referenced, comprehensive and written from a neutral point of view. This is a self-nomination. Mattinbgn\talk 12:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look good, links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "He captained the Australian team in 17 Tests, winning 7 and losing 5." - you should explain this, since what I first thought when seeing it was, "But 7+5=12, not 17." Are there draws?
- "Despite this record, his term as national captain was best known for the loss..." -> "Despite this record he was best known as the captain who lost...", less confusing.
- "Johnson made his first-class cricket debut, aged 17, for Victoria in..." -> "Johnson made his first-class cricket debut at age 17 for Victoria in..."
- "The tour of the West Indies later that season was a cricketing and diplomatic triumph for Johnson; the Australians winning the series comfortably while avoiding the disturbances surrounding the visit to the islands by the English 12 months earlier." - this just sounds rather... awkward. Could you rephrase it?
- "he retired from all forms of cricket aged 39." -> "he retired from all forms of cricket at age 39."
Prose doesn't look bad in general. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I would be interested in hearing further suggestions etc. if you have them. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Aged only 16, and still a schoolboy at Wesley College," → "16 years old and still a schoolboy at Wesley College,"? Gary King (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Will the cricket articles ever stop coming here? Until they do, I guess another review is in order.
"with a firther 5 drawn." Typo.
Test career, Debut and early Test career: "and the match was drawn; Johnson failing to take a wicket. This is awkward and I recommend changing to "failed to take a wicket." Works better with the semi-colon.
Bradman's Invincibles: "Johnson was one of Don Bradman's team touring England in 1948." I would put it as "Johnson was a member of...".
Decline in form: Why is The Ashes in italics here?
"Johnson had another lean series; taking only eight wickets at an average of 32.75." Change the semi-colon into a comma.
- Yep -- 01:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Captaincy, Selection: "cricket establishment; an alumnus..." Try cricket establishment; he was an alumnus...".
Ashes defeat: Ashes in italics again. I haven't seen this in the other cricket articles I've looked at.
during the match, however..." I would prefer a semi-colon here.
Caribbean success: "With the "White Australian policy" in place at time." At the time.
Johnson cultivated an relaxed manner with the locals" Typo an→a.
It's a very good piece, but I am finding some punctuation oddities. It wouldn't hurt to have someone do a quick check for more. Giants2008 (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by User:Dweller
- I find his batting record so sub-mediocre that I'm questioning the description of him as a "bowling all-rounder". In 1st class cricket he barely broke 20 as an average and in Tests it was below 20. 2 hundreds in nearly 200 matches; even allowing for the lower scores of his era, I think that's a generous and POV description. The fact that he played most innings at number 8 in the order and had most success at 8 and 10 (see Stats Guru) seems to back up my assertion.
- Not many Australians have taken 100 wickets and made 1000 runs in Test cricket, even today. From the article "... making him one of only eleven Australians to achieve the "double" of 1,000 runs and 100 wickets in Test cricket." However, I can't find a source that uses the word "all-rounder" to describe him so it has been removed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More POV alert (or OR) "Despite this record, he is best known as the captain who lost consecutive Ashes series against England." Unsourced - and there's no legacy section where such a claim could be discussed and reffed.
- There is no legacy section, but there is a legacy paragraph (His record as the Australian captain was mixed ...") in the Home and Retirement section. I can't see that it is of much use creating a specific legacy section for a cricketer and captain who did not have the impact of, say, a Bradman, a Chappell or even a Taylor, especially if it is added for the sake of allowing a reference. Having said all that, I can reff the claim that concerns you, either in the lead or as an addition to the "legacy paragraph" Your thoughts? -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now modified and hopefully satisfies your concerns -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "He would not play first-class cricket again for three years". Presumably because he was deemed not good enough, but to avoid OR, do you have a source?
- Tasmania were not a Sheffield Shield team until 1977 and for most of their history they were substantially weaker than the other f-c teams. Because of this, the matches were often used to trial young cricketers and to give them some encouragement and contact with the experienced team members. This would be similar to the practise of the English Counties in matches against the University teams. Johnson was only a schoolboy, albeit a very promising one, but with family connections in high places. It is not unreasonable to suppose he was given an early opportunity that he would not have been given had the matches counted toward the Sheffield Shield. Note this is all speculation and unsourced and can't be included in the article. What I could say is something along the lines, "Johnson was given an opportunity to play first-class cricket while still a schoolboy, against Tasmania, in a non-Sheffield Shield match" or some such. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "He secured his place in the Victorian team in the 1939–40 season" Parag is already talking about that season? Did those performances secure the place? Puzzled.
- "making his Sheffield Shield debut against South Australia in Adelaide in November 1939" He's already played 4 1st class matches. Were they not Shield games? Specify.
- As above, Tasmania did not compete in the Sheffield Shield until 1977. In a real sense, his Sheffield Shield debut is his first real entry into meaningful high class cricket. I am not sure how you want me to be more specific. The sentence seems clear to me; "making his Sheffield Shield debut". Can you clarify please? -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still working on it. --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the insightful comments and copy-edit to date. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for delay. Back on it now. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure you always need to give the details of every single Test, but as you have done, the omission of 4th Test in 1948 stands out.
- It wasn't included because Johnson did nothing worth including. While the match is obviously notable, Johnson as a player did little other than continue with his mediocre form. I will discuss my rationale for including individual matches later
- Why would the South Africans be particularly weakened by WWII, more so than the Aussies? I would asume the opposite would be the case.
- This may be a stretch by myself and could do with some rewording if the sentence is capable of misinterpretation: from the source "The complete lack of success by the national side since the war set the Union selectors a tremendous problem, and they were not helped by a leg injury to Athol Rowan, who could not play in any of the Tests." Note the article as written doesn't claim any causation, merely correlation: "Against a South African team weakened following the Second World War ..." I think it is entirely reasonable that South African cricket—much weaker and less established than cricket in Australia—would be more affected by the interruption to international cricket caused by the war. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, I'm not sure if anything would really be lost by deleting that entire sentence.
- I'm not sure you've been consistent about use of singular/plural when referring to a team. Either way works, just check you've been consistent.
- Further to the above, there's a notable flaw, that the text lingers lovingly on the Test-by-Test details early in his career (which I think is too detailed for an encyclopedia article) before skipping through later series.
- I have done a bit of an analysis of Test-by-Test mentions at Talk:Ian Johnson (cricketer)#Analysis of mentions in individual Tests. The only series where I see it as perhaps an issue is the 1946-47 series vs England and I think that the mentions are justified. The 1948 series is a rather special one and I was keen to expand on Johnson's role, particularly in the light of the Featured Topic.
- Pains me to say it, but there's inconsistency in spacing around mdashes. Grr.
- Cite his normally reliable fielding (+wikilink?) and specify number of catches fluffed.
- Current ref 47 (Aussie Daily Teleg). Is that verbatim? If so, needs a "[sic]" for lack of apostrophe in "selectors'". Also, citation needs a date after another pipe (to make what's currently a loose comma useful!)
- Apostrophe added per source (my typo). I don't have a date for the editorial, I used an indirect source (Haigh). Further, all {{quote}}s in the article have that hanging comma and for most of them I do not even have a year! Is this a problem with the template? If so, any suggestions on a replacement. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More to come. --Dweller (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- [citation needed] tag added. Sorry. It's probably the same source as the next sentence, but needs its own, in case they get separated at some time, because it's an important claim. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- C-e restarted. Sorry for delays. I've added a couple of tags and hidden comments today
- Article includes quote:"Just cos you are one of the old blokes in the side doesn't mean you don't have to bloody well put in you know." Is it unpunctuated in the source, too? I'd have a comma after "in". I assume "put in" means make an effort
- Similar issue with punctuation in "Well I saw John's shoulders sag, and he looked so crestfallen that on the spur of the moment I nodded to the umpire and walked."
For now --Dweller (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing only image licensing:
Image:Ian Johnson.jpg and Image:Neil Harvey pull.jpg need more source information.What's with the drawing on Image:Johnson and family.jpg? (I realize you probably don't know, but I found it amusing enough to point out :)) --NE2 12:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That shouldn't be too hard to find. I suspect the family picture was retrieved from a photo editor at a newspaper who wanted a head shot of Johnson for another purpose. I did think of asking if someone may be able to restore it, but it actually looks quite interesting the way it is! -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it looks awful. His wife and kids aren't notable, so just remove it. --Dweller (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it looks that bad. It also illustrates a topic discussed in the article; Johnson's family. If removing it is necessary for FA, then I will remove it but I am not convinced. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thoughts, perhaps I can get it fixed up and then add it. An image of the family is useful but not essential, giving me time to fix it. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it looks awful. His wife and kids aren't notable, so just remove it. --Dweller (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Has NE2 cleared the images? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't think so. I am still waiting to see if the sourcing information on Image:Ian Johnson.jpg can be made more specific. If it was any other image than the infobox headshot, I would have removed it. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now replaced the Ian Johnson headshot and will ask NE2 if he is now satisfied. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Neil Harvey pull.jpg needs evidence that it's pre-1955. Otherwise it looks good. --NE2 02:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I had a look at this earlier this month and would have supported then. A cursory glance at the most recent version (and the diff since) suggests that nothing has gone backwards. Again, great work. Daniel (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—Well-written; congrats. You guys make a good team. Pity the dates are stuck on autoformatting in the infobox. The "half" symbol in the infobox is larger than life; can you cut it down to size? Errant comma after "Telegraph,", end of blockquote. Oh, I see this after all the attributions; looks odd. Can't you just jam the ref number up against the last word? the "Johnson bowling" caption shouldn't have a dot: it's just a nominal group, isn't it? Check others. TONY (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I was going to wait until Dweller finished his round of comments before supporting, but Tony's support indicates to me that this is ready now. A while back I made a couple minor edits, which took care of all my remaining complaints. It looks good to me after a quick skim through the current version. The punctuation seems okay, although I didn't read all the way through again. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - My copyedit won't be finished until early next week, at the soonest. If the decision to promote is done in the interim, I certainly won't complain (and I won't hold back from finishing the job either) Oh, and by the way, awful I've not said it yet, but this is a dang good article. Well done. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for the copy-edit. It has improved the article beyond my best expectations, considering I thought it may have been a little premature listing it here. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support although I have tweaked this article quite a bit. And as the initiator of {{Invincibles Advert}} I did promise to abstain from all these FACs, but since this seems stalled and under full declaration anyway. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Although there are some open issues from my just-finished copyedit and I have some lingering concerns over the quality of photos (fuzzy or badly cropped). --Dweller (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why is there an {{expand}} template on the page? Gary King (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That was me, a few hours ago. Matt'll get there when he has a mo - it'll be easy to address, one way or the other. --Dweller (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:27, 4 August 2008 [67].
Anekantavada
- Nominator(s): Alastair Haines (talk)
I'm nominating this article for featured article because Anish, has repeatedly expressed his desire to work this article up to FA standard. He has energetically sought several peer reviews and copy edits, welcoming direct improvements to the article and providing improvements as recommended in other cases. Additionally, Anish is keen to work other Jainism articles up to FA. The sooner we can assist him with top notch refinements, the sooner he can move on to providing the same quality co-ordination of sourcing and editing he has contributed to the current article.
As for the article itself, first and foremost it is based on impeccable sources and refined to a readable, reliable, informative text, that is clear of POV or other issues. It has a very clear presentation of its sources, a fine bibliography in itself. Philosophy, history, criticism and even human interest are presented logically, appropriately illustrated and come in a text that has some rather long, but essential foreign terms. Altogether, it is an excellent example of an introduction to a topic for which quality English language text for the popular educated market is rare.
Of course, no article is ever perfect. However, several editors have worked hard to support Anish' initiative. Our own limitations prevent us from providing further constructive criticism. So I am proud to present Anish' work, but request we honour him as he would like by offering our most searching constructive criticism. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Article stats:
- 467 (465/2) Anishshah19
- 66 (63/3) Alastair Haines
- 34 (5/29) Qmwne235
- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any particular reason for not listing User:Anishshah19 as a co-nominator? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Three reasons:
- Anish and his role is clearly stated in the nomination—he is the main contributor;
- to my understanding, he is consenting to nomination, rather than promoting his own work; and
- this is my first nomination of an article for FA, so I could be overlooking proceedural things.
- If there's anything inappropriate in this, surely it must be my incompetance, and not relevant to either Anish or the article. I tried to follow everything the FAC pages and tags told me to do, feel free to point out anything I overlooked at my talk page. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing wrong at all; just curious, because it's common for a main contributor to nominate their own work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Three reasons:
Comments
- What makes http://www.jainworld.com/ a reliable source?
- Reply: Out of all the sites of Jainism, Jainworld.com is authentic, informative, comprehensive and popular web-site since 1997. It has faithfully rendered translations of many ancient Jain texts, literature, mythology, legends and stories. While there are hundreds of Jainism related sites, I have chosen to reference one item from Jainworld.com as it contains literature and writings of modern scholars also like Pt. Sukhlal Sanghavi, Pt. Hukumchand Bharil, Kanji Svami and like.--Anish (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if I'm also allowed to reply here, but I will anyway. Jainworld.com is recognized as a reliable source on Jainism within the Jain community. As Anish said above, it has accurate translations and commentaries on Jain texts. It is widely used by Jain temples in India, the U.S., and all over the world. --Qmwne235 19:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Out of all the sites of Jainism, Jainworld.com is authentic, informative, comprehensive and popular web-site since 1997. It has faithfully rendered translations of many ancient Jain texts, literature, mythology, legends and stories. While there are hundreds of Jainism related sites, I have chosen to reference one item from Jainworld.com as it contains literature and writings of modern scholars also like Pt. Sukhlal Sanghavi, Pt. Hukumchand Bharil, Kanji Svami and like.--Anish (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm?
- Reply: Sacred-texts.com is a site that strives to produce the transcriptions of public domain texts on the subject of religion, mythology, folklore and the esoteric. The texts are posted for free access on the Internet like a public library. It has faithfully posted and reproduced the translations of Acaranga Sutra and other Jain canons by the noted German Indologist Hermann Jacobi. One of the reviews of this site is posted here that you may like to go through - http://www.mouthshut.com/review/Sacred-Texts.com-89518-1.html --Anish (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise sources look good and links checked out with the link checking tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the reliablitiy of the non-english sources Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope this satisfies your query. If so you may support this nomination.--Anish (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliability of these sources still unclear; see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for how to go about addressing these queries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope this satisfies your query. If so you may support this nomination.--Anish (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "(599 – 527 BCE)" → "(599–527 BCE)" I believe? "Huntington, Ronald. Jainism and Ethics. Retrieved on July 18, 2007." needs a publisher. Gary King (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I have corrected the dating format as suggested. The website contains the following information: Ron Huntington, former professor of religion at Chapman University and co-director of the Chapman University Albert Schweitzer Institute, was preparing a textbook on world religions at the time of his death. A chapter of the textbook was to introduce Jainism, the religion from the Indian subcontinent that stresses ahimsa, radical non-injury or nonviolence, as a way of life. On account of the probable influence of Jainism and the ethical principle of ahimsa upon Schweitzer and his ethic of Reverence for Life, the chapter prepared by Ron Huntington is reproduced here. So I guess, the publisher would be Chapman University. --Anish (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments not a field I am an expert in but I will note some places for improvement:
- According to anekāntavāda, truth and reality are perceived differently from different points of view, and no single point of view is the complete truth - to avoid repetition --> 'according to its doctrine' ()
- Proponents (of anekantavāda) apply this principle to.. - can lose brcketed bit without losing meaning
- Philosophical overview section I'd rename Philosophy or Tenets - that it is an overview goes without saying
- Strong Support – After going through the article, I am of the opinion that this article should be a featured article. It has good prose, impeccable scholarly references and explains the concept of Anekantavada in a very clear and lucid manner. It has already been rated as a Good Article. Overall, it is an excellent article and if it passes the vote, it will be the first article on Jainism in this category to do so. --Manish Modi 13:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish Modi (talk • contribs)
- I strongly support the nomination. The article is thoroughly researched and very well written. I hope to add something to it but after a while. I think this should be a very interesting article not only for those who are interested in Jainism, but also those interested in exploring pluralism. Anish has done great work on it.--Malaiya (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - It meets all the criteria, so there is no reason not to move it up. The article has come a long way, and now has enough information for even an expert on the subject to learn something. All of this information is supported by specific citations. To borrow and summarize from WP:WikiProject Jainism/Assessment:
- A featured article should be:
- (a) well-written (although there may some minor grammatical or stylistic errors, one would have to actively search for these to find them)
- (b) comprehensive (this article includes information not only about anekantavada itself, but also about related principles, criticism, history, and those influenced by it)
- (c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; (the citations provided are mostly of important Jain scholars or those who are otherwise familiar with the principles of Jainism)
- (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; (although one may perceive a bias if one overanalyzes the article, the criticism section nicely balances the article out)
- (e) stable (no major edit wars have taken place)
- (f) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections (the lead is very well structured; it is concise and comprehensive)
- (g) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help); (yep)
- (h) consistent citations (always footnotes here, with references below)
- Images. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. (yep)
- Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. (about as long as most FAs, maybe even shorter, but is still comprehensive without unnecessarily meandering; every section pertains directly to the doctrine)
However, the article could use a little help from a proofreader who can make sure the article adheres strictly to the technical aspects of WP:MoS. I'll go through it again to try to smooth out any stylistic flaws that may still exist. --Qmwne235 19:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comment by RuhrfischI peer reviewed this and am delighted at how much it has improved. I still have some concerns about the article that need to be resolved before I can support it here. I also note that I made some minor copyedits just now ("stand point" and "stand-point" are now all just "standpoint", same for "viewpoint"), and many more refs now follow puntuation without a space, but I am not sure all such nitpicks have been caught. Here are some of my concerns: - According to Wikipedia:See_also#See_also "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." All three "See also" links are already linked in the article and may not be needed here.
- According to Wikipedia:MOS#Quotations, "Block quotations A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation, ..." There are many short block quotes used that seem to violate this (the dialogues are fine as block quotes as they are more than on paragraph)
- The formatting and referencing of block quotes is not consistent. For example this identifies author and source in the text, has a ref, and then repeats this in small text after the quote:
"Ācārya Divākara further states in Sanmatitarka:[31]
- All doctrines are right in their own respective spheres – but if they encroach upon the province of other doctrines and try to refute their view, they are wrong. A man who holds the view of the cumulative character of truth never says that a particular view is right or that a particular view is wrong.
- —Ācārya Siddhasena Divākara, Sanmatitarka 1:28"
While another block quote is just followed by a large type "5.113" (I assume this is chapter and verse?).
"Māhavīra encouraged his followers to study and understand rival traditions as demonstrated by Acaranga Sutra:[43]
- "Comprehend one philosophical view through the comprehensive study of another one." - 5.113 "
Other quotations from Jain writings do not include any X:Y numbers. These need to be consistent throughout.
Formatting of references is not consistent. For example Ref 1 just uses the author's last name (Dundas), while others like ref 2 use last name, first name (Koller, John M - later he is just Koller, John in ref 48). This is followed for Indian names in ref 4 (Jaini, Padmanabh), but ref 9 gives the name in regular order (Duli Chandra Jain - this is an editor).I have no idea what ref 5 means, it is just "so Monier-Williams"- Ref 26 is to an unpublished manuscript, but WP:RS stipulates reliable sources must be published.
I have no idea what ref 32 means "E. B. (2001) p.2093" If E.B. is Encylcopedia Brittanica, I do not think that is the best source to use in any FA.
In short, the refs need some work, mostly polish, but a few more serious problems. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone has fixed all the references, so after a little bit of polishing, those will be fine. I agree with you regarding the See also section; all of the topics in it were linked prominently and discussed earlier in the article. As for the block quotes, many of those involve rather strange circumstances, so I'll leave those for someone more skilled with MoS quotation guidelines. --Qmwne235 02:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the update. I am also not an expert on MOS quotation guidelines, but it seems odd at least that different quotes have such different styles, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I struck resolved refs. There is still an unpublished work cited, although it is a duplicate ref in each case and contravenes WP:RS. I also note that this "Acarya Siddhasena Divakara. in (ed.) Bhadrankar Vijaya Gani: Vardhamana Dvatrimsika. Jaipur: Prakrit Bharti Academy." is missing a date. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the update. I am also not an expert on MOS quotation guidelines, but it seems odd at least that different quotes have such different styles, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done both of them--Anish (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone has fixed all the references, so after a little bit of polishing, those will be fine. I agree with you regarding the See also section; all of the topics in it were linked prominently and discussed earlier in the article. As for the block quotes, many of those involve rather strange circumstances, so I'll leave those for someone more skilled with MoS quotation guidelines. --Qmwne235 02:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing only image licensing: I'm not sure about Image:Adi Shankara recoloured.jpg. --NE2 12:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The image should not be a problem as the licensing seems to be okay. This image is also used in the article Adi Shankara which is also a “featured article” --Anish (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is whether the website owner actually created the image or just scanned it from somewhere. --NE2 16:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether it is used in another featured article is not relevant; we need to get this cleared here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is whether the website owner actually created the image or just scanned it from somewhere. --NE2 16:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The image should not be a problem as the licensing seems to be okay. This image is also used in the article Adi Shankara which is also a “featured article” --Anish (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert in Images and licencing. Prima facie the licencing seems to be ok. Evidence has been emailed and lodged with the Wikimedia PR department. I dont know what more I can do about this. Can anyone help?--Anish (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. I haven't had time to read the article in depth. The concepts and terminology used are completely foreign to me, which made digging into the article pretty difficult. I read the philosophical overview section and skimmed the rest for now.
- The philosophical overview section offers very useful information, but I think it's focus might need to switch a bit. After the intro to that section, the information is presented in terms of Jainism rather than in relation to anekantavada. For example, the section Jain doctrines of relativity could be reworded to be "Anekantavada is one of three Jain doctrines of relativity used for logic and reasoning. The other two are...". It's the same information, just worded a bit differently so that the focus remains on the subject of this article.
- This did not make sense to me until I thought about it a bit. "Syādvāda is the theory of conditioned predication which provides an expression to anekānta by recommending that the epithet Syād be attached to every expression" - can we simplify the sentence or begin with a simpler explanation?
- There are a great many quotations, and I wonder if the article would be better if, in some cases, the meaning behind the quotation were explained and the quote left out. (In some cases the meaning is explained and the quote is added in...just because?). I have not read the article extremely closely, but on a skim this has a vaguely proselytizing tone.
- WP:MOSQUOTE says that quotations of less than 4 lines should be inline and not offest with blockquotes
Karanacs (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I really appreciate Karanacs' comment, because he addresses complexity respectfully, by pinpointing what needs more (or better) explanation, and even by offering suggestions. I'm intrigued by the "vaguely proselytizing tone" comment and can see how quotations in articles may be understood in this way. My own impression is quite different though. I'm from a different religious tradition, but personally felt the quotes gave substance to the criticism Jainism would direct at other traditions (including my own), rather than feeling editor(s) were seeking to make such comments via the quotes. As such, I found the quotes increased my sense of NPOV rather than suggesting a Jain POV for the article.
- The more abstract the content of quotes, the more I prefer quotes to editorial paraphrase. The doctrines covered in this article are sometimes quite abstract, and although I'd like explanation, I'd like such interpretation from experts. Just where Wiki needs to draw the line on such things in featured articles is probably pretty inexact. So long as existing quotes are at least retained in footnotes, I'd not oppose changes along the lines Karanacs suggests. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I welcome Karanacs’ valuable comments and suggestions for improvement of the article. I have made certain changes as suggested by her and I also agree with Alastair’s reply to her. Jainism is not a proselytizing religion and the quotations from the scriptures were felt to be necessary to provide a better understanding to this concept of anekantavada. Maybe she found it a bit proselytizing as she has just not found time to read the entire article. To balance out, there is a section on criticism and in “intellectual Ahimsa” section, opinion of John Cort and Paul Dundas (both are indologists and Sanskrit/ Prakrit Scholars) have been taken to balance out that view. I hope that she is satisfied by the changes and reply.--Anish (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anish and Q need to disclose that they're major contributors. Tony (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeuntil properly copy-edited throughout; can you find someone fresh to it? Here are random examples from the top.- "differently from different"
- "claimed to explain"—see Fowler on "Jingles"
- Move "only" to as late as possible in a clause: "others are only capable of partial knowledge". Where should it go?
- "that clings too dogmatically to its own tenets"—So it can cling dogmatically, but not too dogmatically? I'd remove "too". After all, what is "too", here. Fuzzy boundary.
- "The word anekānta itself is a compound of"—spot the redundant word.
- Full-stop to semicolon before "Hence", in the first section.
- Consider adding a comma: "According to Jains, the ultimate principle should always be logical and no principle can be devoid of logic or reason."
- "Thus one finds in the Jain texts deliberative exhortations on every subject, may they be constructive or obstructive, inferential or analytical, enlightening or destructive." MOS breach in the use of "one" (who is this "one"?); just make the statement. I'd insert a comma after "Thus", but that's up to you. "may they be" is ungrammatical; you mean ", be they ..."
- MOS breach: please read about captions, which should not have the final period if they're not a complete, formal sentence.
- Rather long blockquotes. Check to see whether they can be trimmed down with the use of [square-bracketed bridging text to save lots of words], and ... ellipsis dots to indicate omissions of text that we don't, strictly speaking, need. It's not a deal-breaker, but they do seem lumpy. I sort of want to know who the translator was, if possible. For example, was Sharma's book written in English? If so, did he translate the original Sanskrit?
- "in some ways it is and it is indescribable"—easier to digest if you put a comma after the first "is". It's translated, so you have the right to do this. Same for the analogous phrases there.
- Third- and fourth-level titles really are almost indistinguishable (yet ANOTHER issue WikiMedia needs to address). How about making the Syadvada et al titles fifth-level; see if the hierarchy is clearer. Tony (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I really like Tony's comments, they clearly express insights into the text that eluded me.
- However, I also disagree with several of them: I prefer only in its current position over the alternative; degree of dogmatism simply is fuzzy in Jain descriptions of the doctrine; I prefer stops to semicolons as a general rule.
- Mind you, I think "claimed to explain" is a nice catch, and agree with the suggestion to supply a comma (see above).
- The point here is that I'd encourage Tony to make some of these changes directly. Even where I disagreed, I'd probably not bother reverting them. Some questions are simply matters of taste, there's no objective way of settling them.
- On the other hand, several copyedits have already eliminated some distinctly convoluted, unclear, redundant and even POV text.
- But the way forward here is clear. So long as anyone claims the text isn't stylistically up to par as they see it, we can action this by recruiting yet another copyeditor, and hence yet another opinion. That's all to the good. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I found Tony's comments very helpful and have followed some of his suggestions. As I have been a major contributor of this article, I have not "voted" on this pages. Q, I believe is not a major contributor, but his comments were very valuable to improve and remove misunderstanding on the article. I did some of my own copy editing also to enable greater understandability of this article. I have requested user ukexpat to do more copy editing and hope that Tony's oppose will be turned in "support". Thanks.--Anish (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Some sections (notably "Intellectual ahimsā and religious tolerance") need to be put into prose. NB that quotations of less than (roughly) three or four lines long should not be indented. Also, the bibliographic practice of putting component works under the text in which they're collected (e.g. Ahimsā, Anekānta, and Jaininsm) is at best idiosyncratic. All works should be listed alphabetically by author. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Three different editors (myself, Karanacs, and jbmurray) have now pointed out that block quotes are used incorrectly here. Please put quotes shorter than three or four lines back into the text of the article. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have done it for those quotes that were of two lines i.e. less than 3 lines. Actually I was waiting for someone more expert to make changes as I did not want to commit a blunder again. I was also checking other featured article as to how they have given a treatment for quotations. For eg. William Tecumseh Sherman and still am confused as to its treatment. But, I hope now its Ok.--Anish (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Status? There are still questions pending (above) regarding reliability of sources and image licensing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I can't see any outstanding issues regarding reliability of sources, they were always a strength, the two E.B. refs and the unpublished manuscript have gone. Image licensing applies to one image, and I have seen discussion on talk pages regarding this. It appears permission was granted by the image owner at one point, but then not considered sufficient by a Wiki review at a later point. Still, that review did not choose to "speedy delete" the image. It would be nice if someone who knows more about this could inform the rest of us who watching this page. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: I have found another copy of the image. Looks higher resolution to me. To be honest, it also looks like it could well have been scanned from a book. Which book? Who is the artist? My recommendation is that we replace this image with another. I suspect Anish could locate another image and seek permission from its publisher faster than we can discover the "copyright chain" for the current image. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Alastair, the concerns on references and formatting seem to have been sorted out. Also the concerns of tony have been addressed on copy editing. I also am a bit taken aback by the concerns on image of Adi Sankara. I relied on the fact that it has been on wikipedia for last two years and is a part of a featured article, which, I assume would have also undergone a detailed scrutiny. And also, I assumed, if the concerns would be raised or else this image would have been deleted long back. Nevertheless, all the concerns ought to be addressed and there is another image, [68] which can also be used, if the licensing is clear on it. The editors can provide some suggestion on the above. --Anish (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On sourcing, pls establish reliability of the sources questioned above (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for helpful info on how to discuss sourcing issues). This FAQ doesn't inspire confidence and doesn't give any indication of meeting WP:SPS or any part of WP:V. Similarly, I can't find any info on jainworld.com that speaks to reliability. The image still needs to be resolved (what happened in past FAs or discussions isn't relevant to this FAC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per image concerns:- Image:Mahavira mahabirji.jpg: The BBC seems to think this image is copyright of JainWorld. The image claims (implicitly) to be self-made, but is of web resolution, lacks metadata and is from a drive-by uploader - meaning limited (>50 edits) contributions. Can the discrepancies be resolved? (Quack?)
- Image:Gandhi studio 1931.jpg is claiming p.m.a. 70+ years. It was taken in 1931, which means the author would have to have died within 7 years of taking it; claiming p.m.a. 70+ in this case requires quite a leap of faith especially when the author is claimed to be unknown! I would buy this if the image was taken in 1831, but this PD claim has absolutely no reasonable support.
Image:Adi Shankara recoloured.jpg: The source does not confirm the PD claim. Even if it did, it seems quite unlikely that the webmaster would be the original author/copyright holder (especially in the light of Alastair Haines' comment above).ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to feel sympathy for poor Anish here. This would be funny if it weren't for the delays in accepting his hard work with the text content of the article for the great contribution that it is.
What tickles me is the "unreliable source" Jainworld turns out to be a substantial enough entity for the BBC to acknowledge to hold the legal right to grant them permission to copy an image. ... Man, did that come out of left field! I can just see someone knocking on my door next week and offering me a magazine with that picture of Adi Shankara on the front!
And then, I really take Sandy's point, not only can images on other FAs not be trusted, even featured images cannot be trusted either! Gandhi is a featured image at Turkish Wiki ... tesekkur ederim!
From the FAQ Sandy mentioned, "Q: Did you write all this stuff? A: No. Most of it was written by dead people, a long time ago." Yup, that's not reliable. Dead people don't write, not now, not even a long time ago. Depending on what you believe, they have better things to do than writing ... hmmm, does a wiki editor believe there is anything better than writing?
But to be more constructive. UK copyright is different to the US, doesn't Mahavira come under 2D image of PD art? Let's do it that way? Problems? And/or let's kill two ducks with one stone and check with Jainworld: ask permission for GFDL, and for some other credentials while we're at it. It's 2am here, I'd better sleep. Hopefully someone will rescue some of this while I'm away. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hrumph!
- Citing a copyright holder is not indicative of reliability; anyone can hold a copyright on a self-created image. Giving proper credit is, if anything, only germane to the reliability of BBC.
- I hate to quote Reagan, but "trust, but verify" is good advice. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and, consequently, should not be trusted in the absence of verification (e.g. reliable sourcing). Other FAs and/or images therein were not necessarily properly vetted.
- Mahavira is not a 2D object (U.S. Bridgeman v. Corel would not apply). Even if it were, U.K. has decisions and opinions (e.g. Interlego v Tyco; Hyperion Records v Sawkin; Laddie, Precott and Vitoria, 2nd edn; Copinger & Skone James 15th Edition; Michalos, The Law of Photography and Digital Images, 2004) which set the threshold of orginiality rather low (e.g. choice of filters, angles, lighting, etc. may be enough to warrant a new copyright). You're correct that contacting JainWorld would be a good route to take. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, some objections have been raised on two references – Jainworld and Sacred-texts.com. These objections were raised before by diligent editors and then resolved to their satisfaction. Now more mavens have chipped in and repeated these resolved queries as apparently these two references still don’t “inspire confidence” and hence again we have been called upon to give more additional testimony that will “inspire confidence”. I was looking for contstructive comments and contributions, but then……… so be it. I know every one cannot be satisfied and I dont intend to, but here is one more attempt.
- Let us tackle sacred-texts first by taking help of google scholar and google books. Many scholars and authors have thought it fit to quote and refer Sacred-texts.com. A search on Google Scholar here [69] gives a number of “284” and Google Books [70] gives a number of “251”.
- Jain world.com – Prof. Yashwant K. Malaiya of Colorado University has compiled a list of authoritative websites and Jain world is listed under two categories – supersites (extensive articles and books) and Advanced sites (excellent source for scholarly books and article). Check here. [71] This sort of objection can go on and on and I have my limitations on replying to the same query repeatedly.
As far as images are concerned, we can correspond with jainworld, but I think it will be of no use. Because, even after contacting Jainworld, some hotshot may have additional barrage of objections which will go to infinite regression of questioning the source of the source of the source. If one were to question the validity of images in “featured articles” or featured images itself, then there would be no dearth of objections from hotshots who consider it their moral duty to raise all sorts of objections. If that be the case, then more than the half of the featured articles need to be down graded simply because of the “image issue”--Anish (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- These objections were raised before by diligent editors and then resolved to their satisfaction. If you can point me to where those discussions occurred, I will review them; on this FAC, reliability of sources hasn't been addressed or resolved. Ealdgyth raised the concerns and has not stuck them. Also, a link to google scholar doesn't directly answer WP:SPS concerns; please see the Dispatch for examples of how to answer the query. The sources may very well be reliable; we just need for you to give us the info to verify that they are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addressed these issues before and now once again I have done it. The straightforward question was - "what makes" Jainworld and Sacred-text a reliable source? Anyway I thought it was a straight forward question. So I gave a straight forward answer on what makes it a reliable source.
I can take the horse to water, but I can't make it drink. If one group has pre-decided that they are not going to be satisfied by whatever explanation is given, I simply cannot help it.Just look up the explanation that I have given to Ealdgyth and then once again to you. And try to understand it - what makes it a reliable source.I was hoping for something constructive and not road blocks. But so be it.I have given it my best shot. If some who has supported this nomination can reply to this query is a different manner and language that Sandygeorge and group can understand, please give the reply in that manner maybe this nomination will not fail due to so called outstanding unresolved queries. Or else we can just forget it. --Anish (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Ok...let me once again go through the Dispatch to see what seems to have been still missed out that has not yet inspired confidence.--Anish (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addressed these issues before and now once again I have done it. The straightforward question was - "what makes" Jainworld and Sacred-text a reliable source? Anyway I thought it was a straight forward question. So I gave a straight forward answer on what makes it a reliable source.
- I don’t know whether those objecting on “sacred texts” have taken adequate efforts to check and verify the references quoted. What I have basically quoted is not sacred-text.com but Hermann Jacobi’s book, edited by Max Muller i.e. Sacred Books of the East published by Oxford Clarendon press. Now, since the copy right for the book has expired and it has been scanned and put up on “sacred-texts”, I thought “why not give a link for sacred-texts.com for easier verification.” Check this page [72]. I could have easily avoided the linking. If the link of the sacred-text is causing agitation, I can simply remove the link for sacred-texts. The reference for Jacobi will still remain the same (as the book is the reference) and there will be no changes in the article, only the link for the bibliography can be removed. --Anish (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for Jainworld.com, I have checked the dispatch and in my opinion - although the dispatch does not seem to be part of the Wikipedia mandatory rules – Jainworld does not seem to be contrary to these guidelines. It is neither a blog or a forumpost nor a self-published articles nor usenet postings, nor having a “highly commercial feel” nor a fan contributor site. Secondly I have already posted the view of Prof. Yashwant of Colorado University who says that it is an excellent source for scholarly books and articles as per the link above.--Anish (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I like the points of the last poster (Anish?). I can see an argument for not linking to Sacred Texts, since its text uploads are not professionally edited. However, nor are the uploads at Project Gutenberg, the Internet Archive or Google Books. On balance I'd go for keeping the link, but if it's the only outstanding objection other than images, I can see light at the end of the tunnel here.
- I'm glad to hear someone (Anish, I think) continue to stand up for Jainworld. I think there's a cultural issue here. As a westerner, I do think Jainworld has a "highly commercial feel", but that's with my cultural blinkers on. My experience of South-East Asia, and India, while not extensive, certainly suggests "commercialism" is more pervasive in these cultures. I think, once again, it is not the reliability of content that is really at question, but a western scruple (and a wise one) regarding linking to sites with a "commercial feel". Clicking on links at such sites can download adware (I think). This is one reason quality western sites avoid any actual advertising, and often even the appearance of advertising.
- I think this is an important issue for us to resolve, and plead for "cultural sensitivity". Jainworld is probably a very responsible site operating in the Indian economy. Indian sources are obviously ideal for Indology, and Jainworld for Jainism in particular. I'd like for Wiki to listen to Professor Yashwant on this matter. Perhaps a short article on Jainworld could help give readers a collection of sources that help verify its reliability. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I use some old local histories that are available in libraries or as expensive reprints or online on genealogy websites (which by themselves are perhaps not reliable). When I cite them, I give the full book information (the current Jacobi refs are missing this), the ISBN for the reprint, and the web link to it. See for example ref 6 in Larrys Creek. Perhaps the Jainworld and Sacred Texts books could be cited in a similar fashion? Just an idea that hoepfully helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good to me. Three issues: reliable source identified clearly, accessible copies located if possible, integrity rating of copy indicated if questionable.
- Here's Ruhres example:
- Meginness, John Franklin (1892). "Chapter I. Aboriginal Occupation.". History of Lycoming County, Pennsylvania: including its aboriginal history; the colonial and revolutionary periods; early settlement and subsequent growth; organization and civil administration; the legal and medical professions; internal improvement; past and present history of Williamsport; manufacturing and lumber interests; religious, educational, and social development; geology and agriculture; military record; sketches of boroughs, townships, and villages; portraits and biographies of pioneers and representative citizens, etc. etc." (1st ed.). Chicago, IL: Brown, Runk & Co. ISBN 0-7884-0428-8. Retrieved 2006-03-16. Note: ISBN refers to the Heritage Books July 1996 reprint. URL is to a scan of the 1892 version with some OCR typos.
- Alastair Haines (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I like Rhur's advise. It can be done. But only for sacred-text, not for Jainworld.com. I suggest that we delete all references of Jainworld and the corresponding paragraphs from article. Hopefully this will address all the concerns on reliability.--Anish (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the problematic Jainworld and applied Ruhr's idea and changed the references. I now trust that the problems of references have been resolved.--Anish (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, now that the issue of images is hopefully at least mostly resolved, it's time to move on to other things. I still see some rather short block quotes that should be taken care of (see "Early history" and "The parable of the blind men and the elephant", specifically). I'm hesitant to mess with them myself, as I'm not an expert on MoS, but they need to be fixed. I think the citation issues have mostly been fixed. Some copyediting work still needs to be done; I just fixed a few rough sentences, and there are bound to be more. I think that unless something else arises, MoS issues like sentence flow and block quotes should take top priority. --Qmwne235 22:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick look at the article now indicates that the problem of block quotes and MOS seem to have been resolved by Qmwne and Alastair. The number of quotes seem to have been reduced by more than a half. I dont think there are any copy edit or grammatical issues. And with removal of Jainworld and correcting of Jaconi references, Sandygeorgia's concerns too seem to have been hopefully resolved. I hope then we can move forward from here. If so, this will be the first article on Jainism to be featured. --Anish (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change—I withdrew my oppose above; it's considerably better. But the fact that I can still pick out little glitches should prompt the nominators to get someone new in to polish it up. I think the prose shouldn't hold up a promotion now, but please do make us proud of it in the coming days/weeks. These are samples from a small portion.
- "According to German Indologist Hermann Jacobi, Māhavīra in his time, effectively employed the ...". Bump bump; suggest you remove the second comma.
- "a 17th century Jain monk"—what's missing?
- "was desirous of"—make it one word. In fact, see the whole sentence: "Emperor Siddharaja was desirous of enlightenment and liberation and he questioned teachers from all the various traditions". This should be "Emperor Siddharaja desired enlightenment and liberation, and questioned teachers from all of the traditions." I hope "various traditions" was clear; if so, this should also be clear, but better. Try to avoid the V word.
- Do watch "or" in English. This one is an equative or, and isn't clear: "so in the kaliyuga or "the age of vice"" --> "so in the kaliyuga ("the age of vice")". Tony (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More excellent observations regarding English expression from Tony. We do keep throwing copyeditors at the article. I only wish Tony had time for more of this himself, he's outstanding. Anyway, I'll work on your points myself right now. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to the query on my talk page, there are still some loose ends: three unstruck image concerns (above), WP:MSH issues (review use of "the" in section headings), and please ask User:Brighterorange to run his script to fix the numerous incorrect WP:DASHes in the article and citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish I knew about that script before I corrected the dashes in the references by hand. Could you indicate an example of one that remains? They look fine to me. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Found two at the end that must have been added recently. Fixed now. Any I've missed? Alastair Haines (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.I think I have found one free image of Gandhi in wikipedia commons and my friend will be uploading a self taken image of Mahavira idol. I dont know what to do about Adi Sankara yet.
- We're short on image-knowledgeable reviewers: can you ask User:Elcobbola to revisit? If he's not available, then User:Kelly or User:NE2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Gandhi writing Aug1942.jpg needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. (The source would need to confirm 1) the image was first published in India and 2) that such publication was 60+ years ago to support the PD-India copyright tag). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We're short on image-knowledgeable reviewers: can you ask User:Elcobbola to revisit? If he's not available, then User:Kelly or User:NE2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi died on the 30 January 1948 (aged 78) in New Delhi. 1948+60=2008! We're getting pretty close here. ;)
- Here be more information — GandhiServe Foundation.
- It would appear our image is a copy of PEMG1942085005 according to the GandhiServe catalogue numbering system.
- According to the same source, the photographer appears to be Kanu Gandhi (1917–1986), the great-nephew of the man himself.
- The Indian Copyright Act (1957) Section 13(2)(i) states its provisions are applicable when:
- "in the case of a published work, the work is first published in India, or where the work is first published outside India, the author is at the date of such publication, or in a case where the author was dead at that date, was at the time of his death, a citizen of India;"
- Section 25 of the same act specifies that copyright extends for 60 years from 1st January of the year following publication.
- If the photograph was published before Gandhi's assassination, it would now be public domain in India.
- However, since India declared independence only on the 15 August 1947 and became a republic on 26 January 1950, it is just possible that copyright for this image actually falls under the (UK) Copyright Act 1911. I'm unclear which law would apply between 1947 and 1950.
- I'll keep looking for publication date. I suspect this will be prior to 1947. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great Work. I have also found one image and put up a message for user:elcobbola as to whether this image here [73] copyright free? It says Gandhi at his spinning wheel in 1929. Public domain image. If yes, under what licencing can it be uploaded? Maybe this will resolve the last hurdle.--Anish (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done some more reading of the Indian and UK copyright acts and it appears that what these laws actually are is a promise from the government to protect the rights of those who produce original works. So, with India taking responsibility for governing its citizens, it took responsibility to protect copyright retrospectively. A breach of the copyright of a photograph in 1970, published in what is now India in 1920, would have fallen under the jurisdiction of the Indian judicial system not the UK judicial system. Wikipedia, in 2008, therefore answers to the Indian government regarding copyright of all images published in what is now India since January 1st 1948. Anything published in what is now India prior to that time is released by the Indian Copyright Act (1957) into the public domain. The law provides for waiving copyright in various cases, but not for enforcing more than this. In fact, 2008 was a historic year for Indian copyright, since it is now more than 60 years since Indian independance was declared. From now onwards, everything protected by this law was first published in sovereign India. But was PEMG1942085005 first published before independance? Where was it published? Alastair Haines (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like this is going to take some time to resolve; can that image be commented out in the meantime? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done some more reading of the Indian and UK copyright acts and it appears that what these laws actually are is a promise from the government to protect the rights of those who produce original works. So, with India taking responsibility for governing its citizens, it took responsibility to protect copyright retrospectively. A breach of the copyright of a photograph in 1970, published in what is now India in 1920, would have fallen under the jurisdiction of the Indian judicial system not the UK judicial system. Wikipedia, in 2008, therefore answers to the Indian government regarding copyright of all images published in what is now India since January 1st 1948. Anything published in what is now India prior to that time is released by the Indian Copyright Act (1957) into the public domain. The law provides for waiving copyright in various cases, but not for enforcing more than this. In fact, 2008 was a historic year for Indian copyright, since it is now more than 60 years since Indian independance was declared. From now onwards, everything protected by this law was first published in sovereign India. But was PEMG1942085005 first published before independance? Where was it published? Alastair Haines (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The legal stuff is easy. The problem will be finding the publication date. The photograph was taken about a week before Gandhi went to prison for two years, while the British were fighting the Japanese on the eastern borders of India. Gandhi was a journalist and publisher, but wartime censorship and emprisonment would not have been conducive to publication until after the war.
- The photograph has been released by GandhiServe to several professional websites, who have displayed it with acknowledgement to both author (Kanu) and to GandhiServe. It is likely this included a royalty, it is almost certain that it would not have granted permission for modification. The licensing at GandhiServe is specific about both matters.
- Kanu Gandhi, being deceased cannot give us permission to use his work. I'm not sure GandhiServe will want to admit that the photo is in the public domain, since they sell high quality copies. But that's the most obvious way forwards, to ask GandhiServe for the date of first publication. They could be very nice and especially so to Wikipedia. So long as it is clear that we'll be displaying a low quality version, that doesn't compete with their image.
- If we can find a date of publication prior to Indian independence we can go ahead, otherwise we can't. Kanu may simply have turned over his personal collection of unpublished photos to GandhiServe, in which case they won't be out of copyright until 60 years after first being published by GandhiServe.
- I recommend someone contact GandhiServe. I expect they'll reply promptly, they look very professional and friendly. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't answer my question; do you want to comment out or remove this image while you wait for resolution? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alastair...Good research...but we may be back to square one and this will drag on. why dont we use this one here [74] copyright free? It says Gandhi at his spinning wheel in 1929. Public domain image. this might solve our problem.--Anish (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:FCDW/August 11, 2008; it won't solve the problem unless someone reviews and clears it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Be careful in your research to remember that date created and date first published are not the same thing. Gandhi's lifespan is not relevant or helpful in determining PD status. (Merely taking a picture does not start the clock running; we indeed need to know an author or a publication date.) The proposed image is fine if http://www.sacred-destinations.com can be established as a reliable source (ask Ealdgyth?) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am at my wits end over Gandhi image. One would have thought that Image of India's father of nation would not be a problem, and considering that there is a featued article of Gandhi.--Anish (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, I have uploaded a new image which I believe will not be a problem. Now over to sandy and elcobbola.--Anish (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Link to the new image, please? (Elcobbola is traveling and his limited access, so the easier you can make it on him, the better.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Gandhi face.gif. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I like Sandy's image. I did note that the Bern Convention specifically provides that photographs are to have a copyright term of no less than 25 years after creation of the image (hence dates have some circumstantial relevance). It is up to various jurisdictions what additional protection they wish to offer. From the Indian and UK laws, it is clear that they provide a term analogous to that of other works, though they both isolate photographs as a special case.
- GandiServe has to watermark its images because many (if not all) are actually public domain. They also have to advertise them as being created from negatives using a high quality reproduction process. This also is because they cannot assert they hold the copyright (in all cases). The basis of sale is quality, not merely copyright.
- I think Anish is also making an important point. There are public domain images of all recent national leaders. It would be odd if there were no PD images of Gandhi. The most likely explanation is precisely that offered by the site that offers Sandy's image—all photographs from that period are public domain. It sounds too blanket to me, it should say, all images published in that period are public domain, and that is true.
- If someone just looked at newspapers and other works published prior to 1948 with pictures of Gandhi, some will match pictures on the internet. But why even bother. Simply scan those images, they are now PD. We can make our own. All that is required is to note the source—a book or newspaper published prior to 1948.
- Our problem is only the laziness of web-sites, and our own! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandy's image? I linked that image from the article, so Elcobbola could check it. It was added by Anish, and still needs to be checked. Did you notice the question I asked above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Sandy, I saw it, but I didn't understand it. Not sure I do even now. Bear of little brain, that's me. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to be more clear :-) This article's promotion is being held up by one image, whose resolution isn't likely going to be easy or fast, based on the complexity of the image issues, as explained by Elcobbola. If you remove or comment out the disputed images, I can promote the article. You can sort that out over time. Otherwise, this FAC continues to rattle around at the bottom of the page, waiting for this to get sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Sandy, I saw it, but I didn't understand it. Not sure I do even now. Bear of little brain, that's me. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandy's image? I linked that image from the article, so Elcobbola could check it. It was added by Anish, and still needs to be checked. Did you notice the question I asked above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I get it. Let us go for one last chance here. If it does not succeed then we will go without gandhi's image.--Anish (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS here's a start at Google Books.
- Gandhi, "Quit India" The New York Times 5 August, 1942. Is probably worth checking in a library. I'd imagine the NYT illustrated the text. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right Sandy, to make Elcobbola's job easier:
- Here is the link to image [75]
- And here is the copy right statement that image is in public domain [76]
Hope this will speed up the things.--Anish (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Different image, same issue. It's indeed acceptable if that source can be established as reliable. Is a team of Junior college students a reliable source for assertions of copyright status? (e.g. Do they mean PD in the U.S. or in India? There's quite a difference and one would expect someone attune to copyright law to make the distinction. What cited source here is the image from/provided that information? Shouldn't we be using that source directly, not third party?) I don't do source reliability, but the lack of specificity seems a red flag. But, again, all is well if the reliabilitly can be supported. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Elcobbola, you are a life saver. I have uploaded this image [77] here. --Anish (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Three cheers for Elcobbola! Good call (imho) on copyright of the other image. Also, tremendous generosity to do our work for us! I added that website to my browser bookmarks. I've learned a lot regarding image copyright in this process, and I thoroughly approve the tough-but-fair insistance on "doing the right thing". I only hope Anish will recover from the stress regarding images and, after a breather, plow on with adding more work towards featuring Jain articles. How are we going with the overall process Sandy? Alastair Haines (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:07, 28 July 2008 [78].
Toronto Magnetic and Meteorological Observatory
This article meets all FAC requirements, has undergone GA and Peer (unofficial in the later case), is well referenced, etc. A somewhat obscure topic, perhaps, but one of relatively major historical significance in Canadian science. Maury (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- The paragraph starting with "The current building was designed in 1853 by local architect," has only 1 reference - is all of it from that one ref?
- "There was some discussion of what to do with the Cooke telescope, as the Meteorological Office had little use for this purely astronomical instrument. No other use was immediately forthcoming, and the telescope moved along with the Meteorological Office to their new Bloor Street Observatory." - No reference?
- "The observatory, officially Her Majesty's Magnetical and Meteorological Observatory at Toronto, was completed the next year."...Why have you used unnecessary bolding in this sentence?
- "It had long been noticed that compasses tended to "wander" from north when measured from different locations, or even at a single location if measured over a period of time. This affected navigation to varying degrees, and was a topic of some interest for that reason. It was also believed that the same effects might be causing weather to change, so that studying the magnetic variance might lead to better weather prediction." - No references?
- Web access dates should be linked.
— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
}}
Comments
If you use a book/journal article/web site as a source, it shouldn't be listed in the further reading, it should be listed in a "Bibliography" or "Sources" section. Thus Thiessen and Beattie need to be in the bibliography/sources section, not the further reading section.Current ref 3 (Astronomy in Canada) redirects to the front page of Discovery.com
- Otherwise sources look good, links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, freakin EXN, this happened sometime in the last two weeks - should I simply remove that half of the sentence? Or leave it? Seems unlikely to be challenged. Maury (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, can [79] this be used as a ref? It's just the archive of the same ref. I assume they stick around a bit longer? Maury (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else? I think I have addressed every issue above. Is there anything else to do? Maury (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "located on the grounds of what is now the University of Toronto." - written in present tense... so why what is now known as the Toronto Uni, as opposed to what is the Toronto Uni? —Giggy 09:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing only image licensing: Image:Toronto Magnetic Observatory circa 1890.jpg needs more information; if it was subject to crown copyright but published after 1958, it isn't public domain. --NE2 13:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The photo was taken between 1855 and 1907 and does not appear to be subject to CC. What information is missing from the tags? Maury (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you add proof of it not being CC? --NE2 16:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's generally difficult to prove a negative, and more so in this case when the image is over 100 years old. It is found in the UofT archives, for what that's worth. Maury (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Calls are going right to answering machine, great! Maury (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you add proof of it not being CC? --NE2 16:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The photo was taken between 1855 and 1907 and does not appear to be subject to CC. What information is missing from the tags? Maury (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. Overall I found this to be a comprehensive article. I did some copyediting and changed two of the section headings to comply with the MOS. Small comments:
- "Although moved and modified over the years, it remains the oldest building on the university's campus." - from the lead, this made me question whether the observatory's current building is the oldest on campus or whether the original building was moved and modified.
"British Association for the Advancement of science" - should science be capitalized or is this correct?- I think this needs a citation: "University College was not completed until 1857, making the new Observatory the oldest remaining building on campus."
Karanacs (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer to the first issue is "both". As the image captions note, and one of the main refs covers in detail, the building is slightly re-arranged compared to how it was at the original location. The building itself, and its materials, are the same as they were in the original state. So, then, the question comes down to your definition: if I move a door, is that a different building? how about moving the location of the building? It's a grey area.
- I have fixed the second issue. The third appears to be the same as the first? Maury (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the first, perhaps you could just remove "Although moved and modified over the years," so that it just says that the building is the oldest. As for the third, I may have missed it, but I don't recall seeing anywhere a citation that the building is actually considered the oldest on campus. Karanacs (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --> Support. until properly massaged. MOS, sentence structure, redundant wording. Please find someone new to look through it carefully: the whole article, please. Here, I've looked at a section towards the bottom, which is interesting in content, but disappointing in terms of 1a.
- Ah, I like your avoidance of an Easter-egg link—let's all take note: "Coincidentally, the Canadian government (having [[Canadian Confederation|''formed in'' 1867]](my italics) was interested in ...". Readers will almost certainly ignore single-year links (piped), expecting them to be the irritant they've seen so much of on WP.
- Do we need a metric conversion for "6-inch"? Maybe.
- MOSNUM breach: AM and PM don't need dots, but they do need to be in lower case.
- Caption: this sentence is not grammatical—"The rotation of the tower is more obvious here, compare the location of the windows with the images above."
- "After a length debate"—they were debating the length of what? This is a bad glitch.
- "a single building, built of stone,"—remove the comma and two words.
- "The new building was completed in 1855, located directly opposite the entrance of today's Convocation Hall." Awkward; try "1855, and stands directly".
- "were distributed locally in Toronto"—is "locally" necessary?
- Um ... "which was a major service among fruit vendors, who used the reports to plan shipping." Monty Pythonesque, unless you give a little more in explanation.
- Never comfortable without the agent I think: "many believed that there was a direct connection between sunspots and weather". Many scientists? authorities, even?
- "that raised it high enough up the tower to have a reasonable field of view"—so why was "a reasonable field of view" (of the heavens, I presume), necessary to observe the Transit of Venus? That's the implication. What is "reasonable"?
- Please remove dictionary-type links: "tramways", etc.
Ping me when it's ready? Tony (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding of Australian idioms is rather limited, so I'm having a difficult time parsing some of these comments.
- The first comment is particularly difficult to understand. Are you saying the link is inappropriate? Clever? I can't figure it out.
- What does the term "Monty Pythonesque" mean? Comedic? The text doesn't seem amusing to me, but I'm not a comedian and have never seen the show.
- And I'm at a complete loss as to what you are talking about when you say "without the agent". I'm looking at that statement now, and if my guess as to what "the agent" is referring to is correct, then it's clearly mentioned,
- It appears Julian has already addressed many of the issues above, at least the obvious ones (thank you Julian!). If there are any remaining ones, please let us know!
- Maury (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I just finished some more copyedit, and I think that after having the prose fine-tuned, it meets the criteria. Having another copyeditor take a look wouldn't hurt, but for the most part, the writing is up to par. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Awesome, thanks. I'd still like to hear back from Tony before we try to move on to the final stages though. I think he has more examples he'd like to inject, and I'm more than happy to take one more pass through it if it's going to tighten everything up. Maury (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I write in standard English. "Monty Python" is a famous British comedy team, although I've never seen more than odd snatches of it (not my thing). I assumed it was known the world over. The first comment, unusually, was an entreaty to others to use this type of construction instead of piping just a year alone. Agent: "the girl kicked the ball"—"the girl" is the agent.
- We probably need "theodolite" to be linked, but I'm unsure about common words such as "brass" or "copper"—no big deal, though. Can you check MOSNUM about "PM". I'm sure they say lower case. "This led to the purchase of a 6 inches (150 mm) refracting telescope"—"inch" singular when art of a compound adjective. "The dome, now unused, receives a yearly multi-color paint job by the engineering students."—we haven't heard about these engineering students before, so remove "the"? "longer term variations"—See MOS on hyphens. Tony (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, AM->am, leaving piping of link alone now that I understand the comment, someone linked theodolite already, removed conversion on 6-inch (actually "6-inch Cooke" appears to be a sort of proper name, these were common instruments at the time), removed "the", added hyphen (and in short-term too), changed comment so "the agent" isn't even needed (direct quotes are always better anyway). Still mystified by the Monty Python thing though, can you be specific as to what change you would like to see in the statement?
- Keep 'em coming Tony, I'm ready, willing and able (to edit :-) Maury (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, criterion 3. Articles uses images of questionable copyright status.- The source given for Image:Toronto Magnetic Observatory in 1852 by William Armstrong.jpg specifies a non-commercial copyright which is incompatible with the license given.
- The source given for Image:Toronto Magnetic Observatory circa 1890.jpg displays a copyright notice. --Laser brain (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever the sources say, the images are in the public domain. They're both over 100 years old. I can slap copyright notices on the Mona Lisa, but that doesn't make it mine. Maury (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, we can't take your word for it. Images are only in the public domain if no one renews the copyright that once existed. If institutions are claiming copyright on the images, you cannot use them unless you provide a reliable source stating their age and that they are in the public domain. --Laser brain (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm, I'm sorry, but none of this is correct.
- To start with, the entire US renewal system was ditched in the late 1970s for a single fixed-period time span, currently set at 75 years (with some exceptions). You don't have to take my work for it, take the US Copyright Office's, as found here. This has been further developed as part of GATT, and is pretty much universal among IOC. As if that were not enough, Canadian copyright law, as far as I can tell, never included the concept of renewal at all. Moreover, the Canadian term limit is 50 years, not 75.
- Furthermore, PD applies in spite of anyone's statements to the contrary -- that's the whole point, if the copyright holder dies or ceases to exist in corporate terms, the works will return to PD anyway. William Shakespeare's works are in the public domain... do you recall him issuing a statement to that effect? Neither do I.
- William Armstrong died in 1914, and the painting is his, so that means it pre-dates 1914. The page where I found it states it was painted in 1852, and I have no reason to doubt that. Under any possible interpretation of the copyright law, this image fell into PD long, long ago. The second image in question is a photograph of the building prior to it being moved in 1907. The fact that Convocation Hall and the Stanford Fleming Building are not in the image (they would both be visible here) means the image is from some time before that. Once again, this image has fallen into PD some time ago. There was a question about whether the second image was CC, which is different, but that does not appear to be the case. Maury (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I understand your points. I was simply going by what's listed on the web sites given as sources. I beg your pardon. --Laser brain (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, we can't take your word for it. Images are only in the public domain if no one renews the copyright that once existed. If institutions are claiming copyright on the images, you cannot use them unless you provide a reliable source stating their age and that they are in the public domain. --Laser brain (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever the sources say, the images are in the public domain. They're both over 100 years old. I can slap copyright notices on the Mona Lisa, but that doesn't make it mine. Maury (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) No offense taken! Maury (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I found the prose pretty sloppy, and with a surprising number of typos. There are still some apparent typos in one of the quotations, which will need to be checked against the original. (I've left an note inline to indicate where, but the whole quotation needs to be checked.) In general I think that the article, though close, could do with a final polish. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you be more specific on the quote? I don't see any cite tags inside quotes except the clip from the meteorological description, and I think I put that there. Maury (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's this one: 'At the seventh meeting of the Royal Society in Liverpool in 1837, Sabine declared that "the magnetism of the earth cannot be counted less than one of the most important branches of the physical history of the planet we inhabit" and that a worldwide effort would be "regarded by our contemporaries and by posterity as a fitting enterprise of a maritime people; and a worth achievement of a nation which has ever sought to tank foremost in every arduous undertaking".' Here I have italicized what would seem to be the obvious typos. But the first part of the quotation is odd, too; again, it should be checked. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well caught! The typos are from scanning errors from the original source. The original can be seen here. Both fixed. Maury (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing to the original. There are two other errors of transcription there. (Again, I urged you to check the original again): a comma transposed as a semi-colon; and two words omitted. I'll fix these myself, but again, beware! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Also fixed a misleading paraphrase. But I'm also confused: is the original source the NYT obituary (per your link here), or "Thiessen, pg. 308, from Report of the Seventh Meeting of the British Association of the Advancement of Science, 1838" as is claimed in the article itself? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is from Thiessen, but if you follow the link below you'll see the problem: the scan is barely legible in places. I used the NYT version here as a more legible second source. Should we switch the ref? Maury (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, OK. Stick with Thiessen, I'd say: a scholarly journal is better than a journalistic account. (And personally, I don't find it particularly illegible.) NB that there are discrepancies between the two sources: the NYT says "arduous and honorable"; Thiessen simply says "arduous," for instance. I'll reverse a couple of my edits accordingly. Ideally, you'd check the original 1838 publication.
- Indeed. I wonder, does anyone know of a wikipedian that might be in a position to have these publications at-hand? They're literally filled with precisely the stuff I like to write about, old science experiments and theories, and not having local access makes my life somewhat difficult. On the upside, a new copy of "Jet" just arrived, so as soon as this process ends I'll be off to patch up the Frank Whittle article next. Maury (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My university library doesn't seem to have it (at least, it's not in the online catalogue); but then the university wasn't founded until the twentieth century. I'd have thought that for an older British or Commonwealth university, these would be standard parts of their collection. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. I wonder, does anyone know of a wikipedian that might be in a position to have these publications at-hand? They're literally filled with precisely the stuff I like to write about, old science experiments and theories, and not having local access makes my life somewhat difficult. On the upside, a new copy of "Jet" just arrived, so as soon as this process ends I'll be off to patch up the Frank Whittle article next. Maury (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, OK. Stick with Thiessen, I'd say: a scholarly journal is better than a journalistic account. (And personally, I don't find it particularly illegible.) NB that there are discrepancies between the two sources: the NYT says "arduous and honorable"; Thiessen simply says "arduous," for instance. I'll reverse a couple of my edits accordingly. Ideally, you'd check the original 1838 publication.
- It is from Thiessen, but if you follow the link below you'll see the problem: the scan is barely legible in places. I used the NYT version here as a more legible second source. Should we switch the ref? Maury (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well caught! The typos are from scanning errors from the original source. The original can be seen here. Both fixed. Maury (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- maybe this?
- Morrell, Jack and Thackray, Arnold (1984). Gentlemen of science : early correspondence of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. London : Royal Historical Society.
- Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 03:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This seems like a thorough treatment of this interesting observatory. Thanks! Here are my suggestions for improvement:
I'm not really sure what the infobox adds to the article and it is crowding out the images.
- The images are all right-aligned. WP:MOS#Images recommends that images be staggered for the best visual effect. For comparison, I see that they are lined up, but everything still seems smooshed.
It had long been noticed that compasses tend to "wander" from north when measurements were taken at different locations, or even at a single location over a period of time. This phenomenon affected navigation, and so was a topic of some interest. It was further believed that whatever was causing this effect might also be causing changes in the weather, and so that studying magnetic variance might lead to better weather prediction. - This is an extremely vague beginning - how long? who had noticed? when did it affect navigation? The passive voice removes so much information that we don't know our orientation in time or space at all - give us a sense of history here. Suddenly, we jump to 1833 in the next paragraph - help anchor the reader earlier!
The Association continued to press for the construction of similar observatories around the world, and in 1838 their suggestions were accepted - accepted by whom?
The team assigned to Canada originally planned to build their observatory on Saint Helen's Island off Montreal, but the local rocks proved to have a high "magnetic influence", and the decision was made to move to Toronto instead - The quotation marks here are slightly confusing - I read them as meaning there was no magnetic influence but they could also be a direct quotation - do we need to make this clearer?
Using the measurements from the Toronto and Hobart sites, Sabine noticed both short-term fluctuations over a period of hours, and longer-term variations over months. - Perhaps we should say fluctuations in what exactly?
This led to the purchase of a 6-inch (150 mm) refracting telescope from T. Cooke & Sons, which was mounted on a large stone pillar to raise it into the tower and improve its field of view. - Slightly awkward - I would fix it, but I'm unsure of the intended meaning.
However, Louis Beaufort Stewart campaigned for it to be saved for the Department of Surveying and Geodesy, eventually arranging for the building to be re-constructed on a more suitable site. - Since Stewart is a redlink, could you ID him in the article a bit? Describe him in a phrase?
- The references are not all listed the same way - for some the years appear in the middle of the listing and for some, they appear after the author name. I don't use templates, so I can't really fix this problem. The preferred form appears to be AUTHOR, DATE, TITLE, PUBLISHER, ACCESS DATE, but there are some variations from that.
I did some light copyediting and removed unnecessary external links. Awadewit (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually aligned the images as they were specifically so the reader could easily compare them. But in retrospect, the arrangement I've put in now is even better. Now the images are closely associates with the historical narrative, which seems to make a lot of sense. See what you think!
- I've also been thinking of moving the last image into the infobox, but as you note, I too have doubts about the need for the infobox at all -- but it seems to be part of most observatory articles, so perhaps that's an argument for leaving it there? Or not, I don't have strong feelings either way.
- As to the dates on the wandering, I'm not sure what we could add here. I'm guessing it was noticed as soon as compasses became widespread - I noticed it myself as a kid when I left a compass lying open for a few days on a shelf. Something like "since the beginning of time..." doesn't seem terribly compelling!
- Finally, the date formatting issue is a technical problem in the CITE templates. I don't know how they managed to make the template worse, but they did manage it. I guess I could pull them all out and just use REF tags (I do that in all my new articles now). I find the REFs leave the body text in a much more editable format anyway.
- Comments regarding images:
- Image:Louis B Stewart Observatory.JPG is using a deprecated license that explicity "should not be used" (emphasis in original). Please replace with {{GFDL-user-en-with-disclaimers}} or {{GFDL-user-en-no-disclaimers}} (those are Commons templates - thus the red). I'm not an en.wiki admin, so I can't see the hitherto deleted page to make the correction myself.
Image:Toronto_Magnetic_Observatory_circa_1890.jpg: I agree with the concerns above. The source does not contain author or publication information, either of which would be necessary to confirm the PD-Canada license. An alternative source or OTRS ticket from the UofT is needed.ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have contacted SimonP about updating the tag, and he seems to frequent the Wiki fairly often. If this isn't corrected in a couple of days, is it OK for us to change it? It seems that the deprecated tags are "simply replaceable" with the -no-disclaimers version. IE, the second of these tags is identical in purpose to the original, changing it would be akin to fixing a spelling mistake? Maury (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good analogy. Yes, anyone can fix it; it's not an actual license change, just changing to a more precise tag. If you can tell me what the original en.wiki page said, I can even do it for you. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I don't think there's any super-hurry on this, so I'll give SimonP some time to do it himself. Given all the tips and suggestions I've been getting here, I'm totally happy to keep getting more in the meantime.
- Sandy, is there some sort of time limit here we might be approaching? Maury (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I understand your question, you're asking about keeping a FAC open, that has already been running for three weeks and is at the bottom of the page, while we wait for one person to resolve one image? It would seem easier to comment the image out until it's resolved. If Elcobbola is able to fix it, why not let him do it? FACs can run a long time, but when most everything is resolved, it's nice to move over and share the space with other nominators :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good analogy. Yes, anyone can fix it; it's not an actual license change, just changing to a more precise tag. If you can tell me what the original en.wiki page said, I can even do it for you. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have contacted SimonP about updating the tag, and he seems to frequent the Wiki fairly often. If this isn't corrected in a couple of days, is it OK for us to change it? It seems that the deprecated tags are "simply replaceable" with the -no-disclaimers version. IE, the second of these tags is identical in purpose to the original, changing it would be akin to fixing a spelling mistake? Maury (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've been cleaning up the references on this article. As I poke around, I'm a little surprised that the article doesn't follow up on this site's recommendation to seek out 1) Dalton, I. R. and Garland G. D. (1980). "The Old Observatory's Noble History," The Cannon, vol. 3, no. 3, October 31. (The Cannon is apparently the journal of the University of Toronto's Engineering Society) and 2) the "reading files on the "old observatory" at the University of Toronto Archives." I've been looking around the Archives site myself, and have found its various search tools basically impossible (though see here, accession number B1980-0005). But I understand the nominator here is located in downtown Toronto: how about dropping by the U of T's library?
- Oh, if you think their search tools are bad, try the actual library some time! I did see a bit from The Cannon, and it's definitely not as useful as the "6-inch Cooke" or "Founding Of". It's a lightweight article not much different than the one on the page. It's also not up on the 'net, and I greatly prefer those. BTW, does Fraught deserve to be in Refs and not notes? It's only used for one ref. Ditto for Thomas? I always though you used direct links to the notes if the source was only used once? Maury (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "It's also not up on the 'net, and I greatly prefer those." Why on earth would you say that? This article rather suffers from being based on web-only sources. I do think that should be changed. Indeed, you said as much before, but nothing has been done. I'm surprised that, if you have actually gone to the University Archives as you suggest, none of that work is reflected in the article itself. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, if you think their search tools are bad, try the actual library some time! I did see a bit from The Cannon, and it's definitely not as useful as the "6-inch Cooke" or "Founding Of". It's a lightweight article not much different than the one on the page. It's also not up on the 'net, and I greatly prefer those. BTW, does Fraught deserve to be in Refs and not notes? It's only used for one ref. Ditto for Thomas? I always though you used direct links to the notes if the source was only used once? Maury (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and this book has some info. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is interesting in a general sense, and definitely useful for The David Dunlop Observatory article (I'll be abusing everyone on FAC with that shortly) but I can't find a lot of info on this one. Nice picture though.
- Comment. There's a strange problem with this image, and I don't mean regarding copyright (about which I know next to nothing,
though the version in the archives does say it's "Copyright: Atmospheric Environment Service"): if we compare it to the version found in the U of T archives, much poorer quality I know (though perhaps someone has been at it with photoshop), we see that one of the two has been flipped. My guess is that the version in the archives is correct, and the one we have is wrong. But it would seem important to find out. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, good catch. Fixing. Maury (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I realize I didn't answer the question: the archives version appears to be the flipped one. If you look at Plate XIV in Thiessen, you'll see a layout diagram that shows the observatory was aligned north-south with the "dome" on the north, Next to it is an image that shows the arrangement of the buildings, with the barracks to the east of the observatory (note that the direction of north changes between the two diagrams!). That means that the original image shows the view looking south-south-east with the barracks in their proper location to the east, whereas the new one from the archives shows them on the west!
- I'm not sure I understand this. It would be good to have this confirmed from the Archives. (In any case, if it is indeed their image that is wrong, they should be told.) What, incidentally, about the copyright claim? That also seems echoed by the version of the image currently in the article, when you have a look at the relevant page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The claim is bogus; Canadian copyright is death+50 years, which expired decades ago. As to the flipping issue, as I said, compare the layout of the buildings in the two copies of the painting with the layout in the major reference. Maury (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. I do think that both issues should be cleared up. And I've been starting at the Thiessen plate, the two versions of the image, and your explanation for the past ten minutes, and can't really make them correspond. I take it you're saying that the building on the left (in the current version of the image) is the barracks? But it seems to bear very little correlation to the barracks as outlined in Thiessen's plan. NB I'm not sure why you are calling the roof housing the theodolite a "dome." It doesn't seem to be one, as far as I can tell. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the copyright claim, there are two works of authorship within the single image: 1) the painting and 2) the photograph thereof. The Atmospheric Environment Service is, no doubt, claiming copyright on its image of the painting, not the painting itself. Per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., however, such claims are non-starters (a person or entity can claim copyright all the live long day, but that doesn't necessarily make the claim valid - i.e. it's "bogus", per Maury). If the thought occurs to you that Bridgeman is U.S. law and the image is Canadian, kudos on your astuteness, but it's a long story for another place (the image is fine). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Grand. I did figure as much. It is a little depressing when those who should know better (such as university archivists) get such things wrong. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NB, so this means that the claim at the bottom of this page is nonsense? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The disclaimer says they host both public domain images and images for which they hold copyright. They are well within their rights to require attribution, etc. for the latter. In the case of the former, however, they would not be expected to have a legal basis for enforcement of the "requirement". ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NB, so this means that the claim at the bottom of this page is nonsense? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Grand. I did figure as much. It is a little depressing when those who should know better (such as university archivists) get such things wrong. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the copyright claim, there are two works of authorship within the single image: 1) the painting and 2) the photograph thereof. The Atmospheric Environment Service is, no doubt, claiming copyright on its image of the painting, not the painting itself. Per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., however, such claims are non-starters (a person or entity can claim copyright all the live long day, but that doesn't necessarily make the claim valid - i.e. it's "bogus", per Maury). If the thought occurs to you that Bridgeman is U.S. law and the image is Canadian, kudos on your astuteness, but it's a long story for another place (the image is fine). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. I do think that both issues should be cleared up. And I've been starting at the Thiessen plate, the two versions of the image, and your explanation for the past ten minutes, and can't really make them correspond. I take it you're saying that the building on the left (in the current version of the image) is the barracks? But it seems to bear very little correlation to the barracks as outlined in Thiessen's plan. NB I'm not sure why you are calling the roof housing the theodolite a "dome." It doesn't seem to be one, as far as I can tell. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The claim is bogus; Canadian copyright is death+50 years, which expired decades ago. As to the flipping issue, as I said, compare the layout of the buildings in the two copies of the painting with the layout in the major reference. Maury (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I understand this. It would be good to have this confirmed from the Archives. (In any case, if it is indeed their image that is wrong, they should be told.) What, incidentally, about the copyright claim? That also seems echoed by the version of the image currently in the article, when you have a look at the relevant page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(undent)Dome, cone, peaked roof, etc. I had "scary quotes" on them, but someone removed them. Please, feel free to suggest a better name! And yes, the building on the left is the barracks. Do you see how that means that the other image is reversed? If not, consider the placement of the fences instead. Maury (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My problem is (in part) that the plan suggests that the barracks is square, whereas the building in the painting clearly isn't. Again, I can't really get the painting to correspond to the plan. But...
Better yet: the painting is in the library of the Downsview Met office, I just got off the phone. The version on the page is the correct one. Maury (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...this is better still. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just wrote to the university archivist about this image and the one discussed above. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic: if you ever want to see just how broken the CITE template is, look at the Schools reference. Notice that its put the link on the wrong portion of the ref -- you link to the section, and italicize the work. Perhaps a new essay is in order, "CITE template considered harmful"? Maury (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the problem here is that the web version of this source is very unreliable: it even has got wrong the name of the book it is supposedly reproducing. Rather than worrying about templates, worry about that. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Windup: With the exception of replacing the second image, which is post-FA, is there anything else I've missed? The list is pretty long, I'm getting disorganized. But we've fixed all the refs, dealt with the images, and SimonP fixed the tag on the one image (interesting, I though I had fixed it, but I think I did so on the stub page, SimonP did so on the commons). Is anything dangling or is it go time? Maury (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I noticed jbmurray has removed a ref at the bottom on a statement that the building is currently the SAC HQ. I'm not sure why that statement needs a ref personally, but after two have been removed for not being good enough, I wonder if this one satisfies? Maury (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That claim (that as of 2008, the building was the head office of the students union) previously had a reference; but that reference didn't actually support the claim. I therefore removed it, and added the [citation needed] tag. You added another reference, which again didn't explicitly support the claim, which I therefore removed again, adding back in the tag. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the citation, easily located by googling on Stewart Obervatory rather than Toronto Magnetic and Meteorological Observatory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That claim (that as of 2008, the building was the head office of the students union) previously had a reference; but that reference didn't actually support the claim. I therefore removed it, and added the [citation needed] tag. You added another reference, which again didn't explicitly support the claim, which I therefore removed again, adding back in the tag. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, back to the windup then. The image discussions appear closed, the refs are in, the infobox is gone. Is there anything else we've missed? Maury (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, sorry Awadewit, I just noted the FACT Added. I'd like one with more detail, but this will serve for now I suppose. And thanks for the history insert! Maury (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:13, 22 July 2008 [80].
History of the National Hockey League (1917–1942)
The first of a multipart series on the history of the National Hockey League. Currently a good article, and recently completed a peer review, I believe this article is ready for featured status. All comments welcome, and will be addressed. Thanks! Resolute 14:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I think " Preface" should be renamed to "Background"
- The currencies used should be clarified; both Canadian and American people and teams, are mentioned, for instance, so do the dollar signs represent American or Canadian dollars?
Gary King (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Renamed to background. The currency situation is tricky though. Prior to 1924, it seems obvious that figures would be in Canadian Dollars. After 1924, it becomes messy. I will have to check my sources on them. The $15,000 that Charles Adams paid for the Bruins, for example, could be either currency, and I don't think my sources specified. Likewise, Smythe's purchase of the Maple Leafs I would presume to be Canadian Dollars, but can't say for certain. Resolute 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep; the confusion for readers is all the more reason for them to be specified. Gary King (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not completely sure, but I think the American and Canadian dollar were equal until WWII.-Wafulz (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not according to Canadian dollar. Also, Canada has been associated with the British since its founding, and the United States had that whole Declaration of Independence thing going on. I don't think the two played that nicely together. Gary King (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article says "[In 1858] the dollar was pegged at par with the U.S. dollar, on a gold standard of 1 dollar = 23.22 grains gold." It doesn't mention a change in the exchange rate until the start of World War II. Then again, that's not really proof of anything.-Wafulz (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyways, just by looking at Canadian dollar#Independent Canadian dollar, the value seems to have gone up and down quite a lot, and since dates are already given in this article, then specifying the currency would be all the more helpful. Gary King (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've linked the first usage of $ to the Canadian Dollar, as the majority of the dollar figures in the article would definitely be using that currency. The only two figures I am uncertain of are the $15,000 price paid to buy the Bruins, and the $75,000 for the Americans. I can assume they are still referring to the Canadian Dollar, but none of the references I have suggest one way or another which currency was actually used. Resolute 01:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyways, just by looking at Canadian dollar#Independent Canadian dollar, the value seems to have gone up and down quite a lot, and since dates are already given in this article, then specifying the currency would be all the more helpful. Gary King (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article says "[In 1858] the dollar was pegged at par with the U.S. dollar, on a gold standard of 1 dollar = 23.22 grains gold." It doesn't mention a change in the exchange rate until the start of World War II. Then again, that's not really proof of anything.-Wafulz (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not according to Canadian dollar. Also, Canada has been associated with the British since its founding, and the United States had that whole Declaration of Independence thing going on. I don't think the two played that nicely together. Gary King (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments by delldot talk
This FAC was brought to my attention over IRC. It's a really a beautiful article. Just a few superficial comments, some don't even require action, they're just questions about minor points I'm not totally clear on. So for a lot of those feel free to explain or correct me if I'm wrong.
I would state the obvious and establish context in the first sentence by stating what nation we're talking about.
- I couldn't figure out how to add it to the first sentence, but I did specify that the NHL was originally all Canadian in the lead paragraph.
- I suppose you've considered starting the article with The history of the National Hockey League of Canada and rejected the idea? Really it's fine the way you have it, just a suggestion. delldot talk 00:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did, but "of Canada" wouldn't belong as part of the bolded lead, and the league was only a Canadian-only entity for seven years. In fact, it very quickly had more American teams than Canadian. In this case "National" is really just a word.
Does 1880s need to be linked?
- Looks like it has alrady been done.
- Sorry, I wasn't clear. I thought it shouldn't be. Tuberculosis, a FA selected at random, doesn't link decades, and other decades in this article aren't linked. delldot talk 00:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh. I wasn't thinking it should be linked either, actually. Changed back.
Per WP:DASH, m dashes aren't spaced.
- It appears that was changed by a subsequent user. I have changed it back.
organization's honour: choose British or American spelling for consistency (also, defence is British, looks like most of the rest is American).
- The article is in Canadian English, which by history and geography incorporates aspects of both British and American spelling.
Why is June 1 wikilinked but November 25 is not?
- Looks as though that has already been changed for consistency.
perished sounds kind of weird to me, I'd go for died in order to avoid a fancy word where a plain one will do. But maybe ask another person who's good at prose.
- Personally, I just liked the word. I'll change to died for now, however.
I don't know if led by Billy Burch and Shorty Green is a strong enough departure from the rest of the sentence to require m dashes, I'd think commas would work.
- changed.
Aren't you supposed to wikilink the first occurrence of $ to the type of currency? I vaguely remember having read that somewhere. Why is it linked much farther down, in Great Depression?
- Yeah, we're working on finding sources that specify which currency is being used. I could just link the Canadian Dollar on the first instance, but I am not certain that remains true later on.
I'm not familiar with the term American-based. Would it be better to say American team or team based in the US or something?
- Removed "-based".
This seems kind of repetitive: Rangers goaltender Lorne Chabot was injured early in the game, leaving the Rangers without a goaltender. But I can't figure out how to rephrase it maybe the Rangers were left without a goaltender when Lorne Chabot was injured early in the game, leaving the reader to figure out what role he must have played from the context?
- I simply removed the first instance of "Rangers" in your quoted section. The entire paragraph is about the Rangers, so it should still be obvious which team is being discussed.
With the Maroons unwilling to allow the Rangers to -- with seems kind of clumsy here. Maybe since or as?
- Agreed, changed to "As the Maroons...".
There's a problem with switching tense here, but I'm not sure how to fix it without a lot of brackets: In his words, he wanted "a place where people can go in evening clothes, if they want to come there for a party or dinner ... a place that people can be proud to bring their wives or girlfriends to."
- Removed the "In his words..." but other than that, I am not sure how to rephrase this. It is a past tense statement about a future tense quote. I'll think more on it.
Is it intentional that sometimes punctuation is inside quotation marks and sometimes outside?
- Probably not. I'll double check and fix where needed.
I don't really like his father's, per WP:EGG; not printable and so on.
- reworded to avoid the easter egg.
While other owners feared that broadcasting their games would cut into gate reciepts, Smythe supported the broadcast of Leafs games. -- kind of repetitive. Also, would it be Leafs', or is Leafs not possessive? Same question about the Canadiens organization, under Great Depression.
- Reworded. On the possessiveness, it really could go either way. I can see it being taken as a possessive, but I have typically seen such phrases written without the apostrophe.
I'm not sure though is the most logical connector here: Shore would ultimately serve a 16-game suspension for the hit, though it was known that had Bailey died, Boston police would have charged him with manslaughter.
- Reworded.
Under Howie Morenz, this sentence is kind of confusing, with a lot of temporal terms: Morenz's return to Montreal would be short-lived, as on January 28, 1937, he broke his leg in four places after catching his skate on the ice while being checked by Chicago's Earl Seibert.
- Removed the entirety before the first comma. It's unnecessary.
- It was the after catching ... while being thing that I didn't like. How about On January 28, 1937, he broke his leg in four places: he caught his skate on the ice while being checked by Chicago's Earl Seibert? Still not perfect, I know. Or maybe On January 28, 1937, Morenz was checked by Chicago's Earl Seibert, caught his skate on the ice, and broke his leg in four places. Whatever you decide is fine. delldot talk 00:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Broke it into two sentences. Hopefully this simplifies
No need to utilize utilize when you could use use (under Rules and innovations).
- Fixed.
Sorry, I'm sports oblivious: what does iced the puck mean? If this is shooting the puck the length of the ice, you could put icing the puck in parentheses.
- Done.
the league abandoned the rule forbidding goaltenders from leaving their feet to make a save - coincidentally, Benedict himself was the chief practitioner of this. m dash, not a hyphen. And was the chief practitioner of this sounds a little odd.
- reworded.
- I don't really like best either; it's so vague, it doesn't really provide any information. And who says he was one of the best? Maybe just an expansion of the concept is needed here. One of the most enthusiastic? Defended the goal most effectively? delldot talk 00:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone and removed the caveat about Bennedict altogether. I'm not certain what RGTraynor was intending to state, and it doesn't really fit well, especially since it is an anacronism given how the paragraph is presented. Hopefully RG sees this and re-adds it as he sees fit.
Overall, really beautifully done. Zero content problems, this is all minor MOS stuff. delldot talk 20:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the good words and review. I hope I've addressed your concerns. Resolute 23:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
- I'm drawing a blank, did we ever reach a consensus on http://www.hockeydb.com/index.html being reliable or not?
- What makes http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/ a reliable source?
- Likewise http://proicehockey.about.com/od/history/a/billy_burch.htm?
- Otherwise sources look good, links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- lol, I forgot about the citation vs cite x rule. I went with citation on general refs because the harvard reference template has been depricated. I'll correct the other citations tomorrow. Hockeydb has a page citing its sources. Sportsecyclopedia looks amateurish, but comparitavely speaking, I've found the information highly reliable. I think they had a references page as well, but I'll have to look for that tomorrow as well. Resolute 03:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed the cite x's to citations, though I have to say I don't like the look, given that {{Citation}} doesn't account for websites. Resolute 16:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- lol, I forgot about the citation vs cite x rule. I went with citation on general refs because the harvard reference template has been depricated. I'll correct the other citations tomorrow. Hockeydb has a page citing its sources. Sportsecyclopedia looks amateurish, but comparitavely speaking, I've found the information highly reliable. I think they had a references page as well, but I'll have to look for that tomorrow as well. Resolute 03:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - Image:Ottawa Citizen April 1 1934.jpg does not have, and cannot have a valid FU, easily expressed with the same text WP:NFC#1 Fasach Nua (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Well-done, comprehensive article on the history of a major North American sports league. What's not to like? Well...
Background: "and league attendance and excitement dropped." Is there a better word than excitement? I think interest is more of a match.
- Changed to interest.
Founding: The Canadiens, of all teams, don't need another link here after the previous section has one.
- Fixed.
Early years: 1919-20 season linked twice in section.
- Fixed.
"second-half champion Toronto team" Replace team with Arenas? It should be okay since their nickname hasn't been mentioned yet.
- The team wasn't formally called the Arenas until 1918-19. In 1917-18, they were simply "Toronto". Arenas would be anacronsitic in this case.
One-sentence paragraph at end of section. I never like these, but it doesn't seem to go well anywhere else.
- Broke into two sentences.
Competition with the WCHL: I recommend a change in the last paragraph to "were purchased for $75,000 by New York mobster Bill Dwyer". The order of this sentence looks off as it is now.
- Changed.
1920s expansion: "The New York Rangers were granted" Either find a replacement for granted or say "granted to him".
- Done.
New York Americans goalie Joe Hall links to the Canadiens' Joe Hall.
- Oops. That is supposed to be Joe Miller, not Hall. Fixed.
Conn Smythe and the Toronto Maple Leafs, Livingston's court battles: "making her the first female owner in hockey history, and only the second in all of sports." Is this referring to major North American sports? If so the article should indicate that.
- The source I have doesn't specify. I'll eliminate the statement of her being the 2nd in all of sports to eliminate ambiguity
Ace Bailey benefit game: Plenty of hockey players have survived vicious checks. It would be better to describe the damage this hit did to Bailey. Right now it just says he landed on his head, but the life-threatening injury, brain hemorrhaging, isn't even mentioned.
- I'll improve this when I have access to my sources.
"an all-star team" Capitalize all-star?
- "all-star" is not a proper name in this context. I personally don't think it should be capitalized, but if others disagree, can make the change.
External links: The NHL link is copied over what should be the CBC link.
- Oops, bad copy-paste fixed.
Giants2008 (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Resolute 17:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another round from me.
Great Depression: "The Eagles played only one year in St. Louis before asking permission to suspend operations." I believe this should be "asking for permission...".
- Fixed.
"The league refused, bought out and dispersed the Eagles' players." Missing a connecter after the comma.
- Reworded.
Howie Morenz: "as teams attempted to fit in the cap." Awkward. I prefer something like "under the cap."
- Fixed.
"Morenz's his skate" Also, I recommend this change: "while he was being checked...".
- Typo fixed, change made.
Chicago's "All-American" Team: "to compile a team only of American players." Reverse only and of.
- Done.
"regularly in the league" to "who appeared" or similar.
- Reworded, slightly different.
Rules and innovations: "After the Senators third championship in 1924," Should be Senators'.
- Fixed.
Formatting issue in third paragraph (icing).
- Fixed.
Odd to have Frank Calder linked with full name in third paragraph of section when he isn't in first paragraph.
- moved.
Hyphen for two piece?
- Toyed with an em-dash, just to mess with ya, but fixed. ;o)
- That's it from my vantage point. Giants2008 (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This has me looking forward to future installments of this series. Another fine hockey article. Giants2008 (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a second. I just noticed the introduction of some new material, which has created a number of new problems."the heavily-favoured Maple Leafs" No hyphen after ly."fifth-place Red Wings" Should be Red Wings'."declare the Red Wings as "unbeatable"." Not sure as is needed, although this is a judgement call.This is the primary reason I dropped my support: The Leafs are not the only team in NHL history to come back from a 3–0 deficit (check spelling of deficit). As a Rangers fan this kills me, but the 1975 Islanders deserve credit where it's due. Featured articles can't contain mistakes like this.I would start a new subsection with the new paragraph and the birth of the Original Six. This would be a better fit than shoving the information under the Chicago subsection.
Sorry for the switch, but our best work must be as flawless as possible. I'll be perfectly willing to support again once these are resolved.Giants2008 (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further to Gary's query about currency, can you announce at the top that "National" means "Canadian"? Many readers won't instantly know whether it's US or Canadian, since ... the north of the US can be pretty cold, can't it? Just add "Canadian" before "National"? TONY (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, if I correctly understand what you're saying, I think I'm gonna disagree here. "National Hockey Association" is the proper name of a league, as is the "National Hockey League". We don't call the "National Hockey League" the "United States National Hockey League", so why should we call it the "Canatdain National Hockey Association"? If someone wants to know more about the NHA they can click on the link. Blackngold29 17:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is stated in the lead that the NHL was formed as a new "Canadian professional league..." Beyond the league's founding, to specify it as being part of a single country would be inaccurate, as since 1924, the NHL has teams in two countries. So in truth, "National" does not mean either Canada or the US. Resolute 19:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If Tony is referring to the WHA, I would prefer "the Canada-based National Hockey Association (WHA)". That way the league name is unchanged and adequate context is provided. I don't see a problem with the NHL in this regard. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing only image licensing:
there may be a problem, if any of the PD-Canada images (most of the images in the article) were subject to crown copyright but only published after 1959. Image:Silver7.jpg needs similar imformation, since the author died in 1961.Image:Joe Malone.jpg needs information, period, as doImage:1925 26 NYAmericans NHL.jpg and Image:MLG 1931w.jpg. The tag on Image:Lpatrick.jpg is flat wrong.--NE2 13:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these would be government works, so they would not be subject to crown copyright.
- Image:Lpatrick.jpg Is stated to be in the public domain by Library and Archives Canada. I have tried to update, so if that isn't what you are looking for, let me know.
- Image:1925 26 NYAmericans NHL.jpg I replaced outright with one from another year that has better source information
- Image:Silver7.jpg includes a link to the Library and Archives Canada link where it is stated that the image is in the public domain
- Image:Joe Malone.jpg is certainly PD, but I will ask the original uploader if he can provide the source.
- Image:MLG 1931w.jpg I've replaced. Based on the description, there really is no way at all to determine it's copyright status
- Resolute 16:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take a closer look at them later, but, yes, Image:Lpatrick.jpg does look good now. The date of 1971 really didn't jive with the tag. --NE2 17:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All but Malone look good. --NE2 09:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments—The prose is not bad, but could do with a polish throughout by someone unfamiliar with it. Here are examples I picked up at the top.
- I've been through a PR and had other members of the hockey project look it over. Any suggestions you have are most appreciated.
- Always uncomfortable with an historical statement in the present tense: "The history of the National Hockey League begins with the demise of". Then we're shunted into past tense.
- reworded
- "The NHL suffered during the latter half of the 1930s, as the Great Depression and World War II led the league to contract to six teams by 1942." Rather than leave us hanging for a line with the word "suffered" (how did they suffer?), why not: "During the latter half of the 1930s, the Great Depression and World War II reduced the NHL to just six teams by 1942." Avoid "contract" in this sense (confusion with players' contracts).
- reworded
- "This commercialization conflicted strongly with the prevalent amateur spirit."—unidiomatic. "This commercialization was strongly against the spirit of the prevailing amateur ethic", or something like that?
- reworded
- "from inside and outside of the AHAC"—spot the redundant word.
- reworded
- "and rink owners wanted to have senior hockey as their marquee attraction, senior AHAC clubs became increasingly leery about"—Remove "to have"; can you find a more familiar word than "leery"?
- changed to "reluctant"
- "where seven clubs existed"—ouch; please avoid "existed" in this sense (I see a lot on WP): "where there were seven clubs".
- reworded
TONY (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS MOSNUM says all or none for date autoformatting: you had half-way house. I've cleansed it all to allow your high-value links to breathe. TONY (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rejoinder: But what about the rest of the text? Someone fresh is needed to go through it; these were merely random examples. We do want to be proud of the article. Can you locate a word-nerd or two from the edit-history pages of similar articles? Try FACs first. WNs are obvious from their edit summaries: view diffs to see whether they're up to it. TONY (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked Maxim to take a look, if he is up to it. And, of course, any further examples you might identify would be appreciated. Thanks, Resolute 16:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, concerns addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Opposebut open to convincing. It's within reach and Maxim made excellent progress; however, there is still work to be done. Several oddities spotted just in the lead. I was discouraged after reading the lead, which is one of the weak points of the article as it stands. However, reading further rewarded me with better prose. Let's allow our readers to judge this book by its cover, shall we?[reply]- The layout is weird in my browser—the "History of the NHL" box appears below and to the left of the lead image (under the text).
- I'm definitely not a fan of "easter egg" piped links like the one in the lead for the Toronto Arenas. Please see Wikipedia:MOSLINK#Intuitiveness.
- "... by 1926 consisted of ten teams in Ontario, Quebec and the Northeastern United States." Chicago and Detroit are not considered part of Northeastern United States.
- "At the same time, the NHL emerged as the only surviving major league and the sole competitor for the Stanley Cup." Would eliminating "surviving" change the meaning?
- "... and was among the first leagues to allow goaltenders to leave their feet to make saves." Do you mean jump or leap? Dive? What?
- The lead is actually rather short considering the content. Little context given to Bailey and Morenz—why make us read on just to understand the basic? Why were they raising money for them? Is that fact actually important enough for the lead? Some seemingly-important facts missing from the lead include dominant teams and players of the era.
- "Regulate" seems a more apt term that "regularize" doesn't it?
- "Several of the league's team owners were growing increasingly frustrated with Toronto Blueshirts owner Eddie Livingstone ..." Remove "growing" or "increasingly".
- "During the second game of the series, Lorne Chabot was injured early in the game ..." Suggest "Lorne Chabot was injured early in the second game of the series ..." --Laser brain (talk) 07:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the lead was already copyedited by Resolute with Tony1's advice and I skipped it. I'll work on that as well... Maxim(talk) 12:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, the article needs attention thoughout to puncuation on image captions, see WP:MOS#Captions. Sentence fragments don't end in a period. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:08, 7 September 2008 [81].
The World Ends with You
- Nominator(s): MASEM
- previous FAC (20:31, 31 August 2008)
Sourced have been checked in the first FAC (and have not changed from there) and reevaluated in the second, previous one. Images were rechecked in the previous FAC as well. The previous FAC failed due to open comments left by reviewers that were addressed though complete closure (and associated "support" !votes) was incomplete. In particular wording issues described by User:Dweller,; he has since commented that the article is now a strong candidate, so I am bringing it back for re-nomination. Again, I do need to note strongly that this article is made difficult by the terminology used by the game ("Player" and "Players" for some characters) that overlaps with the general terminology of the game user ("player"), so if you do find any point of confusion, please drop a note so that it can be fixed (this was a point Dweller mentioned on the previous FAC and was significantly addressed) --MASEM 13:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources still look good. You should note non-English language sources when given (How I missed that the first two times around, I do not know). (I'm not watching this, I trust you to fix that!) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image all have appropriate licenses/author/source information, and detailed fair use rationales. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments OK, we're getting there. I'll bung comments below this. --Dweller (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Combat section sparsely referenced. --Dweller (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personal opinion: Soundtrack section has too much detail, seemingly acknowledged by use of "show" wikiscripts. Suggest hiving less essential material off to a daughter article. --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be difficult to support the notability of a separate article even though it could be done. There's little commentary on the actual soundtrack (the music is noted in context of the game, but not the soundtrack separately), and no development or other influences, so it would fail WP:MUSIC notability. (mind you, I'm well aware that there's a general issue on notability throughout WP including an RFC I helped to get going on it, so this may change in the future). --MASEM 15:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some of the {{cite web}} templates are formatted vertically, while the others are formatted horizontally. This should be consistent. The Prince (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Why? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That has no affect on the article output. It makes editing easier if they're the same but that's not an FA requirement. —Giggy 00:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it should be consistent. Preferably the vertical style for easier editing. The Prince (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That has no affect on the article output. It makes editing easier if they're the same but that's not an FA requirement. —Giggy 00:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Regardless of my comment, which I have struck, the article is very solid, especially the development section. I didn't read the "Plot" section as I might play the game sometime, but the rest is very good. I also think "Gameplay" should go before "Plot", but again that's not a requirement, and is just my personal opinion. Great work on the article. The Prince (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support; it is indeed a "strong candidate" and now meets FA criteria, IMO. —Giggy 00:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article's prose looks to have tightened up since the last FAC. Quick question though, I couldn't find too much on GoNintendo. What makes it a reliable source? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- It is not as strong as IGN or the likes (it's just above blog quality). However, the point it is used for, the fact the soundtrack is on now on iTunes, I don't think is a very contentious point that needs a highly reliable source. --MASEM 17:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did some more digging. Federated media calls them the "most up-to-date source for Nintendo news".[82] Never heard of Federated Media before but they seem legit/reliable enough.[83] GoNintendo has been cited on a CNET Asia blog posting.[84] Joystiq has cited them before too.[85] It is a little weak, but looks to be within limits. Though I'd be on the look out for another source should the article ever go up for FAR. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- It is not as strong as IGN or the likes (it's just above blog quality). However, the point it is used for, the fact the soundtrack is on now on iTunes, I don't think is a very contentious point that needs a highly reliable source. --MASEM 17:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - It's definitely up to par at this point. TTN (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: My main concerns were addressed in the previous FAC and my source issue above doesn't look to be of any serious concern. The article looks to be well written, comprehensive, and well sourced. Good job again Masem. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Neutral—I'm finding redundancies and misplaced formality/archaic words in the gameplay section. Everything below that will probably need more work. — Deckiller 06:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I ran through the suggested sections and made light copyedits. I think that the prose is in good shape. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, there is hidden text within the prose (doesn't mirror, print and is not accessible). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Concer I believe that the soundtrack section does not meet WP:WEIGHT and that mentioning its availability could violate WP:SOAP. I do not know if this is 100% correct, but I think it warrants an in-depth discussion at a notice board.
- Published game soundtracks (as opposed to just listing songs that are in the game's soundtrack but not released on any audio CD or download service) are very common in video game articles, or when they merit it, discussion by themselves, so I don't see how this is a SOAP issue (advertizing? Talking about the game itself would be the same). Including the track lists is also a part of the same (same for any album that's typically mentioned on WP in the first place, game or not). The WEIGHT issue is one I pointed out above - when its not hidden, it does look large, but the albums themselves, notable in the context of the game, would not have their own notability and a separate article would likely be challenged. --MASEM 18:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mentioning that it is available for download is the "soap" concern, not the listing of the tracks. The weight was just to point ou that there aren't many resources on the songs but it is given a significant size. I also wonder about having the "hidden/show" option and how it deals with WP:Accessibility. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Published game soundtracks (as opposed to just listing songs that are in the game's soundtrack but not released on any audio CD or download service) are very common in video game articles, or when they merit it, discussion by themselves, so I don't see how this is a SOAP issue (advertizing? Talking about the game itself would be the same). Including the track lists is also a part of the same (same for any album that's typically mentioned on WP in the first place, game or not). The WEIGHT issue is one I pointed out above - when its not hidden, it does look large, but the albums themselves, notable in the context of the game, would not have their own notability and a separate article would likely be challenged. --MASEM 18:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:19, 25 July 2008 [86].
Nuthatch
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's passed GA, and why do one species when you can do 24? I'm a significant contributor (262/383 currently), but other members of the bird project have been very helpful, especially with the images. Reviewers please note that I'll be away for two days during the week, so responses may not always be instantaneous (something to look forward to when I get back) jimfbleak (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Remove the period from "A Eurasian Nuthatch climbing a tree trunk in search of food." – it's a sentence fragment
- The table is huge – perhaps move it to List of Nuthatch species?
Generally, the article looks pretty good. Gary King (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments- just starting to look through now.At 37kb, the article is at the lower end of FA size anyway.Prose looks good first up but there are a few comprehensiveness issues: - The
taxonomy section doesn't really talk about the family sittidae until it pops up mentioned by name after the mention of sittellas. I think it needs a couple of sentences at the bottom of first para or beginning of second para, on definition of sittidae (Linnaeus the authority of the family too?).
Also, the cladebox mentions the wrens/gnatcatcher clade etc but this is not mentioned in the text. It would be good to have,along with why they are placed there (morphology or DNA) (still not mentioned what it is based on) and how strong is the evidence - are there any alternatives?
- This is the consensus tree and for this part there is apparently fairly strong evidence from DNA. Added the reference and noticed that the usual academic standard pp. for multiple pages and p. for single page is not followed. Shyamal (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any fossil record? There should be something on evolutionary origins and where they are thought to have occurred.Great work. If there is doubt about what the fossil is, then explain the knowledge including uncertainties and possibilities. This is one of those great situations where a bit of openminded writing and less dogma is fantastic. Let the reader be the detective and draw their own conclusions...sorry I am going off on a tangent but you get the idea.
and perhaps should be promoted to a full species. - not thrilled about the wording - sounds like the WP article is pushing for this. Can be worded differently - 'strong evidence for specific status'? or something similar.
first-year birds - sounds odd to me - 'year-old birds' or 'birds in their first year'?
It has occurred as a vagrant - 'It has been recorded as a vagrant'?
Breeding and survival has lots of eggs, by switching I think you could get rid of one lot.
Anyway, these may be doable or not on sourcing. Let us know. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done as far as possible. the minor points all fixed. I can't find anything on the evolutionary origins of the Sittidae (Lesson, not Linnaeus), although it's "obvious" they arose in SE Asia. I've rejigged the cladebox text into the main, but I have nothing more than what's there. Should I remove the text and cladebox? I already had the fossil ref (there's nothing else I can find) but didn't put it in originally since it may not be a nuthhatch (or a treecreeper) - new genus, not Sitta or Certhia jimfbleak (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the fossil issue, that's all there is, I only have access to the abstract, and everything that says is in the text. On the superfamily bit, I've added the DNA basis and set it in context, but there is virtually nothing else out there regarding the robustness of including the wrens and gnatcatchers with the nuthatches and treecreepers. jimfbleak (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done as far as possible. the minor points all fixed. I can't find anything on the evolutionary origins of the Sittidae (Lesson, not Linnaeus), although it's "obvious" they arose in SE Asia. I've rejigged the cladebox text into the main, but I have nothing more than what's there. Should I remove the text and cladebox? I already had the fossil ref (there's nothing else I can find) but didn't put it in originally since it may not be a nuthhatch (or a treecreeper) - new genus, not Sitta or Certhia jimfbleak (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look good, links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It generally looks good. I have added some cite info about food caches (something my supervisor is into in a big way). I do have a major problem with the first line and the taxonomy section however, it is inconsistent and confusing with regards to whether the article is about a family or genus. The taxobox states that it is about the family Sittidae and genus Sitta, but the first line only alludes to the genus. The Taxonomy section mentions that the family sometimes includes the Wallcreeper, but that species is treated as its own family on its page. If the article is about the whole family then Sittidae should be bolded and in the first line. If the whole family is taken to include the Wallcreeper and this is the family page then that atypical "nuthatch" must get further mentions in the text. If it isn't included in this page but in the Sittidae family then a new page is needed for the family. Perhaps a better solution is to simply treat it as a separate family for now and treat this page as the family page for the Sittidae. But the current arrangement isn't really good. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All these edits and I never checked the taxobox!. I've fixed this now as the genus, made Wallcreeper consistent, and substubbed Sittidae so it's not a redirect jimfbleak (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (Full disclosure, I am WP:BIRD member and have made a few contributions to this article while reviewing). I would mention which family the genus is from in the intro. And curses for expanding an article to featured status, then demoting it down to genus and creating another family stub. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All these edits and I never checked the taxobox!. I've fixed this now as the genus, made Wallcreeper consistent, and substubbed Sittidae so it's not a redirect jimfbleak (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Note to reviewers I think I've now addressed outstanding concerns from Gary, Caliber and Sabine's Sunbird. I'll be in London until Tuesday now, so responses to further comments unlikely before Tuesday pm at earliest. jimfbleak (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The image Image:Red-breasted-nuthatchmirror.jpg is a derivative of Image:Red-breasted-Nuthatch.jpg. I think the mirror image should be attributed partly to the original author and partly to the author who modified it for this article. Other images on this page need checking too. Snowman (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have wrote in the attribution details to the mirror image, but I note that the copyright that was given to it is different from the original source image. I think that only the uploader (who is away until Tuesday) can change this, if it needs correcting. If the image is not needed, I guess that it can be deleted. Snowman (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem fixed by using a new cropped image: I am not sure why a mirror image was used, and so I have re-cropped the source image (leaving it facing to the right) and repositioned the new image on the left of the page. This semiautomated tool on commons did most of the work. Snowman (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that, you seem to have sorted it all while I've been in London. I'm not sure what the convention is on attributing modified images. Obviously the modification is my own work, and I have to name the original image to justify GFDL, but I don't know what else is expected. Since you've sorted the issue here, perhaps we could discuss elsewhere (the bird project page? jimfbleak (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not know the exact details, but the license on the original work has implications for the licenses of modified works ad infinitum. Anyway, I think that the semi-automated tool did not have an option to use the license that you used for your modified work (no longer on the page). I think that explains it, but you can start a discussion on a specialised page, if you want to. Snowman (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that, you seem to have sorted it all while I've been in London. I'm not sure what the convention is on attributing modified images. Obviously the modification is my own work, and I have to name the original image to justify GFDL, but I don't know what else is expected. Since you've sorted the issue here, perhaps we could discuss elsewhere (the bird project page? jimfbleak (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem fixed by using a new cropped image: I am not sure why a mirror image was used, and so I have re-cropped the source image (leaving it facing to the right) and repositioned the new image on the left of the page. This semiautomated tool on commons did most of the work. Snowman (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have wrote in the attribution details to the mirror image, but I note that the copyright that was given to it is different from the original source image. I think that only the uploader (who is away until Tuesday) can change this, if it needs correcting. If the image is not needed, I guess that it can be deleted. Snowman (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The table has the header "Species in taxonomic order", but this is not explained, and there is no footnote. I think this jargon should be explained. Snowman (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A footnote has been added, but it seems to be incomprehensible. The foot note says "...means that the list is in the order of the relationships between the species", which does not explain what the order is. Is it the order in which they were discovered? or something to do with the DNA of the species (and if so what)? The page about taxonomy that it is now linked to also does not explain what taxonomic order is. Snowman (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnote added and reworded - if you're not happy with this version, please reword as appropriate. jimfbleak (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, Jim, I recognise the prose patterns. Let's take the opening:
The nuthatches are a genus, Sitta, of generally very similar small passerine birds found in much of the Northern Hemisphere. Together with the Wallcreeper, they constitute the family Sittidae. They have a distinctive shape with large heads, short tails and powerful bills and feet, and all the species are recognisable as belonging to this group. These are vocal birds with loud, simple songs.
Oppose—Maybe the first clause is OK, but it's a pity it has a choppy, hiccoughy rhythm. The move from the taxonomic them to where they're found, back to the taxonomic, doesn't help. Move the "found in" phrase down to where you talk about their shape etc. Comma after "shape". Why is "all the species are recognisable as belonging to this group" (which, genus? family? I'm confused) jammed into a sentence about their appearance. It's a complete mess. Sorry.
- "Most nuthatches breed in temperate or montane woodland, but two species have adapted to rocky habitats." OK, temperate or montane, compared with just rocky: is rocky temperate or montane? Or tropical? Your normal punters like me could be forgiven for thinking that "rocky" occurs in all climates.
- "All nest in holes or crevices, and several members of this genus reduce the size of the entrance to the breeding cavity by constructing a mud wall." First you refer to them as "All"; then they get the full shebang, "of this genus". Very awkward.
- Careful with you use of "but", which usually implies contradiction. The two "buts" in the lead are only just OK.
- "head first", I think, should be hyphenated, especially in BrEng.
This can't possibly be promoted. The prose is wickedly awkward, so that readers have to work harder than they should, but still don't get the straight, etched line they deserve. A fresh copy-editor is required, and it's not a quick job. All of the text needs surgery. You have a lot to offer WP in this field, but I can't see these unfortunate features of your writing style improving. I don't mean to attack you personally—far from it: I nurse a hope that you might become a fine writer. Tony (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presentation of the table; I think the table can usefully summaries more details of the genus. I have reorganised the table to make better use of space. There is now room in the table for a description in which identification details of the species and the length of the birds could be included in an easy to scan format. Scanning is easier when the image is to the left of a block of text. Snowman (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy about this. The information for each species should be in the species' article. I don't want an edit war in the middle of FAC so the alternatives are- You complete the species' details (I can just about live with that.)
- revert to previous format
- withdraw article from FAC - even I wouldn't support it with an almost empty column
jimfbleak (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion on the talk page indicates that the table needed an improved format, and you have written "if you want to change the format, please go ahead" here, and that is what I have done which seemed to be with your blessing, at least in part on 8 July 2008, 11 days after this FAC started. It is a wiki article, so several editors can help to complete the table. There is some criticism of this article in this FAC, and some editors have criticised the table on the talk page rather than discussing the table here. There is a lot of information on this page that is also in the species pages, so that is not a problem in itself, the table being is an easy-to-view summary of the genus. Some of the images are diagrammes, some photographs, some drawings, and there is one video link, and the inconsistency has been mentioned on the talk page. The new description column will bring more consistency to the table. This article needs every help it can get at aiming at FA level. Edit warring is irrelevant to my table reformat, which is to improve the table on the nuthatch genus, and is as discussed on the talk page under two discussion headings, at least in parts. I hope that the main editors of this page can continue to improve this page, with the help of opinions and contributions from editors new to the page and I welcome more opinions on the table. It may look like the article is heading for a fail and it may seem to be a good tactic to withdraw your FAC nomination, but many pages have improved during FAC and I would like to give it more time. Snowman (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing only image licensing:
Image:Rocknuthatchmirror.jpg needs source details, as does Image:RedbreastedNuthatch23.jpg (what page was that downloaded from?).--NE2 13:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll reupload shortly now I know the correct way to do this jimfbleak (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the first image I gave incomplete and incorrect details, now amended on the image page. Wikimedia fx wouldn't let me licence this as a derivative, but since they are from the same pd source, this can stand alone anyway now. The red-breasted is a US federal picture, but I can't now find the source, so I've deleted it from the article. 16:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'll reupload shortly now I know the correct way to do this jimfbleak (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support On a fresh read-through after the recent rounds of editing, I am satisfied with the prose. --Laser brain (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I must concur with my colleague that the prose is very hard to get through. I'm not talking about glaring errors—the prose just needs smoothing. Some random examples:
- "Nuthatches are vocal birds with loud, simple songs, which they use to advertise their territories." Advertise seems an odd word, but perhaps it's my ignorance of birds. Do they want other beasts to come in (which "advertise" suggests) or to stay out?
- "They are omnivorous, eating mostly insects, nuts and seeds, and the habit of wedging a large food item in a crevice and then hacking at it with a strong bill gives this group its English name." Odd construction makes readers go far ahead of "... and the habit" to discover that it's not another list item and is actually outlining another concept.
- "The nuthatches are all placed in the single genus Sitta ..." Why not just "the genus Sitta" since you already wrote "all"?
- "... the word element hatch being related to hack through palatalization." Linguistics journal, yes. General-audience encyclopedia, no please.
- "The family Sittidae is usually considered to contain the "true" nuthatches in the subfamily Sittinae, and the Wallcreeper as the only representative of the subfamily Tichodromadinae." Again, very belabored and I'm left unclear about what you're really saying.
- A definite candidate for withdrawal, copy-editing, and peer review. --Laser brain (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've addressed the specific points made ("advertising" is standard, but I've spelt it out anyway). Thanks for the invitation to withdraw, but I decline to do so. A family level article was never going to be easy, but Nuthatch can take its chances here. If it fails, so be it, I'll concentrate on Greater Crested Tern instead. Having been rebuffed twice by an fac copy editor in the past, I see little mileage in that route - or are you volunteering?. jimfbleak (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will copy-edit almost anything on request, but you'd have to wait for me to finish a couple other commitments. Also, I'd have to be monitored to make sure I don't change the meaning of various passages. A good example is "advertised" above, but I thank you for teaching me something today. :) --Laser brain (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've addressed the specific points made ("advertising" is standard, but I've spelt it out anyway). Thanks for the invitation to withdraw, but I decline to do so. A family level article was never going to be easy, but Nuthatch can take its chances here. If it fails, so be it, I'll concentrate on Greater Crested Tern instead. Having been rebuffed twice by an fac copy editor in the past, I see little mileage in that route - or are you volunteering?. jimfbleak (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport. A fine article. A few comments:- I have a question about the intent of this sentence: **"The two species are not strongly tied to woodland; as their names imply, the two rock nuthatches breed on rocky slopes or cliffs, although both will move into wooded areas when not breeding." The prior sentence discussed to woodland species; why the sudden reference to rock nuthatches in a sentence that starts by discussing two woodland species? Is the intent to note that though several species are tied to woodland, not all are?
- That's what I was trying to say - this bit has given me more grief than anything else. It shouldn't be "the two species", anyway, I've corrected that.
- That fixed it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I was trying to say - this bit has given me more grief than anything else. It shouldn't be "the two species", anyway, I've corrected that.
- "They nest in cavities, with most species using tree holes except for the two species of rock nuthatches, making a simple cup lined with softer materials to receive the eggs." I've copyedited this sentence but would change it further if I knew for certain that the rock nuthatches are the only nuthatches not to use tree holes. Is that the case?
- That's correct
- OK; I've edited it further. Let me know if the new phrasing is still accurate. Mike Christie (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's correct
- The cross-section of the nest is "based on various sources" according to the uploader of the image. Could you add a citation to at least one appropriate source? I don't insist that the citation be in the article; adding it to the image talk page would be OK. It looks as if the Harrap and Quinn reference to pp. 155-158 in the adjacent text probably covers it.
- I'll do that as soon as I've posted this
- Done, used H&Q
- OK. Mike Christie (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, used H&Q
- I'll do that as soon as I've posted this
- I looked at Albatross as a comparison article, since it's featured and covers more than a single species. There are some sections in that article that don't appear here. Can you comment on whether it would be useful to have sections, or perhaps just a little more information, on evolution? How about a map showing distribution (not down to the individual species, but just of the overall Sitta distribution? Is there anything interesting to be said about their flight? Is there any notable courting behaviour?
- Small birds like nuthatches leave few traces in the fossil record, and I can find nothing concrete about their evolution although they "obviously" spread from south Asia. I have zero map-making skills, and I'm not sure what it would add - basically shading in most of NAM, Europe and Asia. Unlike albatrosses, where the flight is well-studied, small non-migratory birds excite little interest. I'll check again to see if there's any thing to add about courtship.
- There's nothing for the family as a whole. Courtship is described in detail for a few well-studied species, notably Eurasian, but nothing that can be safely generalised. In previous FAs I've also looked at diseases and parasites, but these small woodland birds don't attract much investigation.
- Fair enough. If you can source a statement about their "obvious" origin, phrased that way, that would be a reasonable addition, I'd think. Mike Christie (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing for the family as a whole. Courtship is described in detail for a few well-studied species, notably Eurasian, but nothing that can be safely generalised. In previous FAs I've also looked at diseases and parasites, but these small woodland birds don't attract much investigation.
- Small birds like nuthatches leave few traces in the fossil record, and I can find nothing concrete about their evolution although they "obviously" spread from south Asia. I have zero map-making skills, and I'm not sure what it would add - basically shading in most of NAM, Europe and Asia. Unlike albatrosses, where the flight is well-studied, small non-migratory birds excite little interest. I'll check again to see if there's any thing to add about courtship.
- I've done a copyedit pass and found a few things to fix, some of which were noted by others above. Overall I think the prose is FA quality now. I'll be glad to support once the points above are addressed.
-- Mike Christie (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
both negative and positive (in response to the above)
- I think the table is fine. I'm not overly bothered by the variation in pictures and drawings. I think the link to taxonomic order in the title is enough explanation.
You may want to order the refs in numerical order, e.g. ...north of its extensive range.[40][39] (there are several)- Lead
They forage for insects hidden in or under bark - I don't think bark needs to be wikilinked, it's a common term.
- Taxonomy
The English name, "nuthatch", of the genus refers to the habit... - Could you safely remove of the genus?...hacking at it with their strong bill: hatch being etymologically related to hack. - I would think you'd need to replace being with is, or else replace the colon with a comma.Some taxonomists place the nuthatches and treecreepers in a larger group along with the wrens and gnatcatchers. - could you get rid of along?The fossil record for this group appears to be restricted to a foot bone of an early Miocene bird from Bavaria which has been identified as an extinct representative of the Certhioidea clade. - what does appears to be? Wouldn't we know for sure whether it was? Also, I would remove this wikilink around clade and link the first instance instead.Species boundaries in the nuthatches may be difficult to define; the Red-breasted Nuthatch of North America, the Corsican Nuthatch and the Chinese Nuthatch have breeding ranges separated by thousands of kilometres, but are similar in habitat preference, appearance and song. - the may be difficult is a little confusing here. Can we know for sure whether it's difficult? Also, this is a long, complex sentence, you could maybe split it.Together with the Krüper's and Algerian Nuthatch, which they also resemble in plumage and vocalisations, they form a superspecies, the members of which all excavate their own nests - this sounds awkward to me. How about which have similar plumage and vocalisations to the... and separating the members of which all excavate their own nests into a new sentence?They have been regarded as anything from one to four species,[4] with the latter being the current view. - this sounds awkward to me, with the anything from, and the with transition, but I can't figure out how to fix it.
- Description
Patterns on the head can include a long black eye-stripe, contrasting white supercilium, dark forehead or cap. - wouldn't there be an and? Is eye-stripe really hyphenated? Is there a better way to word than can include?This is a very difficult sentence: The sizes of nuthatches vary from the Giant Nuthatch, 195 mm (7.75 in) long and weighing 36–47 g (1.3–1.6 oz)[35] to the Brown-headed Nuthatch or the Pygmy Nuthatch, both around 100 mm (4 in) long and weighing about 10 g (0.36 oz),[21] but all are immediately recognisable as members of the same family. How about two: The sizes of nuthatches vary, but all are immediately recognisable as members of the same family. The largest is the Giant Nuthatch, which is 195 mm (7.75 in) long and weighs 36–47 g (1.3–1.6 oz), and the smallest...- Their songs tend to be simple, and often identical to the calls but longer in duration - what's the difference between a song and a call?
- Er, what's the difference between a breeding song and a contact call? I don't suppose there's an article to wikilink to?
- Good idea, now linked
The Red-breasted Nuthatch coexists with the Black-capped Chickadee in much of its range - This sentence introduces the rest of the paragraph, but your reader has no idea why they're reading it until later. I would rearrange it to have the last sentence higher up. Or you could include it as a parenthetical in a later sentence (which is quite long and could stand to be split).
- Distribution and habitat
Representatives of the nuthatch family occur in suitable habitat in most of North America... - suitable? I don't think this adds any explanation, it's kind of circular....although both will move into wooded areas when not breeding. - could you do away with will with no change in meaning? How about both? Also when not breeding strikes me as a little awkward, but this may not need to be changed. What about changing the clause to ...only moving into wooded areas when they are not breeding?Those that breed further north, like Eurasian and Red-breasted, may be lowland birds in the north of their range, but associated with mountains further south. I read this sentence several times and still don't get it.The Velvet-fronted Nuthatch is the sole member of the family for which the preferred habitat is tropical lowland forests. - would it change the meaning to say which prefers?
- Breeding and survival
The altricial chicks take about 21–27 days to fledge - could you explain altricial in parentheses?One hundred and seventy Pygmy Nuthatches have been recorded at a single roost, and this species is also able to lower its body temperature when roosting - This is confusing because it covers two different topics. I would split out the second half of this sentence and combine it with the next sentence.
- Ref moved
- Feeding
...often hanging on on foot and supporting themselves with the other. - often hanging on one foot?It may carry the bark tool from tree to tree, or to cover a seed cache. - I would add the second half of this sentence to the previous one, or flesh it out and make it its own sentence.These caches are remembered[56] for as long as 98 days. - citation for the 98 day figure?
- Status
- Some nuthatches, like the Eurasian Nuthatch and the North American species, have large populations and wide geographical distributions, and present few conservation problems,[14] although local populations are affected by reduction and fragmentation of woodlands. - Long sentence. Also, is present the right word here?
- I've left as is for now, seems disjointed to me if split into two sentences
The endangered White-browed Nuthatch is known only from the Mount Victoria area of Burma, where forest up to 2,000 m (6,560 ft) has been almost totally cleared and habitat between 2,000–2,500 m (6,560–8200 ft) has been heavily degraded. - I don't understand the measurements. If we're talking area, wouldn't it be square meters? Or is this above sea level or something?Nearly 12,000 people live in the national park, and their fires and gum traps add to the pressure on the birds. - What's a gum trap?The former species prefers open pine woodland, and is better able to cope with tree felling, but although still locally common, it has been lost from several of the areas in which it was recorded in the early 20th century - too long.A law for the promotion of tourism came into force in Turkey in 2003, further exacerbating the threats to the habitat. - this is too vague to be helpful. What did the law do that threatened them?
- Done, the only point really was that it was particularly difficult for foreigners to invest before the 2003 law.
We've discussed this before: I'm still not really comfortable with the paragraph based on a primary study in Breeding and survival (Beginning An American study showed that nuthatch responses...). This wouldn't be cool in the medicine Wikiproject, but I don't know anything about the bird project--is this common practice? My problem with original studies is that the article seems to assert that this is always the case based on one study, it's not clear how relevant it is, and other issues with primary sources. But if other folks in the bird wikiproject say that use of primary sources is ok, I'm fine with it.- How about combing the article for long, complicated sentences?
Did you get that copyedit from Laser Brain? If not, I think it's still a good idea. Let me know when you've addressed these and (hopefully) when you've gotten the outside copyedit so I can have another look. delldot talk 16:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- as far as bird related sources go, the most useful thing about wikipedia articles at least from a research point of view are the links to primary sources, especially when there is a dearth of reviews or compilations (secondary/tertiary sources) to go by especially on ecological, behavioural and not to mention the ongoing work in phylogenetics.Shyamal (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, if others think it's fine, I'm fine with it too. delldot talk 17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed a couple (can't find an earlier clade), try to get the rest done tomorrow. Just to add to the "sources" comment, even with a reasonably well-known group like this, if you take away the primary sources, there's very little apart from Harrap & Quinn for most of the many Asian species, and comprehensiveness becomes an issue.jimfbleak (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I can get the clade thing myself. I don't think the comprehensiveness would suffer in this case if you were to remove the info about the hawk/egg predator study, but I'm fine with the primary source staying. delldot talk 19:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've addresses all your comments as best I can, please let me know if there are any other issues or if my changes have failed to fully answer your concerns. I'm between a rock and a hard place on sentence length, since Tony always opposes my FACs partly on the basis that the sentences are too short and choppy. I'm genuinely very grateful for the time and effort you have put into helping with this FAC, but unfortunately laser brain says that a copyedit in the timespan of FAC is now unlikely, so your efforts and mine may yet come to nought, since the two opposes will probably stand by default. Thanks again, jimfbleak (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I can get the clade thing myself. I don't think the comprehensiveness would suffer in this case if you were to remove the info about the hawk/egg predator study, but I'm fine with the primary source staying. delldot talk 19:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed a couple (can't find an earlier clade), try to get the rest done tomorrow. Just to add to the "sources" comment, even with a reasonably well-known group like this, if you take away the primary sources, there's very little apart from Harrap & Quinn for most of the many Asian species, and comprehensiveness becomes an issue.jimfbleak (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, if others think it's fine, I'm fine with it too. delldot talk 17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- as far as bird related sources go, the most useful thing about wikipedia articles at least from a research point of view are the links to primary sources, especially when there is a dearth of reviews or compilations (secondary/tertiary sources) to go by especially on ecological, behavioural and not to mention the ongoing work in phylogenetics.Shyamal (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, beautifully done jimfbleak. Sorry for the sentence length thing, it's incredibly frustrating to be given conflicting suggestions by reviewers. But I do think there's a balance to be struck, and I still think some sentences are too long. For example, The Western Rock Nuthatch builds an elaborate flask-shaped nest from mud, dung and hair or feathers in a rock crevice, cave, under a cliff overhang or on a building, and may decorate the exterior of the mud wall or nearby crevices and cracks with items such as feathers and insect wings. I should have been clearer before: it's not exactly a sentence's length that's the issue, rather how easy it is to follow. I think sometimes replacing commas with colons or semicolons can give the reader a little pause and can separate ideas more distinctly. I don't think the efforts are for naught; if the article's improving, that's a good thing, whether or not it passes this process. Having produced a piece of work of this quality is something you should be proud of whether or not it has a shiny sticker. Looks like Awadevit's going to give it a copy edit, I look forward to seeing it afterwards! delldot talk 15:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks for the kind words, Awadewit seems to have fixed the rock nuthatch sentence. jimfbleak (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
}} Thanks for addressing these. Let me know when Awadewit's through copyediting: I'll read it again and hopefully be able to give my complete support! delldot talk 15:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--reads clear as a bell now. Just a couple more issues I picked up on my last read-through:
There are some sentences in the table that end with periods, some that don't.
- The descriptions I've added full stops since some have one mid-way anyway. The ranges, I've left without full stops except for the single example of a complete sentence. Is this mad?
- Much better, but there's still a full stop after "Endemic to Burma" and "China, Burma, and Thailand" in the White-browed Nuthatch and Giant Nuthatch rows, I don't see how these are different from the other ranges in that column. Am I missing something? A very minor point anyway. And yes, where there's a full sentence keep the full stop. delldot talk 16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The descriptions I've added full stops since some have one mid-way anyway. The ranges, I've left without full stops except for the single example of a complete sentence. Is this mad?
Juveniles and first-year birds are difficult to distinguish from adults because they are almost identical--Can this sentence be made less redundant? Either remove the first half of the sentence or expand on how they're almost identical.
- fixed by User:Shyamal
However, two species are not strongly tied to woodlands: the two rock nuthatches breed on rocky slopes or cliffs, although both move into wooded areas when not breeding --this sentence has two, two, and both, I think some of these are redundant.
- fixed by User:Shyamal
- Brilliant job, folks. I trust you'll take care of these couple minor things even though I'm supporting. delldot talk 13:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This may be a sign of my ignorance, but why does the article start "The nuthatches are" instead of "The nuthatch is"? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is because it is a group name rather than dealing with something specific. Something like vehicle; hard to make that kind of article start in singular form. Shyamal (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? There's no grammatical reason why the noun shouldn't be in the singular. I was wondering if there were some other reason. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Might this be a BE difference? I know there are singular/plural differences between AE and BE. Awadewit (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- May be just style. One could have "A nuthatch is a member of the genus Sitta", and this approach seems to be followed in dictionaries. Here are some other comparable bird group articles:
- Huh? There's no grammatical reason why the noun shouldn't be in the singular. I was wondering if there were some other reason. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eagle - Eagles are large birds of prey which are members of ...
- Egret - An egret is any of several herons, ...
- Heron - The herons are wading birds in the Ardeidae family.
- Kite_(bird) - Kites are raptors with long wings ...
So the choice seem to be between:
- A group_member is a member of another_grouping_name ...
and
- Group_members are individuals with group_characters ...
with the bird people preferring the second form which appears to be more informative. Shyamal (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I have started to copyedit this article. I am a slow copyeditor, though, and I usually need several passes to really polish an article.
I also have a question about one of the images. It is getting cut off on my screen. Here is a screenshot. Awadewit (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My browser (FF3) like yours cuts off the sound button, I have no idea why.
- I have finished my first copyediting pass. This was just to work on some paragraph and sentence-level organization. I am now going to work on words and punctuation. Please check over the changes I made to make sure that I did not introduce any errors.
(Are there any videos of nuthatches hanging upside down? That would be awesome.) Awadewit (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be , but the only free video is the one linked from Blue Nuthatch. I'll check the changes when I do the next bit.
I think the lead needs to be a bit more of a summary of the article. For example, here are some major points of the article not mentioned in the lead: there are species boundaries issues; "The species diversity for Sittidae is greatest in southern Asia (possibly the original home of this family)"; the coloring of the nuthatch; the nesting practices of the nuthatch; etc. Awadewit (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll probably do this in the morning. Colouring probably too variable to summarise easily, but I'll look.
Do we have any idea regarding population sizes for each species? How many of these birds are there? (Is that a silly question?) Awadewit (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Potentially silly answer) Actually such estimates can vary widely and estimates tend to exist only where the species are rare, large and distinctive or the distribution range is small. Most ornithologists love to study species only when they get rare enough for the funding agencies to dole out money for research and at that stage there are few enough birds to count. Shyamal (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are estimates for the European and NAm, I'll add these to table. They are little more than educated guesses by the scientists. It defies belief that Red-breasted has twice the population of Eurasian, given the latter's enormous and tree-filled range. jimfbleak (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the table, are we going with "lower parts" or "underparts"?
- All changed to underparts
Is "eye stripe" one word or two? The article has both. I've checked several dictionaries and I think it is two words, but I wanted to make sure before I changed everything. Awadewit (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - This is a well-written, interesting article on nuthatches. I didn't know anything about nuthatches before I started copyediting it, but now I'm quite fascinated. I keep telling everyone I meet little factoids about nuthatches. :) The article has presented its information in an accessible and organized way. It is well-illustrated and the sources appear to be reliable. Thanks for the hard work put into this! Awadewit (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Even better than your usual work. Fantastic tabling and media use, in addition to good verification and sound prose. Steven Walling (talk) formerly VanTucky 04:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had a Nuthatch on the bird feeders in my garden for the second time in 20 years today, does that count as a support???? jimfbleak (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on images
Image:Krupersnuthatch.jpg - In the description, this just says "my own work". I assume it is by the uploader, Jimfbleak, but it would be good to make that explicit.
Image:Rocknuthatchmirror.jpg - This image should indicate what encyclopedia it is taken from ("1905 encyclopedia" is not very revealing!) and I believe it should also indicate that it is cropped. Was this book published in Germany? (Need to know to check the license.)
- I've added the page and book titles, Naumann was German, publication details can be found here jimfbleak (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is Naumann's entire name? I'm trying to verify that he has been dead long enough to allow this book to be in the public domain. Also, note that the source for the image indicates it was published in 1897, not 1905. Was this a multivolume encyclopedia or something? Sorry to be so picky, but we have to get the details right!
- Johann Friedrich Naumann died 15 August 1857. He published The Natural History of German Birds between 1820-1844, so presumably multi-volume. I don't know why the dates on the website are after his death, presumably a later posthumous edition (I don't read German). This source hasn't had problems anywhere else, but if you're not happy, remove the image. Thanks, jimfbleak (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is Naumann's entire name? I'm trying to verify that he has been dead long enough to allow this book to be in the public domain. Also, note that the source for the image indicates it was published in 1897, not 1905. Was this a multivolume encyclopedia or something? Sorry to be so picky, but we have to get the details right!
- I've added the page and book titles, Naumann was German, publication details can be found here jimfbleak (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bluenuthhatch01.jpg - In the description, it would be better to say "Watercolor drawing by Jimfbleak", rather than "my watercolor drawing".
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Awadewit (talk • contribs) 12:59, July 24, 2008
- Oppose - formating concerns, i.e, a large table in the middle of the text before any of the important information is not encyclopedic and makes pleasure reading difficult. I have concerns over the pictures (some are way too large) and the shortness of topics such as description. Final picture is not alternated. Plus, references aren't harvnb citation style for those that can be, i.e. there isn't a template there, which would be necessary. Also, you rely heavily on only a few books, when there are tons of "bird guides" and other resources out there, which seems to suggest that the page is not as comprehensive as it should be. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that many of the images are thumbnails, which means you control the size in your Preferences. --Laser brain (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that is incorrect. They are set by default at 180px, unless they have a px tag. However, those images are not set at that, and wont be for most people. For instance, the one is set at "275px", which overrides any controls. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I know that. The two I checked randomly did not have sizes specified, hence my word many, not all. Which images do you think are too large? --Laser brain (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The red-breasted nuthatch with the media file is forced to 275px because otherwise the image and the media file are cut off on some screens. See the discussion above. Awadewit (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One image still seems to stick out, and the final image isn't alternated. Now, the rest of the problems mentioned haven't been addressed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The description section for the family as a whole has to be short, since the 24 species have few shared characteristics. The information on the individual species is in the table. There are "tons of bird guides" out there, but most are field guides which are mainly intended for identification and specific to a particular country's avifauna; they do not give much behavioural information. Harrap and Quinn is the standard text for this family, and for 15 Asian species I know of no other source giving details of breeding biology, diet etc. Even for the Eurasian Nuthatch, there is no other serious life-history text apart from Snow and Perrins (for the European part of its range only, and that's largely based on Harrap and Quinn). "tons of field guides" is unhelpful, please point me to ones I've missed that give the information, are not based on Harrap, and give life histories for the Asian species. Or are you saying that Harrap is not comprehensive enough? jimfbleak (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I know that. The two I checked randomly did not have sizes specified, hence my word many, not all. Which images do you think are too large? --Laser brain (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that is incorrect. They are set by default at 180px, unless they have a px tag. However, those images are not set at that, and wont be for most people. For instance, the one is set at "275px", which overrides any controls. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comprehensiveness - comment is unhelpful, seems unfounded. What information is both available and missing? There are no sources I can find (and I did a great deal of research) that add anything significant to what is already here - eg there is nothing for the family as a whole, on, say, parasites and diseases. Again please be more specific about what reliable texts or other detailed sources you think I have omitted to use. jimfbleak (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't understand the references comment -what's wrong? - the article has been intensively reviewed and copyedited. How does it deviate from Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines? jimfbleak (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (copied from talk) I've moved species list as suggested, makes sense. On comprehensiveness, I think you miss the point. The article is about the genus as a whole, not individual nuthatch species, which have their own articles. I could easily write an article this length for Eurasian Nuthatch or any of the four American nuthatch species (it's the Asian ones which lack information - I note that of your links, only one was for an Asian species, one European, rest all American). The intention isn't to write every fact about every one of 24 nuthatch species - for what it's worth, I found 65 articles/books on just Eurasian Nuthatch in my research. Looking at the refs you gave, I've actually dealt with, for example, cooperative breeding in Brown-headed, and locomotion for the group as a whole, and I can't see why I need multiple refs for the same info (not required by MoS). In fairness, it's not enough to say there are lots of sources I haven't used - there are probably several hundred given the size of this genus. I repeat, if there are specific aspects of the genus Sitta that I haven't covered and for which the information exists you should specify what is missing, otherwise you give me no way of actioning your concern. Thanks jimfbleak (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (copied from talk) If you feel that it is unactionable, then state so on the FAC, and Sandy will take that into consideration when she decides. However, there are a lot of books out there on the genus as a whole or provide information on the genus. I just feel that the topic could use some more detail. A lot of your references tend to be references linked to the same line, instead of providing more information. Feel free to say more and go into depth. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "except for the two species"
- "From mud, dung and hair or feathers, the Western Rock Nuthatch builds an elaborate flask-shaped nest whose exterior and nearby crevices it may decorate with feathers and insect wings." The word order (the opening phrase) is highly "marked": why? I've been struck down for using "whose" to refer to an inanimate object.
- Why the sudden future tense, in conflict with the previous tense? "This species will also nest in river banks or tree holes and will enlarge its nest hole if it is too small." If the bird is too small?
- Word order again: "Depending on the species, the eggs may be incubated by the female alone or by both parents, for 12 to 18 days." Put the last phrase without comma after "incubated". "are typically", not "may be".
- "For those few species for which data are available". "the few".
When I opposed above, it wasn't a complete fix-it list, but examples of why the whole text needed treatment. Why am I seeing lots of glitches in just one small sample of text under "Behaviour"? Tony (talk) 06:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I not sure that the for is necessary in British English, but I've changed it anyway. I agree about "From mud...", not sure where that came from. Fixed others as per comments. The article has had a detailed review from Delldot, and a copyedit from Awadewit, as per your original request jimfbleak (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps Laser brain could give it a once over? Awadewit (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I not sure that the for is necessary in British English, but I've changed it anyway. I agree about "From mud...", not sure where that came from. Fixed others as per comments. The article has had a detailed review from Delldot, and a copyedit from Awadewit, as per your original request jimfbleak (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to point out that with the recent image de-sizing, the red-breasted nuthatch image and media button were cut off on my screen. I explained this above, but someone de-sized it anyway. I have forced the size so that the entire image, the button, and the media help link are all visible. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, with a few minor comments.
- This reads awkwardly to me: "A 2006 review of Asian nuthatches suggested that there are still unresolved problems in nuthatch taxonomy and proposed splitting the genus Sitta. This suggestion would move ...". should that be something like "... with the proposal to split the genus ..."? What suggestion?
- "The law reduced bureaucracy and made it easier for developers to build tourism facilities ...". Shouldn't that be "tourist facilities"?
- "For the few species on which data are available ...". I know that data is strictly the plural of datum, but even the OECD now concedes the use of data as singular: "... data is available" certainly sounds much more natural to me anyway.
- Overall a nice, attractively laid out, and informative article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.