Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2007
September 2007
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lisa Gerrard Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Contralto
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 14:14, 17 September 2007.
Kraków
New improvements include: a much deeper copyedit with extended list of quality references complemented by inline citations, especially scholarly print sources and university/conference publications for the History, Economy, Government and Geography sections. The lead was expanded as an overview, summarizing most important points of the article. More informative captions were added to pictures. TOC was reduced in size due to greatly improved sections like Etymology, Economics, Transport, Geography and climate, Sports and the Administrative districts for which I've written two dozen new "daughter" articles (eight of them featured as DYK's). Since the last nomination all sections, especially the ones mentioned above, have been expanded upon according to reliable sources and balanced out in proportion to their prominence whenever necessary. Sections Government and Education were again, rewritten from scratch in a comprehensive manner. Images in all sections have been exchanged for quality ones based on new photo galleries in Wikimedia. The templates listed were also improved. The entire topic has been thoroughly covered in accordance with the featured article criteria not to mention numerous constructive comments provided by reviewers. --Poeticbent talk 16:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support
Object. The article has been significantly improved, and I believe in terms of content coverage it is comprehensive.But inline citations are still lacking. I count at least 15 paras w/out a single citation, some sections near the end are completly w/out citations. I will see what I can do about adding some citations, but I don't think I can find all that are needed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)- I will gladly help with all that. Please indicate where you find additional citations would be helpful, and I will start with the search right away. --Poeticbent talk 17:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I will work on the history section; please add at least one ref for each paragraph in the following sections that has no citations.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Done All sections and all paragraphs regardless of size are now supported with inline citations (almost 30 new items between the two of us). Additional sources can be found in most "daughter" articles. Thank you, Piotrus. --Poeticbent talk 23:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, great job. Changed to support.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 03:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not so great :-(( First of all see my comments on citations on the Talk:Kraków page. Secondly, it seems that the editors were bent on finding a different source as a reference for each, no matter how trivial, point. For example, the reference to the history of Jagiellonian Uni. was pointing to about half a sentence on a York (Canada) University page on student exchange. There is no shortage of primary sources (i.e. not regurgitated webpages), some of them are used in the article (e.g. A Concise History of Poland or Encyklopedia Krakowa) - why they are not used more extensively, possibly with page nnn added to facilitate searching? --Jotel 14:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose, most (if not all) concerns from the above have been already taken care of with your active participation, Jotel. Let me extend my personal thank you for your many happy returns. --Poeticbent talk 00:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- I will gladly help with all that. Please indicate where you find additional citations would be helpful, and I will start with the search right away. --Poeticbent talk 17:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose Neutral : although it looks nice and is almost ready for FA, I'm not very sure about some things: 1. is the list of airlines serving the Kraków airport so important in the main article?
2. I think list of Sejm members from Kraków constituency belongs to some sub-article.
3. I'm not also very sure if various budget details (except for general ones) aren't better for detailed article. MarkBA t/c/@ 15:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done These are excellent comments. Thanks. The whole paragraph on airport has been revamped accordingly. Section Economy (including city budget) has just been rewritten with new features and only general information about detail. The list of Sejm members from Section Government has been turned into a sub-article and replaced with relevant data. --Poeticbent talk 18:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
MOS breach – refs should immediately follow word, phrase or punctuation. Please also check and add missing retrieval dates as necessary to web sources. I can't work out for what is good comparing Kraków's population with voivodeship or nation-wide ones. I'd like to see some more detail on purely Kraków statistics and, if possible, some historical population. MarkBA t/c/@ 19:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Oh, and I'd suggest some re-arranging, particularly in Symbols and twin cities section (so ref list won't be blocked) or in Culture section. MarkBA t/c/@ 20:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done MOS breach has been fixed and section Symbols re-aranged. I removed regional and national statistics from section Demographics and replaced them with local ones going back 30 years, including new relevant data about population density in various districts. --Poeticbent talk 00:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Good job so far, but there is still work to do. Some refs (e.g. 19 or 23) do not have retrieval dates or other information (and be sure to link full dates as well). The word "south" isn't capitalised (Culture). I'm not sure if that UNESCO box is still needed as it is in both old town and Kraków articles. However, I feel that nominator made an effort to fix issues, and as such I'm changing my vote to (conditional) neutral, pending fixes. MarkBA t/c/@ 12:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)- Now I feel that this article is becoming more and more ready to the FA status, but still I see few things that do not fit well in my opinion; what strikes to me is this passage from Parks – "Planty is the best known park in Kraków" (wording/no reference) and lead, third paragraph – "It is a major centre of...Famous landmarks include..." reads like from a tourist guide (though section dedicated to architecture wouldn't be bad). MarkBA t/c/@ 19:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. There is an ongoing revert-war on the page. Some folks prefer to remove any mention of the fact that, unlike Warsaw or Dresden, Krakow was spared the ravages of WWII owing to the well-calculated manoeuvre of Ivan Konev. Furthermore, this vital fact from the city's history is replaced with commonplace rant about "Stalinist atrocities". I don't think the article should be promoted as long as this dispute is not resolved. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above fact is mentioned with wording that sounds neutral at present. The particulars of that fortunate though still debated episode in city's history are being worked on by editors in a "daughter" article called History of Krakow. The final take, I believe, will probably remain neutral, with only general historical highlights for the section as per FA criteria. --Poeticbent talk 15:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that a stable compromise has been reached; as Poeticbent noted, controversial details were split off to subarticle and them main article should be stable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral - This is generally an excellent article but I have a couple of reservations. First, Poeticbent, something you can and should do on your own is to bring the history up to date. I know there's a daughter article, and that's where this topic should be developed in full, but the city's history did not stop in the Bierut era. Probably 3-4 sentences will be enough. Second, and this involves Molobo, Piotrus, Irpen and all the usual suspects: do find a compromise version because the article should be relatively stable. (As an aside, Ghirlandajo: the mass rape, pillage and murder were real. No reason to dismiss mention of them as a "commonplace rant about 'Stalinist atrocities'", complete with scare quotes, though if your concern was purely an NPOV one I can respect that.) Third, maybe something on crime? How safe is the city, and do we have statistics on major offences? Finally, maybe the religious demographics. A table would be nice showing their evolution, but at least try to give present-day numbers (I assume most everyone's Catholic, but the word "Catholic" doesn't even appear in the article. It should). These are minor concerns, though, and I'm ready to support when they're addressed. Biruitorul 03:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Doing... A new paragraph on crime and public safety with official statistics and local sources has been added to section Government. Meanwhile, a new paragraph on religion, with some eye-opening statistics on catechism, was added to section Demographics. --Poeticbent talk 00:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Religion: not done properly. I do not care whether this subject is, or isn't, mentioned here. but if it is, the information should be pertinent to Cracow. Some "eye-opening statistics on catechism" are possibly interesting, but certainly not related to the town in question. The fact that the source is published in Cracow is neither here not there. --Jotel 10:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Jotel, please stop plastering multiple “oppose” votes in addition to the one you already put in earlier. It is dishonest to try to create an impression that there are even more “oppose” votes listed in this nomination. Going back to the question at hand, Kraków is the second largest city in Poland and as such, reflects all national trends. It would be impossible to separate the people of Kraków from the entire nation in terms of their religious affiliations and/or demographic profiles (as oppose to citing a glossary of local church buildings and other dead meat). I was encouraged to add a new info about religion in Kraków, and that’s what I did, using national statistics and not the local ones, because local ones don’t exist and won’t exist until Kraków turns into a city-state like Vatican. There’s no religion in Kraków aside from the religion in Poland, whether in schools, at peoples’ homes, or in churches, especially in teaching of catechism, and other country-wide programs. Readers who wish to learn about the city, will learn about the country of Poland as well, which isn’t difficult to understand. Now, for those reviewers who’d like to read my write-up on religion, please go to the history of the article (here) because Jotel deleted what I wrote. Repeatedly... just like the first time around.[1] --Poeticbent talk 22:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Religion: not done properly. I do not care whether this subject is, or isn't, mentioned here. but if it is, the information should be pertinent to Cracow. Some "eye-opening statistics on catechism" are possibly interesting, but certainly not related to the town in question. The fact that the source is published in Cracow is neither here not there. --Jotel 10:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Very close, but not quite yet. I agree with Biruitorul that a section on crime might be a good addition, and I definitely support adding a section about religious demographics and any related important historical/cultural information. Such a section is (IMHO) a good addition to any city or country article, but especially here since Poland is one of the more religious countries in Europe (at least from what I can tell.) The earlier disputed bit about the Red Army at the end of WW2 seems to be in pretty good shape right now, not too biased towards either side. It could stand a bit more detail though. All in all a very good article and just a hair's breadth away from getting my support vote. K. Lásztocska 04:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done and done. I found all your comments quite inspiring. Paragraph on crime including local statistics can be found in section Government. I expanded on section Demographics by adding a whole new paragraph (+1,635 char.) devoted to religion with some interesting statistics and census reports, supported by several new references and sources. --Poeticbent talk 00:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not yet. First of all, it requires a proofread for content:
- Did Napoleon really found the Duchy of Warsaw in 1815, as the article now says? On which of the Hundred Days did he do so? (Note: I doubt this is the date of the fall of the Duchy either; the Allies were at Leipzig by 1813.)
- The sentence in which this stands should be recast. Final prepositions are not forbidden, as the superstitious think; but it is clumsy.
- Is the Biennial Graphics Festival really an annual event?
- There are probably others.
- Second, we need to have the naming debate. The Polish Wikipedia uses pl:Nowy Jork and pl:Londyn; we really should Use English and say Cracow; it's embarassing not to. (This may require a decision to overrule the present guideline to accomplish its purpose; this is separate from other naming debates, in which it has been ignored altogether.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I rather strongly disagree that "Cracow" is the proper name to use for this article. "Krakow" (usually without the diacritical, but whatever) is how I've always seen it in modern English-language publications and thus apparently is (modern) common parlance in English. K. Lásztocska 02:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I would appreciate the opinion of an anglophone on this point; this English Wikipedia is, after all, intended for them. Webster's Third, btw, shows Cracow pronounced as [krā'kō]; it would be nice to see this included. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I rather strongly disagree that "Cracow" is the proper name to use for this article. "Krakow" (usually without the diacritical, but whatever) is how I've always seen it in modern English-language publications and thus apparently is (modern) common parlance in English. K. Lásztocska 02:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done Thank you Pmanderson for your insightful comments. The wrong date, the final preposition and the Biennial have been fixed. Btw, the Duchy of Warsaw remained in existence for a short period following Napoleon's ruinous retreat from Moscow and was partitioned again at the Congress of Vienna in 1
9- Addendum: There's nothing as reassuring in Wikipedia as the participation of even more contributors in our ongoing discussions. I'd like to encourage you Pmanderson to allow for this article to be acknowledged for what it is worth and brought to the attention of outside viewers in the process of refining our WP:NCGN guidelines. --Poeticbent talk 18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done is premature; I recommended a full proof-read. If Casliber or the WP:LC can say they've done one, that much can be struck. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Addendum: There's nothing as reassuring in Wikipedia as the participation of even more contributors in our ongoing discussions. I'd like to encourage you Pmanderson to allow for this article to be acknowledged for what it is worth and brought to the attention of outside viewers in the process of refining our WP:NCGN guidelines. --Poeticbent talk 18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've massaged the text a bit and supported below after my excellent tweaks (hehehe) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I forgot to mention also that the full proof-read was already performed once by our American colegue, Art LaPella from Template talk:Did you know, as of 22:18, 5 September 2007. My special regards to our friend Casliber. As a side note, watching the most recent edits to Infobox, I would appreciate if you, Pmanderson, consulted with our community, since that is the whole point? I do not understand why the American Heritage Dictionary is being promoted ahead of countless sources we've been discussing for months? --Poeticbent talk 21:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Then let him say so.
- I did not consult the American Heritage Dictionary, but the Pronouncing Gazeteer to Webster's Third; the OED doesn't have one. If there is a British equivalent, do add it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I forgot to mention also that the full proof-read was already performed once by our American colegue, Art LaPella from Template talk:Did you know, as of 22:18, 5 September 2007. My special regards to our friend Casliber. As a side note, watching the most recent edits to Infobox, I would appreciate if you, Pmanderson, consulted with our community, since that is the whole point? I do not understand why the American Heritage Dictionary is being promoted ahead of countless sources we've been discussing for months? --Poeticbent talk 21:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've massaged the text a bit and supported below after my excellent tweaks (hehehe) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, here I am and here is my edit. I have little experience with Featured Article procedure, but I have often rewritten foreign-sounding articles to sound as if an American had written them, along with other routine proofreading, and I have plaques and a trophy from winning spelling bees (but that's mostly automated these days anyway). Is that what you want to know? As for how Americans spell Krakow, I live near Seattle, U.S., which is almost as big as Krakow, and the Polish Wikipedia article is of course pl:Seattle. If Poles had another way to spell Seattle, how many other Poles would remember that spelling? How many Poles even know that Seattle is on an arm of the Pacific Ocean? My globe says Cracow and the map in my hall says Kraków (both say Warsaw not Warszawa). I asked my wife and she knew Krakow was in Poland (which is unusual - she once worked for Airborne Express) but she had no idea how to spell it. I finally coaxed her into trying and she said "Krackow". Due to immigration, Americans are familiar with Polish surnames using our own alphabet. They are long and full of seemingly random letters, especially z, w and c. Even I missed Brzezinski in a spelling bee. My point is, Americans are likely to look up the spelling of anything Polish, rather than try to remember it. Art LaPella 05:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks; your edit looks very useful. But it is for style; not for content, which is what I requested. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Congress of Vienna in 1915 ???--Jotel 09:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done Oops, sorry. I meant 1815 of course. --Poeticbent talk 18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fixes needed - hi. looks good. I've begun massaging the prose a bit to improve flow as it is clunky in places and needs to be more polished before it can get across the FA finish line (well, in my opinion anyway). I felt it was too time-consuming to list all examples - happy for me to continue? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- See here :-) --Jotel 12:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done I’d like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the tremendous amount of work you put into Kraków recently. Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 16:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support—But can you audit the spelling out of large numbers? I see "11", but "five thousand"; then "30,000". No period at end of captions that are not complete sentences (MOS). Tony 01:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Numbers, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Captions. Thanks, Tony. --Poeticbent talk 16:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support— prose vastly improved :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose on the grounds that, for an FA, the references are in a mess. Too often the quoted source does not support the article text and/or the source is effectively an open blog &c. I've tried to weed out some cases of this type, but my patience, enthusiasm and expertise are running out. --Jotel 14:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Needless to say I would like to help as much as I can. I would also like to work on parts of the article mentioned in earlier comments, that’s why knowing whether your vote is final would greatly improve my schedule and perhaps save a whole lot of time. You’ve been removing references supporting critical claims [2] with expressed opposition from other editors like myself and Piotrus, who requested Wikipedia:Verifiability and who already supported this nomination. Also, you’ve been deleting the work of others without replacing it with anything of substance.[3] I’m in a quandary here. Would you be interested in adding quality references when appropriate? Let us move just one step at a time and help each other if possible. --Poeticbent talk 17:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- If ref. 1 you mention contains any reference to the E&Y report, it must be well hidden somewhere on the site, anyway I could not find it. I'll be happy to see a clear link to the said report; as it was, the page the removed ref. was pointing to is a +- generic estate agents' blurb. Ref 2 was deleted because the document talked either about the voivodeship (or possibly the whole country), there was nothing there specific to Cracow. Yes, I'm guilty of deleting the work of others without replacing it with anything of substance as charged, but (a) that the WP's way (b) everybody is free to criticise the work of others without being able to do a better job oneself (a badly tailored suit comes to mind....). --Jotel 17:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- My answer Part 2: My vote is as final as is any WP article....I mean the text (references included) could change any time. If it does, I'll reconsider. As I said earlier, I'll try to find some better references but do not promise (a) to correct every occurrence of what I find unsatisfactory (b) any time-scale. To be blunt, I would not bother with all my editorial contributions if it weren't an FA candidate. The article, as it stands now, is of good quality, well above the average, and many miles better than what I ever wrote (or hope to write) for WP. But if an editor puts 'his/her' article forward as a shining example to the Wikipedians, it's (s)he who should put the most effort to satisfy reviewers. --Jotel 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- On the whole, the links Jotel removed in this compound diff don't seem very good; one of them is indeed a chat room in Polish, others are the city web site. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Needless to say I would like to help as much as I can. I would also like to work on parts of the article mentioned in earlier comments, that’s why knowing whether your vote is final would greatly improve my schedule and perhaps save a whole lot of time. You’ve been removing references supporting critical claims [2] with expressed opposition from other editors like myself and Piotrus, who requested Wikipedia:Verifiability and who already supported this nomination. Also, you’ve been deleting the work of others without replacing it with anything of substance.[3] I’m in a quandary here. Would you be interested in adding quality references when appropriate? Let us move just one step at a time and help each other if possible. --Poeticbent talk 17:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The article is great, but at first glance the leading picture in the infobox is pretty bland. It looks like it could be any one of dozens of European cities seen from a hill. Any chance of improvement there? Deuar 20:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done Below are but a few interesting pictures from the gallery in Commons,[4] with the new and the previously featured photograph. --Poeticbent talk 23:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
-
Just in from Commons. My most favourite alternative, now featured at Kraków -
-
-
My second most favourite alternative -
-
Former leading picture
- The second picture, the large yellow building with the arcade, is much the best image. The third could be any city with a glass box. I presume the large red domed building is Cracow Cathedral, but none of the images is striking, and the picture on the Cathedral's own article shows nothing else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's not the main, well known, cathedral. Soem other church in the old town I suppose. Deuar 21:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Out of the offers in the gallery, I'd vote for the Cloth Hall (PMAndersons's choice too). If suggesting anything else is allowed here, my vote would be for either the first or the last photo in the Main Market Square, Kraków article, with the latter being the final winner (just by a whisker...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotel (talk • contribs) 20:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- That last one of the Market Square is an excellent picture, probably a better representation of the city; but could we have the caption in English, please? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just so its easy to compare, here are those other two mages mentioned.
The first is the most visually appealing image imho, but I'm not sure how a wide one like that will match with an infobox. Failing that I'd go with the second of these, it gives a fair idea about both the old town, and the suburbs, and is not too bland. Deuar 21:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. This article is really improving, but it still fails on the following criteria:
- 1b. Comprehensiveness. Information about the city's industry, pollution, and large parts of history is missing.
- 1c. Factual accuracy. There major (and easy to correct) errors in the history section.
It could also use some more copy-editing. A more comprehensive list of possible improvements is on the to-do list below. — Kpalion(talk) 21:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Priority 1 (top)
|
Kpalion, what do you mean by the balloon statements, like: “There are still minor problems with grammar and style”? Please list the examples. I suggest you plunge into editing and claim at least some of the credit for your advanced skills of observation rather than spend time colouring boxes. Please look at how User:Jotel has been deleting virtually every paragraph I put into Kraków during both nominations; first about universities, than about demographics, religion, transportation, even women ratio, not a single new paragraph came through during last candidature. Do you really think you’re actually helping to bring this article closer to being featured? --Poeticbent talk 07:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 14:14, 17 September 2007.
Das Boot (film)
Self-Nomination: For me, this was one of the most powerful movies I have ever seen. It is a culturally significant film. I feel that the page is of appropriate length, the plot does not spew out all unnecessary facts, there are very good images, and it is very well linked.- JustPhil
15:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The subject is undoubtedly deserving, and the article is informative if somewhat overladen with jargon, but there are too many fair-use images for my liking. I think this should be given a peer review first. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, primarily due to a leghthly plot and lackluster referencing. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, article needs way better, inline, referencing. And are there really only 4 suitable sources that can be used for this article? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - The short Reception section is unsourced, saying one of the most important things about the whole movie, and such a short Reception section compared to the criticism doesn't give the impression this was a successful movie, even though it says it was (the criticism should be inside the Reception section). The article needs to be restructured—so many sections about trivial things (the accent..?) gives it a choppy read: those things should be integrated into Production. The Cast table is rather unwieldy, try a bland list like that of Casablanca. Two third party references isn't going to cut it. This is the kind of cleanup you need at Peer Review to pass at GA, so I'd highly recommend going there first. ALTON .ıl 06:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose for multiple reasons, listed below:
- Plot section is too lengthy, with unnecessary subsections and insufficient fair use rationale for all the non-free images used. Images used in the Plot section or elsewhere need to meet #8 at WP:NFCC to avoid being considered decorative, as it is here.
- The Reception section is pretty much nonexistent. There are no independent reviews stating why this film was so good, and such a section is of complete importance for such a prominent film.
- The Criticism section is hardly cited and not written in a very encyclopedic tone. This section has potential with its content, but a lot of work needs to be done to make it the best that Wikipedia has to offer.
- "German regional accents" should be cited and merged as part of Production since the director chose specific nationalities for his film.
- Music, if it really was a prominent part of the film, should be part of the Production section.
- Versions also needs citations and copy-editing. It should be in a Release section as to cover the topic better. Dubbings and subtitles should go to a Release section as well, with citation.
- Special effects / Sets and models should be part of a Production section, and "Special effects" is very misleading, from what I can see in the content -- this has more to do with production design.
- Special camera needs to go under Production, and content in both sections also need citations.
- The Cast section probably broaches indiscriminate territory, as most of the cast members are not notable for listing in an encyclopedic article. Generally, notable roles are those that have been commented upon independently, and this will usually be focused on the leading roles. Also, Das Boot as a career boost should be cited and combined with the appropriate Cast entries. There's no verifiable backing that Das Boot boosted these men's careers.
- This article fails to provide adequate referencing overall.
- This article has multiple non-free images which do not provide sufficient fair use rationale -- there are only brief descriptions and licensing tags for each image.
- Copy-editing is another concern, but the primary issue is that the content needs to be verifiable.
- A much better job can be done. I would suggest reviewing WikiProject Films' recent Featured Articles to serve as guides. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose this is probably the best submarine movie ever made, I've seen the English and German versions, but the article, just to start, needs better references.Rlevse 21:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 02:59, 11 September 2007.
FC Steaua Bucureşti
This article has undergone another FAC nomination a few months ago and it failed. However, this time, I feel that all FAC-criteria have been taken care of and that mistakes that lead to the previous FAC denial have been fixed. Thank you. Vladi 11:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. The history section is hopelessly POV, being written from a fan's perspective. There have been so many controversial things about Steaua, especially before 1989, when it was Ceauşescus' favourite team, or even before, but none of these issues were mentioned, except for this apologetic bit:
- Valentin Ceauşescu admitted in a recent interview that he had done nothing else than to protect his favourite team from FC Dinamo Bucureşti's sphere of influence
This is simply showing only one side's perspective. bogdan 19:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'll have to contradict with you. I believe the article is rich enough in footnotes and references in order not to be considered POV. Whether one is or is not a supporter of one of Steaua's rival teams does not entitle them, in my opinion to oppose an article simply out of this reason. Yes, I am a Steaua fan, but the History section is entirely based on references and I tried to maintain a neutral stance as much as possible. It has never been proven that Valentin Ceausescu (and in no way Nicolae Ceausescu!) was ever involved in the life of a team in unethical ways and the paragraph about him covers as much as one can cover about a controversial topic. However, if any user outside Romania (because you are Romanian) opposes the article specifying this reason, I shall look into it. Vladi 20:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just because an article is rich in footnotes and references doesn't mean it can't be POV. BTW, thanks for considering my opinion not important and waiting for a user from outside Romania. bogdan 20:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- And how exactly do you find this POV? I have no knowledge whether an article has the benefit of doubt over its POV-ness. If you have any suggestions where to find any articles marked "not POV" underneath, I will be glad to refer to them. And I said I waited for someone outside Romania not because of me being an anti-Romanian (because I too am Romanian), but because of the fierce rivalry existent among the 3 major Bucharest teams, which makes any article written about them vulnerable to unjust comments on behalf of fans of rival teams coming from Romania. And you using the term apologetic about a sentence which, in my opinion, has nothing special about it, made me, without accusing you of anything, think about it. Vladi 20:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- So you think that only fans of Steaua should edit the article on Steaua, right? Well, WP:NPOV says that in cases like this, NPOV is achieved when all parties reach a consensus. bogdan 20:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you give me a copy-paste of where I said only Steaua fans were entitled to edit the article, I'll retreat it from the list. I was referring to the fact the it has never been proven that Ceausescu was involved in the life of the team using unethical methods. Unfortunately, information outside Romania regarding this topic is simply anectodal. Neither do us, Romanians know much about the true reality of Communist years, but until something has been proven, no one can claim it is official and reliable information. However, I will take your advice into consideration and add one or two sentences to the section. Vladi 20:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's certain Steaua did have some unethical advantages over other teams, the extent of them is debatable. One of these advantages was that they were allowed to take gifted younger footballers from other teams and gave them two choices: to do the military service in a regular unit or to play for Steaua. Some of them stayed for Steaua even after military service (not all, though: for example, Gica Popescu quickly returned to Craiova after playing for Steaua for some months). bogdan 21:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is a whole different story and it's about sports during Communism. You are referring to the fact that players would not move between teams as they do today, in a capitalistic fashion. Clubs were not companies and players were not professional. Therefore players would move to a different team only as arrangements between the governing trade unions of the respective clubs. Players did come to Steaua using this procedure in the same way they moved to teams of Ministry of Internal Affairs, which was the supreme body for sports back then (namely Dinamo), student teams (Sportul Stud., Univ. Craiova, Poli Timisoara, U Cluj) and yes, even workers' teams (Rapid, Otelul, FC Brasov, etc.) And this is exactly what I was arguing: that any implication of Ceausescu, even though possible, is, at the moment, nothing more than debatable. I hope that the supplements I made to the text though are good enough. Vladi 21:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am aware of the differences in the system. I just say it would be notable to say that the system was skewed in favour of Steaua and Dinamo, who were allowed to take players from other clubs without their club's consent (e.g. Gheorghe Hagi) and sometimes even the player's consent (e.g. Gica Popescu). Rapid, Craiova or other teams did not have this privilege. bogdan 08:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done There. :) I created a new section called HISTORICAL CONTROVERSIES in which I pretty much explained all these debates. Hope I managed to keep a neutral stance. Let me know if there's anything else. Vladi 10:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am aware of the differences in the system. I just say it would be notable to say that the system was skewed in favour of Steaua and Dinamo, who were allowed to take players from other clubs without their club's consent (e.g. Gheorghe Hagi) and sometimes even the player's consent (e.g. Gica Popescu). Rapid, Craiova or other teams did not have this privilege. bogdan 08:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is a whole different story and it's about sports during Communism. You are referring to the fact that players would not move between teams as they do today, in a capitalistic fashion. Clubs were not companies and players were not professional. Therefore players would move to a different team only as arrangements between the governing trade unions of the respective clubs. Players did come to Steaua using this procedure in the same way they moved to teams of Ministry of Internal Affairs, which was the supreme body for sports back then (namely Dinamo), student teams (Sportul Stud., Univ. Craiova, Poli Timisoara, U Cluj) and yes, even workers' teams (Rapid, Otelul, FC Brasov, etc.) And this is exactly what I was arguing: that any implication of Ceausescu, even though possible, is, at the moment, nothing more than debatable. I hope that the supplements I made to the text though are good enough. Vladi 21:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's certain Steaua did have some unethical advantages over other teams, the extent of them is debatable. One of these advantages was that they were allowed to take gifted younger footballers from other teams and gave them two choices: to do the military service in a regular unit or to play for Steaua. Some of them stayed for Steaua even after military service (not all, though: for example, Gica Popescu quickly returned to Craiova after playing for Steaua for some months). bogdan 21:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you give me a copy-paste of where I said only Steaua fans were entitled to edit the article, I'll retreat it from the list. I was referring to the fact the it has never been proven that Ceausescu was involved in the life of the team using unethical methods. Unfortunately, information outside Romania regarding this topic is simply anectodal. Neither do us, Romanians know much about the true reality of Communist years, but until something has been proven, no one can claim it is official and reliable information. However, I will take your advice into consideration and add one or two sentences to the section. Vladi 20:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- So you think that only fans of Steaua should edit the article on Steaua, right? Well, WP:NPOV says that in cases like this, NPOV is achieved when all parties reach a consensus. bogdan 20:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- And how exactly do you find this POV? I have no knowledge whether an article has the benefit of doubt over its POV-ness. If you have any suggestions where to find any articles marked "not POV" underneath, I will be glad to refer to them. And I said I waited for someone outside Romania not because of me being an anti-Romanian (because I too am Romanian), but because of the fierce rivalry existent among the 3 major Bucharest teams, which makes any article written about them vulnerable to unjust comments on behalf of fans of rival teams coming from Romania. And you using the term apologetic about a sentence which, in my opinion, has nothing special about it, made me, without accusing you of anything, think about it. Vladi 20:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just because an article is rich in footnotes and references doesn't mean it can't be POV. BTW, thanks for considering my opinion not important and waiting for a user from outside Romania. bogdan 20:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'll have to contradict with you. I believe the article is rich enough in footnotes and references in order not to be considered POV. Whether one is or is not a supporter of one of Steaua's rival teams does not entitle them, in my opinion to oppose an article simply out of this reason. Yes, I am a Steaua fan, but the History section is entirely based on references and I tried to maintain a neutral stance as much as possible. It has never been proven that Valentin Ceausescu (and in no way Nicolae Ceausescu!) was ever involved in the life of a team in unethical ways and the paragraph about him covers as much as one can cover about a controversial topic. However, if any user outside Romania (because you are Romanian) opposes the article specifying this reason, I shall look into it. Vladi 20:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I think there are many things wrong or missing... I think it would need a peer-review from an expert and I'm certainly not one. I could name a few things:
- Gigi Becali sold Steaua in 2005 to his nephews in order to avoid being impounded by the tax authority, together with other assets of him. "Gigi Becali si-a vandut toate actiunile de la Steaua nepotilor sai" (prosport)
- AFC Steaua had a dozen million euros of unpaid taxes and to avoid paying them, a new company was set up and received the assets of old Steaua. The old association filed bankruptcy and never paid its debts. "Romanii platesc datoriile Stelei" (evz)
- An FA should be comprehensive on such things, not just have the history as it is presented on the official site. bogdan 19:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done Nice to see you again. I admit you may be right on some topics. I edited the OWNERSHIP section with the information needed and I also added some lines about the racism-related issues around the fans. However, if you compare the history section on the official website and the one presented here, you'll notice an important difference. Also, the article has been peer reviewed a few weeks ago ([5]) and the problems raised there have been taken care of. Vladi 16:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, are you sure the chairman of Steaua is Gigi Becali? A google search shows the name of the Executive Director and President of the Administrative Council of Steaua is Valeriu Argăseală. bogdan 14:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done Been meaning to change that for a while actually. Vladi 16:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 02:18, 9 September 2007.
Franco-Mongol alliance
A little known but fascinating event of the 13th century. PHG 08:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support per nomination PHG 05:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Lead section is too short. Many paragraphs have no references. Some sentences are POV (e.g. "In 1253, Louis, following his disastrous Crusade, desperately looked for allies." and "Overall, Edward's crusade was rather insignificant and only gave the city of Acre a reprieve of ten years.") or confusing ("offering the Franks a 10 year truce (which he would later breach), a truce they accepted" and "and furthermore Arghun died on March 10th"). Please try for GAC first. --Kaypoh 11:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done, 102 references now, with no paragraphs without reference I believe. POV or confusing sentences corrected and referenced. Thank you. PHG 14:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment:
- 2 books which appear foreign in nature are used as references for the article. There are no english alternatives? Foreign books make it hard to verify the article and to pursue the topic through further reading. Also if multitude of english sources are available then using foreign sources can become a comprehensiveness/reliability issue.
- The subject matter being primarily French, a few French sources (primary and secondary) are I guess quite acceptable. Of course French is also quite an accessible language for many English speaker wishing to check the material.PHG 16:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done, thanks to User:Elonka, several more English-language books with associated references have been added. PHG 19:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Continuing with the first point, an English written quote is references to one of the foreign books; citation 32 is one. Did you translate this quote yourself? I would prefer for academic sources to give translations, this quotations appear to be dated to the 13th century and probably require a linguistics expert to properly translate the quote to another language.
- Done. Good point. I am putting in the original French so that the translation can be verified by anyone. The 13th French is actually quite straitforward, making the translation an easy one.PHG 16:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Article is crammed with images. Why have an illustration Jacques de Molay, if the reader finds the subject so important as to pursue to see a sketch of him he can just click the wikilink to his article. I only prefer images that directly illustrate events of the article topic.
- Done.Thanks, I took it away.PHG 16:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- The lead is very poor. The leads gives practically background information instead of summarizing all the events presented in the article. Also that "what if" last sentence of the lead does not appear anywhere else in the article.
- Done. Thanks. I moved the "what if" to another part of the article. I improved the lead content so as to better reflect the content of the article.PHG 17:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- MoS issues, I would prefer you ask someone familiar with all the guidelines to review the article. Single dates are wikilinked, things are wikilinked that shouldn't: Mongol Empire is wikilinked 1/4th into the article for no reason.
- Done. Thanks. I took out the redundant links to Mongol Empire. PHG 17:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
74.13.91.146 16:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment:
- The MOS issue with autoformatting dates mentioned above has not been addressed. There are many stand-alone years wikilinked, particularly in the lead, and full dates not correctly formatted, e.g., June 12th, 1221 in the Early Contacts (1209–1244). --Malleus Fatuarum 11:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done, all dates cleaned up I believe. PHG 20:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent! Well-researched and referenced and beautifully illustrated article on a fascinating and poorly-known subject. It should be of interest to many readers and will undoubtedly promote a deeper understanding of the long history of East-West relations. It should also help to correct the Eurocentric world view of many English speakers. John Hill 03:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. I can tell that a lot of work has gone into this article, and it appears to be well-sourced, but I'm afraid that many of the sources are not reliable ones. I cannot speak for all of the information in the article, but I am well-versed on Templar history (having been the primary editor to bring the Knights Templar article to FA status), and some of the information here about the involvement of the Templars and Jacques de Molay does not at all jibe with my sources. To my knowledge, there was no "retaking of Jerusalem by the Templars in 1299". De Molay was never "left in Jerusalem." I spent several hours last night reviewing my most reliable sources about Templar/Mongol involvement, and the actuality appears to be that De Molay was campaigning in Europe for a retaking of Jerusalem, but he could not muster sufficient support. The Templars, based in Cyprus when they received news that the Mongols took Jerusalem in 1299, were indeed hopeful that the Mongols were going to give Jerusalem back to the Christians, and rumors flew fast and furious,[8] but that was about the extent of it. I am open to being proven wrong here, but I've been looking at the sources that this Franco-Mongol alliance article provides, and they're just not good ones. Most of the Templar information appears to be sourced to personal websites,[9][10] And even if the Templar section were completely removed, I would still be adamantly opposed to this article being approved for FA status, unless the rest of the sources were scrutinized as well. --Elonka 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. You are rightly pointing to an area of the article where more sources would be welcome (the involvement of Molay in the 1299 campaings): today we have a specialized site on the Templars [11], and the French Center of Development in Arts and Medieval Culture [12]. I also found a painting in Versailles showing the conquest of Jerusalem by de Molay in 1299 Image:JacquesMolayPrendJerusalem1299VersaillesMuseeNationalChateauEtTrianons.jpg. Also included in the article is a JSTOR article claiming that the event actually did not happen, although it was widely publicized at that time in Europe [13]. More sources would of course be welcome, and I will be glad to discuss and enrich this part, or any part of the article. And of course all references in this article are genuine, you can check them very easily. Best regards PHG 19:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your courtesy. I acknowledge that the references exist; however, I challenge the reliability of some of them. Especially where the Templars are concerned, it is quite routine for sources to be promoting speculative information as fact. I've checked over a dozen books now, and am quite confident in stating that there was no re-taking of Jerusalem in 1299. All of my sources agree, that when the Turks took Jerusalem in 1244, that the city was never again under Christian control, until the British took it from the Ottomans in the early 20th century. --Elonka 08:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done. I eliminated the questionable references (mainly online Templar sites), in favor of recognized published sources (thanks Elonka for the references). The capture of Jerusalem was modified to something like "rumors of the capture of Jerusalem" to properly reflect available sources. Thanks again. PHG 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your changes, but this article still needs considerable work before it can reach featured status, especially considering that it was just created a couple weeks ago. I greatly appreciate PHG's sincere good faith efforts to address concerns, but trying to make quick fixes in the middle of the FA process, when there are such strong concerns about content issues, is not the best way for us to be proceeding at this point. The article is promoting a point of view that I just don't think is backed up by modern reliable sources. The article states that there was a strong alliance between the French and the Mongols, and I'm sorry, but there just wasn't such a thing, despite what may be claimed in Runciman's book. I can point to multiple reliable sources which state that there was a desire for an alliance, but that it never came to fruition. The article also makes heavy use of duplicated references, and too many places where there is just a link that says "Source" that is simply a link to an unspecified webpage. I also still have many strong concerns about the Templar information in the article. I am extremely willing to work with PHG to help improve things, but I'm afraid I have to insist that this article just isn't anywhere near FA status yet. It is my strong recommendation that we slow things down here a bit. Let's withdraw the FA nom, work on improving the article, put it through a Peer Review and the GA process first, and then take another run at FA. I firmly believe that this will be an excellent article, but it's going to take some time to find out where the consensus is. --Elonka 20:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for your comments. I took away all the "Source" mentions in favour of precise descriptions. For your other reasons for opposition to be valid, they have to be actionable. Many article have passed FA within 2 weeks from creation. I find that FA nomination is a great time to get the attention of many knowledgeable editors and to bring an article to top condition (lot of work within 1 or 2 weeks though!!) If improvements have to be made, let's make them now. Your comments and modifications are welcome to improve the content of the article. Regards PHG 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I do not think that you have adequately addressed my stated concerns. My oppose stands. And please, don't reply to me with "Done." --Elonka 21:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- No offense intended. The "Done" answers to your actionable request about replacing "Source" mentions by more detailed descriptions. PHG 06:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I do not think that you have adequately addressed my stated concerns. My oppose stands. And please, don't reply to me with "Done." --Elonka 21:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your changes, but this article still needs considerable work before it can reach featured status, especially considering that it was just created a couple weeks ago. I greatly appreciate PHG's sincere good faith efforts to address concerns, but trying to make quick fixes in the middle of the FA process, when there are such strong concerns about content issues, is not the best way for us to be proceeding at this point. The article is promoting a point of view that I just don't think is backed up by modern reliable sources. The article states that there was a strong alliance between the French and the Mongols, and I'm sorry, but there just wasn't such a thing, despite what may be claimed in Runciman's book. I can point to multiple reliable sources which state that there was a desire for an alliance, but that it never came to fruition. The article also makes heavy use of duplicated references, and too many places where there is just a link that says "Source" that is simply a link to an unspecified webpage. I also still have many strong concerns about the Templar information in the article. I am extremely willing to work with PHG to help improve things, but I'm afraid I have to insist that this article just isn't anywhere near FA status yet. It is my strong recommendation that we slow things down here a bit. Let's withdraw the FA nom, work on improving the article, put it through a Peer Review and the GA process first, and then take another run at FA. I firmly believe that this will be an excellent article, but it's going to take some time to find out where the consensus is. --Elonka 20:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your courtesy. I acknowledge that the references exist; however, I challenge the reliability of some of them. Especially where the Templars are concerned, it is quite routine for sources to be promoting speculative information as fact. I've checked over a dozen books now, and am quite confident in stating that there was no re-taking of Jerusalem in 1299. All of my sources agree, that when the Turks took Jerusalem in 1244, that the city was never again under Christian control, until the British took it from the Ottomans in the early 20th century. --Elonka 08:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. You are rightly pointing to an area of the article where more sources would be welcome (the involvement of Molay in the 1299 campaings): today we have a specialized site on the Templars [11], and the French Center of Development in Arts and Medieval Culture [12]. I also found a painting in Versailles showing the conquest of Jerusalem by de Molay in 1299 Image:JacquesMolayPrendJerusalem1299VersaillesMuseeNationalChateauEtTrianons.jpg. Also included in the article is a JSTOR article claiming that the event actually did not happen, although it was widely publicized at that time in Europe [13]. More sources would of course be welcome, and I will be glad to discuss and enrich this part, or any part of the article. And of course all references in this article are genuine, you can check them very easily. Best regards PHG 19:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm suprised that Lev Gumilev's name is not mentioned. He was one of the first to write at length about the joint French-Mongol activities in Syria and the rest of the Middle East. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have no knowledge of Gumilev's work, but would be glad if we could incorporate it if it is relevant to the subject-matter. PHG 19:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose and recommend article review. I was surprised by this rather sweeping statement The Mongols had been proselytised by Christian Nestorians since about the 7th century and many of them were Christians which is certainly counterintuitive and, although referenced, lacks a page citation. According to the CIA World Factbook, modern Mongolian religious practice is 6% for Christianity and Shamanism combined. The closest parallel to this topic I know in any depth is Mongol invasion of Rus and the sources I studied agreed with that article: Christianity played little role (if any) in the religion of thirteenth century Mongolia, and the extent that any Christians appeared among Genghis Khan's extended family was probably due to dynastic alliances with noble houses in conquered Christian lands. As Elonka expresses, it appears to be possible to find sources that assert the contrary, a minority of which satisfy WP:RS, but I'm far from convinced that this article represents a WP:NPOV treatment. To the nominating editor, although it appears you did a great deal of work bringing the article this far and I respect that effort, if your response is to add a page notation to the specific line I questioned and reply with a done template I'll revise this opinion to strong oppose. Elonka knows her area in considerable depth and consulted a variety of sources before replying. I'd like to see a wider range of sources listed as references and I'd like to see this FAC withdrawn for more serious revisions. The first try doesn't always succeed, so please keep going. Best regards from the main contributor to the featured Joan of Arc article, DurovaCharge! 05:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Durova. I am afraid it is a well documented fact that the Mongols were proselytised by Christian Nestorians since about the 7th century, although I agree it is counter-intuitive, and may surprise a lot of people. And modern figures from the CIA World Book have little relevance here. Christianity among the Mongols is part of the broader phenomenon of the expansion of Christianity to the East before the Middle East, also examplified by the history of Christianity in China. A great modern source is Foltz, Richard (2000): "Religions of the Silk Road : overland trade and cultural exchange from antiquity to the fifteenth century". Also "The Silk Road", Francis Wood, p.118 (among others) "William of Ribruk was shocked to discover that there were, indeed, Chirstians at the Mongl court, but that they were schismatic Nestorians" etc... A great medieval source was translated in "The Monks of Kublai Khan Emperor of China", Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, Online. Probably what is not known so well is the actual extent of the Christian religion among the Mongol populace in the 13th century, but Christianity among the Mongol elite is well documented (most of the wives and mothers of the Khans, some of the Mongol generals such as Kitbuqa, as detailed and referenced in the article). Regards PHG 05:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Durova. Since you made your comment on the Mongols and Christianity, I added about 10 new references with actual quotes. Please kindly check and comment, before I can consider myself actually Done :) Best regards PHG 10:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose at this moment Mainly criterion 1a - The prose is good, but not yet brilliant. At this stage this article (IMHO) would easily makes GA criteria. The topic is very interesting, and worth to be taken out of obscurity, and I compliment the editors for taking up this task. It is well researched, well sourced (although reliance on primary sources is not always best), seems reasonably neutral and comprehensive. However, I think some work is still needed (I agree with another editor here that the longer path through GA-candidacy, and a formal review may have been more appropriate). As stated above my main problem is in FA criterion 1a. Although the prose in itself seems of adequate quality the overall narrative of the article feels a bit 'choppy'. There is not always a good flow between the sections, and the first section after the lead starts out abrupt. An introduction that leads the reader into the important historical events should (IMHO) be a bit more catchy. Also the article now opens with the view of the mongols on the west. It may give a more balanced view if some "view of the Franks on Mongols" section was added. I hope and think that with some moderate level of copyediting to overcome this issue the article will make FA soon. Arnoutf 12:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 07:15, 4 September 2007.
Luxurious
I am nominating this article for the following reasons:-
- I Like the way the article is written and the information is very much sufficient. It in not over loaded with information.
- At one point of time, i doubted the length of the aticle, but when i saw that Hey Baby, which is exactly of the same length, is at FAC, then i felt, why not this article.
- This article is already GA and also A Class, and also had Peer Review.
- This article is part of a Featured topic. So beinf FA or this article became a priority.
Therfore, i kindly request and repect your comments. Thank You!. Luxurious.gaurav
- Oppose The article has several issues:
- Reference 6 does not appear to be a reliable source since it borrows from this very article without attribution (note the "(see 2005 in music)" comment that doesn't link anywhere).
DoneLuxurious.gaurav 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why is there a sentence about critical reception in the Music and lyrics section?
- Why can't it be used. The critical reception is used in order to prove (and in one way cite as well) the idea of the song being called hip hop. This sentence could not be used in critical reception part as it is not a reception.Luxurious.gaurav 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- There is little information about the music itself. For example, what chord progression does the song use?
- Is it a huge necessity? I was not able to find it, so it is not there. If we have the information, i is well and good. But it is not possible for all.Luxurious.gaurav 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- The second paragraph is primarily interpretation sourced to the lyrics themselves, which is a form of original research.
- Lyrics have been expalained in many song articles. I got a similar feeling with Hey Ya!. 17Drew 05:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm referring to the sentence that begins "The lyrics were well received." It doesn't present any new information about the lyrics, so it should go in a different section. Having information in an article about a song discussing the song itself is quite important. There is information about this stuff; I recommend looking for the sheet music, which is out there somewhere since it's cited in reference 7. Yes, articles should have interpretation, but only when sourced to secondary sources, as Hey Ya! does. Also note that "appropriate length" varies from one article to another (Hurricane Irene (2005) vs. Ketuanan Melayu). One would expect more information to be available for this song since it was released more recently, but I could be wrong since it didn't perform as well. 17Drew 19:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Lyrics have been expalained in many song articles. I got a similar feeling with Hey Ya!. 17Drew 05:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose lead and article seem rather short. The refs are inconsistent in format, for example, the web refs should all have publishers and retrieval dates.Rlevse 12:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Done. I have already mentioned about the length of the article. I saw other articles of the same length getting nominated. Luxurious.gaurav
MOS and possible copyright issue.
- Unspaced en dash in the infoblot should be spaced (MOS).
Done
- Please remove final period from captions that aren't complete sentences (MOS).
- IMV, the numbers 10 and over would be more readable if numerals (MOS recommends, although doesn't insist). Sits oddly with "Hot 100", "Top 40".
Done
- Is the YouTube external link an infringement of copyright? Tony 13:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- The YouTube video was posted by universalmusicgroup. 17Drew 16:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 04:56, 3 September 2007.
2007 Canadian Grand Prix
Re-nominating. Have fixed the minor issues raised. Buc 15:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Where is it cited that four safety cars is 'unprecedented'? I browsed through some of the refs but couldn't find one. --Golbez 15:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Done Buc 16:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - The issues raised last time were not minor, they were major lack of coverage of a very dramatic race. Many safety cars occurred, many passes occurred and each time, the complexion of the race changed a lot. From reading the article one cannot understand how the race evolved from start to finish. One would have to think....how did the Super Aguri of Sato end up in front of Alonso
Done
- and at one point was ahead of Raikkonen's Ferrari and lapping faster and passing people?
Done
- How did Wurz and Kovalainen end up in front of much faster Ferrari and McLaren. A person who did not watch the race on TV or video would not understand how the result came to be. It was a very complicated race and the race report would need to be at least three times longer to be understandable in terms of what happened. There were also some incidents in the later part of the race where Trulli and Liuzzi
- Already mentioned Buc 09:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- crashed and Alonso went grasscutting and landmowing while trying to pass Webber? and then falling back again.
- The one on lap 1? Buc 09:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Done
- According to one/6738963.stm this BBC timeline, Alonso went off at the first corner on laps 1, 14 and 18. The article only says that he went 'ran wide' on lap 1, which is a bit of an understatement, he ran right off the track, and that he 'made mistakes' on laps 14 and 18 - again he went right off track. I don't know if that's what Blnguyen was referring to, but it should certainly be described rather more precisely than in the current version of the article, as it is in these three race reports: Story.aspx?PO=39583 www.itv-f1.com, one/6738963.stm www.bbc.co.uk and www.grandprix.com. 4u1e 15:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link I've added it in. Buc 14:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- According to one/6738963.stm this BBC timeline, Alonso went off at the first corner on laps 1, 14 and 18. The article only says that he went 'ran wide' on lap 1, which is a bit of an understatement, he ran right off the track, and that he 'made mistakes' on laps 14 and 18 - again he went right off track. I don't know if that's what Blnguyen was referring to, but it should certainly be described rather more precisely than in the current version of the article, as it is in these three race reports: Story.aspx?PO=39583 www.itv-f1.com, one/6738963.stm www.bbc.co.uk and www.grandprix.com. 4u1e 15:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- There was another grasscutting by Alonso after the final SC but the report doeen't include. Actually since so much happened, it doesn't include a lot of things in htis unusual case because so much happened. Does anyone have a video of the race around still. I presume that's how ppl wrote episode summaries of the those Simpsosn FAs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Never knew about that so there isn't much I can do. Would need a ref anyway. Buc 17:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Can't see why this was re-started. The previous FAC wasn't all that long or complicated, all that the re-nomination has achieved is to make me look in two places to see whether previously raised points have been addressed. <shrug> 4u1e 15:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- 4u1e, it was 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix was restarted, not this FAC!! Davnel03 19:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ah - the previous FAC was a fail, then? My apologies, in that case. Cheers. 4u1e 08:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Not happy with the writing yet. Samples:
- "despite him reporting that the car was"—ungrammatical: "despite his report that the car was" or "despite his reporting that the car was".
- MOS breach—spaced a.m., etc., which will then require a spaced en dash.
- "with a position in-between the two Honda cars"—Remove the hyphen.
- "Sixteenth", but "19th". Where is your numeral/spelling-out boundary? See MOS. Tony 05:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Done
Oppose - Far from a professional standard of writing. Some examples from early in the article (there are more later on):
- From the lead The race was filled with many incidents resulting in an unprecedented four safety car periods,[2] including the violent impact of Robert Kubica's BMW Sauber against a concrete retaining wall, that he escaped with a sprained ankle and concussion. - The race was filled with many incidents comes across as a bit of a weak sentence and I don't think the latter part (that he escaped with...) even makes sense.
Done
- BMW Sauber were pleased with 5th place then 7th place from Nick Heidfeld—despite his report that the car was was "very difficult to drive", - I think this is trying to say he got 5th in the first session and 7th in the second but it could do with being made clearer. No idea what the purpose of the dash is though.
{{done}
- Robert Kubicas car suffered a fuel leak- 'Possessive form of a singular noun' here so it should be Kubica's car.
Done
- a failure continuing his run of form during this race weekend - This comes under the practice session so I'm guessing it means that it was a sign of things to come but it's worded terribly.
Done
- In qualifying Hamilton took his first ever pole position as part of a McLaren one-two. It was his first pole position. Not necessary to use ever.
Done
- Heidfeld had an improved drive to take third position He had an improved drive? Again this comes across as awkward and on the verge of not making sense. Heidfeld improved on his practice performance to take third position is clearer.
Done
- In the qualifying the bit about DC's braking problem is half-mentioned in two paragraphs. Do it all together in one paragraph and explain it clearly.
Done
- Takuma Sato, once again out-qualifying the two Honda cars and just missed out on the top ten, in front of Vitantonio Liuzzi. Tense and structure are wrong.
Done
- Referencing is also badly done throughout. In one paragraph we have [10][11][12][10][12][12][10][11][14] scattered throughout. This is a lot of repetition so unless absolutely necessary to go at the end of the sentence move them to the end of the paragraph. Also check that if the job done by [11] for example is also covered by [10] and [12] then remove [11]. This is a problem right through the article and breaks up the readability of the prose.
- Is this part of FA criteria? Buc 14:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
At present this is definitely not an example of Wikipedia's best work. It just about scrapes past GA's "reasonably well written" criteria (although parts are close to not making sense) but is far from being featured yet. AlexJ 11:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - this image. Is there a alternative to this image which is OK to use that are good against Wikipedia guidlines. Have you look on Flickr for an alternative to use? I also can't help but to strongly agree with AlexJ's comments. You should of gone to Peer review (a mistake I regret making when heading straight for FAC with Malaysia GP). Oh you did go to peer review - only problem is you failed to list it - that's why it got zero comments. The only comment was from me - and that stated that I had to list it because you never. Davnel03 11:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - Fails 1a right from the off, the image status is still unclear, and it also needs a lot of work to comply with 4. The most difficult aspect that this article wll come up against is the stipulation that successful FA candidates are well written and are "engaging, even brilliant, and of professional standard". This is not. If I were to choose a word beginning with P, it would be "pedestrian". The prose is functional, at best, and more than occasionally slips into magazine-tone and jargon. Examples of the latter, such as "got off the grid ", are rife, and weasel words abound (e.g. how on Earth did "Possibly frustrated by dropping back to third" ever get through GA??
- What's wrong with it?
- Have you read WP:WEASEL? Pyrope 18:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Is "Possibly" a WW? Buc 19:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is, and moreover it is speculation and unsubstantiated. If you can find a source that directly links the two events in this way then us a citation, if you can't then try rephrasing it to intimate a link, without directly doing so. Pyrope 20:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Is "Possibly" a WW? Buc 19:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Have you read WP:WEASEL? Pyrope 18:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- What's wrong with it?
- FA is supposed to showcase the best articles that Wikipedia has to offer, it is not a cub scout badge that you gain by ticking a few boxes.
- Never said it was. Buc 18:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- But you have treated it as such ever since this FAC process started. Most times, when a problem has been raised, instead of discussing how it might be made better you have simply come back with a fatuous green tick and the word "done". You are actually ticking things! I have deliberately made my comments abstract, rather than specific, as I believe that this article's failings are intrinsic and deep-rooted, and probably require that the article is rewritten in a more lively an engaging style. Pyrope 18:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- But users were pionting out problems and the problems have been fixed. What eles am I supposed to do? It's not unusual to see this on FAC pages. I never said that by doing that the article would pass. Raul is looking for Support not stuff being done. Buc 19:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I know, unfortunately. It would be far better to leave a comment outlining what you have changed, maybe providing a link to the differences, and then let the reviewing editor decide whether or not you have altered it to their satisfaction. Then they can chose whether or not to change their opinion. By adding giant ticks and bold Done you are effectively trying to bully the decision out of them. If they don't drop back to see for themselves, then a polite request on their talk page is usually all it takes. Pyrope 21:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- But users were pionting out problems and the problems have been fixed. What eles am I supposed to do? It's not unusual to see this on FAC pages. I never said that by doing that the article would pass. Raul is looking for Support not stuff being done. Buc 19:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- But you have treated it as such ever since this FAC process started. Most times, when a problem has been raised, instead of discussing how it might be made better you have simply come back with a fatuous green tick and the word "done". You are actually ticking things! I have deliberately made my comments abstract, rather than specific, as I believe that this article's failings are intrinsic and deep-rooted, and probably require that the article is rewritten in a more lively an engaging style. Pyrope 18:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Never said it was. Buc 18:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
These articles should be inspirational, engaging, entertaining, informative and, crucially, exceptional examples of Wikipedia. That certain, probably indefinable, "something", this article currently lacks. Pyrope 17:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have any specific to piont out so I can change it? Buc 18:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- FA is not peer review. Am I supposed to rewrite the whole article to demonstrate my point? Besides this probably being beyond my ability,
- Are you saying the article would have to be entirely re-written to become a FA? Buc 20:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not neccessarily, this article is far closer to the right approach than the Malaysian GP one is. As I said, at present it lacks the sparkle of an excellent race report, particulary one blessed with so much potential content. Pyrope 20:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Are you saying the article would have to be entirely re-written to become a FA? Buc 20:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have already given you plenty of examples of how this article fails. I have read plenty of very high-quality, professional motorsport journalism and historical writing in my time, and this just doesn't get close. Frankly, for such a dramatic and eventful race, it's dull. p.s. And my concern about point 4? This article gives far too much space to utterly inconsequential, and unrelated, "Pre-race" cruft. For ****'s sake, testing and practice are just that, they are not a competition and very often bear very little relationship to what happens during a race. It is not even a requirement that a car is legal during a test! This section could be reduced to a single sentence: "A test session was held on May 17 and May 18 at the Paul Ricard circuit, with the track set up to replicate the conditions of the Canadian Grand Prix, where Ferrari dominated", period. Then you have to say why this is significant with respect to the race. Is it? Really? Considering that Ferrari were then rubbish throughout the race weekend I don't think it bears any relation at all, unless you want to make an allusion to the fact that their testing pace flattered to deceive. The aricle relates to a race, and should focus on the race and affairs that directly influenced the outcome of that race. If you want to write about test sessions then do so at the generic 2007 Formula One season page, do not clutter a race report with meaningless testing times (to three decimal places!!!). Similar comments stand for the "Practice" section. Pyrope 18:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Gave it a PR. No one replied. But something alone the lines of what you gave in the 2007 Malaysian GP PR would be great. Buc 19:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sometimes people just don't see a request, and sometimes a request just doesn't excite people enough that they want to spend an hour or more (which is what it takes to properly peer review an article) on that one article. I'm afraid that I fall into the second category, and a race report has to cover a particularly interesting race (which, ironically, this one does!) for it to pique my interest. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Many of the comments that I made for Malaysia stand for this article, with the proviso that this particular race is blessed with a fascinating and dramatic sequence of events, so FA might actually be worth working toward! Concentrate your efforts on drawing out the significant events, and tone down the minutiae of the midfield reshuffling. Pyrope 20:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks I hope you can comment when I give this another PR. I will address what you have said when I can find the time. Buc 20:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sometimes people just don't see a request, and sometimes a request just doesn't excite people enough that they want to spend an hour or more (which is what it takes to properly peer review an article) on that one article. I'm afraid that I fall into the second category, and a race report has to cover a particularly interesting race (which, ironically, this one does!) for it to pique my interest. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Many of the comments that I made for Malaysia stand for this article, with the proviso that this particular race is blessed with a fascinating and dramatic sequence of events, so FA might actually be worth working toward! Concentrate your efforts on drawing out the significant events, and tone down the minutiae of the midfield reshuffling. Pyrope 20:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Gave it a PR. No one replied. But something alone the lines of what you gave in the 2007 Malaysian GP PR would be great. Buc 19:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- FA is not peer review. Am I supposed to rewrite the whole article to demonstrate my point? Besides this probably being beyond my ability,
- Do you have any specific to piont out so I can change it? Buc 18:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 04:56, 3 September 2007.
London
Great article. I think it deserves to be promoted to FA. Mercenary2k 04:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I saw some fact tags, and the categories indicate a call for cleanup. There also appear to be some image formatting issues in "Transport". --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 05:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done All the Fact Tags have been replaced with proper citations. The sub-categories in various sections have also been removed and sections merged. I am not sure what image formatting issues you have with "Transport". All images there are either released by the author or are part of Wikipedia commons. Mercenary2k 06:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose - some citations have missing retrieval dates or aren't properly formatted (for example ref #97 or #39, but there are more of them). Ref #10 is tagged for verification. Ref #41 is from skyscrapercity.com forum and I doubt if it will survive (see WP:EL). The Transport images comment doesn't mean licensing, all seem to be OK, but they bump into each other and it doesn't look nice. I would suggest re-arranging. MarkBA t/c/@ 07:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done All Citations have now a standard Retrieval Date format. The Citation from Skyscrapercity has been re-directed from their forum to their news site. The Images in the "Transport" section have been changed. 1 Image has been deleted while others have been re-arranged to prevent them from bumping into each other. Mercenary2k 08:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for solving these issues, though my oppose still continues. Retrieval dates, as their are full ones, should be linked to enable readers' date preference. I feel that some more citations would be useful, for example:The average price for all properties in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is £894,000 (as reported by the BBC in February 2007) with similar average outlay in most of Central London. – saying that BBC reported that in Feb 2007 isn't enough. A citation would be better, or caption in Sport: The new Wembley Stadium is the most expensive stadium ever built costing £793 million ($1.6 billion) – quite strong claim I think, but these are only examples, there may be more of them.As for MoS, I have found only one point so far, concerning use of WP:DASHes – either use unspaced em dash or spaced en dash (and should be consistent throughout the article). MarkBA t/c/@ 09:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)- Done All Retrieval dates have been wikified. All numerical facts and figures have been cited including the two examples you mentioned. As for MoS, I went through the article and I corrected any that I saw. But a fresh set of eyes should help as well. Let me know if you are satisfied with these changes. Mercenary2k 21:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Dashes still haven't been fixed – either unspaced em (—) or spaced en (–), though for stylistic reasons en dashes are better-looking than a lot of em dashes. That means, for example, this sentence from History: "...first metro system — the London Underground — in 1863." should be either "... – the London Underground – ..." or "...—the London Underground—...". Now I have checked external links and I feel that London Eye and 2012 Summer Olympics link aren't necessary for main article, because both have their articles and this one is about London in general. And are sub-links of Transport of London link needed? I think everyone can access them from the main site. Generally, there are too many images in some points, for example here or in the Economy. I would suggest either re-arranging again, if possible, or throwing out.MarkBA t/c/@ 22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
::::Oh ok. Now I understand your critique about the Dashes. I will fix them up. I will also get rid of some images. Mercenary2k 02:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done Fixed the dashes as you recommended. Take a look and let me know if you are satisfied with the changes. I also got rid of some images as you pointed out that there were too many. I am not quite sure what you mean by London Eye and 2012 Summer Olympics having external links. They are wikified and thats it. As for sub-links under Transport of London. I think its ok to have it as it gives more information about transportation in London. Mercenary2k 10:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I mean they aren't very appropriate for the London article. I suggest deleting London Eye and 2012 Summer Olympics external links from this article. TfL sub-links are just about appropriate, but I think they can be accessed from that main page, right? And for images, re-arranging also means re-arranging two images, which "sandwich" the text at some point (there are five such places). WP:MOS#Images discourages such practice.MarkBA t/c/@ 11:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)- Done Removed the external links to 2012 Summer Olympics and the London Eye. I also re-arranged and got rid of some images so that they no longer sandwich text between them. Mercenary2k 21:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK. As I won't have a chance for longer review next few days and my objections seem to be addressed, I am changing my vote to weak support. MarkBA t/c/@ 05:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Why Weak support? What still aren't you satisfied with? Mercenary2k 06:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, to be honest, I haven't checked all aspects (for example prose) which any FA should have and I don't know what others will bring up. As I won't have much time to check these for few days, the weak support vote is supposed to mean that I won't block promotion. If there won't be much to fix anyway, I'll be happy to strengthen my vote for this article. MarkBA t/c/@ 07:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- After scanning through again, I've found one [citation needed] tag (Economy) and uncreated category (Government). MarkBA t/c/@ 15:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, to be honest, I haven't checked all aspects (for example prose) which any FA should have and I don't know what others will bring up. As I won't have much time to check these for few days, the weak support vote is supposed to mean that I won't block promotion. If there won't be much to fix anyway, I'll be happy to strengthen my vote for this article. MarkBA t/c/@ 07:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The "Economy" section mentions finance, services, tourism and cargo transport. Is there absolutely no industry (in the sence of producing goods, not services) in London? In the "Parks and gardens" section, London is described as a Green City. What about smog and other kinds of pollution? — Kpalion(talk) 09:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done Added more information which talks about London Manufacturing Industry and Information in regards to the pollution in london.Mercenary2k 08:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The Population and Density sections of the infobox need to be fixed. Mgiganteus1 18:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done Fixed the Infobox of Population and Density and created it along the lines of New York City's infobox. Mercenary2k 08:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The article lacks a map similar to other UK towns articles. At best it would be a map that outlines the different definitions of London as described in the "Definition" section. Could someone create such a map? Thank you. CG 07:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done Added map. Mercenary2k 08:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, 1c and 2, too much pending MOS work. I cleaned up some date linking and dashes, but there is a lot left (see WP:DASH and WP:MOSDATE). Solo years should not be linked, full dates should. The article looks like it was put together by different editors with different styles; some sections conform to MOS, others don't. This is not compelling prose, for this we have See also templates at tops of sections: Many films have also used London as a location and have done much to shape international perceptions of the city. See main article London in film. Citations are not fully and consistently formatted, see WP:CITE/ES. All sources need a publisher, websources need last accessdate, author and publisher should be identified when available. MANY publishers are missing, so sources can't be evaluated for reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose—1a. It's infested with redundant wording; there are problems of logical and fuzziness. Let's look at the first three stub-paragraphs in the lead.
- "The ancient City of London to which the name originally belonged still retains its tiny mediaeval boundaries"—Remove "to which the name originally belonged" as redundant. "Still" and "retains"? What is left makes little sense tense-wise, anyway (past juddering with present). Tiny boundaries? What, one cm thick?
- You could drop "around". Drop "today" ("is" does that). Drop "all". Replace "one of the major global cities" with just "a global city".
- "city within city"
- Population of 7.5 million as of 2006 (that's dogs and cats, is it?) and a metropolitan area population of 12–14 million people (that's in what year?).
- "London shown within England", says the caption. Get rid of this caption. You might as well add to the previous caption "tower pionting towards sky".
- "300 different languages"—remove "different". Tony 10:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 04:56, 3 September 2007.
Chris Young (pitcher)
This article has been greatly expanded since being promoted to WP:GA. The intent of the expansion was to pursue WP:FA status. After much of the expansion was completed a cadre of concerned baseball editors took the article in a different direction (that I felt stripped it of its breadth). debate was contentious. This debate followed a one-on-one war with Ksy92003 in which he felt a much more terse version was better. I am by no means an expert at WP:FC, but everything I have nominated for promotion at WP:FAC (Campbell's Soup Cans & Chicago Board of Trade Building) or WP:FLC (All-Star Final Vote, List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry, List of Chicago Landmarks) has eventually been promoted. Basically, I pointed out that many of the changes were detracting from the WP:FA potential of the article which I feel based on my experience I have a good feel for. Soon thereafter, the warring stopped. I am very appreciative of the attention of the numerous eyes at WP:MLB because the article has been able to avoid WP:PROSELINE based on the help of the concerned parties. I believe the article is in good shape for a WP:FAC. However, I just noticed that Ksy92003 has some contentions on the use of the {{by}} template. I hope a very broad WP:FAC audience will have some advice on the direction the article is headed and should go. I do acknowledge the article is a detailed, heavily cited and lengthy article for a player at the stage of his career that Young is at now. However, this is the first internet era baseball All-Star I have seen at FAC. I.E., I have not seen any other players with significant cited detail of collegiate and minor league career at FAC. This could be the standard bearer of future such individuals. One thing that should be noted is that this article employs the philosophy that any individual game notable enough to be specifically mentioned is cited with either a box score or a game recap/summary if not both. I have chimed in on several other FACs about this philosophy for internet era biographies and in almost every case the requested box scores were added.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Chris Young most likely has a long career ahead of him that has just barely begun. This article will not be stable for a very long time. Furthremore, the format used by the article right now of providing year-by-year summaries will be completely unworkable once his career is over, meaning the form of the article will change significantly over time. The article also contains way to much trivia (height milestones, number of times he pitched eight shutout innings, ivy league tandems starting for same team, list goes on and on and on), the lead section contains his current DL status, which seems out of place for a lead item, each season section is more of a blow-by-blow of greatest hits rather than a summary account that puts these events in a larger context. I personally feel this article has a long way to go to be featured. A baseball player is more than a litany of starts and statistics. Indrian 10:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- FYI - In response to this statement "Chris Young most likely has a long career ahead of him that has just barely begun. This article will not be stable for a very long time." The youth of an article's subject is irrelevant to neither its qualification as a FA candidate nor the definition of article stability (which refers to current events and articles currently suffering from an edit war). Until someone is dead, they can always do something noteworthy that could potentially be added. While the other objections appear valid, all critique should be compared against the current state of the article.--Esprit15d 14:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but this person has done almost nothing yet. With someone like Hugo Chavez, for instance, who was a featured article as president of Venezuela, you know he is going to do more things but you already have a vague idea as to his legacy. No one has ANY idea what Young's legacy is going to be. It is simply impossible to create a good encyclopedia article about Young right now that would contain enough good information for a featured article. Someone could surprise me and actually make such an article, but this is not it. It fails criteria 4 for not being in proper summary style. Furthermore because it is written in a "greatest hits" style this article has the potential to change on a day-by-day basis as he accumulates more stats and individual starts. That is the very essence of the stability requirement. Any article will change as new developments occur, but in baseball the new developments are constant. That would not be a problem if this article were written in true summary style, but the chosen format lends itself to constant change. It is just not written in the style of an encyclopedia article at all being just a litany of trivia and statistics. Indrian 19:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support (as nominator) I disagree with your interpretation of the stability article. Your philosophy would have us preclude articles of anyone who is expected to accomplish great things in the future from being FAs. For example, Barack Obama may be the first black U.S. President at some time in the future. This would be a very significant accomplishment and a presidency would drastically change the focus of his bio. Nonetheless, his promise of a great potential should not preclude his article from being a WP:FA. Similarly, if someone wanted to make Hilary Rodham Clinton a WP:FAC the fact that she may become the first female president should not preclude her from FA eligibility. A baseball fan understands that a pitcher who is successfully defending opponent batting average and hits per nine innings titles while adding earned run average and Walks plus hits per inning pitched leadership to his resume has done some things. His WP:LEAD covers his significant accomplishments very well. There is no WP:FAC rule that says a person has already fulfilled most of his promise to be eligible. Stability in the sense of FAC means that there is no current edit warring. It does not mean that the article looks pretty similar to what a good article on the same topic to look like 15 years from now. As far as the trivia goes. 15 years from now 50% of what is in the article now may be removed. However, that does not make the trivia uninteresting. It is incorporated into the text well as per current policy and that is what should be evaluated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Read the policy again. Stability means no current edit warring AND "content does not change significantly from day to day." Now this article can be written in a way that satisfies this second prong of the policy, but by chosing to put such emphasis on every start of every season you have created a situation where this article will be changing fairly constantly. By dividing the article by individual years, you have assured that the article will soon become too large and be subject to a fundamental change in structure. Your analogy above is a poor one. I guarantee you that if an article on one of the presidential candidates was FA quality right now and someone nominated it opposition would be overwhelming and consensus would be to wait until the election is over (and yes I know Obama is featured, but this happened back in 2004 when stability was not an issue). Chris Young can have an article now. He may even be able to have a featured article now. But the article that currently exists contains too much trivia, too little context, too little information on his life outside of baseball statistics, and not enough summary style. There are other gaps as well, it does not even give his pitch repretoire unless I missed it somewhere. I appreciate the work you have done here and think the article is on the right track over all, but next time please read the entire argument rather than sticking on one point and taking it out of context. Indrian 21:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support (as nominator) I disagree with your interpretation of the stability article. Your philosophy would have us preclude articles of anyone who is expected to accomplish great things in the future from being FAs. For example, Barack Obama may be the first black U.S. President at some time in the future. This would be a very significant accomplishment and a presidency would drastically change the focus of his bio. Nonetheless, his promise of a great potential should not preclude his article from being a WP:FA. Similarly, if someone wanted to make Hilary Rodham Clinton a WP:FAC the fact that she may become the first female president should not preclude her from FA eligibility. A baseball fan understands that a pitcher who is successfully defending opponent batting average and hits per nine innings titles while adding earned run average and Walks plus hits per inning pitched leadership to his resume has done some things. His WP:LEAD covers his significant accomplishments very well. There is no WP:FAC rule that says a person has already fulfilled most of his promise to be eligible. Stability in the sense of FAC means that there is no current edit warring. It does not mean that the article looks pretty similar to what a good article on the same topic to look like 15 years from now. As far as the trivia goes. 15 years from now 50% of what is in the article now may be removed. However, that does not make the trivia uninteresting. It is incorporated into the text well as per current policy and that is what should be evaluated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but this person has done almost nothing yet. With someone like Hugo Chavez, for instance, who was a featured article as president of Venezuela, you know he is going to do more things but you already have a vague idea as to his legacy. No one has ANY idea what Young's legacy is going to be. It is simply impossible to create a good encyclopedia article about Young right now that would contain enough good information for a featured article. Someone could surprise me and actually make such an article, but this is not it. It fails criteria 4 for not being in proper summary style. Furthermore because it is written in a "greatest hits" style this article has the potential to change on a day-by-day basis as he accumulates more stats and individual starts. That is the very essence of the stability requirement. Any article will change as new developments occur, but in baseball the new developments are constant. That would not be a problem if this article were written in true summary style, but the chosen format lends itself to constant change. It is just not written in the style of an encyclopedia article at all being just a litany of trivia and statistics. Indrian 19:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The article doesn't change day-to-day. In the current state of the article, the form its currently written in, the content doesn't "change" significantly; it's simply added to on an as-needed basis. And the trivia makes the article interesting. When I go to an article, I look for the history on the person and what about him makes him unique. And you can't deny that enough is said about a player who hasn't even played 4 complete seasons, yet he's an All-Star, made MLB history as being the pitcher who surrendered the first ever inside-the-park home run in All-Star Game history, is the 6th Ivy League All-Star, and has a lot of other historical first or tied other historical acheivements. And it seems like you're trying to say that a current athlete can't be a featured article. See Dominik Hasek. If his career ended tomorrow, would you say that the article isn't written well enough? The article isn't going to change for several years... it will only be added to; nothing will be changed. Ksy92003(talk) 21:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently someone else who cannot read. I will reprint and bold you a bit from above to make things easier for you. Chris Young can have an article now. He may even be able to have a featured article now. But the article that currently exists contains too much trivia, too little context, too little information on his life outside of baseball statistics, and not enough summary style. Hope that helps. Also, I am willing to work to get this article to featured status. It would involve some cuts and consolidation, but I am sure it could be molded to satisfy my objection. I am afraid if I were to try alone though, I would be accused of vandalism. If someone would like to work with me rather than complain, I am sure we can reach a compromise. That is what this process is all about. Indrian 21:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The article doesn't change day-to-day. In the current state of the article, the form its currently written in, the content doesn't "change" significantly; it's simply added to on an as-needed basis. And the trivia makes the article interesting. When I go to an article, I look for the history on the person and what about him makes him unique. And you can't deny that enough is said about a player who hasn't even played 4 complete seasons, yet he's an All-Star, made MLB history as being the pitcher who surrendered the first ever inside-the-park home run in All-Star Game history, is the 6th Ivy League All-Star, and has a lot of other historical first or tied other historical acheivements. And it seems like you're trying to say that a current athlete can't be a featured article. See Dominik Hasek. If his career ended tomorrow, would you say that the article isn't written well enough? The article isn't going to change for several years... it will only be added to; nothing will be changed. Ksy92003(talk) 21:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have looked at many of the bios at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Sport_and_recreational_activities. I would say that it is possible that in the future this article may take on the shape of Bill Russell (which it currently compares well to). Note that all of the FA bios I looked at including Martin Brodeur, Wayne Gretzky, Dominik Hašek, Sandy Koufax, & Michael Jordan have extensive chronological career summaries (not in violation of WP:SS. Because Young's career to date is short we can not have early, mid, and late career sections yet. Obama's article has survived multiple WP:FARs including one last month even though as a serious Presidential contender he is a different person than a as the Senatorial candidate he was when promoted to WP:FA. Note that he was promoted just a three months before the Senatorial elections. There was no consensus to wait and see the outcome of the election at that time. I have no reason to beleive a future WP:FAR would be successful (or unsuccessful based on your perspective since we really hope an article survives in general) if he wins the nomination. I don't really think you believe another FAR would result in demotion until after the election especially since he was promoted during one. As long as the article adheres to WP:PROSELINE it will survive summary style challenges. Young is uncontroversial. He has no failed marriages, tax evasion scandals, drug issues, or other skeletons that would make the article broader. Young has the potential to be a great power pitcher of his generation and to necessitate substantive additions to his article. This does not mean his article is ineligible. The fact that he continues to be undefeated since May 12 is part of the article that needs to be continually update. His major league leadership in various statistics needs to be monitored as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Once again I see an unwillingness to compromise here. I have on my own initiative started a rewrite of the article at User:Indrian/Chris Young that you are more than welcome to look at and comment on. I have only done the first couple of sections so far, but you can see that I am a fairly light touch overall (though I may make some more drastic cuts at the Major League level). (Note: If you look at the article in the next few minutes it will look like I cut more than I actually did, some formatting issue is causing a lot of text not to show up, it is still there though). The article stands at 53K right now, which is over the recommended limit even for an FA and unecessary for a person of YOung's comparable importance. As I said before, your research foundation is solid, and I think my objections can be overcome, but you need to meet me halfway here. I am sure there is a compromise to be reached. Indrian 22:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am looking for his pitch repertoire. I will watch for your version and compare.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- NOTE After visiting three Borders Books locations this week, I finally got a hold of "Guide to Pitchers: An Historical Compendium of Pitching, Pitchers, and Pitches" (ISBN 0743261585) by Rob Neyer and Bill James. I had hoped for some missing details (from the online update), but realized that the reason for the online update was that the book was published in 2004 before Young was a major league pitcher. Thus, there is no real detail about his repertoire. If you have any other source ideas let me know. I will continue to scour the internet for clues. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Please remember that this is a first cut at it and that I may end up removing too much. I am sure we can get somewhere in the middle of what we both see as the "ideal" article. Indrian 22:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- So far I can see that one might prefer not to note specific games as his career evolves. Is it necessary to remove such detail now. Removing it serves the 2nd level of reader mentioned at Wikipedia:Summary_style#Levels_of_desired_details at a cost to the 3rd level of reader. For the level two reader you have done a great job of editing. Who are we targeting with the article? Deciding which version of the Chris_Young_(pitcher)#Collegiate_career section obtains will set the tone for the whole article. Let's just focus on that.
- Also, I disagree with your changes to the third paragraph of the lead. I think the level one reader would want to see the removed content. I agree with your other change which I was going to make on Thursday when he comes off the DL. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- What makes Young important? That is what the lead is about. Young is important for his on-field accomplishments. He would be just as important if he had not gone to an Ivy League school. The lead sets the tone for his accomplishments, the Ivy League facts can (and do) come later in the article. I feel the specific games are a problem, however, and this is one of my main complaints with the article. They do not provide much insight into his career and serve to clutter the article. I am willing to drop my other objection of too little context outside of his baseball stats entirely if we can work out these other issues. Also, you have convinced me that stability is not an issue, leaving only my criteria 4 complaints. Specific games I am willing to talk about, but if too many specific games are left in, I cannot in good consience end my opposition. Anyway, the first pass is done now. Keep in mind that I almost certainly took too much out at the moment since this was a first pass. Also, some of the references may have inadvertently gone wonky. I am willing to discuss any specific cut you would like to, though I recommend we move the discussion to the talk page of my redesign so as not to overly clutter things here. Indrian 23:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Basically, I think the argument comes down to the WP:SS issue that you raise. Whereas, all the other retired or nearly retired FAs are at a point where due to length they must shift from level 3 reader format to level 2 reader format, I do not believe Young is at that point. I do not believe that almost any athlete needs to have single season articles (except Bonds may deserve a 2007 season article for the level 3 reader) for every season. None of Young's seasons to date are important enough for such coverage. Thus when any season gets cut from level 3 detail to level 2 detail, we are sort of going to lose the detail. Thus, I do not support removal of most of the content that would take the article to level 2 detail. I don't think the current length exceeds that of other athlete bio FAs, so there is no need to reduce the article to level 2 detail. WP:SS seems to suggest going to level 2 as needed. It is not needed here. Also to say that Young is important for his on field accomplishments is like saying Obama or Clinton are important for their ideologies. Young's Ivy league status contributes to his importance much like Obama's race and Clinton's gender. P.S. let's keep the debate here for the record where it is most easily found.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- What makes Young important? That is what the lead is about. Young is important for his on-field accomplishments. He would be just as important if he had not gone to an Ivy League school. The lead sets the tone for his accomplishments, the Ivy League facts can (and do) come later in the article. I feel the specific games are a problem, however, and this is one of my main complaints with the article. They do not provide much insight into his career and serve to clutter the article. I am willing to drop my other objection of too little context outside of his baseball stats entirely if we can work out these other issues. Also, you have convinced me that stability is not an issue, leaving only my criteria 4 complaints. Specific games I am willing to talk about, but if too many specific games are left in, I cannot in good consience end my opposition. Anyway, the first pass is done now. Keep in mind that I almost certainly took too much out at the moment since this was a first pass. Also, some of the references may have inadvertently gone wonky. I am willing to discuss any specific cut you would like to, though I recommend we move the discussion to the talk page of my redesign so as not to overly clutter things here. Indrian 23:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The overall debate should stay here, but if we do this right we will be pouring over a large number of small changes to reach an equilibrium, and that would clog this page. I do not feel the Ivy League stuff is significant enough for the lead. It is still in the article, which is fine. Featured Articles need to represent our best work. Most of the information on individual games does not help gain a better understanding of the subject. It is indulgent to keep them all. A featured article is not something where we put stuff in because we can, it is a place where we put stuff in that we should. If in the context of his entire career at some later date these games are not important, then they are also not important now. As I stated before, I will discuss and compromise on individual games as I no doubt made some mistakes in my trimming, but compromise comes from both sides and I hope you will give up a few of these games too in the interest of getting this done. Indrian 23:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Before getting into individual games, do you agree that based on length there is no need to convert from level 3 reader details to level 2 reader details at this time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I understand the question and hope that this is the answer you need. Chris Young's career has been brief enough that a single article will be able to include all the necessary details, so yes, we can have what you call level 3 details. I think our disagreement though is not about level 3 versus level 2 but about what facts are needed at level 3 as opposed to facts that are not needed at all. I am open to being convinced as to why a certain game adds greater understanding to his career, but I am currently of the opinion that the ones I removed (and I did not remove all of them) are not needed at any level. Indrian 18:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- So are we going to do business here or what? I have gone out of my way to compromise, even agreeing to drop my comprehensiveness objection (just look at the biographies at the SABR Baseball Biography project for an idea of how much life outside of baseball information it is possible to accumulate on all those players that never made a controversial headline) if we can work out the summary style issues and working overtime to create my own version of the article for further discussion, but there has been little communication from TonyTheTiger indicating a willingness to do the grunt work required to get through this. His below comments about not wanting to fix dashes himself also indicates an unwillingness to take the necessary action on objections to get this thing to featured status. You submitted this to FAC, so you need to take care of some of these objections if you are serious about FA status. If I have not heard from you by this evening Eastern Standard Time, I am going to start implementing some of the changes from my revised version into the actual article. I will not put them all in without further discussion, but I imagine that if my objection here will not get your attention, a few good-faith changes to the article will. Indrian 12:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- After rereading Wikipedia:Summary_style#Rationale several times, here is my understanding of the level three reader who "lot of detail on one or more aspects of the topic": I would say that each section should be analyzed with the mindset that a level 3 reader would really want a WP:GA on this section alone. Is there anything in this section that would not be desirable in a Good Article dedicated to the aspect of the article covered by this section. I object to most of your removals based on this standard. Does this standard seem reasonable. Thus, for any season where you wish to remove individual games ask yourself if I were to write a Good article on this season of Young's career would I remove this game from the article. I also think that it will be about three more years before we are pressed to begin to convert from level three to level two detail on this subject.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- So are we going to do business here or what? I have gone out of my way to compromise, even agreeing to drop my comprehensiveness objection (just look at the biographies at the SABR Baseball Biography project for an idea of how much life outside of baseball information it is possible to accumulate on all those players that never made a controversial headline) if we can work out the summary style issues and working overtime to create my own version of the article for further discussion, but there has been little communication from TonyTheTiger indicating a willingness to do the grunt work required to get through this. His below comments about not wanting to fix dashes himself also indicates an unwillingness to take the necessary action on objections to get this thing to featured status. You submitted this to FAC, so you need to take care of some of these objections if you are serious about FA status. If I have not heard from you by this evening Eastern Standard Time, I am going to start implementing some of the changes from my revised version into the actual article. I will not put them all in without further discussion, but I imagine that if my objection here will not get your attention, a few good-faith changes to the article will. Indrian 12:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I understand the question and hope that this is the answer you need. Chris Young's career has been brief enough that a single article will be able to include all the necessary details, so yes, we can have what you call level 3 details. I think our disagreement though is not about level 3 versus level 2 but about what facts are needed at level 3 as opposed to facts that are not needed at all. I am open to being convinced as to why a certain game adds greater understanding to his career, but I am currently of the opinion that the ones I removed (and I did not remove all of them) are not needed at any level. Indrian 18:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Before getting into individual games, do you agree that based on length there is no need to convert from level 3 reader details to level 2 reader details at this time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- You would not have a GA on an individual season of Young's career because it would most likely go to AfD and come away with a vote of merge. Your refusal to grasp this basic fact of wikipedia article construction is the miscommunication we are having. An encyclopedia article never goes down to that level of detail because it destroys the summary nature that makes something an encyclopedia article to begin with. Tonight I am going to start making changes. Since you are not going to work with me to pick what is most important to you of what I cut I will try my best to form the compromise on my own and I will not implement every change I made on the temp page. The article has to much minutiae to be a good FA right now and I will try to rectify some of that. Indrian 17:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- There is no question season by season articles of Young would and should be merged. The point is that the level of detail of a separate article should be retained until the aggregate article is too long and requires the type of editing you are proposing. I would prefer you create a level 3 reader article at the user page you have been using to lessen the edit resolution. Right now, I believe an editor should look at the article as if six articles (College Career, Minor League Career, and each major league season) plus some stubs need to be written. The proper detail level should be assessed on each section as if it were an article with an encyclopedic purpose of describing that aspect of the article. E.g., if someone were looking on WP to find information about Young's Minor league career what would you leave in there. I think it will be about 3 more years before the article needs to get cut to level 2 details.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I concur with the consolidation of the college career section (which would be a single topic as I mentioned in my argument above). It looks better this way. However, there is little doubt in my mind that if I wanted to read about Chris Youngs college career, I would want to know what his best games were. Thus, I oppose your removal of his career high game and his freshman season high game. I am going to reinsert these two games in this section.
- There is no question season by season articles of Young would and should be merged. The point is that the level of detail of a separate article should be retained until the aggregate article is too long and requires the type of editing you are proposing. I would prefer you create a level 3 reader article at the user page you have been using to lessen the edit resolution. Right now, I believe an editor should look at the article as if six articles (College Career, Minor League Career, and each major league season) plus some stubs need to be written. The proper detail level should be assessed on each section as if it were an article with an encyclopedic purpose of describing that aspect of the article. E.g., if someone were looking on WP to find information about Young's Minor league career what would you leave in there. I think it will be about 3 more years before the article needs to get cut to level 2 details.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Please remember that this is a first cut at it and that I may end up removing too much. I am sure we can get somewhere in the middle of what we both see as the "ideal" article. Indrian 22:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support I'm actually going against the opinion that I held a couple months ago, which was that I didn't think it'd become a Featured Article, and I do support the FAC. However, I'd like to point out that Chris Young is a pitcher who has played for 4 years. He hasn't won any league awards, World Series titles, or any sort of reward that gives a player much attention in the baseball world. There is a lot more information on him on his article than a lot of other people have on theirs. Mind he only has played for less than 4 seasons. If he has a lengthy career (15 seasons) then of course all that information will need to be shortened down. But that's not something to concern ourselves about now. Currently, the article is of great length and detail. I am a huge baseball/sports fan and am pretty knowledgeable about most of the players currently in the game, in my time (started following baseball in real depth in about 2000). But this is the first season that I've ever heard anything about this Chris Young (not to be confused with the Arizona Diamondbacks' center fielder Chris B. Young. But I came here, and I was glad to see that there was a lot of information about this player, more than I would expect Young to put in an autobiography. I think there still is too much information than is absolutely necessary, but I don't think I can in clear conscience say that the article, in its current state, provides enough detailed information to inform anybody of the success that Young has had at the college and minor league level. Again, I'm a huge baseball fan and I haven't even ever heard of this guy until I came here, and this article... TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) did a great job to inform me about a great baseball player by describing his entire career, and now I know a lot about him. And I think that if any article can do that, if an article about a baseball player can inform a die-hard baseball fan about a player as well as TonyTheTiger has written it, then it definitely should be a Featured Article. Ksy92003(talk) 17:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Fixes needed. There are substantial WP:DASH problems throughout the article; almost every possible misuse of dash and hyphen is there at least once. Because sports articles are dash and hyphen heavy, tedious cleanup work is needed. Also, per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSLINK, I don't see justification for all of the baseball year links to solo years if those articles don't have information relevant to Chris Young in particular. Solo years shouldn't be linked (even to baseball years) unless the linked article provides context relevant to this article. There are significant uncited statements, example: Moe Berg was the last former Princeton player to do either.
What is the source for his career stats? This sentence needs further explanation: Young has been traded three times in his career partly because of the velocity of his fastball, ...SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)- I have tried to cleanup the relevance of the velocity of his fastball.
- Since there are only a half dozen or so Princeton Major League Baseball players, the source for the Moe Berg claim is www.baseball-reference.com and one-by-one checking. Chris_Young_(pitcher)#Career_statistics has always had a citation. See the citation.
- That's the definition of original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, there are a much more Princeton players than you realize. If you look at [15], you'll see that in MLB history there have been 24 Princeton players, 12 of them who are pitchers. So the "half dozen" number is 25% the real amount. However, looking at this page, you'd see that only Moe Berg and Dutch Sterrett have hit a HR, and Sterrett last played in 1913. Berg first played in 1923, so this proves that the Berg claim is true, as far as HR. The other players with a stolen base, Homer Hillebrand, Dutch Meier, Ted Reed, Sterrett, and Bobby Vaughn... the latest any of those 3 players has played was 1915 (Reed and Vaughn). Again, Berg had 11 stolen bases in his career, which began in 1923. While it isn't written in stone that Berg was the last Princeton player to do either, you have to put the pieces together and you'll be able to see that Berg was the most recent Princeton player to accomplish either feat. So I don't think it's original research because there is evidence which supports Berg being the most recent Princeton player to accomplish either feat. Ksy92003(talk) 07:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's the definition of original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Looking briefly at other articles it seems that context of the goings on in baseball is important. Most baseball bios seem to use YYYY in baseball because someone researching a player of a given era will want the context of important happenings of that era in the sport. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Do I have to fix the WP:DASH myself? I can't stand paying attention to that type stuff. I made every mistake one would make if one were not thinking about the proper use precisely because dashes are not as important to me as they should be. I'll hope someone who likes to make those fixes comes by before the end of the weekend or I will begrudgingly do them myself if I can find them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- You could ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his dash script, but he's still perfecting it, it misses things, and you'd still have to run through them manually when he's done, so it may be better to do it yourself (because of the variety of errors). I'm not sure his script is perfected to the point (yet) that it will get everything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Do I have to fix the WP:DASH myself? I can't stand paying attention to that type stuff. I made every mistake one would make if one were not thinking about the proper use precisely because dashes are not as important to me as they should be. I'll hope someone who likes to make those fixes comes by before the end of the weekend or I will begrudgingly do them myself if I can find them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
(moved from User_talk:TonyTheTiger for consensus) I was looking throughout the Chris Young article, and the latter picture of Young delivering a pitch (exclude the image of him batting) looks rather small. Is it in any possible if that image can be upgraded to show Chris Young more? In other words, is it possible in any way to zoom in on Chris Young for that one image? The caption says "Chris Young during deilvery", but with the current state of that particular image, it is a little difficult to actually see Young throwing the ball. Is there any way that this image could be adjusted so Young is focused on more so it could be easier for us to actually see him delivering? The proportion of the image is fine as seen from Image:20070616 Chris Young visits Wrigley (8).JPG, but when the image is shrunk to fit in the article, it's a little difficult to see him really clearly. Ksy92003(talk) 19:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- (moved from User_talk:Ksy92003 for consensus)I am weakly against cropping the image because the flavor of Wrigley Field would be lost. Let's bring it the the FAC and see what others think though. I would go with consensus.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- (moved from User_talk:TonyTheTiger for consensus) I'm not really convinced that the historical significance of Wrigley Field adds any significance to the picture. I'm not arguing against that, but I wouldn't use that as a reason as to not cropping the image. You say "the flavor of Wrigley Field would be lost." I'm sorry, but personally I fail to see how the ballpark affects the image... the image was taken of Chris Young, and I'm not convinced that the background of Wrigley Field needs to be shown. However, the image is yours, and you're free to do whatever you want with it. And although you released the image to the public domain, I don't feel that I should have any right to adjust your image. If you feel the image is good as is, then that's fine. I still hold the opinion that the image could be improved by cropping to focus more on Chris Young, but I feel that you, as the photographer, should make whatever decisions you wish for this image. Ksy92003(talk) 07:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I had not even paid attention to the picture until this started up. As it stands, that picture needs to be cropped and refocused on Young. The picture in the heading should focus on the subject of the article, which is not Wrigley Field. Even if the sweep of the image were appropriate, it still needs to be cropped, as overrunning the lead section with the info box in this way is not aesthetically appealing and should be avoided if possible, which I think it is in this case. Young is not even properly centered in the shot. Don't get me wrong; I think it is a very nice picture as is, but it should not be the main view of Young for this article. Indrian 01:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I believe that, as well... well of course, I'm the one who brought up the comment. I think that Young does need to be focused more in this image; Wrigley Field doesn't mean anything in this image, which was the reason TonyTheTiger gave for why he wasn't in favor of cropping the image, but I feel that it's quite necessary. Ksy92003(talk) 01:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- The main picture should not be cropped because it is used in several other pages where the background is important. Click on the image and look toward the bottom to see the pages such as bullpen and starting pitcher where cropping would cause problems. The picture at issue can be cropped, but like I said I was weakly against it. If people want to crop the picture at issue that is fine. The main image (a WP:FPC should not be cropped).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. If you crop the picture at issue you could swap positions with the main image if that is preferable. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I believe that, as well... well of course, I'm the one who brought up the comment. I think that Young does need to be focused more in this image; Wrigley Field doesn't mean anything in this image, which was the reason TonyTheTiger gave for why he wasn't in favor of cropping the image, but I feel that it's quite necessary. Ksy92003(talk) 01:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree somewhat with Indrian on stabilty, the article is 55 KB long and he only pitched a couple of seasons. The prose is fairly weak because it's way over detailed, needs a good trimming and copyediting as well. The no-hitter paragraph is a perfect example. Are info like "The Padres are joined by the New York Mets, Colorado Rockies and Tampa Bay Devil Rays as the only franchises who have never pitched no-hitters" needed? Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 20:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Stability is a very tough thing to argue about. It is sort of a WP:CRYSTAL argument saying I don't like the article because my crystal ball tells me it is going to be very different in the future in a way that is difficult to edit. I don't know how to argue against a crystal ball on future editorial difficulties any better than I have above. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 03:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You have chosen one of the few sentences that does not stand up to the section by section necessity tests. I will remove that sentence. Please note any others that you think are similarly superfluous with respect to the needs of the typical level 3 reader discussed above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 05:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wasn't that one of the sentences I had originally removed? I remember it was; you must've readded it, TonyTheTiger. Ksy92003(talk) 05:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Guilty. That was before gaining an understanding of WP:SS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- CommentI agree with 3 of Jaranda's 4 August 11 edits. I think the fact that Young is part of one of two Ivy league tandems in the last 50 years
MLB historyis an interesting piece of trivia that should be in the article somewhere. Where it was seemed correct.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- CommentI agree with 3 of Jaranda's 4 August 11 edits. I think the fact that Young is part of one of two Ivy league tandems in the last 50 years
- Guilty. That was before gaining an understanding of WP:SS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wasn't that one of the sentences I had originally removed? I remember it was; you must've readded it, TonyTheTiger. Ksy92003(talk) 05:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose—Support. 1a and breaches of MOS.- Main units must be spelt out on first appearance, and thereafter unless there's consensus among the contributors. (I see no discussion on the talk page.) – I took care of ERA. Let me know if you see other instances--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Resolved - "currently"—Read MOS on Precise language (Chronological items). Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- "he bounced around in the Pirates"—what does that mean? Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- "undefeated road games started streak to twenty-four"—I don't know the topic, but is this correct? Looks ungrammatical.
- I have tried to clear this up. If it is still unclear I will write an article for road (sports), which means games played at location which is not the teams home venue. Let me know if this is necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- "twenty-four"—MOS says that numbers 10 and over are normally expressed in digits.
- Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Spelling_out_numbers] says this is a stylistic choice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- "3-1"—No, MOS says en dash.
- Instead of subtitles "High school career" and "Collegiate career", why not simplify to "High school" and "College"? Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- "ERA"—Huh? Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- "in two sports—basketball and baseball — and was a unanimous selection for both awards". One em dash is unspaced (as MOS says to do it); the other is spaced. I hope he wasn't the only one to receive those awards; if so, "the", not "a".
- Like I said before, I am not a dash guy, but will struggle through the fixes on Monday if nobody else comes to the rescue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done Looks like someone got the —es and I did some –es--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said before, I am not a dash guy, but will struggle through the fixes on Monday if nobody else comes to the rescue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Main units must be spelt out on first appearance, and thereafter unless there's consensus among the contributors. (I see no discussion on the talk page.)
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
These are just a small sample at random of why this text is quite unsatisfactory. Tony 11:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
SUMMARY It seems that most points of objection are based on the following:
1.)Future editorial difficulties based on the fact that Young is young and has a long career ahead of him. The following are 
s of
- currently active politicians: Tom Brinkman (with a {{Future election candidate}} tag), Bruce Johnson, Bob McEwen, Barack Obama also with {{Future election candidate}}, Jean Schmidt
- currently active athletes: Martin Brodeur, Paul Collingwood, Adam Gilchrist, Dominik Hašek, Waisale Serevi, Gilberto Silva
- currently active athletes (under the age of 30):Cynna Kydd, Kevin Pietersen, CM Punk, Harbhajan Singh
- currently active sports franchises: Arsenal F.C., Aston Villa F.C., Central Coast Mariners FC, Chelsea F.C., Chicago Bears, Derry City F.C., Everton F.C., Gillingham F.C., Ipswich Town F.C., Leek Town F.C., Manchester City F.C., Margate F.C., New England Patriots, New Jersey Devils, Norwich City F.C., Sheffield Wednesday F.C., Sydney Roosters, Toronto Raptors, York City F.C.
All of these will have continuing editorial issues related to keeping the article current.
P.S. Oddly, I do not see any FAs of ongoing Western Hemisphere business entities at Category:FA-Class business and economics articles. Indian Railways and Bank of China (Hong Kong) are probably in need of editing to be more current. However, the problem with each of these (based on reading only the lead) is that they are not being updated. The concern with Young is that too much current info may cause a WP:PROSELINE problem. I am unsure why no Western Hemisphere businesses have been promoted to FA and none are even A-Class, but there are several Category:GA-Class business and economics articles that I think should be eligible despite ongoing editing needs to keep them current.
2.) Level of detail. As pointed out above WP:SS, especially Wikipedia:Summary_style#Levels_of_desired_details, suggest that there are varying desired levels of detail for various readers. It also points out a policy whereby we do not toss out details and reduce detail level as necessitated by space concerns. Right now this article has the space to target higher detail levels than many FAs, but it does not have a significant amount of superfluous info given the targetted level of detail.
3.) Copy editing. I have done my best this weekend.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Further comments, I corrected the dashes I could find (there may be more); it's important to become familiar with WP:DASH and WP:HYPHEN when writing sports articles. An independent copyedit is still needed, for example: "He has yet to either hit a home run or recorded a stolen base." I am still concerned about original research, example: "Three other current and previous pitchers—Randy Johnson, Andrew Sisco, and Eric Hillman—are also 6 ft 10 in (2.08 m)." Going through baseball-reference.com and picking out info isn't guaranteed correct, and seems like original research. Has a reliable source stated these are the only 6-10 pitchers? Still the same for the Moe Berg comment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- The example you pointed to occurred because when I tried to make this edit, I made this one accidentally. The Moe Berg comment is now sourced to a single WP:RS as opposed to my page by page compilation as noted above. I am not sure about the height. I will post a message with the contributing editor for this edit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
NOTICE I thought I would call people's attention to a new formatting technique being employed in the Chris_Young_(pitcher)#Career_statistics section borrowed from Barry Bonds. I think this may be an acceptable use of copyright logos, but not sure.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Instead of logos we are going to go with team colors so the issue is fairly unimportant now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This article can really use some trimming of those blue links. Solo years and months do not need to be linked. "Baseball" and "basketball" are linked at least three times each. "No-hitter" is linked three times, twice in two consecutive sentences. Strikeout is linked three times. I would imagine most readers know what "championship" and "right-handed" means. And then, there are terms that are linked after they have been introduced earlier (where they weren't linked), like "walk", "hit", and "innings". If links are needed, please place them when the terms are introduced. Finally, you might want to consider expanding the lead to include a summary of his pitching style as well. 69.202.63.165 20:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment:
- "Young was drafted by the Pittsburgh Pirates in the 3rd round of the 2000 amateur draft.[16] Young was signed to a deal on September 6, 2000." That was already said in the previous section.
- "After a few years of minor league service, he was traded to the Montreal Expos’ organization." Surely you can tell us exactly how many.
- "Young has been traded three times in his career partly because of the low velocity of his fastball, which is in the 85–90 mph (136.8–144.8 km/h) range and which did not give his employers an indication of his likely effectiveness." Unit conversion does not comply with WP:MOSNUM.
- Same thing goes for this sentence: "His curveball is a slow curveball and his 90 mph (144.8 km/h) fastball has been described by former teammate and catcher Mike Piazza as having late life and late movement that seems to jump"--Carabinieri 00:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 04:56, 3 September 2007.
Bughouse chess
Self nomination. In the past months this article has been totally rewritten. It is currently A-class, and I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Content wise, I had it proofread by several expert bughouse players. Voorlandt 06:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Please cite the paragraph "Communication", preferably from an official rulebook. HansHermans 21:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done Thanks for your comment, I have added a reference now.Voorlandt 05:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Needs more info about history of the game and competitive bughouse.
- I agree that ideally, the history section would be longer. Unfortunately this information is not available, at least without doing original research. The closest I got was an email from Jeremy Graham, who was the founder of the Bughouse Newsletter in 1990. All he could tell me would here be classified as speculation (he gave me 3 possible origins, all in the US). I personally believe that bughouse was invented somewhat simultaneously around the 1960s (a date which he could confirm to me). It appears to have popped up all over the world. Some indication that this might be true is that bughouse is called Hungarian chess in Argentinia; Swedish chess in Russia; Polish chess in the Netherlands and Holland chess in the Czech Republic. It is all speculation, and most important, I don't have a single reference on the history of bughouse, except for the encyclopaedia of chess variants. I have written to several people and nobody could give me an answer, let alone a reference to show for it. Note that the dutch wikipedia says it was invented by the dutch! It is all speculation. Voorlandt 07:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- There is no History section. Write a History section. Just one sentence saying "the history of bughouse chess is unknown, but there are a few legends" then two paragraphs about the legends is enough. Of course, if there's more info, add more info. --Kaypoh 12:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done Even that I cannot do. I repeat: to my knowledge (and I did quite a bit of research), there is not a single written source on the history of bughouse, unless you count speculation in private emails. I simply can't add them without breaking WP:OR. I am marking this done because there really is nothing me or anyone else can do about this. Voorlandt 09:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- There is no History section. Write a History section. Just one sentence saying "the history of bughouse chess is unknown, but there are a few legends" then two paragraphs about the legends is enough. Of course, if there's more info, add more info. --Kaypoh 12:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- What would you want to see more on competitive bughouse? More detail on the given tournaments (like past winners, etc), or would you rather see a larger list of tournaments? Voorlandt 07:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Who is the world champion and leading players? How are tournaments organised? What is the FIDE of bughouse chess? What are the differences between competitive and non-competitive bughouse? So many questions not answered. You can add more tournaments to the list if the tournaments are really important. --Kaypoh 12:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for these suggestions. I have added answers to the first 3 of these questions, and it is good to have them in the article. It is however not the wealth of information you were probably expecting. For instance, there is no equivalent of FIDE for bughouse, therefore there is not that much I can say about it. However I did divide the tournaments in two sections: those organised by national chess federations and those privately organised; which makes that section more clear imo. Voorlandt 11:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Please reference second paragraph of "Online" section. Don't use "your partner". --Kaypoh 10:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose I hate doing this - as I was the one whose support for the A-class rating meant it got through, and I feel it does satisfy most of the FAC - but per Kaypoh I can't fully support it - as I've said before, the history section needs more depth. Compare this article to the main chess one and there's a huge quality gulf - even accepting the fact that an article as hugely in depth as the chess one is impossible with a variation like this. Fix Kaypoh's issues, and perhaps make it a bit longer generally - seems a little on the short side - and I'll change to support. Addyboy 10:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think length is an issue. See for instance Architecture_of_Windows_NT, which has the same length and hardly any references. Also I do think it is of appropriate length. ("It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail") They are 3 books about bughouse, thousands about chess, I believe this should be reflected in the article's length. As I mentioned above, there is really nothing to add about the history. Is there any specific other section you would like to see expanded? I don't think there is a huge quality gap. I had it reread by several expert bughouse players who really liked the article. Also, the article was recently quoted as being superior to the recent bughouse book in its explanation of the rules (Chess Life magazine, August 2007, P14). Voorlandt 07:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose—Fails to live up to the lead requirement of FAs: "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation." in its offensive use of the generic male. Other 1a issues.
- "The game is usually played at a fast time control, this together with the passing and dropping of pieces can make the game look chaotic and random to the casual onlooker." Punctuation please—semicolon, then comma after "this".
- DoneVoorlandt 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- The "although" in the lead is illogical.
- It is usually played as a diversion (something that diverts or amuses: pastime) from chess. In a lot of clubs bughouse is played after the completion of tournament chess. Still, a few dedicated tournaments exist (read: here the game is played seriously). Would any of "but also" or "however" be better in that sentence? Voorlandt 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- MOS breach in infoblot: en dash for ranges.
- Rules: players ... plays ... player plays ... plays ... player plays. All in less than 60 words.
- Done I have removed a few "plays", reads much better now. Voorlandt 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Only males are allowed to play? The generic male is one of my pet hates (it excludes half the population, even if you might claim it doesn't). "plays his opponent". This is littered through the article. There are clearly established ways of avoiding it: pluralise "players" where possible; use "the opponent", etc; or even the singular they if you must.
- Done. Thanks for pointing this out, I simply wasn't realising this. However to my defence: the featured article chess has them (for instance third line: "each player, referred to by the color of his pieces"); also encyclopaedia Britannica 2007 (from chess: "A drawn position may be one in which Black lacks enough material to win or in which White has created an impenetrable fortress for his pieces .."). Voorlandt 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Plus more; needs someone unfamiliar to copy-edit. Tony 13:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- On the use of the generic male
These are no longer present in the article, so the discussion whether or not it is ok to have them is irrelevant for the upgrading of this article. To keep things separate, I moved the discussion here. Voorlandt 09:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- 'Comment'It's harsh to call the use of "his" sexist, as gender neutral terminology in relation to chess players is all but unheard of, although I suppose I can agree considering to what it refers. Voorlandt perhaps you'll realise with this why I suggested a formal peer review before the submission to FAC ;) (oh, and this is Addyboy by the way in case you were wondering) Caissa's DeathAngel 16:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- The generic use of "he" is hardly sexist, Tony. FAC isn't the place for you to advance your political agenda. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Christopher Parnham, how old are you? 95? I'm picturing a curmudgeonly, ungenerous person who's stuck on the gender relations of the 1950s. But I'm sure you're not that, which makes your comment all the stranger. The article gender-neutral language in English, which manages to be remarkably free of POV, I think, says the following, inter alia:
For example, gender-neutral language has gained support from major textbook publishers, and from professional and academic groups such as the American Psychological Association and the Associated Press. Newspapers like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal avoid such language. Many law journals, psychology journals, and literature journals do not print articles or papers that use gender-inclusive language.[1] Recent employee policy manuals have begun to include strongly worded statements prescribing avoidance of language that potentially could be considered discriminatory. The wording of this statement from a policy manual is typical: "All documents, publications or presentations developed by all constituencies…shall be written in gender neutral and/or gender inclusive language.[4] Employees are told that they need to be aware of their responsibilities to avoid discriminatory language, and that they are required to implement the enterprise's commitment to treat stakeholders equally and with courtesy. Institutional members are instructed, as a matter of corporate policy, to avoid using language that may even appear to be discriminatory, or that may gratuitously give offense in verbal or written communication. They also provide guidance about how to reflect the concept of valuing diversity in language usage.
As for your accusation that I'm peddling a political agenda, you're damn right I am: it's one that WP and all other self-respecting bodies should have embraced long ago. I'm most willing to engage in debate as to why this is the only sane course of action (but on a talk page, not here). Voorlandt, the sexist language was cleaned out of chess before it was promoted recently. It's disappointing to see that someone has re-inserted it. I'll be approaching the editors soon about this. Tony 15:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC) PS I'm certain that "gender-inclusive" should be "gender-specific", just before reference [1]—otherwise it doesn't make sense. I'll bring this to the attention of the cotributors.
- Voorlandt, I've searched through Chess and can't find a single use of the generic male pronoun. Tony 02:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe I am missing something but how about the example I gave above or this (third paragraph in the section Chess#Rules): "When a player's king is under immediate threat of capture, it is said to be in check. A player is not permitted to make any move that would place his king in check. If his king is in check, he must make a move to take the king out of check. " Voorlandt 05:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless Voorlandt, the fact that Chess is an FA does not make it perfect - it could be something needing fixed in that article as well! I really do think this needs to be in a formal peer review, not FAC right now Caissa's DeathAngel 08:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- You and not me started the comparison with the chess article, and the alleged huge quality gulf between the two articles. I have addressed the use of generic male pronoun in the bughouse article, and was merely pointing to the chess article to show that this mistake is not uncommon. And now it would be nice to stop talking about the chess article here. Voorlandt 08:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- That may be fair enough, but you appear to be using the fact that is a common error as justification for it being there - all I'm doing is pointing out that this is not the case, and it should be fixed elsewhere if it appears elsewhere. And FWIW, I merely used chess as an example of what to me an FA should look like - any number of others would suffice.Caissa's DeathAngel 10:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- You and not me started the comparison with the chess article, and the alleged huge quality gulf between the two articles. I have addressed the use of generic male pronoun in the bughouse article, and was merely pointing to the chess article to show that this mistake is not uncommon. And now it would be nice to stop talking about the chess article here. Voorlandt 08:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless Voorlandt, the fact that Chess is an FA does not make it perfect - it could be something needing fixed in that article as well! I really do think this needs to be in a formal peer review, not FAC right now Caissa's DeathAngel 08:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe I am missing something but how about the example I gave above or this (third paragraph in the section Chess#Rules): "When a player's king is under immediate threat of capture, it is said to be in check. A player is not permitted to make any move that would place his king in check. If his king is in check, he must make a move to take the king out of check. " Voorlandt 05:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Using the male generic (e.g, "he" instead of "he or she") is perfectly acceptable. Raul654 20:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.