Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
- Afrikaans
- Alemannisch
- አማርኛ
- العربية
- অসমীয়া
- Azərbaycanca
- تۆرکجه
- বাংলা
- 閩南語 / Bân-lâm-gú
- 閩南語 / Bân-lâm-gú
- Башҡортса
- Беларуская
- Беларуская (тарашкевіца)
- Беларуская (тарашкевіца)
- भोजपुरी
- Български
- Boarisch
- Bosanski
- Català
- Čeština
- Cymraeg
- Dansk
- Deutsch
- Eesti
- Ελληνικά
- Español
- Esperanto
- Estremeñu
- فارسی
- Français
- Frysk
- Gaeilge
- Galego
- 한국어
- Հայերեն
- हिन्दी
- Ido
- Bahasa Indonesia
- Íslenska
- Italiano
- עברית
- ქართული
- Қазақша
- Latviešu
- Лезги
- Lietuvių
- Magyar
- Македонски
- മലയാളം
- Malti
- मराठी
- Bahasa Melayu
- Minangkabau
- Mirandés
- Монгол
- Nederlands
- नेपाली
- 日本語
- Napulitano
- Нохчийн
- Norsk bokmål
- Norsk nynorsk
- Олык марий
- Oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
- Pälzisch
- Plattdüütsch
- Polski
- Português
- Română
- Русский
- Саха тыла
- Shqip
- සිංහල
- Simple English
- سنڌي
- Slovenčina
- Slovenščina
- Soomaaliga
- کوردی
- Српски / srpski
- Suomi
- Svenska
- Tagalog
- தமிழ்
- Татарча / tatarça
- Türkçe
- Українська
- اردو
- Vèneto
- Tiếng Việt
- 文言
- Xitsonga
- 粵語
- 粵語
- Zeêuws
- 中文
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bobisbob (talk | contribs) at 22:22, 20 December 2007 (→Nominations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
- Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache |
Featured article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools: | ||||
Nominating
Commenting, etc
|
Nominations
California Sea Lion
I nominate this article. It provides good information on the animal, cites good sources and is easy to understand. Bobisbob (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 01:51, 21 January 2008.
Józef Piłsudski
Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is really confusing. Raul, you restarted Piłsudski's nomination without earlier decision being reached or properly announced. In the process you wiped out contributions from reviewers who deserve an answer. How is this possible if at all, please explain? --Poeticbent talk 18:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments aren't wiped out; they are one click away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about the votes cast already and left hanging, including my own vote of support? Are they also "one click away" from this nom? --Poeticbent talk 19:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of restarting a nomination it to clear away objections and discussions that have been resolved and are no longer relavant, and to force people to remain attentive to their comments. If you have objections from the old nom that remain pertinent, feel free to repost them (but DO NOT copy-and-paste en masse from the old nom) Raul654 (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Poeticbent, if you still Support, you can re-enter that here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of restarting a nomination it to clear away objections and discussions that have been resolved and are no longer relavant, and to force people to remain attentive to their comments. If you have objections from the old nom that remain pertinent, feel free to repost them (but DO NOT copy-and-paste en masse from the old nom) Raul654 (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about the votes cast already and left hanging, including my own vote of support? Are they also "one click away" from this nom? --Poeticbent talk 19:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments aren't wiped out; they are one click away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Aren't the previous votes valid as cast, unless altered by the voters? Nihil novi (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This unilateral decision to ignore and subvert an on going discussion and debate is extremely disturbing and insulting. A restoration of the previous votes and comments is absolutely necessary to keep the integrity of the discussion intact. I agree with Poeticbent on this one, and this "new effort" needs to be shelved right away. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ¿Qué Pasa? Has all the previous stuff gone down the memory hole? I don't get it. Is this standard operating procedure? Turgidson (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes to what? That they are good questions, or that, yes, "Big Brother" wants to shovel the previous discussion down the memory hole? Dr. Dan (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The standard procedure is that if the nomination does not succeed the issue is shelved and the time is given to resolve whatever prevented the article from being promoted. Similarly to how failed RfA candidates have to wait rather than run an RfA after RfA until they like the result same tradition is making a perfect sense for FA-noms. Several edit wars took place during the nomination and the edit wars were not over some specific phrasing, reference or an inclusion of sourced opinion but, for example, removals of whole sections diligently written by editors was attempted and various spurious reasons were cited for that. The effort to dismiss and disparage the editors who voiced their concerns reached a new height and the insistence that the article is great and those who oppose do so for the personal, POV or other bad-faithed reasons were repeatedly invoked at multiple pages. I don't see what is the point of the unprecedented immediate rerun of the nomination that exposed the article's being unready for an FA without first addressing those issues. The last nom drew plenty of bad blood. As if this was not enough and we need an urgent rehash of this dramatic process. --Irpen 05:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The vote was nearly 4:1 in favor of the Featured-Article nomination. Apart from a few constructive criticisms, the bulk of the nay comments consisted of vociferous but uninformed carping and accusations which were convincingly rebutted by the nominator. Nihil novi (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not matter how much votes of support or oppose it have, what is matter - article improvement and that presented problems on FAC should be solved.M.K. (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree with the decision to rerun the nomination. It is not a vote, so the numbers don't matter. All that matters is the reasons for support or objection. And the responses to objections or comments. I agree with Nihil Novi to the extent that it will be better if the objections and responses are stated simply and plainly. Follow-up discussions or editing discussions are probably better placed on the article talk page, so that the wood here can be seen for the trees. qp10qp (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The better choice was to give more time for improvement article and only then current problems there solved renominate again. Currently not mush is done in order to solve them, and we have quite far from consensus that info should be kept which not. Indeed, we can stuck in process of restart over and over again, not good IMO. M.K. (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have no problems with restarting the nomination, the article has changed much during the last one, primarily due to extensive copyediting. The article is much better now than it was a month ago when the nom was submitted.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Nomination should be restarted as the article has been improved since the last nomination. - Darwinek (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: A malincuore, there are too short sections, such Relations or Names.Weak Support: now it's OK, but the last section can be enlarged --Brískelly[citazione necessaria]- The sections had been merged and the main article of Piłsudski (family) clearly stressd as such. I am not familiar with the meaning of the word malincuore (neither is google), so I am afraid I cannot address this issue until you elaborate on it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. As before. But now much more whole-heartedly. Due to tremendous response, the article is much improved, including all sorts of details—big and small, nuts and bolts and all—taken care of. I say, enough
carpingcriticism (constructive or otherwise)—let's give it a thumbs up, and appreciate a job well done. Turgidson (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Strong support One of the best articles on Wikipedia, in large part due to unusual interest of different sides, which positively contributed to the contents. Tymek (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree with Piotrus that the article is much better now than it was last month. I believe this is largely due to very specific concerns brought up dealing with a variety of issues, not ...because of vociferous and uninformed carping and accusations... (let's not start up with that rhetoric again). I also believe the article will be much better in another month or so when some final tweaking and improvements can be concluded. Maybe it will be done in two weeks, maybe two months. This is why I also agree with Irpen, that there is no need for an urgent rehash of the nomination. No need to rush into it. I also hope when the proper time comes to re-nominate the article, that every editor voting will come up with an explanation for their vote. Previously, this seemed to be somewhat lacking. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am always happy to address or join in ongoing discussions about what could be further improved; alas, I am not aware of any outstanding unadressed issues still at large. I am sure that as with any article on wiki discussions will continue for ever, but do note that a Featured article is not a "final" or "perfect" one - just one fulfilling the FA-requirements, which I sincerely believe this article does.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Still possible to see that it was not written by a Martian. Beginning with the lead: the statement that Pilsudski was responsible for Poland's independence. Referenced now, but still worded as though his responsibility were universally acknowledged. Quoting Orlando Figes: "But suddenly with the Versailles Treaty it (Poland) found itself with a guarantee of independence and a great deal of new territory given to it by the victorious Western powers as a buffer between Germany and Russia". No credit given to Pilsudski. The US Department of State, not surprisingly, gives credit to Woodrow Wilson - no mention of Pilsudski. [1] The statement needs to be reworded as an attribution. And we have established that he is controversial - that belongs in the lead too, but it will take a while to work out the wording and the references. Flora Lewis described his regime as "ultimately disastrous" . [2]. Yo, people, he put a prime minister in jail (Wincenty Witos) - not currently mentioned. Minority opposition to his government is currently characterized as coming solely from extremists. How many square miles of territory did he acquire by military means that were not sanctioned by Versailles and are not part of Poland now? Etc, etc. This will take some time. Novickas (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You may have a point that the article can be added to or reworded, but those links don't provide usable sources (a US state department website and a newspaper article). Lets break what you say down into objections and try to respond:
- considered largely responsible for: what about conflating two sentences to "a major influence on"? This doesn't contradict your Figes quote (though nor does the present wording, in my opinion, which just comes at it from another angle). Could you give the full ref for the Figes, so that one may check what he says about Pilsudski? qp10qp (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Figes ref is from A People's Tragedy: Russian Revolution 1891-1924, 1996, ISBN 0-7126-7327-X, page 697. On the same page: " as soon as Poland gained its independence it began to strut around with imperial pretensions of its own. Marshal Pilsudski, the head of the Polish state and army, talked of restoring 'historic Poland' which had once stretched from the Baltic to the Black Sea. He promised to reclaim her eastern borderlands...As the Germans withdrew from the east, Polish troops marched into the borderlands..." Hope this suffices. More on request, but later. Novickas (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this all that Figes mentions of Piłsudski? For the record, snippet (read: useless) view is all that Google offers for that publication, so verification requires printed copy.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, verification isn't a worry to me (I know the book). I just wanted to see if Figes says anything to contradict the article's point about Pilsudski's importance to the independence of Poland. Neither quote does that: the original quote merely says what was agreed at Versailles (the article covers that), and this one merely says what happened after the independence. qp10qp (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Witos's imprisonment could be mentioned; just add it in. However, the article makes it clear that Pilsudski was a dictator and anti-parliamentary. Those who think that this article paints Pilsudski as a hero might look again at its content (it records that Pilsudski was sometimes thought to be a hero, but that is a different matter). I disliked Pilsudski after reading this article and did not admire him; the article did not strike me as glorifying him. qp10qp (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You say Minority opposition to his government is currently characterized as coming solely from extremists. I don't know how you can draw that conclusion: it is quite clear that he was opposed by the normal democratic bodies—for example, here: From 1926 to 1930, Piłsudski relied chiefly on propaganda to weaken the influence of opposition leaders.[18] The culmination of his dictatorial and supralegal policies came in 1930 with the imprisonment and trial of certain political opponents on the eve of the 1930 Polish legislative elections, and with the 1934 establishment of a prison for political prisoners at Bereza Kartuska (today Biaroza),[18] where some prisoners were brutally mistreated. I don't see how the anti-democratic and dictatorial behaviour of Pilsudski could be made plainer without the article becoming biased in the opposite direction. One instinctively sides with those on the receiving end.qp10qp (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the note on him being controversial to the lead a few hours ago. As I have explained to you before, many factors contributed to Polish independence, and depending on context, various ones will be emphasized. I am not suprised that publication on Versailles notes Versailles, or that one on Polish-American relations mentions Wilson. But this article is about Piłsudski, and details on what contributed to Poland's independence belong in another article(s) - not in the lead of P. article. George Washington "was a central, critical figure in the founding of the United States" - surely he was not alone, but you don't find in the lead an extensive discussion of other founding fathers or international politics. The article does not claim that "Piłsudski alone was responsible for Poland's independence", instead, like GW article, it qualifies his role with "He is considered largely responsible for Poland having regained her independence". This seems perfectly appropriate and is well-referenced.
- Newspapers are not the best of references. Lewis quote is not clear, she may as well mean ("Pilsudski... established an authoritarian regime... eventually disastrous") that Second Polish Republic ended in disaster after Nazi invasion in 1939. We have better criticism in legacy, including the well referenced claim that Piłsudski "inevitably drawn both intense loyalty and intense vilification" - which, amusingly, we can see well in our discussions here :)
- Witos imprisonment - part of the Brest trial controversy - is discussed in the article in its context and linked, the list of who was arrested and sentenced (or not) does not belong in P. article but in the relevant subarticle (eleven important politicians were tried, quite a few more were arrested and briefly imprisoned alongside Witos, including Wojciech Korfanty, another Polish PM ... so what? This is article about Piłsudski, not about the Brest trial).
- Minority opposition to his government is currently characterized as coming solely from extremists - I am pretty sure that Dmowski and endecja - mentioned many times throughout the article - are not characterized as minority extremists, and many other factions opposed to him are mentioned (socialists, communists)...
- Pilsudski's approach to Polish eastern borders is discussed extensively, with at least a para dedicated to that issue at the beginning of the 'Polish-Soviet War' chapter.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As it stands just now: "The plan (i.e. Międzymorze) met with opposition from most of the intended members—who refused to relinquish any of their hard-won independence—as well as from the Allied powers, for whom it would be too bold of a change to the existing balance of power structure." No, the most often-cited reason for Allied opposition is that they had intended Poland to stay within what they had determined to be its ethnographic boundaries, and this was their major problem with supporting Poland during the Polish-Soviet War. Refs later, or you-all can look it up yourselves. Also: "Piłsudski's regime marked a period of much-needed national stabilization and improvements in the situation of ethnic minorities, which formed almost a third of the Second Republic's population" and "Mainstream organizations of ethnic minorities similarly expressed their support for his policies of ethnic tolerance, though he was criticized, similarly to the communists, by Jewish (BUND), Ukrainian, German and Lithuanian extremists". Methinks the Ukrainians, Germans, and Lithuanians would disagree with this. As for the Jewish minority, read this from the Simon Wiesenthal foundation: "In 1926 Marshal Jozef Pilsudski seized power with the help of the army. He had no anti - Jewish tendencies and refrained from using antisemitism as an instrument for furthering political and socioeconomic policies. At first, Pilsudski promised to improve the situation of the Jews but little was accomplished in practice although the general atmosphere with regard to the Jews showed improvement." [3]. Not as strong a statement as is currently written. But doesn't this all belong on the article talk page, and doesn't it all indicate serious disagreement? Also pls remove the word "dream" from the article. Novickas (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't help to note you have not addressed my or Qp10qp's replies above. Can we assume you are satisfied with our arguments? P.
- Sorry, not satisfied and not done. If it goes ahead and becomes an FA, so be it; I won't have time in the upcoming days to address it further, but will continue to keep an eye on it - pls bear in mind that I don't like edit warring, so my lack of that does not constitute an endorsement. Novickas (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you address our replies, so we know which of them do you find unsatisfactory, and why? P.
- The Allies cared much less about ethnic boundaries than about balance of power. They did not want to see their traditional ally Russia weakened, but of course they coated this in more "politically correct" arguments. This should be mentioned in most publications (scholarly, not newspapers) that analyzes the issue in depth, instead of just mentioning this in passing. That said, we can just shorten this by leaving rationales in the Międzymorze article - but selectively added those that support one's POV and leaving others out is a 'no-no'. PS. And certainly ethnic boundaries were the last thing on Allied minds during the PSW; it was the balance of power which made them request P. help Whites against the Bolsheviks - even through the Whites were much less willing to recognize independence of any former Russisan Empire minorities. It was the balance of power and desire for strong Germany and Russia that kept England in the anti-Polish camp (read on Lloyd George), and French desire for weak Germany that countered it (and resulted in the Allies not doing anything for or against Poland). American Wilson, the idealist might have cared about non-realpolitk concepts like ethnic boundaries, but by the time of the PSW he was already trampled by the US isolationism, and USA expressed no interest in Międzymorze.
- Regarding analysis of the statements made by various factions after his death, this is referenced with a scholarly publication dedicated to analyzing those. Feel free to provide a scholarly reference to the contrary.
- As for the Jewish minority, read the current references. I believe the article is neutral with regards to that issue.
- Does this belong on the talk page? Perhaps, but why do you post it here? The FAC time, as evident, attracts comments from many editors who are otherwise not active in the article. We try our best to address them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Novickas has a point about that paragraph. It's easy to fix, so lets take it to the talk page. On the other hand, this afternoon I was comparing the part of the article from the retirement to the end with a number of books written by non-Polish historians, and I found that to be the only paragraph that didn't stand up. qp10qp (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which paragraph? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Novickas makes this objection: As it stands just now: "The plan (i.e. Międzymorze) met with opposition from most of the intended members—who refused to relinquish any of their hard-won independence—as well as from the Allied powers, for whom it would be too bold of a change to the existing balance of power structure." No, the most often-cited reason for Allied opposition is that they had intended Poland to stay within what they had determined to be its ethnographic boundaries, and this was their major problem with supporting Poland during the Polish-Soviet War. Refs later, or you-all can look it up yourselves. - But I don't see the difference between what you say and what is in the article: they wanted the existing balance of power, not an expansion of Poland. I am willing to address your objections, but this seems very minor and in my opinion does not merit a change to the wording. qp10qp (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment section on "historiography" per comprehensiveness?--Kiyarrllston 00:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to see it in every article :) This one is above average, with discussion of Polish historiography and wealth of publications. If I had a source for non-Polish historiography, I'd have added it, but I don't recall a good analysis ATM.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to see it in every article too :D...
- Previously Alleged non-NPOV - what are possible solutions? I previously proposed in order to achieve NPOV a section on (Józef Piłsudski's) "Political views", more recently I proposed a section on historiography, previously there was a section on criticism, "Public Image" is another name for a name for such a section.
- I believe Piłsudski is a hero of Poland as it's "liberator" - - that he was a great man in the eyes of many does not diminish that he was also a "fascist" in the eyes of others.
- What do you think, Piotrus? Please note that these might be good suggestions even outside of being solutions to a non-NPOV but rather to improve comprehensibility and organization.
- --Kiyarrllston 15:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that the picture that Piotrus has given us may be as close as we will get to "Piłsudski's political views." I don't think he ever published a synthesis of his views; he was a pragmatist; and he tended to keep his cards close to the vest—the result of decades of clandestine work, dogged by secret-police spies and enemies of every political stripe. Even politicians in modern western democracies tend to be duplicitous. Don't expect complete declarations of political views from a man in his circumstances in that period. Nihil novi (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support "Józef Piłsudski"'s Featured-Article nomination. This article is one of the highlights of Wikipedia. There is nothing to compare in Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana or even in Polish encyclopedias. It is a superior, comprehensive, balanced, well-illustrated, eminently readable, full-length biography, distilled to the proportions of an on-line encyclopedia. Nihil novi (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain may have some issues, but- what's FA quality anyways? - way more attention is paid to this than to less controversial articles, this article is far above in quality. Good work, Piotrus.--Kiyarrllston 11:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Query naming- why the non-english accents?- why not Pilsudski? - what is he normally referred to in english works as?--Kiyarrllston 11:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied there. Added a note the article in the section on names about use of Joseph by some English publications a few days back.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My 1986 Encyclopedia Americana lists him as "Józef Klemens Piłsudski," Polish diacritics and all. Nihil novi (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2005 Encyclopedia Britannica lists him as "Józef (Klemens) Piłsudski," likewise with the Polish diacritics. Nihil novi (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Norman Davies, God's Playground (1982), calls him "Józef Piłsudski," with diacritics.
- Richard M. Watt, Bitter Glory (1979), calls him "Józef Klemens Piłsudski," with diacritics. Nihil novi (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose then academic facts being described as fantasy, equaled "to moon is made out of green cheese", labeling as flowery languge; instead of it inserting original research and weasel words, in any sense such article can be promoted. My previuos concerns on older nom is also not resolved fully. M.K. (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I supported it last time and support also now. It was very good article in the previous nomination, now it is even better as concerns of various editors have been reflected. I also agree with Nihil novi. I've never seen such comprehensive article about this person nowhere. - Darwinek (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWeak oppose—Article is excessively long; details should be branched off into subarticles, see WP:SIZE. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Piłsudski is a central figure in a period of Polish history that could be termed "the Age of Piłsudski." This article does a unique job of bringing together the salient information on the man and the age. Nihil novi (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't you cut it down to a 50 KB summary of his life and that period of history, and move the less important details to subarticles? —Remember the dot (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you concerned about limited space, or about limited attention spans? The ADHD-readers' version is already in the article's lead. Nihil novi (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mainly I'm concerned about the extremely high load time of 110 KB articles on dial-up connections, especially when trying to edit them. 10-20 seconds to load the article for editing...1 minute to load each preview...10-20 seconds to save...it kind of discourages dial-up users from contributing. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate these technical aspects, and your bringing them to our attention. On the other hand, Piłsudski was a complex man living and acting in a complex time, and so has inevitably stirred controversy. I fear that far-reaching paring-down of the article might lead to misleading oversimplifications. Nihil novi (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Content wouldn't be deleted, just copied to one or more subarticles and then summarized in the main article, with links to the subarticles. Surely a reasonably comprehensive summary of Józef Piłsudski could be given in less than 100 KB. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two questions: 1) Is there any actual requirement (not recommendation) in respect to article sizes? 2) I know that there is an occasional practice of splitting someone's life into separate articles, but this is remarkably arbitrary and ghastly. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that people who worked on the article have more familiarity with what can and cannot be split into smaller articles? (In other words: Surely, one could develop some articles from this one, but should they be developed along arbitrary lines just because the text is too big?) Dahn (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a strict requirement, but it is a guideline per Wikipedia:Article size. The "Biography" section is 82 KB, more than enough for an article of its own. One option is to copy-and-paste the biography section into a new article, Biography of Józef Piłsudski, link to that article at the top of Józef Piłsudski#Biography, and then summarize Biography of Józef Piłsudski at Józef Piłsudski#Biography. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I may be nitpicking, but I fail to see how an article about someone's biography could be separated from the article on the person - the two terms are synonymous (I know stuff like that was done in the past, but I for one have always thought of it as a bad idea). In any case, it is better for an article to say more than for editors to bicker over what is "essential" (you will note that two or three FAC applications of this article have prolonged themselves over precisely the "essential" issues to have in the article). One could move and develop elsewhere the various parts that come in addition to biographical data (even if that would arguably not be a significant reduction). Plus, there are currently many FAs who go way over the limit, and this was deemed (and, to my eyes, was) the best solution.
- When a subject is complex, the article itself will have to be complex. Especially since this length was achieved after a shaky compromise, meaning that creating other articles could only lead users to contention and the article back to the drawing board for eternity. Dahn (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You could call the new branch Life of Józef Piłsudski if you wanted. The main Józef Piłsudski article covers not only his life, but his legacy and family, so there's already a separatoin between his life and his legacy. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Biography" and "life" are themselves synonymous to each other in this context, so it would not make much sense. Yes, bio and legacy are separated, but they are so in the article. For the rest, an article about a person is about that person's life and something else - the solution would be to turn that something else into an article, instead of making two about what is mainly the same thing. I could see separate ones on "Legacy" or "Family", but to have one on "Life" (or, alternatively, ones on, respectively, "Childhood", "Adolescence" etc.) looks like the worst solution possible. And let me add that the solution implied is to a non-existing problem (per my previous arguments). The concern here is not to cut down articles, but to create prose that is not sectioned abruptly according to arbitrary criteria. Dahn (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You could call the new branch Life of Józef Piłsudski if you wanted. The main Józef Piłsudski article covers not only his life, but his legacy and family, so there's already a separatoin between his life and his legacy. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a strict requirement, but it is a guideline per Wikipedia:Article size. The "Biography" section is 82 KB, more than enough for an article of its own. One option is to copy-and-paste the biography section into a new article, Biography of Józef Piłsudski, link to that article at the top of Józef Piłsudski#Biography, and then summarize Biography of Józef Piłsudski at Józef Piłsudski#Biography. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two questions: 1) Is there any actual requirement (not recommendation) in respect to article sizes? 2) I know that there is an occasional practice of splitting someone's life into separate articles, but this is remarkably arbitrary and ghastly. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that people who worked on the article have more familiarity with what can and cannot be split into smaller articles? (In other words: Surely, one could develop some articles from this one, but should they be developed along arbitrary lines just because the text is too big?) Dahn (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Content wouldn't be deleted, just copied to one or more subarticles and then summarized in the main article, with links to the subarticles. Surely a reasonably comprehensive summary of Józef Piłsudski could be given in less than 100 KB. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate these technical aspects, and your bringing them to our attention. On the other hand, Piłsudski was a complex man living and acting in a complex time, and so has inevitably stirred controversy. I fear that far-reaching paring-down of the article might lead to misleading oversimplifications. Nihil novi (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mainly I'm concerned about the extremely high load time of 110 KB articles on dial-up connections, especially when trying to edit them. 10-20 seconds to load the article for editing...1 minute to load each preview...10-20 seconds to save...it kind of discourages dial-up users from contributing. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you concerned about limited space, or about limited attention spans? The ADHD-readers' version is already in the article's lead. Nihil novi (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't you cut it down to a 50 KB summary of his life and that period of history, and move the less important details to subarticles? —Remember the dot (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Piłsudski is a central figure in a period of Polish history that could be termed "the Age of Piłsudski." This article does a unique job of bringing together the salient information on the man and the age. Nihil novi (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ←I've been thinking about it some more, and perhaps a better solution would be to create articles based on the existing section breaks. For example, we could have an article on the Authoritarian rule of Józef Piłsudski, which would be a more logical division. That would allow more room for future expansion of the specific topic of his authoritarian rule, with a shorter summary of the topic in the main article. Surely a decent summary can be created for each of the long sections, something between the coverage that the lead section gives and what the subarticle would give. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is certainly a direction to look into, and it does look feasible. The problem in this case may be more subtle however: editors seem to have different ideas about what is essential, especially in respect to that part of the article; though I have not looked into it, it would seem that the recent expansions have attempted to cover all of what is essential in all takes on the matter, which means that they may not agree on what needs to be summarized, and that what we see before us at the moment actually is the summary. I for one see no technical problem with the length - meaning that a subarticle may actually be an even larger version of the section, and that the section is as small as it could ever get.
- I should specify I took no part in authoring any section of the text - I'm just a bystander who has expressed mild objections to an earlier version of the article. At the moment, I am neither opposed nor supportive, because I think that the article needs some more work before reaching FA level (format problems and not just are still quite visible). I'm not sure it is not actually up to FA requirements, but I would still be polishing it if I would have a better grasp of the subject 9and, yes, part of that polish will involve condensing some parts of the text). Dahn (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I certainly agree that subarticles should be created, 1) I don't think that length is a problem - we have many other FAs of similar length, it there is no policy or FA requirement of shorter length; in other words, it's just a personal preference which shouldn't constitute an objection 2) based on my experience with subarticle of Polish-Soviet War - ex. Polish-Soviet War in 1919 - which where split exactly to address such FA lenght objection, I can see that such articles are rarely read or edited, and hence somewhat useless. 3) The large size of the article is also a result of higher than average density of citations and variety of references. Surely you don't recommend we cut down on those? 4) Finally, in any case, splitting of sections would entitle rewritting the entire article, which would require hours more of work, new voting, rereading it by various editors who voted and so on - which I don't think is necessary. That said, I do support creation of more subarticles, and I do think that new content should be added to them, not to the current article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a guideline about article size: Wikipedia:Article size. A 100 KB article crushes a dial-up connection, which doesn't do much for encouraging contribution. It's possible to have shorter articles that are still well-referenced. Unfortunately, previous FACs have not paid much attention to this issue.
- If detailed information is split off into subarticles, and those articles are in turn rarely read, doesn't that indicate that few people are interested in reading that information anyway? —Remember the dot (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all respect to the Third World inhabitants, most of readers and contributors of English Wikipedia use broadband. Perhaps we could have a 'dial up' Wikipedia with tiny articles, but I prefer to have comprehensive, multimedia articles to small stubs. In any case, if an editor wants a tiny summary, this is what lead is for.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm not talking about small stubs. I'm talking about the exact same information, perhaps more comprehensive, split into different articles with a condensed version left behind. Still, I see your point: dial-up is dying out. Thus, I'm changing to "Weak oppose". —Remember the dot (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all respect to the Third World inhabitants, most of readers and contributors of English Wikipedia use broadband. Perhaps we could have a 'dial up' Wikipedia with tiny articles, but I prefer to have comprehensive, multimedia articles to small stubs. In any case, if an editor wants a tiny summary, this is what lead is for.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I certainly agree that subarticles should be created, 1) I don't think that length is a problem - we have many other FAs of similar length, it there is no policy or FA requirement of shorter length; in other words, it's just a personal preference which shouldn't constitute an objection 2) based on my experience with subarticle of Polish-Soviet War - ex. Polish-Soviet War in 1919 - which where split exactly to address such FA lenght objection, I can see that such articles are rarely read or edited, and hence somewhat useless. 3) The large size of the article is also a result of higher than average density of citations and variety of references. Surely you don't recommend we cut down on those? 4) Finally, in any case, splitting of sections would entitle rewritting the entire article, which would require hours more of work, new voting, rereading it by various editors who voted and so on - which I don't think is necessary. That said, I do support creation of more subarticles, and I do think that new content should be added to them, not to the current article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A minor suggestion partly sparked by the above comments: it would seem that the google book URLs in the text would in themselves, if placed together, amount to an entire paragraph. Now, as far as i could tell, they follow precise and complete bibliographic references, which means that they are redundant. The links themselves would not necessarily be visible to all users, and the viewable text, if I understood correctly, is not made available indefinitely - the viewable pages in one book can change with time, or google books may prevent the same users from revisiting them over and over. (In addition, they drag the text editing window to the right, which can get really annoying.) Is it possible to have them removed, or do they serve some other, not immediately apparent, purpose? Dahn (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Google books are not very editor friendly, but they allow a user to view the selected page ASAP. True, they tend to rot - but on some random basis (I know some that have been stable for two years). As useful, they should stay - but certainly, as a very long urls they may take 1kb or more. If we cared more about technical aspects than writing good articles, we could remove them - but I'd hope our care is in the other direction.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes, but my full point is that the references accompanying them are already exact (down to page numbers), meaning that the technical aspect is covered without them having to stick around. Dahn (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding a link to online page is helpful. Remember: Wikipedia is not paper. We can afford extensive and hyperlinked bibliographical information - just as paper publications often skip ISBN (which we link to online book search engines), or hyperlinks on authors or titles of notable books (for obvious reasons).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes, but my full point is that the references accompanying them are already exact (down to page numbers), meaning that the technical aspect is covered without them having to stick around. Dahn (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Google books are not very editor friendly, but they allow a user to view the selected page ASAP. True, they tend to rot - but on some random basis (I know some that have been stable for two years). As useful, they should stay - but certainly, as a very long urls they may take 1kb or more. If we cared more about technical aspects than writing good articles, we could remove them - but I'd hope our care is in the other direction.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - per Nihil novi, supported last time. Rudget. 16:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Piotrus. Space Cadet (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support since the last nomination. JRWalko (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - like before. I'm reinserting my vote, for the record. In the future though I would prefer for my vote to be respected regardless of any later administrative decision to restart a runaway discussion. --Poeticbent talk 19:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support For the same reason I supported it before. Also it seems that most all of the reasonable concerns and objections from last round have been made right. Ostap 20:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I supported last time. Kyriakos (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as last time, but more strongly so, given improvements. One small point: we're told condolences were expressed by "Eastern Orthodox" and "Greek Orthodox" organisations. Could this be clarified? Does the Church of Greece, one of the Eastern Orthodox churches, operate in Poland? Or was it just the Polish Orthodox Church, also an Eastern Orthodox church, that was expressing condolences? Biruitorul (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take a look at the source book when I am in the library again.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As the last time--Molobo (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If I remmember correctly both my history teachers at primary and high school mentioned that politicaly the march of the First Cadre Company into the area of Cracow in 1914 was a spectacular failure, citizens barred their doors and windows instead of showing support for Piłsudski's legioners - I have heard that event may have influenced Piłsudski's authortarian belifs. In my opinion This article should mention that event and it's possible future implications. Mieciu K (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Urbankowaski discusses this and argues that it was not a big failure, more of an average welcome with fewer volunteers than Piłsudski expected, but no 'empty streets' or 'barred doors'. IIRC he noted that such accounts were propagated by enemies of Piłsudski and the Legions, although there are confusing (contradictory) accounts of those events. If you have a ref that states that this even influenced Piłsudski, feel free to add it - although considering the lenght of the article, perhaps the FCC article would a better place for that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At the beginning of World War I, when Polish Legions cavalry officers attempted to pay a courtesy call at Oblęgorek, that singer of the national epos, Henryk Sienkiewicz, kept them at arm's length. Many people were lukewarm toward the Legions, and recruiting officers found slim pickings. Which, if anything, only underlines the farsightedness and determination of Piłsudski and his men. Nihil novi (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as before, it is well written and sourced article. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 18:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (didn't change my mind). If that's not a FA, what is? --Beaumont (@) 20:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - while long, the article is well-referenced, and its size should not be held against it.--Riurik(discuss) 07:40, 12 January
2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Now that we near the end of this debate concerning the placing of the Pilsudski article as a FA candidate, I would like to again make a few comments. First, it was never my intention to prevent this article from attaining FA status, but only that a balanced and coherent encyclopedic article would be presented to our readers on English Wikipedia. Along the way, I also came to the conclusion that in the future, when and if I cast a vote in such debates, I will never personally use "per so and so" as the explanation of my position, but will explain my vote based on the subject matter, and my knowledge of it. To do otherwise would be suggesting that I didn't have my own opinion, or that I didn't have a clue about the actual subject matter at hand, or that I was just too lazy to give my own explanation. It seems odd to me that many of the earlier votes of "support" have retained their position without making any contributions or changes to the article. And not even acknowledging the many improvements and changes that have come about since the last survey. The least one could do is acknowledge is that the opposition votes catalyzed these changes to occur. I hope everyone has recently re-read through the article. I have. Granted, that has not been easy considering its length, tenditious style, and the spiderweb of "references" that one has to wade through. That was always one of my greatest objections to the article as it stands, because it gives it a ludicrous quality, and there is nothing ludicrous about this great man who did so much for Poland.
Also as I stated previously, one of my biggest problems with the article was its frequent incoherency, resulting from edits by individuals with a poor grasp of English, and its attempt to portray a controversial figure in a cult of personality POV type of format. The continual reversion of sourced edits (by very established historians, e.g., Norman Davies, Timothy Snyder, and others), with comment like "it's offensive" and the like, was another reason that I objected. This activity soon began to also violate WP:OWN as time went on. Someone would make a useful edit only to have it reverted by one or two of the same people. Why because they personally didn't like it. They decided that their job was to "forge" this article according to their POV, and history and the facts be damned. As these "offensive" arguments became stronger and the reasons for their reversion became less tenable, the solution by these parties was to sweep these issues under the carpet and obscure the information by allowing it to stay in links to the footnotes, rather than allowing it to be part of the article proper (with a few other manoevers). This fact should be strongly considered in deciding what to do with this new proposal, and that the former information be reinstated. Personally I like Pilsudski, and have stated so in the past. Naturally, I take issue with the fact that he was a dictator, and an opponent of democracy. He was a fish swimming in the pond of totalitarianism, which was in vogue in that period of European history. He wasn't alone, nor was he as big a fish as some here would have liked him to be. Just the same, he did the best that he could under the circumstances, and with what he had to work with. As user: Halibutt stated (with sourced information and links) and so did Davies, Pilsudski considered himself Lithuanian. This fact has been fought "tooth and nail", more because of the argument WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, than a true refutation of this fact. Let it stay on the record here. Same with his establishment of a concentration camp, or Pilsudski referring to "Poles as a Nation of Morons", or Dmowski and Co. considering him an "alien in their midst". Relevant, factual information, that didn't fit in with the one-side portrayal that was being censored.The article could still be vastly improved, given a little more time. Is the article now better and less biased than before? Yes! Can it still be improved and made better with a little more time? Of course it could. So then, why do we have this unusual push, push, push? The article is not about to be deleted, WP is not about to cease to exist. I'm hoping that whoever feels the need for this extraordinary push to make this an FA article, is not fearful that their own questionable edits might not pass the test of time and analysis. The biggest "red flag", is this continual rush to make this an FA, with a new survey every couple of weeks. Since the debate started, this article has been vastly improved. Let the work continue. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on comment: As others have pointed out, there was not necessarily an incompatibility, for persons such as Piłsudski, between considering oneself a Pole and a Polish-Lithuanian-Commonwealth "Lithuanian." So there really is no need to harp on his having been a "Lithuanian." The assassinated first president of Poland, Gabriel Narutowicz, was a "Pole," if only ex officio; his brother Stanisław Narutowicz was a member of the State Council of Lithuania and a signer of the Lithuanian Act of Independence of February 16, 1918. Similarly, in Galicia, Stanisław Szeptycki was a Polish general, while his brother Andrey Sheptytsky was a Ukrainian Metropolitan Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.
- What Piłsudski has been quoted as saying of Poles ("morons"), any politican has thought at times of his constituency, so it is superfluous to use such a quotation, out of context, to gratuitously insult all Poles.
- Dmowski's opinion of Piłsudski hardly seems germane. Probably a critical, if not scatological, comment of Piłsudski's could be cited regarding Dmowski. Again, par for the course, with politicians. Nihil novi (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment on comment: So why this constant dawdle, dawdle, dawdle? Our esteemed colleague's skill in filibuster would do honor to a United States Senator.
- Our colleague's style of argument reminds me of that of George Bernard Shaw, of whom a critic remarked that seldom has a writer used so many words to convey so little substance. Nihil novi (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nihil, who decides if someone is a Pole, and that if another person is a Polish-Lithuanian-Commonwealth, "Lithuanian" (but is still actually a Pole)? Is there also such a thing as a Lithuanian, and also a Polish-Lithuanian-Commonwealth, "Pole"? I'm assuming that your exclamation marks are trying to state that your belief is that these type of Lithuanians deserve a special designation. Is there not a similar designation for such "Poles"? Or are Poles simply Poles, and the others, like Pilsudski who were Lithuanians, at best Polish-Lithuanian-Commonwealth "Lithuanians?"
- Whereas granted, Fujimoro is a Peruvian (ex officio of course), the history lesson regarding the Narutavicius brothers and the Sheptytsky brothers was unecessary, unless it was for the benefit of others. The bottom line regarding your examples is that we have two families, one Lithuanian and the other Ukrainian who were polonized, as was Pilsudski. And for the record no one is attempting to argue that Pilsudski was not the dictator of Poland, just as previously no one was arguing that Jogaila was not the King of Poland (lot's of the same faces from that debate are here at this one). But his ethnicity, or descent, if you prefer, remains important information and belongs in the article. And not as a footnote. If you insist on more examples let's take J. Dzierzon. On the basis of some quote or letter, the article on WP insists that he is a Pole. I'm not disagreeing that if that is true, then the article is correct. Yet, although we find that Pilsudski stated that he was a Lithuanian on many occasions, "poof," that argument doesn't count here. Why? To really understand Pilsudski, you have to see how his heritage played an enormous part in his psychological make up, and his role on the stage of world history. Incidentally, I'm sure you're aware that Pilsudski's mother was disinterred from Lithuania (Jedrzejewicz mentions in his biography of JP, that the Lithuanian government was very gracious and helpful in granting her son's wish to bring her remains to Vilnius). user: Halibutt stated in the archives of Pilsudski's talk page (archive 2003-2006 sec. 13). "Imagine the faces of Dmowski's nationalists when Pilsudski stated he's Lithuanian in the Polish Sejm...BTW his Polish "Lithuanianess" (sic) was one of many serious problems the nationalists had with Pilsudski and many of them hated him for that". A very pithy analysis of the facts, from Hali, and it should be incorporated into the article (Davies' referenced information regarding this was rv'd, because it was "offensive"). I don't think Davies is offensive but I think some of his works fall into WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, when they fall short of the expectations and POV of some people. Assuming of course that there is no ojection to a balanced, neutral, and unbiased article.
- Now to the question of the "Poles being a nation of morons". That is not my opinion. That is Pilsudski's (although Prokonsul Piotrus corrected it to him calling them "idiots"). When Davies brought that into the Dmowski-Pilsudski quarrel it was to illustrate the intensity of the antagonism between the two. Not out of context or gratuitously, BTW. Ditto when Davies stated that Pilsudski considered himself a Lithuanian of Polish culture. It too was to emphasize the feud between them. Pilsudski's opinion of Dmowski and vice-versa are very germane and relevant in this article.
- After reading your comments on my comments, I have a better understanding of your user name, Nihil novi. Regarding my U.S. Senatorial run, you could also consider a run for the Sejm. Lastly, since you have a penchant for Latin, consider....."ex nihilo nihil fit." p.s. I don't have a problem with Shaw. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand by my previous comments. Nihil novi (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing to respond to. Like a squid, you conceal the paucity of your argument with a great effusion of ink. Nihil novi (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.
There are some article standardisation issues in References and Further reading sections (current revision 183596548):
- op. cit. — there are many versions of formatting and writing of op. cit.: cursive and non-cursive, with space between these words and without space (op. cit./op.cit.), with periods and without (op. cit./op cit).
- Further reading section — no periods at the end of some sentences.
There are also some minor differences in referencing style, for example ISBN written with and without dashes (-); sometimes there is comma (,), sometimes semicolon (;) before ISBN. Visor (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point.
- In editing this article, when I've encountered non-English-standard punctuation, I've tried to correct it.
- Poles are often unaware that they use different standards than most Anglophones. In numbers, for example, they use commas for decimals, and periods where Anglophones use commas (thus, "5.280,03" rather than "5,280.03").
- Similarly, Poles italicize article titles and use quotes on book titles—again, the exact reverse of what Anglophones generally do.
- The "op. cit." situation is thus but the tip of the iceberg.
- "Op. cit." is the abbreviation of the Latin "opere citato"—"in the work [previously] cited." Since it comes from a foreign language (Latin), in English it is generally italicized. And since "op. cit." is an abbreviation, it comes with periods. And since these are two words, there should be a space between them.Nihil novi (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've corrected the "Further reading" section as far as I could. In some items, information was unclear or missing. Poles, for example, frequently list the place of publication but not the publisher, or vice versa. Nihil novi (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A side note: Bibliographies in Polish publications often abbreviate authors' first names, even when the authors don't do so on their title pages. Some years ago, a Polish historian expressed surprise on learning that "B. Tuchman," author of The Guns of August, was a woman (Barbara Tuchman). Nihil novi (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as in the last round. A lot of superficial gloss and we-want-it-to-be-featured, and no improvement regarding the NPOV issues I had a quick look at. "Relations with Weimar Germany ... Pilsudski's tenure could for the most part be described as neutral"? According to Polish historian Marian Zgorniak [4], Polish military leaders like Gustaw Orlicz-Dreszer since the 1920s had, in accordance with Pilsudkis orders, prepared offensive concepts against Weimar Germany, which was defenseless due to Versailles restrictions. What might "marsz na berlin"! refer to anyway, travelling to the Olympics in 1936? And "in January 1933, Piłsudski is rumored to have proposed to France a preventive war against Germany"? With all the sources on a "preventive war against germany" +1933, all a Featured-Article-candidate, which "should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work", can come up with is "rumored to have proposed"? Really, this prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard. In the words of Polish historian Waclaw Jedrzejewicz : The Polish Plan for a "preventive War" Against Germany in 1933, or even The Polish war for a preventive war against Germany in 1933. When will the third FA candidacy be started? -- Matthead DisOuß 09:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article mentions P. plans for a war against Germany. Going into details of unrealized and highly speculative military plans is rather off topic in this article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article is about a dictator - you have to expect protracted discussion. Some particular points. His attitude towards minorities is currently described as favorable, but Timothy Snyder mentions public corporal punishment of Ukrainians [5] ordered by Pilsudski. Other questionable wordings, some of which are easy to fix - "considered responsible for regaining Poland's independence" - just change to considered by many. A coin featuring his "rugged profile". Conflicts "resulted in Poland moving eastward" - passive tense. The use of the word "dream" to describe plans that much of the rest of the world saw as imperialism - the Polish government felt it necessary to defend itself against this charge in an "appeal to the world" [6]. The Locarno treaties as appeasement - not a universally accepted interpretation. He and some historians perceived them as such. Villified is not a neutral word. There were constitutional crises in 1990s Poland that involved widespread fears of a renewed Pilsudksi-like presidential role [7] - no mention. Some issues have been addressed and the article has been improved thereby, but more remain. Novickas (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article mentions (just as Snyder writes) that OUN attacks led to repressions and deterioration of the relations between Ukrainian minority and Polish government.
- As currently stated: "Piłsudski's regime began a period of national stabilization and improvements in the situation of ethnic minorities". This implies that the ongoing problems stemming from post-WWI territorial changes - Ukrainians seeking independence and upset about Galicia, Germans upset about the Danzig corridor, etc - went away for some unspecified period of time. Most authors treat the entire interwar period as turbulent. See Ilya Prizel, Aviel Roshvald, Roy Leslie, etc - some of these authors' viewpoints are discussed at the talk page.
- Any author who goes into this at depth will notice that the situation fluctuated; Piłsudski tried to improve the situation but failed, and the deterioration accelerated after his death. In any case, this is simply not a major issue in an article about him. Second Polish Republic had many failings, and not a single one of them (nor any of its achievements) should be given undue weight there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As currently stated: "Piłsudski's regime began a period of national stabilization and improvements in the situation of ethnic minorities". This implies that the ongoing problems stemming from post-WWI territorial changes - Ukrainians seeking independence and upset about Galicia, Germans upset about the Danzig corridor, etc - went away for some unspecified period of time. Most authors treat the entire interwar period as turbulent. See Ilya Prizel, Aviel Roshvald, Roy Leslie, etc - some of these authors' viewpoints are discussed at the talk page.
- I am not aware of any source that argues Piłsudski was not responsible for Poland regaining independence. Granted, his activity was only one of the resulting factors, but the article doesn't claim he was solely responsible for it - so I see no contradiction here.
- As currently stated: "He is considered largely responsible for Poland having regained her independence in 1918". This statement is single-factorial. Yes, some people see it that way, but an encyclopedia is not in the business of attributing major historic developments to a single person. For an encyclopedic version see Britannica [8] - it's a one-page summary, not too burdensome to read. Note the sentences "The chances of Polish independence increased radically in 1917 when the United States entered the war and two revolutions shook Russia....The Inter-Allied conference (June 1918) endorsed Polish independence, thus crowning the efforts of Dmowski, who had promoted the Polish cause in the West since 1915."
- This is well referenced, and majority of sources put Piłsudski's efforts above Dmowski's - which nonetheless, together with the Versailles and its aftermath, are mentioned in the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As currently stated: "He is considered largely responsible for Poland having regained her independence in 1918". This statement is single-factorial. Yes, some people see it that way, but an encyclopedia is not in the business of attributing major historic developments to a single person. For an encyclopedic version see Britannica [8] - it's a one-page summary, not too burdensome to read. Note the sentences "The chances of Polish independence increased radically in 1917 when the United States entered the war and two revolutions shook Russia....The Inter-Allied conference (June 1918) endorsed Polish independence, thus crowning the efforts of Dmowski, who had promoted the Polish cause in the West since 1915."
- Rugged - fixed. "resulted in Poland moving eastward" - string not found. Dream - fixed.
- The passively-worded phrase in question is "a series of escalating battles which resulted in the Poles advancing eastward."
- So?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The passively-worded phrase in question is "a series of escalating battles which resulted in the Poles advancing eastward."
- Locarno - extensively discussed before; the article makes it clear it was Piłsudski's POV to see them as such.
- As currently phrased: "Piłsudski was disappointed by the French and British policy of appeasement evident in those countries' signing of the Locarno Treaties." This is not a universally-acknowledged interpretation of the treaties - you could say this about the Munich Agreement, but not here.
- And for the n-th time, this is attributed to P., referenced and rather appopriate for an article about him.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As currently phrased: "Piłsudski was disappointed by the French and British policy of appeasement evident in those countries' signing of the Locarno Treaties." This is not a universally-acknowledged interpretation of the treaties - you could say this about the Munich Agreement, but not here.
- Some minor 1990s crises in Polish politics which made somebody compare the situation to P. times (60 years after his death and without an article on either en or pl wiki) don't seem relevant here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These crises and their relation to Pilduski are mentioned in the New York Times [9] , by the National Defense University [10] ("This is of immense importance because of Poland's experience with the defense council during the Pilsudski and 1980-81 martial law eras") and in these books [11], [12]. I would submit that the creation of a post-Soviet constitution is not minor, and that there was much more discussion of these issues in PL-language sources.
- Feel free to expand articles about modern Polish political history with this information. But this is not of much relevance to P. article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These crises and their relation to Pilduski are mentioned in the New York Times [9] , by the National Defense University [10] ("This is of immense importance because of Poland's experience with the defense council during the Pilsudski and 1980-81 martial law eras") and in these books [11], [12]. I would submit that the creation of a post-Soviet constitution is not minor, and that there was much more discussion of these issues in PL-language sources.
- The article mentions (just as Snyder writes) that OUN attacks led to repressions and deterioration of the relations between Ukrainian minority and Polish government.
- Length/access issues - I have DSL and I have problems editing this page (now 71 KB), the article itself, and its talk page. Novickas (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure the problem is with DSL? I have DSL, too, and no problem editing this article. Nihil novi (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While the article is truly impressive and well written, References and Further reading sections fails WP:FACR 2(c): _consistently formatted_ inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing. I've also noticed some issues:
- Two the same references written in different ways:
- 2. Marian Marek Drozdowski, Przedmowa, in Marian Marek Drozdowski, Hanna Szwankowska, Pożegnanie Marszałka. [...]
- 8. & 142. Zbigniew Wojcik, Przedmowa, in Marian Marek Drozdowski, Hanna Szwankowska, Pożegnanie Marszałka. [...]
- Int. link to Watt, not to Watt, Richard: 144. Watt, Richard (1979). [...]
- No locations in references—for example, let's take two first references: no location for Plach, 2006 (Warsaw) and Drozdowski, 1995 (Athens, Ohio).
- Wrong ISBN for Dziewanowski (1969). (Fixed)
- No standardisation for locations in Ref section, sometimes written in Polish, sometimes in English language (Warsaw/Warszawa).
- No standardisation for url retrieve date (Retrieved on/retrieved on/Last accessed on/last accessed on).
- No standardisation for author (or editor), written in different ways: last, first and first last.
- No standardisation for dashes in dates (hyphen/en dash).
Some names are red links, some are no links. What decides about that? Visor (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two the same references written in different ways:
- All known issues mentioned by me above has been resolved. Now, I Support for FA, per Piotrus; well written and well referenced article. Visor (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for fixing those issues. All comments are appreciated, but comments followed by fixes are doubly so :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All known issues mentioned by me above has been resolved. Now, I Support for FA, per Piotrus; well written and well referenced article. Visor (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and this is the whole point being made by many, including myself, that the article needs lots more "fixing". Like you I want this article to become a FA. Virtually everyone currently supporting this nomination was satisfied with it long before so many "fixes" were implemented. Simply put, the article needs plenty more fixing. This unusual and relentless attempt to make this a FA every few weeks, is becoming more of a game, than a serious desire to reach a consensus. Isn't better to create an article that it is the best that Wikipedia can offer to its readers? Until then, I vote Oppose. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain This is an interesting discussion. Piotrus and Nihil novi are supporting the FA nomination. And, M.K and Dr. Dan are opposing the FA nomination. Interesting! I studied the article and I think it is a very good biography. However, Dr. Dan and M.K have raised some issues. Is this biography neutral? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Having written quite a few FAs, I believe this one fulfills Wikipedia:Neutral point of view quite well, and as I have argued above arguments to the contrary are a violation of undue weight principle. I'd hope that the article would not have gotten as many supports as it has if I was mistaken.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Piotrus, I think the biography is fine. And, you and Nihil novi have contributed significantly to the articles related to Poland. Let me ask a question: Why are Dr. Dan and M.K against the article? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Read my comment above and archived thread and oh, you also should read others comments as well, in order to find out who are unsatisfied of certain issues... M.K. (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Masterpiece, to be clear, I am not against this article. My position regarding this article's strengths and weaknesses have been presented by me in detail on the talk pages. If you have the time (and I do mean time) you can get a very good idea of everyone's position on the archived talkpage, as well as this one. A FA on Wikipedia is purported to be the best type of article that the project can produce. This article is constantly improving, and I look forward to casting a "Support" vote when it truly reaches that point. Soon I hope. Few will remember edits on the talk page like, "He was the greatest Pole of all time and my great grandfather was proud to serve under him in the Polish Victory War of 1920 against Russia. Now this is why this article was delisted". Colonel Mustard, 29 May 2006. Or, "How I long for the day when his spirit finds another body - Oh Marshal Pilsudski We People of Poland love you". Anonymous, 31 Oct 2004
- This puts a little of my objection in a nutshell, it once was a highly nationalistic POV'd boring piece of hero worship, pushing a cult of personality. Thankfully, it is less and less so. Without this relentless renomination of the article to become a FA and need to rush it before further improvements are made, it will be just fine. And for the record, the "many votes" it attracts seemed to have a more or less "ethnic component", than a contributory one. Finally this continual "fixing" of the article, whenever an objection is presented (rather than by a dialogue) is most troubling, because it is not a WP:OWN article, and needs a more balanced and neutral perspective. Hope that helps with your query. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Masterpiece2000 asked about objections to the article, and you discuss irrelevant "edits on the talk page." Why this exercise in misdirection? Nihil novi (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I should stay away from this discussion. I don't have great knowledge about Polish history. I will do research before casting my vote. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Dr. Dan, I studied the arguments on the talk page of Piłsudski. I have decided to stay away from this discussion. My vote is Abstain! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hybrid Theory
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 03:55, 27 December 2007.
Belarus
- previous FAC (00:52, 10 December 2007)
Despite the long and confusing FAC last time around, I have made the following changes. First, I sought help of the League of Copyeditors and they fixed everything that some of yall seem to have problems with. I still have those Manual of Style issues stuck to the back of my mind, but I believe those were fixed too. Second, while not a major issue brought up, I removed all red links that were in the article. I expanded a little but more sections and added about 5-10 more sources to the article. I know someone said to use book sources and I added a few today. I am not sure if a further reading section is needed, but if one is asked for, I can make a list of one or two books I found useful. All links should be working this time, image issues sorted out during the copyedits. Hopefully, this effort was needed to make the article hopefully up to the standards Wikipedia begs its users to strive for. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. An excellently written, comprehensive article. This is the bar all FAs should strive for. --krimpet✽ 07:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It is an article that is professionally written, well sourced, and long. (An expectation of country articles) I'd give a thumbs as it passes all the criteria. (SUDUSER)85 13:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why is there no mention of Belarus being the last European dictatorship? Sarsaparilla (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Because other users felt it was a major POV issue. I did include quotes by Lukashenko saying he is an authoritative leader and showed what Western Governments and NGO's said about his ruling style. The link is somewhere in the history, and I do remember it was written by the BBC. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely, it's not a POV issue to say that US and EU consider it the last European dictatorship, while the CIS and especially Russia refute these accusations? —Nightstallion 21:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what you are getting at; lemme dig in the history and add it in the article text. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nightstallion and Sarsaparilla, it's in, along with how the government feels about the accusers. They come from the same BBC report. I hope this is fair. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, that's precisely what I had in mind. Thanks! —Nightstallion 09:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nightstallion and Sarsaparilla, it's in, along with how the government feels about the accusers. They come from the same BBC report. I hope this is fair. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what you are getting at; lemme dig in the history and add it in the article text. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely, it's not a POV issue to say that US and EU consider it the last European dictatorship, while the CIS and especially Russia refute these accusations? —Nightstallion 21:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because other users felt it was a major POV issue. I did include quotes by Lukashenko saying he is an authoritative leader and showed what Western Governments and NGO's said about his ruling style. The link is somewhere in the history, and I do remember it was written by the BBC. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to Sandy: I began to edit the external links after you provided that link. I switched at least one, removed one, and thinking about the others (especially a PDF file from the foreign ministry). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still one blacklisted link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a Google cache link. Working on that still. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From looking at it, the cache also died. I just removed it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a Google cache link. Working on that still. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still one blacklisted link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Comments moved to the talk page that were not relevant to the FAC). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Passes all criteria in WIAFA with flying colors, and it's a hell of a lot better than the FAs I've written. east.718 at 03:01, December 21, 2007
- Support, clearly. —Nightstallion 09:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, naturally very well written article... :) --Brískelly[citazione necessaria]
- Support The article is well-written and appears comprehensive and Zscout370 has been very prompt in fixing all of the MOS issues I noticed. Karanacs (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. It is definitely well-written and comprehensive but there are some WP:MOS violations that need to be taken care of.full dates need to be wikilinked so that date preferences will work.Need a non-breaking space between a number and its unit or qualifier (use {{nowrap}} or   ;); for example 9.85 million could be {{nowrap|9.85 million}}There should not be external links embedded in the body of the article. There is currently one in the history sectionYou can probably combine the two-sentence paragraph on life expectancy with the paragraph before it.You probably ought to specify whether dinner is the midday or evening meal. In the US, many southerners refer to the midday meal as dinner (with the evening meal being supper), and in the northern part of the US the evening meal is dinner.the template on Belarus topics should be at the bottom of the article and not in a See Also sectionNot all of your references are formatted properly. Some do not have publisher names (22-24, 28, 32, 33, etc)
Karanacs (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved the template already, and I use   for the nonbreaking spaces already, so I will just use that in where you told me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about the sig issue, what happened is there was a typo for "nowiki" at the end tag. I'm working on the dates now, I fixed the link, I think I got all of the non-breaking spaces, paragraph merged, working on the citation issue now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved the template already, and I use   for the nonbreaking spaces already, so I will just use that in where you told me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think snagged them all, except for the dinner bit (which I explained on your talk page). I am going to format all of the citations now that are not in the template format. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I got everything, but I left a note at your talkpage showing I did stuff. No response from user yet. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion is at User_talk:Karanacs#Belarus_FAC. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A few very minor things.
- "is a landlocked country in Eastern Europe[1] that borders Russia to the north and east" - You need some form of punctuation under the ref, as is done elsewhere in the article (comma, period, etc.)
- I think ref 8 should go before the sound sample
- There is half a section tucked under the second image on the "Demographics" section, which looks odd (for me)...perhaps move the image up a bit
— Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 07:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the first two issues, but due to the database locks, I will need to fix the last one later. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Update the demography graph, it only goes up to 2003.--Miyokan (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- About that, I checked the website that has the data for demography and I could not find updated numbers. I also wish to know what program was used when making that chart. Once I find out what program was used, I can update the chart. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was notified that the source information requires a login and a password in order to access it. I am going to remove the chart for now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great article. —dima/talk/ 05:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 17:56, 29 January 2008.
Introduction to evolution
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been through extensive peer review, and modification in the course of obtaining GA status. We believe it is now ready for careful consideration of FA status. Filll (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An ongoing - support/oppose Summary is on the bottom of this FA attempt's discussion page. --Random Replicator (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose References are formatted at best with troubling inconsistency. They, along with "further reading", need a thorough overhaul. Circeus (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Please ignore this. Being now ithout a computer until further notice, I don't hae the time nor patience to review it via lab material. Circeus (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Re-formated titles of text to follow APA style in future reading section. Other than that, format seems to be consistent and accurate. All ISBN numbers were accurate as well as authors, dates and publishers. Ex. River of of eden. If this is incorrect please provide guidance. Thank you. --Random Replicator (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: This is the APA format for a single author text. [Smith, John Maynard. Evolutionary Genetics. Second Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. ISBN-10: 0198502311. A comprehensive introduction to the molecular and population aspects of evolutionary genetics.] Is this adequate? Should we include descriptors along with the citation as is done here?
- Comment: I've spent the day applying the templates ... if it is wrong ... well at least it is consistently wrong .. thank you for your input. --Random Replicator (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Let's see... For basics, the isbn format breaks ISBN linking, external links should NEVER be formatted without text (there's a reason all usual Wikipedia web cites formats put the title there, people!), and if you're going to give full names in references, you might as well do the same in "further reading". Circeus (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Templates applied - format problems should now be resolved --- thanks for sharing information on template for standardizing; made the task so much easier. --71.77.211.77 (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)--Random Replicator (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will operate on the assumption that the template resolved the problem in the absence of any follow-up.--Random Replicator (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)--Random Replicator (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I truly want feedback on this concern since the lion's share of my efforts have been addressing it. No response since 12-22. It is now 1-10. I thought I could ask on talk page but there was a do not disturb statement at the top: If I commented on a Featured Content candidacy, I will be watching it. So I opted to wait for a commentary here. The do not disturb has since been replaced with a statement that their computer is broken. Can someone else who is keeping up with this FA attempt state whether Circeus concern is still valid before this page closes. I do want this issue to be corrected if it still falls short. --Random Replicator (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will operate on the assumption that the template resolved the problem in the absence of any follow-up.--Random Replicator (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)--Random Replicator (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Templates applied - format problems should now be resolved --- thanks for sharing information on template for standardizing; made the task so much easier. --71.77.211.77 (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)--Random Replicator (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object- Too many dot point sections,the examples section is entirely unreferenced.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Agreed and noted. The bulleted list, intended to simplify have been worked into text in response to your concerns. The number have been dramatically reduced; the few remaining; I think you will agree are necessary. Thank you for your suggestion. Give me a day and citations will be added to the Hardy-Weinberg. As currently revised; it is essentially common knowledge; but can and will be reinforced with citations. I am assuming my additions here are appropriate; if not please provide me with direction so that I do not violate protocol. --Random Replicator (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Cited Hardy-Weinberg Section. Essentially a section heavy with vocabulary terms which were referenced to the widely read text by Neil Campbell. The section reads better; although I hated to drop my hypothetical examples; which really needed a bulleted list to be retained. --Random Replicator (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)<[reply]
- Both concerns have been addressed; are your concerns resolved?--Random Replicator (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Cited Hardy-Weinberg Section. Essentially a section heavy with vocabulary terms which were referenced to the widely read text by Neil Campbell. The section reads better; although I hated to drop my hypothetical examples; which really needed a bulleted list to be retained. --Random Replicator (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)<[reply]
(unindent) It might be best to ask here, which sections do you think should be put into prose and why? Which bulleted sections would be improved by being put into prose? Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed you returned to strike out the unreferenced concerns but failed to follow-up on our questions about "dot points". All dot points were removed with the exception for the list of reproductive barriers. That marked a dramatic decrease in the use of list. Do you mean to say "too many" when you mean to say "they should not be any"? Please respond so that I may consider revision before time runs out.--Random Replicator (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The article has many problems and is not ready for FA:
- Referencing is not FA standard. I see many unreferenced paragraphs:
- No references in paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of *"Darwin's idea: evolution by natural selection" section.
- Paragraphs 2 and 4 are referenced from the first paragraph: Darwin's On the Origin of Species. DrKiernan (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No references in paragraph 2 of "Vestigial structures" section.
- No references in paragraph 2 of "Examples" section.
- No references in paragraphs 1 and 2 of "Different perspectives on the mechanism of evolution" section.
- No references in paragraph 1 of "Rate of change" section.
- No references in paragraph 1 of "Unit of change" section.
- References 4, 5, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 38 and 39 have formatting problems. Always put references after a comma or full stop with no space in between.
- The article is POV. Even if it's an introduction, it should still mention a little about the creationism debate.
- I see a few short paragraphs with only one or two sentences. The article is not well-written and needs a copy-edit, but I cannot help because my English is not very good.
- Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not sure if I agree with this advise as per your talk page "Now add a lot of references. FA standard referencing = almost one reference per sentence, all paragraphs must have references." The article has been peered reviewed to the point of nausea and has already reached GA status. I believe the format issues for consistency are being cleaned up. This line ... The article is POV. Even if it's an introduction, it should still mention a little about the creationism debate. I'm thinking this comment - will elicit a response from others on this page; which should make for some interesting reading. --Random Replicator (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article is an Intro to Evolution and does not need to discuss alternate origin theories / suppositions. To suggest it is POV becaue it doesn't discuss creationism is like complaining that an article on the 'Baptist' church is POV because it doesn't mention a little about the 'Roman Catholic' church. The article does a good job as an 'overview' of an 'intro to evolution'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to admit, I find the criticism that an introductory article on evolution does not discuss creationism a bit strange. First, it is an introduction, so it cannot go into detail about everything. Second, it is a science article, not about religion or politics. Third, there are links to creationist discussions in the summary, and some discussion of creationist points (for example Objections to evolution and misconceptions about evolution). Since this editor did not realize that the article was already a GA, it is clear that this editor has not read the article very carefully and realized that his complaint about creationism has already been addressed, and has not realized that the article is already a GA. Also, although I am a big fan of heavy use of citations and references, for an introductory article, this is probably inappropriate. For an introductory article, the article should be as accessible as possible, and having a huge number of citations and footnotes really does not make an article accessible, particularly for beginners. Remember, we are not aiming this at a professional audience, or an adult audience, but at a beginning high school level. --Filll (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article is an Intro to Evolution and does not need to discuss alternate origin theories / suppositions. To suggest it is POV becaue it doesn't discuss creationism is like complaining that an article on the 'Baptist' church is POV because it doesn't mention a little about the 'Roman Catholic' church. The article does a good job as an 'overview' of an 'intro to evolution'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not sure if I agree with this advise as per your talk page "Now add a lot of references. FA standard referencing = almost one reference per sentence, all paragraphs must have references." The article has been peered reviewed to the point of nausea and has already reached GA status. I believe the format issues for consistency are being cleaned up. This line ... The article is POV. Even if it's an introduction, it should still mention a little about the creationism debate. I'm thinking this comment - will elicit a response from others on this page; which should make for some interesting reading. --Random Replicator (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Referencing has been dramatically increased; despite my better judgment and general agreement with Filll on the need in an Introductory article which links to the primary document that is heavily referenced. None-the-less, there are now nearly 50 sources referenced. May we now consider that concern resolved? I am in strong disagreement with the POV claim. Perhaps you could expand upon that concern on the discussion page. --Random Replicator (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)--Random Replicator (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This creationism issue is a non-issue. The first question at the Talk:Evolution/FAQ, which I think is a good set of guidelines for this page as well, is "Why won't you add criticisms or objections to evolution in the Evolution article?". See that page for an excellent explanation that was obviously agreed upon by a previous consensus of evolution editors.
- Kaypoh, try to explain why these paragraphs need citations - they don't need it for the sake of having citations - see Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines and WP:V. Also, point out what is not "well-written" so that the editors know what to improve (the editors obviously think it is well-written or they would not have submitted it). I might also mention that it is getting a little tiring to read "try GA first" in your reviews. Please check to see if articles already are GA - this comment makes it seem like you haven't carefully read the article. Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This creationism issue is a non-issue. The first question at the Talk:Evolution/FAQ, which I think is a good set of guidelines for this page as well, is "Why won't you add criticisms or objections to evolution in the Evolution article?". See that page for an excellent explanation that was obviously agreed upon by a previous consensus of evolution editors.
(unindent)Citations and referencing has been dramatically increased which was in direct opposition to our mandate to increase readability. I did this to address this specific oppose. The number of references are approaching 70; nearly double the number when you opposed. A hope you will be responding to my efforts as time is surely running out.--Random Replicator (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize you have involved yourself in 54 other Featured Article Request since offering your insights on this one; so no doubt you are very busy. Such enthusiasm from a relatively new editor is appreciated. But perhaps you might spare the time to address your oppose as well as our attempts to resolve the concerns that you have raised?? Cheers!--Random Replicator (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kaypoh was requested to revisit oppose and has not.[13] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.
Merge with Evolution. Support. Having read the article, it does seem to me to be comprehensive as an 'Introduction to Evolution' as the title states and is well referenced. It seem to follow Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. Some small stylistic things: should the images alternate (right side, left side, right side)? And, the bullet points at 'Barriers that prevent fertilization' and 'Barriers acting after fertilization' should be changed to straight paragraph style. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)I believe that this very good article ought to be simplified further to distinguish it from the main article on Evolution. It meets the criteria of an Feature Article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion: The bullets work here because this is a list of barriers and the list is easier to understand with the points. Why do you think it would be easier to understand in prose? Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt it would be any easier to understand. It is why I support the article; it is a minor stylistic preference and is neither here nor there. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objections to the article. I think it is good. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt it would be any easier to understand. It is why I support the article; it is a minor stylistic preference and is neither here nor there. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comment: I haven't finished reading the article yet, but I have a few stylistic comments already Is it necessary to have so many pictures in the introduction? I understand that pictures are appreciated by readers, but I don't think anyone will appreciate a glut of pictures so early on. The evolution page keeps it simple with just the template at the top, and my personal opinion is do the same thing here.Regarding the template at the top, I notice it's different to the one on the evolution page - is that wise, considering changes to one aren't guaranteed to be applied to the other in the future.This is just my opinion and not an objection, but I think all of the examples (and there are lots) need to be worked into the article a little better. For instance, in many cases a sentence starts with or includes "For example ..." (20 times by my count). Maybe it could be changed up a bit, alternatives like "that can be seen in the case of 'blah'" or something. It just feels awkward reading the same thing over and over. I think the lists at the end of the article should be turned into prose too.For the same reasons given by Wassupwestcoast, I don't see why creationism needs to be mentioned in this article.Ben 16:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The heavy use of pictures in the article was planned. This article is meant for a very different audience than evolution. Evolution aims at an advanced undergraduate level (14 or 15 years of schooling). Introduction to evolution aims at someone who is a freshman or sophmore in high school (10 or 11 years of schooling). Look at a book for elementary school students, a book for junior high school students and a book for high school students and a book for college students. Which books have the most pictures? Obviously, the books meant for younger and less educated readers have more pictures and they are more prominent. So at least in my opinion, you are not understanding what an introduction actually is and is meant to be in this situation.--Filll (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I wasn't questioning the number of pictures in the article, in fact I have no problem with that. I was concerned with so many pictures in the introduction to the article. Sorry for the confusion. Ben 17:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to agree, that the excessive use of the term example does not make for good prose. However, there is the advantage of consistency that organizes the data in a way that one unfamiliar with the concept may better understand. In my experience with high school text books; transitional words can not be subtle or the young reader will become confused. If your opposition to the consistency is not passionate; then I would rather leave the For example ... approach as it stands. However, it would be simple enough to convert to "that can be seen in the case of 'blah'" if need be. Thank you for your constructive criticism. --Random Replicator (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I wasn't questioning the number of pictures in the article, in fact I have no problem with that. I was concerned with so many pictures in the introduction to the article. Sorry for the confusion. Ben 17:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Removed "The Tree" that has been added and removed several times in regards to the concern over clutter. It has been very difficult to balance the pictures; again because of my experience with textbooks, with the more "stark" approach of Wikipedia. Hope the removal served to improve the general appearance. --Random Replicator (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit out many of the "For Examples" as suggested--Random Replicator (talk) 05:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There may be confusion here: "I don't see why creationism needs to be mentioned in this article.". The article does not mention creationism; we were addressing an oppose that stated that it should by Kaypoh. If you care to strike through the last one! --Random Replicator (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there other concerns? The list you provided seems to have been addressed.--Random Replicator (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There may be confusion here: "I don't see why creationism needs to be mentioned in this article.". The article does not mention creationism; we were addressing an oppose that stated that it should by Kaypoh. If you care to strike through the last one! --Random Replicator (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The statement evolution is supported by 99.9% of the scientific community is attributed to this NIH web page, but did the person quoted (Dr. Brian Alters) in the page literally mean 99.9%? Having read the context, I wonder about both the 99.9% figure and whether he meant it literally. Fg2 (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. This statement of Alters should be in quotes. DrKiernan (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We cannot know for sure what Brian Alters meant, but his statement is pretty accurate from all we can determine. Look at level of support for evolution, for example.--Filll (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: there are unreferenced paragraphs. --Brískelly[citazione necessaria]
- The decision was made to minimize the number of references in the article to make it more accessible. We can of course put a huge number of references in the article, just as are found in evolution or intelligent design. However, this was viewed as inappropriate for an introductory article.--Filll (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope that FA director is aware of your random votes on a variety of articles in which you "vote" without any apparent awareness of the procedure or the actual articles themselves. A scan of the Featured Article page will find your name over and over with the same comment. There are over 50 citation in this article. Please understand that this is a serious process; where criticism are respected; however, they should be well founded.--Random Replicator (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain what you think needs to be referenced and why using the principles outlined in WP:V and Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope that FA director is aware of your random votes on a variety of articles in which you "vote" without any apparent awareness of the procedure or the actual articles themselves. A scan of the Featured Article page will find your name over and over with the same comment. There are over 50 citation in this article. Please understand that this is a serious process; where criticism are respected; however, they should be well founded.--Random Replicator (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The decision was made to minimize the number of references in the article to make it more accessible. We can of course put a huge number of references in the article, just as are found in evolution or intelligent design. However, this was viewed as inappropriate for an introductory article.--Filll (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) There are now nearly 70 references in an effort to address your specific concern. I am requesting that you specifically respond to these revision in citation numbers in order for me to determine if you are still in opposition and if possible, perhaps you could be more specific. Thanks for your input. --Random Replicator (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize it will be difficult to follow-up to each of the 50+ articles that you have reviewed since dropping in here; but I am certain that myself and likely the other writers of the 13 articles you critique, during a three hours time span, would appreciate a follow-up to determine if we have complied to your concerns sufficiently to remove that oppose, which has both inspired and frustrated the numerous editors on the numerous articles in which you have shared your vision of a FA worthy entry. I am sure that your comments are playing through the minds of those who take your words to heart; and recognize your good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia. Is there not a system in place to flag these things? (sigh)--Random Replicator (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Has not revisited, requested twice.[14][15] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments "Darwin incorrectly deduced that heritable traits were a product of the environment" I'm not familiar with that: I think that is counter-intuitive for someone ignorant, and could do with a citation. "The theory of evolution is the foundation of nearly all research conducted in biology" seems rather over-blown. "This has been well documented in the orchid family." example please, or cite a review. DrKiernan (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Deleted the orchid comment... a million options I should have cited ... but frankly it seemed to be just hanging there with no real direction. Thank you.--Random Replicator (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your specific concerns --- I know Darwin had no explanation for the source of variations; I will dig farther to see how that morphed into his agreement on LaMarckism. Your specific concerns are appreciated and valued. General statements that it "needs more citations" contribute little when clearly the Introduction to Evolution Article has tons of citations (60 lines of referenced information). Frankly I would not cite the line: The earth orbits the sun. Some information in an encyclopedia is held to standard by "peer review" --- citing every line sounds like an over reaction to criticisms raised by "World Book" readers. It would make this entry cumbersome to read at best. --Random Replicator (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to concern:"It is even more interesting to note that, although Darwin tried to refute the Lamarckian mechanism of inheritance, he later admitted that the heritable effects of use and disuse might be important in evolution. In the Origin of Species he wrote that the vestigial eyes of moles and of cave-dwelling animals are probably due to gradual reduction from disuse, but aided perhaps by natural selection."[16] I will add the required citation thank you. --Random Replicator (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your specific concerns --- I know Darwin had no explanation for the source of variations; I will dig farther to see how that morphed into his agreement on LaMarckism. Your specific concerns are appreciated and valued. General statements that it "needs more citations" contribute little when clearly the Introduction to Evolution Article has tons of citations (60 lines of referenced information). Frankly I would not cite the line: The earth orbits the sun. Some information in an encyclopedia is held to standard by "peer review" --- citing every line sounds like an over reaction to criticisms raised by "World Book" readers. It would make this entry cumbersome to read at best. --Random Replicator (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Deleted the orchid comment... a million options I should have cited ... but frankly it seemed to be just hanging there with no real direction. Thank you.--Random Replicator (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Response "The theory of evolution serves as the foundation for much of the research conducted in biology, including molecular biology, paleontology, and taxonomy." Toned it down just a tad --- this is not over-blown; hopefully it still emphasizes the importance of evolutionary theory in biology.--Random Replicator (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Needs extensive copyediting and more citations. Kaldari (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What copyediting do you propose? Also, as stated above, the reason that there are so few references is that this is an introductory article. Compared to Introduction to general relativity, which is an FA, we actually have a higher density of references.--Filll (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Same question --- "extensive copyediting" --- seriously? This entry has been in the making for over a year. It has been copy-edited by a group of very talented individuals with extensive knowledge in English grammar. I've had this thing analyzed by college professors. We deliberated over every word in it. If there are grammar /sentence structure errors then they are from recent edits. As to content. There is no way that information that is obviously incorrect would last 2 secs. on that subject. It is monitored constantly by a large number of informed, passionate people, who constantly need to address the misconceptions on Evolution. Mis-information is challenged before the ink dries. A general --- knee-jerk --- oppose that lacks specificity is somewhat perplexing. Is it the topic itself that is the source of such vague criticism?--Random Replicator (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional references have been added --- roughly 50 which is excessive for an introductory article --- again I ask, what copy-edits would you like me to address?--Random Replicator (talk)
- Kaldari, my friend, you know better than that! :) Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Same question --- "extensive copyediting" --- seriously? This entry has been in the making for over a year. It has been copy-edited by a group of very talented individuals with extensive knowledge in English grammar. I've had this thing analyzed by college professors. We deliberated over every word in it. If there are grammar /sentence structure errors then they are from recent edits. As to content. There is no way that information that is obviously incorrect would last 2 secs. on that subject. It is monitored constantly by a large number of informed, passionate people, who constantly need to address the misconceptions on Evolution. Mis-information is challenged before the ink dries. A general --- knee-jerk --- oppose that lacks specificity is somewhat perplexing. Is it the topic itself that is the source of such vague criticism?--Random Replicator (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I'm not too fond of the "Summary" section. As it's written, it reads like one of those dreaded "In conclusion" paragraphs to a high school essay. First person plural should really never be used in encyclopedic prose (I saw this elsewhere in the article, too). "Evolution is one of the most successful scientific theories ever produced..." <-- Hagiographic sentence that serves really no purpose.
- Since this is being written for high school students (primarily), the conclusion will be comfortingly familiar to them and will reinforce the major concepts of the article. I see nothing wrong with that.
- Apparently "we" is acceptable in science articles (I saw this in the WP:MOS somewhere once).
- I believe the hagiographic sentence is there to counterbalance the challenges made to evolution in the United States where a minority of the population accepts it. It is, therefore, sadly necessary. Awadewit | talk 01:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like first person plural, second person should really be avoided in an encyclopedia article.
- I agree - it is fixed. Awadewit | talk 01:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please fix your inline referencing format per MOS. The "[#]"s should go immediately after punctuation with no space (though there should be space after the ref). I saw various creative styles employed, including one where the ref was sandwiched between two periods.
- "when the environment changes, most species fail to adapt" I don't think "most" is the best word here.
- When citing books, please give the page number. 69.202.60.86 (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I get the credit for the in front / in back of the periods issue. I applied templates to all the citations; a rather extensive process and no doubt moved the original placements. A quick and painless fix --- as compared to actually verifying and applying template. Thank you. I will also address this problem "Hagiographic" as soon as I get a chance to look up the word and determine its meaning! Again, thank you for your detailed concerns which will lead to improvement.--Random Replicator (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I reviewed the Evolution entry and noticed that none of the textbooks include page numbers. It is featured. Was that an oversight on there part? Also; extinction is the norm when environmental changes occur; however, would "many" be in the direction that would elevate this concern?--Random Replicator (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if it was an oversight or not, but I thought it was just common practice (not just on Wiki, but in academia) that when citing specific facts/quotations from a book, you give the page number where it's from. See the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Say_where_you_got_it. "Many" probably wouldn't elevate my concern, but it might alleviate it. :) I also noticed that ref number 4 is missing the title of the work. Overall though, my biggest concern is the Summary section, and the use of first/second person in the article. 69.202.60.86 (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I reviewed the Evolution entry and noticed that none of the textbooks include page numbers. It is featured. Was that an oversight on there part? Also; extinction is the norm when environmental changes occur; however, would "many" be in the direction that would elevate this concern?--Random Replicator (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I get the credit for the in front / in back of the periods issue. I applied templates to all the citations; a rather extensive process and no doubt moved the original placements. A quick and painless fix --- as compared to actually verifying and applying template. Thank you. I will also address this problem "Hagiographic" as soon as I get a chance to look up the word and determine its meaning! Again, thank you for your detailed concerns which will lead to improvement.--Random Replicator (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) "elevate" That is why they only let me watch and not actually type anything! That line has been revised per your suggestion. They did let me add the title "Biology" to the Campbell / Reese Text. Thanks--Random Replicator (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally got a chance to look up the word. Revisit the summary and see if the re-write addressed that concern by "toning down" a bit. Thanks.--Random Replicator (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose; I had to fix a major factual error (Darwin rejected Lamarckism; this was part of his major leap in understanding, and yet the article incorrectly asserted that he embraced it, then sourced it to a source which specifically says he rejected it) and I'm sure there are others in there. Moreover, I went through and removed half a dozen "in fact" and "in reality"s, and the article's overall prose is just not up to snuff. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is even more interesting to note that, although Darwin tried to refute the Lamarckian mechanism of inheritance, he later admitted that the heritable effects of use and disuse might be important in evolution. In the Origin of Species he wrote that the vestigial eyes of moles and of cave-dwelling animals are "probably due to gradual reduction from disuse, but aided perhaps by natural selection."This is the source --- are we reading the same thing?--Random Replicator (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there were 3 In facts and 1 In reality which = 4. Where 1/2 dozen = 6. But who is counting. If that was your concern ... then you yourself fixed them --- so why is that a problem to list here? I'm not sure I understand this process. You identified a problem ... fixed it ... then declare it a problem after the fact. "I'm sure there are others in there"... I not sure how to respond to that as a concern?--Random Replicator (talk) 06:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The revision has introduced a new unsourced error. Darwin clearly accepted "use and disuse heritability", as refd. Desmond, A. & Moore, J. (1991) Darwin Penguin Books p.617 "Darwin was loathe to let go of the notion that a well-used and strengthened organ could be inherited" He didn't agree with Lamarck's ideas of "besoin" for change and of progressive improvements, but his Pangenesis theory was an unsuccessful attempt to provide a mechanism for inheritance of variations, including acquired characteristics. After Darwin's death August Weismann proposed the "Weismann barrier" in opposition to what was then called neo-Lamarckism. .. dave souza, talk 13:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there were 3 In facts and 1 In reality which = 4. Where 1/2 dozen = 6. But who is counting. If that was your concern ... then you yourself fixed them --- so why is that a problem to list here? I'm not sure I understand this process. You identified a problem ... fixed it ... then declare it a problem after the fact. "I'm sure there are others in there"... I not sure how to respond to that as a concern?--Random Replicator (talk) 06:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is even more interesting to note that, although Darwin tried to refute the Lamarckian mechanism of inheritance, he later admitted that the heritable effects of use and disuse might be important in evolution. In the Origin of Species he wrote that the vestigial eyes of moles and of cave-dwelling animals are "probably due to gradual reduction from disuse, but aided perhaps by natural selection."This is the source --- are we reading the same thing?--Random Replicator (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Ok, that's the correct statement that Darwin accepted as fact the idea that heritable traits were a product of use and disuse reintroduced with three new references, and the paragraph revised to make the point clearer. .. dave souza, talk 21:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My objection on factual accuracy has been more or less met; I think their reading of the section is most likely correct and mine wrong. However, my oppose remains, mostly on the grounds of it just not being as well-written as I think a FA should be (overall quality of prose). Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you give some specific examples of this? I have just copy edited the article today and while I don't think the article is poetic, I do think it is as clearly written as these things can be. However, if you have suggestions for improvement, I know that the editors would welcome them. Saying that the writing just isn't as good as other FAs isn't particularly helpful - how can the editors fix that? Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) I noticed that you checked off your concerns on Talk, both the factual concern and concern that it is not well written; yet the oppose remains. Were there other concerns or does this still stand on the more general opinion of it being short of FA standard?--Random Replicator (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, it provides a good introduction to a complex concept which is prone to misunderstandings. .. dave souza, talk 13:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The mission statement for this article was to serve as a transition between the simple Wikipedia and the Main article on Evolution. It would be easy to riddle the text with PMID references as primary sources; which are easy to cite and format. However, we opted for more laymen secondary sources such as National Geographic and PBS websites. They are beastly to cite and thus do not make for a nice clean reference section as appears in the Evolution article. However, in my opinion they serve the reader much more than an abstract from a complex journal. The article is heavily cited; with the exception of the summary, which is a restatement of the prior (cited) material. --Random Replicator (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Titanium Dragon is wrong to say that there is an error about Lamarckism, and it is unfair to suggest with no evidence that he/she is "sure there are many other" errors. In fact the article correctly asserts that Darwin (in effect) embraced Lamarckism. See the article's talk page and recent edits (including references) to the article! So where are these other errors? In the absence of evidence, I wonder if Titanium Dragon would care to withdraw this point? Snalwibma (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on references. I am somewhat disappointed to see so many people's knee-jerk "not enough references for FA status" remarks above. It seems to me that it is entirely appropriate for an introductory article to contain only a small number of references. It is meant to be easy to read and accessible, and references get in the way of this, making it appear undigestible and hard work. What is wrong with keeping the references to a minimum, and instead relying on links to other WP articles, where the reader can find both more detail and as many references as he/she wants? Snalwibma (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TemporaryOppose - The references annoy me. I personally think books make lousy reference sources, unless there's a good quote to be used. Almost everything written in a textbook or other scholarly books is a review, so the original source is EASILY found. I don't like inconsistent referencing either. I'll help out. I'm anal about references. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But this is an introductory article, and it is much better to send the reader of such an article to a good textbook review rather than to some arcane original research in a journal. Just a thought. Snalwibma (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My only problem with the use of the textbooks is that they are not online accessable. I would rather have used only sources that can be access with a direct link. My beef with the Evolution ref. is that it is almost exclusively journals which cannot be accessed without memberships. At best you get an abstract. This gave the article credibility and made for a clean, confident look; but provides little in the way of additional information. Maybe there is a compromise in here somewhere.--Random Replicator (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But this is an introductory article, and it is much better to send the reader of such an article to a good textbook review rather than to some arcane original research in a journal. Just a thought. Snalwibma (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) Wikipedia needs to establish credibility by citing excellent reliable sources, agreed. In our case; however, the entry was designed to increase access to a complex concept via a transition article. Everything in here is general knowledge. Our approach has been to basically use citations as a tool to open doors to even more general "laymen" type web resources. For example: [17][18][19] I didn't mean to suggest that they have to be web accessable; I'm just saying for our audience in an Introductory Article there is merit to doing so if it opens new resources for general readers. Face it, they are not going to go locate the Journal of Evolutionary Biology; however a cool web cite like National Geographic or PBS may be meaningful. The entire Evolution page is sourced from high level journals. It bespeaks of credibility; but it offers nothing to the general reader. What I see as a strength of our entry; at least by some, is seen as a weakness. --Random Replicator (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments I'm moving to oppose. Here are some of my reasons. Although I am a stickler for references, I understand that I am more anal about it than certain editors. However, I do expect consistency in the references, and there just isn't. Some are badly written, and I am endeavoring to fix those. There are too many books, which are impossible to verify. Books should be in Further reading or something similar. Each book has a corresponding peer-reviewed article. Lastly, the article requires some significant copyediting. I use this guide for copyediting. I have also asked User:SandyGeorgia to take some time in editing the article. I am attacking the frequent redundancies in the article. But this article requires a lot of work. But with some focused copyediting, we can get there. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just going to add a statement here on the above comment: There are too many books, which are impossible to verify. - This is not an actionable comment (nothing in WP:V or WP:RS supports this line of reasoning). The rest of the comments are, of course, actionable. Awadewit | talk 00:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "There are too many books, which are impossible to verify:" this is hyperbole of the silly sort. Part of it resembles the criticism of Mozart - too many notes - and the other part is asinine. I know Orangemarlin you are fixing problems as you see them, which is good, but I'm afraid your book comment is going to be a favorite example of mine to demonstrate Wikipedia weirdness. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for personal attack. It must be YOUR article, so I'll leave it alone. This isn't going to pass FAC, and I'll pass along your rude remark to those that care about these things. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Books should be cited in the reference section the same as any other verifiable source. We certainly should not avoid citing books and there is not a corresponding peer review article for every book. As for The Origin of Species and (in)consistency, on some points it makes a vast difference which edition you read. --Una Smith (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI am a bit dismayed by the tone that this FAC has taken. Any pages dealing with evolution are a challenge to take on and the editors should be commended for their efforts. I know that they have worked hard over the past few months because I have repeatedly offered what I hope is constructive criticism on this article and they have always taken it graciously. While I cannot yet support this article for FAC (my little list of comments is currently on the article's talk page, I would like to respond to some of the concerns raised here, which did not correlate with mine at all. Mine are largely demands for more explanation and organizational concerns (and I believe the editors will be able to fix these and I will be able to support the article).
- The sourcing requirements for this article should follow Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines, as Wassupwestcoast appropriately notes. I think that the editors have made an excellent decision in sourcing the article to books accessible to the readership they are writing for. Notes are not just for verification, they are also for further reading. If the notes are all to technical articles and high-level textbooks, we wouldn't be doing our users any favors. The editors of this page have thought so carefully about their audience that they have chosen specific sources for them is something we should marvel at, not condemn.
- I am also concerned that some of the beautiful illustrations have disappeared. While initially the page may have had a disorganized layout (I complained about this months ago), the solution to this problem is not the total elimination of illustrations, but the careful selection of the best illustrations. Let us work together! Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This probably wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but since I can't see anyone else really talking about the images I wanted to clear up my comment above. I wasn't opposed to any of the images or the number of images in the article. Was it really that unclear? I just thought the introduction area was really cluttered with two images, a template and the table of contents all jammed in there. I think the article would look a little cleaner with just a single image or template and the TOC in the intro area, but that is just my preference so I'm not going to demand that one or the other be moved if you or the other editors disagree. Ben 06:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also concerned that some of the beautiful illustrations have disappeared. While initially the page may have had a disorganized layout (I complained about this months ago), the solution to this problem is not the total elimination of illustrations, but the careful selection of the best illustrations. Let us work together! Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) How do you think it looks now? I think that having the evolution template in the white space next to the TOC and under the dinosaur image works fine. (By the way, I think there were people on the talk page discussing the images, too - I've lost track now.) Awadewit | talk 20:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes ...the image concern was not related to your thread.It has been batted about all over the place. Your contributions and your support is greatly appreciated Ben, and sparked some hope that with effort FA concerns can be resolved. Thanks.--Random Replicator (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My concerns have been addressed. While I cannot speak to the scientific accuracy of this article (I have asked TimVickers to provide us with an outside scientific peer review on that point, if anyone is interested), I can speak to its reading level, comprehensiveness, and prose. For comparison, I picked up an "introduction to evolution" pamphlet at the bookstore to see whether we were covering the major topics (and we were, with a few optional choices, in my opinion). The prose is at an appropriate reading level for competent high-schools students (the article's audience) and, while not poetic (what on wikipedia is?), clearly explains the concepts. Kudos to the editors. Awadewit | talk 02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (part I):
- I would favour bolding "evolution" at the start of the article, but that's neither here nor there
- Done--Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not thrilled with the first sentence - it seems a bit clumsy. Also, it stresses speciation - while that's a crucial point to make, it misses the point that evolution is a continuous process, while species are arbitrary points that we assign to continua.
- Done --Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Second sentence says that evolution has "has transformed the first species" into "a large number of different species". That just doesn't capture the millions (of eukaryotic) or billions (of prokaryotic) species that have originated from this common ancestor (or group of ancestors).
- Done --Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Third sentence - "this process" or "these processes"? Shouldn't we speak about "processes"?
- Done --Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fourth sentence - there's too much of a jump from evolutionary biology to Mendel and DNA.
- Done --Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Second paragraph - there is no single theory of evolution - there's a body of theory that is evolutionary biology.
- The second paragraph should be combined into the first. The current arrangement overvalues molecular biology, undervalues palaeontology and taxonomy, and leaves out biogeography, which was the key bit that clued Darwin in, and also is probably the most intuitively understandable. Guettarda (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done specific comments to the above on discussion page if you care to follow-up--Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (part II):
- The section "Darwin's idea" makes no mention of Wallace; I think that's a major deficiency. The final paragraph could start with a mention of (and link to) Wallace.
- Done --Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first paragraph of "Mendel's contribution" goes into unnecessary detail. An introductory article needs a clear statement that Darwin lacked a theory of inheritance (but still did a pretty good job). Losing everything after the third paragraph would substantially improve the section, although the second to last sentence ("Darwin produced an unsuccessful theory...") might be worth keeping to close off the paragraph.
- Done (dramatic improvements to this section) thank you --Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done specific comments to the above on discussion page if you care to follow-up--Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (part III):
- The section on the modern synthesis is misleading. The modern synthesis was not born of the discovery of DNA - it came from the integration of Mendel with Darwin. It came from the work of Fisher, Haldane, Huxley, etc. What these people did, before the discovery of the role of DNA, was to transform evolution into a viable modern science. The section totally misses the point - it talks about the Galapagos, progression and the KT. The section should start with the final sentence, and work from there.
- Done --- very much improved--Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The image used in the "Species" section is a poor choice. The truly amazing diversification of cichlids is among the East African Rift Valley haplochromines. This is where we have hundreds of species originating from a handful of ancestors (one per lake?) in a few thousand years. The image is of an example of a group of hybrids of Central American species, probably Cichlasoma spp. Central American Cichlasomas are fairly diverse, but they show just average diversity for tropical species. The hybrids show high rates of deformity, which is likely to be a distraction. While there don't seem to be a lot of good pix of Haplochromis spp. (this and this are the only ones I could find), Mbunas show a similar, if not quite so overwhelming, pattern of diversification (and there are lots of good pix there).
- Interestingly, I have had email exchanges with Dr. Walter Salzburger, a cichlid guru; who I was seeking confirmation on the general accuracy of that section. He is to provide me with more current examples from his studies in Lake Victoria cichlids. But until then, I am open for any picture with strong visual appeal.--Random Replicator (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This list is being addressed on the discussion page!--Random
Replicator (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am fairly sure I have addressed your concerns; will you be responding here or at the discussion page so that I might make modifications as needed to these very beneficial concerns? Thank you for a meaningful critique!--Random Replicator (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This is thorough, it is readable and it is interesting. Even the hated info box seems to provide a valuable service here. The author clearly understands the subject and the text seems confident (that sounds daft but I know what I mean). I don't see any good reasons why this can't be promoted to FA. Giano (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The article is splendid already, and editors can tweak it to their heart's content just as easily after granting it the FA star as before. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong opposeThe editors are having a difficult time reaching consensus without belittling others interested in the article. The article is limited to eukaryotic evolution, but the outline box is about evolution in general. This introduces a type of inaccuracy that should not be present in an introductory article. Evolution biologists have been able to discuss and disagree with each other and reach consensus on teaching for a long time. Wikipedia writers should try to do this without personally attacking others who have ideas that differ from their own on an article's discussion page. With editing at this level, resorting to belittling editors who disagree, the article will be a problem when it's on the Main Page. I changed to strong opposed. The supports are not reading the discussion page, the comment to me defending a discussion about my having a "chip on my shoulder" and that my writing "gibberish' are not personal attacks is evidence that the discussion page is not about the article. Upgrade oppose. It seems that any disagreement with the article will be a major problem and gain an army of attackers. --Amaltheus (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Sink, imo--update my very strong oppose Although it may have just been an editing error, probably was in fact, there was a copy vio added to the article where almost two full lines of distinctive text from a major researcher were used without quotation marks.[20][21] I think the article needs thoroughly checked for other inappropriately or improperly used text, particularly when it is aimed at younger readers. IMO this simply has to be done for the entire article before it should be featured on the front page, as this could be embarrassing for Wikipedia and reflect poorly on all of our evolutionary biology articles. This is too strong of a potential bad influence on young readers, also, imo. --Amaltheus (talk) 08:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- <discussion on copyvio moved to talk page>
Some specific issues with just the first two paragraphs. There are plenty more:
- "These new features—called traits—are almost always minor. "Old features are also called traits. This definition of trait is wrong.
- Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Scientists call this process natural selection." Other people also call the process natural selection. In fact, that's what the process is called, not just by scientists.
- Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Over time, the favorable trait will become common in the descendents of the creatures."
The traits don't have to become common, they just become more common.
- Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Over many generations, new traits accumulate in a population to the degree that scientists recognize it as a new species.[1]"
Again, this occurs in the absence of scientists. In fact, it has occurred for a lot longer in the absence than in the presence of scientists.
- Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The result of four billion years of evolution is the diversity of life around us. According to the United Nations' Global Biodiversity Assessment, an estimated 1.75 million different species are alive today. [2][3]"
Lost and unrelated sentences disrupt the flow of the information in the article.
- Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Evolutionary biology is the study of evolution, especially the natural processes that account for the variety of creatures, both alive today and long extinct. "
Scientists use "diversity" so it would be a better choice here than "variety."
- Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Sentence restructures) "The understanding of evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century. " This implies that Darwin's contributions have been superceded. They haven't been.
- Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The next important step was Gregor Mendel's work with plants."
He's hardly next if he started his experiments before Darwin published "On the Origins of Species."
- Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "His research helped to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics."
It's splitting hairs, but this implies that the explanation for genetic inheritence was contemporaneous with Mendel, which would make it around the time of Darwin. This is incorrect. It also implies that Mendel introduced the idea of genetics, but this is not correct, as his research was ignored by most scientists in his lifetime.
- "This led to an understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance.[4]"
This puts it contemporaneous with Mendel. This is wrong. It's early 20th century, and Mendel was mid-nineteenth.
- "The discovery of the structure of DNA and advances in the field of population genetics provided insight into the source of variations in creatures."
This leap ignores the modern synthesis, which is the foundation for evolutionary biology and genetics today. It's like going through the history of Western Civilization and ignoring the Roman Empire.
- "Scientists better understand speciation or the development of new species from ancestral species because of modern research."
What is modern research? The most interesting insights into speciation today rely heavily upon ancient research rather than just modern molecular genetics, in fact, the kind of research that Darwin did and Wallace did better: observation. It's ancient, not modern.
- Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Research by scientists in many different fields supports evolution."
No, it provides evidence that supports the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. The planet earth supports evolution.
- Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--- section moved to discussion page ----
- "Patterns in the geographical distribution of species and their fossil predecessors convinced Charles Darwin that each had developed from similar ancestors, and in 1838, he formulated an explanation known as natural selection. [5] Darwin's explanation of the mechanism of evolution relied on his theory of natural selection, a theory developed from the following observations:[6]"
- "Predecessor" is an unnecessary and awkward replacement for ancestors. It's really about the distribution of extant species (or living) and the distribution of related species in the fossil records. This can and should be said much more simply.
- "Darwin deduced that the production of more offspring than the environment could support led inevitably to a struggle for existence."
This comes from his reading Malthus. This is something studied by the 7th or 8th grade in many Western schools and shouldn't be shied away from with a link and name.
- "Was a particular trait a benefit or a hindrance to the survival and the reproductive success of an individual in a particular environment?" Unencyclopediac to speculatively address the reader in this manner. Just make statements. It sounds artificial.
- Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "For example, Darwin observed a reciprocal relationship between orchids and insects which ensures successful pollination of the plant."
- It's not a "reciprocal relationship" as "reciprocal" has a specific meaning in genetics, and cannot be used as a handy synonym for something else. And it's not a "reciprocal relationship" or "reciprocal evolution" you are talking about. It's coevolution.
- "Despite the appearance of design, flower parts in the orchid had evolved from ordinary parts that usually perform different functions."
Poorly constructed sentence. What is being said is, "In spite of the elaborate appearance of the orchid its specialized parts evolved from the same basic structures as other flowers."
- Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Darwin was still researching and experimenting with his ideas on natural selection when he received a letter from Alfred Wallace enclosing the manuscript of a theory that was essentially the same as his own, and he agreed to immediate joint publication of both theories."
Did he agree? I thought he suggested it.
There are just too many problems with the article. --Amaltheus (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This entire section is absurd for an introductory article, it is far beyond what I got in my introductory evolution course (a junior level college course):
Note: Section was on barriers to speciation: See Article to review section. No need to copy/paste the entire thing here. I hope. --Random Replicator (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- SEE ARTICLE TO VIEW THE SECTION
This section is just too much for an introduction. I suggest that barriers that prevent fertilization simply be barriers to breeding. Mountain ranges, oceans and deserts are barriers to breeding between members of a species that can lead to speciation in a population. --Amaltheus (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The discovery of the structure of DNA and advances in the field of population genetics provided insight into the source of variations in organisms."
- Again, there seems to be a missing fundamental insight into the timeline, the Mendel comment is bound to confuse and misinform readers (because Mendel was doing his research before Darwin published On the Origins of Species saying that Mendel is the next step makes it seem as if he came after), as much as this comment will. Featured articles should be all about informing and in no means about misinforming. Population genetics was part of what gave modern biology the modern synthesis, it's not something contemporaneous with Watson and Crick. This lack of a fundamental timeline for the study of evolution from the articel causes confusion and mix ups in the writing and is difficult to understand. Darwin, Mendel at the same time, but rediscovered with the genes and fruit flies in early twentieth century, leading to population genetics, modern synthesis, Watson and Crick, up to modern molecular genetics. Sex is apparently a detail worthy of a Ph. D., but "hybrid breakdowns" aren't too much, and accurately moving in the same time line that the development of today's modern evolutionary biology moved in is also, apparently, too much of a detail, while zedonk parentage is not. An introductory college evolutionary biology text would be a useful guideline to understand the weight and importance of various aspects of today's evolutionary biology to understand its development. --Amaltheus (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To understand the mechanisms that allow a population to evolve, it is useful to consider a hypothetical non-evolving population. ... It is very rare for natural populations to experience no change in the frequency of alleles from generation to generation."
The section on Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is completely and entirely out of place in the article and the authors fail to tie it in to the prior section, introductory, in the Population genetics portion of the article, and fail to tie it into the following section. It serves no purpose in the article, and the concept is not an introductory concept in evolution. In particular, if the authors can't tie the topic into the section itself and can't lead from the prior section to the topic, then follow-up about the topic, it shouldn't be there. It's as if the discussion is Ford Motor Cars, starts with a paragraph on Henry Ford, moves on to discuss John Glenn, then closes with a section on the assembly line.
"From a genetic viewpoint, evolution is a generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles within a population that shares a common gene pool."
The first sentence of this section is particularly problematic. Uh, evolution is emphatically not the "generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles" within a population. Even this introductory to evolution article doesn't claim that anywhere else in the article. The frequency of alleles in a population may change all of the time due to many factors. For example, if there is a hurricane and only one animal of the population survives, the frequency of alleles is now whatever that animal has. The only living moth is black. Is that evolution? Not according to any definition given in this article. In fact, if it is a non-breeding female, it's extinction. This is a bad sentence. A very bad sentence. Evolution and extinction are not the same thing. There should be no sentences in this article showing that it is.
Are there populations that don't share a common gene pool? We have a clue to the answer to this question in a later sentence in the same paragraph:
"A gene pool is the complete set of alleles in a single population."
It seems that if the complete set of alleles in a single population is its gene pools, this is, in fact, evidence that, by definition, they "share a common gene pool."
The third paragraph of this section starts with this mind-boggler:
"Frequencies of alleles in a gene pool typically change, resulting in evolution of populations over successive generations."
So, the populations evolve and evolve over successive generations just because the frequencies of alleles typically change? I thnk that the Hardy-Weinberg section was saying something different about this.
Evolution isn't a necessary, forward momentum process that just occurs with time, as random mutations cause changes from one generatin to the next in gene pools. This whole section seems to be first emphasizing the null hypothesis, and, second, showing that evolution occurs from each generation to the next. I know my grandpa is the same species as I am.
- Done--- it is gone --- --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This entire section appears to be written in a disjointed fashion without comprehension by the authors of the overall structure of population genetics and its relationship to evolution. It should be removed from the article rather than rewritten. --Amaltheus (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ( please see the talk page for discussion of the above comment) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've copied it to Talk:Introduction to evolution#A helpful critique from Amaltheus for use in improving the article, it may be appropriate to treat that as a move and delete it from this page. .. dave souza, talk 14:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ( please see the talk page for discussion of the above comment) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Object I note the discussion above regarding creationism and my object is wholly founded in this area. Evolution is a theory which is accepted by the vast majority of science, and indeed probably the vast majority of humanity. However, unlike flat-earthers the controversy and opposition to it is (the important thing for a WP Featured Article) notable. I think that the treatment of the opposition need (in fact should) not be over-egged in an "Introduction" article, but it shouldn't be omitted altogether as it currently effectively is. In a similar vein, I'd expect an Introduction to Global Warming article to include reference to the fact that this is not an uncontroversial topic and give a clear marker for those interested in reading more about the arguments. This is a nomination for a Featured Article. Such articles must espouse our highest possible standards, one of which is comprehensiveness. I think this is easily fixed, in probably no more than two or three sentences, perhaps, to keep things on-topic and NPOV, focussing on key arguments used by opponents of the theory that aren't used by critics who support the theory. I suggest the article puts forward apparent shortcomings in evolutionary theory, rather than a discursus explaining creationism or any other ism. Perhaps that's not the best way to treat it, but it can't just be relegated to a {{for}} or {{main}} tag. And while it is, I need to object to an excellent article. If fixed, I'd need to review the article in more depth but it does look like an otherwise FA quality article at first reading. --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
- Question - I assume you mean that the reference to wide acceptance at the end of the lead section, combined with the clear link to Objections to evolution in the summary, is not sufficient. Is it not? I cannot see, however, what the "apparent shortcomings" you refer to might be. Snalwibma (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. First, the link in the lead is obfuscation - it talks about agreement yet links to opposition. Someone looking through the article for objection will not find it (as indeed happened to me). Secondly, the lead should summarise issues discussed by the article, as per WP:LEAD. The article does not discuss opposition to the theory itself. And finally, as I stated above, including a {{main}} or {{for}} tag is insufficient. --Dweller (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - I assume you mean that the reference to wide acceptance at the end of the lead section, combined with the clear link to Objections to evolution in the summary, is not sufficient. Is it not? I cannot see, however, what the "apparent shortcomings" you refer to might be. Snalwibma (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We removed this sort of stuff from evolution, and that helped it to reach FA. We removed this sort of material from this article and that helped it to reach GA. The controversy material is more political and has zero to do with science. So we put it in special controversy articles. And that has worked much better, frankly.--Filll (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An "introduction to evolution" is an introduction to what scientists think evolution is. When the evolution editors were working at achieving consensus on this issue, they drew up a helpful FAQ which answers many of these questions (see Talk:Evolution/FAQ#Why won't you add criticisms or objections to evolution in the Evolution article?). This article directs people, via links, to subarticles on the controversy over evolution (which is an entirely different topic than the subject of evolution itself). The article discusses the different modern theories regarding the mechanism of evolution. This is the most responsible and scientifically accurate way to approach the material. Awadewit | talk 10:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But it isn't the reader that defines the article - it is the experts. Scientists define the scope of evolution. The topic of this article is "introduction to evolution". It is indeed true that there have been controversies over evolution (both historical and contemporary), but those topics are political and religious and bring in the opinions of many others besides scientists. That is a different topic that is covered in other articles. Awadewit | talk 11:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true. If experts defined the article it'd be full of incomprehensible jargon, for one thing. Experts write for the audience. And this is not a scientific journal. It's an encyclopedia. Consider how bonkers it would be for an "Introduction to creationism" article not to mention that there's controversy about creationism and that there's this theory called evolution. The editors of that article would no doubt be indignant, but they'd be wrong to think it's comprehensive without mentioning notable opposition. --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But there are already plenty of references to the controversy in the article. There are links to pretty much all the articles dealing with the topic (Objections to evolution, Creation-evolution controversy, etc.). What more do you want? Snalwibma (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's examine whethere the following words appear at all in the body text of the article:
- opposition - occurrences: 0
- disagree - occurrences: 0
- Creationism - occurrences: 0
- controv(ersy / ersial etc) - occurrences - 1 (relating to response in Darwin's time, so not relevant here)
- objection - occurences: 1 (I'll address this below)
As I've said, it's not enough to dismiss notable opposition with just a main tag, and the one usage of "objection" is in a Summary section. Well, isn't a Summary usually, erm, a summary of what's been discussed?
What I'm looking for is a brief, honest note in an appropriate place in the article to the fact that there is notable opposition to evolution. Probably two or three sentences. Possibly one if well written and in an appropriate place. (The Global warming FA does with a wikilinked half a sentence in its Lead (!), with a main tag lower down, under an appropriate heading. Not sure about that, as Lead usually summarises the article, but you get my point.) I'm not looking for a treatise on Creationism; it would be inappropriate here.
Incidentally, the one relevant main tag you have is in an inappropriate place, as I don't believe that Creation-evolution controversy is really about "Perspectives on the mechanism of evolution", but rather a perspective on the fundamentals of the theory, rather than how it works ("mechanics"). --Dweller (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
cross posting from User talk:Random Replicator
Gosh, what a can of worms for what I thought would be fairly straightforward to address.
I don't really mind how my objection would/could be addressed (I suggested a methodology, but if it doesn't work, that's fine), but I would expect that the introduction article to any scientific theory that had notable opposition (and boy is it notable) should at least mention the opposition, or it is dishonest.
Wikipedia's role is not to decide what is "Truth" or "Right" or "Good for 14 year olds", but to be a mirror of the world we live in. And there is opposition to this theory, even if scientists the world over regard that as barmy.
The controversy over evolution affects school curricula the world over. It fills our newspapers. It's the subject of countless TV documentaries. And it's obviously something that both scientists and clerics spend a lot of time fruitlessly trying to win unwinnable arguments about.
So any article seeking to fulfil the criterion of comprehensiveness needs to mention the controversy.
I'm surprised people disagree with this.
It's hard for me to debate on the talk page without stoking up the temperature - there already seem to be quite a few editors there with hot tempers and I'm not looking for controversy, just to see an article reach our highest values before it passes FA.
If you wanted, we could work in a sandbox on some wording, but I think from the looks of the article talk page that we're not ready to do that yet.
--Dweller (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just out of interest, what is your objection to using the "See also" section? You started this with asking for scientific opposition, but as discussed on the articles talk page there is none from the "teach the controversy" perspective. Now you seem to be asking for the political perspective? As someone mentioned on the articles talk page, look at other wikipedia articles and what types of criticisms are present in our FA articles. Does the Islam article have a criticism section from the Christian perspective, let alone the scientific perspective? David D. (Talk) 17:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm looking for something like Evolution#Social_and_cultural_views in the FA Evolution article, only shorter and simpler, befitting an Introduction to... article. I'm in discussion with some of the key editors of the article and hopefully we'll soon have something that can be taken forward with consensus. Sorry to be a fly in the ointment, but I simply feel that the opposition to evolution is so notable that it must be mentioned. --Dweller (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be a bearer of bad news, but as a result of your agitation, the article was just scrubbed and the discussion of the controversy was reduced even further and relegated to one or two links. So, sometimes there is a law of unintended consequences. I would have favored the material at least being mentioned and integrated in, but because of the trouble you caused, others lost patience. Sad.--Filll (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the changes I made were not because I lost patience with Dweller but because I thought they improved the article. Before Dweller brought up these points i had not considered these points more than briefly. The edits I made were after more careful consideration on my part and after reading the input from other users on the talk page. I believe the "See also" section is the right place for this information where a reader is directed to the articles in wikipedia that give a full perspective, rather than a one liner in this article that seems forced. David D. (Talk) 20:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Switched to Support - my objection has been addressed. Excellent article. Kudos to the collaborators. --Dweller (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I support the article overall. My concern is that it is addresses subjects that should be addressed in the parent Evolution article-like a Population Genetics section. It also addresses some subjects in fair detail for an introductory article, which I would rather see it in the Evolution article-like the speciation section. I suggest addressing some of the issues in the parent Evolution article and then address it in basic terms here. I guess I would like to see it more parallel the Evo article but just a "simple" version. Really a suggestion more than a criticism, and it does it to a significant degree. I think it a daunting task to write a "simple" or "introductory" version of a subject like Evolution because of the difficulty in translating correct and accurate scientific terminology into something palatable for the novice.I could argue I would have stated somethings differently but I think that is just personal preference. I should state again that this intro article incorporates images,uses examples, and covers topics that should be addressed also in the parent Evo article. Good job.GetAgrippa (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixes needed; I left a list on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I've watched this article develop from the beginning, adding a few things here and there. Despite the critics above I have no problem supporting this for FA. I think the authors have bent over backwards to try and accommodate many different perspectives. There have been some unfortunate clashes but none i believe significant enough to jeopardise the stability of the article. It represent an enjoyable read and a great launching pad for further investigation. I have no doubt this will be the first stop for very many new wikipedians, i think it will be a pleasant surprise for the skeptics of this encyclopedia and may well attract more quality editors inspired by this article. Very well done to the primary authors. David D. (Talk) 23:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources need seriously checked The introductory section has this sentence "The next important step was Gregor Mendel's work with plants, which helped to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics. This led to an understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance.[2]" tied to the reference "^ a b Wyhe, John van (2002). Charles Darwin: gentleman naturalist. The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online. University of Cambridge. Retrieved on 2008-01-16." This puts Mendel contemporaneous with Darwin (which he was), but calls Mendel "the next important step," while referencing him inside of Darwin. This reference makes even less sense than the entire timeline in these two paragraphs.
- What? --Amaltheus (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- However speciation has been observed in present day organisms, and past speciation events are recorded in fossils.[45][46][47] These references tie first to a page that doesn't have the word fossil on it, then to an article about a modern pre-speciation event "hawthorn (Crataegus spp.)-infesting races of Rhagoletis pomonella," and a laboratory experiment showing speciation. If the sentence is about the fossil record, the references should be, too. Or the references moved to the first part, or the second half of the sentence removed, or a reference dealing directly with speciation events in the fossil record being added. --Amaltheus (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to the references the cites in the LEAD were incorrect as they were absent and thus pointed to the incorrect citations (I corrected it). Thanks for noting the mistake. Second the sentence says "in present day organisms" as well as "recorded in fossils".
Your complaint should not be that the references are incorrect but rather incomplete.One at least should be about fossils.Rather than complaining here, why not find one and help the process along, or mention this omission on the talk page?David D. (Talk) 04:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Edit: I struck out some text that was an incorrect interpretation due to lazy reading on my behalf. I completely misread the comment by [User:Amaltheus|Amaltheus]] David D. (Talk) 06:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]- That was one of my solutions, as I noted above, simply adding a reference "dealing directly with speciation events in the fossil record." It's not a complaint so much as an issue with the article that needs corrected. When I post on the talk page, my comments get ignored, or not read completely, as appears to be the case with your response to my note above. As I noted above adding a reference could solve the problem with the sentence and you told me my "complaint should not be that the references are incorrect but rather incomplete." I don't ever, in my post, "complain that the references are incorrect," but rather point out that considering the structure of the sentence, the references need to point to its topic. Please, reread what I wrote. It continues to be a source of frustration when bandwidth is used to discuss something that isn't there. I offered up the solution you suggest, already. I didn't "complain that the references are incorrect," I merely pointed out that with that sentence, the references needed reworked, or the sentence reworked, or a reference added. Please, simply read what I write for once. thanks. --Amaltheus (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to the references the cites in the LEAD were incorrect as they were absent and thus pointed to the incorrect citations (I corrected it). Thanks for noting the mistake. Second the sentence says "in present day organisms" as well as "recorded in fossils".
The caption on the homologous structures: "Homologous structures. Note how the same basic structure appears repeatedly in different types of forelimbs of different species." The image shows the typical vertebrate forelimbs (I think, just glanced) above three different birds. Wings on birds aren't homologous so much as they're the same structure. They're all bird wings. The wings of bats and and arms of human beings, the example given in the Wikipedia article on homology are, indeed, homologous structures, more distantly the wings of birds are homologous with the wings of bats and arms of human beings, as are the forelimbs of all vertebrates. The wings of insects and of birds are analagous structures. But we don't usually say that the wings of one species of butterfly are homologous with the wings of another species. This caption should be deleted or the pictures of the birds should be removed from it. --Amaltheus (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Section break
(Sentence is no longer there) "These new features—called traits—are almost always minor. "Old features are also called traits. This definition of trait is wrong.
- Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Scientists call this process natural selection."
Other people also call the process natural selection. In fact, that's what the process is called, not just by scientists.
- Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Over time, the favorable trait will become common in the descendents of the creatures."
The traits don't have to become common, they just become more common.
- Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Over many generations, new traits accumulate in a population to the degree that scientists recognize it as a new species.[1]"
Again, this occurs in the absence of scientists. In fact, it has occurred for a lot longer in the absence than in the presence of scientists.
- Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The result of four billion years of evolution is the diversity of life around us. According to the United Nations' Global Biodiversity Assessment, an estimated 1.75 million different species are alive today. [2][3]"Lost and unrelated sentences disrupt the flow of the information in the article.
- Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The new first paragraph is truly excellent, except for the first sentence. It is, with the one exception, well written, accurate, and readable by all. Using simply "Evolution" and bolding it rather than talking about the article "Introduction to Evolution" is a great improvement.
The problem sentence, though: "Evolution is the natural process by which all life changes over generations."
Actually it's the process by why all life accumulates changes over generations (leading to differences, through time, but something along the first part might suffice). All life changes over generations, but all life doesn't evolve due to changing over generations. Again, the people alive today, aren't the same as the folks alive 150 years ago, but human beings haven't evolved in 150 years.
"Evolutionary biology is the study of evolution, especially the natural processes that account for the variety of creatures, both alive today and long extinct. "
Scientists use "diversity" so it would be a better choice here than "variety."
Still like diversity better because it's a buzzword in the press.
- Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Sentence restructures) "The understanding of evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century. "
This implies that Darwin's contributions have been superceded. They haven't been.
- Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The next important step was Gregor Mendel's work with plants."
He's hardly next if he started his experiments before Darwin published "On the Origins of Species."
- Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "In addition, Gregor Mendel's work with plants helped to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics."
How about,
"In addition, Gregor Mendel's work with plants helped later scientists to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics."
This makes it unnecessary to explain more about Mendel or to timeline Mendel and early 20th century genetics in the first paragraph while still keeping it strictly accurate, also deals specifically with my issue about the next sentence on mechanisms of inheritance, again while being more accurate, not adding too much depth for the introduction and honoring the timeline.
"His research helped to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics."
It's splitting hairs, but this implies that the explanation for genetic inheritence was contemporaneous with Mendel, which would make it around the time of Darwin. This is incorrect. It also implies that Mendel introduced the idea of genetics, but this is not correct, as his research was ignored by most scientists in his lifetime.
"This led to an understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance.[4]"
This puts it contemporaneous with Mendel. This is wrong. It's early 20th century, and Mendel was mid-nineteenth.
"The discovery of the structure of DNA and advances in the field of population genetics provided insight into the source of variations in creatures."
This leap ignores the modern synthesis, which is the foundation for evolutionary biology and genetics today. It's like going through the history of Western Civilization and ignoring the Roman Empire.
(Sentence is no longer there) "Scientists better understand speciation or the development of new species from ancestral species because of modern research."
What is modern research? The most interesting insights into speciation today rely heavily upon ancient research rather than just modern molecular genetics, in fact, the kind of research that Darwin did and Wallace did better: observation. It's ancient, not modern.
- Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Further discoveries on how genes mutate, as well as advances in population genetics explained more details of how evolution occurs."
Is this the correct order?
- "Scientists now have a good understanding of the origin of new species (speciation)."
I'd like to see this tied to a specific source. I took a seminar with one of the world's leading scientists on the issue of species, he wrote one of the most cited papers on the topic. I asked him during the seminar if scientists today understood speciation real well. I asked him because I thought this statement above was true. He said, "How can we be understand speciation if don't understand species?" I'm uneasy about the sentence, but maybe scientists do think they understand species really well 5 years later. I think it needs a reference, also, because it's so definitive.
- "They have observed the speciation process happening both in the laboratory and in the wild."
- Hopefully this is sourced below. Most speciation processes occur at the genetic level, it seems unlikely they've been observed.
- "This modern view of evolution is the principal theory that scientists use to understand life."
Unequivocally and simply, yes.
(Sentence is no longer there) "Research by scientists in many different fields supports evolution."
No, it provides evidence that supports the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. The planet earth supports evolution.
- Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--- section moved to discussion page ----
- "Patterns in the geographical distribution of species and their fossil predecessors convinced Charles Darwin that each had developed from similar ancestors, and in 1838, he formulated an explanation known as natural selection. [5] Darwin's explanation of the mechanism of evolution relied on his theory of natural selection, a theory developed from the following observations:[6]"
- "Predecessor" is an unnecessary and awkward replacement for ancestors. It's really about the distribution of extant species (or living) and the distribution of related species in the fossil records. This can and should be said much more simply.
- "Darwin deduced that the production of more offspring than the environment could support led inevitably to a struggle for existence."
This comes from his reading Malthus. This is something studied by the 7th or 8th grade in many Western schools and shouldn't be shied away from with a link and name.
- "Was a particular trait a benefit or a hindrance to the survival and the reproductive success of an individual in a particular environment?" Unencyclopediac to speculatively address the reader in this manner. Just make statements. It sounds artificial.
- Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "For example, Darwin observed a reciprocal relationship between orchids and insects which ensures successful pollination of the plant."
- It's not a "reciprocal relationship" as "reciprocal" has a specific meaning in genetics, and cannot be used as a handy synonym for something else. And it's not a "reciprocal relationship" or "reciprocal evolution" you are talking about. It's coevolution.
- "Despite the appearance of design, flower parts in the orchid had evolved from ordinary parts that usually perform different functions."
Poorly constructed sentence. What is being said is, "In spite of the elaborate appearance of the orchid its specialized parts evolved from the same basic structures as other flowers."
- Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Darwin was still researching and experimenting with his ideas on natural selection when he received a letter from Alfred Wallace enclosing the manuscript of a theory that was essentially the same as his own, and he agreed to immediate joint publication of both theories."
Did he agree? I thought he suggested it.
- Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are just too many problems with the article. --Amaltheus (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This entire section is absurd for an introductory article, it is far beyond what I got in my introductory evolution course (a junior level college course):
- Note: Section was on barriers to speciation: See Article to review section. No need to copy/paste the entire thing here. I hope. --Random Replicator (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- SEE ARTICLE TO VIEW THE SECTION
This section is just too much for an introduction. I suggest that barriers that prevent fertilization simply be barriers to breeding. Mountain ranges, oceans and deserts are barriers to breeding between members of a species that can lead to speciation in a population. --Amaltheus (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The discovery of the structure of DNA and advances in the field of population genetics provided insight into the source of variations in organisms."
Again, there seems to be a missing fundamental insight into the timeline, the Mendel comment is bound to confuse and misinform readers (because Mendel was doing his research before Darwin published On the Origins of Species saying that Mendel is the next step makes it seem as if he came after), as much as this comment will. Featured articles should be all about informing and in no means about misinforming. Population genetics was part of what gave modern biology the modern synthesis, it's not something contemporaneous with Watson and Crick. This lack of a fundamental timeline for the study of evolution from the articel causes confusion and mix ups in the writing and is difficult to understand. Darwin, Mendel at the same time, but rediscovered with the genes and fruit flies in early twentieth century, leading to population genetics, modern synthesis, Watson and Crick, up to modern molecular genetics. Sex is apparently a detail worthy of a Ph. D., but "hybrid breakdowns" aren't too much, and accurately moving in the same time line that the development of today's modern evolutionary biology moved in is also, apparently, too much of a detail, while zedonk parentage is not. An introductory college evolutionary biology text would be a useful guideline to understand the weight and importance of various aspects of today's evolutionary biology to understand its development. --Amaltheus (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Its gone due to several concerns over overly complex material for introduction. "Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium
To understand the mechanisms that allow a population to evolve, it is useful to consider a hypothetical non-evolving population. ... It is very rare for natural populations to experience no change in the frequency of alleles from generation to generation."
The section on Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is completely and entirely out of place in the article and the authors fail to tie it in to the prior section, introductory, in the Population genetics portion of the article, and fail to tie it into the following section. It serves no purpose in the article, and the concept is not an introductory concept in evolution. In particular, if the authors can't tie the topic into the section itself and can't lead from the prior section to the topic, then follow-up about the topic, it shouldn't be there. It's as if the discussion is Ford Motor Cars, starts with a paragraph on Henry Ford, moves on to discuss John Glenn, then closes with a section on the assembly line.
- Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"From a genetic viewpoint, evolution is a generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles within a population that shares a common gene pool."
The first sentence of this section is particularly problematic. Uh, evolution is emphatically not the "generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles" within a population. Even this introductory to evolution article doesn't claim that anywhere else in the article. The frequency of alleles in a population may change all of the time due to many factors. For example, if there is a hurricane and only one animal of the population survives, the frequency of alleles is now whatever that animal has. The only living moth is black. Is that evolution? Not according to any definition given in this article. In fact, if it is a non-breeding female, it's extinction. This is a bad sentence. A very bad sentence. Evolution and extinction are not the same thing. There should be no sentences in this article showing that it is.
Are there populations that don't share a common gene pool? We have a clue to the answer to this question in a later sentence in t
he same paragraph:
"A gene pool is the complete set of alleles in a single population."It seems that if the complete set of alleles in a single population is its gene pools, this is, in fact, evidence that, by definition, they "share a common gene pool."
The third paragraph of this section starts with this mind-boggler:
"Frequencies of alleles in a gene pool typically change, resulting in evolution of populations over successive generations."
So, the populations evolve and evolve over successive generations just because the frequencies of alleles typically change? I thnk that the Hardy-Weinberg section was saying something different about this.
Evolution isn't a necessary, forward momentum process that just occurs with time, as random mutations cause changes from one generatin to the next in gene pools. This whole section seems to be first emphasizing the null hypothesis, and, second, showing that evolution occurs from each generation to the next. I know my grandpa is the same species as I am.
- Done--- it is gone -----Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This entire section appears to be written in a disjointed fashion without comprehension by the authors of the overall structure of population genetics and its relationship to evolution. It should be removed from the article rather than rewritten. --Amaltheus (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Summarizing, because there is an entire talk page archive since this FAC started, and the article has been substantially rewritten at FAC.
- 722 edits and five week later: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Wassupwestcoast, Ben Tillman, DrKiernan, Kaldari, dave souza, Awadewit, Giano, Professor marginalia, Dweller, GetAgrippa, David D.
Oppose
- Titanium Dragon (has this been addressed, has TD been asked to revisit?)
- User talk:Titanium Dragon -- twice. Struck out concerns of talk page. Nothing more I can do.--Random Replicator (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OrangeMarlin (objection to book sources is not a valid oppose, most citation inconsistencies have been cleaned up as far as I can tall, except that page nos are needed on book sources)
- Amaltheus, very strong oppose, questions on accuracy of representation of sources and accuracy of text, extensive talk page discussion, FAC commentary impossible to follow due to strange formatting and moves back and forth to talk page, this is a serious oppose that needs to be resolved and clarified.
- I'm open to suggestions on formatting. It's not clear that there is a specific format required or desirable that would be easier to follow. There are still more issues in the article, imprecise language and improper synonyms for example, but overall it has generally moved from a somewhat technical introduction to evolution with random areas of greater technicality to a more general and approachable true introduction to evolution that is well outlined. I see a lot of potential in this article for being what its owners initially wanted it to be.
- Wherever it goes, what is needed is a clear, brief summary of what concerns are left and whether progress is being made. (No, that doesn't belong on your talk page; here on the FAC is preferred.) Because commentary on this FAC is almost never threaded/indented correctly, I can't tell who has written what above (comments aren't threaded, and I can't tell who entered the underscored done comments). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see you suggesting that this be put on my talk page, something Random Replicator addresses below. The issues are real problems with the article that need addressed as far as I am concerned, and my talk page is no more appropriate for that than it was appropriate for the crap that has been put there. I struck out concerns that were addressed, leaving only issues that impact the accuracy of the article. The stuff on pre/postzygotic barriers should be moved to an article on that topic, as Wikipedia seems not to have one. --Amaltheus (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He has instructed (all the current contributors) to not intrude on his talk page. I think we should respect that request. I've attempted to incorporate some of his concerns on this page which I see have now been struck. The separate pages were requested to separate concerns over article problems with issues concerning editor behaviors. There has been more than enough said by all on this --- let it rest. The FA Director can decide from here. Please --Random Replicator (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm open to suggestions on formatting. It's not clear that there is a specific format required or desirable that would be easier to follow. There are still more issues in the article, imprecise language and improper synonyms for example, but overall it has generally moved from a somewhat technical introduction to evolution with random areas of greater technicality to a more general and approachable true introduction to evolution that is well outlined. I see a lot of potential in this article for being what its owners initially wanted it to be.
- Brískelly and Kaypoh have not revisited in spite of requests.
Page numbers on book sources and WP:OVERLINKing still need to be addressed. There is still ongoing talk page discussion and active changes to the article (not clear if the article fails 1e, or just wasn't initially ready for FAC). Please finish up the MOS items listed on the talk page, and clarify where Amaltheus' issues stand, and TD and OM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say "not ready at the time of submission"; hence edits to improve - most involving reduction in complexity or a crash course in formating and citations. There is absolutely no edit war. It would be very disappointing to fail FA because of that perception --there is one very unhappy editor with very strong opinions. The changes by recent contributors are also followed with their supports --- the compromises above should dispel any concerns on edit warring. Stability -- as long as its improving I can accept failing on that one. Hopefully, the summation below and the separate discussion page dedicated entirely to his concern over ownership is adequate to express where the Amaltheus' issues stands. Also thank you for coming to the rescue on the technical concerns; fail FA or not --- it is a 1000x's better after passing under the demanding eyes of both you SandyGeorgia and Awadewit; it has been an incredibly humbling experience. --- --Random Replicator (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've always believed that temporarily re-focusing upset editors on technical matters can help relieve content tension and bring editors back to working together :-) Great progress has been made here; I hope all will work together to resolve the few remaining issues, so the article can pass without ill will. Working out MOS and citation issues at peer review is another tip for a peaceful FAC :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Continued concerns with the article As mentioned in my comments above, the editors have used synonyms in the article, such as "variety" for "diversity," (an example, this one is not as important). In the cases I pointed out, which have been corrected, the editors used synonyms with specific technical meanings for general words in English. As this is a general article, "variety" for "diversity" can stand, whether I like it or not. I have not checked the entire article for additional concerns like this. Genetics jargon can't be used in a general sense in an article on evolution. The jargon must be used only in its technical meaning. I don't see that other editors are checking for this.
- Although I believe it was just careless editing, I am still concerned about checking for copyright violations. Another editor pointed out that this article may wind up sounding like a dozen other general introductions to evolution. Maybe, but that wasn't the problem with the copyright violation-it was a very specific instance. The article has to be checked out.
- Amaltheus, the best way to proceed on that issue is to go back in the article history and determine who entered the copyvio. Chances are, it was an IP. In any case, see if the same editor made any other edits; if not, there's probably no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The source of that error has been discussed at length elsewhere by the editor who did it. I see no need for the contributors to follow-up this concern anymore --Random Replicator (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The references were obviously not attached to what they were referencing. Other editors should have caught this while editing, but did not. This concerns me when no one catches that a reference about Mendel is attached to Darwin's works.
- The best we can do on this issue is a random spot check; say, every fifth reference, or something like that. It is an important concern; I recall another recent FAC where almost every citation turned out not to verify the text. A spot, random check usually reveals issues if there are any. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The templates were being applied during FA which created havok; since it was done to all of them at once by me. I was attempting to do this with limited skills. Fortunately, Amaltheus was there to catch my errors and bring them to my attention here. Even better thou, Wassupwestcoast recently invested a great amount of energy to properly template and link. I hope it is spot-on now; but spot checking is always an excellent idea.--Random Replicator (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of obvious problems that the writers of this article have missed concerns me. There continues to be obvious inaccurate characterizations of evolution in the article. Huge inaccurate characterizations. I keep correcting them here, and they keep slipping in. I'm concerned that the writers don't catch these instances. The first sentence is an example:
- "Evolution is the natural process by which all life changes over generations."
- Evolution is not only not the process by which all life changes over generations, all life doesn't change over generations. Evolution is about speciation, the accumulation of change in a population over generations. In an otherwise excellent paragraph, finding something this wrong is troubling, and the lead sentence at that.
- Evolution is the accumulation of change in a population. I see Wikipedia's article on evolution also emphasizes the generation to generation evolution.
- This implies that my generation is different from my grandfather's generation, from my mother's generation, which is different from her father's generation. This is not the case. I don't know how to say this any better. It is very difficult to communicate at a level where on the one hand the debate is whether H-W should be included or not (the problem was it wasn't tied into the discussion in its section), and on the other we keep have to defining evolution. It is troubling that the writers keep putting in difficult sentences such as this one after spending ages debating the form of the lead paragraphs. No compromise should be made that puts wrong information in the article, and in such a prominent position.
- The article is mostly about complex multicellular eukaryotic evolution, but has a mind-boggling summary box about single parent clones. The box might be the result of entrenching against me for my suggestion that sex be mentioned in the box. But the summary box should match the article. If the article talks about complex multicellular eukaryotic evolution the summary box should not be about an exception to this. This is an appropriate simplification for an article of this nature, sticking with only the large and familiar world. But it's not acceptable to focus one way here another way there.
- This has been addressed at length and the present state of the box was overwhelming supported.--Random Replicator (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as difficulties like these keep arising, mind-boggling difficulties such as making the lead sentence factually incorrect, I think the article is not worthy of being featured. The definition of "evolution" is not a minor issue. Using the term incorrectly is a major stumbling block for this article. Using jargon as general English synonyms is a stumbling block. Missing incorrect references is a stumbling block. Continued hostility to other Wikipedians who can catch these issues, while the writers are missing them, is a major stumbling block.
- Thanks for the new summary, Amaltheus. I've just read through the talk page here, and I see that things got a bit out of hand. I appreciate the progress made by all, and hope all can refocus on addressing the few remaining concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Sources of variation section gives excess credit to Watson and Crick and the historical sequence is wrong. I have left a comment on the Talk page. This section does not have to be long because the article is about Evolution and not DNA, but it must be accurate.--GrahamColmTalk 12:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this is an introductory article, the appropriate response is to be more vague and less detailed, not more.--Filll (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands the article is not accurate, it does not require more detail, it needs the inaccurate details to be removed.--GrahamColmTalk 17:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an excellent introduction to an important subject.--GrahamColmTalk 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another error, this comes from using a primary source, probably:
:"In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick contributed to one of the most important breakthroughs in biological science when they described the double helix structure of DNA.[12] This helped to demonstrate how DNA serves as the hereditary code and how genetic variations in a population arise by chance mutations in DNA."
"This" is from the preceding sentence: the described double helix structure of DNA. But it isn't the "double helix structure" that helps demonstrate how DNA serves as the hereditary code, but the base pairing, which immediately suggests how DNA could be the hereditary code by its copying mechanism being a function of its structure:
:"It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material." (From their article.) Again, the references have to say what they are attached to, not common folklore that the double helix is the coolest thing in the world about DNA. It's the base pairing.
This was and remains one of the most stunning breakthroughs in biology, it can't be rewritten to be something else for this article. --Amaltheus (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this solve that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- The structure of DNA is referred to as the double helix. -- I do not think the author of this sentence intended to imply that helical shape was exclusive or even the primary force behind heredity. I didn't read it that way. It is a commonly used descriptive term for DNA. If it should become a major point of contention; then I suggest dropping "double helix structure" and just say they described the structure of DNA; rather than increasing complexity in that passage. Going into the base pairing rules might be a tad off topic; perhaps best linked out. Would simply deleting the statement double helix structure achieve the same goal without the need to swing toward increased complexity? --Random Replicator (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The double helix is commonly known, the only problem was implying, by the sentence, that this is what Watson and Crick's major breakthrough in the biological sciences was. Most of what we do today in the biological sciences is due to the insight of Watson and Crick into the base pairing. The problem is raising the double helix to the level of one of the most important breakthroughs in the biological sciences when it pales in comparison to what their published insight into the base pairing does. I don't think the sentences about the base pairing G-C A-T have added anything to the article or are necessary to an article of this nature. But Waston and Crick should be clarified because that little sentence in this one tiny article is the foundation of a new era in science, and in evolutionary science, and the double helix, as important and interesting as it is, is not the same thing. --Amaltheus (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I ask then --- will dropping the double helix structure from the text be adequate to your concerns so that I may delete the newly added information? I'm trying to lean toward simplicity on this one. --Random Replicator (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to have missed or dismissed my strike out of "my concerns" about this issue above.[22] --Amaltheus (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd leave it as it is [[23]]. Although I agree fully with Amaltheus about base-pairing being the more important concept, readers understand codes, the small addition re: the base pairing G-C A-T doesn't do any harm.--GrahamColmTalk 21:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I ask then --- will dropping the double helix structure from the text be adequate to your concerns so that I may delete the newly added information? I'm trying to lean toward simplicity on this one. --Random Replicator (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic section moved to talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overstepping conclusion:
- "There is no real difference in the genetic processes underlying artificial and natural selection. As in natural selection, the variations are a result of random mutations; the only difference is that in artificial selection, humans select which organisms will be allowed to breed.[25]"
This sentence oversteps its reference by a wide degree. There is a big difference in natural and artificial selection, in that natural selection ultimately results in viable breeding populations of a new species. I think corn is the only instance where artifical selection has done that. Great Danes and German Shephards have no barriers to cross breeding. They are not species. Many crop plants are grown from clones (fruits for example). I suggest something along the lines of equating the human selection of desirable traits to the natural selection of traits fit to the organism's current environment. The conclusion, in any way, has to be tied to a source, not to a definition. --Amaltheus (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you propose new wording on the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the double helix offends people, get rid of it. Simpler is better. Rather than adding more detail to make it more "accurate" and "correct", I would advise dumping all the information in that area. Otherwise, we will be heading in a very negative direction. If vague bothers people, just remove that topic completely, IMHO.--Filll (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose—1b, not comprehensive. Not a single mention is made of Darwin's theory of sexual selection, which occupies a whole chapter in his original book, and forms a major part of natural selection. And not a single mention that behaviour as well as physical attributes is subject to evolutionary forces. Tony (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article is not about Darwin, or any of his original books, but the theory of evolution. It is written as an introduction for people with little knowledge of what evolution is and probably little scientific background. Why would it have to mention everything that Darwin mentions? Or give things the same weighting that Darwin gave them, decades ago? This article isn't supposed to go into the complex details; there is the article evolution for that. Skittle (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. 1e, to begin with. This is what it looked like when the nom began. Not even the lead has been stable. An article shouldn't need 700 edits during FAC. And it raises an obvious question: what will it look like a month from now? Judging the threads that have emerged on this, it seems to be headed toward dispute resolution, not the stability we expect of FAs. I echo Tony's 1b concern: why does artificial selection get a section and sexual selection get nothing? Finally, I question the very logic of having the page. I just did a top-to-bottom read of Evolution. It's a wonderful article. Critical definitions are explained at first mention, the language is as plain as possible, and examples are well chosen. Attentive readers should easily be able to follow it. That isn't to say that there is nothing of use here. It might be retargetted as History of evolutionary thought (post-1959) as it's largely structured chronologically. Marskell (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you've drawn attention to the Evolution article, I note that it includes one of the misconceptions that was the subject of intense scrutiny during this FAC process for this article, so I'll look at clarifying and correcting the evolution article. .. dave souza, talk 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The stability criteria has historically be interpreted to exclude edits made in furtherance of a FAC nomination. Raul654 (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It does appear that the community might be able to find a place and a use for introductory articles, which are by necessity incomplete and vague. I am sorry that this is true, but remember your grade school texts on math and science? I am sure if you do, or look at a grade school text, you will find that it is missing many things and oversimplified in many ways. After all, does the atom really look like a bunch of wooden balls on metal springs? Some feedback on this from the community and discussion can be seen at the ongoing AfD discussion for this article. And of course the LEAD looks different now than it did at the start. I would personally expect this, since the point of an FAC is to improve the article. Perhaps there is something I am not understanding about the FAC process and you could help me to correct my misunderstanding? My impression iis that the main authors worked hard to accommodate all requests, and be cooperative, and this has resulted in many changes to the article. Some of these changes even made it less introductory, and might very well have to be corrected. Thank you for your input.--Filll (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm strongly in favour of this article being featured, but I wonder if either this process should remain open for quite some time, or it should be closed and the article renominated in a couple of weeks when everything that people have suddenly brought up has been processed. I suppose the danger with that approach is that the energy with which people are bringing things up might vanish. I do think this article is excellent (and much needed), and I suppose quite a lot of FACs are thoroughly edited during the process, but I wonder whether a little more time is needed for everything to be dealt with. Skittle (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 01:51, 21 January 2008.
Jim Bowie
This article about a legendary American frontiersman is currently a Good Article. It is comprehensive, well cited, and well-written. There has been much speculation about Bowie's life and the facts are often mixed with legend. I've attempted to address the various stories about his life and death in as neutral a manner as possible. Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick google is showing me photographs of the subject that should be pd. Might be nice additions.--Docg 18:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the photos that appear on a Google search are variations on the same one that is currently used in the infobox. Bowie was only known to have sat for one portrait, and this is it. There are other images that show Bowie portrayed in various movies, but I didn't think any of those were notable enough to include in the article. Open to a mind change on that, though.... Karanacs (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments—Weak support; the writing is much improved. Please "fix the." final punctuation in "The Alamo" section where quotes start within a WP sentence; and I see at least one caption with a final period closing what is just a nominal group rather than a full sentence (Lopez). Tony (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS: hyphenate "19th-century" when a double adjective.
- "the then-vice governor"—remove the hyphen.
- Why you'd want to spell out "nineteen/th" but use numerals here ("his father owned 8 slaves, 7 horses, 11 head of cattle, and 1 stud horse") is beyond me. Better to spell out single-digits; I see "30" later. See MOS.
- How do you "gift" a servant? Were they slaves?
- Audit for ungainly repetitions, e.g., "... many British knife manufacturers were producing Bowie knives, shipping many of them ..."
- Uncomfortable merging of two different ideas in this sentence: "The design of the knife continued to evolve, and it is generally agreed to have a blade 8.25 inches (21.0 cm) long and 1.25 inches (3.2 cm) wide, with a curved point."
- "700,000 acres (2,834 km²)"—No, hectares please.
- "most of it in land with questionable titles"——>"most of it in land of questionable title".
- I hope that Hopewell (1994) is an authoritative text; it dominates your citations list. Ensure that there's consistently a space after "pp.".
These are very random samples of why at least an hour by a good copy-editor is necessary. Tony (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- THANK YOU for your comments. I've implemented all of your suggestions. I assume that the servants mentioned were slaves, but it was not specifically stated. Hopewell is the definitive biography. Several other biographies have been produced for children, but no (or few) other scholarly works focus specifically on Bowie. Karanacs (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A nicely structured and well-written article. I do have a question mark over this sentence though: "Stephen F. Austin founded the group by employing up to thirty men to help keep the peace, primarily by chasing Indians". Makes it sound like a game of tag. How does "chasing Indians" help keep the peace? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. I rewrote the sentence to be "Stephen F. Austin founded the group by employing up to thirty men to keep the peace and protect the colonists from attacks by hostile Indians." I think you are right and this makes more sense. Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I left messages on the talk pages of User:Mike Christie, User:Casliber and User:Dweller asking them to take a look at the article, as I've reviewed several of Mike's (and hoped he could return the favor) and I've seen that Casliber and Dweller review a lot of articles. I am by no means asking them to support the article, I'd just like more eyes on it so that we can figure out what else could be improved. Karanacs (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Dweller
- Q. If only one person escaped from the Alamo, how could there be eyewitnesses (plural) to the moving the bed story?
- The article is sparsely illustrated. I dislike illustrations inserted purely for aesthetics but as there are so few (1!) of the subject, you can easily justify including some pictures of some of the major personalities referred to substantially in the text.
- I second the suggestion made above by Tony that this gets a thorough copyedit by someone not previously associated with the article. I noticed lots of irritating niggles that detract from an otherwise excellent article. I'd rather give a thorough review once this has been done. --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one man deserted from the Alamo. While all of the defenders died, the Mexican army spared the women and children and two slaves. I've added a sentence that specifically mentions that. I've also added two images of others important in the Alamo fight (William B. Travis and Santa Anna). I've also put in a request to have User:BQZip01 help with copyediting and am waiting to hear from him. Thanks for your time. Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments prose is fair and I'm wading though. The Early Years has a bit of 'and then X happenedd, and then Y, and then Z...', which is I guess dependent on the information known and maybe cannot be helped. But any descriptors of episodes you can add would be appreciated (eg extent of his fathers' injuries, or fact that reading and writing was unusual at the time. Census literacy figures may be good. More later cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I was perplexed by 'gifted' too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 22:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- further establishing his reputation - as a what? Also if he already had a reputation, needs a different verb here. 'boosting' or somthing similar but less colloquial. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anglo colonists - I wouldn't use this like this. Bit colloquial - 'English-speaking'? or something similar? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- rumblings, - tad colloquial - 'rumours of unrest'? or something similar? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support. A fine, detailed article. I have a few questions and suggestions; not many of these are necessary for me to support.
Bowie and his brother Rezin enlisted in the Louisiana militia in late 1814. The War of 1812 ended on 24 December that year…: does "that year" mean 1814? I think it must, and reading the rest of the sentence clarifies the sequence. However, because of the date in the name of the war, this is a slightly disconcerting thing to read. (I know nothing about the war of 1812 and couldn't have told you if it lasted till 1814 or not.) If you can find a rephrasing that reads less oddly, that would be handy.- I'm a bit puzzled by this too, on further investigation. Although the Treaty of Ghent was signed in December 1814, ending the War of 1812, it appears that Jackson didn't immediately get to hear the news, as he was still fighting in January 1815: "Unaware of the peace, Jackson's forces moved to New Orleans, Louisiana, in late 1814 to defend against a large-scale British invasion. Jackson defeated the British at the Battle of New Orleans on 8 January, with over 2,000 British casualties and fewer than 100 American losses. It was hailed as a great victory, making Andrew Jackson a national hero, eventually propelling him to the presidency." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
he joined the Long expedition in an effort to free Texas from Spanish oversight. I'd suggest making this "he joined the Long expedition, an effort to free Texas from Spanish rule". I'd eliminate "in" because it's not Bowie's effort, it's the expedition's effort -- Bowie just joined the effort. I don't like "oversight" as it implies that the state already had some form of independence, and there was merely some notional oversight, rather than actual Spanish rule.
- I've fixed this to be "the Long expedition, an effort to liberate Texas from Spanish rule." Karanacs (talk)
There are a couple of places where a map would be handy for those not familiar with the local geography. None are necessary for FA, though, so I've posted those suggestions at the article talk page.Struck to make sure this is not interpreted as part of an oppose; we can continue this on the article talk page.The story of his partnership with Lafite is remarkable. You make it clear that the law allowed for the refund of half the price of the slaves. However, the whole scheme seems so transparently fraudulent that I'd like the article to more directly affirm that the whole thing was completely above-board, if it was. Did the state actually know all the facts, including Lafite's involvement? Was everything Bowie did legal? If so, I think we need to be left in no doubt about it -- especially given that Bowie was comfortable skirting the law on other occasions.- The sources don't make it clear what the state officials knew, but I doubt that Lafitte's involvement would have been publicly known at that time. The state laws don't appear to have addressed the possibility that a slave smuggler would inform on himself; I doubt the legislature would have intended this to happen, but this wouldn't be the first LA law to have giant loopholes in it. (My favorite-until recently, it was illegal to buy alcohol if you were under 21 but legal to sell it anyone over 18). Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a pity the sources don't say more about that. It would be nice to clarify if you ever find a source.
If the cause of Cecilia Wells' death is known, I think it would be good to include it.When he marries Ursula, you quote an amount in pesos shortly followed by an amount in dollars. I don't know how these are related, and I think that most readers will not. You may not be able to find anything like an exact exchange rate, but for this context I think it would be enough if you could say something like: "$223,000…many times more than the dowry contract required" or "not quite enough for the dowry" or whatever. (I'm guessing the former is more likely to be true.) If you can get an exchange rate, I'd suggest quoting the approximate dollar value of the pesos.Is "Anglo" used in the historical works? It is a current colloquialism and I wondered if it was the standard term.- If I understand the sequence correctly, Bowie, while a Mexican citizen and married to the daughter of a Mexican government official, ambushes a Mexican army, and then returns to San Antonio where he is not in any trouble for his actions. Am I missing something? Why wouldn't his ambush have annoyed the Mexican government? Did they not know who he was?
- Mexico had no idea what to do with those pesky colonists and tried to ignore them until 1835. There were very few Mexican troops in the state, and they primarily tried to fend off Indian attacks. I'm not sure how to clarify this better in the article—do you have any suggestions? Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about a sentence right after "…marched the soldiers back to Nacogdoches", saying something like you say just above, sourced if possible? E.g. "There were no repercussions for Bowie and his men for their attack on the Mexican army as there were very few Mexican troops in the state, and the Mexican government's policy was essentially to ignore the Anglo colonists." Mike Christie (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After reviewing the sources, I was able to add a paragraph just before this that details that Mexico was actually in the midst of a little civil war at the time, and the commander Bowie defeated was on the losing side. 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- How about a sentence right after "…marched the soldiers back to Nacogdoches", saying something like you say just above, sourced if possible? E.g. "There were no repercussions for Bowie and his men for their attack on the Mexican army as there were very few Mexican troops in the state, and the Mexican government's policy was essentially to ignore the Anglo colonists." Mike Christie (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the Convention of 1833, which formally requested independent statehood in Mexico: I am unclear on the meaning of "in" here. Does it mean that the independence would have still been within a Mexican federation? Or that the convention was held in Mexico?the San Felipe-Nacogdoches area of Texas: you wouldn't think of those two towns today as being in the same area, assuming you're talking about the current San Felipe, Texas. Back then, would this have meant "south eastern Texas"?- Tt would have meant the areas that included most of the Anglo land grants.
- I think it will read oddly to anyone who knows those locations, and won't convey much to those who don't. How about, in lieu of a map, changing it to say "the Anglo colony lands in east Texas"? Mike Christie (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed this. 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think it will read oddly to anyone who knows those locations, and won't convey much to those who don't. How about, in lieu of a map, changing it to say "the Anglo colony lands in east Texas"? Mike Christie (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does Hopewell give any details about how we know about Bonham's resolution in favour of holding the Alamo? If it happens that the document itself survives, I think that would be interesting to mention. If it's just an eyewitness report, no need to add anything.The story of the line in the sand: I am baffled by this: "After its initial publication, this account was confirmed by several other eyewitnesses, but the story can only be authenticated by the word of the reporter": if there are other eyewitnesses, then surely the reporter is not the only person who can authenticate it?
- I am striking this; I see you've clarified it in the article.
That's everything. A very interesting article. Mike Christie (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments.
- I've struck one more point and am now happy to support; I have done so above. I still think the use of "authenticate" is a little odd; I'd just reduce that sentence to "…as Rose admitted to embellishing other articles…" but that's your choice. Mike Christie (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak OpposeSupport by — BQZip01 — talk
"Stories of his frontier spirit made him one of the most colorful folk heroes of Texas history." needs to be expanded upon in the body or removed from the lead."(USA)" isn't necessary after Kentucky. Click the link to Kentucky if you don't know about it...- It's not prohibited either. There have been several discussions about this on the Village Pump, and usually consensus says it's fine to have the country there. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems reasonable enough. I did say weak oppose... — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not prohibited either. There have been several discussions about this on the Village Pump, and usually consensus says it's fine to have the country there. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"His father had been injured..." should be was injured. Keep an eye out for "had + verb"- Had is the correct verb form here. That is past perfect, which is used when describing an event that happened before another event in the past. The paragraph begins with "Bowie was born"...(in the past), and then goes further into the past to speak about his parents' marriage (had + past tense).Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm...I see your point there. No worries, my bad. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Had is the correct verb form here. That is past perfect, which is used when describing an event that happened before another event in the past. The paragraph begins with "Bowie was born"...(in the past), and then goes further into the past to speak about his parents' marriage (had + past tense).Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Although all of the Bowie children learned to read and write in English, Bowie and his elder brother Rezin could also read, write, and speak Spanish and French fluently.[6] The children were also taught how to survive on the frontier, as well as how to fish and run a farm and plantation. Bowie became proficient with pistol, rifle, and knife.[7] He had a reputation for fearlessness, and as a boy one of his Indian friends taught him how to rope alligators.[8]" Be careful here. I realize you are talking about Jim Bowie, but everyone mentioned in the paragraph is a Bowie as well. Stick with "Jim" for this paragraph to limit ambiguity.
"Shortly before Bowie's father died in 1818 or 1819, he gave Bowie and his brother Rezin each ten servants..." should be "their father.""Bowie became famous as a result of a feud..." How famous? presumably the people involved in the land disputes knew of him and took him all the way to the Supreme Court? How about "nationally famous"? "Internationally famous"?- Changed to "internationally famous" Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "...nationally famous Fightin' Texas Aggie Band" now has a competitor I suppose. — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "internationally famous" Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"widow's weeds" what the heck are these?More links of The Battle of Alamo to "Alamo" would be appropriate; at least one in the paragraphs about the Alamo.- First paragraph in that section now has a wikilink to Alamo mission, and there is a wikilink to Battle of the Alamo later in the section, when the siege begins. Good catch! Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- good 'nuff — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First paragraph in that section now has a wikilink to Alamo mission, and there is a wikilink to Battle of the Alamo later in the section, when the siege begins. Good catch! Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, from the semi-automated peer review program...
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?]
- The only dates that aren't wikilinked are the accessdates in the references, primarily because there is still argument on what the template is supposed to do. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
- I readily admit that some of the sections do have a lot of these terms, primarily because nothing is known for certain about parts of Bowie's life, and it's hard to be more specific. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair explanation. History about people's pasts is often murky. I just wanted you to be aware of it. It seems reasonably addressed. — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That said, these are simple fixes and should be easy to change. Once addressed/changed you have my complete support. — BQZip01 — talk 23:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- still very weak oppose, but simply addressing these issues will likely be enough for my support. — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have my support, but please address the ambiguity concerns. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- still very weak oppose, but simply addressing these issues will likely be enough for my support. — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Interesting, gripping even, and meaty article about an iconic figure. Well done. --ROGER DAVIES talk —Preceding comment was added at 09:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 01:51, 21 January 2008.
David Lovering
Drummer of the American alternative rock band Pixies. Probably the trickiest article on a Pixies member to write (as there's not much written about him), but I feel I've written a comprehensive biography. I'm in the process of sourcing a free image. CloudNine (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support After a read I found no errors or omissions. Other than an unusually small number of citations (20) I can foresee no possible objections/complaints/requests/queries. It is not unbelievably eloquently written but its writing quality is satisfactory of FACr.--Keerllston 11:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (from the lead)"
However,after the band's breakup, Lovering received fewercritical accolades for his musical output." - Is this supposed to imply that he wasn't any good? how many constitutes "fewer"? or even "a few"?--Keerllston 13:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- It means Lovering received less attention and acclaim from critics after he left the Pixies, which is a fair statement to say given all the sources I've found. CloudNine (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I had understood what was meant
your comment makes me wonder whether it is OR
What I referred to was the not very good phrasing, perhaps I was unclear.
My issue with the sentence can be explained in two ways:
First: Why "However"? However is for a relationship of objection, in this case to the previous comment that he was important musically to the band Pixies
Second: I don't believe the contrast between the number of positive reviews prior to the number of reviews post a useful one, let alone one important enough to be in the lead, I doubt it's even in the body, not referenced, possibly OR.
--Kiyarrllston 02:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I had understood what was meant
- It means Lovering received less attention and acclaim from critics after he left the Pixies, which is a fair statement to say given all the sources I've found. CloudNine (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (from the lead)"
- Support
Comment: Move to support in light of recent work. A fine article. Ceoil (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This a very strange sentence: Lovering had a mostly conventional childhood, although at the age of six he rode a unicycle through a Mormon church service for a bet. Ceoil (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought it was a strange sentence while writing it. I included the latter as sort of piece of trivia while I was first writing the article, but I think I'll remove it now. CloudNine (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- [As an alt-music project member etc] I'm leaning towards support here, though some points need to be clarfied yet:
"Fuck or Fight" - How soon after the tour end was the hiatus?
- I haven't got a specific length of time for this (sources state "soon after") unfortunately.
During this time, Lovering traveled to Jamaica - So what.
- I've removed it; it's a shame most of the information specific to Lovering in his Pixies days is mostly trivia.
- Re "loudQUIETloud", I got the impression he was on more than alcohol ;-)
- Same.
but I've not found anything more on that.I've skimmed through loudQUIETloud again, and found this: "In deference to the wishes of the his bandmates, David has vowed to curtail his substance abuse". I would put that in the article, but "substance abuse" isn't specific. Perhaps keep it in quotes or something?
- Same.
Frank Black vs Black Francis (might not be obvious that its the same person to a casual reader.
- I think I've clarified this (on the first mention of Frank Black, I've stated who he is). Could you perhaps point out a particular example?
- These are easily resolved; I'm amazed that you could get an article on a late 1980s drummer (no offence to drummers, I'm one myself) to this level. Ceoil (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. It's quite surprising that I'm able to take Joey Santiago and David Lovering to FA status.
- Neutral - I'm striking my oppose because the article has been improved. I still think that it would be better structured if the Magic section were incorporated into the rest of the article. Karanacs (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now.The article seems fairly comprehensive. The prose is okay; not great, but I don't have a lot of suggestions for improvement. My main objection is that there are not specific citations after each quotation. Drop me a note when you've fixed that and I'll take another look and revisit my recommendation.Need a citation directly after each quotation. I added several citation needed tags- They're cited to the next citation, which is a common occurence in academia and in many of the featured articles I've seen (and written).
- Per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_you_quote_someone, you really need to have the citation immediately following the quotation. It's okay if that means that the citation is repeated several times in a row. This way, if someone adds information from another source between the quote and the later citation, there won't be any confusion as to where the quote came from. Karanacs (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They're cited to the next citation, which is a common occurence in academia and in many of the featured articles I've seen (and written).
Need publisher information for book by Frank and Ganz- Added.
- I think you should incorporate the information in the Magic performance section into current section 1.3 (The Scientific Phenomenalist and other projects). I would also then remove the overall Biography heading and move the sub-headings up a level.
- I'm not sure this is the best method of organization; his style of magic isn't directly related to the story of his life. I'd prefer to keep the current arrangement, as it reads better and is more consistent with the other band member articles
- I think it would fit better in the other section because:
- I'm not sure this is the best method of organization; his style of magic isn't directly related to the story of his life. I'd prefer to keep the current arrangement, as it reads better and is more consistent with the other band member articles
- Although the earlier section calls him the "Scientific phenomentalist", it doesn't really explain why until the later section.
- In earlier biography sections the article mentions some of his musical influences; for magic this is relegated to the separate section, which is not completely consistent.
- Although the earlier section speaks about the fact that he is part of the Unholy Three and opened for Frank Black, the details of that is left to the later section, which makes the article seem to skip around to me.
Karanacs (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Karanacs (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review. If you could point out some improvements in the prose, that would be great (I'd like it to be more than satisfactory.) CloudNine (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article needs a free image. It's pretty obligatory. NSR77 TC 14:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, no its not. It would be preferrable, but not obligatory. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FA guideline #3 says otherwise; I really am having a difficult time finding any current FA that does not have an image. NSR77 TC 14:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Having difficulty myself, but I read it as 'where appropriate'. Maybe we should take up a thread on the WIAFA talk, rather than hash it out here. Ceoil (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I've posted a request for relicensing to [25], [26] and [27]. Hopefully at least one person will put their photo under a free license. CloudNine (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FA guideline #3 says otherwise; I really am having a difficult time finding any current FA that does not have an image. NSR77 TC 14:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, I now support this article. I have no other objections. Good work! NSR77 TC 16:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- There needs to be more discussion about his musical style and influences. It seems to me that a "Musical style" section is kind of a glaring omission here—was it intentional? Is there a dearth of sources/info pertaining to his style? I realize that his influences are covered to an extent in his biography, but all seems very sparse—considering the relevance of his style to the article.
- I attempted to write a "Musical Style" section, but there are virtually no sources on his style (unlike more famous drummers), just several quotes that say how he interacted with the rest of the Pixies. At the end of the day, he's just not been written about as much as the rest of the band. CloudNine (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor issue - You should think about separating the "associated acts" with commas rather than breaks. I realize that this is contrary to other Pixies articles, but Lovering has so many associated acts that it really is too much to list using breaks. This should be changed; but it's up to you whether or not you want to change this format on other Pixies articles.
Grim (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as a member of WikiProject Alternative music. I reviewed this article at Peer Review, where I already found it to be well-written and comprehensive. Since then, CloudNine has had to do few changes. I am confident that it meets Featured Article criteria as best as is possible given the notability of the subject of the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note; what is the correct spelling, it's listed two different ways:
- Lovering reinvented himself as "The Scientific Phenomanalist", ...
- Fixed. An oversight on my part.
- Comments
The lead could use a short summary of his biography.- Are you sure the first para is not a sufficient summary? It seems to sum up his career from joining the Pixies to resuming his role as drummer. What parts do you think I should add? CloudNine (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-reading, and the lead seems fine. Maybe I had too much eggnog... BuddingJournalist 21:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure the first para is not a sufficient summary? It seems to sum up his career from joining the Pixies to resuming his role as drummer. What parts do you think I should add? CloudNine (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Lovering had a mostly conventional childhood, although at the age of six he rode a unicycle through a Mormon church service for a bet." "Although" is an odd connector here. Not too fond of the ill-defined "conventional childhood".
- Grim's copyedit removed the clause (which I'm sure I had done before) and the connective.
- "back to their place" What place?
- As above, Grim's
- "began rehearsing throughout 1985 and 1986" Conflict between began and throughout.
- Fixed.
- "Towards the end of 1990s," Do we not know the exact date? Or at least the year this happened?
- I'll try and look for a date, (but does "I became interested in magic six or seven years ago" mean his visit to the magic convention?) but an exact date is not given in the source I looked at.
- "I had to learn how to do it" Cite quotations.
- Fixed.
- "as he felt he "couldn't top the Pixies"" "As" is a poor connector. How does this relate to the rest of the sentence?
- Fixed by Grim's copyedit.
- "this whole tour careered into this drunken" So I imagine this is either a typo by the source or Black misspoke. Since we don't really know, I think the best way to resolve this is to just editorially insert "[careened]".
- I think it's right actually. "To career" means to "move ahead, especially in an uncontrolled way", whereas "to careen" means to "rock from side to side".
- Stylistic suggestion. Instead of introducing quotations with "He added/he commented:/He later explained:/etc." before the quotation (which is choppy and interrupts the flow of the prose), try putting the identifiers in the middle. E.g. "It was all caught on film," said Black. "But they re-edited this..." Much more natural, in my opinion. BuddingJournalist 19:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.
- Support - I just gave this article a heavy copyedit. If anyone has a problem with any of my changes please let me know. I had to remove a bit information that wasn't totally relevant or encyclopedic. However, I now believe that this article is pretty close to "distribution quality". Hopefully this copyedit will lead Karanacs to reconsider her opposition. Grim (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to note (since this featured article candidacy hasn't been added to for a while) that this nomination has received three supports and one weak support, with no opposes. CloudNine (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport. I'm concerned about the prose. Examples:Lovering had a mostly conventional childhood: what does this actually mean? I'd be dubious even without "mostly", but with the qualification I think it has very little meaning left. Do you mean, for example, that he grew up in a middle-class suburb? Or that he had a stable family environment? I think it would be better to drop this sentence and put in some directly factual statement of whatever can be said about his childhood.- Removed. I'm looking for more verifiable information on Lovering's early years.
- OK. Would be good if you can find more, but if you can't, you can't. Mike Christie (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His favorite band during during this time was Rush. According to his friend John Murphy, Lovering was always very "drum oriented". In his high school yearbook entry, Lovering stated his three main ambitions: to be in a rock band, to be an electrical engineer, and to tour with Rush. The line about Rush being his favourite band seems a bit gossip-magazine, until the end of the sentence, when we realize why it's relevant. How about restructuring these sentences like this: He learned to play drums during his teenage years, and joined the high school marching band; according to his friend John Murphy, Lovering was always very "drum oriented". In his high school yearbook entry, Lovering stated his three main ambitions: to be in a rock band, to be an electrical engineer, and to tour with Rush, who were his favorite band.- I've rephrased it as you suggested. Thanks!
- OK. I made one more tiny tweak. Mike Christie (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
after graduating from Wentworth: can you supply the year he graduated?- Done.
Murphy suggested that Lovering audition for the band, who were still in need of a drummer. Lovering had stopped drumming by this point and was initially not keen on their material, but after playing along to several of the band's songs, he agreed to join the Pixies: This reads a little oddly. The actual sequence is presumably: (1) he is persuaded to attend the audition; (2) he plays along with some of their songs; (3) he is not keen on their material; (4) they offer him the job; (5) he considers and accepts. The current version names 3, 2 and 5, in that order. Assuming I'm right about what really happened, how about this rewrite: Murphy suggested that Lovering audition for the band, who were still in need of a drummer. Lovering had stopped drumming by this point, but attended the audition, playing along to several of the Pixies' songs. He was initially not keen on the material, but when Black and Santiago asked him to join the band, Lovering agreed.- I think Karanacs' copyedit has made this clearer. What do you think?
- It's a bit better. I'm not going to withhold support for this, but I do still think it sounds a bit strange to say he disliked the material and then listened to it. Up to you if you want to tweak it some more; as I say I expect to support regardless. Mike Christie (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I get the impression the three Pixies played the material to him (which, upon writing this, I realise I should add to the article), he then played along, and then he joined.
- Hopefully it's much clearer now.
- Yes, that does it. Thanks for bearing with me on this one. Mike Christie (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully it's much clearer now.
- I get the impression the three Pixies played the material to him (which, upon writing this, I realise I should add to the article), he then played along, and then he joined.
- It's a bit better. I'm not going to withhold support for this, but I do still think it sounds a bit strange to say he disliked the material and then listened to it. Up to you if you want to tweak it some more; as I say I expect to support regardless. Mike Christie (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article The Purple Tape says there were seventeen songs on the demo tape, not eighteen; is that correct?- Clarified in The Purple Tape. Some day I'll probably merge it with Come On Pilgrim and improve it.
- OK; all I cared about for now was that it was correct here, and it looks like it is. Mike Christie (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably obvious to you (since you know the Pixies so well) but it's not to me: what is Lovering's contribution to the band's songwriting in general? You mention that he co-wrote "Levitate Me"; did he ever write anything else for the Pixies?- It doesn't appear he wrote anything else (not even "Make Believe"); should I clarify this in the "Levitate Me" sentence?
- Yes, please; that would be great. Mike Christie (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarified.
- Struck above; but perhaps you could expand it to "(his only major writing contribution to any Pixies song)", just to completely clear? Mike Christie (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarified.
- Yes, please; that would be great. Mike Christie (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"steady and accurate style": it doesn't appear that this is sourced by the footnote later in the paragraph. Can you confirm? I do think you need to find a source for this: it's a subjective opinion on his drumming. You don't need to find a reviewer or critic who uses those exact words, just someone who decribes his drumming in terms sufficiently similar to those words.- I've found a choice quote for his drumming style, so I've replaced it with the exact words. (Is the quote sufficiently similar to the original description of his style to keep the original though?)
- I think so -- you now have somebody cited for a description of his style so I think the similarities are close enough. More sources would be good for this sort of thing but what you have is enough. Mike Christie (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. I've replaced it with the previous description.
- I think so -- you now have somebody cited for a description of his style so I think the similarities are close enough. More sources would be good for this sort of thing but what you have is enough. Mike Christie (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the relationship between the band members became strained: is anything known about Lovering's relationships with the rest of the band, in particular? Bands split for a lot of different reasons; often there is one particular personality clash, but sometimes everyone in the band gets sick of everyone else. Can anything more specific be said? And is there anything specific about Lovering?- The only specific details I have to do with Francis and Deal, Lovering isn't talked about much with regards to band relationships.
- Was it Francis and Deal's relationship only that was the issue? Or were there other problems? If Francis and Deal are the main issue I suggest you mention their names at the top of the paragraph rather than the end; not doing so gives the initial impression that it was everyone in the band.
- I get the impression from reading my sources that it was the whole band, but only the tension between Francis and Deal is really talked about. I'll try rephrasing it soon.
- Given what you say, I think the current phrasing is OK -- it does accurately describe the situation. Mike Christie (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I get the impression from reading my sources that it was the whole band, but only the tension between Francis and Deal is really talked about. I'll try rephrasing it soon.
- Was it Francis and Deal's relationship only that was the issue? Or were there other problems? If Francis and Deal are the main issue I suggest you mention their names at the top of the paragraph rather than the end; not doing so gives the initial impression that it was everyone in the band.
After the final date of the Doolittle "Fuck or Fight" tour: Can you supply the date here? Doesn't have to be down to the day, just the month would do.- Done.
During this time, Lovering traveled to Jamaica. I think "during this time" means "during the hiatus", but I think the hiatus needs to be given dates. Naming the end of the tour supplies one date; the 1990 "reconvene" date is the other end of the hiatus. So was Lovering in Jamaica that whole time? Or just for a short vacation? Did he travel there to relax?- I've removed the Jamaica sentence. I'm in the process of finding some dates for the hiatus.
- Good enough for me to strike; dates are a bonus if you can find them. Mike Christie (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After the band reconvened in 1990, Lovering moved to Los Angeles and contributed to their later releases, 1990's Bossanova and 1991's Trompe le Monde. I think this might be better as "The band reconvened in 1990. Lovering moved to Los Angeles but remained a band member, and contributed to their later releases, 1990's Bossanova and 1991's Trompe le Monde". This still isn't quite right, though. Are you mentioning his move to LA just because it happened, or also because it might indicate a separation from the band? If the latter, then we do need to connect it with something like a "but", as my suggested rewrite does; if the former, then I think it should be in a separate sentence, to avoid implying a connection. I think "contributed to" is also a poor choice of verb: it implies that he really only showed up to do a bit of drumming, but someone else really did the album. If he was a full member and those are albums by the Pixies, then you need something more like "The band reconvened in 1990. Lovering moved to Los Angeles that year, but remained a band member. The Pixies released two more albums, Bossanova in 1990 and Trompe le Monde in 1991, and <number of> singles, including Velouria in <year>. The B-side to Velouria was Make Believe, a song about Lovering's admitted "obsession" with American singer-songwriter Debbie Gibson; Lovering wrote "Make Believe" and sang lead vocals for it." This needs some more copy-editing but I think it's the right direction. I am assuming from the article that Lovering wrote "Make Believe", by the way; is that correct?- Most of the band moved to LA. I supposed that piece does need rephrasing.
- Clarified, and made much simpler. How does it look now?
- Most of the band moved to LA. I supposed that piece does need rephrasing.
- That's definitely an improvement. Mike Christie (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lovering moved from band to band, drumming with Tanya Donelly's band on Lovesongs for Underdogs (1997) and Boston band Eeenie Meenie. until opportunities for new work dried up. Opportunities began to dry up, and Lovering gave up the drums and moved into a rented house that banned drumming. Some debris there from previous copy-editing that needs to be cleaned up. That "(1997)" is a little clumsy, but dates are definitely a good idea; any dates you can add to any of the events in this paragraph would be helpful.- Karanacs' copyedit of the paragraph has resolved this. I've also clarified a date here; I don't think Eeenie Meenie was a major project of his.
one track of The Martinis's The Smitten Sessions: Is that punctuation correct (Martinis's)?- Fixed to be consistent with the other Pixies articles.
In the reunion para, I don't think you can use "bottoming out" twice; I'd suggest taking out the first quote and finding a synonym, such as saying he was depressed or whatever is accurate. The phrase is too strong to bear repetition in that way.- Well spotted, and not intended. Replaced the first instance with "feeling depressed".
Why is the Magic Performance section separated from the section titled "The Scientific Phenomenalist and other projects"? Wouldn't they fit naturally together?- I'll probably merge them soon, since at least two editors have suggested this.
- Merged.
- I'll probably merge them soon, since at least two editors have suggested this.
- Looks much better;
there's a tense issue I just noticed though: you have "resided" but "performs" -- I'd think the past tense is right, since they're not still together (are they?). Also, the link to The Unholy Three is not to what you want.Mike Christie (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I think I've fixed both those issues now.
- Looks much better;
-- Mike Christie (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've switched to support, above; there's one point outstanding but I don't think it's necessary for FAC. Nice work. Mike Christie (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:46, 23 December 2007.
Vasa (ship)
The Vasa is one of the oldest preserved warships in the world, and me and User:Peter Isotalo have been working on it to bring it up to FA standards. Feedback from the experts here would be much appreciated on how to improve it further. Selfnom. henrik•talk 13:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Improving this article has been pretty much shared equally by myself and Henrik, and I believe it has been a very fruitful collaboration. Working part time at the gift shop at the Vasa Museum, I have been able to get plenty of inside information and, despite being a rather half-assed photographer, views of the ship that are inaccesable to normal visitors. I have also consulted with employees of the museum about various aspects of the ship and its history. A few weeks ago, I asked Fred Hocker, a researcher employed by the museum, to look through the article. His review of the article rendered some comments to me via e-mail which I have used to tweak the article further, but overall I can report that he was pleased with the contents.
- Peter Isotalo 13:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very thorough and a good read. I know the Vasa Museum has its own article, but a few sentences on the relocation would be good and perhaps a photo if you can squeeze it in. The linking could do with reviewing - there are probably articles for some of the nautical terms that aren't linked or should exist if they don't already. Also the dates aren't consistently formatted, there are some metric/imperial conversions missing and you need to add to stop them wrapping (I'm sure somebody must have a script to sort that out). Yomanganitalk 14:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What looks like the confusing of imperial and metric conversions is because the original specifications for the ship were in feet, and the sources we've used state the length in feet, not meters. Peter Isotalo 14:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I realised that (and it is completely valid in my opinion), but when you use metric units there are places where the units are converted and other places where they are shown only in metric (have pity on us poor Imperialists!) Yomanganitalk 14:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it American or Swedish feet? The ship is from before SI, so they would still use old units. Narayanese (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I realised that (and it is completely valid in my opinion), but when you use metric units there are places where the units are converted and other places where they are shown only in metric (have pity on us poor Imperialists!) Yomanganitalk 14:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for some very helpful suggestions. I believe most of them have been addressed, let me know if you concur. A paragraph about the museum at the end of The Vasa project has been added, The nautical terms in Maiden voyage linked, The dates are now formatted according to American custom, Imperial conversions added (let me know if any have been missed) henrik•talk 21:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What looks like the confusing of imperial and metric conversions is because the original specifications for the ship were in feet, and the sources we've used state the length in feet, not meters. Peter Isotalo 14:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A very interesting article. I recently nominated an article that I worked on for FA [29] so I know a little about FAC's. Suggest the following improvements:
- Fixing references. 59: ny teknik is not familiar to all, 62 versus 63: fix italics so they are the same, 66 is almost right, not quite. I know from my own experience that reference fixing is boring.
- 2nd and 3rd paragraphs need a reference? Use the Hocker book?
- Good luck! Archtransit (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments! I'm actually surprised Ny Teknik doesn't have an article here, it is a fairly well-known technical paper in Sweden. I might write a stub and wikilink the ref. 62 and 63 have been tweaked and 66 has been fixed to look more like the cite web template.
- I'm a bit reluctant to introduce more references in the lead, as the casual reader probably won't be interested in refs (and the lead might be the only thing he or she reads). The lead doesn't really introduce new information not sourced elsewhere, and Vasa isn't so controversial every little bit of info needs referencing. This seems to comply with WP:LEAD#Citations in the lead section, but I'd be happy to source specific claims that are challenged. henrik•talk 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I can not find any issues that haven't been addressed and fixed. Great article! -MBK004 22:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support An interesting tale well-told. A member of the League of Copyeditors, I worked on this article about a week ago, and I see no remaining problems except perhaps the no-break-space codes mentioned above by Yomangani. I usually enter these one-by-one, but an easier way may exist. In any case, I think Vasa should go sailing along to FA without much trouble. Finetooth (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article is well-written but is yet to meet FA quality because of:
- Lack of citations. Many sentences in the article are without citations. I would expect an FA article should have significant amount of citations to prevent users from questioning the authenticity.
- MoS issues. Usage of words like arguably, prestigious, believed to be, some of and PoV phrases like with great certainty be identified in a considerable percentage, "a crowd of hundreds, if not thousands", "Among the ablest and probably most militarily", "perhaps most inopportunely", "among the heaviest and most splendid of their time", "it must be assumed" -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 08:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Citations are mostly done by the paragraph in this article, not per sentence. It's more a question of a different style of writing than a lack of references.
- I don't think it's fair to characterize these phrases as POV since they are all pulled out of their proper contexts. Here we're talking about either simple editorial embellishment or the conclusions in the sources. If these example are biased, then what POV are they representing? Which POV is being ignored? What's controversial about them? And surely you can't mean that every single instance of certain phrases and adjectives by themselves disqualify an article as an FA. I searched for the sentences that contained "some of", and I couldn't really find anything that was unnecessarily vague about them. Statements like "a firing platform in boarding actions for some of the 300 soldiers" or "Reproductions of some of the sculptures that adorned Vasa" don't exactly qualify as weasel wording. Peter Isotalo 09:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets look at it sentence by sentence:
- "Among the ablest and probably most militarily successful of Swedish rulers was Gustavus Adolphus.": Words like probably are better to be avoided in an FA, he either is successful or he is not, he cannot be probably successful. Moreover, that he was able and militarily successful has no bearing on the ship, we are talking of the ship in the article and not about Gustavus Adolphus.
- "What made her arguably the most powerful warship": Why is there an argument about her being a powerful warship, was there any other ship comparable to her? What is the other viewpoint?
- "perhaps most inopportunely, Vasa foundered and sank on her maiden voyage"; according to whom was this most inopportune?, that the ship sank is a fact, that the event was inopportune is a POV.
- "No record exists of what happened to Fahnehjelm's request after it was filed, and it must be assumed that no major attempt at recovery was actually made": This is a POV. Just because no record exists of what happened to Fahnehjelm's request, does not mean that no attempt of recovery was actually made. This can be written without POV as: "No record mentioning a major attempt at recovery of the ship exists".
- This would be especially unfortunate if it happened to objects made by skilled craftsmen, such as household items or some of the hundreds of carved sculptures: There is no need of this sentence in the article.
- There may be other sentences like these in the article but I am mentioning only few of them as an example. The original sentences are good if we are writing a book on the ship but not in an encyclopedia. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 07:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets look at it sentence by sentence:
- I made some adjustments[30] to three of the examples given, but I don't feel that the other two are problematic unless they are taken out of context.
- The "arguably"-statement is preceded by the following sentence "She was neither the largest ship ever built, nor did she have the greatest number of guns." That's the counter-argument and the other perspective. If you look at the history of sailing warships, the size of the ship and especially the number of guns have been very important measurements of success.
- That Vasa sank on her maiden voyage was a financial disaster and a public humiliation for the Swedish crown. From what perspective would such a debacle not be described as anything other than "inopportune" for the Swedish monarchy at that time?
- I think it's better if you actually specify problematic sentences since we seem to have somewhat different perspectives on how to interpret 1a of the FA criteria.
- Peter Isotalo 07:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some adjustments[30] to three of the examples given, but I don't feel that the other two are problematic unless they are taken out of context.
- Comment:
- There are WP:MOSCAPS and WP:MOSNUM violations
- A number of issues kindly fixed by User:Finetooth. henrik•talk 19:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is inconsistent in its use or omission of the definite article the before the name of the ship. Sometimes it says "the Vasa", other times just "Vasa". I looked through some FA's about ships and it seems to me "the" is generally not used before the name of a ship (see AHS Centaur, Attack on Sydney Harbour, HMS Royal Oak (08), USS Wisconsin (BB-64))--Carabinieri (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Overall, I thought this was a very informative and well-written article. There are a few WP:MOS issues that need to be fixed before I can support.
- Need conversions from standard to metric measurements (mile in lead may be the only one).
- Please see WP:DASH
- Two instances of two em dashes removed by User:Finetooth. In other aspects I agree with Peter below. henrik•talk 19:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Need non-breaking spaces between numbers and their units. Use either & nbsp; or {{{1}}}
- The article must have a citation after each quotation, even if that means the citation is duplicated in successigve sentences. I've marked a few of these with citation needed tags.
- I wonder if the Causes of Sinking section should be up above, perhaps after Inquest? It makes more sense to me that Conservation should come directly after archaelogy
Karanacs (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead in the mile is supposed to be a very rough measurement, and since it's a maritime article, a nautical mile is the rather obvious choice. I don't think it's worth translating to either land miles or kilometers.
- I think something like four different editors (including heavyweights like Sandy and Tony) have made edits and comments concerning where dashes should or should not be used in this article. I frankly have no idea what the "correct" interpretation of the MoS is supposed to be. I can only point out that the article was written by Henrik and myself without a single em dash without us being smitten by thunderbolts or loud complaints about poor legibility.
- The article has citations after every quotation, just not at end of the same sentence as the quote. Considering that no substantial quotes are sticking out without footnotes just a few sentences down, I don't think that duplicate footnotes will serve any purpose other than to distract readers who aren't going to read Vasa I or The Power and the Glory anyway. The only quotes that aren't included to merely spice up the text are those from Soop where he comments on the style of the wood carvers, but those are quite directly cited.
- I've moved up "Causes of sinking" just below "History", but I don't think it should be inserted into the chronology since it's really about a modern scholarly discussion. That means "Conservation" comes right after "Archaeology".
- Peter Isotalo 07:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I first read this a few months ago; it was good then, and it's great now. I changed a couple of abbreviations of the word 'circa' from 'ca' to 'ca.' per MOS. I would also suggest interwiki linking poop and orlop as most people won't be familiar with those terms. Well done. Maralia (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: please address the citation needed tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Name of Turkey
previous FAC (22:57, 20 December 2007) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mythology of Carnivàle Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liverpool F.C.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.
Greatest Hits (Lost)
Hello, I recently rewrote this article on the penultimate episode of the third season of Lost. Self-nominate, –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all concerns addressed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Greatest Hits (Lost)/archive1. Just a few things I didn't notice or may not have been there before:
- The mention of Rose & Bernard's reappearance in the lead seems unnecessary. It's worth mentioning, but not notable enough to be in the lead IMO.
- I added this so that there would be a mention of the production sentence in the lead, but it is now gone. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:38 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Saying in the lead that the "first airing of this episode on the American Broadcasting Company in the United States and CTV in Canada on 16 May 2007 was viewed by 12 million Americans" seems a little contradictory when you're stating two countries it was aired in, but only one nationality of viewers. You should either separate the sentence somehow (to make it not sound like Canada's filled with Americans) or find some statistic of Canadian viewers.
- Done. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:38 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- What purpose does the '<br clear="all">' tag in Plot serve? All it does for me is make a little unnecessarily bigger break between two paragraphs. (But I guess it does depend on which server you're using or whether you have the TOC hidden/showing.
- SilvaStorm recently added that and a picture, but I do not see why either are necessary. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:38 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- SilvaStorm has sneakily added both back. Why should we have the <br clear="all"> tag? –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:46 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- SilvaStorm recently added that and a picture, but I do not see why either are necessary. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:38 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Otherwise, good stuff. •97198 talk 01:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meets all FA criteria, well done. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support two great episode articles (maybe three), hope more come next. Also, see if the DVD featurette for "Greatest Hits" can provide more info. igordebraga ≠ 20:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually thought that they didn't do a "Lost: On Location" for this episode, but I was wrong. I just got the DVD so I have added a sentence. –thedemonhog talk • edits 08:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. But I still can't see why you want to dilute your useful links with trivial ones to the major anglophone countries. Who's going to interrupt their read and rush to the US article? "Compare the season's average of 14.6 million."—This sentence suddenly addresses the reader directly; the tone needs to be recast. This is poorly written. Here are random examples from the top. Nearly every sentence needs fiddling. Don't just correct these examples: find someone to run through the whole article.
- Some survivors prepare for an upcoming raid on their camp by the "Others,"—MOS breach, since the quote starts within one of WP's sentences. Period after the closing quote. Please audit throughout for this. "Some OF THE" would be clearer.
- "Ben's adopted daughter Alex (Tania Raymonde) gets her boyfriend Karl (Blake Bashoff) to"—"Gets" is a little trashy here. "Persuades"?
- "16 year island resident Danielle Rousseau (Mira Furlan)"—Yuck. Hyphen at least (16-year), if this hedgehog can't be recast.
- Metrics equivalents?
- "a cable he found 70 days prior[5] connects to this station"—get rid of this P word. What, tell me, is wrong with "before"?
- "they will need someone to go on a probable suicide mission there, to which Charlie volunteers"—Is "to" the right word?
The content is just so trashy that I seriously wonder how we can call this "among our best work". To deliver it in trashy prose is even worse. Tony (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addressed your example concerns. Can you recommend someone to read it over? –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have requested that the article be reviewed by the League of Copyeditors. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yamanbaiia has run through the article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have asked Tony to further comment. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been edited for the new italicized concerns. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have asked Tony to further comment. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yamanbaiia has run through the article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have requested that the article be reviewed by the League of Copyeditors. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, although I'd much rather prefer to see the Greatest Hits as a list than prose. Will (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 00:55, 23 December 2007.
Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081)
I have been working on this article for around two months and think that it is of FA level. The article has also passed a WikiProject:Military history A-class rview and it has received a WikiProject:Military history peer review. All comments are appreciated. Kyriakos 20:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restart, old nom. This has been stalled for six weeks, and on hold for four. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: too short information. --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 18:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Feature articles should be judged by quality not quantity and while I acknoledge that this article is fairly short, articles of small length have passed FAC for example, Battle of the Gebora. Kyriakos (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with a few issues. The article appears comprehensive, well referenced, well illustrated and neutrally written.
- There is overlinking of dates. eg: while 18 October in the lead makes sense, February 1082 does not and there are other surplus links.
- The Bohemond advanced with his army - "The" is misplaced
- The lead does not seem to adequately summarise the "Aftermath" section
- command of the fleet and sailed at once, does not seem to specify which fleet the Doge took, was it his fleet or the Venetian one?
- ordered to march a bit in front of the main line - perhaps "just in front" would describe this better
- Varangians fled in the church - perhaps "fled into the church"
- Peripitus (Talk) 04:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support
opposeI would really like to support this article, but think it inadequately sourced still: Almost all of the narrative depends on Anna Comnena, who is notoriously biased, and Lord Norwich, who is a popular historian with a tendency to repeat his Byzantine source. The account of the betrayal of Dyrrhachium depends on Anna alone. Please consult some modern, scholarly, secondary source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I'm in the city atm and I am going to the state library in the next few hours. So I should be able to find a few new secondary sources. Kyriakos (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have gone to the State Library and found another source and have used it to back up most of the cits containing Anna and Lord Norwich. Kyriakos (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you; I will support as soon as the names are regularized. It is pointlessly confusing to speak of Anna Comnena and the Komnenian restoration in the same article. I realize that this will take time, and will be willing to polish it off myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I have finally managed to root all the others and regularise the names. Kyriakos (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you pinged Pmanderson and Karanacs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears to be done. Will try to dopyedit over the holidays. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you pinged Pmanderson and Karanacs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I have finally managed to root all the others and regularise the names. Kyriakos (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you; I will support as soon as the names are regularized. It is pointlessly confusing to speak of Anna Comnena and the Komnenian restoration in the same article. I realize that this will take time, and will be willing to polish it off myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per previous nomination's comments of mine.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- last sentence of lead needs some work; "However, he was defeated by Alexius outside Larissa and was forced to retreat to Italy losing all Norman the Norman conquests."
- is "Alexios" meant to be "Alexius"?
- There is pronoun confusion in this sentence: "Robert had no intentions for peace; he sent his son Bohemond with an advance force towards Greece and he landed at Aulon, with Robert following shortly after"
- Need to use non-breaking spaces between numbers and units. For example, use & nbsp; or {{Nowrap}},
- Be consistent between use of Robert and use of Guiscard to refer to him
Karanacs (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mitochondrion Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/North American Free Trade Agreement Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here I Am (Eve album)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 00:15, 28 January 2008.
Interstate 355
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 01:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've meant to add early data from an excellent, well-referenced report by former Cook County member of the policy committee for the Chicago Area Transportation Study. It covers the first long-range transportation plan from 1955-1962 for the Chicago metropolitan area. It's also 36 pages of mostly text. If you'd like to chime in, feel free to with this source: [33] I have no qualms about hearing about other FAC issues. —Rob (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This was fun to read. I never heard of this highway before. Maybe the article can get even better with the following suggestions. Most can be fixed very easily:
- Introduction says "Chicago, USA". Isn't putting Illinois usually done?
- 6 lanes the entire length? [citation needed]
- Maybe include a map showing where in the USA the highway is located. See the Interstate 80 article. There you can clearly see where the highway is. The current map is good for detail. But it doesn't help completely because I don't know where Joliet is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Congolese (talk • contribs) 02:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this might be tough, I-80 is a national road so that's why the map shows it that way, I-355 is located in one state. I'll try requesting a map, and see what happens. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 03:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain ISTHA so you don't have to search for it. Put (ISTHA) after the first time you put Illinois State Traffic and ...
- US$ the first time is suggested, then use $
- Are there special lanes for buses or cars carrying shared riders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Congolese (talk • contribs) 02:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did travel time decrease as promised by the politicians? Reference?
- "Completely free", is that different from "free"?
- There is mention of different areas but if you don't know the area, it takes a lot of searching the list. Since there are no exit numbers, why not add mile numbers to the description (when exits are mentioned?)
- What were the environmental concerns? References?
- Home Depot and others were a result of I-355 or just politician's spin and patting themselves on the back? References?
- The article (ref 22) connects the projects and the tollway directly (according to my read)... if the tollway wasn't there, neither would the commercial developments. I could mention that local politics had a hand in terms of pro-development policies, but I'd have to find the ref for that, plus I think it's not necessary. —Rob (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those who pay by cash have to exit the mainline? Photo? Does that mean you have to drive off the highway?
- Southern Extension, paragraph 6, notable according to whom?
- Does the signage mention cities the way the Interstate 80 article does (and has a figure in the article)?
- References. Need a consistent style. Not quite there yet.
- FAC criteria says "exemplifies our best work". Being an obscure topic makes it hard for me to think it is WP's best work. Being a nice article and well written is achievable. Being better than major topics is hard. Just a thought.
- I've thought about that for some time... it's something that affects millions of travelers a year and was a major turning point in the suburbanization of DuPage County, and will soon change Will County from farming to second-most populous county in Illinois. If the article manages to transcend the technical and tells the complete story of the highway's place in its history, it can become one of Wikipedia's best works. Thanks for the comments! —Rob (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are the expert, you may find some of my novice comments not helpful. If this is the case, sorry. Overall, a nice article about a highway that I knew nothing about until recently.Congolese (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Addition: Before I gave the article a polite support. It's better now, so I give it full support. Congolese fufu (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC) (I'm User:Congolese, just changed the name so it wouldn't offend anyone)[reply]
- Oppose. the early history isn't cited. There aren't any details on what the 1988 lawsuit was over. When did the FHWA add it to the Interstate Highway System? The "major cities" box in the route description is unnecessary. --NE2 15:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that was a typo - it was before 1985, and unfortunately, that's the limit of online news article from the Chicago Tribune. Looking for stuff on FHWA though - that's the stuff newspapers don't cover, and I was hoping the FHWA website would be more helpful. I'll contact the standing committee responsible for route numbering and see if I get something, quickly. Lawsuit information may have to come from a microfiche. —Rob (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I was the GA reviewer, and the article was great then. It meets FA criteria in my opinion, well written and backed up comprehensively by reliable and verifiable sources. Rt. 14:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: please review the dead links per the external link checker linked at the top of this page.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. I'll put my support "on hold" - as it were. Rt. 14:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, interesting, only one link remains but I think the external link checker is making a mistake. "Bridge to southwest around the corner" [ref 24 in the article] does not lead to a dead link in the article, as shown here. But in the external link checker, it leads to a different link, a dead one. I don't know what do here. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 17:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No mistake in the linkchecker; the Tribune link was dead, and the link you provided above is live. I switched them for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, so there really was a dead link, sorry about that, thanks for fixing it. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 19:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops. I guess I copied the address bar URL for that one, not the OpenURL link. Infoweb requires authentication to get in (via a local public library, for instance) but it provides individual articles to users (presumably to check references) for free via an OpenURL at the bottom of the page. I've changed that link to the OpenURL link. —Rob (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, so there really was a dead link, sorry about that, thanks for fixing it. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 19:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No mistake in the linkchecker; the Tribune link was dead, and the link you provided above is live. I switched them for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, interesting, only one link remains but I think the external link checker is making a mistake. "Bridge to southwest around the corner" [ref 24 in the article] does not lead to a dead link in the article, as shown here. But in the external link checker, it leads to a different link, a dead one. I don't know what do here. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 17:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. I'll put my support "on hold" - as it were. Rt. 14:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some comments (I haven't looked above). More non-breaking spaces are needed, such as 20 percent, $2.5 million, 55 minutes, 200,000 cars, etc. 189 acres should have a metric conversion. The reference is awkward; I don't think that it should reference the Google search. For the broken links in the search, you could use an internet archive website, such as the Wayback machine. For figures involving money, you should indicate the year of the cost, as well as an inflated cost, to provide a modern perspective; this site is used by the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject. I believe 99-year should be 99–year. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've put in a few non-breaking spaces, but you have no idea how much I wish Safari/Firefox/anyone could show those more easily. I've also put non-breaking spaces in things like "Illinois 53" and "75th Street". Is there some sort of template that handles inflation for me? I'd hate to have to have editors go in there yearly and update dollars to modern equivalents. Also fixed the ndash in 99–year. Exit list might need to be converted to ndashes as well. —Rob (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the google references problem, thanks for the comments. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 17:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Inflation numbers have been added for years prior to 2000. I'm not sure if there's value in putting in numbers from more recent dates than 2000. —Rob (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've put in a few non-breaking spaces, but you have no idea how much I wish Safari/Firefox/anyone could show those more easily. I've also put non-breaking spaces in things like "Illinois 53" and "75th Street". Is there some sort of template that handles inflation for me? I'd hate to have to have editors go in there yearly and update dollars to modern equivalents. Also fixed the ndash in 99–year. Exit list might need to be converted to ndashes as well. —Rob (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stability
Although it's curious to declare stability after a nomination, I'm declaring the article largely stable. (I hadn't expected to be doing this much editing during a nomination... but it wasn't me who nominated the article. :-D That's OK though). Of course further editing will be necessary to address further concerns, but in terms of things I felt were missing from the article when initially nominated... I think those have been added.
The following items may be added at a later date:
1962 Chicago Area Transportation Study info, if any (remember, the highway was at this point more a concept than even an engineering plan) - see link at top- FHWA designates north-south tollway as I-355 on completion. Chicago Tribune no help on this one, but the first mention of I-355 in the paper is April 26, 1988 (see below) which strongly, strongly, strongly points to an AASHTO decision in fall 1987 or spring 1988
Brief mention of 20-year pavement life span here: Mehler, Neil H. (1988-04-26). "Tollway tries to get rock-solid pavement". Chicago Tribune.- Morton arboretum initial lawsuit and resolution might need to be made clearer. Comments?
—Rob (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see if I can find the FHWA thing for you. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 17:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. All my issues have been been fixed. This is a well-written article. Karanacs (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. It seems to be a well-written article, but there are some WP:MOS issues that need to be fixed.An image should not have been placed directly below the infobox. This means that the TOC is not appearing where it should and you have a lot of blank space.- Looks perfectly fine on my computer. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad it looks good for you, but it doesn't on my machine if I have the window maximized in IE. I've moved the image to be just inside the History section instead of outside, and now it appears correctly in my browser; hopefully it still looks nice in yours too. Karanacs (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks perfectly fine on my computer. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the section Opening, you have a missing number where you tried to convert $2.5 million to 2007 dollars (it reads $3 to $ million in 2007)Please note that image captions should not end in a period unless they are full sentences."Veterans Day, 2007 (November 11, 2007)" should probably read "Veterans Day (November 11) 2007.Month-day combinations should always be wikilinked even when there is no year to allow date preferences to work. Please check all the instances of November 11 to make sure they are wikilinked.- All newspaper references need to have the date field filled out. You also need to have the title of the newspaper article. For example, reference 6 does not give the title or author (if available) of the particular article that you are citing. It should be reformatted similar to this {{citation|title=Article Title Here|last=Author Last Name|first=Author First Name|date=[[April 25]], [[1963]]|newspaper=The Daily Herald|publisher=Newspaper Archive|accessdate=[[2007-12-22]]}}
- newspaper names need to be italicized in references
Need access dates for all web links, and there aren't any for the Chicago Tribune articlesNo publisher listed for reg 24Your Chicago Tribune refs aren't formatted consistently. Ref 54 is the preferred way to do it- It sounds like you want the refs to not have quotes around the article name, and to have the publisher be italicized. These changes would have to take place in {{cite news}}, and I'll post the results of that request here. —Rob (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As it was, there were also some random cite webs in there instead of cite news - I fixed that too. —Rob (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBSP - I second the need for nonbreaking spaces.
Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On a revisit, it looks like most of my concerns have been addressed, but please note that the articles taken from the Newspaper Archive need to have the actual article title (and authors, if present) cited. Karanacs (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments—It's good, but the prose needs fixing here and there throughout; please don't just fix these random examples—get someone fresh to go through it (a word-nerd found from the edit histories of similar good articles).
- "Illinois" appears three times in the first three lines now, so I'd have rejected that advice to add it after "Chicago" (that little-known town). Also, it's linked TWICE in the same sentence ...
- "North-South" should have an en dash here ("North–South", even if the owners of the highway were mitaken in using a hyphen. It will google just the same. See MOS. Same issue for "Schaumburg-Wheaton-Bolingbrook corridor", which needs to be piped into proper formatting, despite the wrong punctuation in its article title. And "north-south transportation corridor"—audit all compounds that are to -->
- I'm wondering why you bothered to put a tiny, squinty map in the infoblot at the top, and then to duplicate it at a better size immediately below. Why not provide a photograph at the top? That would be more interesting.
- Mostly stylistic - the teeny tiny map that every other Interstate article has is useful for determining general location, but I found it unusually annoying to have to click the map to read the words. Hence, the larger map. It will be moved off to "Route description" and a pic can be bumped to the top. —Rob (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't need "US" dollars linked (twice in a row, hello?). MOS says not even to bother specifying US dollars in US-related articles (with good reason). Good conversions into 2007 dollars.
- "April of 1985"—MOS breach; spot the redundant word.
- Why is a common word such as "earmarked" linked? It's not wiktionary.
- "decided to pave I-355 with pavement"—ungainly repitition; I can't think of a solution, but one is needed.
- "The concrete on the tollway was 12 inches (30 cm) thick and an 8 inches (20 cm) sub-base"—with an 8-inch sub-base? Ungrammatical as is.
- "The new pavement also incorporated"—remove "also".
- "at a cost of $2 million to $2.5 million (1990, $3 to $4.0 million in 2007)"—MOS breach WRT decimal points. And even three point nought dollars won't do—that's a huge range.
- Is "around $2 million" better? It may be possible to narrow the range, but without looking at the original bids, it may not be possible. And for something relatively ancillary, too. —Rob (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you know that it was $2.0–2.5 million, don't sacrifice that level of precision; do it to one decimal place in both units, though. Three dollars to four million is surely not what you mean (range of $3,999,997). Format as I did in the first sentence here.
- Is "around $2 million" better? It may be possible to narrow the range, but without looking at the original bids, it may not be possible. And for something relatively ancillary, too. —Rob (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plus lots more. Tony (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that graphics, including coloured ticks and crosses, are discouraged in the instructions for this process.Tony (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there are some issues to address before this article meets criterion 1a:
- "From 1963 to 1970, a new expressway was built..." - passive voice obscures subject, who built?
- Some long sentences are extremely hard to read: "Of these corridors, the vast majority, including the Des Plaines River expressway, the Crosstown Expressway running north-south along the west side of Chicago, and most of a proposed northern extension of Illinois 53 ran into intense local opposition and were never built."
- Why is "earmarked" wikilinked?
- "The $100 million (1979, $284 million in 2007) remaining was then earmarked for the new freeway to replace Illinois 53. However, this amount was found to be insufficient for construction. The project was then converted into a tollway, and the money spent on other projects in the county." All passive voice, all sentences whose subjects the reader might like to know. Who earmarked? Who converted? Who spent?
- "In addition, earthen berms would be built along the tollway to prevent salt spray from damaging arboretum plants, which had already been affected by salt spray from the then East-West Tollway, which itself was 0.25 miles (402 m) away." Too long, too many prepositional phrases.
- "Under the agreement, Morton Arboretum would charge DuPage County residents a lower prices for admission one day of the week, built a bicycle path connecting the arboretum to nearby forest preserves, and begin a joint clean-streams program to improve the water quality of DuPage County's lakes and streams." Mixed verb tenses.
- "Concerns were somewhat alleviated when the tollway agreed to..." Passive voice again, and how does a tollway agree to do something?
- "The tollway agreed to..." Same comment as above.
- These are just in the "Early history" section and I have not read further because it's clear that the article needs a thorough copy edit by a fresh editor. Please pay particular attention to writing in the passive voice; its use here frequently obscures the subject of the sentence. --Laser brain (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Tollway" and "Illinois State Toll Highway Authority" are used interchangeably to refer to the entity that manages the toll roads - yes, that causes confusion. If earmark really is such a common word, I'll just delink it. —Rob (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooooh, thanks for clearing that up. One of those local colloquialisms that aren't clear to the rest of us :) --Laser brain (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the help so far. It really does need a more thorough copyedit though - your changes were fairly minor. --Laser brain (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JA10 and Rob, have you asked Tony1 (talk · contribs) and NE2 (talk · contribs) to have another look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Negative - their root concerns haven't really been addressed yet. I've never opened up an article to edit specifically for active vs. passive verb tenses, subjects and whatnot, but I will do that very, very soon. I will ask NE2 to re-review his vote, as the FHWA date is a small chunk of information, and the amount of effort that has gone into trying to find it now outweighs the value of the date itself. —Rob (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is the best interstate article I have ever seen. Nice job on on it. Tavix (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Exit list needs clean up. If that is taken care of, I'll change my vote to support. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Support Other than the exit list, the rest of the article looks fine. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 21:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just cross-checked the list against the exit list guide... everything conforms (with the possible exception of the head and tail rows, which just haven't been discussed). The ramp types are there as a result of a suggestion. What are you referring to? —Rob (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mileage and exit number should be switched, according to WP:ELG.
Also, the exit number should be labeled #, not Plaza #.^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 03:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]- What are you talking about? this highway doesn't have exit numbers, it states that above the exit list. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 03:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I crossed out my second sentence of the last comment. However, number and mileage needs to be switched. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 04:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, that. There's a reason for that - the destinations more closely associate with the milepost, not the plaza number. It reads better in the current fashion. If instead of plaza numbers, the tollway had exit numbers, I would agree with your assertion. —Rob (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I crossed out my second sentence of the last comment. However, number and mileage needs to be switched. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 04:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? this highway doesn't have exit numbers, it states that above the exit list. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 03:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mileage and exit number should be switched, according to WP:ELG.
- I just cross-checked the list against the exit list guide... everything conforms (with the possible exception of the head and tail rows, which just haven't been discussed). The ramp types are there as a result of a suggestion. What are you referring to? —Rob (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't get it, you mean "plaza number", that only violates ELG as a minor problem, and its a special case for this toll road because it has plazas and shouldn't be that big of deal to oppose. Other than that I have no idea what you're talking about. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 05:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Kansas Turnpike, another USRD FA, doesn't even have an exit list, having been replaced with a section that goes into detail on the history of each interchange. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to provision support: I hope this gets through, but everywhere I look there are glitches.
- Someone has gone wild changing all of the hyphens to en dashes. Please read MOS on both. "two–lane wide Rohlwing Road"—no "two-lane-wide Rohlwing Road". "limited-access".
- "In an effort to head off problems"—Spot the three redundant words".
- Three problems: "a 8 inches (20 cm) sub–base" --> "an 8-inch (20 cm) sub–base".
- "As a Christmas "gift," the first two days of"—comma after the quote mark. See MOS.
- "$3 to $4 million in 2007"—no, "$3–4 million in 2007"; et al.
- Clumsy: "As one of the newer tollways in the system, the Veterans Memorial Tollway has also seen considerable toll–collection related improvements"—remove "also"; "considerable improvements in toll collection" better than what should be a two-hyphen unit (not one hyphen, and certainly not one en dash, which means -->"to"-->).
These are just odd samples. So much work has been done, and just an hour by someone else who's good at copy-editing and knows MOS will do. Tony (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, at this point, memorizing the MOS would probably just be a better use of time. At least now I know where en-dashes should be... —Rob (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.
USS Illinois (BB-65)
previous FAC (14:00, 15 December 2007)
With Special permission from Deupty FAC Director SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), this article is being reinstated to the FAC que after the previous nom was closed without any chance for comments on the newly uploaded version of this page. This newer version of the article has addressed some of the previous complaints raised regarding the article's length and content. Comments and suggestions are welcome for this newer version, as are any questions you may have regarding this nom. This is a self nomination, in its current form about 80% of the articles content was written by me. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominate and support TomStar81 (Talk) 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose (see additional clarification at the bottom of this page)
- First let me start off by saying excellent additions!!!This is more in line with an FA-quality article. It still isn't there, but you've clearly done your homework...speaking of doing your homework, I assume your exams are over? Enough chit-chat, let's get to the meat of the article (I'm not going to hit everything, but I will try to give at least one example of each...realize that you need to check the entire article for these problems).
:#Excessive wordiness/passive voice/improper number conversions (mind you these are the opening sentences in the body): "The passage of the Second Vison Act in 1939 had cleared the way for construction of the four South Dakota-class fast battleships and the first two Iowa class battleships (those with the hull numbers BB-61 and BB-62).[1] The latter four battleships of the class, those designated with the (hull numbers BB-63, BB-64, BB-65, and BB-66) were not cleared for construction until 1940,.[1] and at the time the two battleships with h Hull numbers BB-65 and BB-66 were intended to be originally slated as the first ships of the Montana-class, a larger, slower, upgunned class of battleship with an improved armor belt intended to protect her from her own compliment of twelve 16"/50 caliber 16-inch (40cm)/50 caliber Mark 7 guns." How did the Second Vison Act "clear" anything? What was the Second Vison Act? Was something else stopping it? These kinds of problems can and should be avoided.
"...a leviathan the likes of which the United States had never before constructed...." serious use of peacock terminology/poor encyclopedic termsSwitching between terms: BB-65, battleship #65, hull number 65, etc. Stick to one term throughout for clarity. Don't abbreviate using "#"Too many subsections in the Armament section. It appears choppy.- References need some work. You need to include all pertinent information: author, publisher, title, date of publication, date of access (for websites only, not books), page numbers, etc. These all need to be within Wikipedia standards (proper italics, wikified dates for ALL citations, etc).
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 61cl, use 61 cl, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 61 cl.[?] - Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 700 lb.
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
Get rid of weasel words in this article IAW WP:AWT. "arguably" should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- In short, it isn't ready yet. I have no intention of nitpicking and showing every possible problem. Please read User:BQZip01/FA Tips for more information.
I hope that helps in fixing up the article! — BQZip01 — talk 17:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't take criticism of an article so personally. I know I've been somewhat guilty of that in the past too, but try to detach yourself from a piece of work you don't even own.
- As a courtesy to you and the other editors, I am reposting what you put on my talk page with regards to the article. Please post such answers here in the future. This is your responsibility, not mine. I have tried to keep your comments as intact as possible while removing extraneous comments not applicable to this FAC. If I misworded something or misquoted, it is entirely by accident.
- The following stems from a conversation between TomStar81 (talk · contribs) and BQZip01 (talk · contribs) begining on BQZip01's rfa page and extending across both our talk pages. In its original format it was intended to be critical of BQZip01's response to myself (or lack there-of), and was intended as an "if x, then y" argument on the latter's rfa page. Although not a part of this FAC originally, I will concede a point in BQZip01's favor with regards to these comments and there relevancy here, as these to shed light into my mental state regarding this FAC.
I have been waiting for two and one-half week for an answer from you. That's more than 14 days, sir. Suppose for a moment that situation was reversed, that you were the one waiting for answer from me, and having not gotten one left three messages on my talk page looking for one only to be (seemingly) ignored. How would feel?...And for the record replies to an FAC would go directly on the FAC page, not on the FAC talk page. Its your responsibility to check back on that page to see if the nominator has addressed the issues present, and you are suppose to check back and update your oppose as needed. From where I sit, numbers 2,3,4 and 9 were fixed last year and still no post assessment tweaks to your comments. Reviewers who object at FAC are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. That written right into the opposition section. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, what specifically has been addressed? I haven't seen anything to indicate what has been altered. I have no intention of re-reading the entire article over and over every time you make a single change just to see if you addressed my objection. Please specify. — BQZip01 — talk 07:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why did you oppose instead of comment?...Could the same effect have been achieved without the need to oppose? I am not a mind reader, I depend on other people to haul their asses to the pages and reread their comments and the nominators reaction to those comments every time a change is made. Since you seem to have trouble reading your own writing then I will spell out what I think I have addressed from your concer list:
- "...a leviathan the likes of which the United States had never before constructed...." serious use of peacock terminology/poor encyclopedic terms
- It isn't there anymore
- struck accordingly — BQZip01 — talk 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't there anymore
- Switching between terms: BB-65, battleship #65, hull number 65, etc. Stick to one term throughout for clarity. Don't abbreviate using "#"
- It has been fixed
- struck accordingly — BQZip01 — talk 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been fixed
- Too many subsections in the Armament section. It appears choppy.
- These were merged.
- struck accordingly — BQZip01 — talk 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These were merged.
- Get rid of weasel words in this article IAW WP:AWT. "arguably" should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- It should be out of the article now.
- What does this mean? Is it gone or not? (it is gone and has been struck accordingly, but please be more clear in the future). — BQZip01 — talk 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be out of the article now.
- "...a leviathan the likes of which the United States had never before constructed...." serious use of peacock terminology/poor encyclopedic terms
- Then why did you oppose instead of comment?...Could the same effect have been achieved without the need to oppose? I am not a mind reader, I depend on other people to haul their asses to the pages and reread their comments and the nominators reaction to those comments every time a change is made. Since you seem to have trouble reading your own writing then I will spell out what I think I have addressed from your concer list:
- "...and the nominators reaction to those comments every time a change is made." (your words, not mine) Up until now, you have not posted such a reaction other than something like "I have updated the article." This "addresses" none of my objections in and of itself. These comments do. Please continue to do so in the future and feel free to put them directly after each point I made to clearly show the progress. You have done this with other editors' comments. I do not understand why this is such and issue with mine. — BQZip01 — talk 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This piece of stillborn hardware is of questionable notability anyway and should be nom for Afd/Merge anyway. A lot of the article is taken up with what it might have been. It is also possibly inaccurate. It keeps describing the item as a " hulk". It is not clear that it was ever afloat. The object is persistently characterized as "she" and "her". I know that it is common for vessels to be characterized as such but should this be the case in Wp generally and in particular for this abortive project that was never the subject of a naming ceremony/launch? Albatross2147 (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This piece of stillborn hardware is of questionable notability anyway and should be nom for Afd/Merge anyway. - FAC is not AFD. If you think it should be deleted or merged, take it there. Until then, we're going to assume it's a notable and potentially featurable article. A lot of the article is taken up with what it might have been. - this sounds very similiar to the feedback I got during my Operation Downfall FAC. And to echo the comment I made there, there are only so many ways you can describe something that never really happened. It is not clear that it was ever afloat. - a possibly valid point, but I know of no word other than "hulk" to describe an unfinished ship. Can you suggest something? The dictionary defines it as An old or unseaworthy ship used as a prison or warehouse. Often used in the plural. - an unfinished ship is certainly not seaworthy. The object is persistently characterized as "she" and "her". I know that it is common for vessels to be characterized as such but should this be the case in Wp generally and in particular for this abortive project that was never the subject of a naming ceremony/launch? - Whether or not it was ever launched has nothing to do with what pronoun to use. My own opinion, and Wikipedia policy, is to go with whatever common english usage is -- in which case, both "it" and "she" should be acceptable. Raul654 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whatever this thing was it certainly was never a hulk by any definition. In any event even the article's proposer conceded that one. Albatross2147 (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Her sister is an Featured Article, and all five of the never laid down Montana class battleships have their own articles. If Danfs has an entry for the ship then it meets minimum standards for being here on Wikipedia. A lot of the article is based on the information leading up to creation and the events surrounding her early construction work; this is common. If you see inaccuracies, add {{cn}} tags to the stuff that needs cited and I will see to it that the material gets cited. The article does make references to the ship being a hulk, I must admit that I am not aware of any distinction made between hulk and floating; if this is incorrect for the article and its context, it will be taken out forthwith. The other FA-class articles all use She over it, even the incompletd Kentucky; I see no reason why this one should be any different. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article (like the above) is full of egregious spelling errors which should be eliminated. Have you tried using Firefox with spellcheck turned on? Albatross2147 (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What on earth does ...a larger, slower, upgunned class of battleship with an improved armor belt intended to protect her from her own compliment of twelve 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns. mean" I know the US military are notorious for own goals but this seems to be taking the precautionary principle too far. Albatross2147 (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Battleships in any nations fleet were usually armored to withstand guns of their own size. Of the ships using 16-inch guns during WWII (the North Carolina, South Dakota, Iowa, and Montana classes) the North Carolinas and South Dakotas were only armoured to withstand the 16"/45 calibur guns, while the Iowa class was designed only to resist the original 2,240 lb shells originally developed for the 16"/50 and thus were inedequetly armored against the "super heavy" 2,700 lb shells they actually used during the war (it is for this reason that some people consider the Iowa class to be battlecruisers and not battleships). Montana would have been the first U.S. battleship to feature an improved armor belt intended to protect Montana and her sisters from her their own compliment of twelve 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns (and by extension, the 2,700 lb ammunition used in those guns). TomStar81 (Talk) 07:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Despite TomStar81's loving attention to the article over the past few weeks to the point where it is well written and has high clarity I can't see why the subject matter would merit a seperate article let alone an FA. In most histories of the USN the partially completed keel and frame (it was never a completed hull even) would merit at best a para but more likely a footnote. As someone else here observed there is not enough to say about this ship that never was to merit an FA. For mine the article should be merged with other unfinished vessels in the class or an overall class article.Albatross2147 (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article (like the above) is full of egregious spelling errors which should be eliminated. Have you tried using Firefox with spellcheck turned on? Albatross2147 (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This piece of stillborn hardware is of questionable notability anyway and should be nom for Afd/Merge anyway. - FAC is not AFD. If you think it should be deleted or merged, take it there. Until then, we're going to assume it's a notable and potentially featurable article. A lot of the article is taken up with what it might have been. - this sounds very similiar to the feedback I got during my Operation Downfall FAC. And to echo the comment I made there, there are only so many ways you can describe something that never really happened. It is not clear that it was ever afloat. - a possibly valid point, but I know of no word other than "hulk" to describe an unfinished ship. Can you suggest something? The dictionary defines it as An old or unseaworthy ship used as a prison or warehouse. Often used in the plural. - an unfinished ship is certainly not seaworthy. The object is persistently characterized as "she" and "her". I know that it is common for vessels to be characterized as such but should this be the case in Wp generally and in particular for this abortive project that was never the subject of a naming ceremony/launch? - Whether or not it was ever launched has nothing to do with what pronoun to use. My own opinion, and Wikipedia policy, is to go with whatever common english usage is -- in which case, both "it" and "she" should be acceptable. Raul654 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Objectionthis article so bad not even the slinkyies hoes in hoe town get close to it. - bad organization -doesn't look comprehensive -and really does not look FA quality - (this comment is actionable - action being would be "improving article to FA quality")--Keerllston 23:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]Sustained -- you make your point as good as the others, but a few suggestion would go a long way toward helping me bring this article up to FA status. I already know about the spelling and the grammar problems, and those are beyond my ability fix becuase my spelling sucks. Unless I log on through the university systems on their computers I have no accsess to mozilla or the spellchecker within it.I think the article is comprehensive; I have stated before that this is part of series on the topic and (ideally) should be read along with Iowa class battleship and Armament of the Iowa class battleship. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tom, I am very concerned about this. Are you saying you want us to give this article featured status even though you know it has spelling errors? Surely you can't be serious. What school do you attend where a simple dictionary is not available? Go through and check each word if you need to/ Please don't come to an FAC and waste time the time of fellow editors for simple things like spelling. That is not what an FAC is intended to be. As a further suggestion, cut & paste into Microsoft Word and hit "F7"; it'll do a grammar and spelling check. It isn't the best, but it will help. — BQZip01 — talk 08:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have done that before, and even then I do not get all of the spelling and grammar errors. What I am saying is that the spelling is beyond my ability to correct, not that I think spelling can be overlooked on an FAC because it can't. If push comes to shove I will petition the leauge of copyeditors to review the article and correct the spelling. On a similar note I am glad to see you came back. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opposesome questions, firstly the prose is inconsistent in tense making it difficult to follow whether the ship was built or not, along with swapping between names USS Montana and USS Illinois, according to linked articles Montana was designated BB-67. Part of this confusion in prose stems from having a separate section on Armament when the vessel wasnt completed. Armament should covered in the various designs, without the detailed sections about the design bofor & oerlikons guns Gnangarra 10:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Strike see below Gnangarra 06:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I write this I am (albeit slowly) working through the article to try and get it harmonized, as you noted the tense is off in places and the article switches from the class and conversion templates to the old style one cite per unit method, both of witch need to be addressed. On the Montana note you left: our current version does indeed note that Montana was assigned the hull number BB-67, but I have been working on bringing the Montana class article up to featured status and the associated research for that yielded this new evidence. At the moment our Montana class article and the as yet unfinished version sitting in my sandbox are radically different, I do not have all the needed parts to place the new version out to be seen by all. To be honest it had not occurred to me that the current article namespace version of the Montana class battleships did not address these issues. I am none to keen on outright removing the material related to the battleship when designated USS Montana since that would leave the article uncomprehensive. On the issue of the armament: I have the section arrayed as they are now because I thought that this method would be simplier to understand, but I would be willing to remove the entire section and its subsections and consolidate the information into a paragraph or two under the sections "USS Montana" and "USS Illinois". Would that be better? TomStar81 (Talk) 11:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Dwarf Kirlston comments also indicate that the article layout is disorganized so maybe looking at chronologically would assist that. Discuss Montana class design including armament, then discuss Iowa class the armament particulars of that, this is a significant factor in the choice of the BB-65 and BB-66 order and moving of USS Montana from BB-65 to BB-67. With Montana while its was designated as BB-65 the sources(that I could read) indicated that the order for the ship was dropped in priority for 2 extra Iowa class after the events at Midway. IMHO (without access to source 3,4,5 which appear to also cover this information) the focus on USS Illinois being called USS Montana is inconsistent with sources as it was only BB-65 designation that they have in common. Source 3 the link has died so you'll need to re-establish. Gnangarra 13:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I write this I am (albeit slowly) working through the article to try and get it harmonized, as you noted the tense is off in places and the article switches from the class and conversion templates to the old style one cite per unit method, both of witch need to be addressed. On the Montana note you left: our current version does indeed note that Montana was assigned the hull number BB-67, but I have been working on bringing the Montana class article up to featured status and the associated research for that yielded this new evidence. At the moment our Montana class article and the as yet unfinished version sitting in my sandbox are radically different, I do not have all the needed parts to place the new version out to be seen by all. To be honest it had not occurred to me that the current article namespace version of the Montana class battleships did not address these issues. I am none to keen on outright removing the material related to the battleship when designated USS Montana since that would leave the article uncomprehensive. On the issue of the armament: I have the section arrayed as they are now because I thought that this method would be simplier to understand, but I would be willing to remove the entire section and its subsections and consolidate the information into a paragraph or two under the sections "USS Montana" and "USS Illinois". Would that be better? TomStar81 (Talk) 11:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OpposeIt seemed quite well written and researched, but I just don't think it is notable enough to make the grade. There are lots of ships that did get built and have a real history, why on earth put so much work into this white elephant? Excalibur (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing can be done to fix this objection, therefore it is not valid. Raul654 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Its part of a plan to create a featured list for the Iowa class of battleships, to do that requires that the articles be FA-class. Of the six battleships in the Iowa class Illinois is by far the hardest to write for because the battleship was never consider for any sort of post life rebuild. I do believe that given the chance I can make this work, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered nominating it. Notability requirements for an incomplete ship should not be brought up here; the article has been here for years and no one has every complained about its notability at SHIPS, MILHIST, or any other project; nor for that matter has anyone every filed a notability based afd for the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Yeah, what'd I say? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured list and all the articles had to be FA-class. Need some coffee? -MBK004 02:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sleep actually, working 22 hours days to pass school is extremely taxing on the brain and other associated mental facilities. Aside from the lack of sleep I am happy to be back. BTW, I am working on tweaking the article to address some of these concerns, so everyone keep your eyes open. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A new version has been put up in an effort to address some of the FAC complaints received here. Comments on this new version are welcome, as are any other comments or questions you may have. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Although I thought the older versions were adequate, I must say that you've done wonders for the article. As always, I've also corrected your "horrible" spelling above. :) -MBK004 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support after the more recent rewrite, I've also done some copy editting when reviewing. Gnangarra 06:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Oppose per above. An article with so many English problems should not be an FA. My English is not very good but I can see problems in the lead. For example, change "this gained an eight" to "this gained her an eight" and "where as" is used wrongly. Also, the reference after "at the time of cancellation" should be after a comma or full stop. What happened to the new version with more info? --Kaypoh (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The information is still there; the armament sections were not well recieved with the community and this nessicitated a rewrite of the article to deal with the objections. As for the sp&g objections, I will try to address the issues to the best of my limited spelling ability. BTW, thank you for coming back; I apreciate your comments on this FAC. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Objection continued despite changes-calling a section Fate both seems that it will descibe in detain the fate of more than just a bell seems to imply a fatalistic universe -bad tone.--Keerllston 14:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed that section title to Scrapping also removed a duplicated sentence in that section. Gnangarra —Preceding comment was added at 14:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's usual to have a section called background but I object - a possible solution is the splitting up of that section into more useful sections -section called "context"/"similar battleships" and a section called "construction" instead - maybe one called planning as well - currently very bad organization.--Keerllston 21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Perhaps the following scheme then:
- Design
- Development
- Scrapping
- Notes
- References
- External Links
- Do you think that would help the orginization any? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any scheme would be better than just "Background" and "Scrapping" as content headings - (background to what? -the scrapping???). -
Your scheme sounds good - If I might propose - 1st heading:Background/Context/*in terms of pre-WWII/in terms of novelty of Battleship design/in terms of costs of war that never mattered in actual battle -2nd: US Government/Command/Ordering -3rd:Design -Construction and Funding -4th:Scrapping
--Keerllston 10:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My 2c based on what I've read in the sources the sections 1 thru 3 are very intertwined, though I'd think 1/Background & Design - which covers the issues of treaty restrictions, Panamax design compromises and the first use of the formula in battleship designs. 2/Construction - This covers the ordering/reordering(inc priority to Aircraft carriers, anti aircraft platforms after Midway/Coral Sea), building costs wleding vs rivet/weld 3/Scrapping - as is. This only my thoughts as to Dwarfs suggestion, it doesnt change my support for the articles promotion. Gnangarra 11:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the organization has substancially improved, as a result I
Strike-throughmy objection. - I believe comprehensibility could also be improved (per proposal above)- I will probably re-review later on.--Keerllston 15:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Comment—I tried to address multiple issues on this page, but it may need more tweaking by an experienced editor. I'm a little dubious about the Voodoo World reference, as it gives no sources for the data and it doesn't look like a professional site. Is there a cross-reference that could be used?—RJH (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked the voodoo site information very carefully before using it here, the information is reliable (by which I mean that it agrees with other books/web sites). I will double cite that for you if it will make you feel better. Thanks you for your copy-editting help as well, I apreciate it very much. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Found your additional citations, they were from a book I own. The part about her being the 5th of the six authorized battleships could prabably be cited several times over, the Naval Vessel Register and the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships would support this claim as well via stated dates. I beleive the spring book from the Naval board could also be used to cite the information if you wish. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I got a new PC for christmas, so my contributions here may decrease somewhat shile I get everything back up to speed. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I got my PC more or less set up, so barring any unforseen incidents I should be free to surf the net at will. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With the exception of a few missing codecs needed for playing certain video files (namely, those I pirate from my pc games) I am now 100% done with setting up and installing the computer. There is one small matter though that should be wieghed with this: my previously saved websites (including a butload of sites from which I draw information for articles here) have yet to be located and readded to my favorites folder, therefore requests for information regarding certain aspects of this article (or any other article I have actively contributed to since 2004) will likely be met with a slow response. PS: Happy New Year, all! TomStar81 (Talk) 10:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. It's perfectly possible to have an FA on a battleship which was never built. The design work can be fascinating and the response of other nations to even an unbuilt ship can be important. However, not this one: there is not enough to say about this ship which cannot be said about Iowa class battleship or Montana class battleship. It's an article worth having but because of the inevitable limitations in scope it will never be an example of Wikipedia's best work and so shouldn't be an FA. The Land (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing can be done to fix this objection, therefore it is not valid. Raul654 (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a nonsensical argument. The Land (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing in the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria about an article having "not enough to say"; only that the article be comprehensive on the topic. To be comprehensive it must include some material that may be redundant with the articles on the Iowa or Montana class BB's. It clearly satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability criteria, so it belongs on wikipedia. I see no logical reason to sustain this argument by The Land.—RJH (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a nonsensical argument. The Land (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Raul654 has bought in on this FAC (see fatuity above). He likes the article therefore the chances are that not only will it get past this process but we'll see it on the front page sometime soon. Albatross2147 (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OMG, I hope it never makes the front page: referring to ships as women so publicly would be an embarrassment for the project. However, I don't mind the change of location for the discussion of the sexist language, and as I've said elsewhere, I think it's quite a good article. Tony (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing can be done to fix this objection, therefore it is not valid. Raul654 (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of the use of female pronouns to describe the ship moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/USS Illinois (BB-65). Raul654 (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on the pronoun (note sp) move (censorship?) - Raul's comments are allowed to stand - those of others get moved. Albatross2147 (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport The conversions and numbers need to be properly formatted per WP:MOSNUM and whatever else. The one that stuck out at me was 16-in. Should it not be expanded to inches? You need between numbers and units. 2700 lb jumps out at me. The same goes for "5"/54 (12.7 cm)". I think the " should be expanded as some readers might not understand it.- Other than that, count me as a support. I think the other objections are mainly questioning the notability which is a non-issue in my eyes. It is well-written and comprehensive as far as I can see. Well done. Woody (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I replaced three instances of stand alone measurements with US and Metric measurments, and reconfigured all instances inches to in to match the mm measurements in the articles, I also removed the " you commented on. I did not see anything governing the use of non-breaking spaces with regards to percentages or monetary values, and thus left those measurements alone. Is this better? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose (continued from above, not a separate oppose) I have stated my opposition to this article in the past, but many of my original problems seem to have been either taken care of in the article or changed. I am disappointed that my comments were not addressed on this page and request that they be done here in the future (any format for a response, including comments after each problem, are acceptable and appropriate).
I am also disappointed in the hostile and threatening manner I have been treated with regards to this review, but I too have been known to get edgy in FACs, so I'm willing to overlook this with no malice towards said editor.
Seeing others' interest in this subject (especially Raul's), I think it is appropriate to re-re-re-clarify my objections and specify any additional problems that have occurred as a result of edits after my second initial review (<user mutters as he re-reads:> "second initial review"...<user shakes head>...only in Wikipedia...<user continues typing>).
For the sake of crystal clarity, I will state each general problem here and then cite all specific examples below:
- General
- It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
- (a) "Well-written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.
- Not done This article is not well-written because it is not of a professional standard.
- (b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
- Done
- (c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate.
- Done
- (d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias.
- Done
- (e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day.
- Done Note that this does not apply to edits made to satisfy FAC requests.
- It follows the style guidelines, including:
- (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections;
- The lead is 3 paragraphs while the body is 7 paragraphs. With an article this short, the lead could be shorter.
- (b) a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help);
- Not done Half of the sections are the references/footnotes and external links.
- (c) consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)
- Done
- It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
- Done
- It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Not done I feel this article may be representative of the body of knowledge on the subject, but is inappropriate for a featured article. This information could easily be consolidated down a few paragraphs, incorporated into the Iowa class battleship article as a wonderful addition, and this page converted to a re-direct.
This will be done working from the top down, getting into the technical aspects, and then diving into the overall layout (and realize this is being done as a courtesy, not because I feel it is a requirement). It should also be noted, that I this is not my first comprehensive review. Note that any incredulity on my part is for dramatic effect only to emphasize the problem and more clearly define the issue.
So, without further ado:
- Prose issues
- Lead
- "This allowed her to gain eight knots in speed, the ability to transit the locks of the Panama Canal, and to increase the number of anti-aircraft guns." How on earth does changing an order make a ship faster? How can an order "allow" it to do so. Before the order was it not permitted to go as fast? Are there some speed limit signs I missed the last time I was on the high seas? How does an order give something an ability? How does it increase a number guns? Rephrase accordingly. Violation of 1a.
- The ship was ordered as a Montana class ship (big guns, heavily armored) but the order was changed to an Iowa class (fewer guns, less armor). Less ship mass = more speed. This was fairly straightforward to me. Raul654 (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Raul, thanks for your input. For the sake of clarity, my issue is not so much with the comparisson, but the word choice. It should read something like, "This change resulted in an increased maximum speed for the BB-65 due to a reduction in armor..." It the change from Montana to Iowa "allows" nothing, but results in an actual change. "Allow" implies that the shipbuilders are now permitted to do something, when, in fact, they were directed to do something. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rearrange the sentence to read "Adherance to the Iowa-class layout rather than the Montana-class layout allowed BB-65 to gain eight knots in speed, carry more 20 mm and 40 mm anti-aircraft guns, and transit the locks of the Panama Canal; however, the move away from the Montana-class layout left BB-65 without a reduction in the heavier armaments and without the additional armor and that were to have been added to BB-65 during her time on the drawing board as USS Montana."
- Raul, thanks for your input. For the sake of clarity, my issue is not so much with the comparisson, but the word choice. It should read something like, "This change resulted in an increased maximum speed for the BB-65 due to a reduction in armor..." It the change from Montana to Iowa "allows" nothing, but results in an actual change. "Allow" implies that the shipbuilders are now permitted to do something, when, in fact, they were directed to do something. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The ship was ordered as a Montana class ship (big guns, heavily armored) but the order was changed to an Iowa class (fewer guns, less armor). Less ship mass = more speed. This was fairly straightforward to me. Raul654 (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The cost was the loss of her additional armor..." She actually "lost" nothing except on paper. Orders change all the time. It's like saying I wanted a car with a 5 lite engine, but at the last minute, I got one with 4 liters. I "lost" nothing. Your word choice is inappropriate here. In short, comparing the two classes is appropriate, but this phrasing isn't. Violation of 1a.
- Rephrased per your suggestion.
- "Her construction was canceled in August 1945..." Who cancelled it? Congress? The President? The Navy? The War Department? This is the danger of using passive voice. It doesn't directly state what happened. Try "In August 1945 Congress cancelled..." Violation of 1a.
- "but her hull remained until 1958 when it was broken up." Amazingly nonspecific. The hull "remained" where? Was it just the hull? The picture provided does not seem to indicate it was merely the hull that was left behind. "broken up"? Is that a technical term? It makes it sound as if it just fell apart due to pressure or deterioration. In reality, it was disassembled by workmen and sold for scrap, right? Violation of 1a.
- I assume the Navy cancelled the battleship; usually official reports stipulate when second ro third parties alter or cancel USN construction orders. Since assupmtion is the mother of all screwups I will look into tracking that down for you.
- "Because Illinois was only 22% complete at the time she was not considered for any significant rebuild programs" Why? cost I assume? political pressure to spend money elsewhere? Too much work to do? Not enough time? why not enough time/money? Caught in a post-wartime drawdown? etc. Violation of 1a.
- "while several proposals were floated to complete her sister ship Kentucky as a guided missile battleship." What does this have to do with the USS Illinois? (I know contrast later, but it doesn't need to be in the lead). Did you really just use the word "floated" in an article about a Navy ship? A bit informal of an informal word choice there, but I must admit excellent use of a pun (this ship did "float" while the Illinois didn't). Violation of 1a. and 2. Specifically WP:LEAD and WP:PEACOCK
- I hadn't put those two words togather, but now that you mention it is a great pun. Perhaps "proposed" would be a better word. In any case that sentence was deleted from the introduction.
- "Like her sister ship USS Kentucky (BB-66), Illinois was still under construction at the end of World War II. Her construction was canceled in August 1945, but her hull remained until 1958 when it was broken up...while several proposals were floated to complete her sister ship Kentucky as a guided missile battleship." Serious overuse of the pronoun "her". Please vary your usage at least a little bit (not related in any way to this discussion). You don't need "sister ship" in the paragraph twice. Violation of 1a.
- Out of the lead in its entirety.
- Design
- "BB-65 began life in mid-1930s as the USS Montana, the lead ship of her class of dreadnought battleships. " She isn't "alive" at all. Please remove colorful language. What is a "dreadnought" battleship? Perfect time for a wikilink if I ever saw one. Violation of 1a.
- Reworded and wikilinked
- "She would have fielded three more 16 in (406.4 mm) guns than those mounted aboard the Iowa-class, a more powerful secondary battery of 5 in (127 mm)/54 caliber DP mounts,[1] an increase in armor that was to enable Montana to withstand the effects of the 16 in (406.4 mm) caliber guns and the 2,700 lb (1,224.7 kg) ammunition she and her Iowa-class sisters were to carry." Again, the difference in ships is specifically limited to theoretical differences between classes of ships and would be more appropriate in the class articles. It just isn't needed here, IMHO.
- noted, but not addressed. Its not that I do not want to adress this, its just that we see things differently on this point, and I prefer to see it here for ths sake of comprehensiveness, IMHO it helps the article by making it well written.
- "The increase in Montana’s firepower and armor came at the expense of her speed and her Panamax capabilities, but the latter issue was to be resolved through the construction of a third, much wider set of locks at the Panama Canal, which would have enabled Montana to transit between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans without the need to move around the tip of South America.[2]" See previous for more info. By linking USS Illinois and BB-65, it seems to me you have exclusively eliminated the USS Montana. There is no need to include such information here. Is "move" the right word? You mean "sail"? This sentence is very long. Please shorten or break into two sentences.'Violation of 1a.
- changed moved to sail per your suggestion and broke up the sentence per your suggestion.
- "By 1942 the United States Navy shifted its building focus from battleships to aircraft carriers after the successes of carrier combat in both the Battle of Coral Sea and, to a greater extent, the Battle of Midway." Add commas for readability, but excellent sentence otherwise. Violation of 1a.
- My apologies, I thought they were already in the article. This has been adressed.
- " As a result the construction of the U.S. fleet of Essex-class aircraft carriers had been given the highest priority for completion in the U.S. shipyards." Again, passive voice. Who gave the carriers highest priority?Violation of 1a.
- The USN; citation provided.
- "The Essex-class carriers were proving vital to the war effort by allowing the Allies to gain and maintain air supremacy in the Pacific Theatre of World War II, and were rapidly becoming the principle striking arm of the United States in the ongoing effort to defeat the Empire of Japan." Wikilinks needed for "Empire of Japan" Again, poor use of the word allow. They aren't merely permitting something, they are "enabling". As for the "striking arm", I think the Army, Marines, and Air Force might disagree on their role being stated this way, though battleship use was certainly down with the advent of carrier operations. Violation of 1a. and 2. Specifically WP:PEACOCK
- Good point.
- "It was for this reason that the United States accepted certain shortcomings in the armor for their North Carolina-class battleships, South Dakota-class battleships, and Iowa-class battleships in favor of their additional speed, which enabled these battleship classes to steam at a comparable speed with the Essex-class and provide the carriers with the maximum amount of anti-aircraft protection.[5]" "It was for this reason" = wordiness. Try "Accordingly". "certain" shortcomings? why not just "shortcomings? Again a long sentence that could be reduced in wordiness. Violation of 1a.
- Addressed.
- No mention of Iowa-class specifications in its design section. Why? Violation of 1a.
- I felt the development section to be a better place for that information. I can move it if you wish.
- Development
- "She would now be the fifth of the six authorized ships of the Iowa class of battleships.[8][6]" VERY poor verb choice. "would now be"? how about "was designated"? or something similar Violation of 1a.
- Removed it altogather.
- "Like her Iowa-class sisters, Illinois was to cost $125 million and take roughly 30 to 40 months to complete." $125 million in what country? what timeframe? $125 million adjusted for 2007? 1930? 1945? Why "roughly"? how rough? A little informal. Do you mean "approximately"? Violation of 1a. and 2. Specifically WP:$
- Ours, of course. This figure needs to be taken with a grain a salt, but by adjusting 125 million on the consumer price index the total price comes to approximately 1.8 billion in 2008 dollars.
- "Her keel was laid down at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on 15 January 1945." "laid down" should be "laid". Do we really need "Philadelphia" twice? Perhaps PNP in P,P? or simply eliminate the second usage altogether. That's what Wikilinks are for, IMHO. Violation of 1a.
- Linked to both and added an in for good measure.
- "Like Kentucky, Illinois differed from her earlier sisters in that her design called for an all-welded construction, which would have saved weight and increased strength over a combination riveted/welded hull
of the typeused on the four completed Iowa-class ships." Note wordinessViolation of 1a.
- Noted and adressed.
- "Engineers considered retaining the original Montana-class
-typearmor for added torpedo and naval mine protection (the newer scheme would have improved Illinois’ armor protection by as much as 20%);[11] however, this was rejected due to time constraints and Illinois wasbeingbuiltalong the regularwith an Iowa-class hull design.[12]" 20% more what? Strength? coverage? protection from shockwaves? corrosion? Split into two sentences and remove parenthesis.Violation of 1a.
- The way I interpret this is protection from torpedoes, naval mines, and her own intended ammunition of 16"/50 heavy shells. This is touched on in the parent class article, but the Iowa class armour scheme was somewhat inadaquet for the battleship class. I can add to that info to the article if it would make you feel better.
- "Funding for the battleship was provided in part by "King Neptune", a hereford swine who was auctioned across the state of Illinois as a fund raiser, and
wasultimately responsible for raising $19 million in war bonds[13] (equivalent to about $200 million in 2007 adjusted dollars).[14]" Violation of 1a.
- Got it.
- "Illinois construction was canceled and then scrapped after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[8][6]" "scrapped" implies the ship was sold for scrap metal, but she wasn't. What is the difference here between the two verbs? Why was it cancelled after the atmoic bombings? Violation of 1a.
- Ostensably nothing, but I will check be sure.
- "She was struck from the Naval Vessel Register on 12 August 1945,[10][15] but her incomplete hull (at the time 22% finished) was retained along with her sister Kentucky until 1958 when both incomplete ships were broken up. She was scrapped in her dry dock on the builder's ways starting in September 1958.[16] Although her sister ship Kentucky (BB-66) was considered for a rebuild to make her into a guided missile battleship (BBG)—by removing the aft turret and installing a missile system—at the time of her cancellation, Kentucky was 73.1% complete with construction halted at the first deck.[12][17] By contrast, the Illinois was only 22% complete and thus was not afforded the same option." So was the Kentucky sold for scrap or completed? I'm confused.
- Ive scrapped nearly all of the section since it was confusing. Kentucky was not completed.
- "...an Associated Press
reportarticle published in 1983 seemed to indicate that the bell was donated to theNROTC unitat the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in an article published in 1983.[19] According to the AP, the bell previously resided in a Washington museum until finding its new home with the Fighting Illini football team in 1982;[19] since then, the bellhasis traditionallybeenrung by NROTC members in a cumulative manner when the football team scores a touchdown or goal.[18]" In a cumulative manner? What the heck does that mean? Violation of 1a.
- Cumulative meaning they start from zero and stop when they hit the number of points the team currently has on the board.
- Technical problems
- References still missing needed information (like access dates for websites). Violation of 2. Specifically WP:CITE
- There should be a non-breaking space -
between all numbers and their units of measurement. For example, instead of 61cl, use 61 cl, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 61 cl.[?] Violation of 2. Specifically [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
- I thought I had this addressed earlier, but with the addition of newer material I will go back and check to ensure non breaking spaces are present.
- Please see User:BQZip01/FA Tips for exactly how to fix this. — BQZip01 — talk 23:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought I had this addressed earlier, but with the addition of newer material I will go back and check to ensure non breaking spaces are present.
- Units of measurement|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers)]]
- Spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 16 in. Violation of 2. Specifically Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers)
- Question:do the conversion templates support this layout scheme? If they don't I will go back and replace such instances by hand.
- Layout problems
- Half of the sections are the references/footnotes and external links. Ergo, it is not "substantial" This is actionable through an expansion of the material. (See the next item for more information) Violation of 3b.
- I feel this article may be representative of the body of knowledge on the subject, but is inappropriate for a featured article. After all, we have stubs that are certainly comprehensive, given the body of knowledge, but have no business being a featured article. This information could easily be consolidated down a few paragraphs and incorporated into the Iowa class battleship article and this page be converted to a re-direct. As a stand-alone article, I feel it fails this requirement. Violation of 4.
- Again, I can not adress that issue here becuase it is a differnce of opinion between us and what constitutes an FA. Nonetheless, I thank you for the specific examples provided, and will continue to work on addressing the issues present to the best of my knowlage. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand this is not necessarily exhaustive and I reserve the right to add more to it. In short, I don't feel this meets the standards of an FA. — BQZip01 — talk 19:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Left unanswered comments for now until all points have been addressed. — BQZip01 — talk 23:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that User:BQZip01 has now opposed this FAC twice (here and the first oppose). Only one should count and one should probably be struck for clarity. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Second instance annotated accordingly. Fair enough? — BQZip01 — talk 18:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support While the article is short I believe it meets all the criteria for a Featured Article, although it does need date accessed for web refs. I made two minor edits to the article reading it for this FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think most of the people do not support this nomination because tha article is too short, but in my opinion, even if it's short, it meets all criteria for FA. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The rigourous FAC process has improved this article, making it worthy of the little brass star. I would create a stub article to fix the red link in the "Design" section, but other than that I give this article a thumbs-up. Coemgenus 15:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think that this article fully meets the FA criteria and clearly demonstrates the advantages of Wikipedia not being a paper Encyclopedia. There's nothing wrong with short articles IMO (though the ones I work on tend to end up bloated). --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 18:49, 31 December 2007.
Boeing 747
I'm nominating this article for featured article because the article is already an A class article and has undergone substantial improvement since ranked A class. It has undergone review by 2 peer reviewers. The Boeing 747 is probably the most known commercial airliner among the general public and 2008 will mark the 40th anniversary of the first flight of the 747. The editors have carefully considered each sentence as well as look at the article in general. Archtransit (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This article so good it hangs out with the pope. --Keerllston 02:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC) PS: "Cite error 4"?[reply]
- Oppose MOS breaches and more. Plenty of reasons why this can't pass FA (or GA before)
- Please reorder the last three sections so that they follow the global guidelines. It doesn't matter what the Aircraft WikiProject guidelines say; they're supposed to follow the MOS anyway.
- When there is a discrepancy between the WikiProject guidelines and GTL, the discussion may best be handled at the WikiProject level in order to either change the WikiProject guidelines or make changes to both. Consideration of changes to this article is in progress. Archtransit (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? WP:LAYOUT specifically states that there is no prescribed order for these sections. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's only the letter. The spirit and the norm has them in the prescribed order. Even the automatic peer reviewer suggests reordering those sections. About the WikiProject stuff, when a WikiProject guideline and MOS conflict, MOS has priority. 哦,是吗?(review O) 00:51, 17 December 2007 (GMT)
- On Standard appendices, the Layout guide says "It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices, but the "Notes" and "References" sections should be next to each other." -Fnlayson (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hard to make a case for it being "just the letter" when the guideline that you're appealing to specifically and deliberately okays the rearrangement of these sections. Indeed, the only time that an order was ever actually prescribed in the MoS, it was added there as an undiscussed change (here) in October 2005, and was removed only about six weeks later (here) after discussion showed that there was no consensus (see here) to mandate and prescribe this. The current version of WP:LAYOUT phrases this advice in even less prescriptive language. You personally may not like WP:AIR's page content guidelines, they may be at odds with common practice elsewhere in Wikipedia, but there is no conflict with the MoS - please stop trying to frame it in those terms, and please stop reading things into the MoS that are not only not there, but are explicitly said not to be there. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow…it was that old…perhaps another style discussion where a wider portion of the community usually comment needs to take place? 哦,是吗?(review O) 05:23, 17 December 2007 (GMT)
- Since it's clear that you feel that the MoS needs to be less flexible and more prescriptive than it currently is, it's up to you to see whether you can build enouigh consensus to change it. However, this is not the forum to do it in; whether you like the current MoS or not should not be a factor in this article's FA candidacy: it meets the requirements of the policies that presently exist. --Rlandmann (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow…it was that old…perhaps another style discussion where a wider portion of the community usually comment needs to take place? 哦,是吗?(review O) 05:23, 17 December 2007 (GMT)
- That's only the letter. The spirit and the norm has them in the prescribed order. Even the automatic peer reviewer suggests reordering those sections. About the WikiProject stuff, when a WikiProject guideline and MOS conflict, MOS has priority. 哦,是吗?(review O) 00:51, 17 December 2007 (GMT)
The bibliography section should be further reading.
- Done, fixed some wording Archtransit (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Facts and figures is trivia; get rid of it or merge it into other parts of the article.
- This is discussed in the talk page and can be discussed further. Archtransit (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In that discussion, both peer reviewers suggested this section be removed, and suggestions for how to do so were supplied. Strongly suggest that this is done. 4u1e (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, fixed. Thanks to Fnlayson. Archtransit (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In that discussion, both peer reviewers suggested this section be removed, and suggestions for how to do so were supplied. Strongly suggest that this is done. 4u1e (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is discussed in the talk page and can be discussed further. Archtransit (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: part of the problem is the huge length of the references. If the references, infobox, and images are not counted, the article is not too far from the 50k suggestion. Archtransit (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why doesn't the lead have more of the initial development info in there? I've also said during GAN to increase the size of the lead.
- The talk page is an excellent place for this discussion as it is a complex topic. Consider how to summarize a long process into one or two sentences, if it is possible. In terms of length since that discussion (which predates my involvement in the article), the introductory section is now 1 paragraph longer and 23% longer. (21 lines vs. 17) Additional ideas welcomed. For now, Done Archtransit (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the lead has improved, however by improving it there shouldn't be any stubby paragraphs. When I first commented, there were three mediocre paragraphs, but now there are four shorter paragraphs. Re including some development content, there could be a little briefing on the idea, how much effort had to go into getting the prototype flying (Everett plant, etc.), and a little bit about EIS. Just my $0.02 though 哦,是吗?(review O) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (GMT)
- The talk page is an excellent place for this discussion as it is a complex topic. Consider how to summarize a long process into one or two sentences, if it is possible. In terms of length since that discussion (which predates my involvement in the article), the introductory section is now 1 paragraph longer and 23% longer. (21 lines vs. 17) Additional ideas welcomed. For now, Done Archtransit (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:NUM: number and unit must have a non-breaking space between them.
- Others who understand this suggestion, consider explaining in the talk page as I don't understand. Archtransit (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually MOS:NUM says that "a non-breaking space (or hard space) is recommended" (emphasis mine). "Is recommended"≠"must".
- Archtransit, what the suggestion means is that whenever a number is followed by a unit (eg. 20.89 m) that in the wiki-code this is written as
"20.89 m"
. This is so that if "20.89" happens to appear at the end of a line in someone's browser, that the "m" doesn't get split off from it to appear at the start of the next line. With the non-breaking space in place, the whole "20.89 m" will stay together, at the start of the next line. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Non-breaking spaces are used with all units that I can find. Most have been covered for a while. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC) (so Done Archtransit (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC) )[reply]
- This may be down to a difference of opinion over whether 'Aircraft', 'units' (which currently do not have the nbsp) and similar terms are units or not. I tend towards thinking they are, because they would also benefit from keeping the number and the unit together on one line. 4u1e (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Policy only suggests it for units of measure (sq ft, kg, etc). Going past that is a slippery slope I don't want to get on. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I say, I'd tend the other way, but if that's what the MoS says, then my preference is hardly actionable! 4u1e (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Units" are stuff like nm, m, kg, etc. Other non-breaking stuff isn't necessary unless the layout is seriously screwed ;-) 哦,是吗?(review O) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (GMT)
- 4u1e is correct; the wording at WP:NBSP is "In compound items in which numerical and non-numerical elements are separated by a space, a non-breaking space (or hard space) is recommended to avoid the displacement of those elements at the end of a line." It doesn't talk about "units"; it's about numerical and non-numerical elements, to prevent linewrap. For example, Boeing and 747 are a numerical and non-numerical element; they are joined by a non-breaking hardspace to avoid linewrap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vague adjectives, like "some", are in the article and are making sentences redundant.
- Fixed, several "some" words reworded and removed. Archtransit (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Seems Done Archtransit (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please sift through the images—there are some that can be (re)moved from the current sections they are in, since they add no context to that specific section.
- Done Discussion is in progress for additional removal of images. Archtransit (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deliveries is unsourced.
- Done, fixed. Archtransit (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please make sure all references have a consistent format when they appear in the references section; I recommend the citation templates.
- In progress, much progress has been made. Templates were not used after a very extensive and prolonged discussion with several editors resulting in a unanimous decision in selecting the style of references. Archtransit (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and a lot of work. Thanks to RJH's very specific suggestions (not shown here). Archtransit (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most people will not know what a glass cockpit is—please link that and all other jargon.
- Done, technical terms have been wikilinked (high-bypass turbofan, etc.). This is usually acceptable for articles. Archtransit (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Boeing 747, sometimes nicknamed the "Jumbo Jet",[4][5] is a long-haul manufactured by Boeing in the United States.—long-haul what?
- Done, in fixing the next suggestion, this one was resolved. Archtransit (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first three sentences of the lead can be combined so that it flows/reads smoothly.
- Done, fixed. Archtransit (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- '
'The 747-400 passenger version, accommodates 416 passengers in a typical three-class layout, or 524 passengers a typical two-class layout.—bye-bye, first comma.
- '
- Done, fixed, Archtransit (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In 1965, after Boeing lost the Heavy Logistics System (CX-HLS) competition for the development of the large C-5 military transport, the Boeing design was considered as a basis for a commercial airliner.—huge fragment;second comma should be a semicolon.
- Done, fixed grammar but differently to avoid 50+ word sentence. Archtransit (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Over the following months preparations were made for the first flight, which took place successfully on 9 February 1969, with test pilots Jack Waddell and Brien Wygle at the controls,[39][40] and Jess Wallick at the flight engineer's station.—bye-bye, second comma.
- Done, fixed Archtransit (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, fixed Archtransit (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox picture has no source. Was it the user's own work, taken off of another website, or whatever? If this does not get resolved soon there will be copyright trouble.
- Done Fixed. Archtransit (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This sentence in Background is not good: "However, concern over evacuation routes and limited cargo-carrying capability caused this idea to be scrapped in early 1966 in favor of wider single deck, becoming the first wide-body airliner" Subject of sentence - concern - did not become the first wide-body airliner! How about: "However, concern over evacuation routes and limited cargo-carrying capability caused this idea to be scrapped in early 1966 in favor of a wider single deck; the first wide-body airliner was born." Or is that too theatrical?--JCG33 (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, fixed. Thank you for excellent suggestion. Archtransit (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for taking the time to comment. I will work on some of your suggestions more in the coming days. Archtransit (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for taking the time to comment. I will work on some of your suggestions more in the coming days. Archtransit (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Very good! --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 08:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Contribs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNeutral Basically a good article, but there's a lot of cleaning up still to do. I think I'm right in saying that most of my informal peer review comments have not been considered. I don't expect you to take all of them up - who says I'm infallible! - but since you specifically asked me to review the article, I do expect you think about all of them. Not all of them are needed for FA, I will mark the ones I consider necessary on the talk page. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An oversight! Will be following some of the suggestions in the next few days. Majority of your suggestions already followed, some others to follow. Archtransit (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to worry! A lot better after recent edits. The following points still concern me:
- No explanation of why it was desirable in the first place to design such a large aircraft. There are strong economic factors which are presumably the reason for overcoming the considerable technical and financial hurdles to doing so. It's partly addressed later on in 'Entry into service', but I think mention is appropriate earlier to explain how the project came into being.
- Done reworded and reference added to support the new wording. Archtransit (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A similar point, there is no explanation of how the introduction of the 747 created 'a new standard of air travel'.
- Done reworded and reference added to support the new wording.Archtransit (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not clear on times in Entry into Service/Further development sections. Try and make sure that each para has a date somewhere near the beginning to establish context.
- Done Archtransit (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know I suggested it, but the 'in popular culture' section needs to either go, or be expanded a lot. I think it would be possible to make this section (for once!) encyclopedic for this subject.4u1e (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Section is eliminated and integrated into article. Archtransit (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to worry! A lot better after recent edits. The following points still concern me:
- An oversight! Will be following some of the suggestions in the next few days. Majority of your suggestions already followed, some others to follow. Archtransit (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SEASON: summer 1969 哦,是吗?(review O) 04:04, 17 December 2007 (GMT)
Oppose for now, primarily because the references section is not up to standards. As an example, note #135 consists solely of the linked word "Development". It should look something like this: Lawrence, Philip K. (2005). Deep Stall: The Turbulent Story of Boeing. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 0754646262. Retrieved 2007-12-17.(talk) 21:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) The reference section is replete with similar examples of insufficiently formatted citations. They should be showing, where possible, publication dates or years, publishers, access dates, authors, &c. Note #3, for example, should show it was published June 26, 2007 and written by Aaron Karp—RJH
- Comment: The article lacks citations. Many sentences have no citations attached to them. While I see that the citations list is already huge, this is an indication that the article could be better written in a summary style with majority of the info present in sub-articles and only minimal highly relevant well-cited info in the main article. There is nothing stopping a user from adding a citation needed tag on any one of the currently existing uncited sentences, an FA should cover all the bases.-- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 06:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no requirement to cite every sentence. WP:CITE says "Material challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source." One citation can cover a whole paragraph, if a single source contains all the information likely to be challenged. The article would probably be better cited if fewer citations were used, pointing to more comprehensive sources. There are currently rather a lot of citations because each of the references used contains only a small amount of information. Add citation need tags only where you see uncited information that may be challenged. 4u1e (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - References cover sentences and whole paragraphs in some cases. To say it lacks references now is a real stretch. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some have said the article has too many references, not too few. It appears that the level of documentation is much better than most articles. I would fix the article to address the complaint if there was something to fix (how to address "too few citations" when others say "too many"?). There are roughtly 180 citations, more than almost every article in WP. (United States has 215 citations, India has 130.) Should this issue be labelled as Done? Archtransit (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dunno; we should be worrying about the quality of the sources, not the quantity of citations/references. 哦,是吗?(review O) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (GMT)
- Exactly - are there sufficient good quality, reliable sources cited to cover all points that are or are likely to be challenged? The answer to that is surely yes. (As an aside, I feel that fewer, higher quality sources would be an improvement, but I wouldn't withhold FA over that)If Amar feels that there is uncited material, could s/he point out where the problems are? 4u1e (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dunno; we should be worrying about the quality of the sources, not the quantity of citations/references. 哦,是吗?(review O) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (GMT)
- Some have said the article has too many references, not too few. It appears that the level of documentation is much better than most articles. I would fix the article to address the complaint if there was something to fix (how to address "too few citations" when others say "too many"?). There are roughtly 180 citations, more than almost every article in WP. (United States has 215 citations, India has 130.) Should this issue be labelled as Done? Archtransit (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeProse is well below the "compelling/brilliant" standard one would expect. The article needs an experienced copy-editor to go over it with a fine toothed comb. I am not a good fixer, but I can spot problems with the language, which in places is hard to parse and difficult to extract meaning from in places. SOME examples (and fixing these will not solve every problem, so don't look at this as a complete list. Enlist help at WP:LOCE...)- "Ultimately, the Boeing proposals that were selected for the high winged CX-HLS and the low winged 747 were completely different designs although influence from the earlier military design in designing the 747 have been alleged" Sentance is a run-on sentance. There are several nested clauses here, and it makes it hard to parse. Consider how many clauses there are... X that were selected for Y and Z were different although influence from A in designing B has been alleged... Its just too much to follow. Much of the article suffers from this problem.
- "The original design was a full-length double-deck fuselage seating eight across (3–2–3) on the lower deck and seven across (2–3–2) on the upper deck." The meaning of these numbers is unclear. What do they mean?
- "At the time, it was widely thought that the 747 would eventually be superseded by supersonic transport (SST) aircraft,[30] so Boeing designed it such that it could easily be adapted to carry freight, so that it could remain in production if and when sales of the passenger version dried up. The cockpit was therefore placed on a shortened upper deck so that a nose cone loading door could be included, thus creating the 747's distinctive "bulge".[14] However, supersonic transports, such as the Concorde, Tupolev Tu-144 and the canceled Boeing 2707, were not widely adopted.[31] SSTs were less fuel-efficient at a time when fuel prices were soaring, very noisy during takeoff and landing, and their ability to operate at supersonic speeds over land was limited by regulations concerning their sonic booms" This paragraph seems out-of-order. The thesis seems to be that the 747 had success where the SSTs did not. Well, we have the second part, the failure of the SSTs and the reasons for it, but the other half of it, the idea that the 747 ended up more successful, is left without explanation.
- Organization is poor. We have the "Design" section separated from the "Background and design phase" section; these seem a natural pair, and they are quite far apart.
- Again, the above list of problems is not complete, its just an idea on where to start fixing the article. Its a decent article, but I don't think it meets the exacting standards of a featured article just yet. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Fixed the above examples raised, several other editors have made similar fixes, outside copy editor contacted for advice. Archtransit (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- -part of that was already fixed last night. The Design section covers detailed design aspects and features for the aircraft and all its variants. The main section labels follows WP:Aircraft/PC layout guidelines. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that copyediting for clarity has been performed, and I must say that it is starting to read better. Some more comments though:
- The 747 is available in passenger, freighter and other versions. The 747's hump created by the upper deck allows for a front cargo door on freighter versions.—A little bit choppy.
- The aircraft flew for the first time on 9 September 2006.[146] The aircraft is not certified to carry passengers other than essential crew.—Same thing.
- Why am I reading the deliveries table right to left, bottom to top? It's confusing for readers who are not familiar with this kind of layout. Also, English is not Arabic. 哦,是吗?(review O) 05:49, 22 December 2007 (GMT)
- Done Copyedit completed by usual editors and subsequently copyedited by an established member of the League of Copy Editors (LOCE). The table with number of 747's made is geared more towards what the recent orders are, hence the order. The LOCE review did not recommend reversing the order. If there are further requests to reverse the order other than the one editor, this can be done. The order of the deliveries table is not a disqualification for FA. Furthermore, all FA articles can be tweaked over time to reflect editorial consensus, including reversing the order of the table! Archtransit (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain - I don't play the FA game, but I'll just mention to anyone who cares that the specifications section doesn't follow WikiProject:Aircraft's layout for this section (the article uses a table, the guide asks for plain text - these days usually supplied in a parameterised template), and that it provides specifications for a range of different subtypes rather than a single, representative model. FWIW --Rlandmann (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, when an aircraft has multiple variants that may be widely different from each other, a table provides much better organisation. 哦,是吗?(review O) 21:09, 22 December 2007 (GMT)
- Agreed, if one were to attempt to show all these variants. But that's not how aircraft data is presented in Wikipedia: a single, representative model is selected and shown. I'm sure I've seen some aircraft articles with a subpage on variants that presents this kind of comparative data, but I can't immediately think of an example. The table would be appropriate and and useful in such a subpage. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Numerious commerical aircraft article use a table like this. Almost makes it standard practice. Adding some guidelines for spec tables has been discussed a time or two on WT:AIR before with no conclusion. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really a standard practice when it's done in such a tiny fraction of our coverage (how many articles out of roughly 3,000-4,000? Maybe 20 at the outside?) Anyway, I know that there's no chance of getting this article and its ilk to conform. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is more than 20 articles (airliners by Boeing, Airbus, MDD, Gulfstream, Bombadier), but your point still stands. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough; but it can't be many more than 20: in any case something about 1% of our aircraft coverage. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the approach, but I do think that we should be consistent. After all, there's nothing peculiar about airliners that requires a different approach from any other class of aircraft; let alone peculiar to "modern airliners from major manufacturers", which is about the only way I can characterise the spread of this practice. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I said your point was right. WT:AIR or elsewhere would be a better place to cover this. I will say there would probably be disccussions/arguements over which variant to list with the template format. But not with the table format. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've brought up airliner specs standardization at WP:AIR before, but it didn't go very far. For the most part, a semi-standard table has been used in several airliner pages, most done or updated by Jeff. I do understand RL's point on what the WP:AIR guidelines prescribe, but in usage, tables are very common in airliner articles, esp the ever-growing RJs, and I think they have a place, if done right. I think a standardized table with set parameters (there is a LOT of variation!) would be good for these articles, and would like to debate the issue in total again at WP:AIR. - BillCJ (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I said your point was right. WT:AIR or elsewhere would be a better place to cover this. I will say there would probably be disccussions/arguements over which variant to list with the template format. But not with the table format. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough; but it can't be many more than 20: in any case something about 1% of our aircraft coverage. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the approach, but I do think that we should be consistent. After all, there's nothing peculiar about airliners that requires a different approach from any other class of aircraft; let alone peculiar to "modern airliners from major manufacturers", which is about the only way I can characterise the spread of this practice. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is more than 20 articles (airliners by Boeing, Airbus, MDD, Gulfstream, Bombadier), but your point still stands. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really a standard practice when it's done in such a tiny fraction of our coverage (how many articles out of roughly 3,000-4,000? Maybe 20 at the outside?) Anyway, I know that there's no chance of getting this article and its ilk to conform. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, when an aircraft has multiple variants that may be widely different from each other, a table provides much better organisation. 哦,是吗?(review O) 21:09, 22 December 2007 (GMT)
Oppose. Um, before we even get to the content, there are MOS breaches all over the place. And inconsistencies such as the double adjective "double-deck", which is variously hyphenated (correct) and unhyphenated. "4 million cubic yards"—I think one decimal place is necessary for the metric: 3 is just too off the mark. 30 miles = 48, not 50 km. Check all conversions. "But though"—are both words necessary? "250 -100s"—MOS suggests spelling out 250 in this instance. "short range versions"—hyphenate; why in quotes previously? Why do we need that little-known country "Japan" linked once, let alone twice? Why is 747-200M et al. bolded? I see hyphens that should be en dashes in the Notes. I see references to web pages I don't know whether to trust: airliners.net; I see author not cited in the Notes (Chaz Hinkle, Ref 116). Needs a sift through the references. Deagal? Who are they? Who's the author? Sloppily written web page. Tony (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- The conversions are correct. The numbers have been rounded to proper number of signficant figures, e.g. 1 for 4 mil cu yd/3 cu m and 30 miles/50 km. Variants are bolded for emphasis on their first use. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll just throw in that bolding of variants the first time they're mentioned (if not every time they're mentioned) is quite common in aircraft encyclopedias and reference works. The practice seems to originate with the annual Jane's All the World's Aircraft. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes:
Please see WP:MOSBOLD (Wiki doesn't use bold for emphasis). Please see WP:TRIVIA regarding the "Incidents" and "Preserved aircraft" sections; these two sections appear to be lists of trivia, discouraged. Please discuss the heavy reliance on Boeing as a source.Please see WP:GTL and WP:MOS,commons belongs in External links,See also should not contain links already included in the body of the article,and navigational templates go at the bottom of the article.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Done Preserved aircraft as a list of trivia eliminated and integrated into article as a section.Archtransit (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2007 (UT
- Done Reduced Boeing references to roughly 40 references and an overwhelming majority are non-Boeing references.Archtransit (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Elminated external links that are in the article already. Archtransit (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Incidents (crashes) is an established section in airliners. Eliminating it would make the article non-standard. Only major crashes, not trivia, are listed. Many of these crashes changed the way things are done.Archtransit (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Bolded variants in text unbolded. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done struck two items completed, and there are now cite errors. There is still listy trivia that should be converted to prose, navigational templates mid-stream, items mentioned in See also that are included in article, and reliance on Boeing sources hasn't been discussed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done "listy trivia" now substantial crashes and changed to prose. Boeing sources discussed in talk page and also reduced in number so that other sources far outnumber it. Cite errors no longer there, thanks to Fnlayson!Archtransit (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done Trivia struck; from reading edit summaries, there appears to be some confusion between external links and see also. Navigational templates belong at the bottom of the article, and articles already linked in the body of the text are not repeated in See also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There apparently is. 哦,是吗?(O-person) 03:05, 28 December 2007 (GMT)
- Done Followed SandyGeorgia's suggestions. See also fixed. Looked for articles already linked to see that no duplication. Navigational templates put at the bottom of the article. (I interpret navigational templates to be those horizontal blue bands that expand, these bands are entitled "Boeing airliners", "Giant aircraft", "Lists relating to aviation". If incorrect interpretation, please let me know.) Archtransit (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I struck one more, there is still the matter of repeat links in See also. Two weeks in, there are still four substantial Opposes on this FAC; I will let it go a bit longer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done There is no more "see also" section so problem solved. It seems that all the objections have been addressed so the opposition question should be resolved. Also, I don't see four objections. There's only 1 opposition; User:O whom some say is commenting on bad faith and is opposing articles when discussion should be at the MOS or WikiProject level (but whom I'm just interested in addressing his/her complaints, not throwing punches or making accusations). Otherwise all other opposition has been fixed; User:JCG33 (problem fixed, didn't come up with additional complaints), User: 4u1e (who makes suggestions, all followed), User:RJH (who struck out opposition after everything fixed), Jayron32 (everything fixed and also LOCE editor approved and fixed it afterwards), Tony (everything fixed with the units, etc.)Archtransit (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether you label it "Related content" or "See also" there are still links in that section which are repeated in the article and repeated in the navigational templates. They aren't needed in See also/Related content. See WP:ALSO. There are still four Opposes on the page. Reviewer's concerns are considered addressed when opposes are struck by the reviewer. Copyedit and content concerns raised by reviewers cannot be overlooked. See WP:FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See also part is done! Sorry for the confusion between see also and related content. Again, we are not trying to fight you, just improve it! The copyedit comments were made before LOCE review. Before we had LOCE review the article, we re-reviewed it ourselves (showing that we are trying hard!). I've reminded the 4 reviewers to come back here to hopefully strike out the "oppose". Archtransit (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Related content template started out as a Navbox. It basically still is, but does has a more normal section format now. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether you label it "Related content" or "See also" there are still links in that section which are repeated in the article and repeated in the navigational templates. They aren't needed in See also/Related content. See WP:ALSO. There are still four Opposes on the page. Reviewer's concerns are considered addressed when opposes are struck by the reviewer. Copyedit and content concerns raised by reviewers cannot be overlooked. See WP:FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done There is no more "see also" section so problem solved. It seems that all the objections have been addressed so the opposition question should be resolved. Also, I don't see four objections. There's only 1 opposition; User:O whom some say is commenting on bad faith and is opposing articles when discussion should be at the MOS or WikiProject level (but whom I'm just interested in addressing his/her complaints, not throwing punches or making accusations). Otherwise all other opposition has been fixed; User:JCG33 (problem fixed, didn't come up with additional complaints), User: 4u1e (who makes suggestions, all followed), User:RJH (who struck out opposition after everything fixed), Jayron32 (everything fixed and also LOCE editor approved and fixed it afterwards), Tony (everything fixed with the units, etc.)Archtransit (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I struck one more, there is still the matter of repeat links in See also. Two weeks in, there are still four substantial Opposes on this FAC; I will let it go a bit longer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Followed SandyGeorgia's suggestions. See also fixed. Looked for articles already linked to see that no duplication. Navigational templates put at the bottom of the article. (I interpret navigational templates to be those horizontal blue bands that expand, these bands are entitled "Boeing airliners", "Giant aircraft", "Lists relating to aviation". If incorrect interpretation, please let me know.) Archtransit (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There apparently is. 哦,是吗?(O-person) 03:05, 28 December 2007 (GMT)
- Not done Trivia struck; from reading edit summaries, there appears to be some confusion between external links and see also. Navigational templates belong at the bottom of the article, and articles already linked in the body of the text are not repeated in See also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done "listy trivia" now substantial crashes and changed to prose. Boeing sources discussed in talk page and also reduced in number so that other sources far outnumber it. Cite errors no longer there, thanks to Fnlayson!Archtransit (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done struck two items completed, and there are now cite errors. There is still listy trivia that should be converted to prose, navigational templates mid-stream, items mentioned in See also that are included in article, and reliance on Boeing sources hasn't been discussed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where our MoS is in tension with widely-used publishing conventions within a particular subject area, it seems to me to be a textbook case of WP:IAR. What's more, the intention of MOS:BOLD is apparently to discourage the use of bolding for emphasis; the aviation publishing convention has nothing to do with emphasising meaning, but apparently to help readers looking for information on a particular subtype or variant of the aircraft being described. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The aviation publishing convention doesn't apply here. MOS must be adhered to in all FAs (WP:FA?). 哦,是吗?(O-person) 22:35, 27 December 2007 (GMT)
- What WP:FA actually asks is that the article "follows the style guidelines", which is a mite less strident than "MOS must be adhered to" (emphasis yours) don't you think? This is particularly so when MOS itself states that its contents "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". --Rlandmann (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The aviation publishing convention doesn't apply here. MOS must be adhered to in all FAs (WP:FA?). 哦,是吗?(O-person) 22:35, 27 December 2007 (GMT)
- Notes:
- I'll just throw in that bolding of variants the first time they're mentioned (if not every time they're mentioned) is quite common in aircraft encyclopedias and reference works. The practice seems to originate with the annual Jane's All the World's Aircraft. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The conversions are correct. The numbers have been rounded to proper number of signficant figures, e.g. 1 for 4 mil cu yd/3 cu m and 30 miles/50 km. Variants are bolded for emphasis on their first use. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Not a problem! Thanks to Fnlayson, bolding eliminated. I concur! Let's work together (isn't that slogan familiar? Boeing people?) to get the FA star! Archtransit (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, 30 miles is 48, not 50 km. Other issues I raised not addressed. Plus: ellipsis dots need spacing (MOS); "It has wing tip extensions of 6 feet (1.8 m), winglets of 6 feet (1.8 m)"—hyphen needed and can it be reworded to avoid the ugly repetition? Non-breaking spaces are necessary to avoid what I see now: "The -400", with the hyphen dangling at the end of a line.
- Why does "wing tip extensions of 6 feet (1.8 m)" need hypens? I'd understand if it said 6-feet (1.8 m) wing tip extensions. The hanging hypen is a browser problem. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wing-tip extensions"—it's not a common construction, which makes the hyphen more necessary. See MOS on hyphens. Tony (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The browser problem is solved by using the {{nowrap}} template. Same for all the WP:NBSPs needed between Boeing (non-numerical) and the numerical element of the name. Unfortunately an article like this is top-heavy on the need for either nowrap or NBSP. It would be ideal if you all would find a way to deal with the unsightly hyphens before numbers so you wouldn't have to nowrap them, but I guess that's the way ya'll do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. Fixed now with the nowrap templ. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Por nada. This came up at 7 World Trade Center which was also heavy on the linewrap problems. Having the 7 on one line and the World Trade Center on the next was ugly, and fixing it was a lot of work :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. Fixed now with the nowrap templ. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does "wing tip extensions of 6 feet (1.8 m)" need hypens? I'd understand if it said 6-feet (1.8 m) wing tip extensions. The hanging hypen is a browser problem. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a well written article that strikes a balance between being too simple and too technical. It mentions some unusual information that even some of the Boeing highlights glosses over. If there were some faults (as mentioned above), I don't see them now (and I've studied this article for nearly an hour). Of the 5 of so FAC's that I've reviewed recently, this is the best one without any question especially when looking at the big picture. Although I wouldn't disqualify it because of the infobox photo, I'd recommend either a photo of a 747-100 or the best selling model. The 747-200 didn't sell as well (?) so having a rarity in the infobox doesn't seem right.Congolese fufu (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done photo changed to suggestion. Archtransit (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about changing the photo, since the 744 has its own article. 哦,是吗?(O-person) 20:22, 30 December 2007 (GMT)
- Support Struck through prior oppose. In the last few weeks, the language and organization have been tightened up quite a bit. This is now a great article about a very signifcant aircraft, and everyone that has worked on it should be quite proud. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.
1988 Atlantic hurricane season
Edited mostly by User:Good kitty, I'm nominating this article for featured article because i believe it meets all featured article criteria. It is well sourced with over 60 sources, is a stable article, has articles for all storms in the season including track maps for all named storms and satellite imagery for all storms. Seddon69 (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article needs non-breaking units. Some more prose for the ACE section might be good (there's some blank space). Given that there's a link to the NHC preliminary reports on the bottom, I don't think you need a link to each one in each section. Also, the rolling lists should perhaps be avoided, as I got a comment on it. Overall, it looks good, so I'll give it a conditional support. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, you need metric units. --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing I'd like to see added would be the inclusion of the NHC forecast verification, which, as shown here, were the lowest back to 1970 and were lower than the subsequent 7 years. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Should that be put in with the season summary? Seddon69 (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you make a season summary, that'd be a good place for it, yea. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you make a season summary, that'd be a good place for it, yea. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Should that be put in with the season summary? Seddon69 (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing I'd like to see added would be the inclusion of the NHC forecast verification, which, as shown here, were the lowest back to 1970 and were lower than the subsequent 7 years. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And more info on TD15. Other than that, almost support just a couple more things. Juliancolton (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO Tropical Depression 15 doesnt need it because:
- a) It was only a tropical depression so nothing much really happened anyway.
- b) It was only active for a day so it didnt have much time to do anything.
- c) It was in the middle of the ocean, didnt make landfall and as far as i can find out it didnt affect any ships Seddon69 (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The changes to the the article are a big improvement, and I think it meets the FA criteria now. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments. Overall, the writing appears to be very good. I have some concerns with the layout, however.
Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the article. There is some information in the lead that is not in the body of the article. For example, the dates of the hurricane season and the fact that the first storm developed before that should be included in the article body.All of the images are currently right-aligned. Could some of them be moved to the left to vary things up a bit?Why are there external links in each section? These should either be relegated to an external links area at the bottom of the article or (preferably) be left on the main article for each hurricane and not be included in this article.The storm names section needs work. Is it really necessary to duplicate the list of names that were used? Instead, could the section list only the unused names? Also, the retirement subsection is too small to be a section of its own. It should be added into the Names section.The ACE section shuould be fleshed out more. There is information in the ACE article that talks about this season being above normal, and that is not mentioned in the article. Also, the source needs to be fixed. You should not be linking to a wikipedia talk page.
Karanacs (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Thank you for the comments. Anyway back to business.
- With regards to the lead and the things which arn't contained in the article there is the possibility of adding something called a season summary. An example of this can be found in the following places:
- This seems to have been acceptable in previous hurricane season FAC's so would a similar season summary suffice?
- The images that are in the infoboxes are pretty much the same in all previous FAC's that have been hurricane articles due to it being part of the template and the only major exception being the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season which is pretty much a season of its own class, but this season does not really warrant that in my opinion. If its absolutely necessary then i suppose images used in some of the main articles could be used with the respective storms or possibly one in the season summary section proposed above.
- With the external links, i agree, they can all be removed from the storm sections. A link to the NHC archives will be put at the bottom in place of these links.
- With regards to the ACE section, the source for the data is from the preliminary reports (now called tropical cyclone reports) so i shall create a link to there as done in other season FAC's. I will also add any extra information i can find. Including the statement about it being above average.
- The names are there as a complete list as this is how they are found in all publications of this list and there are people interested in the names for a season and its better having the list as a whole rather than people having to try and piece it together. Seddon69 (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the idea of a season summary as the first section. You could then incorporate the Storm names section into that (with the full list of names, as they wouldn't have been mentioned already). That would take care of several of my concerns all at once! Karanacs (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like the idea of removing the storm names section. We have that format for every tropical cyclone season article, and I don't like the idea of changing this one. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the idea of a season summary as the first section. You could then incorporate the Storm names section into that (with the full list of names, as they wouldn't have been mentioned already). That would take care of several of my concerns all at once! Karanacs (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's nearly there, but needs cleaning up before promotion.
- Opening sentence: "The 1988 Atlantic hurricane season was a moderately active season that proved both costly and deadly, with fifteen tropical cyclones directly affecting land." Remove the intensifier "both" and, ironically, it's stronger. "With" is a poor connector: try ", in which 15 tropical ...". Better?
- My US dictionary says although is better in formal contexts.
- You know that you don't have to autoformat now? It would look cleaner if you just used US date formats (nice and uncluttered normal text). Then we can be sure that they're all consistent for the 99% of readers who don't have autoformatting. In fact, MOSNUM explicitly mentions not using autoforamatting for ranges (you have "August 8 — August 10", and this is better as "August 8–10". There are others, too, and the en dash must be spaced if the dysfunctional autoformatting is retained.
- MOS says no hyphen after "-ly".
- Hyphen can't be an interrupter: see MOS on dashes.
- "35 mph (55 km/h), Pressure unknown"—why P? Tony (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Numerals are preferred by MOS if > nine, unless an "exception". I see "300", but "nineteen" etc, and "destroyed 6 bridges", ouch. Please be consistent.
These are just samples; please engage someone else to sift through it. Tony (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- lead has been corrected.
- although used instead of though.
- Current format adjusted in template to include space. and the capital "P" is used in all hurricane articles including those gone through FAC and is also part of the template.
- hypehn after "-ly" removed.
- Hyphen used as interrupter removed
- Numericals edited so that >9 in numerical form <9 in written form
- Seddon69 (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding "done" checkmarks to someone else's commentary isn't helpful; this practice requires me to take the time to step back through the diffs and see if the reviewer marked these items done, or if the nominator thinks they're done. Done is "done" when the reviewer strikes or indicates satisfaction. Please don't edit reviewer's comments; replies can be threaded and indented after another editor's remarks, leaving the reviewer's commentary intact. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, one hyphen after "-ly" was removed; I see another. Has it been properly audited throughout, as I suggested? "less-favorable conditions"—no hyphen. "until it began organizing near 55° W on 19 August." Is "organising" a technical term? If not, it's vague. "thirty" but "160"—where's the boundary between naming and numerals? See MOS. "There were no reports of damage or casualties caused by the storm." In the context, get rid of the last four words, yes? Not happy yet. Tony (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to get the League of Copyeditors to copy edit this article. hopefully all grammatical errors will be dealt with then. Seddon69 (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI believe that this article is now of a standard that it should become FA. The following points that have been brought up but which havn't been dealt with are as follows.
- More Information on TD15. - The reason this has not been changed is that in 1988 tropical depressions were not covered in great detail in any reports and there is no database for best track information about tropical depressions before 1989.
- Names section - I believe that the list should remain there for several reasons. Firstly it has never been a problem in previous FAC's that are season articles. Secondly, i feel that the list should remain as a whole as this is how it found in various sources.
- Left align pictures The images are part of the infobox template, this is something which is standard with season articles including nearly all which have passed FAC. One edit included an image in the season summary but i felt that it did not lie in the text well.
The following things have been done to this article:
- Forecast verification included in the season summary.
- Article lead section now complies with WP:LEAD as the additional information has been included in the season summary.
- External links in each section have been removed.
- ACE section has been expanded and sourced.
- The article has been audited by myself more throughly than previous attempt. It is awaiting copyeditting from the LoC but i feel that it might not be necessary any longer.
- An additional timeline has also been added to the article.
If there are still minor problems i would be happy to deal with them. I feel this article meets the requirements of FAC and that there is little that needs to be done now for this to pass other than for people to comfirm my feelings that this article is ready. Seddon69 (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two items stand out at me.
- The first paragraph in the Tropical Storm Kieth section has no inline references - is it referenced by items in the following paragraph?
- The other is the source for the ACE rating data is a simple direct external link, this should be changed to a footnote to be consistent with the rest of the article.
Once these are addressed - I Support'
— master sonT - C 00:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These 2 issues have been dealt with. Seddon69 (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good - Support — master sonT - C 00:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I copy-edited the lead and wasn't thrilled with the writing. And ... "Forecasts of hurricane activity are issued before each hurricane season by noted hurricane experts like Dr. William M. Gray, and his associates at Colorado State University." Um ... unsure why Gray is foregrounded like this; I'm sure that other h experts might be a little miffed by the favouritism. Am I on the wrong track? PS no comma after "Gray". There are quite a few unnecessary commas throughout. Slight overuse of semicolons. Tony (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to mentioning Gray, he was the scientist who founded pre-season tropical cyclone predictions, and at this time was the only person at this time to author such predictions. He is also the professor heading the department at CSU and has been since the 70's and for these reasons why he is specifically named in this article. However i can try and write a more friendlier version if you require. With regards to the changes you made to the currency in the lead, this will result in confusion as this could be in reference to various currencies, all of which use the dollar in this area but all with different values. The biggest 2 being mexico and the usa, both of which use the $ sign. This is the reasoning for the use of the USD in the lead. I feel its wrong to think that people will assume you are referring to USD. Seddon69 (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as nominator This article has now received a second copyedit by an LoC member to remove the aforementioned comma's. I think this article is now at a terrific standard and anything more to be done to the article is so small that the editor who sees the error should be able to do it him/herself without too much time being devoted to it. Seddon69 (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A small comment (for the moment, I'm reading and re-reading the article): I see different forms for numbers throughout the article (there's "15" in the lead, and "fourteen" spelled out later for example). This needs to be consistent. CloudNine (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I was aware of that but i left it unchanged for the reasoning that throughout the article i have applied the following rule:
- 0-9 are all in written form
- numbers greater than 10 are written numerically except in the following cases: In storm names as the written form is the actual name of the storm, in the season summary section because you have six to fourteen in this section and so i wanted to maintain continuity as much as possible. I felt it was better to use the written form of fourteen as it resulted in fewer anomalies than changing all the 0-9's in this section to digit form. Seddon69 (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I was aware of that but i left it unchanged for the reasoning that throughout the article i have applied the following rule:
Support All of the problems have been adressed, and it is very good. Juliancolton (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.
Sumatran Rhinoceros
Using the lessons learned doing Javan Rhinoceros I'm comfortable that this article is at FA or quite close. I had more and better sources for this rhinoceros, and hopefully the greater detail in this article reflects that. Before nominating I also used the checklist at User:SandyGeorgia/Article_review which I recommend as a resource for anyone working toward FA content on Wikipedia. As always, I look forward to your feedback and help in improving any remaining weak spots. JayHenry (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User:SandyGeorgia/Article_review was deleted as it was still a work in progress. My apologies for linking before it was ready. For those curious, it was a simple checklist of copy editing and MOS-type tips. --JayHenry (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
CommentsI just read through the article and, IMO, it is beautifully written with some great sounds and decent images. It is very informative and I did not see any gaping holes. However, I do have a few issues with the article that I would like to see addressed before I support it.
- In the last sentence of the lead, “even worse conditions than in the wild” just sounds strange to me. Could you rephrase?
- Conditions was just the wrong word. Changed to "decline". Is that good?
- In the subspecies D.s. lasiotis, did the words lasiotis come from Greek, Latin, or what?
- Greek. Fixed.
- In the first paragraph of Diet, could you rework the sentence discussing the variety of plants it eats? The “, over 100 different species,” doesn’t seem to flow for me.
- Rewrote into something more direct.
- While on the topic of plants, is there a specific one that it eats more than the other 100?
- There are a handful identified as common plants. There's no single plant that makes up the bulk of its diet or anything like that, but I listed the common species.
- In the second paragraph of Reproduction, it mentions how rhinos bump each other in the heads and genitals. Do they use the same body part to bump the identical part in the other rhino or does one rhino hitting the others head with its side count? Could you clarify?
- Clarified.
- In “In Captivity,” the article mentions that the longest surviving captive rhino lived for over 32 years. However, earlier the article says a flat 33. Which is it?
- She lived 32 years and 8 months in captivity. Fixed.
- Is there any discussion on how the small and fragmented population could lead to problems in genetic diversity down the road?
- Little research has been done on this topic specifically with regards to the Sumatran Rhino. I added what little I could find to the distribution section. In short: nobody thinks the populations are so small that it's hopeless, as many do with the Vietnamese Rhinoceros. --JayHenry (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For the majority of the sections, there is only a single reference at the end of each paragraph. Does this mean that every bit of info in each paragraph came from that source, or is the article (IMO) undercited?
Obviously, the biggest of these is the one about references. Other than a few minor problems and the possibility of being undercited, the article looks absolutely fantastic and is definitely one of Wikipedia’s best works. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your insightful comments Rufous. I'll research answers to these question this afternoon, but want to begin a discussion about citations now. I wrote it this way because I tend to think that some articles end up being cited beyond what's necessary. So what I did in most cases was take the most detailed/recent source on a topic and use it as the citation for that section. So, for example, with the paragraph on wallowing (second paragraph in behavior) there was a quite detailed paper written in 2001 on the subject. Rather than attach multiple references about wallowing, I used this comprehensive paper, as I think this will be of more benefit to any researcher wishing to build off my work. In areas where there are conflicting theses, such as in evolution, I presented the conflicting sources. But when there's general agreement, I used the most current, detailed scholarship as my reference; every paragraph is informed by having read all the works in the references. That said, I'm happy to add references to specific sections that you believe need additional support (such as communication, which I'll do this afternoon!), but I'd be somewhat reluctant to add citations on non-controversial sections. If we feel it's necessary, I can certainly add citations almost indefinitely; I have all the papers readily available. --JayHenry (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added more references. Please let me know of any additional sections you think are weak. --JayHenry (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking at my comments. I am about to support, but let me go through the article one more time to check up on what else I think needs refs. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I went through the article and put 8 cite needed tags. They may be treated in the refs at the end of the paragraph, but I'd like to see them put there too. If you address these, then I'll happily change to support. Great job on this article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added citations. Though I don't write with many citations in the middle of paragraphs I'm happy to supply them when asked. Thanks for the review, Rufous! --JayHenry (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And thank you for writing this article. Out of curiosity, whats next? Another rhino (black or Indian?)? Oh, and I supported at the beginning of my comments. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added citations. Though I don't write with many citations in the middle of paragraphs I'm happy to supply them when asked. Thanks for the review, Rufous! --JayHenry (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I went through the article and put 8 cite needed tags. They may be treated in the refs at the end of the paragraph, but I'd like to see them put there too. If you address these, then I'll happily change to support. Great job on this article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I agree, it's quite good. I made lots of little changes (mainly linking), and added one citation-needed, which is probably included in the footnote later in the paragraph, but it's enough later and it's a distinctive enough claim that it should probably have its own. I agree with Rufous-crowned Sparrow that there could be more references, even if in some cases it is the same source being repeated a few times. Other concerns:
- What in particular convinced the Joshua Brookes in 1828 that this belonged to a different genus than Rhinoceros?
- Just the differences between the Sumatran Rhinoceros and the others in Rhinoceros (genus). Fixed.
- Since you give three phylogenetic trees in the text, it's strange that only two are illustrated. I know that that may have been a spatial concern, but especially since it seems favored by the more recent data, I think it should be diagrammed as well.
- Responded below. Let me know what you think.
- In "Distribution and habitat," it says they are found in six areas, but only names five (presumably one is missing from Sumatra).
- Accidentally omitted Kerinci Seblat National Park. Sharp eye!
- It seems strange to me to have unfree sounds as external links in the main part of the text. I'm not sure what can be done about this, short of not having them, which would be a shame. Is this done in other articles?
- Responded below.
- I wonder if you could discuss more about parasites. You mention that wallowing helps mitigate ectoparasites, but I wonder if you could be more specific about what plagues them. Also, I happened to know that there is at least one endoparasite (Gyrostigma sumatrensis) reported to affect them.
I think I found a paper on their parasites in the wild at some point. I will add a little bit more on this topic.Okay, turns out there's only one gyrostigma report in Sumatran Rhinoceros and it hasn't been seen since the 1800s. Their epidemiology is little studied, but I added what is known -- a recent paper about a population (the entire population of the Sumatran Rhino Conservation Center mentioned below, sadly!) succumbing to surra. --JayHenry (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was surprised that I couldn't find an article on the zoo in Hamburg, considering at that date it must have been one of the earlier zoos in Europe and of some significance to get such an unusual species. The only zoo I could find in Hamburg in the German Wikipedia is the Tierpark Hagenbeck, which was founded that early as a more conventional zoo (according to the German Wikipedia), is that what was meant?
- Hmm, that is odd. I did some googling and found "The Gardens of the Zoological Society of Hamburg" mentioned in the 1911 EB here. Founded in 1863 it seems.
I'm curious what must have happened to it, as it's clearly a different zoo than the Tierpark.Actually, looks like the English article might just have a mistake. If you look at de:Tierpark Hagenbeck it says it was founded in 1863. --JayHenry (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, that is odd. I did some googling and found "The Gardens of the Zoological Society of Hamburg" mentioned in the 1911 EB here. Founded in 1863 it seems.
- I think an article (or even a stub) about the Sumatran Rhinoceros Conservation Centre would be a great sub-article, if you can find enough about it.
- I've been debating how to deal with the various conservation organizations related to all the different rhinos. Whether or not to write small articles about these organizations or not. I wrote one about International Rhino Foundation but it was quite difficult to write something reasonably complete. I'd also like to do one on the Rhino Resource Center which is an amazing online resource that's made this research project possible for me. --JayHenry (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, the article seems thorough and well-written and I think it would meet featured status once some of these concerns are addressed. Rigadoun (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to you too, Rigadoun, for these keen observations. As with Rufous above I need some time to research some of these points.
- I can respond about the phylogenetic trees. I used a template called {{clade}} which only allows two branches from each node. The third hypothesis is that there are three branches which can't be created by the template at this time. It'd probably be best to remove until I can figure out how to do it manually or until the template supports three branches.
- As for the sounds, I know it's unconventional to have external links in a box like that, but describing the sounds seemed so inadequate to me, compared to simply hearing them. I could move the external links into a reference, or into the external link section, but I consider this to be very significantly less useful than having them accompanying their explanatory text. WP:EL allows for exceptions, and I think this is a good example of an exception that's very valuable to our readers.
- Now, off to do some reading to address your and Rufous's good points. --JayHenry (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to support. My concerns were addressed. I agree it's better to keep in the sounds, as they are really interesting and unlikely to be available as free media. The L.A. Times article seems to have moved or otherwise be unavailable, but as that was a convenience link for something that should be in paper it's okay. It's a pity about the phylogenetic trees, but I agree it's better to take them all out than to include only the two currently less-favored, and it's not really essential to understanding the phylogeny. The other concerns were addressed, and the section on epidemiology is a good addition. Good work. Rigadoun (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
- Can convert template be used wherever possible. This should ensure consistency in conversion across units and also address MoS issues
- The article would need more citations. In some cases, I see that citations for sentences in a whole paragraph are provided only at the end of the paragraph. I am afraid, individual sentences in the article may have to be cited to appropriate page numbers of the cited books or journals. This will ensure that people don't question the authenticity of sentences like: The Sumatran Rhinoceros is the most vocal of the rhinoceros species which now has a fact tag attached to it. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 07:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments Amar. I was unaware of {{convert}}. I will use it, where appropriate, in the future. Thanks for adding it to the article! I just made a round of edits adding lots more sourcing. If there are specific claims or sections you'd like to see additional citation for, please let me know. I'm happy to do this to any sections where you feel the sourcing is weak. --JayHenry (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have followed up with Amar here and at his talk page. Have added citations wherever they've been requested (I also offer you my personal word that I didn't just make it up...) Unfortunately his request for the convert template prevents me from addressing Tony's request for abbreviated units. For the record, my preference is with Tony. I also don't like using templates in the text of articles. --JayHenry (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments Amar. I was unaware of {{convert}}. I will use it, where appropriate, in the future. Thanks for adding it to the article! I just made a round of edits adding lots more sourcing. If there are specific claims or sections you'd like to see additional citation for, please let me know. I'm happy to do this to any sections where you feel the sourcing is weak. --JayHenry (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should not, however, be considered anti-social...- gah! makes it sound like a criminal...not sure what to replace it with (antisocial is one word anyway) but the words can probably be deleted without losing any meaning.
female who lived for 32 years and 8 months in European zoos - which zoos? more than one? a little ambiguous as is. If you can add specific zoo(s) all the better.- Clarified this. A female named "Begum" captured in Chittagong in 1868, brought to London in 1872, survived until 1900. Btw, did you see that in getting to the bottom of these early specimens I wrote two DYKs: Zoological Garden of Hamburg and Tierpark Hagenbeck... --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:While the number of rhinos in Ujung Kulon has remained relatively stable - not clear to me which species this refers to - J or S.
Looking ok - tweak the above and we should be over the line. Another issue is one of repetition of nouns (which can be tricky to avoid). I've gotten rid of a few. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Support: Can you fix the formatting and hyphen in refs 12 and 26? And first names spelt out and initialised variously. In the main text, please consider abbreviating main units after first occurrence (you're allowed to do this now; it's inconsistently applied at the moment. I want to see this promoted, but it needs work on the writing first. Here are just a few examples at random from the top. Please arrange for someone unfamiliar with text to sift through it in detail.
- MOS: no hyphen after "-ly".
- Can you avoid repeating "Sumatran Rhino/ceros" quite so many times in the lead? "The species", "individuals", otherwise recasting ("Their numbers are difficult to determine ...".
- Metric conversions, please. (miles ...)
- Remove OF: "outside of". Don't even use it in speech. Horrid habit.
- "who published a paper about the rhino"—"on".
- " However, it was not until 1814 that the Sumatran Rhinoceros was named by Johann Fischer von Waldheim, a German scientist and director of Moscow's Museum of Natural History." So how many other people named it before Fischer did?
- "The scientific name Dicerorhinus sumatrensis comes from"—"is from".
- False comparison: "the record time in captivity is a female who lived for 32 years and 8 months"—a female cannot be a record time.
- "Two thick folds of skin circle the body"—encircle might be nicer?
- ".4–.6 in"—MOS breach: leading zeros required.
- "it climbs mountains easily and can comfortably traverse steep slopes and riverbanks"—not "can" for one of the two in this list ... just "and comfortably traverses"? Tony (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Tony. I will definitely work on these fixes. I'll go look for a copy editor right now too. I think the whole article needs to repeat "Sumatran Rhino" a little less, so I'll take a stab at this myself. Like I said, might be next week, because I haven't had much time this weekend on my computer. My apologies for nominating when I was going to be on vacation. Next week at the latest. Cheers! --JayHenry (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, María and I both have given it a once over. I checked for units again, think I got it right this time. Trimmed a lot of redundancy (had been using "in captivity in zoos" and a couple other really bad constructions). Smoothed out a bunch of other sentences too. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Tony. I will definitely work on these fixes. I'll go look for a copy editor right now too. I think the whole article needs to repeat "Sumatran Rhino" a little less, so I'll take a stab at this myself. Like I said, might be next week, because I haven't had much time this weekend on my computer. My apologies for nominating when I was going to be on vacation. Next week at the latest. Cheers! --JayHenry (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I was asked by the nominator to give the article a copy-edit, and although I'm not familiar at all with the biology of the subject matter and cannot help in that regard, I believe I smoothed out some of the repetition and awkward phrasing. I also addressed various points brought up by Tony and Casliber above. I don't have many detailed comments, I'm afraid, because I believe the article is comprehensive for the most part, but there are several things that could use clarification to really make this article excellent.
- I'm also interested in a little more information about the record holding female in captivity.
- She was a female D. lasiotis named "Begum" captured in Chittagong in 1868, brought to London in 1872, survived until 1900. That's the best I can do! :) --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first paragraph in the "Taxonomy" section seems unnecessarily rushed; what was done with the shot animal? Was it put on display? When was Banks' paper written? What was the reception, if any?
- The 2004 deaths of rhinos from surra is mentioned in the "Behavior" section, but only mentioned in passing (as "a disease outbreak") in the "Captivity" section. In the first section, it is not detailed where it took place, and in the second section the disease itself is not named. It would be nice to have all of the information in one place rather than separated by four other sections.
I'm definitely leaning towards support, but I'll wait until vacation is over and more time can be spent sprucing the article up. Good luck! :) María (habla conmigo) 16:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Comments Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I too would like to see this article promoted; however, in spite of María's superb copy-edit, the article has some significant problems of terminology (and perhaps of organization). For example:[reply]
- In the lead paragraph, the horns are referred to as the "front" and "back" horns; the names used in the literature are "nasal" (for front) and "frontal" (for back).
- I had deliberately avoided this usage because, to the common reader, "frontal" suggests "in front" and this will be confusing to readers approaching this from a non-technical background. Would you object to "posterior" and "anterior" which is also used in the literature but would not be confusing to non-zoological readers? --JayHenry (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, let me first say that I'm traveling and supposedly on vacation (and likely to get into trouble if keep getting back on Wikipedia. :)). So, I won't make more comments after this these. I trust that you will make appropriate changes.
- Sure, "anterior" and "posterior" are fine. Please note though that the 1911 Britannica "rhinoceros" article uses "nasal" and "frontal." True, "frontal" can be confusing, but given the name of the beast, "rhino"+"keras", "nasal" is apt (and it doesn't hurt the average reader to learn a thing or two). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am surprised too that the standard reference on the topic, the Mammalian Species account Sumatran rhinoceros, is not even cited, let alone used in the writing.
- I didn't use the Mammalian species source because of its extreme age and obsolescence -- nearly four decades old, with observation of a single dying specimen in a cement pit in the Copenhagen Zoo. I'm certainly aware of it (Mammalian Species was among the first sources I used in Indian Rhinoceros#Footnotes where the species was already well-documented and it was 1984). I can certainly add it here as a supporting reference. --JayHenry (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is true that the Mammalian Species account for the Sumatran rhino is 35 years old, but I wasn't aware that it is based on "observation of a single dying specimen." Mammalian Species accounts are summaries of existing literature, which in this case goes back more than a hundred years and is evident from the bibliography. It certainly should be updated, (for example in the genetics) but I would imagine it's an important reference. As you know, Groves (one of the co-authors) made important contributions to the species taxonomy. Fowler&fowler«Talk 18:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added it in multiple places as a supporting reference. By "...single dying specimen" I meant that the authors had observed only it; not that their paper was based only off their own observations. I am aware it includes a literature summary, but surely you can understand my reservations about citing any of these sections that are based off 19th century sources and no direct observations. The Mammalian Species account is very out of date and comically wrong a couple of times (8 month gestation) and I'm reluctant to use it any more than I've done. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is true that the Mammalian Species account for the Sumatran rhino is 35 years old, but I wasn't aware that it is based on "observation of a single dying specimen." Mammalian Species accounts are summaries of existing literature, which in this case goes back more than a hundred years and is evident from the bibliography. It certainly should be updated, (for example in the genetics) but I would imagine it's an important reference. As you know, Groves (one of the co-authors) made important contributions to the species taxonomy. Fowler&fowler«Talk 18:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first sentence reads, "The Sumatran Rhinoceros (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis) is a member of the family Rhinocerotidae and one of five extant rhinoceroses." It's hard to imagine that a similar article on the Sumatran tiger would begin with, "The Sumatran tiger is a member of the family Panthera tigris and one of five extant tigers." (Best not to use lower-case "rhinoceroses" to mean "species of rhinoceros.")
- The animal most certainly doesn't have any "fur" (see the Mammalian Species account).
- Does "fur" have some precise meaning in zoology of which I am unaware? I'm willing to call it a "hairy coat" but I thought these were synonyms (my dictionary actually defines fur as "the hairy coat of a mammal").
- Well, "fur" is not a synonym for non-human animal hair (as the Wikipedia article Fur seems to imply.) In biology, "fur" is sometimes used for "underfur" or "ground hair," and could be applied to deer, hyenas, lemurs, or monkeys (in addition to the usual fur-bearing animals), but I've never seen it used for the hair of rhinos or elephants. In an encyclopedia (I would imagine) there would be even less reason to use "fur." Here is Encarta: "Hair, collective term for slender, threadlike outgrowths of the epidermis of mammals, forming a characteristic body covering. No animals other than mammals have true hair, and all mammals have hair. Even such apparently hairless mammals as the rhinoceros, elephant, and armadillo have hairs around the snout, at the tip of the tail, and behind each scale, respectively. (Whales and manatees have hair only in the embryonic state.) When the individual hairs are fine and closely spaced, the coat of hair is called fur; when soft, kinked, and matted together, the coat is called wool. Coarse, stiff hairs are called bristles. When bristles are also pointed, as in the hedgehog and porcupine, they are called spines or quills." And here is OED (fur): "The short, fine, soft hair of certain animals (as the sable, ermine, beaver, otter, bear, etc.) growing thick upon the skin, and distinguished from the ordinary hair, which is longer and coarser. Formerly also, the wool of sheep." and here's Webster's unabridged (fur), which is somewhat ambiguous "the fine soft thick hairy covering or coat of a mammal usually consisting of a double coating of hair that includes a layer of comparatively short soft curly barbed hairs next to the skin protected by longer smoother stiffer hairs that grow up through these." (I think by "a mammal," they don't mean "all mammals," but it's not clear.) And here's good old Darwin: (DARWIN Anim. & Pl. I. i. 46) "All the cats are covered with short stiff hair instead of fur." (See the Mammalian Species accounts for Andean Mountain Cat, Jaguarundi ..., all have "hair," "pelage," or "coat," not "fur." The Mammalian Species "Sumatran rhino" article says, "The hair, long and shaggy, almost fleecy in the young after the neonate stage (Ullrich, 1955; Krumbiegel, 1960), is still fine and copious, reddish brown in young adults, but with age becomes sparse, bristly (almost like hedgehog spines) and black (Thomas, 1901; Hubback, 1939)." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, the capitalization of "rhinoceros" in "Sumatran Rhinoceros" is contrary to the convention for common names in zoology. Common (or vernacular) names of mammals are never capitalized. Thus, it is "Asiatic lion," "Thompson's gazelle," or "common mongoose." See my post Secondary and Tertiary Sources and Capitalization. Capitalization of mammalian common names on Wikipeida survives in large part due to the intransigence of one editor, UtherSRG, who appears to be generalizing the convention of ornithology (and even there in field guides) to mammals and reptiles. I don't know what the MOS has to say about this, but if it supports capitalization of mammalian names, it too will need to be corrected eventually.
I don't have time right now to read through the article, but (based on what I have seen in the lead and in random sentences here and there) I feel that the terminology and organization should be made consistent with the Mammalian Species account (updated, of course, wherever it needs to be; the MS account is from 1972). The article should then be copyedited again by someone not familiar with it. I would recommend user:Finetooth, if she/he has the time. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As for organization... can I confess some frustration here? This is my fourth animal FAC and this is literally the 11th structure that has been requested for these articles. As with capitalization, I'm genuinely happy to accept whatever. The only thing I cannot do is write articles that simultaneously use 11 different organization hierarchies. I am reluctant for this to deviate from the structure in Javan Rhinoceros. Parallel structure is a requirement for Featured Topics, which is the eventual goal.
- :) I understand your frustration, but I'm curious, what ten other structures have other people asked for? Mammalian Species is published by the American Society of Mammalogists, which also publishes the Journal of Mammalogy and MSW3 ... Anyway, since this is the last time I'll be weighing in, let me just say that your organization is not bad, but perhaps "diet" and "reproduction" shouldn't be a part of "behavior." (i.e. they should be independent sections. See the Jaguarundi article mentioned above.)
- I hope I don't seem combative. I'm tired from travelling but very open to discussion of all these points. Thanks for the recommendation of User:Finetooth. I had been working with User:Andplus to copy edit, but he seems to have quit after User:!! got hit with the banhammer and I've been hoping to make some new talented copyediting friends. I'm genuinely happy to have your feedback and look forward to improving this article and adapting your suggestions across other rhino articles. --JayHenry (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not at all. (I am traveling myself!) Well, since I likely won't comment again in this FAC, I've changed my "oppose" to a "comment." All the best. I hope this article does become an FA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I just remembered somewhere (early on) in the lead, "largest" was used when only two things (horns) were being compared. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for structure and capitalization, I'm genuinely happy to continue these discussions as I can see you are informed on this subject matter. But perhaps we should do so at WikiProject Mammals rather than the FAC? For structure and capitalization I am using standards that are widely accepted in Mammal FAs, and fall outside of the Featured Article criteria at any rate. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to Sandy & Raul: I'm back from Holiday on Wednesday, and confident I can fix this up in a couple days. Thanks for your patience. --JayHenry (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the note; Happy New Year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, for now. On the whole, the article is very good! However, I saw numerous problems in the section on evolution. Some I went ahead and fixed but others require checking references; those I have noted in the text, in inline comments that can be removed once the problems are fixed. I stopped reading there. --Una Smith (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments Una. I was able to respond to all your points but one: it's not known if the female rejects a calf before becoming pregnant again in the wild and this is just because of the extreme difficulty in observation. Indian Rhinoceroses do not necessarily reject an older calf when a younger is born, so even inferences can't be drawn. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the "seems like extremely bad management" that's really not a Sumatran Rhino specific comment, but rather a comment about whether or not it's appropriate to put species which such wide natural ranges in ex situ conservation situations at all. Ecology is a consequence of millions of years of evolution, rather than an animal's personal preference for pretty scenery. Whenever you take them from their ecological niche there are consequences big and small, predictable and not, but this is widely known and hardly controversial, so no point, in my opinion, going into the larger ex situ issue here. I feel that the estrus question is technical enough that the estimated weaning age and birth interval address it sufficiently. --JayHenry (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupportOverall, quite impressive, but there are a few things that could still stand to be addressed:The references could use some proofreading. Just in the first column, there's a ref. without a year (15) and a journal article without a journal (17). There's also some inconsistency of formatting including italization of journal names and use of year or year and month for reference dates.Since sumatrensis was not originally placed in Dicerorhinus, "Fisher, 1814" should be in parentheses in the taxobox.Under Evolution, terminology of epoch subdivisions need to be standardized. Early/Late is preferable used than Lower/Upper.The first sentence of the last paragraph under Evolution needs some work. It should probably mention that morphology was the original basis of a postulated relationship to the Wooly Rhino. The only clear reference to morphologic hypotheses in the paragraph is the one contradictory study by Cerdeno. In the same sentence, "similar" may not be what you're looking for. "Closely related" would probably be more to the point.Finally (although it may be a big one), if possible I'd really like to see the genus split off to its own stub. There are plenty of fossil species at least tentatively referred to Dicerorhinus. It wouldn't need to be much. Nyctereutes (Raccoon Dog) would be a good model to use. A quick statement of what the genus is plus a dump of fossil species from the Paleobiology Database should be adequate.--Helioseus (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again for your comments Helioseus. I started a stub at Dicerorhinus and made your fixes as suggested. I have to stop using those citation templates... they seemed so convenient at first but I've realized they're more trouble than they're worth. I'll go through someday and convert out of them.
- Looks good (I've changed to support above) and happy to help. I've gone ahead and made a couple of quick changes to the taxobox to account for the genus stub. One really minor change that could still be made would be to link the genus somewhere in the text, wherever you think is most appropriate. Let me know if you decide to work on either of the African rhinos. Both genera have fossil species, but they're much easier to deal with (only one or two each, all thoughtfully reviewed in the past couple years). As for the templates, I've started to move away from them myself. They seem to be a much better idea in theory than in practice. --Helioseus (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again for your comments Helioseus. I started a stub at Dicerorhinus and made your fixes as suggested. I have to stop using those citation templates... they seemed so convenient at first but I've realized they're more trouble than they're worth. I'll go through someday and convert out of them.
- I added the link where I first mention the naming of the genus. I am planning on doing the African Rhinos in the not-too-distant future; probably will do Indian Rhino as my next unicorn though. I'd also like to get the family-level article at Rhinoceros into good shape. For Rhinocerotidae I think it'd be essential to have a good overview of the fossil species. At the moment I'm not even sure whose systematics are in place on the rhinoceros article. --JayHenry (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 01:33, 23 January 2008.
The World Without Us
Recent non-fiction book. Its been through DYK, GA, and PR. Now it meets all the FA criteria. And, I guess all the external links look fine for the moment. maclean 10:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Very well-researched and most of my comments are copyedit kind of stuff that I didn't do and left for you. It's comprehensive as far as I can tell and informative, but before I support I would have to see several other peers review the article.
- In the lede: A book-length treatment of Weisman's own February 2005 Discover article "Earth Without People", the text is a thought experiment about what would happen to the natural and built environment if humans suddenly disappeared. I think this is a run-on sentence.
- The author of four other books and numerous articles for magazines, Weisman traveled around the world to interview academics, scientists and other authorities. Rephrase this sentence so that in five years when he has maybe six books published, it still informs that at the time he had written four previous books.
- He uses quotes from these interviews to explain the effects of the natural environment and substaniate predictions. misspelled substantiate and go with "to substantiate".
- In the U.S. it was moderately successful, reaching #6 on the New York Times Best Seller list[3] and #1 on the San Francisco Chronicle Best-Sellers list in September 2007. Moderately successful? Isn't that an understatement, considering it was on the NYTimes best seller list, but perhaps that doesn't translate into great success. So a qualifier between moderate and great.
- It has received largely positive reviews, specifically for the journalistic and scientific writing style, but some have questioned the relevance of its subject matter. Maybe "The novel has received... specifically for Weisman's journalistic and scientific writing style..."?
- I don't know how common the term built environment is, but if you could elaborate on this somewhere or wikilink to it. Obviously it's cities and such, but there's always nuances to these things written up somewhere... or maybe not.
- on the crash of Maya civilization should be Mayan civilization.
- "we can't predict what the world will be 5 million years later by looking at the survivors." See WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:PUNC - Punctuation goes outside of the quotation mark for incomplete sentences. The punctuation doesn't conform throughout the article.
- and would likely to collapse in a major earthquake or other natural disaster. the phrase is a little broken.
- Cappadocia was built in thousands of years ago out of volcanic tuff, still stands today, and would be likely to survive for centuries to come. broken too... over thousands of years... and stills stands today?...
- Hmmm... the Synopsis section needs work. That middle paragraph is too big.
- Genre section: Excellent.
- Other cover art uses contrasts of the natural environment with a decaying built environment. This sentence in Publication is awkward. Perhaps "Some of the other cover art contrasts the natural..."
- You might want to re-arrange the sections. The Publication section should probably go right after the Synopsis section. Then Reception. And finally Genre. But definitely publication shouldn't be last, because it was one of the first things that occurred in the history of this novel.
Hope this helps.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the early review. I fixed or re-phrased those sentences. I split the second paragraph in "Synopsis" so one deals with nature taking over and the second with the built structures decaying. I rearranged the sections as recommended. I fixed the puncuation in quotations. --maclean 23:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow- sorry for not commenting earlier.
I suggest you notify contributors that it is now in FA review - I would appreciate their input into how they feel regarding its quality.
Weak Oppose - well written, well - participated, well- referenced,
In reception: criticism should not be prefaced by "However" - it is not however-ly - it is "on the other hand"-ly or even better "The book was criticized for"-ly and section on genre seems an expansion of reception rather than an actual discussion/relate of the book's genre.
Synopsis (it seems to me) should be renamed "Book's Content" or simply "Content" as a more descriptive term for what is in that section.
--Keerllston 15:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for messaging me on my user talk page
- I suggest canvassing in the form of Friendly Notices to get more reviews of the candidacy in prompt fashion. - see WP:CANVASS
- imo the first sentence of Genre should explain for better writing style and better organization like following or similarly: it fits into the [[non fiction]], [[science journalism]] and [[environmental book]] genres.. - the genre section still deals with criticism "philosophical bank shot" is not put in proper context as to be talking about genre.
- in Reception again criticism is not a however or a but - it is I strongly suggest"
On the book's concept most reviewers found it to be creative and original butseveral found the lack of an anthropomorphic point of view hurt the book's relevance" -especially since it seems you are talking about different reviewers talking about different things - unrelated subjects- I think better organization in Reception Section would serve to clearing this up - I believe "Reception" and "Genre" are the only sections needing improvement.
- --Kiyarrllston 23:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In the "Reception" I removed those odd qualifier/transitions. In "Genre" I added a better intro sentence and summarized the two critics' take on the books approach, without the opinionated wording of the quotes. --maclean 01:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I reviewed at PR and this has improved since. I'm presently reading the book and will have a better comment when done. One small note: I would return to the perfectly acceptable Synopsis as a section heading. Marskell (talk) 05:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your input Marskell - I understand synopsis to be more of a one-paragraph affair - while the current form is more than just the general resume of the book but is more - it gives an outline for how the book goes over four paragraphs. Not as concise as I would expect a Synopsis to be. On the other hand I don't think content a very "professional" word - synopsis is.--Kiyarrllston 11:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I look forward to your assessment, Marskell. The "Contents/Synopsis" and half of the "Background" sections were written using the book. The remainder of the article was written from the secondary sources in the Reference section, all but a few available online for everybody to read. --maclean 00:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very much improved... my comment seems to be getting more and more outdated, :D.--Kiyarrllston 03:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Well written and adequately sourced. A few suggestions:
- Two red links are kind of an eyesore: AudioFile (magazine) is linked to twice (once in body and once in ref 37 and there is also BBC Audiobooks.
- There is a tense discrepancy in the second paragraph of the lead. "Weisman traveled" and "He uses quotes". Because the writing process is in the past, I would switch the last example to past tense.
- "Contents" is the wrong word entirely for a book, and I do not believe that "Content" is proper, either, because it is vague. The Books Wikiproject suggests "Synopsis" or "Plot" -- I would go for "Synopsis" because a plot narrative is more for fictional works.
Overall, a nicely summarized article! I enjoyed reading it despite never hearing of this work before. Nice job. María (habla conmigo) 15:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I retract my suggestion that it be changed from Synopsis.--Kiyarrllston 18:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for reading the article. On the redlinks, WP should have a broader coverage of audiobooks than it currently does. There were originally a lot more redlinks and in writing this article I, also, created Douglas Erwin, African Conservation Centre, Mannahatta Project (didn't make past newpage patrol), and Korean Federation for Environmental Movement to avoid those redlinks. I changed "Contents" to "Synopsis" and fixed the tense discrepancy. --maclean 19:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not too concerned about the redlinks, and I admire your creating articles to better cover the subject of audiobooks on Wikipedia, but like I said, these two links do rather stick out. You could always unlink them until articles or redirects come about, perhaps? María (habla conmigo) 01:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stubbed AudioFile (magazine). --maclean 22:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The usual MOS issues: spaces around ellipsis dots, please; period after closing quotes where the quotation starts within a WP sentence. Tony (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellently written article. The only WP:MOS issue that I saw is that you need a non-breaking space between a number and its qualifier. I fixed these for you. Karanacs (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just set the book down and can say that coverage is fine. A little concerned over prose though. Paragraphs might be better rationalized, as some are overloaded. Serial comma usage seems inconsistent (not a huge concern). Excess blue links; I still don't like those massive lists in reception. Give me a couple of more days. Marskell (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of notes:
- The list of radio interviews really must be shortened. I can't imagine I'm the only who doesn't like that mess of blue links.
- More critically, Reception and Genre aren't properly rationalized. Grunwald and Braile are deployed twice, basically to make the same point.
- I still think there are tense issues here, though it's often hard to put a finger on. I'll just keep going through it on that score. Marskell (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Marskell. I removed some of the local or lesser known radio programs (they were just examples anyways, not a comprehensive list). On your second point it is a 'criticism of the approach to the genre' so it is difficult to balance. I have tried to create more balance here [35]. --maclean 05:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to support. In terms of gathering together reviews, this is clearly comprehensive. It's still a bit quote-heavy but it covers every angle. I've tried to eliminate what wordiness I've noticed and I split up a couple of massive paragraphs. Marskell (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 03:35, 30 December 2007.
Sonatas and Interludes
This is a self-nom and also my first time here. The article is about a major work by a very important avant-garde composer, John Cage. It had a peer review, which is now archived and has recently went to GA status. The GA reviewer suggested that the article may qualify for FA status, and since I can't really see how to improve the article further, I decided to give it a try. Jashiin (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You improperly place links in your citations. You should use the cite news and cite web templates. Look at other FAs for examples.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The bit about templates at WP:CITE#Full reference templates states that "the use of templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged by this or any other guideline." - are you sure they are mandatory? Jashiin (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That sentence was put there in the distant past to resolve a historical dispute and does not have much practical application. Cite templates provide reference information in a way that is likely to satisfy the FAC process. It is, of course possible (but relatively difficult) to produce neat, informative and consistent references without using cite templates, but articles with naked URLs have no chance of getting through this process and I'm amazed this article got to GA with them. --Grahame (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, let me get this straight: 1) Do I have to use the cite web and cite news templates for every one of the five links, or make an exception for the two that are a PDF and a streaming audio? and 2) Do I have to use the same templates for every recording reference in the Recordings section (it was originally modelled on Symphony No. 7 (Sibelius) discography, and the reason I didn't reference the links as usual was that it'd clutter up the notes section)? Jashiin (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I got what you meant by "naked URLs" - I've just replaced all of those in the "Recordings" section with "cite web" templates. I hope this was what you meant. As for the rest, I'm still not sure whether I understand the requirements correctly. Do I really need to use "cite web" for the first reference, for instance? It is, after all, a dissertation, not just a web page. Jashiin (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that you do need to use cite web in ref 1, but I have modified it so that the link is tidier (in my view anyway), I've similarly modified ref 11, because it leads to a streaming audio. Refs 22, 42 and 45 are ordinary cite refs and I've changed them. Now I think the refs are OK.--Grahame (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That sentence was put there in the distant past to resolve a historical dispute and does not have much practical application. Cite templates provide reference information in a way that is likely to satisfy the FAC process. It is, of course possible (but relatively difficult) to produce neat, informative and consistent references without using cite templates, but articles with naked URLs have no chance of getting through this process and I'm amazed this article got to GA with them. --Grahame (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is an excellent article on an important piece, and I certainly think it deserves to be featured! ----Wolf m corcoran (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Usage Query "low, the middle and the high registers, of which the former" I thought former and latter were used only where there were two - otherwise use "first was used" - Do I misapprehend?--Keerllston 01:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you're correct - I've changed "the former" to "the first" and "the latter" to "the last". Must've been a leftover from an earlier version of the text. Thanks for noticing this! Jashiin (talk) 08:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I won't oppose (not feeling mean at the moment), but it does need a lot of work. Have you got collaborators?
- Thanks for your comments, Tony. No, I don't have any collaborators here, and it seems that very few people are interested in Cage-related articles. Jashiin (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "The aim of the pieces is to express the eight permanent emotions of the Rasa Indian tradition, although Cage never specified which piece expresses which emotion, or if such a connection exists"—insert "specific" before "connection"?
- I'm not sure why you think it is required there. The reader knows what connection we are talking about ("which piece.. which emotion"), and surely any such connection would be, so to say, "specific". The "specific" quality is referenced in the sentence by "such a" - ie. the one described, piece-emotion. Also, the sentence would then read as "Cage never specified if a specific connection..", which doesn't look good. Jashiin (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "The cycle contains 16 sonatas"—"comprises"?
- Done But "comprises" is used later in the article in a similar sentence - I was aiming for variety. Jashiin (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "The technique of rhythmic proportions, which Cage used to compose Sonatas and Interludes, has already been developed by him in a number of works, but in this collection he elevated it to a new level of complexity." Disorganised and wrong tense ("had"): "In Sonatas and Interludes, Cage elevated his technique of rhythmic proportions to a new level of complexity." (I was toying with the naming of the previous works in which he'd developed this technique, but heck, this is only the lead. Name them further down?)
- Uh, I'm not sure I understand. 1) Wrong tense where exactly? [had, not has] Tony (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Did you mean that the original sentence should have had "had already been developed"? 2) What do you see as disorganised? The technique used - has already been developed - but here it is elevated to a new level. Seems logical to me. 3) If I substitute the sentence with what you suggest, the "has already been developed" detail will be lost.[No, if it's "elevated to a new level of complexity in this work, of course it's been (partially) developed in previous works; you don't need to say so, and "a number of" is vague and unencyclopedic, so better not to try to give a sense of numbers until you specify these works later. Tony (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
4) Mentioning some earlier works is a great idea - Done (but not in the lead).
- "In the resulting pieces a short sequence of natural numbers and fractions defines the structure of the work as a whole and that of its parts, including the construction of melodic lines." Bit flabby and awkward. Develop a radar for redundancy and hunt down vagueness. --> "A short sequence of natural numbers and fractions defines the structure of the work and that of its parts, informing structures as localized as individual melodic lines." But I'm still unclear about whether these natural numbers etc. are part of Cage's technique of rhythmic proportions (I guess they are—best to say so. Also, did he get the idea from Messiaen?) Hope you're going to say later how it's elevated in this piece?
- Well, I went through your redundancy excercises a long time ago and received high marks :) But I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you're talking about. The "in the resulting pieces" bit wasn't just arbitrary; [but "resulting" is unclear: from what? Not a good connector.]
- I changed the sentence, could you check it again? Because I'm not sure if this is good enough. I had to rephrase it further so that the reader understand there's a different sequence of numbers for each sonata, not one sequence informing all of them. Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- it was there to connect this sentence with the previous one. A = "The technique of rhythmic proportions blah blah", B = "The use of this technique results in blah blah". I didn't start the sentence with "the use of this technique" because then the word "technique" would've been repeated twice. The idea was not derived from Messiaen, and furthermore, I don't think that discussing the origins of this technique in any detail belongs to this article (I'm working on John Cage and it'll be covered there, PLUS in the article dealing with the first piece composed using the technique).
- Now, about the numbers. I don't know how you read that sentence; to me it spells that the technique results in pieces in which "a short sequence of natural numbers and fractions defines blah blah blah", and of course that means that the numbers are a part of the technique. There's no one uniform sequence, naturally, the sequences are different in different pieces. Finally, although the technique itself is rather simple, explaining it briefly is very difficult. There's a passage in the "Structure" section that explains it, all kinds of details are mentioned and I even needed to make a graph to illustrate it. Given the complexity of that explanation, surely in the lead it would suffice to say what I have said? Jashiin (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that they are important in this context: dates of composition and dates of the composer's life. You'll see that in the rest of the article single years are never linked. This was discussed during the peer review, too. Jashiin (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC) What information on those four year pages deepens the reader's understanding, as required by MOS? Tony (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: An interesting article, with well-chosen images and a very thorough text. A bit wordy, and with the odd clumsiness. Here are some specific points you might address (some of which are already noted above, I see):
- Thank you very much for your comments, they were very helpful! I guess the odd clumsiness comes from the fact that English is my second language. Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced that rasa should be capitalised in Rasa tradition and Rasa aesthetic. The word is never capitalised at the article Rasa itself. Would you write Sonata tradition?
- Done
- ...has already been developed by him. Why "has"? "Had" would be normal in the context.
- The whole sentence has been rephrased per Tony's suggestions above; I'm not sure whether the current version is ok. Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...defines the structure of the work as a whole and that of its parts, including the construction of melodic lines. Fiddly. Better: "...defines the structure of the whole work and of its parts, including the melodic lines." Note that the construction does not itself have a structure. There are too many needless "interstitial" words in this article.
- Done
- With the last point in mind, you might compress the first few sentences after the lead. Try this: "Cage underwent an artistic crisis in the early 1940s.[9] His compositions were rarely accepted by the public,[10] and he grew more and more disillusioned with the idea of art as communication. He later gave an account of the reasons:..." (The date and other details can go in the note to the quote that follows.)
- Done
- More of the same: "...an Indian musician who came to the United States concerned about Western influence on the music of her country. The purpose of music, according to Sarabhai's teacher in India,..."
- I tried to rephrase the Sarabhai-related sentences, but, um, they really seem allright to me in their present forms. Certain details about what she decided to do in the US and who taught her can't be left out, I think. Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Cage started studying the writings.... Sometimes an unintended alliteration (or assonance, rhyme, etc.) makes for distraction. Surprising and subtle, but true! Read your work aloud, to discover these things. Better: "...Cage began studying the writings...". Note also the ease of saying Cage be..., compared to Cage sta... (!).
- Done, didn't catch that. I actually do read these things aloud and usually spend at least one hour on each paragraph! :) Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...four white (humor, wonder,... The opening bracket is not matched with a closing bracket. The whole complicated sentence needs recasting, perhaps as two or three smaller sentences. Avoid brackets within brackets; and if you can't, have square brackets within round brackets. (Here I use British terms.)
- Well, I got rid of the brackets within brackets, but I've got no idea how to make three smaller sentences, and how to avoid repeating the word "emotions" (see the current version). Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can listen to a short excerpt.... Avoid this second-person you, in accordance with this advice at WP:MOS.
- That I have no idea how to change. Making it a full-fledged media sample like in most articles (ie. with a separate box near the text) is pointless, as it is a tiny sample illustrating the percussive side of the work. My first impulse was to make it "Listen to...", but that doesn't address the point, does it? Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cage has also stated that.... Probably better like this: "Cage also stated that...". Especially considering that Cage is now dead.
- Done
- The work on the project was interrupted.... The first the is unnecessary and "clogging". Again, detect such small infelicities by reading aloud: without haste, and preferably to some willing accomplice.
- Done
- ...a ballet in one act which too was inspired by ideas from Indian philosophy. The which too was is a little unnatural. Try: "...a ballet in one act, also inspired by ideas from Indian philosophy."
- Done
- Although critical reaction was not uniform,[22] it was mostly positive,.... "Critical reaction was uneven,[22] but mostly positive,...".
- Done
- ...which Cage received in 1949 and which allowed him to make a six-month trip to Europe. During that time he met Olivier Messiaen,.... "...which Cage received in 1949, allowing him to make a six-month trip to Europe. There he met Olivier Messiaen,...".
- Done
- ...on 7 June 1949, and befriended Pierre Boulez,.... "...on 7 June 1949; and he befriended Pierre Boulez,...". (Momentary but distracting uncertainty as to the subject of befriended. Note the semicolon.)
- Done
- ...the salon of Suzanne Tézenas, Paris. "...of Suzanne Tézenas in Paris."
- Done
- ...Cage's early period.". This is from a note. Don't duplicate such a full stop. In this case, the second should be omitted. See WP:MOS. Generally in the notes, make punctuation completely rational. (Full stop at the end of the note? Why, or why not? Some might need one because a new sentence is started within the note; some might not. Use a definite principle to settle this. Use the en dash consistently for ranges: one or two are hyphens, as things stand.)
- Done, this was a typo.
- There's more where that came from, if you want it! See what you think of this instalment first, though. Also watch the abbreviation ie., which should be i.e. (two Latin words, not one). Don't let me discourage you! It's a fine article. Not yet polished to the standard that I for one would like to see. But it could be, soon.
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 13:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, thanks for your comments. Any other suggestions are very, very welcome! I guess that maybe I should've asked the league of copyeditors to assist me with this article. I submitted it to the FAC page because the GA reviewer suggested so and the prose was complimented during the peer review, so it never occured to me that such a through copyedit was required. I'm sorry I'm making you do all this work. Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comments (I haven't read the above). "You can listen to a short excerpt from Sonata II, which is clearly inspired by Eastern music" - this seems a bit awkward. I thought self-references should be avoided? Wouldn't it be better to have a window on the right hand side, explaining the music? Also, I believe the notes section should be converted to a reference section. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comment! Actually, this bit is currently being discussed above; the problem is that the sound sample here (like all sound samples in the article) is fully integrated with the text; its a tiny (8 seconds) example of the "percussive" sounds in the work. Putting it into a separate box would ruin this, and it seems kind of silly to me to have an 8 second sample in a big, separate window. That said, would something like "A good example of this is Sonata II, which is clearly inspired by Eastern music: [sample here]" be better? Jashiin (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (Noetica again): OK, Jashiin, you have done some good work in response to comments above. I've actually gone in and edited a couple of things myself, since it would have been complicated to work more indirectly. See the links to the underdeveloped little article Navras, in particular. Note that the spelling of transcriptions from Sanskrit and other Indian languages is always slippery, but it's no big problem.
- Let's move on to Analysis, now. First, here and everywhere else you should make the dashes regular. The article uses the unspaced em dash most often—which I personally don't like at all, though it is the most usual choice. Put it in place of the spaced hyphen ( - ) and the spaced en dash ( – ) that we see in the article. Usage in the notes and other "end matter" is more problematic, but at least be consistent with all dashes there, too. Particular points:
- ...in Sonatas and Interludes the preparation of the piano is very complex...: "...in Sonatas and Interludes the preparation is very complex...". No needless repetition.
- 4 pieces of plastic: "four pieces of plastic". Consistency: words for numbers up to ten (compare other numbers nearby), as also for numbers starting a sentence. (I don't like this practice, but it is there at WP:MOS.)
- the detailed instruction: "the detailed instructions".
- no strict plan to which to adhere: "[...] if you enjoy...": "no strict plan to adhere to: "if you enjoy..."." Less stilted and pedantic; far more idiomatic. And drop the square-bracketed ellipsis: nothing resembling a risk of ambiguity or misattribution here.
- ...roughly three areas: the low, the middle and the high registers, of which the first is the most heavily prepared and the last has the lightest preparation.: "...roughly three registers: low, middle, and high. The low register has the heaviest preparation, and the high register the lightest." Crisp and clean; avoids first and last, which take time and patience to process. Note the serial comma, which is standard in this article.
- ...and much of the pianistic character of the sound,...: "... and a pianistic character;...". Note the semicolon.
- ...drum-like sounds, detuned versions of the original notes or metallic, rattling sounds that...: "...drum-like sounds, detuned versions of the original notes, or metallic, rattling sounds that...". Study the sentence with and without that serial comma after notes. See how it makes a correct reading much more likely, and much easier?
- ...which makes the hammers strike only two of the three strings of each note: "...which makes the hammers strike only two of the three strings of each note (or one, for notes with only two strings)".
- but sounds fairly normal: "but it sounds fairly normal". The it improves the grammar and the clarity.
- on particular notes, still others: "on particular notes, and still others". Otherwise you'd need semicolons.
- [Caption:] Listen to the definitive recording by Maro Ajemian,...: "The definitive recording by Maro Ajemian,...". G4-flat: "G-flat4" (consistency). Serial comma after that "G-flat4". Spelling: discernible. Em dash, not spaced en dash.
- Coming along well, Jashiin! We'll get there, I think. Fix those things, and then I'll have a few more for you.
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 02:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, thanks again! I've left the spaced hyphens in the text of "Recordings" section unchanged for now - I think em dashes just wouldn't look right there. If we can't leave them like that, could we change them to commas maybe? (this doesn't apply to the hyphens in references; those are used for page titles and the actual page titles use hyphens).
- Also, I've just added a short sentence to one of the references in "Piano preparation" (its a last minute addition that I've been thinking about for a long time, I wasn't sure if the article needed it) - I tried to make it as compact as possible, but I guess its still not exactly right; could you please check that as well? Its the latest edit. Jashiin (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (Noetica, yet again): Nice work, Jashiin. That addition you mention looks all right, but the note as a whole might be clearer this way: "See examples of analysis in Perry, and in Nicholls, 83–84. Nicholls also points out that some of the sonatas have identical note combinations." Does this say what you mean, and in a more focused way? Note the in before Nicholls, too. Clearer that way. O, and in that caption we talked about last time, shorten to "The soft pedal is depressed..."; note that is frowned upon (except as I use it, in discussion here) as mere filling. Now let's look at the section Structure.
- The cycle comprises 16 sonatas and 4 interludes, arranged symmetrically. Four groups of four sonatas each.... Ah, yes. This is a real difficulty with numbers. What to do? When you get "statistical" in your writing, it looks bad if you stick rigorously to the policy of words up to ten, figures above ten (which you don't do, anyway). I'll have a look back over the earlier parts again; but here I recommend what major style guides recommend: override the rule in favour of consistency. So: "The cycle comprises sixteen sonatas and four interludes, arranged symmetrically. Four groups of four sonatas each...". (In fact, such a case is what motivates me to prefer the word–figure break at a hundred.) Then continue with the same policy for the rest of the article, yes? In running text, reserve figures for identifying numbered items, and proportions, etc.
- Done, although I'm not sure if I corrected all the instances. Should "10-bar" be "ten-bar", too?
- That said, you have been seriously inconsistent in applying numbers to sonatas and interludes. You mix Roman numerals and Arabic numerals: "Sonata III", but "sonatas 9–11". Tsk! Make these consistently Roman, for all sonatas and all interludes, including ranges. "Sonatas IX–XI", for example. Or Arabic numerals, if the original score and the existing analyses prefer those.
- Done
- ...i.e. they are not built, like classic sonatas,...: "i.e. they are not built, like classic sonata movements,...". As I'm sure you are aware, sonata form is something for a movement of a sonata to have, not a whole multi-movement sonata.
- Done, whoops! :)
- ...most of them adhere to the structure of the old sonata model (found, for example, in the works of Domenico Scarlatti) in that they, too, consist of two repeated sections, and their structure is AABB.: "...most of them have the structure AABB (two repeated sections) found in pre-classical sonatas, like those of Domenico Scarlatti."
- Done - I also capitalized Classical in "pre-Classical" (Boulez does it later on in a quote, so I thought I'd change it here too for consistency - or am I wrong?) and wikified it.
- prelude, interlude and postlude.: "prelude, interlude, and postlude." Serial comma.
- Done
- ...given a separate title Gemini—after the work of Richard Lippold: "...given the joint title Gemini—after the work of Richard Lippold". Otherwise the scope of the title is indeterminate. And put the link after the italicised title: "...referring to a sculpture by [[Richard Lippold|Lippold]]." And no link for sculpture, I suggest.
- Done
- on both macro- and microscopic level: "on both the macroscopic and the microscopic level". Easier this way. Though the floating hyphen was technically correct, you need the intervening, and microscopic is too "fused" already to work with that hyphen.
- Done
- The structure of the piece is AABB, units are separated by a double bar.: "The structure of this sonata is AABB, and the units are separated by a double barline." The piece is the whole composition. Bar, measure, and barline are notoriously jumbled in English. Be careful: consistency, so that beginners are not led into confusion.
- Done; I removed the second part of the sentence (, and the units are separated by a double barline.) because this is already covered in the previous sentence. I guess I didn't notice that before.
- The first section, A, consists of a single unit, the music in which is composed according to the given proportion (corellation on the microscopic level).: "Section A consists of a single unit, composed according to the given proportion: correlation on the microscopic level." Grammar with which was non-standard; redundancy in calling a section both A and the first section; spelling of correlation.
- Done
- This section is repeated twice, and, as it consists of a single unit, AA forms first part of the proportion on the macroscopic level: 1, 1 (units).: "A is repeated, and AA forms the first part of the proportion on the macroscopic level: 1, 1." If this is not what you mean, then I cannot grasp your meaning, and you need to rethink how to communicate it. (By the way, repeated twice would yield AAA!)
- Done
- The second section, B, consists of...: "B consists of...". You set up this shorthand with A and B, so use it!
- Done
- Since this section is also repeated, this results in the second half of the proportion: BB equals to 3¼, 3¼ (units).: "B is also repeated, and BB gives the second half of the proportion: 3¼, 3¼."
- Done
- Therefore AABB = 1, 1, 3¼, 3¼ (corellation on the macroscopic level): "Therefore AABB has proportions 1, 1, 3¼, 3¼: correlation on the macroscopic level." Your meaning? (Watch spelling, once more.)
- Done
- the musical phrases in each unit: "the musical phrases within each unit". The emphatic form within is needed here for contrast.
- Done
- This kind of effect is achieved by using asymmetric musical phrases.... Which kind of effect? Your meaning is obscure. So is a lot of the rest of the paragraph, I fear. Let's return to that later.
- The point is that the proportions here are so complex that Cage had to use asymmetric musical phrases, constantly changing time signatures, etc., to make them work. Then I give an example of how complicated some of Cage's solutions can be. Two other things had to be mentioned: the adherence of the last four sonatas to the 10-bar unit, and the fact that the microstructure of a sonata may deviate from its designated proportion.
- Cage has frequently used...: "Cage had frequently used...".
- Done
- ...the technique and its variations before. After all that, it is not obvious which technique exactly you are referring to here! Try to find a phrase that neatly identifies it.
- Well, there's no standard name for the technique; the explanation of it in the previous paragraph actually begins with a name: The main technique Cage used for composition is that of nested proportions:.. We can't start this paragraph with a sentence like "This technique is called.." or "Cage had frequently used this technique of nested proportions..", because this information is already given in the previous paragraph. Hmm?
- which was the first piece to use it: awkward repetition of use in a slightly altered sense. Then also: partly because fractions are used, and one of the last to use this technique, and would switch to using. But let's leave all of that too, until we've clarified what precedes this paragraph.
- between the tradition and the innovation: "between tradition and innovation". Do I detect a trace of Slavic uncertainty concerning the definite article the? :) Actually, the is possible in this case, but unnecessary and a bit unnatural.
- Done Ouch, you got me there! :) In school they had taught us some very strict rules about the articles; later I studied on my own, but I guess that some of that school training remains and I tend to be either very strict about articles or very uncertain about whether I need to use "the" in a particular case.
- Keep at it, Jashiin! This was the hardest section, and still needs a little work. Make changes as I suggest; rethink as I suggest. Then I'll have another couple of things to add about this section, and also about the remainder. I think it will all be fine, after that.
- One last thing. Go back to an early caption: John Cage and Maro Ajemian, the pianist Cage dedicated Sonatas and Interludes to. That to is really awkward at the end, especially since you have no full stop. In fact, do put full stops at the end of all captions. And change this caption: "John Cage with the pianist Maro Ajemian, to whom he dedicated Sonatas and Interludes."
- Done
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 07:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (Noetica, yet again): Nice work, Jashiin. That addition you mention looks all right, but the note as a whole might be clearer this way: "See examples of analysis in Perry, and in Nicholls, 83–84. Nicholls also points out that some of the sonatas have identical note combinations." Does this say what you mean, and in a more focused way? Note the in before Nicholls, too. Clearer that way. O, and in that caption we talked about last time, shorten to "The soft pedal is depressed..."; note that is frowned upon (except as I use it, in discussion here) as mere filling. Now let's look at the section Structure.
- Comment (Noetica, nearly the last time, I think): It's looking good, Jashiin. I have just now edited a few things myself, along the lines discussed above. See what you think. Have I worked out your meaning accurately? I had to guess at one or two points. I'm still not sure about this: This kind of effect is achieved by.... It occurs at the start of a paragraph, which makes the intention even less sure. You explain above: but now put something in the text that sums up your intention crisply and briefly.
- When you're satisfied that all of your meanings are properly reflected in the text, I think you should address the "end matter", by which I mean the references and everything else that follows the main text. Some small matters of punctuation need regularising. Apply an eagle eye to this. (Don't make me exert the full force of my own pedantry!) An example: here and there you have things like "p. 35–66". For a start, this should be "pp. 35–66", and you should regularly have a hard space (see WP:MOS) to avoid bad line breaks. You do it like this, every time: "pp. 35–66". HOWEVER: in fact you should not use the form "p. xx" at all, because the style you have established for page numbers and the like is simply "xx", and "xx–yy", yes?
- Fix all that, and raise any further questions with me. Then very soon I'll be happy to give the article my commendation.
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 00:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I rewrote the paragraph. Now it starts with some general information on proportions and the detail about the last four sonatas' proportions (before, that detail was kind of detached from the rest of the paragraph; I provided some context). Then I give the explanation we were talking about, slightly reworded. "In many" is there to avoid using the words "frequently" and "frequent" too much; I think it is a little bit vague but I can't think of anything else just now. Anyway, is this better? As for your edits, I agree with every one of them.
- I also changed the formatting of references; now the "p. xx" scheme is used throughout (I thought that simply "xx" would look confusing in magazine article titles and such, because of the amount of numbers involved. I also added full stops everywhere for consistency. Jashiin (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (Noetica): I like those changes, Jashiin. I have done a little more housekeeping myself, just now. I also made a redirect article Makrokosmos, since that seems independently useful and also avoids a redlink in this article. You might want to check my changes, and perhaps make small amendments.
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. This article came to us already in pretty good shape. Since then, Jashiin has responded extremely well to suggestions for its improvement, conscientiously polishing the details. Sonatas and Interludes is now well and truly worthy of acceptance as a featured article, and as an example of what can be achieved at Wikipedia. It should inspire other editors of music articles to strive for a similar standard of excellence. I commend it to editors here, and I urge that it now be accepted without delay.
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 22:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notes; References are incomplete and incorrectly formatted (see WP:CITE/ES). All sources need a publisher, author and publication date should be given when provided, and all websources need last access date. Also, there is WP:OVERLINKing and WP:MOS#Captions puncutation of sentence fragments needs to be corrected. OF concern; since your websources don't have identified publishers, did previous reviewers check for reliability of sources?SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thanks Sandy. I agree that some things need addressing with referencing. I had thought that most of this would have been fixed in the earlier review, but apparently they were not.
- Please note this, from Wikipedia:Mos#Exceptions:
Within a context or a list, style should be consistent (either There were 5 cats and 32 dogs or There were five cats and thirty-two dogs, not There were five cats and 32 dogs).
- On the basis of that ruling, which clearly applies in the present case, I am a reinstating words for numbers at a couple of points.
- I had forgotten the ruling about captions. Thanks for reminding me!
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 01:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. The issues with captions and overlinking have already been fixed either by other contributors or me. But I'm not sure exactly which references you're naming incomplete and/or unreliable. There's publisher/author/publication date for every single book, dissertation and article referenced. The web links: I've added a "date accessed" to the Grove Online reference, the Ishii dissertation and the Cott interview. Not counting the Grove dictionary, which is obviously reliable, there are three kinds of web references in the article: newspaper articles (again, obviously reliable; dates of publication etc. all given), record label websites (yet again, obviously reliable) and "additional" URLs: ie. the Ishii dissertation was used as such, the URL is provided for convenience, not as a web source. Naturally the dissertation is a reliable source. The situation is the same with the Cott interview: Other Minds, Inc. does not have any details on the exact date of the recording, but otherwise it is a completely reliable source. If you think otherwise because of the date uncertainty, I can remove it from the article, because most of the things Cage said there were referenced in Pritchett, Nicholls, et al - I can simply add some more citations from those - its just that the article already relies on those books a little bit too much, and I thought adding some more sources, especially an interview with the composer himself, would be a good idea. Jashiin (talk) 09:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 00:55, 23 December 2007.
Internationalist (album)
Article has been collaborated on by WikiProject Powderfinger and WikiProject Australian music, and I've rewritten it a few times. AFAIK the article contains most of the available sources on the subject - a lot of stuff has gone down the memory hole since the album came out almost 10 years ago. Obviously, I'm happy to act on any comments. Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 10:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The lead needs work. There's some peacock terms and redundancy with phrasing like "most adventurous work to date" and "The album contained the band's boldest political and social commentary to date". It could stand to be expanded, as well. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I did a bit of work on the lead. [36]. I'm happy to expand if you can find any new content. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 11:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it perplexing that an album with such coverage and accolades could be so vastly unsourcable only just over 9 years from its release, especially since it's the group's "mainstream" breakout album. Ironically, despite its own minimal coverage, it bears a great deal of reflections by reviewers using it as an anchor point of "what powderfinger's music should be like", almost marking it their ultimate album or the legacy release. Unfortunately, that reflection is accumulated by many reviews and none pegs it quite like that, making it original research for me to say it on the article (for now). That said, I believe we have all the information we're possibly going to gain, and it's well written and all. As a contributor, I give my support (though I've not contributed in a while). --lincalinca 11:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Overall, the article needs work. There are currently two reviews in this article, which is about an album that was released less than ten years ago. There's got to be some more stuff out there. On an WP:MOS note, the article goes from using "quotation." to "quotation". a few times. A "Context" section could greatly benefit the article considering I (and many other's who, for example, like the album) don't know anything about Powderfinger. There are also a bunch of small inconsistencies, for example "Bass guitarist John Collins..." should not link to the actual instrument but rather the role of a bassist and consequently reworded to read "Bassist John Collins..".
- I've found some more reviews ([37][38]) and will add them now. I also started on a context/background, but there really isn't much (most sources are from here) to work on :( I fixed the bassist link, and I'll look at quotations soon. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I feel like I'm just reading a bunch of quotes to tell you the truth. Quite a lot of the prose is filled with quotes that have little or no significance. Don't get me wrong, quotes are essential to demonstrate how someone feels during the recording process, of a particular event that caused strife (the list goes on forever) but the article uses them a bit excessively. Similarly, much of what is not quoted explains what the guitarist, singer, etc. meant by what they said. Sentences like "Numerous songs on Internationalist were politically and socially influenced, although the band denied it being a deliberate motif" need tweaking for fluency and are relatively colloquial. NSR77 TC 21:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, since I've never heard the album, you may want to explain what political and social events they comment on. It is very ambiguous. All that's in the article now is that the album explores these topics, but it does not divulge into how or why. This is key. NSR77 TC 21:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - does [39] this] help in that regard? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and the "Legacy" section should be scrapped unless a lot more information can be added. Right now it consists of one reviewer's thoughts that Internationalist is better then two of the band's other albums. NSR77 TC 21:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still kind of uneasy with the article. It's not very comprehensive and there's been way too much work going on during the FAC that should have occurred before (in a Peer Review). However, since I can't cite anything specific, I give the article very weak support. NSR77 TC 00:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Needs work, a thorough copyedit. Thorough. A copyedit that will not miss errors like not wikilinking to the word wikt:internationalist, or repeated links, or addressing members by their last name and then later by their full name, or a red link, or use of the word "whilst", for example. I'd normally go through and correct most of these myself, but I'd rather leave this one to you. Spebi 23:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - well sourced, meets FAC criteria in my opinion. Most suggestions so far don't seem out of reach. — Rudget Contributions 15:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I performed a thorough copy-edit [40] of the article and i think i've fixed most of the standing MoS etc issues.. The issues remaining are:
- Needs a Background section.
- Done. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Although it shared similar personnel with its predecessor, including producer Nick DiDia," - but the prev album did not have DiDia... Actually, that whole sentence can be removed, incl. the part about Tiddas (they're mentioned later anyways)
- Done (removed)— Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The legacy section needs a rewrite, or can be altogether done away with (as per NSR77)
- Removed. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe a few more reviews.
- That's seriously all I can find :( — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tommy Stardust (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sorry all, I was offline yesterday - I'll try to address everything ASAP. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article has bias in certain instances. For example, "It did, however, cement the band's position on the Australian music scene, with highly positive reviews" from the lead. The word "highly" is subjective, and an opinion. This is the conclusion of whomever wrote the article, and not the opinion of a biographer or anyone of that nature. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "The song's music video was one of Powderfinger's more lavish visual works, featuring computer graphics for the first time.[15]" - This is an opinion, so therefore needs attribution. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The source describes it as "lavish" etc. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's irrelevant, as it still needs attribution. Whether something is "lavish" is an opinion, not a fact. Currently, the sentence is written as though this is a fact. The sentence needs to say whom this is according to. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I removed the word lavish - turns out the source didn't use that exact word (m'bad). [41]. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's irrelevant, as it still needs attribution. Whether something is "lavish" is an opinion, not a fact. Currently, the sentence is written as though this is a fact. The sentence needs to say whom this is according to. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Australian music magazine Juice selected Internationalist as one of their top 100 albums of the decade of the 1990s." - The writing is awkward in this specific sentence, and the sentence needs a citation. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Found a ref, reworded a bit. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "With Internationalist, Powderfinger first set their sights overseas, receiving lucrative spots at numerous music festivals in the U.S., including South by Southwest in Texas.[17]" - Whether these spots were "lucrative" is the opinion of the writer and therefore original research. Unless it can be attributed to a specific critic, it should be removed. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- POV removed, reworded. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The word "lucrative" is still present in the lead. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 2000, two years after its initial release, "The Day You Come" was played an estimated 18,000 times on national radio and television.[12]" - Estimated by whom? How did they come to this estimation? LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed - probably not factual. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Article is also inconsistent in using numerals. For example; "Sputnikmusic reviewer James Bishop called Internationalist a "beautiful, incomparable and truly surprising album", giving the album a perfect 5 out of 5." Elsewhere, numbers have been spelt out. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, I'll see if I can find any other instances. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "It was played 4,000 times on radio in 2000, compared to the 18,000 of "The Day You Come"; a statistic Fanning jokingly described as "pretty pissweak".[12]" - Are these statistics factual, or more estimations? LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed - probably not factual. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, generally well-written and everything looks in order. A few things, however.
- Fanning and Collins agreed that "music can be a vehicle for that escape." — I know we want to avoid sounding like a newspaper, but surely both of them didn't say this? One said it and the other agreed, or similar? It's generally better to provide direct attribution for quotes that like, in that directly cite who said it. I'm wondering if it can be tweaked, but I'll leave it to you.
- Bassist John Collins said of DiDia; "Nick was really good...The way Nick based the record was that he wanted to record the band how we were at that particular moment, he didn’t want to play around too much." As a result of this attitude — I know the reference at the end of the paragraph may include this quote, but generally the reference must be straight after the quote (Wikipedia:Citing sources#When you quote someone).
- and the album was mixed by DiDia soon after — link "mixed"?
- Collins and lead singer Bernard Fanning described the album as not being "as easy listening as their previous work" — as above.
- Numerous songs on Internationalist were politically and socially influenced, although the band denied it being a deliberate motif. — reference at the end of the sentence.
- He said the reinvention was as much for the band's own interest as it was for the "public's perception". — the punctuation here (" before the .) is inconsistent with the rest of the article. You may want to check for other instances of this as well (there's one about punk band that I noticed, and there may be more).
- "Fanning explaining that the band did not intentionally discuss political issues, saying "we don't try to do anything in particular"." As above.
- Fanning said of "The Day You Come" "I wouldn't certainly say that we've written any protest songs- The Day You Come is the closest to that kind of song, and that typically, like most of our songs can be construed in many ways. And it was particularly about the way Australian electorate I suppose is moving, and thinking." — that's a long quote; would {{cquote}} work? Regardless, the double-" near the start needs remedying, as it breaks up the flow.
- because, according to Haug, the band — this is the first time Haug is mentioned in the section, and in a long time, so maybe having his full name would work (possibly linking also).
- The second-last paragraph in the Album and single releases section is one sentence. Although I agree that partioning paragraphs for singles is a generally good idea, one sentence is too short. Maybe combine it with the last paragraph?
- Despite being fans of Swervedriver, who were renowned for "their capability to reproduce their album sound perfectly in the live setting, Fanning said Powderfinger" — who said the quote, and where is the reference for it?
- Coghill, however, described the showcases as "worthwhile and...fun", as were the performances in Austin — surely the quote would be better as two separate quotes?
- Can you clarify on this? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 09:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it could read Coghill, however, described the showcases as "worthwhile" and "fun", as were the performances in Austin? Daniel 05:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done — Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it could read Coghill, however, described the showcases as "worthwhile" and "fun", as were the performances in Austin? Daniel 05:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "people (in Australia) are going to get sick of you pretty quickly — I think quote convention is square brackets.
- The quote from Haug in the second paragraph of Response needs a reference.
- Lewis also contended — the "also" is redundant to "contended".
- Might as well throw in a reference for the ARIA Awards section somewhere.
Otherwise, looking good. Daniel 23:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Need to run - will do this ASAP. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from one thing I specifically replied to, everything is Done. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 09:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments I really am leaning towards what Spebi is saying; it needs a good copyedit: it misses possible links, it needs a bit of grammar fixes and lowering of the complication of sentences (hypocritical coming from me; I know I'm terribly verbose ;)) and there are many quotations that are missing sources:
- ..."constantly re-invented themselves, and with success, I think"
- ..."as easy listening as their previous work"
- ..."Nick was really good...The way Nick based the record was that he wanted to record the band how we were at that particular moment, he didn’t want to play around too much."
- ..."we don't try to do anything in particular"
are all examples of this. Thanks, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All Done — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Query Is there any reason for why the heading is "Response" instead of the (standard?) "Reception"?--Keerllston 15:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I was never sure what the "standard" is...I've changed it now - Done — Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object—Not ready yet. Not written to the required professional standard; MOS breaches. Here are examples that indicate the need for a total copy-edit throughout.- Second sentence: "The album's title refers to the ability for music to assist one in escapism."—I don't get it.
- I'm not sure how it isn't clear - combined with the escapism article (which it's linked too) it seems fairly obvious to me. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But the readers shouldn't have to hit links to understand the logic of the sentence. What has escapism got to do with the title of the album? It's the second sentence, and stumps me. Tony (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about now [42]? — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But the readers shouldn't have to hit links to understand the logic of the sentence. What has escapism got to do with the title of the album? It's the second sentence, and stumps me. Tony (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how it isn't clear - combined with the escapism article (which it's linked too) it seems fairly obvious to me. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Second sentence: "The album's title refers to the ability for music to assist one in escapism."—I don't get it.
- Sorry to be like a dog at a bone, but "and the ability of an internationalist [links says "one who advocates internationalism"] to overcome racial and social tension" is very odd indeed. Why is it that someone who advocates internationalism (whatever that is, maybe I do? Unsure) be thus able to escape racial tension? Perhaps people who are free to move from country to country might in doing so escape racial tension (some have, sure), but are they advocates of internationalism, or merely refugees or free-birds? I think you need to remove the statement from the lead and unpack the meaning further down, where there's space to include detail. Can you have a look at the lyrics and any other sources that might reveal the answer to how to frame this? Tony (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've removed the statement from the lead, I'll try it again (in the "Background" section) and probably end up quoting a bit more (source). — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 00:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidently, I'm starting to share your confusion. Hence I through in a quote instead ;) [43]. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 00:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've removed the statement from the lead, I'll try it again (in the "Background" section) and probably end up quoting a bit more (source). — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 00:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Third sentence: "Internationalist was often labelled Powderfinger's most adventurous work, with lead singer and songwriter Bernard Fanning experimenting further in his lyrics than before."—Slight discomfort at the sudden assumption that I know already that Fanning had been adventurous in this respect.
- Done (reworded). — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fourth sentence: "and was certified platinum several times in Australia"—You don't know how many times?
- "It was the recipient of four ARIA Awards"—Just "It received"?
- Done (by Spebi — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Last sentence in the lead (a parastub): "Despite its popularity in Australia, Internationalist failed to launch Powderfinger in the overseas market. It did, however, cement the band's position on the Australian music scene, with the band receiving fairly positive reviews on the album." A professional standard of writing is required for FAs. Such as: "Internationalist received fairly positive reviewers in the Australian press, and cemented the Powderfinger's position on the local music scene; however, the album failed to launch the band in the overseas market. on the album." See the difference?
- Indeed I do; thanks. Done by Spebi. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Logical problem in "although": "They also spent some time in the United States in mid-1997, although most of the songs on Internationalist were written in Brisbane by Bernard Fanning, rather than abroad." Huh?
- Done - "But" works better in this context (along with a minor reword). — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It does, but it's still not logical. "But" or "however" indicate that you're about to go against what you've just told us. Why is it that spending time in the US then was somehow unexpected because he had written most of the songs in Brisbane? Sorry to be difficult, but ... Tony (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - "But" works better in this context (along with a minor reword). — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See MOS on ellipsis dots and their spacing, and on punctuation in quotations.
- No hyphen after "-ly"; see MOS on hyphens. "Australian-based". "18-second", etc; and chop "long" from the info page for the first sample.
- I removed the "long", but I'm not really sure on your other point - could you please clarify? — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's usual to hyphenate double adjectives, esp. when they occur before the noun. "20-second sample", but "the duration was 20 seconds". "Australian-based" is always hyphenated. See MOS on hyphens. Tony (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gotcha. I can't see any such issues in the article though... — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's usual to hyphenate double adjectives, esp. when they occur before the noun. "20-second sample", but "the duration was 20 seconds". "Australian-based" is always hyphenated. See MOS on hyphens. Tony (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the "long", but I'm not really sure on your other point - could you please clarify? — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose it's OK, but it would be better to make the fair-use jusification stronger by inserting educational value (see WP:NFC. For example, how is it "rough", in musical or lyrical terms? Educate us. Tony (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've replied inline to most comments, and a fair bit has been done. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see a couple of areas in the Response section that discuss a review of the album, but there are quotes and other important information that need to be recited (as in
<ref name="name" />
). All quotes should be cited, even if you're using the same reference over and over again. Spebi 20:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done (AFAIK) - Tell me if I miss any. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't do much FAC reviewing so I couldn't pinpoint teensy errors, but overall this seems like a very fine piece of work. Well done! Support. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've withdrawn the oppose, but please keep working on it. Tony (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I've done a bit more and replied to some comments. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, though I would like a citation at the part where it has the tracklisting and times. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That was removed a while back - I'll add it back. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 13:59, 22 December 2007.
Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany
OK, this is my first time here, so please be rigorous with the article and gentle with the nominator. I pretty well wrote this myself, over a number of months, and I've developed it about as much as my sources allow. The subject is an interesting figure that gives an insight into the Stuart court in exile. I'm not that familiar with the MOS, so I'm sure there's at very least some polishing I'll need to do as this goes forward.Docg 21:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: I haven't read the article in depth yet, but from a cursory glance I can see where this may need work.
- First of all, the lead is far too short and doesn't fully establish Stuart's notability. How did contemporary people view her? What was her legacy? Her importance? Some elaboration, especially regarding her relationship with her father, is needed.
- The first two headings ("1753-1783" and "1783-1789") are very vague. Take a look at other royal person FAs (like Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough) for an example of how to split sections into appropriate headings and subheadings that directly correlate to the article's subject.
- The "Legacy" section only has one example, that being Robert Burns' poetry. Are there not other examples to cite?
I hope these help, and good luck. :) María (habla conmigo) 23:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for this. Unfortunately, some of the areas that seem to need expansion immediately run into sourcing problems. I simply have, and can find, no sources on contemporary views, and no more on her relationship with her father. As fascinating as these questions are, whether information can be found is highly questionable. It did have more descriptive headings, but I was advised to remove them. Open to suggestions here.--Docg 00:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had a very brief glance. It still needs quite alot of MoS and language work, but this is a minor point, which I may help out with later. My main instant gripe is "created Duchess of Albany" in the lead. You need to make it very clear that this is a Jacobite peerage and not a real one. DrKiernan (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, any help is appreciated. I'm happy to reconsider the styling in the lead - but we need care here. The term "Jacobite peerage" is an historical fiction and an anachronism, since Charles created this in non other than the "peerage of Scotland" - it is simply that the British State didn't recognise his right to do so, nor the title itself (although at points other states did recognise the Stuarts' right to ennoble - but that's difficult to pin down). That's why I stated "styled" with a qualifying footnote explaining at first mention. I'd hate to have to fully explain this in the lead: would repeating the footnote reference at second mention satisfy your concerns. We could put "created" in scare quotes - but that looks awful.--Docg 09:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I see the footnote now, I missed that earlier during my brief scan. I'm going to have to put in more effort and take a closer look before making further comments. DrKiernan (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see you changed the image sizes back. The Manual of Style indicates that specifying the size of a thumbnail image is unnecessary, unless there are overriding considerations. I'm not complaining—I'm just explaining that's why I changed them earlier! DrKiernan (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for all the work you've done on this, both stylistically and in adding to the research. Much obliged to you. As for the images, I guess it's personal preference; MOS says "unnecessary" rather than disallowed. I think the sized images enhance readability in this case. However, I won't go to the stake for it if there's consensus otherwise.--Docg 10:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see you changed the image sizes back. The Manual of Style indicates that specifying the size of a thumbnail image is unnecessary, unless there are overriding considerations. I'm not complaining—I'm just explaining that's why I changed them earlier! DrKiernan (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I see the footnote now, I missed that earlier during my brief scan. I'm going to have to put in more effort and take a closer look before making further comments. DrKiernan (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, any help is appreciated. I'm happy to reconsider the styling in the lead - but we need care here. The term "Jacobite peerage" is an historical fiction and an anachronism, since Charles created this in non other than the "peerage of Scotland" - it is simply that the British State didn't recognise his right to do so, nor the title itself (although at points other states did recognise the Stuarts' right to ennoble - but that's difficult to pin down). That's why I stated "styled" with a qualifying footnote explaining at first mention. I'd hate to have to fully explain this in the lead: would repeating the footnote reference at second mention satisfy your concerns. We could put "created" in scare quotes - but that looks awful.--Docg 09:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read MOS on en dashes in ranges (a section title and page ranges in the Ref section. Tony (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please complete the websources to agree with WP:CITE/ES, example: Descendants of Bonnie Prince Charlie, has no publisher, last access date, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nice interesting page. Meets all criteria. Giano (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good stuff there, Doc. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes: Are phrases like these (... with the 7 year old Charlotte ... married the 19 year old Princess Louise of Stolberg-Gedern ... ) missing hyphens? See MOS:CAPS#All caps ( ... with legends such as "SPES TAMEN EST UNA" (there is one hope).) See WP:MOSNUM (Charlotte survived her father by only twenty-two months, ... ) regarding spelling out vs. digits for numbers greater than 10. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tweeking this now - fixing hyphens and numbers. I'm getting to hate the MOS - the capitalised Latin was taken from a Cambridge University Press publication - so I trusted that would be good enough.--Docg 22:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think it should be capped, please leave it; it was only a question :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is OK. I'll follow the house-style. I think I've fixed the other points, my numbers were certainly inconsistent. Thanks for spotting that.--Docg 22:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never been the grammar expert, so I could be wrong, but should it be seven-year-old on the hyphenation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No idea. I'll page for a pedant on IRC :) --Docg 22:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No urgency; it's a very minor point :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No idea. I'll page for a pedant on IRC :) --Docg 22:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never been the grammar expert, so I could be wrong, but should it be seven-year-old on the hyphenation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is OK. I'll follow the house-style. I think I've fixed the other points, my numbers were certainly inconsistent. Thanks for spotting that.--Docg 22:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think it should be capped, please leave it; it was only a question :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tweeking this now - fixing hyphens and numbers. I'm getting to hate the MOS - the capitalised Latin was taken from a Cambridge University Press publication - so I trusted that would be good enough.--Docg 22:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 01:33, 23 January 2008.
The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power
- check links LuciferMorgan (talk 04:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Self nomination. This article was nominated for deletion back in May 2007, when it was much shorter. The article cites (42) sources, and utilizes one fair use image with a fair use rationale on the image page, and two free-use images from Wikimedia Commons, products of the Supreme Court of the United States. It recently went through a Peer Review where I received many good constructive comments and feedback, and I implemented several changes to the article from helpful suggestions. The article has been reviewed and passed as a Good Article, and the GA reviewer suggested that it be nominated as a Featured Article Candidate, due to its current level of quality. I now submit this article as a potential Featured Article. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment Impressively well-written. Truly impressive.
It seems a bit POV'd towards "anti-scientology" (perhaps?)- Isuggest Renaming "pre-publication" the section called "research for the article", and creating "post-publication"and taking out litigation from the section called "Church of Scientology's response",in other words, at this point it is badly organized. -
--Keerllston 11:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would keep the section titled "Research for the article". It's to the point and much better than pre-publication, which entails research for the article.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport Overall this is a fantastic article about an interesting cover story. I enjoyed reading it and have only minor comments. I'm sure you will be able to easily fix them.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He stated that he was investigated by Church of Scientology attorneys and private investigators while researching the TIME article, and investigators contacted his friends and family as well. This might read easier if it stated he was "investigated by attorneys and private investigators of the Church of Scientology" or "affiliated with the Church of Scientology" or "working for the Church of Scientology".
- The article itself dealt with L. Ron Hubbard and the development of Scientology, its various controversies over the years and history of litigation, conflict with psychiatry and the IRS, the suicide of a Scientologist, its status as a religion, and its business dealings. This sentence is a little difficult to read towards the end. Perhaps it could be reworded and a colon added before the list?
- He later came to learn that the Church of Scientology's head private investigator was orchestrating his investigation. This sentence could be improved. The head private investigator would obviously orchestrate his investigation, but I know what you mean to say. Maybe this sentence could be more informative as well.
- See WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:PUNC - Punctuation goes outside of the quotation mark for incomplete sentences. You often do this "threaten, harass and discredit him." and this "front groups and financial scams,".
- Is it known why Noah Lottick jumped from a hotel tenth floor window? Was it related to Scientology and if so, how?
- Koppel asked Miscavige what specifically had upset him about the TIME article, and Miscavige called Richard Behar: "a hater." why not just ...Miscavige called Richard Behar "a hater" without the colon? You do this several times afterwards I note, so maybe this is an acceptable style?
- In "A publisher cannot accept a court prohibiting distribution of a serious journalistic piece..The court order violates freedom of speech and freedom of the press." you should probably use […] after a serious journalistic piece.. instead of those two ..s.
- Insane Therapy characterized the piece as a "highly critical article" on Scientology." Could you maybe elaborate and improve this sentence with a better quote? It's clear to the reader by now that this is a highly critical article so perhaps they have a little more to say?
- In the Legacy section you should name the Herald reporter, so to avoid confusing with the reporter Richard Behar.
- Also in 2005, an article in Salon cited the Church of Scientology's litigation and private investigations of Time Warner and other media sources that criticized Scientology, and posed the question if these tactics had succeeded in decreasing the amount of investigative journalism pieces on Scientology in the press. A slight rewording might be needed here.
- in a piece on Anderson Cooper 360 entitled: "Inside Scientology." wrong verb. it's titled not entitled. A common grammar trap [46]. As well the colon is unnecessary and the period should be outside the quotation marks.
So very enjoyable and this article seems like it's well on its way to being featured.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressing points from above
- Done.-- Took out "Litigation" from "Church of Scientology's response", and made it its own subsection, per suggestion from Dwarf Kirlston (talk · contribs), above. Cirt (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.-- This might read easier if it stated he was "investigated by attorneys and private investigators of the Church of Scientology" or "affiliated with the Church of Scientology" -- Implemented this change. Cirt (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.-- Perhaps it could be reworded and a colon added before the list? -- Implemented this change. Cirt (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- He later came to learn that the Church of Scientology's head private investigator was orchestrating his investigation. -- Not sure how to reword this, I think it is significant to mention, and it is paraphrased from similar wording in a secondary source. (With citation given.) Cirt (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Maybe elaborate a little. The problem with this sentence is, one expects a head private investigator to be orchestrating the investigation he's in charge of, otherwise he's not really the head private investigator. Perhaps you are trying to convey that the investigation was so big that there was in fact a head investigator orchestrating underling investigators. Which shows organization behind what is obviously not a simple investigation into the reporter's life. So you see this should be clarified to explain exactly what you mean.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.-- WP:MOSQUOTE/WP:PUNC - Fixed a couple instances of this, I also see that BillDeanCarter (talk · contribs) has fixed some of these as well, thank you. Will continue to address this as it comes up. Cirt (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Is it known why Noah Lottick jumped from a hotel tenth floor window? -- It is not known specifically why, though his parents believe one thing, and Church of Scientology statements from Mike Rinder have said another. But I think, and others have stated that might be too much detail for this article. For more information on that, see Scientology controversy. Cirt (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I would mention briefly the circumstances, and do a (See Noah Lottick) or something. It's pretty important, and the sentence weasles you into thinking that Scientology was behind the suicide possibly. And considering the cover story goes into the details of Lottick's suicide it is not too much detail. I'd say basically what you said just above in the article, and direct people to the other article for more details. The other thing is, what is the cover story's position on Lottick's suicide? There's something about "an atrocity tale" further down but I'd have to read the cover story to actually know. So say Behar thought this, the family thought that, and Scientology thought this. See here for more.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good points. I will make your suggested changes and then note it here. Cirt (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- DIFF - How's that look? I tried to implement the wording/suggestions you mentioned. Cirt (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- It still needs some work. Noah Lottick was a Russian studies student who had taken a series of Scientology courses; he died after jumping from a hotel tenth floor window.[12] Initially, his father had thought that Scientology was similar to Dale Carnegie's techniques. However, after his ordeal, Dr. Lottick now believes that the organization is a "school for psychopaths".[13] Mike Rinder, the head of the Church of Scientology's Office of Special Affairs and a Church spokesman, stated "I think Ed Lottick should look in the mirror...I think Ed Lottick made his son's life intolerable."[12] (See Noah Lottick.) I would place a sentence right after "tenth floor window" that says something like "The blame for Lottick's suicide was placed on both parties... or either side blamed the other... with Scientology saying 'I think Ed Lottick made his son's life intolerable.' while the father called the organization a 'school for psychopaths'." I would also place See Lottick earlier and not at the end of the paragraph. Maybe even add the article POV on this matter. Obviously you want to be brief but the matter is of some importance to the article so presenting a NPOV on the matter is important. Basically, no one knows why Lottick killed himself, right?, and you simply want to state why each party (and I guess there are three: Scientology, Lottick's father, and the cover story) thinks Lottick killed himself because in fact they are quite opinionated about it.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read the actual secondary sources, to my knowledge (though I will recheck this), none of the various parties involved actually comes out and directly puts the blame/onus on another specific party, but rather expresses misgivings about particular events. It would be both POV and WP:OR of us to characterize their statements as such. Therefore, not sure what else to do at this point with that. I will try to incorporate some of your suggestions, but without a secondary source that says: "Lottick's father put the blame for his son's death on X, while the Church of Scientology put the blame for his death on Y" - I don't think should draw those conclusions ourselves from the sources. Cirt (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Just say something like that. While none of the parties assigned blame, they expressed misgivings... I mean basically the suicide might have had nothing to do with Scientology and they are kind of being smeared by association with Lottick's suicide. Anyways, before you left a gap of knowledge that made one wonder, but if you phrased it another way then people will understand that Lottick's suicide just got dragged into something else entirely, and there was no final blame made.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read the actual secondary sources, to my knowledge (though I will recheck this), none of the various parties involved actually comes out and directly puts the blame/onus on another specific party, but rather expresses misgivings about particular events. It would be both POV and WP:OR of us to characterize their statements as such. Therefore, not sure what else to do at this point with that. I will try to incorporate some of your suggestions, but without a secondary source that says: "Lottick's father put the blame for his son's death on X, while the Church of Scientology put the blame for his death on Y" - I don't think should draw those conclusions ourselves from the sources. Cirt (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- It still needs some work. Noah Lottick was a Russian studies student who had taken a series of Scientology courses; he died after jumping from a hotel tenth floor window.[12] Initially, his father had thought that Scientology was similar to Dale Carnegie's techniques. However, after his ordeal, Dr. Lottick now believes that the organization is a "school for psychopaths".[13] Mike Rinder, the head of the Church of Scientology's Office of Special Affairs and a Church spokesman, stated "I think Ed Lottick should look in the mirror...I think Ed Lottick made his son's life intolerable."[12] (See Noah Lottick.) I would place a sentence right after "tenth floor window" that says something like "The blame for Lottick's suicide was placed on both parties... or either side blamed the other... with Scientology saying 'I think Ed Lottick made his son's life intolerable.' while the father called the organization a 'school for psychopaths'." I would also place See Lottick earlier and not at the end of the paragraph. Maybe even add the article POV on this matter. Obviously you want to be brief but the matter is of some importance to the article so presenting a NPOV on the matter is important. Basically, no one knows why Lottick killed himself, right?, and you simply want to state why each party (and I guess there are three: Scientology, Lottick's father, and the cover story) thinks Lottick killed himself because in fact they are quite opinionated about it.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DIFF - How's that look? I tried to implement the wording/suggestions you mentioned. Cirt (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Good points. I will make your suggested changes and then note it here. Cirt (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I would mention briefly the circumstances, and do a (See Noah Lottick) or something. It's pretty important, and the sentence weasles you into thinking that Scientology was behind the suicide possibly. And considering the cover story goes into the details of Lottick's suicide it is not too much detail. I'd say basically what you said just above in the article, and direct people to the other article for more details. The other thing is, what is the cover story's position on Lottick's suicide? There's something about "an atrocity tale" further down but I'd have to read the cover story to actually know. So say Behar thought this, the family thought that, and Scientology thought this. See here for more.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DIFF - Does this look a little better? And as for Behar's position in the article, again, without secondary sources from some interview with Behar or something like that, I'd rather not draw inferences about what may think Behar's position is on the issue. Cirt (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.-- why not just ...Miscavige called Richard Behar "a hater" without the colon? -- Implemented this change. If there are other places where the colon use is not appropriate, I will remove it there. Cirt (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.-- you should probably use […] after a serious journalistic piece.. instead of those two ..s. -- I changed this to three ... instead of the weird use of two, but I don't think the brackets are needed here? Cirt (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.-- Could you maybe elaborate and improve this sentence with a better quote? -- Expanded on this with a longer quote from the same source. Cirt (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.-- In the Legacy section you should name the Herald reporter, so to avoid confusing with the reporter Richard Behar. -- Implemented this change. Cirt (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.-- A slight rewording might be needed here. -- Split up this long sentence into two sentences, should read better now. Cirt (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.-- it's titled not entitled. A common grammar trap. As well the colon is unnecessary and the period should be outside the quotation marks. -- Fixed these minor issues as well, will continue to address any other points if brought up. Thank you both for your positive feedback on the article and helpful points, it looks a bit better now. Cirt (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Follow-up to Comment
- I
said pre-publication section and post-publication sections would help in terms of organization. it seems pretty obvious to me that Church of Scientology's response, Litigation, Awards, and Legacy sections all would fit very well into Post-Publication - or "Reception" or similar. "Contents" - or Synopsis?- usage of contents was disagreed with on another article by Maria - I think it was "The World Without us"- --Kiyarrllston 23:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.- Changed "Contents" to "Synopsis". Cirt (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.- Added a "Post-Publication" section. I put "Church of Scientology's response", "Litigation", and "Awards" into that section, but I think the other sections deal with stuff that comes a bit later in the chronology, and should have their own sections. Cirt (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose—1a; needs a copy-edit throughout. Here are mere samples from the top.
- Remove "also" from the second sentence. There's another idle "also" in Para 2. Better audit this word throughout the article (it weakens the flow when redundant).
- "He stated that he was investigated by attorneys and private investigators affiliated with the Church of Scientology while researching the TIME article, and investigators contacted his friends and family as well." Is the last point your own, or his? If the latter, insert another "that".
- Remove unnecessary colon after "including".
- "Richard Behar received multiple awards in honor of"—"multiple" should be "many", I guess. Can't we have a number? Or just "received awards in honor ... including"
- "stating that the article was over the top"—the last expression is too loose and informal for this register (it's OK in a quote, though).
- "atrocity tale."—read MOS on logical punctuation in quotations; check every quote that starts within a Wikipedia sentence.
- Ungainly repetitions, such as "Behar stated that ..." Tony (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comment
Thanks for actually providing some specific examples to address along with your "oppose" comment. I will do my best to work on them, as you can see from above in the FAC I have addressed points from others already and their suggestions have helped to improve the article further. I'll note each point below as I address it. Cirt (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.-- Addressed one point - Removed some "also" mentions as suggested above, and a few others throughout the article. Cirt (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.-- "He stated that he was investigated by attorneys and private investigators affiliated with the Church of Scientology while researching the TIME article, and investigators contacted his friends and family as well." Is the last point your own, or his? If the latter, insert another "that". -- Added "that". Cirt (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.-- Remove unnecessary colon after "including". -- Removed colon. Cirt (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.-- "Richard Behar received multiple awards in honor of"—"multiple" should be "many", I guess. Can't we have a number? Or just "received awards in honor ... including" -- Removed the word "multiple". Cirt (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.-- "stating that the article was over the top"—the last expression is too loose and informal for this register (it's OK in a quote, though). -- Removed phrasing "over the top". Cirt (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.-- "atrocity tale."—read MOS on logical punctuation in quotations; check every quote that starts within a Wikipedia sentence. -- Removed quotes. Cirt (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.-- Ungainly repetitions, such as "Behar stated that ..." -- I checked, and there were only two instances of "Behar stated that ...". I wouldn't call that "ungainly", but I did change the wording on the second instance. Cirt (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose for now.The article needs a good copyedit. I did a little bit of work on it, but I think it needs some massaging by a better writer than I. The article does appear to have an appropriate amount of detail, and the references section looks good overall, but I found a few WP:MOS issues that need to be fixed. If you can fix those, I'll change to a neutral; with a good copyedit I will be able to support.After the first time the article mentions a person, subsequent references to them should be by surname. The article sometimes refers to "Behar" and sometimes to "Richard Behar". I've fixed some of these but not all.Why is there a note for (See Noah Lottick) when there could just be a wikilink on his name?Per WP sourcing guidelines, you need a citation directly after each quotation, even if this means that citations will be repeated for several sentences in a row. In the section Church of Scientology's response there are several sentences with direct quotes that are not cited.After the first reference to US$, use only $.Please see WP:DASH. Instead of using --, use & mdash;- I removed just about all of the colons in the article, as they did not seem to be used properly.
- Many, many sentences in the article read "So and so stated that...." Can you try to work on some of these to vary them a little? That will make the article read better.
I think the chronology table should be incoporated into one of the previous sections, as it is just an illustration of what is already in the prose.The See Also section can be removed - neither of those links appear to have much bearing on the article.In the references, please wikilink all full dates so that people's date preferences will work.
Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to Karanacs points
Thanks for these specific pointers. I will do my best to address them, and make a note of it here, below. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.- After the first time the article mentions a person, subsequent references to them should be by surname. The article sometimes refers to "Behar" and sometimes to "Richard Behar". I've fixed some of these but not all. -- I fixed the rest of these. Cirt (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.- Why is there a note for (See Noah Lottick) when there could just be a wikilink on his name? - I fixed this, as suggested. Cirt (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.- Per WP sourcing guidelines, you need a citation directly after each quotation, even if this means that citations will be repeated for several sentences in a row. In the section Church of Scientology's response there are several sentences with direct quotes that are not cited. - Fixed this, added cites to the end of these sentences. Cirt (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.- After the first reference to US$, use only $. - As per the suggestion, fixed this. Cirt (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.- Please see WP:DASH. Instead of using --, use & mdash; - Fixed these instances. Cirt (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.- I think the chronology table should be incoporated into one of the previous sections, as it is just an illustration of what is already in the prose. - Removed the chronology table. Cirt (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.-- Removed the See also section. Cirt (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.- In the references, please wikilink all full dates so that people's date preferences will work. - As recommended above, I went through and wikilinked full dates in the citations. Cirt (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Many, many sentences in the article read "So and so stated that...." Can you try to work on some of these to vary them a little? That will make the article read better. -- Yes, I will work on copy-editing a bit more, in-line with this particular suggestion. Cirt (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Support. Cirt has done a lot of work, and the article reads much better. I think it meets the FA criteria now - thanks for being so responsive! Karanacs (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is really marvelously done but have a few questions and thoughts that may be of help.
- In final sentence of Research for the article I'm not sure what exactly "pre-production development" is. Does this just mean that they agreed to provide Behar with information?
- In Synopsis, the sentence "Behar wrote of the expensive costs involved in participation in the Church of Scientology, and what he referred to as 'front groups and financial scams', and harassment of critics" seems to consist of themes moving in several different directions. One regarding members, one regarding critics and one regarding whoever was being financially scammed. Or is it members being financially scammed? I think splitting this up into a few distinct sentences with a little more clarification would help.
- In Church response, I was unsure if "taking out four color, full-page ads in USA Today in May and June 1991" meant four ads that were in color or four color ads. If it's the latter, I think it's better to just leave the "four" off to avoid confusion.
- "David Miscavige gave what he told Ted Koppel was his first interview on Scientology" if we know it was his first interview on Scientology let's make this more direct. If we have reason to doubt that it was a first interview it's not that significant and we could just say "gave a lengthy interview to Ted Koppel" or something.
- In Litigation, second grad, "one question was a ... reference to Scientology teachings." Reference isn't quite right here. Maybe something like, "the question was prompted by"?
- "In a countersuit, Behar brought up..." is it known what became of his countersuit?
- By 1996 Time had spent 3.7 million (wow). Since it carried on an additional five years, did they ever update that figure? If not, no worries.
- In Analysis should we mention Healy's first name on first reference?
- For both Healy and Silk, I wonder if it would help to provide context on these authors? Outside of getting their books published are they known for their opinions or knowledge about the area?
- Also for Insane Therapy, a short explanation of what, who the author is, would be helpful.
- I randomly checked citations and they all seem to be carefully cited. Although some repetition is present, it's of the utmost importance in an article that deals with allegations about lots of living people to assure that everything is meticulously attributed, so in my opinion the repetition of "Behar said" and "according to x" are necessary. It's quite well done in my opinion. I picked over it quite a bit with copy editing, you may want to review to ensure I didn't inadvertently
reduceintroduce errors. Hopefully some of the edits caught a thing or two;) All in all, excellent work! --JayHenry (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to latest above Review
Thanks for these points. I will take a look, and address them here, below. As for your latest copy-editing, I will double-check but so far things look good. Cirt (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.- Removed "pre-production development" phrase. Not needed to understand that sentence, as it's already in the section on "Research for the article". Cirt (talk) 07:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- In Synopsis, the sentence "Behar wrote of the expensive costs involved in participation in the Church of Scientology, and what he referred to as 'front groups and financial scams', and harassment of critics" seems to consist of themes moving in several different directions. One regarding members, one regarding critics and one regarding whoever was being financially scammed. Or is it members being financially scammed? I think splitting this up into a few distinct sentences with a little more clarification would help. -- I would agree that it would be useful to expand on this information, but it is a "Synopsis" section after all, and I've gotten comments and feedback from others that it might be best to keep that section shorter, as opposed to a tendency to expand on the themes discussed. Cirt (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.- Removed "four" in "four color" ads, as suggested by the above review. Cirt (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.- "David Miscavige gave what he told Ted Koppel was his first interview on Scientology" if we know it was his first interview on Scientology let's make this more direct. If we have reason to doubt that it was a first interview it's not that significant and we could just say "gave a lengthy interview to Ted Koppel" or something. - Removed "what he told" from the sentence about David Miscavige's first interview. Cirt (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.- In Litigation, second grad, "one question was a ... reference to Scientology teachings." Reference isn't quite right here. Maybe something like, "the question was prompted by"? -- Replaced with "the question was prompted by" - as per exact wording/suggestion from reviewer. Cirt (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- "In a countersuit, Behar brought up..." is it known what became of his countersuit? -- I have looked through the (41) sources currently present in the article and haven't found additional info on this particular countersuit. However, I will recheck those sources, and see if I can't find info on that in other sources. However, I do not think that this is something that should hold back FA status, as that section primarily deals with the litigation with the Church of Scientology as a plaintiff. Cirt (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- By 1996 Time had spent 3.7 million (wow). Since it carried on an additional five years, did they ever update that figure? If not, no worries. -- Same response as previous, haven't yet found info on the final amount that TIME spent on the litigation as of 2001, but I'll keep looking. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Done.- In Analysis should we mention Healy's first name on first reference? -- Good point. Added Healy's first name to this sentence. Cirt (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- For both Healy and Silk, I wonder if it would help to provide context on these authors? Outside of getting their books published are they known for their opinions or knowledge about the area? Also for Insane Therapy, a short explanation of what, who the author is, would be helpful. -- Again, I think this might be straying a bit off-topic. I don't want to get too tangential with explanations of authors that wrote about the issue, that might tend to expand parts of the article a bit too much with information that doesn't specifically actually have to do with Behar's piece. Cirt (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: The docket image and the petition image look bad because they contain JPEG encoding artifacts. I'd suggest removing them from the article and moving the link to the Wikisource library to that section. Papa November (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: How about if instead of removing the images, I just get someone to help with cleaning up the JPEG encoding artifacts? Cirt (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Done., PNG images are now used in the article instead. Cirt (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- The PNG versions on Commons still had compression artifacts. I've replaced one, and I'll fix the other shortly. The issue I have is that the images still aren't particularly useful: the text is too small to read and the typesetting isn't pretty enough for it to make a nice illustration. I don't really object to them being in the article - I just think there could be something better. A boxed link to the wikisource information would provide an attractive link to a very useful resource on the subject. Another possible attractive image would be the front cover of US Reports vol 534 which contained the text in question. Papa November (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The recommendations you bring up will be addressed shortly, but surely these are not sticking points that should hold up the FAC? Cirt (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- There already is a link to the Wikisource page, in the External links section, as appropriate. Cirt (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Sure, it's just a comment - not an "oppose". The wikisource link is at the bottom of the article. I thought it may look better in the relevant section about the lawsuit. I've also finished cleaning up the PNG images. Papa November (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for cleaning up the PNG images, and for clarifying that your point was a comment, and not an oppose. Also, please see this comment from the GA Reviewer, Kane5187 (talk · contribs), on the images in the article: Kudos to whatever creative mind thought to scan the official judicial entries/documents and use them. So the GA Reviewer thought the image use was appropriate. And as for the link to Wikisource, I wouldn't mind moving it - but I think that putting the links to the sister projects in the WP:EL section is actually more the norm here. Cirt (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Sure, it's just a comment - not an "oppose". The wikisource link is at the bottom of the article. I thought it may look better in the relevant section about the lawsuit. I've also finished cleaning up the PNG images. Papa November (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The PNG versions on Commons still had compression artifacts. I've replaced one, and I'll fix the other shortly. The issue I have is that the images still aren't particularly useful: the text is too small to read and the typesetting isn't pretty enough for it to make a nice illustration. I don't really object to them being in the article - I just think there could be something better. A boxed link to the wikisource information would provide an attractive link to a very useful resource on the subject. Another possible attractive image would be the front cover of US Reports vol 534 which contained the text in question. Papa November (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done., PNG images are now used in the article instead. Cirt (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Response: How about if instead of removing the images, I just get someone to help with cleaning up the JPEG encoding artifacts? Cirt (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: The second, short paragraph under "Synopsis" seems heavily POV in that it's irrelevant to a summary of the article's contents. I see how it functions as a sort of summary of Behar's argument posited in the article, but I don't see any connection to the article as a whole. In that regard, it seems like it's there to buttress his (and the article's) opinions, i.e., to reinforce a POV that his opinions are fact. I like its inclusion intuitively, though, and feel like deleting it wholesale isn't the solution I'm looking for. I'd just like to see it linked in a bit better so I'm not under the impression that it's there to give credence to Behar's claims.Dylan (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Do you possibly mean the third paragraph? With the quote from Cynthia Kisser? --JayHenry (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment, Dylan, any specific points on how to go about implementing your suggestion? Cirt (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm incredibly dumb -- sorry, I for some reason didn't realize that that quote came from the article. In my first reading of it, I just thought it was an outside commentator commenting on the same issues. Now that I realize it's a quote from the article, I have no objection on POV. Dylan (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment, Dylan, any specific points on how to go about implementing your suggestion? Cirt (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Do you possibly mean the third paragraph? With the quote from Cynthia Kisser? --JayHenry (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, Support. This article was very well-witten when I read it a few months ago, and I think it is still very, very solid and worthy of FA status. As I mentioned in GA, the images are sparse, but understandably so as this is a difficult subject to illustrate. The PD court document images are a nice touch -- some other possible candidates would be free images of Behar, or any of the names involved in the article, if they're available. Dylan (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support, and thanks for your positive feedback on the existing images in the articles. I like your idea on suggestions of possibilities of other free-use images in the article such as for individuals mentioned, but that may take a while and be more of a longer term project. Cirt (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Support by Moni3 I finally read this article yesterday. I remember reading the story when it came out in Time, and it was definitely helped form my opinion of Scientology. Excellent article - made me surf for related information for an hour after I read it. That's what a featured article should do - make someone so interested in the topic that they can't get enough. Good job. --Moni3 (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that graphics, including coloured ticks and crosses, are discouraged in the instructions for this process.Tony (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please fix the final punctuation in quotes, which should go after the closing marks where the quote starts within a WP sentence. It's inconsistent in the article. Tony (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Graphics of "Done." removed, sorry, didn't see that - that must be a new addition/note to the FAC process. Cirt (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per most recent comment by Tony1 (talk · contribs), I went through and fixed the quote punctuation, as he suggested. Cirt (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/List of works by William Monahan Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virginia Tech massacre Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ian Svenonius Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Herpes zoster
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:46, 23 December 2007.
Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide
Self nomination. An article on a central molecule in living cells, covering all major aspects from its properties, functions, pharmacology and history. Article was recently reviewed as a GA by a reviewer who encouraged me to put it forward as a FAC. It is 46 kb in size, containing 22 kb of readable text. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As I think that a WP:Chem core article really deserves to be promoted to A-Class and preferably to FA, I won't deny yet. But no support yet either: there are quite some (solvable) problems with this this article still, where it doesn't comply with several WP standards. I left comments on the talk page. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comments addressed at Talk:Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide/Comments. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I talked to Professor Charles Brenner on the phone today (a researcher in the field) and he made some useful comments and caught some errors. I'll correct these this evening. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments addressed were my use of the word "coenzyme" when NAD was being consumed as a substrate, missing out Jack Preiss and Philip Handler from the history, not defining mono and poly-ADP-ribosylation clearly, a new paper this October that shows a novel precursor for salvage pathways, and that the cytoplasmic concentration quoted only applied to animal cells not yeast. He also was unhappy with how certain I was about resveratrol's function, so I still have to reword that - I over-simplified that a little. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected the resveratrol section. Tim Vickers (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments while I briefly poke my head in here again:
- Does the 'DPN+' notation need to be mentioned in the lead? Not sure where else to put it, but the last sentence of the first paragraph seems like an odd place for such a tiny little nit.
- Moved to chembox
- 'concentrated in the cell nucleus, which may reflect the high level of ADP-ribosylation reactions in this organelle' - not quite sure which way around this goes. Sounds like you mean something like 'may be due to' instead of 'may reflect'; currently it sounds like the high level of ADP ribosylation is a cause rather than a consequence of the salvage enzymes' presence in the nucleus.
- Changed to "which may compensate for the high level of ADP-ribosylation reactions in this organelle"
- A better image of the NAD+ binding site illustrating the charge distribution would be nice. (I'm kind of embarrassed by the ugly perspective in the existing one!)
- The image is pretty, but something Prof Brenner mentioned as well is that it would be better to get an image of NAD bound to a Rossmann fold protein. Perhaps some kind person might supply one?
- I created a new one. Added to the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I just missed it, but it would be nice to have a sentence mentioning the metabolic roles of NADP+/NADPH and how they differ from NAD+/NADH. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is outlined at the end of the second paragraph of the "Role in redox metabolism" section - "In contrast, the main function of NADP+ is as a reducing agent in anabolism,..." Tim Vickers (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I knew I must've missed it. Nice Rossmann fold too. Good work as always :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Should've been clear that I meant that as a support. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opposenow: Support- The article is not clearly enough about the one chemical compound NAD+. It introduces various other compounds every now and then in the article, and superfluous information (for this article) is provided. In my humble opinion the article needs better focus.
- Hi there, thanks for the review. I think you are right that the article talked a bit too much about NADP+, I removed some of this. However, explaining what both NAD+ and NADH are is absolutely central to understanding what this molecule does in cells. Removing that information would greatly hinder a reader's ability to understand the subject of the article - the properties and functions of the coenzyme. We couldn't have one article on NAD and another on NADH, that would be unworkable. I have replaced some of the text you removed. Similarly, briefly contrasting the functions with the related coenzyme NADP (but I agree we shouldn't explain the functions of NADP in any detail, it has its own article) is important to show the reader how these two coenzymes differ - another vital concept.
- The quality of the text is very varying. E.g., in the lead several very technical jargon terms are unexplained, whereas the simple chemical properties of redox agent are spread over multiple lines. This is also true for other places in the article.
- I simplified the lead a little, the list of functions was a bit too long and technical. I changed this to a broad outline. Also shrank the redox function explanation.
- Very straightforward indicators of compliance to WP guidelines, e.g. as by the peerreviewer script are not solved yet, e.g., British and English spelling are mixed, and I have the impression that the text hasn't been copy-edited for top-quality English.
- As I noted on the comments page, the automated script is picking up UK English terms in the titles of a few of the references. I could change these to US English, but I don't think that is a good idea since that is not standard style and prevents the use of the titles as a search term. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but if that's it, I have to agree—changing reference titles would be like changing a direct quote. Unless you're say, italicizing an organism name or adding Greek characters, that's a bad, bad idea :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I misread the MoS and thought degC was unspaced, replaced the non-breaking space. You're quite right about that one. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bottomline, although Tim and others are giving the article good effort, it is GA-quality alright, but not FA quality. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Since my last review above, the article has gone through excellent copy-editing (I'm glad to see in line with my proposals), touching on all of my objections. Therefore with pleasure I change my feedback from Oppose to Support. This is now the required quality. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 15:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Some comments. The term 1' should probably be explained, or written in prose, as I don't know what the ' stands for. The prose could be better; living things (things is one of those words that should be avoided; try organisms), NADP+ since in NADP+ (try and reword to avoid the redundancy). Some sources are needed (I'm a little eccentric about it); at the end of the first paragraph in Physical and chemical properties, the end of the second paragraph in Salvage pathways, the end of the first paragraph in Oxidoreductases, and the end of the first paragraph in Pharmacology. Most are probably sourced in other references, but I like knowing that every last statement is sourced. --Hurricanehink (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi there, thanks for the review.
- 1' now defined and linked
- Repetitive sentence removed, it was a bit off-topic anyway, as noted above.
- Replaced with "organisms"
- Refs added to all but last, which is a summary of the paragraphs below and isn't in a single reference, but describes what the topics of the other sections are. I've reworded this a bit to make it clearer. Tim Vickers (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. Alright, I gave it another look through, and it does seem very technical, to the point that Wikilinks doesn't help too much for the reader to understand the article. At the same time, there are some vernacular phrases in there (from scratch) and it wanders a bit (from the diet - no reference to what that diet is before then). I don't believe it passes criterion 1a. Perhaps you could get a look-through from another editor in your WikiProject? --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I reworded "from the diet" into "taken up from food as vitamins", which is more precise and probably a bit clearer. I know this is rather a technical subject, what I will try to do is re-write the lead so it it completely approachable to those with no background in the subject, have another run-through to remove unnecessary technical terms, and add a summary sentence to the start of each section that gives a non-technical overview of the contents. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi there, thanks for the review.
CommentSupport 1) Why abbreviate as NaAD etc instead of NAAD? 2) There is nothing about transport of NAD between compartments, e.g. can NADH from the citric acid cycle be used by enzymes in the cytosol? Narayanese (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why people use Na and NaAD, but this is the standard in the literature (see diagram p14 of Belenky review), so I chose to follow, rather than lead!
- Following convention is good. Narayanese (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The glycerol phosphate shuttle is mentioned in the latter part of the first paragraph in the "Role in redox metabolism" section. Do you think this should be expanded? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, now I see the sentence. Took a while to understand the Glycerol phosphate shuttle stub btw, but I get the idea it doesn't involve matrix NAD, it is probably that article that needs work eventually rather than the NAD one. Can it go the other way (CAC->gluconeogenesis?). So NAD can't pass the membrane itself, so how does it get to be in other organelles than the nucleus, is the synthesis pathways present in all organelles?
- The articles mention measuring NAD in the cytoplasm and then talks about other compartments, does it perhaps mean cytosol? Narayanese (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, I only mentioned one of the shuttles. I added a link to the general article on mitochondrial shuttles, and a specific link the the malate-aspartate shuttle, which is the better one of the two daughter articles.
- There is very little published on organellar NAD transport/biosynthesis apart from that nuclear localisation paper I found earlier, but I found and added an article stating that the shuttle systems also work in chloroplasts and a paper on NAD import carrier in mitochondria.
- The term should be cytosol, good catch I always get those confused. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like you've fixed the points nicely. In these two sentences "NAD+ absorbs strongly in the ultraviolet due to the adenine base. Peak absorption is at a wavelength of 259 nanometers (nm), with an extinction coefficient of 16,900 M-1 cm-1. The reduced form, NADH, also absorbs at a higher wavelength, with a second peak in UV absorption at 339 nm that has an extinction coefficient of 6,220 M-1 cm-1." I'd suggest you put a sentence/clause with the extinction coefficient of NADH at 259 nm between the two. Atm the second hangs in the air, and it is not understood why NADH is preferred for measurement.
Does the Rossmann fold always use /drastic/ induced fit for NAD (should be mentioned if it does, at either page, otherwise unimportant)?(confused with a non-Rossmann fold-containing oxidoreductase) sidenote: you might want move a bit of the text to Rossmann fold, specifically the FMN sentence.- I can't spot any grammatical or spelling mistakes, and all non-trivial text is referenced to scientific databases and journals. Narayanese (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I reworded that piece about the absorbance coefficients and cut the FMN sentence. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, good.
- The article has nothing important omitted, no overrepresented minority beliefs, lead has the most important from each section, good section and paragraph splitting and headings, ilustrations without copyright issues, medium length. It's ready for FA status as far as I can see. Narayanese (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, but it's almost there. -- Changed to support'. All of my concerns regarding content have been addressed. I think the article still needs some copyediting (I just fixed a typo for "conezyme") but I see it is undergoing vigorous editing to improve these details. If I find any other typos or similar errors I'll just fix them myself. One final comment: I don't think it was necessary to completely remove the 3D image, although I do prefer the 2D structural diagram at the top of the infobox. --Itub (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The main problem is that the prose doesn't feel right at places. There are some awkward and sometimes even ambiguous sentences in places, especially near the beginning of the article, and even some grammar errors such as lack of subject–verb agreement. I don't have time to elaborate right now, so I'll understand if this is considered a non-actionable objection for now.
- Probably due to the large edits that keep being made to the lead. Will work on this a bit more.
- Leas has now been re-written again for simplicity.
- The structure. IMO, it would be better to show the structural diagram first, and the 3D figure later. Structure diagrams are more readable since they avoid the problem of overlapping atoms. For example, the top ribose ring in the 3D figure is a jumble that won't be intelligible to anyone who doesn't know the structure already (this is not a complaint against the author, as it is often impossible to find a perspective with no overlapping atoms).
- This was a conscious decision. I thought it might be best to put the structural diagram next to the text that discussed the details of the structure, which is at the top of the first section, so tat readers could refer to it as they read the description. Originally, the two figures were revered. Do you think the structural diagram would be best next to the lead?
Another problem with the 3D figure is that both phosphates are protonated, which not only is unlikely under most conditions but is inconsistent with the structure diagram, which could lead to confusion. Finally (and that is often a problem with 3D structure representations in Wikipedia), it would be good to clarify exactly what this structure is depicting. Does it come from a crystal structure? (In that case, the crystal of the pure substance, or bound to something?) Is it supposed to be the global energy minimum conformation according to some model, under some conditions? Or is in just an arbitrary conformation chosen for artistic purposes?
- I've left a note with the author of this image and asked if they could respond here.
- I'm the author of the image. The phosphates are protonated because it's simpler than to try and represent every possible protonation state that could occur in vivo.
- The structure is not from x-ray diffraction, it's just a local conformational minimum, chosen mainly to make the structure as clearly visible as possible. As mentioned above, it is extremely difficult, often impossible, to present a 3D model of a molecule in 2D in such a way that no atoms are obscured. I did my best with this image.
- I didn't bother finding a crystal structure for this molecule because it does all its important chemistry in solution or bound to proteins, so its conformation in the bulk pure solid doesn't necessarily reflect its conformation in a cell.
- I'm happy to modify the image as required, won't be a problem. Decide what you want from a 3D model, let me know, and I'll make it.
- There should be a 3D model, though, because the structural diagram gives very little indication of the shape of the NADH molecule. Massively distorted P-O bonds and so on!
- I could use PDB 2FM3.
- OK, that sounds like a good option. Attractive and informative images are very welcome. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The UV spectrum. I find it hard to believe that the absorption maximum wavelength and the extinction coefficient are exactly the same for NAD+ and NADH. To help more visual readers it would be helpful to include a figure of the UV spectra, such as the one in this book [47]. (The extinction coefficients look different in this figure).
- I've reworded this to make it clear that I was using NAD+ as the specific example. A free verion of this diagram would be good, I considered just recording them myself, but this might be considered OR and it's always hard to get the concentrations exactly right, so the isobestic points and maxima would probably be wrong. I could draw one feehand, but that wouldn't be very accurate either. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I grabbed the data from the book you linked to and made a new version while I was stuck on a transatlantic flight. This has been added to the article. This involved re-arranging the images and removing the 3D version.
- Reduction potential. Given that the most notable property of this molecule is its redox nature, I find it is a major omission not to include the standard reduction potential in the article. Perhaps compare it NADP+ and other relevant species to put it in context. Maybe it would be worth explaining it more detail how the oxidized/reduced ratios of NAD+ and NADP+ are regulated.
- Good point! A serious omission. Will track it down this afternoon.
- Added midpoint potential with reference and sentence on NADH being strong reducing agent to give context.
- Niacin. Sometimes the article talks about niacin and sometimes about nicotinic acid. Yet, at least according to the article on niacin, they are one and the same. Or does niacin (still) refers to a mixture containing nicotinic acid and nicotinamide, as the History section states? In any case, this should be clarified.
- It is a mixture of the Na and Nam, but not NR, so "niacin" refers to two of the three NAD+ precursors in our diet. This does ned to be explained a bit better. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now mentioed in lead and explained in full in salvage pathway section. Tim Vickers (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. --Itub (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object per lacking quality of writing in lead. "peacock" lack of organization- audience is general reader and it is not well written imo in reference to that--Keerllston 12:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi there, I'm a bit confused by your comment. Which "peacock" terms are used in the lead? The only one I can think might apply is the statement that the coenzyme is very important and thus a target for drug discovery, this was a paraphrase of the review PMID 17465726, so can be referenced if required. Tim Vickers (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The first part of the lead has now been expanded to give a less technical explanation of redox reactions. Tim Vickers (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused by the previous reviewer's rationale for objecting. It seems to be a fine piece at first glance: I'll look carefully at it soon. Tony (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 13:59, 22 December 2007.
Spiderland
Self nomination This article, about a 1991 album by indie rock band Slint, is currently a Good Article and has been recently peer reviewed. I am confident that it satisfies all Featured Article Criterion and is well-referenced, well-written, and comprehensive. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You've used British dating throughout the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done All dates now reflect American formatting. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional supportFor a cult album like this, it's nice to see virtually every reliable source that exists referenced. Some things that need fixing before I go all the way:- I had to change some collective noun usage in regards to the band itself. Double-check that "Slint" is always treated as a singular noun.
- I don't think it's necessary to mention that PJ Harvey and a member of Pavement are fans of the album in the lead. Possibly rework and combine with previous sentence if you want to keep it there.
- "Another source wrote . . ." Might as well name the source in the prose, or rephrase. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence "'Good Morning Captain' has been compared to Led Zeppelin's 'Stairway to Heaven' by David Peschek of The Guardian, 'if it's possible to imagine Stairway to Heaven bleached of all bombast.'" is awkward. The meaning became clearer on the second reading, but it could be further clarified.
- Ref 24 (Robert Christgau) needs to list the publication.
- The statement "The album has now sold over 50,000 copies" should be more definite and less timely. Write something along the lines of "has sold this many copies as of this date" or at least remove the "Now".
- It's confusing when you refer to Pitchfork and mean the music festival the site put on. At least, it is to me (probably not to anyone else). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks for the review. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good times. Support. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, all issues addressed.
Comment, nice, thorough about details, but could use being more explicit about why this album is important. Will probably support if the following issues can be fixed.- Slint broke up shortly after Spiderland's release. - That sentence in the lead implies that the album had something to do with the breakup, which would be important to write about in the article body, but I don't see that in the article body. Is the implication unjustified, or am I missing the text that gives the connection?
- The article does mention Slint's break-up as it relates to the album in the first few sentences of the "Legacy" section, but I removed the sentence from the lead anyway. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Similarly, am I missing the part that says that Spiderland is really the album that made the band? The lead just says it was their second album, which is nice, but hardly impressive. The Slint article, on the other hand, says "Slint's first album Tweez was recorded by Steve Albini in 1987 and released in obscurity on the Jennifer Hartman Records label in 1989. It was followed two years later by the critically acclaimed Spiderland, released on Touch and Go Records and recorded by Brian Paulson[1]. Considered a seminal work, Spiderland is an album characterized by dark, syncopated rhythms, sparse guitar lines and haunting subject matter. The record's impact was such that some have suggested it is the first true post-rock album ..." Shouldn't some of that high praise, especially in comparison with Tweez, be here too? Otherwise it's not so clear why Spiderland was such a big deal. If you can't think of anything better just drop those sentences in the Context section directly.
- I think that the "Legacy" section sufficiently notes the album's importance and influence. Some of the Slint article delves into hyperbole, and it's virtually unreferenced, so I'd prefer not to model after it. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "theory that band members had to be periodically institutionalized during the completion of the album."; The recording was completed in four days. - Er... how's that? How can multiple people be periodically institutionalized during a period of 4 days? Were the periods measured in hours or something? Are you sure the first quote isn't a joke?
- It does sound a bit odd that members of Slint could have become crazy and were checked into an institution during a four day recording. It seems highly unlikely if not impossible, but the rumors that these events occurred certainly exists. I don't believe that the article presents these rumors as true, but does acknowledge that they exist. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The music of Spiderland is defined by its use of angular guitar rhythms, dramatically alternating dynamic shifts, - can you link to something explaining what an angular guitar rhythm is? The link to dynamic goes to a disambiguation page, can you make it more clear?
- I fixed the dynamics link, but unfortunately "angular guitar" is a specific term that doesn't link anywhere. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Spiderland received minimal attention from major publications upon its release. " OK, so when did it get the major attention that made it a seminal work, etc.?
- Robert Christgau ... criticizing the album's lyrics - I was going to ask what, specifically, he criticized about them, but thought I should go to the reference and see ... and I still couldn't figure it out! What is he saying about the lyrics? I can't even honestly tell that it is criticism of the lyrics, it's so short. Explain or strike, please. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Christgau is notorious for giving really short reviews. I interpreted his statement "And if you promise not to mention their lyrics they promise to keep the volume down" as criticism, as he is implying that Spiderland's lyrics are so bad that the band members themselves don't want to talk about them. Should I include this quote in the body of the article? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Slint broke up shortly after Spiderland's release. - That sentence in the lead implies that the album had something to do with the breakup, which would be important to write about in the article body, but I don't see that in the article body. Is the implication unjustified, or am I missing the text that gives the connection?
- Hmm. You addressed several points, but the leadoff to the "Legacy" section bothers me, especially since it seems to be the album's claim to fame, so arguably the most important section in the article. Its first two sentences are about the band breaking up. If the breakup had nothing to do with the album, how is it a legacy of the album, or especially something to lead off the section about the legacy of the album. Can they be moved down into "Reunion" or something? It at least makes more sense that the breakup be important to having a reunion. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Somewhat unsure oppose. Well-referenced, well-written for the most part... I had never heard of this band or this album - thanks for the introduction
"the album contains dark, narrative lyrics that emphasize alienation." - word choice - "dark" is not very descriptive - do you mean depressing? morbid? evil? sad? suicidal? despairing?- using "dark" is not very encyclopedic...
It's kinda short - definitely so the lead - is it proper length? - I thought it might be because the article on Slint was longer- but very not the case...
--Keerllston 00:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I removed the term "dark" from the lead altogether, which I also expanded a bit. I believe that the article's length is appropriate given the subject matter and the amount of information available. Also, the length of the Slint article in relation to the length of the article on this album is irrelevant. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- well... see - you say it's "irrelevant" and I do respect your opinion - but in another review of a candidateship (that of constantine II of scotland) - the reviewer noted that it is valid - because wikipedia is not about repeating things many times - but also because context and how things fit into a bigger picture is important.
regarding length - I was expecting bigger if I didn't make myself clear- by "information available" do you mean that information is hard to get? In my experience in FAC - I have found saying "information is hard to get" and similar are often - later proven untrue - and information is finally found - finally bettering the article in terms of comprehensibility
--Keerllston 00:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- The length of the Slint article is irrelevant to the length of this article because only this article is being reviewed to be featured. Secondly, by "information available" I didn't mean that I had only drawn from a small portion of all the information on this album; rather, I meant that I have drawn from all information about this album, but that the total information is limited because of the small relative mainstream attention given to this album. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I must reiterate that I do believe that it is an appropriate length. It is only slightly shorter than the recently featured album article, Loveless (album). If there was any amount of unused information left about the album I would add it to the article, but there is none. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- well... see - you say it's "irrelevant" and I do respect your opinion - but in another review of a candidateship (that of constantine II of scotland) - the reviewer noted that it is valid - because wikipedia is not about repeating things many times - but also because context and how things fit into a bigger picture is important.
- I removed the term "dark" from the lead altogether, which I also expanded a bit. I believe that the article's length is appropriate given the subject matter and the amount of information available. Also, the length of the Slint article in relation to the length of the article on this album is irrelevant. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A few comments/suggestions:
- The infobox has "Touch & Go" and the intro says "Touch & Go Records", but both should probably be "Touch and Go Records", if only to be consistent, as well as to maintain encyclopedic formality, but also to reflect the full name of the label. Touch & Go is also mentioned as such in the Legacy section.
- Done
- Chicago in the infobox should be changed to to Chicago, USA, to avoid any US-centrism.
- Done
- The first paragraph of the first section seems unnecessary. Context is one thing, but the information provided seems to have nothing to do with Spiderland except in the sense that it happened before. The section would probably be stronger if you just started talking about the album as soon as possible.
- I do believe that this paragraph is relevant. It serves as a basic introduction to the band and its members, and notes the change in style from Tweez to Slint to Spiderland. Other featured articles (Fuck the Millennium) use similar styles of summarization. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Going off the previous point (and assuming you take my suggestions to remove the first paragraph), I'm not sure "Context" is the correct title for the section.
- Not sure about the wikilink of traumatic, especially since it links to psychological trauma, which infers additional information from the quote. It could've been physical trauma, for all we know, so best leave the quote to explain itself.
- Done
- I'm not sure what a "live in-studio recording style" is. Might be good to explain.
- Done
- Saying "The music of Spiderland is defined by its use of angular guitar rhythms, etc, etc..." is a bit of a broad semi-POV statement. To a foreigner the instruments used might define it. To a feminist the fact that it was created by all men might define it. I guess my point is that it's poor word choice.
- Done
- A few of the descriptions in the same section are a bit iffy, and generally not backed up by the souce (ie "jagged, thick guitar")
- "the song's lyric" I think this should be "lyrics"?
- Done
- Not so sure about the wikilink for "treading water".
- Done
- The Steve Albini review quote is a bit lengthy, especially since it is so overwhelmingly positive.
- Unfortunately, the Albini review is the only contemporary review of Spiderland, but it is also one of the most notable reviews of the album (it is often mentioned in articles about the band or the album). --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why aren't the reviews mentioned in the Reception section mentioned in the infobox?
- All of them were, except for the Rolling Stone one, which I added.
- "Spiderland's sales have gradually increased through time." Isn't this a really obvious statement? I understand what you mean, but it sounds like "Spiderland has sold more copies has time has past." Furthermore, this implies sales data, which begs for a citation.
- Done
- "Spiderland has become a landmark indie rock album and is considered, along with Talk Talk's Laughing Stock, to have been the primary catalyst of the post-rock and math rock genres." is a very broad statement to make, especially since it's only backed up with a single source.
- Done backed up with a second source.
- "In spite of plans" I think you mean "Despite"?
- Done
- Why is the Jim DeRogatis quote split up into two quotes?
- Done
- I'm not sure what "(*) designates unordered lists." refers to.
- Done Got rid of it, unnecessary.
- The infobox has "Touch & Go" and the intro says "Touch & Go Records", but both should probably be "Touch and Go Records", if only to be consistent, as well as to maintain encyclopedic formality, but also to reflect the full name of the label. Touch & Go is also mentioned as such in the Legacy section.
I hope the above doesn't sound too daunting. Overall my comments are relatively minor: the article is generally very informative and well-conceived. If you can take care of the above notes, I'd be happy to lend my support. Drewcifer (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work! Definitely FA quality. Though I still have reservations about the context section and the glowing Albini quote, a difference of opinion shouldn't hold the article back. Keep up the good work! Drewcifer (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not opposing, but there are a few things to fix. I copy-edited the opening (hope some of those statements are referenced further down!).
- Where a quote is wound into a larger WP sentence, put the period after the closing q marks. (MOS)
- Done
- See MOS on final period in captions that are not full sentences—here, all of them.
- Done
- Text in sample boxes goes beyond the right side of my window—perhaps it's my Safari browser? Doesn't happen in other articles. Info on sampled songs in the main text is excellent.
- I'm not sure what this is caused by. I checked on Safari (I typically browse in FireFox) and the error didn't appear. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why link that little-known country the US? And I see further linking of obscure countries in the table at the bottom. Save us the untidy blue splotches, and leave the high-value links undiluted for our readers, yes?
- Done
- I think MOS says to prefer three normal periods for ellipsis dots. And when they come after a period, use four dots unspaced. Tony (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- Where a quote is wound into a larger WP sentence, put the period after the closing q marks. (MOS)
- Notes: In addition to the MOS items mentioned by Tony, MOS:CAPS#All caps, Frere-Jones, Sasha. "YOU THOUGHT I WAS BACKING OUT". sfj.abstractdynamics.org, July 25, 2005. Retrieved on November 11, 2007. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- 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 promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.
Treehouse of Horror (series)
I feel that the article meets the current FAC criteria. It is fully sourced and has improved quite a bit since the last nom. -- Scorpion0422 04:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the point of this to make THOH a featured topic? Ribbet32 (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While it could be a possibility in the very far future, no. The point of this is to get the Treehouse of Horror (series) article to FA. Gran2 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about anyone else, but I currently have no intentions of trying for a Treehouse of Horror FT. -- Scorpion0422 23:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Let's just discuss one WP:FAC at a time, topic drive discussions can take place at the relevant WikiProject or topic drive pages. As for that potential idea, it's nice for this topic and could work, but I agree with Gran2 (talk · contribs) that this is probably something that is a long ways off. Cirt (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't know about anyone else, but I currently have no intentions of trying for a Treehouse of Horror FT. -- Scorpion0422 23:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While it could be a possibility in the very far future, no. The point of this is to get the Treehouse of Horror (series) article to FA. Gran2 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very well sourced, well-written. Just one thing, you might want to create a disambiguation page for Treehouse of Horror (moving Treehouse of Horror to Treehouse of Horror (episode)), and add the relevant see also links and such to that page, and then have a disambiguation note at the top of this article and the other articles. Would be easier for those not familiar with Wikipedia navigation. Cirt (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm unsure whether it is "very well sourced. Ref 53 led me to a glitzy, tiny black-background lewdly formatted commercial-soaked site where the reviewer, one Dan Iverson, has written things such as: "Plus this sketch was too outright with its satire of the war in Iraq. We understand the purpose of satirizing the state of the war, but they wrote it so heavy-handed that it was like they were ...". The prose is amateurish, it appears to be very opinionated (do we really trust his judgement that the satire was "outright", whatever that means?), and the statement in the WP article this is used to back up—well, it's that the standard of the later episodes declined. I'm not sure I believe it from this reference. 1c Tony (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is an article from IGN, we can't really change or criticize the reviewer's prose itself, rather simply test whether or not the use of that source fits with WP:RS and WP:V, which it does. Cirt (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- IGN is a very useful site and is known for their reviews. Just because this one happens to be poorly written is not our fault. The reason it is used as a source is because of this quote: "Unfortunately like the past few years, this Treehouse episode isn't up to the quality that was started so many years back - if you need proof, just look at the sketches that we compiled on our list of the Top 10 Segments from The Simpsons' Treehouse of Horror." -- Scorpion0422 16:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is an article from IGN, we can't really change or criticize the reviewer's prose itself, rather simply test whether or not the use of that source fits with WP:RS and WP:V, which it does. Cirt (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Rejoinder: well, you assert that it's "very useful", but the quality of the prose does detract from its credibility. It's that and the fact it contains several highly opinionated, possibly contentious statements that are neither referenced (I guess I wouldn't expect that), nor supported by example or a more detailed argument. My problem is that by using a dodgy source, even one that is "known for their reviews" (among whom, I wonder), WP can be endorsing what might turn out to be falsehoods, or assumptions that are later overturned. It's a slippery slope. All I'm asking is that you re-examine your references to ensure that they are worth inserting and do reliably support the apposite statements. Tony (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did google searches of several different reliable sources, and I can't find anything other than reviews of individual episodes that say that specific episode is no good, but nothing that mentions the decline of the entire group. I think the quality decline should be noted as most fans will tell you that the last 9 are nowhere near as good as the first 9. IGN is a reliable source and it's reviews are used on several FAs, and it's really not our fault that this particular review happens to not be perfectly written. It's still a reliable source, and the decline in quality really isn't just the POV of one reviewer. -- Scorpion0422 00:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- "Considered non-canon, they always take place outside the normal continuity of the show and completely abandon any pretense of being realistic." -- Forgive me if I missed something, but it appears that this info is only stated in the Lead/Intro, and not later in the article. Though this may seem obvious to Simpsons fans, is there a source backing this up? Cirt (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Dead links check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks good. 1a seem to be the only issue.
- "There are currently 18" isn't as of 2007 better? Done
- "category, but it ultimately lost." why ultimately?
- because ultimately lost sounds better.
- "four parts: an opening and Halloween-themed version of the credits as well as three segments" what is the diffrence between a part and a segments.
- I'm not sure I understand your concern. There are four seperate parts of an episode (or acts), the first one is the opening, the final three are segments. They are simply described as parts for that sentence.
- Why is the opening a "part" while the other three are "segments"? Buc (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The opening is not described as a part. They are just described as parts for that segment, because it is important to explain that there are four completely distinct parts to the episodes.
- Why is the opening a "part" while the other three are "segments"? Buc (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I understand your concern. There are four seperate parts of an episode (or acts), the first one is the opening, the final three are segments. They are simply described as parts for that sentence.
- "The wraparounds were abandoned after a few years because eventually, the amount of airtime for an episode was lessened and there was not enough room for them." Awkward wording. Don't like the use of abandoned, eventually, lessened and room. Done
- Traits might be a better section title than Traditions
- The producers on the commentary refer to them as traditions, so that's the word the article uses.
- "opens with a special introductory segment" why special? also now it's a segment but before it was a part.
- "Scary names" why a quotation marks and isn't "Credits" a better title.
- ""Treehouse of Horror V" is considered the best episode by several critics" needs ref.
- Further on down the sentence, there are several specific examples, all of which have citations.
- The bit about the IGN list seem a bit redundent. All it's saying is there was a top ten and this is what it was.
- Over linking of the individual episodes thoughout I think.
- They are linked so as to help remind people what episode it each example is talking about. All of them are similarily titled and it would be difficult for non-fans to know specifically what episode is being described, so if people say "which one is Treehouse of Horror VI?", there is a link right there and they don't have to search the article.
- In the Awards section. Put the stuff about awards they've won before the stuff about nominations.
- Also in the Awards section lose the stuff about them not winning. Clearly if it's saying they were only nominated they didn't win it. Done
- "However, the award went to an episode of Pinky & The Brain." nothing to do with the Treehouse of Horror series.
- It's just there for comprehensiveness, so if people wonder what show the episode lost to, it's right there. -- Scorpion0422 23:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Using that logic you might as well mention all the nominations for every award that night and even what coulour tie the host was wearing. It still has nothing to do with the subject. Buc (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it does, because it lost to Pinky and the Brain, it's not like it goes into detail about the other shows that were nominated that year. -- Scorpion0422 23:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A better when to information people of related info is through links to other articles. In this case this link would work.
- Yes it does, because it lost to Pinky and the Brain, it's not like it goes into detail about the other shows that were nominated that year. -- Scorpion0422 23:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Using that logic you might as well mention all the nominations for every award that night and even what coulour tie the host was wearing. It still has nothing to do with the subject. Buc (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just there for comprehensiveness, so if people wonder what show the episode lost to, it's right there. -- Scorpion0422 23:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I looked over it, and it's very well written and referenced. Good job! xihix(talk) 20:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. Non-breaking spaces and em-dashes are needed. I'm a little concerned with the sourcing of the DVD commentaries; are there transcripts available online? A fair use rationale is needed for each image, each time it is used in each article. I'm a little concerned with two screenshot images (the top one and the one of Bart and Lisa in the treehouse), as they seem to be decoration. From the Fair use page for acceptable images, Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. However, they don't seem to fit that. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This may sound like a real noobish question, but what are Non-breaking spaces and em-dashes? To answer your question, no the DVD commentaries aren't available online (and if they were we couldn't use them as sources due to copyright issues), but I personally listened to every commentary used in the episode and I guarantee it's all based on what is said. I'll admit that the lead image is kind of decorative, but the image of Bart and Lisa illustrates that it is the only episode to have a scene in a treehouse, which is discussed in the text. -- Scorpion0422 05:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-breaking space means it should be 2 minutes, not 2 minutes (view that in the editing window). Also, em-dashes are — instead of - (again, see in edit window). It should be 20–22 minutes. I suppose that's fine about the commentaries; after all, the words straight from the creators are pretty reliable. Regarding the images, though, you need a better fair use rationale for each one used in the article. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This may sound like a real noobish question, but what are Non-breaking spaces and em-dashes? To answer your question, no the DVD commentaries aren't available online (and if they were we couldn't use them as sources due to copyright issues), but I personally listened to every commentary used in the episode and I guarantee it's all based on what is said. I'll admit that the lead image is kind of decorative, but the image of Bart and Lisa illustrates that it is the only episode to have a scene in a treehouse, which is discussed in the text. -- Scorpion0422 05:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support very encyclopedic and informative :) --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 12:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's about time! (SUDUSER)85 14:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 01:51, 21 January 2008.
Edgar Allan Poe
previous FAC: Archive 1 | Archive 2
Nomination restarted (Old nom) Raul654 (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport Looks pretty good. Here are some initial comments:- and is considered part of the American Romantic Movement. what part specifically did he play in the American Romantic movement?
- Poe and his works influenced literature in the United States and around the world, as well as in specialized fields, such as cosmology and cryptography. Poe and his work appear throughout popular culture in literature, music, films, and television. A number of his homes are dedicated museums today. scrap this whole part, and just do a much better paragraph about his legacy.
- As Poe began his literary career, he would soon be forced to constantly make humiliating pleas for money and other assistance for the rest of his life. Reads awkward.
On May 16, 1836, he had a second marriage in Richmond with Virginia Clemm, this time in public. Maybe rephrase it? It wasn't a second marriage, but a second ceremony (perhaps?) and done publicly because ___.- The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym was published and widely reviewed in 1838. How about quoting some of the reviews, particularly interesting and revealing ones? Maybe one review that was helpful and one that wasn't? Also maybe this should be a section? Also describe that this is his only complete novel, his first novel, and did it earn money? how many copies were first printed? was it a dud, did it have a following? elaboration here would be great.
- Also in 1839, the collection Tales of the Grotesque and Arabesque was published in two volumes, though he made little money off of it and it received mixed reviews. so his novel is widely reviewed, and his collection has mixed reviews. Perhaps you could illustrate a little better how they were received by critics?
- Maybe: mention if he was best known for his collections and never really took off as a novelist. Also, you don't mention his first novel in the lede.
Meaning in literature, he said in his criticism, should be an undercurrent just beneath the surface; works with obvious meanings cease to be art. This sentence could be rephrased to read easier.Poe was one of the first American authors of the 19th century to become more popular in Europe. more popular in Europe than previous American authors? or than in his own country?- Even so, Poe has not received only praise. maybe instead characterize introductory-like the criticism leveled at him? because there is praise, and then there is everything else.
- Friedman's initial interest in cryptography came from reading "The Gold-Bug" as a child - interest he later put to use in deciphering Japan's PURPLE code during World War II. an em-dash or an en-dash may be appropriate here. See WP:DASH.
- In Boston, a plaque hangs near the building where Poe was born once stood. maybe rephrase to... a plaque hangs nearby the grounds where a building once stood in which Poe was born... or something.
Though the name has changed and it is now known as The Horse You Came In On, local lore insists that a ghost they call "Edgar" haunts the rooms above. this could read easier.
I don't know Poe well, or really at all, so I enjoyed reading this, but perhaps someone with more familiarity with the subject can do a review on the accuracy of this article. Very well-written IMHO.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have put in my support for this excellent article on Poe.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A great article, very well-referenced. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport I continue to believe that this excellent article can achieve FA status with just a bit more work:
- Poe and his works influenced literature in the United States and around the world, as well as in specialized fields, such as cosmology and cryptography. Poe and his work appear throughout popular culture in literature, music, films, and television. A number of his homes are dedicated museums today. - This lead paragraph needs to explain Poe's legacy more specifically.
Many of his works are generally considered part of the dark romanticism genre, a literary reaction to transcendentalism,[76] which Poe strongly disliked. - Can you explain this a bit more, say in a sentence or two?- I think that the "Physics and cosmology" section is best included under "Literary style and themes".
- I still think this should be moved as the section does not explain a legacy Poe had in this area. If he did have an influence, the section should explain it. However, I tend to think that some sort of "Scientific theories" section under "Literary style and themes" would be better since the editor has rightly identified this as an important topic in Poe's works. Awadewit | talk 03:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that Eureka "anticipated" the Big Bang theory (I looked at the source the article cites and I don't think it supports such a statement). I think the wording has to be more precise there.The first few sentences of "Literary theory" can be condensed.I would move the "Poe toaster" section to the "Museum" section and rename that section. The Poe toaster, as part of Poe fan culture, seems closer to museums, etc. than to Poe's "Legacy" (current location). Currently, the "Legacy" section feels a bit disparate.
I look forward to supporting this article very soon! Awadewit | talk 07:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My previous concerns have been addressed. Karanacs (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very enjoyable read. --Moni3 (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Today is Poe's 199th birthday. You know what would make a great birthday present for him? Promoting this article to featured. :) Thanks for all the support folks! I tried to take care of as many of your suggestions as possible. I didn't respond here because I was afraid I would get defensive or put my foot in my mouth. So, don't think I was ignoring any of you. Anyway, happy birthday, Eddy. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 01:51, 21 January 2008.
Wormshill
Nomination restarted (old nom) Raul654 (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per my comments in the previous nomination. Mike Christie (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Epbr123 (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This is about the best article I've ever seen about a very small village. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I did the GA review and I'm blown away at the rate and quality of work that has been done to this article. No issues. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent article, well organized and well written. Cla68 (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support all my previous comments were addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all previous concerns have been accepted and taken. Meets FAC criteria in my opinion. Rudget. 17:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -nice prose and comprehensive. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - My concerns from the previous FAC have been dealt with. Lurker (said · done) 17:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great work. An excellent article. LordHarris 20:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - This has come to together very well. maclean 23:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I'm amazed how much this has improved during its featured-article candidacy. Bluap (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Why was this restarted? Tony (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -can't see anything to fix Jimfbleak (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 13:59, 22 December 2007.
Final Fantasy Tactics
Self-nomination. I'm trying this again. Currently a Good Article. Article has been given proper citations as with other Featured Final Fantasy game articles. Images have also been given fair use rationales. Formatting is addressed. No glaring grammar mistakes. — Blue。 09:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - The reception section is lacking. This is a PSOne game released in 1997/1998, yet the critical reception section relies solely on GameSpot and IGN, sources that were no influential, respected or well read at the time. There is no reception from any country outside of the United States. There is no sales data. - hahnchen 17:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I've wrote in sales figures and inserted the sources. The only reception for a country outside Japan is a poll by a Japanese magazine, but it is suffice. Please outline reviewers or sources that are considered influential, respected or well read at the time. — Blue。 21:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Game reviews are just like music reviews, IGN and GameSpot are fine for recent releases, just as Pitchfork Media and All Music Guide are for albums. But for something a bit older? I'd want to hear from Rolling Stone and the NME. Review quotes from EGM, Game Informer, or Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine would be a lot stronger than the current lineup. I'm not familiar with RPGfan, and do not believe that their arguments add anything to the reception section. I'd want some Japanese reaction contemporary with the release though, Famitsu's score should be enough. - hahnchen 23:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Found Famitsu score, and a quote from one of the three magazines stated above. RPGFan's argument is a valid criticism on the game, that is unless a stronger reception can be found and placed instead. — Blue。 12:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The single Metacritic snippet from EGM isn't enough to satisfy my concern with the article. Why have you chosen to use the 2000 RPGFan review over the 1998 RPGFan review? Either way, the box out should show that there were in fact two reviews from two writers at RPGFan. Right now, it reads as if the single RPGFan quote is their single official take on the game. - hahnchen 17:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I've inserted another magazine quote. And the two reviews generally convey the same criticism, though there are noted differing opinions, so have been tweaked. — Blue。 20:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I've wrote in sales figures and inserted the sources. The only reception for a country outside Japan is a poll by a Japanese magazine, but it is suffice. Please outline reviewers or sources that are considered influential, respected or well read at the time. — Blue。 21:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - With the addition of sales figures and reception information from other countries, this article is finally comprehensive and is referenced from top to bottom. It will make a good Featured article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Bluerfn's nomination. Greg Jones II 22:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Too many unreferenced claims; for example Setting and Characters have not a single reference.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Done References have been made for the plot section. It may be in-game reference but it is suffice to support the claims. — Blue。 19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, there are still paragraphs missing citation. First para in Legacy and in Development.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done References have been made. — Blue。 10:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where's the citation for the last para in characters? The Legacy section still has its last para missing citation, too.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done References have been made. — Blue。 20:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done References have been made for the plot section. It may be in-game reference but it is suffice to support the claims. — Blue。 19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The article is well written, comprehensive, follows style guidelines and has appropriate images. An excellent article in my opinion. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Support another vastly comprehensive and well-done FF article, good job. igordebraga ≠ 19:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Unfortunately, one of the source (#71) is a Tripod page from a fansite. It isn't a reliable source! FFXII International + Paul Rodgers (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all issues that were raised have been taken care of to my satisfaction. --PresN (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Bluerfin, have you asked the Opposers to revisit? Please complete all websource citations per WP:CITE/ES; all need a publisher and last accessdate, and author and publication date when available. Most of the sources do not identify the publisher. Did reviewers check for reliability of sources when source publishers weren't even listed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 03:55, 27 December 2007.
Francis Harvey
Self-nominated article on posthumous First World War Royal Marines Victoria Cross recipient. Is a GA and has been peer reviewed. All comments welcome. Jackyd101 (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks good. Aren't there any plaques or such dedicated to him? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou. I expected there would be too, but I had a search online (where there is a databse of memorials) and couldn't find any. If anyone turns one up then please add it to the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opposein general it's nicely written, pretty,but...Seems strongly lacking in references/citations,"Harvey's guns again caused devastation" - isn't this a bit too POVish "encyclopedia Britannica" tone? - - rather common in the article. - this guy is a hero isn't he?
--Keerllston 16:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To address your issues one at a time, a) If you think something is uncited then please add a [citation needed] tag to that point and I will endeavour to source it. b)
What exactly is your point?Are you suggesting that the article is unencyclopedic in tone?If that's what you mean then please just say so without snide references to "encyclopedia Britannica". Do not make sarcastic comments at FAC, it's rude.
- To address your issues one at a time, a) If you think something is uncited then please add a [citation needed] tag to that point and I will endeavour to source it. b)
- I will attempt to edit this
so-called"heroism" out of the article, perhaps you could aid me by giving some more examples of it. (FYI, given its context in the article I don't think devastation is inappropriate where it is. Its hardly a heroic adjective and does quite factually describe the effects of his gunnery on both German forces. Nevertheless, perhaps you would prefer "serious damage" instead?)--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Given improved quality Opposition withdrawn.--Kiyarrllston 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh... as to b) - didn't mean to be snide or sarcastic. - I believe I didn't find how to phrase it properly and therefore phrased my concern improperly... I'm sorry for that.
- in regards to a) - it is a symptom not the actual problem - it can signify lack of comprehensiveness, verifyability, and work hours put into it.
- --Kiyarrllston 05:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given improved quality Opposition withdrawn.--Kiyarrllston 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will attempt to edit this
Please discuss the authorship and reliability of this source, which appears to be a personal webpage:http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst the host is indeed a personal webpage, the specific part of the page quoted is here. This, as the page states is copied from an unpublished memoir of an officer aboard HMS Lion named Alexander Grant held at the Imperial War Museum. A search here has not yielded results, but as only 65% of documents have been digitised, this means very little. I have contacted the owner of the page to ask if he can provide any proof of provenance, but I think this link is valid as the source is a memoir of a participant, not an opinion piece.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update, I have recieved an e-mail from the owner of this page who has provided me with the details of this passage. It is indeed from the Imperial War Museum, unedited, and thus qualifies as an acceptable source. Details can be provided if required.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst the host is indeed a personal webpage, the specific part of the page quoted is here. This, as the page states is copied from an unpublished memoir of an officer aboard HMS Lion named Alexander Grant held at the Imperial War Museum. A search here has not yielded results, but as only 65% of documents have been digitised, this means very little. I have contacted the owner of the page to ask if he can provide any proof of provenance, but I think this link is valid as the source is a memoir of a participant, not an opinion piece.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeuntil the huge sentences are tamed. For example: "Specially requested for HMS Lion, the flagship of the British battlecruiser fleet, Harvey turned her into one of the very best ships for gunnery in the Royal Navy and in her fought at the battles of Heligoland Bight, Dogger Bank and Jutland, during which the guns under his command sank two German cruisers and almost destroyed the German battlecruiser flagship SMS Seydlitz." Why not make it: "... the Royal Navy; in this ship, he fought at ..."? Give the poor readers a chance to take a breathe. If you have to use the female attributive, don't repeat it so shortly after. Also:
- 13.5"—thought it was a closing quotation mark—13.5-inch guns. Done
- Q in quotes; Lion's itaclics? Perhaps, but check the logic. I see that Chambers didn't use the quote marks.
- Little explination here. "Q" is the style used by the London Gazette, whilst Snelling and the other books use a plain Q. Chambers is from Snelling hence Q whilst I originally went with "Q" as per the London Gazette. I have now reveresed this so that Q is used as standard in the article and the only incident of "Q" is in a quote from the London Gazette. As for the italicising of Lion, it is standard both on Wikipedia and elsewhere to italicise the names of ships but not their prefixes (eg HMS). This is following that convention.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See MOS on formatting of times: colon, not period. Done
- Stilted prose: "Turning to his sergeant, the one man still standing, Harvey instructed him to give a full report to Admiral Beatty. Then, the ship saved, Harvey collapsed dead." - Attempted, hopefully this is better now.
- Pedantry: space after "p." in the notes (inconsistent). Done
It's worth promoting after another massage. Tony (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Query I note abnormally large sentences in section Jutland - I am not sure if they are run-on sentences, but they don't seem very pretty either way - could you tell me if this is improvable or not even a problem?"Harvey, despite severe wounds and burns, realised that the shell hoist leading to the ship's main forward magazine was jammed open[,] and that the flash fire would rapidly travel down it[,] resulting in a main magazine explosion[,] that would tear the ship in two and kill everyone on board."
--Kiyarrllston 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.
Altrincham
I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because it conforms with WP:UKCITIES and I think it is a well developed article with plenty of references and meets the criteria of FAC. Any constructive criticism is welcome, thanks. Nev1 12:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some more copyediting needed. For example:
- "There are a total of 5 Grade II Listed Churches in Altrincham" - spell out 5, "a total of" is redundant
- "lower than the 21.3% all of Trafford" - missing an "in"
- "including the 18th century Dunham Massey Hall" - hyphen needed
- "All of these churches have been Listed Buildings since 1985" - redundant "of"
- "There is currently one synagogue" - "currently" is redundant
- Some incorrect dash usage. Epbr123 13:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Malleus Fatuorum 15:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some more:
- "Since 1290 Altrincham was a Free Borough, a self governing township"
- "a population of around 67,000" - "around" isn't needed, it's indicated by the 0s
- "Running through Broadheath in Altrincham is a Roman road that links the Roman fortress of Chester (Deva) and the fort of York (Eboracum)" - comma needed either after Broadheath or Altrincham
- "and is one of only six Grade I Listed Buildings in Trafford" - is the "only" needed?
- The economy section needs info other than stats, such as on local industries. Epbr123 15:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some more:
- Comment There are a few examples of several reference superscripts running one after the other (eg the demography stats). If you run them all together, separated by <br />•, it looks a whole lot neater without losing any information. I'd do it myself, but I'm tight for time. Mr Stephen 16:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure? Doesn't that start a new line, which would lead to a lot of white space? Nev1 16:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've obviously not made it clear - sorry. See Intelligent design for an example of it in use. In markup it's
- <ref name=stats>{{cite web ...}}<br />•{{cite web ...}}</ref>
- and then <ref name=stats/> as required. Mr Stephen 17:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure? Doesn't that start a new line, which would lead to a lot of white space? Nev1 16:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - passes FAC criteria in my opinion. All requirements here have been filled out. I've used this page as a template for other projects before, and as for the comprehensiveness... — Rudget speak.work 21:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I like the article very much but maybe it is just me but it looks weird having a picture of the market next to the Sport section. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 21:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose A few issues with the Sport section, which tends towards recentism. In addition to the two wins of what is now the Conference, which in the present day would earn Football League status, the football club is primarily noted for FA Cup "giant-killings" in the 1970s and 80s, beating several Football League teams and achieving draws against top division teams Everton and Spurs. The town's two previous ice hockey teams (Trafford Metros and Altrincham Aces) are not mentioned, nor is the Devonshire Road rink which for a number of years was the feature of Altrincham best known by those from other places in the region. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey no one's perfect, I don't follow football or ice hockey. If you've got material to add, with sources, go right ahead, you certainly seem to know your stuff. Is the old ice rink notable though? I agree it was well known in Altrincham, but it has been superceded. Nev1 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to use modern-speak for the main units: see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Which_system_to_use. Tony (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an article about a UK settlement, so it uses the normal UK-speak for units. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to oppose, since, like similar articles with ?similar authors, the prose needs careful copy-editing throughout. Do I need to provide examples, or are you willing to engage others from related articles in the field to sift through it? Tony (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, it's hard to know what you're objecting to without at least a few examples. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Clearly a Good article (and officially designated as such), I have a few concerns with the article. Namely:
- Per WP:LEAD and WP:MOS, the lead section possibly needs a rethink. I had a blast myself at the first paragraph, but the second seems disproportionatly large, and the third is a lone sentence. I know Altrincham to be one of the more glamorous (I am from Oldham!) or at least desirable towns in Greater Manchester, and a hub for upper-middle-classes and large detached homes - I would expect something about this in the lead (if a source can be found).
- "completion of the Altrincham section of the Bridgewater Canal in 1776" - was it actually called the Altrincham section or was it the opening of the canal upto Altrincham? Also, according to a source I have, this part of the canal was opened in 1775 not 1776 (which is when the entirity of the canal was opened). I would also consider changing the word "prosperity" with "Further economic development"' in the lead about this.
- Although not a barrier to FA as such, some of the images appear a little banal and don't seem to do the text justice. All of these are images from Flickr that have a Creative Commons licence that may allow them on Wikipedia/Wikicommons. There are even some intersting ones from the early 1900s. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dead links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 3 have been sorted out, one needs to have a new source found because the original is 404 (that's why a chached link was used). What should be done about the images of England links, are they unacceptable? Nev1 (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the Images of England links (I think), that just leaves the missing page at the council web site. Mr Stephen (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Nicely written. It was enjoyable to read. —MJCdetroit (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Many of the sources have no identifiable publisher, examples:
- Anon. The History of Hale One Act Festival. Retrieved on July 10, 2007.
- Anon. The Club Theatre History. Retrieved on July 10, 2007.
See WP:CITE/ES and please complete all sources to include article title and publisher, last accessdate on all websources, and author and publication date when available (it's not necessary to list "anon"). Did reviewers check reliability of sources, considering publishers aren't listed? Also, a google cache is not a reliable source, and that needs to be replaced. This source, for example:
has an author and publication date that are not listed in the footnote, and it is used more than once (please see WP:FN on how to use named refs for repeat sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuing to oppose until the MOS breaches are fixed. There are prose glitches, too. For example: I've fixed the first two units; the others need to be reversed. Minus sign or en dash in geog. coordinates. Read about final periods in captions, and "Words as words" at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Italics. MOS: no hyphen after "-ly". 4 --> four. Compared with, not to, for contrasts. "There is a low proportion of non-white people; 95.4% of residents were recorded as white."—are both clauses necessary? "The largest minority group was recorded as Jewish, at 2.8% of the population."—Remove "recorded as"? "Altrincham's 15.5% level of employment"—"rate of unemployment. "early 20th-century"—another hyphen required, as elsewhere in the article. Theatres "formed" or "constructed"? Unsure whether you're referring to buildings or groups of people. MOS proscribes curly quotes. "Precint" misspelling in ref section. Ref 84 specify the author. Mixed title and sentence case for titles in ref section. WP prefers sentence case, but not mandatory (should be consistent, though). Tony (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As of now, the units part of the MOS is "For UK-related, the main units are either metric or imperial (consistently within an article)". That was what the MOS said for quite some time, certainly during this article's development, but there was a brief period recently when it said something else. So miles are perfectly acceptable from a WP point of view, and they are the units used on the local government web site covering Altrincham. Mr Stephen (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ME SO WE KNOW WHAT STILL NEEDS DOING AS SOME ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED!! (WHY ARE WE SHOUTING?) Nev1 (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:TALK and the instructions at WP:FAC and undo any edits made to another editor's posts. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've undone it. Nev1 (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ME SO WE KNOW WHAT STILL NEEDS DOING AS SOME ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED!! (WHY ARE WE SHOUTING?) Nev1 (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would love this to be an FA, but still have some challenges which I think need to be met before I could support this, namely:
- There is a one sentence paragraph in the lead. Could this be expanded or amalgamated somehow?
- In Geography there is nothing about the built environment or urban structure of Altrincham. Subsquently, this section appears a little thin.
- In Demography could something be found about the social class of Altrincham, and some commentary about Altrincham's demography, historically?
- Present day is my largest worry. I believe material in this section could, and should, be merged into other sections. Certainly stuff about retail would be suited to Economy, whilst material about dwellings would be well placed in Geography or Demography. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The one sentence paragraph in the lead has been expanded; more has been added to the demography section, including the change of social classes over the last 70 years; and the entire Present day section was moved under Economy as this seemed most appropriate (there wasn't really much on dwellings). Nev1 (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support is the only option I have in that case then! I would like to see a high quality image in the infobox at some point down the line (and I'll try to help with that), but other than that, this seems as FA as any other article I've seen. Well done! -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think all the units are now in the Imperial (metric) form, allowable by the MOS (and overwhelmingly used by the sources). I've been through the references and all now contain the date where given on the source. I can't see any abuses of the dash or the minus sign. Unless I've missed or forgotten something (sing!), it's compliant. I think the style issues have been addressed. Looks clear to go to me. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Ok, since I am going through a similar process now I thought I'd stop by. Have picked up a few uncontroversial (I hope) edits already but had the following thoughts:
- Lead - "a time when most communities were based around agriculture rather than trade" - I see this comes from the History section but it's a bold statement and a bit ambiguous in this formulation. As it stands it might refer to all "communities" in England or the local area - which is it? Also isn't agriculture part of trade? If other communities were based around agriculture, how did they prosper without trade? or are you suggesting those communities were only concerned with subsistence living? If Altrincham was a trailblazer in the area for a trading economy, this needs to be more forcefully stated and cited.
- History - "became very desirable...for rich businessmen to live" probably needs a cite. It may be that it is taken from the demographic/census stats later in the article but saying "very desirable" is a loaded statement that implies house prices rising (in today's parlance) or some evidence of folk clamoring to get in on the action.
- Done "Rich businessmen" can be a bit relative, so changed so that it refers to the middle classes.
- History - At least part of the area still seems to have been industrial around the time of WWII. Given its proximity to Manchester and the number of industrial buildings it may have been a target of Luftwaffe bombing raids. Is there anything you can add about bomb sites, damage or anti-aircraft defences? The history section drops off in the 1930s, perhaps something else happened in the last 70-80 years?
- Geography - "United Utilities obtains the town's drinking water from the Lake District". This sounds interesting and unusual. Why does Altrincham have to get its water from so far away? Does all of Manchester get its water from such a distance or are there out-of-town reservoirs and treatment plants? Is there a deficiency in the water table or some other geological reason that relates? I have not read the full report cited but it would appear this is ripe for expansion.
- Geography - What is the topography of the area? Is it flat or undulating? Is the town perched on a hill? I see that Bowden used to be downland. How does Altrincham's layout pay homage to its topography. Medieval settlements are rarely formed without reference to the lie of the land.
- Economy - "In 1801 there were four cotton mills in Altincham, part of its textile industry, although that had vanished by the mid-19th century." Presumably this was due to the nationwide decline of the industry and not a localised failing? If so, it's not clear here. Also, when were the mills actually closed? Were they demolished or did they simply adapt to new industries? Are they now trendy apartments? The use of "vanishing" is dramatic and suggests rapid decline but it is unclear how mass employers such as these disappeared off the map.
- Done Given some context.
- Economy - "stockbroker belt". Is this a term which actually used in the source? As the wiki stockbroker belt suggests this is more readily a London or Home Counties concept. It might be used incorrectly by the local populace however and as a compromise I'd suggest a "dormitory town for wealthy commuters". At the same time "sylvan opulence" is a rather grand phrase and not of universal understanding. Is this a cited term or can we tone it down?
- Economy - "The town has more recently fallen victim to decline" - what kind of decline? Is crime rife so shoppers are staying away? Are other areas more desirable for shopping? and, if so, why? Also, what part of the town has declined - the whole of it? Presumably you mean the retail districts as that is the general context but it could conceivably the residential areas that have suffered and dragged the town with them. I think it needs clarifying.
- Done Rephrased, the resaon was already there (competition from other places) but perhaps wasn't well phrased.
- Economy - "The average gross weekly income of households...was £653.." How does that compare with the national average? or the average for Greater Manchester? Non-UK readers won't have a point of reference. If Altrincham is bathing in "sylvan opulence" we need to see evidence.
- Done Figures given for the North West from statistics.gov.uk, figures for England are sadly unavailable. However, I'm not really comfortable with the term "sylvan opulence" being used in the article.
- Landmarks and attractions - "beauty spot" is not an international term of art and, as an assessment of aesthetic quality, comes across as subjective without citations. Perhaps lose the loaded introduction and just say that "On the outskirts of town are the 18th century Dunham Massey Hall and its 250 acre deer park..."
- Done Disposed of as suggested.
That's all I could see and are really just suggestions/pointers. There may be technical MOS breaches but I'm not the best person to pick those up. Will take another look in a few days and vote then. Best of luck. Dick G (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think these are very good points. Regarding stockbroker belt specifically - I added this bite of info, and it is quoted word-for-word I'm afraid. I don't see any harm in paraphrasing this however if we need to better the context. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 13:59, 22 December 2007.
Wulfhere of Mercia
Another Anglo-Saxon king. FAs for comparison: Penda of Mercia, his father; Eadbald of Kent, Cædwalla of Wessex and Ine of Wessex, near contemporaries. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towardssupport Another fine Anglo-Saxon king article! I have a few minor issues:
The first paragraph of the lead drifts away from Wulfhere, the topic of the article. Initially when I read that paragraph I was confused why the material about his family was being presented.
- I've restructured it somewhat to keep Wulfhere in the foreground. Mike Christie (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think it is a little distracting to introduce Wulfhere and then retreat to his family for the bulk of the paragraph and then return to Wulfhere, especially in the very first paragraph of the lead. I would seriously consider removing those two sentences entirely or place them much later. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, you convinced me. I cut them, and slightly expanded the second paragraph of the lead to compensate for the reduced lead size. Mike Christie (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think it is a little distracting to introduce Wulfhere and then retreat to his family for the bulk of the paragraph and then return to Wulfhere, especially in the very first paragraph of the lead. I would seriously consider removing those two sentences entirely or place them much later. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
England in the early seventh century was ruled almost entirely by the Anglo-Saxon peoples who had come to Britain in about the fifth century. - Where did these peoples come from?
Penda's children included Wulfhere and Æthelred, who would succeed Wulfhere on the throne of Mercia. - awkward construction - it sounds as if Wulfhere and Aethelred succeeded Wulfhere
The Chronicle, despite its later date, contains much information that appears to have been composed earlier and incorporated by the ninth-century scribe. - In context, I wonder if some readers might think that this scribe is Bede?
What do you think about adding a "see also" link to History of Anglo-Saxon England in the first section?
- Well, my long-term plan is to have the Mercia article have sufficient detail to be a "{{further}} link in sections like this for all the Mercian kings. For now I am not sure it's the best choice; I'd like this article to contain enough information that a reader can follow the story. I have wikilinked "Anglo-Saxon peoples" to Anglo-Saxons, which contains some historical background. However, if you feel it's an improvement to add the "See Also" link as it stands, I can go along with that. Mike Christie (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking of it more as a courtesy to the reader, not because there was a deficiency of any kind in the article. A sort of "if you're interested in learning more about this topic, go here" kind of thing. However, if you think Mercia would be a better choice for such a link, by all means add it. I was just thinking that such links might allow curious readers to flesh out their knowledge more. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough; I went ahead and added it. I do think that long-term it would be good to go through all the Anglo-Saxon articles and regularize what references what, but this is not the time to do that. Mike Christie (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that standardization is a lost cause on Wikipedia. I tried to do it with the Mary Wollstonecraft articles when I was nominating them for a featured topic, but I finally had to concede the futility of the project. :) By the way, I assume you are going to do some sort of featured topic on these kings? That would be a spectacular achievement. Awadewit | talk 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't originally intended to, but I have been toying with the idea of making Mercia a featured topic. There are quite a few kings (and a queen or two) to do, though some have so little data they could be merged with the main article. I would think there are at least ten more kings that need their own articles. I'm planning to do at least a couple more Mercian kings, and then think about it again. Mike Christie (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that standardization is a lost cause on Wikipedia. I tried to do it with the Mary Wollstonecraft articles when I was nominating them for a featured topic, but I finally had to concede the futility of the project. :) By the way, I assume you are going to do some sort of featured topic on these kings? That would be a spectacular achievement. Awadewit | talk 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough; I went ahead and added it. I do think that long-term it would be good to go through all the Anglo-Saxon articles and regularize what references what, but this is not the time to do that. Mike Christie (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking of it more as a courtesy to the reader, not because there was a deficiency of any kind in the article. A sort of "if you're interested in learning more about this topic, go here" kind of thing. However, if you think Mercia would be a better choice for such a link, by all means add it. I was just thinking that such links might allow curious readers to flesh out their knowledge more. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the way back to Mercia, Oswiu overtook Penda and on 15 November of 655 or 656 Oswiu and Penda fought on the banks of the river Winwaed, perhaps to be identified with the Went, a tributary of the Don. - "perhaps to be identified with" is an awkward construction
Penda remained a pagan throughout his life, however: he has been described as the last great pagan king of the Anglo-Saxons, though at his death in the 650s many Anglo-Saxons were yet to be converted. - I don't understand the "though".
- Penda has a special place in Anglo-Saxon history as the last great pagan warrior king; see this section of his WP article for a flavour of this. However, this doesn't mean that he was the last to be converted, and after his death England was a completely Christian nation. Both kings and common people remained pagan, though paganism was certainly nearing its end. Penda is remembered because among the last pagans, he stands out as a successful warrior and a dominant force. The "though" attempts to separate his semi-legendary status from the reality of the sequence of conversion. I can see this might be too compressed: can you say what needs to be added here? Mike Christie (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is how I understood the sentence when I read it: Even though Penda was the last great pagan king, most of his subjects were still pagan at his death. That is why it didn't make sense to me - if he was the last great pagan king, it would kind of make sense that most of subjects were unconverted. The logic of the "though" is confusing. What is the relationship between Penda's paganness and that of his subjects'? In this sentence, the "though" is distinguishing between Penda and his people, not between the historical Penda and the mythical Penda, if you see what I mean. Does that help at all? Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it does. I spent a bit of time thinking about this and finally decided to cut the offending clause. The article is about Wulfhere, after all, not Penda. I think that fixes the problem. Mike Christie (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is how I understood the sentence when I read it: Even though Penda was the last great pagan king, most of his subjects were still pagan at his death. That is why it didn't make sense to me - if he was the last great pagan king, it would kind of make sense that most of subjects were unconverted. The logic of the "though" is confusing. What is the relationship between Penda's paganness and that of his subjects'? In this sentence, the "though" is distinguishing between Penda and his people, not between the historical Penda and the mythical Penda, if you see what I mean. Does that help at all? Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wulfhere endowed a major monastery at Medeshamstede (modern Peterborough) reported in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. - awkward construction with "reported"
I think Anglo-Saxon Chronicle should be italicized as it is a major work of literature/history.
- Done. Mike Christie (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the early 670s King Cenwealh of Wessex died, and perhaps as a result of the stress caused by Wulfhere’s military activity the West Saxon kingdom fragmented and came to be ruled by underkings, according to Bede. (See Kirby 52-3) - There seems to be one MLA citation amidst all of the footnotes.
- Oops. Not really intended to be an MLS citation; that's just a left over note to myself from when I wrote that paragraph. Anyway, it's fixed; I converted it to a footnote. Mike Christie (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The widowed Queen Eormenhild entered religion, and probably became the abbess of Ely. - awkward construction with "entered religion"
His brother, Æthelred, succeeded him, and reigned for nearly thirty years. He recovered Lindsey from the Northumbrians a few years after his accession, but was generally unable to maintain the dominant position in the south that Wulfhere had been able to achieve. - Pronouns become confusing - best to start a paragraph with a proper noun, I think.
- '
'Jaruman was not the first incumbent of the see of Lichfield; Bede mentions a predecessor, Trumhere, but nothing is known about Trumhere’s activities or who appointed him. - is "incumbent" the right word? It sounded slightly off to me here, but I think this might be an AE/BE distinction. It is usually used in AE in the context of electoral politics: someone is challenging an "incumbent", or someone who already holds an elected position.
- I am irretrievably sullied with AE after twenty years over on the US side of the pond, but I am pretty sure this is correct BE usage for a bishopric. Is there an AE equivalent that I could use that would also sound natural in the UK? Mike Christie (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "holder"? Is that accurate? Or could you just say "the first see of Lichfield"? Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I fiddled with this and I eventually just decided to repeat "bishop of Lichfield". The intervening clause about the East Saxons provides just enough distance that I think the repetition is OK. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "holder"? Is that accurate? Or could you just say "the first see of Lichfield"? Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- '
Are there any images of related ruins? The article is a little bereft of color and layout excitement. :)
The article is a bit of a blizzard of names for someone like me who doesn't really know this period in history. Would a chart or family tree be possible?
- Done, for Wulfhere's immediate family. Take a look at Eadbald of Kent for an example of using one tree for parents and another for children; however, there's not as much data for Wulfhere as there was for Eadbald, so I think the one chart is enough. Mike Christie (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In the future, I would suggest adding bolstering footnotes so that the reader can be sure that the views presented in the article are not just the views of one historian, but a scholarly consensus. This is a suggestion for post-FAC, obviously.
- Yes, this is good practice, and I'll try to make sure I stick to it a little more closely in the future. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work - an informative, well-written and pleasurable article to read. Awadewit | talk 17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Thanks! And thanks for the detailed comments. Mike Christie (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose No infobox or photo of Wulfhere. Not comprehensive, no "Personal life" section and no "External links section". Plus a lot of info in the article is not relevant to Wulfhere. I see a few short paragraphs with only two sentences. The lead section is weak. For example, I don't know who "Oswiu" is yet and a lot of sentences start with "He". Someone please copy-edit the article. But I think it's almost good enough for GA. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Infoboxes are not required - photos cannot be obtained for people who lived during the Middle Ages - there is no set article structure that requires a "Personal life" section (particularly when so few details are known about a figure) - there is no requirement to have an "External links section". I felt that the background material was helpful to readers like myself who have only the dimmest knowledge of the period. Moreover, when so little solid information is known about a figure, this is usually what the biographies look like. Awadewit | talk 06:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kaypoh, I'm going to split up your points into separate bullets so I can respond to each individually, and so that you can reply under each one if appropriate.
- Infobox. Awadewit is right, as far as I know, that there is no requirement for an infobox. A requirement such as that could come from the FA requirements, or from a relevant WikiProject that has guidelines marked as part of the manual of style. For example, the Military History WikiProject has style guide that is part of the manual of style; any requirement in there is part of MOS. There is no requirement that I know of to have an infobox, and indeed I know of editors who actively dislike them, so they are not considered harmless to an article. For an example of a biographical FA from this period without an infobox, see Penda of Mercia, Wulfhere's father; I didn't work on that article, I should add, nor did I take it to FAC. For an example of a similar article with an infobox see Eadbald of Kent -- the material is so thin that without an image I don't think the infobox is very attractive. Having said all that I'd be willing to add the infobox if there were consensus here that it would be beneficial to the article, so let's see if someone else agrees.
- Photo. Well, of course there's no photo; I presume you meant to say picture. There are occasionally pictures done by later artists that have some interest in their own right; see Cædwalla of Wessex and Ælle of Sussex for two examples. Nothing like that exists for Wulfhere that I'm aware of. So I don't think there's anything that can be used here.
- Personal life. What's in the article is everything that is known about Wulfhere. Are you asking for a different organization? I don't think there's enough personal information to really justify a separate section; a paragraph in the section entitled "Ancestry and death of Penda" records what is known about his family.
- External links. I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Is there some requirement to have appropriate external links? Personally I like to try to get all the relevant information into the article so external links aren't needed, though for copyright (and other) reasons this isn't possible for every article. What did you have in mind?
- Not relevant to Wulfhere. Articles about obscure historical figures, particularly in areas of history that are not very well-known, do need background. If you can point to specific points that you think aren't really relevant to this article I'd be glad to trim it, but I believe some background is needed for readers who don't know the period.
- Short paragraphs. I know that one-sentence paragraphs are deprecated; I didn't think there was a problem with two-sentence ones. I see three examples; I've merged one, but I think the other two would be more disconcerting if merged with neighbours than they are now. Let me know if you think either of the remaining two are a problem.
- Oswiu -- good point; I've linked him in the first occurrence. That sentence does mention his overlordship, which is all you need to know about him in the lead -- I actually took out some additional information about him in response to Awadewit's comments. Does the link provide enough context?
- Sentences starting with "he". I've removed one instance of consecutive sentences starting with "he"; I think of this as a fairly invisible construction when the sentences are not consecutive. I'll think about this a bit more and see if I can find a rewrite to avoid one or two more occurences.
- Thanks for the comments; please let me know what you think of my answers. Mike Christie (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kaypoh, I'm going to split up your points into separate bullets so I can respond to each individually, and so that you can reply under each one if appropriate.
- Phrases like "appears to have been" and "may have been" are used a lot in this article. It would be better to replace at least some of them with something stronger-sounding- see WP:WEASEL. Lurker (said · done) 11:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But it would mislead the reader were the article to adopt a more certain tone. Little which might be said about Wulfhere is beyond all doubt. James Campbell (The Anglo-Saxon State, p. 59) refers to "the evasive prose that has to be part of every Dark Age historian's stock in trade". Alex Woolf (From Pictland to Alba, p. 10) mentions "'factoids'...things which everybody knows to be true but for which there is little or no evidence." Early Medieval history is an uncertain affair and it is right that Wikipedia articles reflect this.
- As for the specific example, the "suggestion" is covered by the footnote that follows the statement (Kirby, Earliest English Kings, pp. 94–95: "the River Winwaed...probably to be identified with the River Went"). It would be inaccurate to say "identified by Kirby with the River Went" as (a) Kirby says "probably" and (b) lots of other people do likewise - Keynes, "Penda" in the Blackwell Encyclopedia: "conceivably the River Went"; Williams, Kingship and Government: "probably to be identified with the River Went"; the indexer of the Penguin Bede "Winwaed river [Went, Yorks ?]" - and those that don't agree it was one of the many rivers flowing into the Humber - thus Swanton, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; Blair, Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England - and no doubt there are more. All of this suggests that Winwaed = Went is one of Woolf's 'factoids', but all we can do is repeat it: suggested, possibly, perhaps, said to be. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Angus is right, of course; but after taking another look at this specific example I decided that there was something useful I could do: I have moved the "suggested" commentary to a footnote, and expanded it to include the alternative suggestions, citing Swanton for that and using "e.g." to indicate there are other sources for each.
- For the others, I will have another look to see whether there are any natural places to either be more definite or to cite specific sources, but I think Angus is right that many of them are going to be hard to fix without making the text clunky with inline commentary about modern historians. I'll post here after I've had another think about this. Mike Christie (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One problem for me is the sheer number of "suggested"s and "may"s. I'd recommend trying to change some of them to something more definite. Personally, I dislike all passive-voiced statements of this nature, but WP:WEASEL appears to say that a few are OK. I'd concede some if they are well-footnoted and there is no way to improve them without making the text clunky, but would be hesitant about promoting an article with so many statements of this nature. I also think "a number of historians suggest" etc. sounds better than the passive-voiced version, provided these statements are supported by footnotes. If a single writer is the source of a statement, he should always be referred to by name as a source. Footnoting, as was done to the statemtn I referred to above, is a good way to refer to sources by name without cluttering the text. Lurker (said · done) 13:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Qp10qp has done a fairly comprehensive copy-edit of the article. Could you take another look and see if that's addressed enough of these statements? Mike Christie (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One problem for me is the sheer number of "suggested"s and "may"s. I'd recommend trying to change some of them to something more definite. Personally, I dislike all passive-voiced statements of this nature, but WP:WEASEL appears to say that a few are OK. I'd concede some if they are well-footnoted and there is no way to improve them without making the text clunky, but would be hesitant about promoting an article with so many statements of this nature. I also think "a number of historians suggest" etc. sounds better than the passive-voiced version, provided these statements are supported by footnotes. If a single writer is the source of a statement, he should always be referred to by name as a source. Footnoting, as was done to the statemtn I referred to above, is a good way to refer to sources by name without cluttering the text. Lurker (said · done) 13:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—Just one thing: please remove the period from the first caption. Tony (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for the support, Tony. (And the copy-edit.) Mike Christie (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Amusingly, there is no link to Mercia!
- Both paragraphs of the lead comment on the fact that Wulfhere was the most powerful king in southern Britain. These probably ought to be consolidated
- It is probably worth mentioning in the lead that Oswiu was from Northumbria (otherwise the reader might assume that his is also from Mercia)
- How can Wulfhere have been the first christian king of Mercia, if his brother Peada had previously been both king, and christian?
- In the section "Ancestry and death of Penda", the article says "his sons are both recorded as being young at his death". However Penda had three sons, not two.
- "Anglo-Saxon" or "Anglo–Saxon"? Bluap (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think these are all now fixed. Peada was king of southern Mercia, so I've changed the lead to say that Wulfhere was the first Christian king of all Mercia. Re the last point, I believe "Anglo-Saxon" is correct -- this is just ordinary hyphenation. Mike Christie (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Comprehensive and well-written as always. The images are very nice here too. Karanacs (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike, there's a contradiction in the article: "There are no records of Wulfhere having direct influence among the Lindesfara, whose territory, Lindsey, lay in what is now Lincolnshire." but you then go on to say that Wulfhere appointed the bishop and he was later forced to surrender Lindsey to Ecgfrith. So, he must have had influence over Lindsey! I have two other concerns both about his family: (1) Cynewise was Penda's wife at the time of his death, but is it known that she was the mother of his children, or could there have been an earlier wife? (2) There is some evidence that Wulfhere had a wife before Eormenhild: Eadburh, apparently a Hwicce princess, who (supposedly) became abbess at Gloucester, perhaps after being repudiated or dropped by Wulfhere in order to marry Eormenhild. She isn't mentioned at all, not even to rubbish the dubious story. See http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=40268#n4 and http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/30093 (you might need a subscription for one or other of these, in which case I can maybe e-mail you the text if you want it). DrKiernan (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think these are dealt with now. I'm not sure what the source was for the statement about Wulfhere not having direct influence among the Lindesfara; it's not supported by Kirby and may have come from the Williams, which I don't have access to (it was used by another editor). I think it must mean that that there is no record of any direct secular influence; that is, no charters and no record of conquests. Regardless, it was misleading at best, so I've reworded it. Good point on Cynewise -- she's mentioned exactly once, as "Penda's Queen", by Bede; she's generally assumed to be the mother of his children but it does no harm to be clear about the uncertainty here so I have added some explanation and referenced Bede. The Stafford article which is the other reference there only mentions her daughters as being "probably" hers; I take that by extension to indicate that all Penda's children are probably hers since Stafford's article is specifically about Mercian royal women. For Eadburh, I found a source which covers this story and dismisses it -- worth adding, as you say. Apparently there's another, even less plausible, candidate, mentioned in the same manuscript: someone named Eafe who supposedly died 94 years after Wulfhere's death, making marriage a bit unlikely. Anyway, they're both mentioned now. Let me know if there's anything else. Mike Christie (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Another excellent article by the phenomenon that is Mike Christie. I'm leaning strongly to support, of course, but have listed a few queries and comments below. This really must have been a difficult article to write, since there seems so little direct information about the main man. Penda somehow comes to life, but not Wulfhere. All the same, this is an important article. Here we have one of the first kings to dominate large parts of England, and therefore we need to know about him. Mike has done an invaluable job of piecing together all the known information on Wulfie and his world.
I suspect that there are some key details missing from the lead: perhaps the material is so familiar that this hasn't been noticed. For example, Penda isn't mentioned by name in the lead (despite occupying much of the article). I think Penda should be mentioned before Oswiu. Oswiu himself is rather mentioned out of the blue, with no introductory phrase. By 670, when Oswiu died, Wulfhere was the most powerful king in southern Britain. This sentence for me gives the impression that Oswiu was the most powerful until he died; but Oswiu had been overshadowed by this time, and one assumes that Wulfhere achieved this status much earlier. Modern historians consider that the rise to primacy of the kingdom of Mercia began during his reign. This seems to airbrush Penda out: as the article later says, Penda was the most powerful of the Anglo-Saxon kings in his time. In my opinion, Mercia first became a big-hitting kingdom under him.
- I found some sources using the phrase "Mercian Supremacy" to describe only the period from Wulfhere on, but I agree Penda needs more acknowledgement. However, I did cut some background from the lead per a comment at this FAC from Awadewit. Here is the original lead, and you can see Awadewit's comments at the top of this FAC. I've had a go at reconciling these comments and ensuring Penda isn't shortchanged; let me know if you think I have the balance right. Mike Christie (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent now. Some mention of long-term Mercian ascendancy might still be included, though, I think, even if it is not said that Wulfhere began it. Please don't feel you have to remove something that is well-referenced, just because of my musings. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think of the "Mercian Supremacy" as a bit like the Heptarchy; rather too summarizing a view to be very useful. It will show up in an article about Anglo-Saxon historiography sooner or later, and that's a fair place for it. Mike Christie (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent now. Some mention of long-term Mercian ascendancy might still be included, though, I think, even if it is not said that Wulfhere began it. Please don't feel you have to remove something that is well-referenced, just because of my musings. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That Eddius quote screams out to climax the lead, in my opinion.
- Done; good idea. I left part of the quote where it was since it's the source for the 674 battle. Mike Christie (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ancestry and death of Penda. This heading seems to me ambiguous, because I think Wulfhere's ancestry is meant rather than Penda's (whose ancestry isn't shown).
- I moved the paragraph on the death of Penda to the accession section and changed the section titles accordingly. That does make the ancestry section a bit short, but I think the organization is better and it does solve the title problem. Mike Christie (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no date is recorded for the marriage and there is no record of any children in the early sources, though Coenred, who was king of Mercia from 704 to 709, is recorded in a later source as Wulfhere’s son. I suspect that the average reader will need some help with the terms "early" and "later" here. It may appear that this refers to earlier and later sources from his own time. Does Bede count as earlier here, even though he postdates Wulfhere? I admit, it is complex.
- I changed "earlier" to "earliest", and added some specifics about the later source (John of Worcester) referred to. I didn't get more specific about the earlier source, since it seems sort of clunky to enumerate all the places that don't mention Coenred's father. I hope the date for John of Worcester, given now in the article, provides the necessary contrast. Mike Christie (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article suggests that Oswald succeeded Edwin, but was not Eanfrith king for a brief period between the two reigns?
- Quite right. (I was amused to find I'd accidentally fallen victim to Bede's propaganda: the interregnum between Edwin and Oswald is the period Bede said was agreed to be expunged from the regnal lists because of the relapse into paganism that year.) I've corrected it in the article, without a great deal of detail, though, since it seems a bit peripheral to the story. Mike Christie (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure who the Meon valley was conquered from. The Meonware are mentioned, but were they independent or under the West Saxons? Are they anything to do with the Jutes of Hampshire? The context seems to be that Wulfhere's attacks on the Meon Valley and the Isle of Wight were part of moves against the West Saxons, but that isn't said.
- I believe this is the only mention of the Meonware in any early source. They're not in the Tribal Hidage, and they're not mentioned in the ASC. Kirby does interpret this as pressure on the West Saxons, but that's not explicitly in the sources though it's very reasonable and is mentioned in the article as an inference (that's the intent of the "severe pressure" bit). What more is needed to make this clearer? Mike Christie (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as you indicate, it is probably one of those things that can't be made clearer. (Original though alert) My sense is that Yorke's theory about the Jutes of Hampshire, even if the name is arguable, wanders close to the mark, in the sense that these Meon Valley people were possibly related to, under the overlordship of, or the same as, the Isle of Wight people, so that Wulfhere was probably attacking a single polity there. One guesses that unlike tribes further north, they had refused to pay tribute. It was probably an area well worth attacking, since we know that there was a serious trading station at Hamwic not that much later. I am actually not a big fan of the heptarchy theory, which sometimes makes us think too much too early in terms of Wessex, Essex, etc. Clearly there were lots of different tribes, as the Hidage shows, and overlordship was won by the strongest leaders; when they died, other leaders might vie for the overlordship and tribes would switch. One senses here that once Wulfhere was through the Gewisse, tribes further south caved in to his overlordship until he got to these Solent people. Still, this is all musing, and of no use to the article. 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I believe this is the only mention of the Meonware in any early source. They're not in the Tribal Hidage, and they're not mentioned in the ASC. Kirby does interpret this as pressure on the West Saxons, but that's not explicitly in the sources though it's very reasonable and is mentioned in the article as an inference (that's the intent of the "severe pressure" bit). What more is needed to make this clearer? Mike Christie (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another note: the map I added may make this clearer. The river Meon is to the east of the Test, which is the river visible on the new map flowing down to the Solent. The Meon is parallel to it, more or less, but is so small I didn't want to put it in directly (the mapping software I'm using won't even show it at this resolution). Mike Christie (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That map is a dynamic help to the reader in visualising Wulfhere's strategy! All I would say is that it should show the Hwicce were on the east bank of the Severn too (mainly, perhaps). That area was strategically significant throughout the early AS period because it is a wide flat valley that enabled the Mercians to flood through into Wessex and vice versa (I have walked the Cotswolds, and the plain of the Severn Valley is strikingly different from the hilly ground to the east, which stretches right across to the Thames: difficult to defend, easy to advance through. The caption says that Ashdown was in the Berkshire Downs south of Thame: I've no idea where Ashdown was, but the Berkshire Downs are to the west and south west of Thame, quite a way away, and the Chilterns to the south and southeast. So Thame is at a pivotal point at the top of the gap. In effect the geography is of a Thames Valley with high downs to the west, some steeply up against the west bank of the river (the river runs south-south-east in this area, which I think helped make it a strategically important element) and lower ground to the east before it rises again into the Chilterns. The channel south for the Mercians is therefore in the shape of a funnel. They coould advance south from Thame on the eastern side of the Thames or perhaps along the river. To conquer the Gewisse they would have had to penetrate their defensive positions in the Berkshire Downs, which I suspect is where Ashdown was, though no one knows.qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, and I agree with your analysis; it jibes with the basic story Kirby puts together, too. For the map, I have moved the "Hwicce" label a bit and made it larger to allow it to cover more territory; I think it's a bit more accurate now. Mike Christie (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this context, I note the article says that the royal dynasty of the Isle of Wight must have found the new arrangements with Sussex acceptable, because the West Saxons exterminated them over ten years later. Since, according to the article, Wulfhere's attack happened in 661, one would expect the retaliation to have taken place around 671–72; but this would have been when Wulfhere was still in power, so which source does the "over ten years later" come from? I immediately thought this referred to Cædwalla, who slaughtered this dynasty in the 880s, in the context of a West Saxon war against the South Saxons. It seems there's a clash here between the ASC and Bede, which I suggest should be pointed out in the article to avoid confusion.
- I am trying here to summarize an argument Kirby makes on pp. 115-116 of Earliest English Kings, and also transmit the basic facts. I think the problem here is a mixture of incomplete summarization and perhaps overcompression of Kirby's argument. Here's what the sources say, at a bit more length. First, Bede doesn't give any dates for the gift by Wulfhere of the provinces of the Meonware and the Isle of Wight to Aethelwealh. (It's in IV 13 if you want to take a look; you probably have a copy but there's one here.) However, he refers in that chapter to a gift by Aethelwealh of land to Wilfrid, and then to "the death of King Egfrid five years later"; that would date the gift to 680, five years after Wulfhere's death. So Bede has compressed at least five or six years of activity by Wilfrid into the description of the time from Wulfhere's gift to Aethelwealh's gift. Kirby assumes that Wulfhere was active in the mid-680s, relying on Bede for that, and then since Bede says that Wulfhere's attack was "not long before", Kirby asserts that Wulfhere's actions should be placed later in the reign than 661. Kirby then sidetracks to make an argument about Frithuwald and the general pressure Wulfhere must have been applying in the south, and then asserts that Wulfhere's advance implied a "near-total collapse of political and military order south of the Thames". This is when he comments that Wulfhere must have been allied to the Meonware and the Isle of Wight's ruling dynasty. Kirby suggests that it may have only been Wulfhere's defeat at this point by the Northumbrians that prevented the collapse of Wessex. So: I used the ASC date without comment, since Kirby doesn't have anything concrete to offer as an alternative, and the whole argument he makes, while plausible, isn't in other sources I've seen. I have used this sort of thing before in other articles, but this time I decided to cut it down. However, the "over ten years" was a nod to the gap between Wulfhere and Caedwalla, which has to be at least ten years, given their (reliable) dates. I did retain Kirby's comment about the likely alliance because after all the extermination of the ruling dynasty is well documented by Bede and does seem an uncontroversial deduction from the evidence. I haven't found this anywhere else either, but I tried to phrase it in a way that couldn't really be argued with. The bottom line is yes, there's a clash between ASC and Bede, as you spotted. How do you think I should resolve this -- expand to give the background, or cut to remove the note about "over ten years"? Mike Christie (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the explanation! I would remove "over ten years", since it is imprecise anyway. The reader, I suspect, wouldn't naturally assume it to cover events in 680s from a starting point of 661, though, strictly speaking, that would still be over ten years. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Mike Christie (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I felt the geographical logic was not fully joined up. I moved the stuff about Dorchester closer to that about Ashdown, because they are in the same area. Looking at the map of Mercia, clearly this was a strategic keypoint for Wulfhere, who I believe had his headquarters at Thame (not mentioned in the article) in the same area (the River Thame flows from Thame into the Thames at Dorchester!). His grant to Frithuwold was made from Thame: it is a position from which Wulfhere could control Surrey and Essex (and the Chilternsæte and the Sunninga) to the south east and the Hwicce to the south west. He could also strike directly south to Hamphire and the Isle of Wight. At the same time he could keep his lines open to Mercia to the north. No wonder Wessex disintegrated: Thame is pivotal. Cædwalla's later strategy can be seen as lashing out against a compressing Mercian–South-Saxon alliance.
- I've mentioned Thame in the note on the charter, and I added a map that shows the main places mentioned, at least in the south. I hope this helps connect some of the geographical dots. Mike Christie (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Modern historians. I find that a bit jarring, though I know what is meant. "Recent historians"? (I'm assuming there's a need for a distinction, that earlier generations of historians saw this differently?)
- Removed. I need to do more work on the lead per your comments above so I'll defer other remarks for now. Mike Christie (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the date may have been 659. I felt that an explanation of the issue was required here; there seems to be a buried point that needs bringing to the surface.
- You're right. The problem derives from the reign of Edwin of Northumbria, and is partly in the sources and partly a deduction made by Kirby. Some versions of the Chronicle (Kirby says ASC ms D; my copy of Swanton shows E as well) say that Edwin came to the throne in 617. The Anglian collection of genealogies gives him a reign of 17 years, which would imply a reign of 617-634. The genealogy does not give an accession date, but apparently working from the Anglian collection one can deduce a reign of 616 to 633. This is apparently the assumption Bede made. Kirby then points out that Edwin's death in October was unknown to Pope Honorius I in June 634, when Honorius wrote to Edwin, and that this is unlikely as the Pope would probably have been keeping himself informed on events in England. Hence the 617-634 reign is also at least likely. I wouldn't have included this if it had just been Kirby, but the support of the ASC for the start of the reign, along with the lack of a date in the Anglian collection, seems to me to be enough to indicate a possible discrepancy. This all affects Wulfhere because this one-year dislocation could extend to Wulfhere's reign; Kirby has an appendix showing the set of reigns that could be redated by a year, extending all the way to the accession of Osred I of Northumbria in 704 or 705. Having said all this, I think it might be OK to drop the uncertainty in this article, and restrict it to the article on Edwin. Yorke, for example, regards Edwin's reign as "securely dated" (Kings and Kingdoms, p. 77), and no mention is made of any uncertainty in Stenton or in the Blackwell Encyclopedia (the article there is written by Philip Holdsworth). I'd like your opinion, but I think it could be cut. Mike Christie (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I've cut all references to the date ambiguity; I have a great deal of respect for Kirby, and his theories about dates (he does a lot of this sort of thing) are always reasonable, but until some more secondary sources sign up for the theory I don't think it needs to be there. Mike Christie (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oswiu had had considerable influence over Sigeberht of the East Saxons. I think we need to be told why. Is there charter evidence or something that could be mentioned?
- This rests on III 22 in Bede, which describes Sigeberht as a friend of Oswiu and states that Oswiu persuaded Sigeberht to convert to Christianity, and to accept missionaries from the north. I've explicitly mentioned Bede as the source, and reffed it.
into what is now Scotland and Wales. And what (coughs) about Cornwall?
- Tweaked to mention Dumnonia (since Devon was still part of it at the time). Mike Christie (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The monastery was begun under Peada. Does this mean building was begun or that the monastery was founded? Obviously, Wulfhere endowed it; but what did Peada do? (I daresay we don't know, but the phrase is enigmatic as it stands.)
- Unfortunately we don't know. The source is the Chronicle, which says s.a. 656 "In his [Wulfhere's] time the abbey of Peterborough, which his brother Peada had begun, grew very powerful." I would assume this means endowed, and that Wulfhere provided further endowments. If you agree that's a safe deduction I'll make the change, but to be honest I think "begun" might be better, just because that's the word in the Chronicle. Mike Christie (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like "begun" myself, unless you put it in quotation marks. It's an ambiguous word, because it can mean to begin in the sense of something not finished, or begin in the sense of founded. I think historians should go further than repeating the ambiguity and should interpret: perhaps the word should be quoted and the interpretation follow (I'm assuming a secondary source says something about it). I agree with the interpretation that it was endowed. These monasteries were always being developed, and new parts would probably need new endowments: in this sense, one can imagine that Wulfhere presided over the abbey's expansion. By the way, on the church, I wonder if Wilfred could be mentioned in the article text. Eddius says that the "kindly" Wulfhere(!) used to invite Wilfred into his territory to perform religious functions and that Wulfhere endowed a lot of minsters.qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tweaked the text; I decided to just use "endowed" as being the natural interpretation. I like the idea of adding a sentence (maybe in the "Convert King" section) about Wilfrid and the kindly Wulfhere, but I don't have Eddius, so I've been relying on others that quote him. Could you add that yourself, or give me the quote and a ref to it so I can? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the centre of Anglo-Saxon London was not at the old Roman centre, but about a mile west of that, between what are now the locations of the Strand and Covent Garden. Does this refer to a geographical point that was its precise epicentre, or to a "town" centre? If the latter, I find it hard to picture, since the Strand and Covent Garden are bang next to each other, with virtually no space between.
- I took another look at the descriptions of the archaeological evidence that I based this on, and I think I was overdoing the precision here -- it's generally just called "the Strand settlement" in the source, and I don't think I need to do more than indicate its location by that. There was an excavation at the Royal Opera House that found seventh-century burials, and also provides evidence for the seventh and eighth-century growth of the city. By the mid-eighth-century the author, Robert Cowie, gets quite precise about the boundaries of the city, but that's neither here nor there for Wulfhere. So I've cut the "Covent Garden" mention, which should remove the confusion. Mike Christie (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bede does not report the fighting, nor is it mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but Ecgfrith defeated Wulfhere, forcing him to surrender Lindsey, and to pay tribute. Does the evidence come from elsewhere, or does this just mean that these sources don't give any details? It isn't precisely clear to me (may just be me).
- I think the reader needs an explanatory phrase about Henry of Huntingdon. The ASC and Bede have been introduced, but the reader is given no reason to suddenly take the word of this twelfth-century historian. He is valuable because he had access to earlier sources, I believe. qp10qp (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a short description, reffed to the Blackwell encyclopedia. Mike Christie (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent article. I'm very pleased with Mike's responses. The man is getting seriously good at this. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 03:35, 30 December 2007.
Baltimore City College
I'm nominating this article for featured article because the page meets all FAC criteria, is well-written, well referenced, and has great images. One of the most comprehensive high school pages Bcc07 (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A great piece of writing on a minority-serving institution that has achieved excellence. My only recommendation is to reference the school's predominantly African American student population in the lede. Best, Ameriquedialectics 23:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per Amerique. Twenty Years 13:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose Overall a very good article that I could likely support after some clarifications & modifications.Madcoverboy 06:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "the school was never granted the power to grant its graduates degrees." - In addition to being worded in a confusing manner, this seems to contradict the previous assertion. At the very least no argument is presented as to why this is the case.
- Some words interspersed without the text are randomly wikified - (theater, student government, bi-weekly, newspaper, commencement) - and seems like a borderline case of overlinking (see WP:CONTEXT).
- The table on enrollment peaks at almost 4,000 students, but has since dropped to almost a third of that. Given the opening of the school to blacks and women, as well as the baby boom echo, this seems counterintuitive. I didn't come across any explanation for this in either the history or enrollment sections. The table also needs a citation.
- "The usual range of clubs and activities are offered" - this is a bit presumptuous and POV. Many schools, even within the US, don't have all or even any of these programs.
- It's Academic is wikified twice.
- Done Golem88991 (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The section on the band mentions the orchestra, concert, and marching band but only describes the marching band. The choir section seems to be a full of WP:CRUFT as well.
- "In 1889, the first football game was played between City College and the Baltimore Manual Training School" - The first football game ever? Massage the wording.
- I think the City-Poly rivalry and football sections should be collapsed together. The lacrosse section, while notable, seems anemic. Surely some of the other sports warrant mention as well?
- The City-Poly rivalry and football page have separate pages i could not think of an appropriate way to put them together any suggestions?
- The Green Bag controversy seems non-notable.
- The Collegian section needs a rewrite or heavy copyedit given the clunky prose.
- "One of the 2007 inductees was Robert Hormats, a Vice-President at Goldman-Sachs." - not notable
- "The endowment assets remain at more than $1,000,000.00" - overly specific style, replace with $1 million
- Was corrected by Bcc07 Golem88991 (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Section on notable alumni - painful overuse of hyphens for separate clauses
- I think the list of notable facutly members could largely be subsumed by either the History or Academics sections.
- Support. Well-written, well-sourced. One thing: the public domain images should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, and more details should be given on the image page than simply: "I took this picture." Even though they are public domain, it would help to know the date the picture was taken, who took it, precisely where it was, etc. Cirt (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I reviewed the last FAC for this, and there's no mention of its previous nomination (which is required, I think).
- "five year track"—hyphenate compound adjectives usually.
- I do vomit at "City College's", which appears a number of times. Reword using "of" or otherwise, like "On 30 June 2003, City College's current building ..." --> "On 30 June 2003, the current building ...".
- Repetitions such as "In addition to the 23 IB courses offered,[25] the school offers ..."—so easy to fix: remove "offered".
- Redundancies still there, ripe for the plucking, such as "Students wishing to enroll in City College must apply to the school in the 8th grade." Spot the three redundant words. Straight after: "Eligibility
for enrollmentis based on a composite scorethat isdetermined by the Baltimore City Public School System."
I opposed last time, so I feel like a heel doing so again, since it has improved. See what you can do to clean up the redundancies, the odd repetitions, and the other issues. An unfamiliar editor would be best. I won't stand in the way of promotion, I guess. Tony (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not hold back any criticism you may have. The FAC you commented on previously was for the History of Baltimore City College, so this is your first time reviewing this article. In light of that, any additional comments you have are welcome, and I will enlist the help of league of copyeditors in order to find an editor unfamiliar with the prose. Thanks, 128.252.254.17 (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments. There are some WP:MOS issues that need to be fixed and a bit of copyediting.
You should have non-breaking spaces between numbers and their units/qualifiers (such as 1200 schools). Use either & nbsp; or {{nowrap}}- Added non-breaking spaces Golem88991 (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:DASH for the appropriate dashes to use.- It seems to me that all the instances of en and em dashes are appropriate. I also checked for cases in which adding dashes was necessary, but could find none. Golem88991 (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread the article for excessive commas; I noticed several in the history sectionDoes "theater" need to be wikilinked?- Removed link Golem88991 (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After you mention Eugene Parker and Pierre Davis, the second time you can refer to them only by their surnames; since that second reference is in the following sentence, this won't cause any confusion.- Done Golem88991 (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph of the history section is a little confusing.I don't think you need subheadings in the campus section since the subsections are only one paragraph each.- Removed subheadings Golem88991 (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a citation need tag for last part of the first paragraph in the Bancroft and Carrollton-Wright Literary Socities section- Added citation Golem88991 (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize. I misread the comment and added a citation for something different. I have now added a citation for the end of the first paragraph and removed the citation needed template. Golem88991 (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added citation Golem88991 (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would reevaluate the use of "however" throughout the article. In most cases, I think this word could be removed without losing any meaning.- I have removed several uses of "however". Golem88991 (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure that all month-day combinations are wikilinked- Checked and added links where necessary Golem88991 (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should remove the text of the school's fight song. There are probably copyright issues with including it, and it is not necessary for the article.- Done Golem88991 (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you trim the list of external links?- Trimmed Golem88991 (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- missing a space in fourth sentence in the Athletics section
- Added space Golem88991 (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikiproject schools says all alumni should be referenced so shouldn't all faculty be also?
- Added citations for all faculty listed Golem88991 (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- no citation in the first paragraph of the alumni section
- look over Wikipedia:External links, thirteen external links seems excessive
- I have removed some links. Golem88991 (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I second the question why did enrollment drop off and where is the citation?
- missing a space in fourth sentence in the Athletics section
Eóin (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note; please resolve the citation needed tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments take two. I don't think you can use the image Collegian.jpg under fair use. The article does not discuss the particular issue that is being displayed, which appears to be required under fair use. Similarly, the image Green Bag.jpg is not fair use, because it depicts the 2006 The Green Bag and the article does not specifically mention that issue (although you could substitute this with a 2007 cover image). Karanacs (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 00:20, 27 January 2008.
Somerset
Nomination restarted (Old nom) Raul654 (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per the previous nom; here are the points I posted there:
The colour coding in the climate chart appears wrong, on my screen anyway--the August temperature is cooler than July's, but the colour is a "hotter" colour.- A map of the county showing the main settlements and rivers would be very helpful. I don't know of a UK county article that has such a map: this is one of Massachusetts that's the sort of thing I mean. Not required for FA but very handy if you can find one.
"Somerset is often regarded as a marker on the journey": why is marker in italics?
- -- Mike Christie (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Thanks for the comments & support - italics on marker removed. I think the map issue is related to UK copyright rules on maps which are very different to the US - I will ask a couple of map experts if they can help but in the UK they have to be totally redrawn to comply with licences etc & I don't have the skills or software to do this.— Rod talk 08:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK on the climate chart and "marker". I understand about the map; I'm supporting anyway, but it would certainly be an asset if you can locate a map. Re the "Done" markers, which Sandy has removed: they don't bother me, but there are reasons for not using them, so you might want to skip them in the future. It's fine to respond (indented) below each point in a list of concerns, and then let the commenter strike their own comments; that way you can see what they think you've achieved (which is what counts if they're going to support!). Mike Christie (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I agree with the colour coding comment above, and I think it would be better if the demographic and education tables were also centred instead of left-aligned, I fixed one non MoS unit fmt, otherwise no concerns, Jimfbleak (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that graphics, including coloured ticks and crosses, are discouraged in the instructions for this process.Tony (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional support. No serious issues. However the motto (Sumorsaete ealle) would look better with IPA, I think. --Brand спойт 19:32,
22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is correct: /ˈsʊmɒrˌsætɛ ˈɛɑːlɛ/ ... but it would be helpful if somebody could check and confirm before I place in the article. If anybody knows exactly how "Sumorsaete ealle" is pronounced and can provide a basic transcription, that would be fine. (The IPA I have provided translates as SOOM-or-sa-teh EHAH-leh; I used a BBC guide to Anglo-Saxon pronunciation; SOOM as in "sum" spoken with a Northern English accent, not rhyming with "womb"). Hassocks5489 (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As before Lurker (said · done) 19:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As previously. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Sweet Escape (song)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.
Zodiac (film)
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think that a lot of hard work has gone into it and is ready to be promoted. This is a highly regarded film that came out in 2007 and considered by many film critics to be one of the best of the year. J.D. (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- I think there are going to be people who don't like some parts of the article (I'm not going to elaborate since I am supporting) but I don't care, it's a great read and very informative. Manderiko (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Loved the movie and this is a great overview. I do have several questions, however: the "Promotion" section is only one sentence long. Is there a way to flesh it out or integrate it somewhere else? It is an interesting note to make, so I wouldn't suggest removing it entirely. Also, some of the links in the "Further Reading" (btw, incorrect caps on second word) section seem superfluous. The Esquire interview, for example, seems to have more to do with the director than his film; are these truly necessary? Perhaps the more relevant links can be used for references? María (habla conmigo) 16:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for these suggestions. I merged the Promotion subsection into the Reception section as it kinda pertains to that. I have also slimmed down the "Further reading" section and fixed the caps on the second word. Thanks. --J.D. (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- The plot section reads awkwardly; there are verb tense problems and it's presented almost like a documentary about the Zodiac killer's actions, which the movie definitely is not. The development of the main character from timid cartoonist to amateur detective isn't really there. The Zodiac murder specifics seem to take precedence over giving the reader a sense of the character development and the direction of the plot. I want to be clear that I am not suggesting that what the section needs is simply to be longer, though it there is a little room to play with. But I think a rewrite might be in order, with fewer fine details about the murders, and more about the main characters and the thrust of the story. --Melty girl (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the oomments. I've started reworking the plot a little. I've added more about the individual characters and Graysmith's investigation. I think that information about the killings is important as it does play a crucial role in the film but you're right, it shouldn't overwhelm everything else. --J.D. (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dead links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of it looks quite good, but it needs work. Can you fix the stubby paras in "Principal photography" and the like? Side-by-side caption: no dot. MOS says to use logical punctuation at the end of quotes. I see ref [13] SIX times in a row, sentence after sentence. Boring. Disturbs the look by intruding and spacing out the lines; ration the ref numbers so any intelligent reader gets a feel for what you paraphrasing or supporting from outside. Tony (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC) MOS: en dashes for ranges, please. Long snakes like "At first, Fincher only wanted 15-20 minutes of score and for it to be all solo piano based but as Shire worked on it and incorporated textures of a Charles Ives piece called, “The Unanswered Question” and some Conversation-based cues, he found that he had 37 minutes of original music." "Some" is often redundant. "solo-piano-based", but nicer as "based on s p". Comma before "but". "a box office total of $83,264,441 worldwide"—better say "US" the first time, esp. since it's an international context. Are you sure it's ... 441 and not 442? It's just too precise for this context. "More than US$83 million". And it's not logical: "it has performed slightly better in other parts of the world with a box office total of $83,264,441 worldwide" ... does that figure exclude the US or include it? Tony (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for these comments. I've implemented all of the changes you've made above. --J.D. (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Very well-written, (quite rare for articles on recent films, etc.) and well sourced. I can see why it passed as a good article. I loved this film when I first saw it, so the article does it it excellent justice. This article for FA? Sure, why not! (SUDUSER)85 03:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes: What is the difference between Further reading and External links? Why is there a "Note" stuck on to the bottom of the article? (Note: The Director's Cut is 162 minutes, which makes it about four to five minutes longer than the theatrical version (not 8 minutes longer). Can't that be worked into the prose? Bringing ... bringing? (It has performed better in other parts of the world with a box office total with $51 million bringing its worldwide total to $83 million, bringing the film above its $75-million budget.) It looks like the text could use another massage; would Melty girl be willing to help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs) 22:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was hoping to be able to make time to do a careful review of this article. I'm sorry to say that I still haven't managed to do so; that is why I haven't opposed or supported. We'll see how the week goes.--Melty girl (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Read through it, and the writing is almost there, but more copyediting is needed (I did some along the way). Here are some examples of some problems:
- "Because of Graysmith's inexperience and lowly status at the paper, he is not taken seriously by Avery and others..." Who are "others"?
- "When he is able to crack one of the codes, Avery begins sharing information with him." This contradicts the previous statement, which proclaims that Graysmith is excluded from knowing about the codes.
- "Fincher found that there was a lot of speculation..." This sentence takes the paragraph in an abrupt new direction. I was thinking we'd find out more about Gerald McMenamin. Instead, this sentence seems like it should have appeared earlier in the paragraph.
- "Working with digital cameras allowed him..." Very long sentence that features two awkward "and"s and a violation of verb parallelization in "eliminating".
- "Not all of the cast was happy with Fincher’s exacting ways and perfectionism, with some scenes requiring upwards of 70 takes, as Gyllenhaal was frustrated by the director’s methods:" Very awkward.
- What's up with the last "note" about the director's cut? BuddingJournalist 02:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for all of the comments. I have made all of the changes you've outline above. --J.D. (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you fix the MOS breaches? (1) Downey caption—no period, please. (2) En dashes for all ranges (incl. dates) in references and notes. (3) Period after closing quotes when the quotation starts within a WP sentence. (4) Spaced ellipsis dots. Tony (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for this comment. I've made these changes to the article. --J.D. (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fair use rationales for non-free images need a lot of work. At the moment, most of them are too vague e.g. "Displays screenshot image of film in question." If you're really just wanting a screenshot, why do you need so many? If each image is meant to illustrate a particular important point which hasn't already been illustrated by another image, you need to explain things further. Papa November (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 01:51, 21 January 2008.
Western Chalukya architecture
previous FAC (22:39, 7 January 2008)
This is the second nomination of this article for FAC review. The previous nomination was made on November 27th 2007. The article has undergone extensive copy edits from users; user:Finetooth, User:Wetman, user:Writtenright, user:Michael Devore and others. Two other users; User:Giano II and User:Rodw have provided valuable suggestions and <these have been implemented. Improvements in the form of disambiguation of complicated words, addition of line diagrams to illustrate floorplans are in place. FAC director Raul has communicated that it is okay to re-nominate, and I am confident the article is in good shape to become a FA. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The picture arrangement looks fine to me but I know from experience this may not be the case on all screens when a page is so well illustrated? Anyone having any problems? I would still like to see a more rounded concluding section - appreciation of the style today etc. Its a very good page, and I'm ready to support. It just needs winding up - it seems to conclude mid-stream.Giano (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DK Reply I will work on the new section right away to wind up the article. thanks Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Abstain Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC) This is ridiculous. This article should not have been an FAC the first time around on November 27, given the shabby state it was in. It is insulting to all the reviewers (who weighed in with their helpful comments in the first FA review) to renominate it less than 24 hours after failing the FA candidacy. The prose in the article remains shabby: it is not only not brilliant, it is not even at the level of a good high-school essay. I challenge anyone on Wikipedia, user:Raul654 or user:Giano_II or anyone else to defend the prose in this article. I am happy to request mediation if need be. Better yet, here is one random paragraph. Can you find one sentence in the paragraph that doesn't have some error of grammar, logic, style, cohesion, or coherence?[reply]
The height of the mantapa and the size of the temple are in general dependent on the length of the stone shafts the architects were able to obtain from the quarries to make pillars. The pillars that support the roof of the mantapa are monolithic shafts starting from the portion above the base of the pillar up to the neck of the capital.[2] The height of the temple was constrained by the use of dry masonry and bonding stones without clamps or cementing material. The weight of the superstructure on the walls of the shrine put limits on its height.[2] The modest amount of light entering the temples comes into the open halls from all directions. The very subdued illumination in the inner closed mantapa comes only through its open doorway. The vestibule receives even less light, making it necessary to have some form of artificial lighting day and night. This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum. Ventilation in the innermost parts of the temple comes only through the porous masonry used in the walls and ceilings by Chalukyan architects, who did not use mortar in their construction.
I will point out the sentence-by-sentence errors later, but after forty days as an FAC, is this some kind of joke? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also see my post Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Western_Chalukya_architecture:_What_happened_to_.22brilliant_prose.3F.22
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be civil. Be courteous to the editors who worked on this article. It's quite frustrating when another user dismisses your work as severely flawed, full of errors. Also, let the other FAC reviewers make their own judgments, instead of generalizing that they are all going to be outraged by the state of this article. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is not more uncivil to keep flogging a dead horse, to keep avoiding the hard work of nurturing the prose of an article, and to keep exploiting the goodwill of the FAC reviewers by turning the FAC into an unending peer review? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe to you, it seems like a waste of time, but Dinesh followed advice from Raul654 and Giano II, who told him to submit the article back to FAC if he felt it was ready. Dinesh said above that the article has undergone a thorough copyedit and been subjected to intense scrutiny from a number of editors. If you really think the article is overrun with grammatical errors, fix them yourself. If Dinesh and others are not aware of the errors you are referring to, how could they possibly make the necessary corrections? Nishkid64 (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is not more uncivil to keep flogging a dead horse, to keep avoiding the hard work of nurturing the prose of an article, and to keep exploiting the goodwill of the FAC reviewers by turning the FAC into an unending peer review? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would any of the copy-editors who have provided the "intense scrutiny" care to defend the paragraph above? Would Raul654 or Giano II care to defend it? If they don't want to bother with the paragraph, would they care to explain the doozy, "This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum?" Perhaps you yourself would like to attempt an explanation? Have you read the previous FAR? Half of the text there consists of my comments. Have you read my extended annotation (on the Talk:Western Chalukya architecture page) of two random paragraphs? Should I now be copy-editing the article sentence by sentence in the second FA review?
- Please be civil. Be courteous to the editors who worked on this article. It's quite frustrating when another user dismisses your work as severely flawed, full of errors. Also, let the other FAC reviewers make their own judgments, instead of generalizing that they are all going to be outraged by the state of this article. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for your facile injunction to be bold, do you really think I am not aware of it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum?" This was a common "architectural trick" in Ancient Egyptian architecture (when the sun would be reflected on copper pannels) and now it seems Indian architecture too - what needs to be explained about that, it is little different to todays spotlighting to highlight and add emphasis to an object. The obvious does not need to be explained. Giano (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The spotlighting adds mystery? I had thought spotlights made their objects more conspicuous. Wonder why hunters carry them ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. if you're in a relatively darkened temple, and the statue is lit up to be significantly lighter than the rest, and you can't at first glance see why that is, it certainly does add mystery... mystery as to why that object is more conspicuous than the rest. As for hunters, in my part of the woods, they carry spotlights (illegally, it's called "shining") to add mystery! The mystery they add is that the deer is so blinded and confused by the sudden light that it remains frozen in befuddlement and confusion, easily picked off. It's considered unsportsmanlike to confuse the deer so, which is why it's illegal. More generally, I would like to suggest that you might want to WP:AAGF, and try to be a bit milder in your comments. This editor is trying hard to improve the article. But, you have a valid point. I'm not as architecturally savvy as Giano is, and when I first read the article I could not make heads or tails of much of it, some of the passages you highlight as confusing are quite confusing to me as well. I think it COULD benefit from a thorough rewrite by someone other than the article's principle author with a view to making it more structured and more understandable. It was not the terms and placenames that gave me pause, it was the structure itself. ++Lar: t/c 15:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't agree more with the latter half of your statement. If you read the first FA review, you will notice that I (and others) repeatedly say the same. As for spotlights (and I don't want to belabor this too much, seeing that I am largely in agreement with you), I am aware of how hunters use spotlights—I was being a little facetious above. I fail to see (though) how spotlights add mystery or for whom. Certainly not for the hunter, who is one part of the viewing audience; neither does it do so for the other deer (the other part of the viewing audience) as they prepare to decamp in fear. The spotlights might help create confusion (not mystery) in the quarry itself, but (like the deity) it is the object of illumination, not the viewer. You can justify the use of "mystery" all you want, but "mystery" is vague, and it doesn't enlighten the reader. Besides "mystery," is not the correct word here. "air of mystery," or "mystique," or "aura," or "mysteriousness" would be more accurate. Similarly, it is not the "source of light" (the light bulb) that creates mystery, but the lighting so provided. That's three errors already in one sentence. You can call it nitpicking, but the errors add up. Your point about being milder in my comments is well taken, but I didn't always sound like this. This has been going on for forty days. I have provided the bulk of the feedback in the first FA review. Doesn't it seem a little ridiculous that the author(s) are spending all their time in quick fixes in yet another FA review and in willy-nilly pushing the article to that ever elusive FAhood. Shouldn't they be working on the prose, reading for meaning, crafting the sentences, balancing one version against another, engaging in (and enjoying) the usual back and forth of the art of writing? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The spotlighting adds mystery? I had thought spotlights made their objects more conspicuous. Wonder why hunters carry them ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum?" This was a common "architectural trick" in Ancient Egyptian architecture (when the sun would be reflected on copper pannels) and now it seems Indian architecture too - what needs to be explained about that, it is little different to todays spotlighting to highlight and add emphasis to an object. The obvious does not need to be explained. Giano (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for your facile injunction to be bold, do you really think I am not aware of it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This page covers a vast and complex subject which is completely unfamiliar to many readers. It uses many place and real names which are also unfamiliar and do not trip readily off the tongue to those of us educated in the more northerly countries. - that in places makes the text seem a little laborious but that cannot be helped. One of Wikipedia's strengths is that it is written in English by people of all nationalities. Australians, Americans and Indians (Kannadigas to be precise) none of whom speak English in an identical fashion and thank God they don't. Structure and use of language will change from country to country but that does not mean it is wrong.
- This is an important page for Wkipedia's architecture section on an important and little understood subject. During the last FAC [48] Dineshkannambadi seemed to be falling over backwards to address concerns he also received much support and this edit [49] is enough to convince me that any remaining text problems are very minor and far outweighed by the quality of the content. It would be very easy to change the the text to make it sound as though it were written by an American or a Briton but that would not make it any better. Others may feel they would have tackled this vast subject in a different way and order and they are entitled to that valid opinion but it does not make the way Dinesh has chosen wrong. After a few more minor copyedits I will be supporting this page because it is important and the most comprehensive page on the subject on the internet and if it does not sound as though its author was born in Palermo, London or the Bronx then there is probably a very good reason. Wikipedia is lucky to have it. Giano (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, please. What are you saying now? That the prose might not meet the standards of American, British, or Australian English, but that it does meet the standards of Indian English? (I can see Mulk Raj Anand, R. K. Narayan and others turning over in their graves.) The grammatical and stylistic standards of Indian English are no different from those of other Englishes. Undigested ideas delivered in clunky prose appear alike in all forms of English, including Indian. If you think that is an issue, why don't we have user:Nichalp or user:Taxman weigh in? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What am I saying now? As far as I'm aware this is my first comment in response to your comments. Obviously you do not like the page. I'm sure the FA Director has noted your objection. Giano (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I was comparing your remarks to your comment up top. I am in agreement, btw, with that comment; in fact in my first set of comments in the FA review on 17 December, I said as much: "Also, no satisfactory conclusion: after the last section, the reader is left hanging. I think the topic is fascinating, but the article needs to be rethought clearly with regards message and focus, and then rewritten clearly." That was three weeks ago. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, please. What are you saying now? That the prose might not meet the standards of American, British, or Australian English, but that it does meet the standards of Indian English? (I can see Mulk Raj Anand, R. K. Narayan and others turning over in their graves.) The grammatical and stylistic standards of Indian English are no different from those of other Englishes. Undigested ideas delivered in clunky prose appear alike in all forms of English, including Indian. If you think that is an issue, why don't we have user:Nichalp or user:Taxman weigh in? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DK Comment A map indicating the core/important areas of W. Chalukya architectural monuments has been added. This will help in identifying the locations (for those unfamiliar with Karnataka state).thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Prosing comment: how about this version of the paragraph? Hmmm. I do understand User:Fowler&fowler's frustration with the prose, even though I don't see any "errors", as such (unless we're seriously going to quarrel about en- and em-dashes). The skilled copyeditors have presumably eradicated those, as well as pleasingly widened the vocabulary.
- However, the paragraphs do suffer from some lack of coherence (hanging-together-ness, internal connections), and the sentence structure remains overly monotonous, in fact nearly all the sentences are the same shape (subject, followed by verb, followed by the rest). Coherence and syntactic variety aren't luxuries, they're necessary for "engaging" prose. Look at the "random paragraph" quoted by F & F above for an example. I've taken a shot at boldly rearranging it (including dividing it in two, for more intra-paragraph connectivity). Like this:
- "The pillars that support the roof of the mantapa are monolithic shafts from the base up to the neck of the capital.[2] Therefore, the height of the mantapa and the overall size of the temple are dependent on the length of the stone shafts that the architects were able to obtain from the quarries. The height of the temple is also constrained by the weight of the superstructure on the walls [2] and, since Chalukyan architects did not use mortar,[3] by the use of dry masonry and bonding stones without clamps or cementing material.
- The absence of mortar allows some ventilation in the innermost parts of the temple through the porous masonry used in the walls and ceilings. The modest amount of light entering the temples comes into the open halls from all directions, while the very subdued illumination in the inner closed mantapa comes only through its open doorway. The vestibule receives even less light, making it necessary to have some form of artificial lighting day and night. This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum."
- Does that contain misunderstandings of the facts, or wrong terminology? Yes, probably, as I'm very ignorant of the subject. But is it easier to follow? You be the judge. Frutti di Mare (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Yup, you do get it. There are still errors remaining (for no fault of yours), but the flow is already much better. Thus, in the first sentence, it is really enough to say, "Since the pillars supporting the roof were monolithic, the height reached by the mantappa depended on the lengths of the stone columns available in the quarries." There is really no need to add the bit about the base and capital; it is understood. Similarly, "shaft" is redundant, since pillars=capital+shaft+base. etc. etc. The point I am making is that rewriting in such fashion (as you have done) takes time. It requires balancing various components and reevaluating as the text size increases. It can't be done on the fly in an FAC process, whether the first or the second. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I think it probably can! It's been done before. The mystery of the lighting comes from the startling drama of the deity seeiming to glow - the emphasis given by that light - in an age when spotlighting was not the norm must have been mysterious indeed. Obviously you feel that needs to be explained - well it can be. When Frutti has finished "in-use" I will make further edits tomorrow. There is a lot of very valuable and sourced information in the page, it just needs some spotlighting itself and it will be on the main page very shortly. Dinesh has doen a very good job here. Giano (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you even reading the text Giano II? It says, "The vestibule receives even less light, making it necessary to have some form of artificial lighting day and night. This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum." What age are you talking about? Amazing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Look! You have had ample opportunity to copyedit, re-write the page yourself - and you clearly do not want to. Can some other people now be allowed to attempt this without constant interuption from you. It cannot transformed in 5 minutes - please just be patient. Giano (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, you do get it. There are still errors remaining (for no fault of yours), but the flow is already much better. Thus, in the first sentence, it is really enough to say, "Since the pillars supporting the roof were monolithic, the height reached by the mantappa depended on the lengths of the stone columns available in the quarries." There is really no need to add the bit about the base and capital; it is understood. Similarly, "shaft" is redundant, since pillars=capital+shaft+base. etc. etc. The point I am making is that rewriting in such fashion (as you have done) takes time. It requires balancing various components and reevaluating as the text size increases. It can't be done on the fly in an FAC process, whether the first or the second. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposal
-
- You'll be better off taking the article off the FAC mill altogether and then letting user:Mattisse rewrite the article. She is someone who writes very well, is already aware of many of the Karnataka architectural concepts, having co-written other articles with user:Dineshkannambadi. She, however, didn't write this article (as far as I can tell). That user:Dineshkannambadi's earlier articles are better written, is, I'm assuming, her contribution. See, for example, Hoysala architecture before her edits here, and after here. Notice the stark contrast. I am sure I can find similar disjuncts in the histories of some of user:Dineshkannambadi's other articles. Please also see her post on my talk page here. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there anything inaccurate in what I have said? If so, please point it out. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll be better off taking the article off the FAC mill altogether and then letting user:Mattisse rewrite the article. She is someone who writes very well, is already aware of many of the Karnataka architectural concepts, having co-written other articles with user:Dineshkannambadi. She, however, didn't write this article (as far as I can tell). That user:Dineshkannambadi's earlier articles are better written, is, I'm assuming, her contribution. See, for example, Hoysala architecture before her edits here, and after here. Notice the stark contrast. I am sure I can find similar disjuncts in the histories of some of user:Dineshkannambadi's other articles. Please also see her post on my talk page here. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry that your feeling are hurt. That wasn't my intention. My suggestion to seek user:Mattisse's help was made in good faith. I truly believe it is the quickest method of fixing the problems on this page. Regards and apologies again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- F&F - No matter how valid your concerns are, it probably is best to try to phrase them in a way that doesn't seem like you're disparaging DK... I am afraid to an outside observer such as myself it looks harsh, while I find myself nodding in agreement with the points you make, I at the same time find myself cringing at how you make them. It says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." at the bottom of every page, to be sure, but it doesn't say we can't show kindness and mercy to the editor even while mercilessly editing the prose they produced. I like the suggestion made of letting several people each take passes at some revision, in particular I think if Matisse would be willing to give it a go after Frutti takes a cut, the article might be much improved by their concerted efforts. I confess to an ulterior motive, I'm hoping to submit something as a FAC soon, and hope that while my own prose is shown no mercy if deemed necessary, that I myself will be treated kindly and politely. A final note, I think maybe you are indeed going to try to work with other editors kindly going forward. This is not a rebuke... civility blocks and warnings don't work, but it is a plea to see what you can do, it'd be ever so appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right. I did go a little overboard and I'd like to offer my apologies both to user:Dineshkannambadi and to you. I am, however, not trying to disparage DK; rather, I'm trying to encourage people to concentrate on the right things, and not hurriedly "manage" FAs. I can tell you how I would approach the article (without sounding too preachy): I would take it off the FAC mill, nurture the article, carry it in my head, and try to satisfy myself first. Make sure I understand all the terms, make sure that the terms are indeed used that way in modern English, and make the article lucid to myself. When people don't do those things, articles end up having their entrails exposed in the FA review. I got irritated because I said these simple things many times in the first FA review; however, what I got in response to my suggestions were quick fixes, all part of a relentless drive for that FAhood. Good writing can't be managed like some account ledger where the accumulating little green check marks become the hallmark of success. Why this hectic hurry? That's what I don't understand. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can somebody tell me why the condescending 'proposal' above shouldnt be removed? Not only is it condescending but it is also peppered with personal attacks and rank incivility. It has nothing to do with this FAC. Sarvagnya 03:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a nice page, that just needs a copyedit for it to sail through FAC but I don't see the point of anyone wasting hours doing it, if the second it is finished it is going to be completely re-written. I'm not being difficult here, I'm sorry for the primary author and would like to help him but I have enough conflict on Wikipedia as it is and more importantly don't want to waste my time. It says quite clearly "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly" and I'm sure in this case everyone can see and understand that I don't want. Basically Fowler has sunk this FAC as is his right. I look forward to seeing his and Matisse's re-write. Giano (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Reply to Giano II). No, I have said nowhere that I want to rewrite the article, only that user:Mattisse should (along with yourself, user:Frutti di Mare, and others), in the manner alluded to by user:Lar above. Please read this post of mine. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain let me remind everyone that FA status is basically meaningless and that the FA program is basically just an imaginary carrot to improve articles. While I agree that this is ridiculous, and that this should be otherwise and that this would be better served by Peer Review, I am perfectly willing to let this go - if this article does not obtain FA status it is not a great tragedy, if this article obtains FA status it is not a great tragedy.--Kiyarrllston 01:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I agree with you. I have changed my "strong oppose" to "Abstain" as well. All the best to user:Dineshkannambadi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - The more I look at the article, the more I'm falling in love with it. Kudos to Dinesh for putting this article together. Yes, the prose can do with some improvement, but the merits of the article clearly overwhelm any concerns about the prose. It is a shame that graceless behaviour of a lone editor has seemingly shifted the focus from what a lovely article it is and how much effort has gone into it to what he'd have us believe is the end of the world ("clunky prose"). Sarvagnya 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I was asked to have a look and I support this article for promotion to featured status. Good work. :) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposal 2
I have been mulling over this issue in light of Kiyarr's remarks above. What I am about to say might seem surprising, but is meant in all sincerity. Since everyone wants the article to be the best it can be, since user:Mattisse, user:Giano II, and user:Frutti di Mare are interested in rewriting/improving the article, and since the lack of the elusive FA seems to be a stumbling block, why don't we go ahead and give the article that FA status right away? The various editors mentioned above can then begin their work in peace, without anyone breathing down their necks. I have therefore changed my vote to "Strong support." I reiterate again, I have no interest in rewriting the article myself, but will be happy to weigh in, should I be asked. Best wishes, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, I think Dwarf Kirlston comments above are very harmful. FA status is not meaningless - it is a sign that we think an article is one of our best. Fowler, if you think there's problems with this article, by all means go ahead and point them out. I think some of your comments have been helpful, and I certainly don't want you to feel off-put or discouraged. Raul654 (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hereby state that I would not intentionally act harmfully. FA status is not a sign that it is one of our best. It is a sign that it has been approved through the FA process. I have appreciated Fowler's input as well and encourage him to continue as well. However I do not believe that the FA process is very well designed at the moment, as shown by the difficulties Fowler has experienced. Taking things less seriously, less confrontationally, taking a more realistic account of things, these things are not harmful - these are in every way positive. "very harmful"? there were accusations of "personal attacks" inside this very FAC - why didn't you comment regarding those? would those not be more harmful to the FAC process than my own comments? I do not know why you judge my comments as "very harmful", I would very much appreciate learning the reason.--Kiyarrllston 04:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- *Comment: Interesting: I have been working very hard to elevate an article to FA status; in which I have invested a great deal of time and energies. As a "newbie" to Wikipedia, I did find the commentary that "this process is meaningless" to be very demoralizing. I know I have responded to every comment or oppose in a good faith effort to address the concerns on my FA page. As a consequence, I felt with each addition/edit the entry had improved. I guess I saw FA as a both a process leading to improvement and a form of validation that in fact it was note-worthy, not a meaningless "carrot" for me to chase. There is a bit of difference between what is transpiring on my attempt as compared to here. I have gotten "list" of specific concerns which are systematically crossed off by the opposer as they are addressed. Concerns that were not addressed via editing were discussed in efforts to gain more clarity or compromise. Those critics were actively and aggressively engaged in making it better. The exception being a few drive-byes which vote, never to return; which I assume is obvious when the final decision is made. A statement that it is meaningless is destructive in that it devalues the hard work of those here and elsewhere that are contributing, specific, actionable, concerns as well as disheartening to those who attempt to address them. I am sorry it has become so messy here.--Random Replicator (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for responding so eloquently, Random Replicator.
- You might disagree that the FA status is basically meaningless - You might disagree that FA status is similar to the carrot for you to chase - but are these matters of opinion or of fact?
- The hard work, your hard work, is not valued by the worth of FA status.
- Fowler has clearly show[n] that there are issues with the FA process.
- --Kiyarrllston 02:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is it a fact, in that it is not meaningless to me. But you are most correct; there is weaknesses in this system.--Random Replicator (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- *Comment: Interesting: I have been working very hard to elevate an article to FA status; in which I have invested a great deal of time and energies. As a "newbie" to Wikipedia, I did find the commentary that "this process is meaningless" to be very demoralizing. I know I have responded to every comment or oppose in a good faith effort to address the concerns on my FA page. As a consequence, I felt with each addition/edit the entry had improved. I guess I saw FA as a both a process leading to improvement and a form of validation that in fact it was note-worthy, not a meaningless "carrot" for me to chase. There is a bit of difference between what is transpiring on my attempt as compared to here. I have gotten "list" of specific concerns which are systematically crossed off by the opposer as they are addressed. Concerns that were not addressed via editing were discussed in efforts to gain more clarity or compromise. Those critics were actively and aggressively engaged in making it better. The exception being a few drive-byes which vote, never to return; which I assume is obvious when the final decision is made. A statement that it is meaningless is destructive in that it devalues the hard work of those here and elsewhere that are contributing, specific, actionable, concerns as well as disheartening to those who attempt to address them. I am sorry it has become so messy here.--Random Replicator (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hereby state that I would not intentionally act harmfully. FA status is not a sign that it is one of our best. It is a sign that it has been approved through the FA process. I have appreciated Fowler's input as well and encourage him to continue as well. However I do not believe that the FA process is very well designed at the moment, as shown by the difficulties Fowler has experienced. Taking things less seriously, less confrontationally, taking a more realistic account of things, these things are not harmful - these are in every way positive. "very harmful"? there were accusations of "personal attacks" inside this very FAC - why didn't you comment regarding those? would those not be more harmful to the FAC process than my own comments? I do not know why you judge my comments as "very harmful", I would very much appreciate learning the reason.--Kiyarrllston 04:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Definitely a well written article, however, I would have ideally like to have seen more information on the impact of WCa on the architectural styles of future Kannada dynasties. I know some mention of this is made in the "Evolution" section, but if additional information is available, I'd like to see that incorporated into the article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support My request was addressed...I really like the "Appreciation" section...I think it adds color to WCa and gives perspective to their accomplishments. Good job. AreJay (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DK Reply Thanks for bringing this up. I was going to add this info anyway along with a section requested by Giano. Yes, their influence pervaded right into Hoysala, Kakatiya (from Andhra Pradesh) and even later Vijayanagara style, though the impact is mostly seen in the first two. But because the number of Hoysala monuments of Karnataka outnumber the Kakatiya monuments (in Andhra Pradesh) by a magnitute, most of the scholarly discussions pertain to Chalukya-Hoysala art forms. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice page now with a good conclusion. Its a page for "grown ups" with a good attention span. It is never going to be over easy to follow because of the quantity of similar sounding (to western ears) and unfamiliar names and places. I have studied the page and made a few alterations but it will always be a page one has to read and think about, if one takes the time to do the then one will be a lot wiser. To simplify it would be tantamount to committing a crime so much information would be lost. When he has finished this Dinesh ought to consider writing An introduction to Western Chalukya architecture. He has done a great job here and should be congratulated. Giano (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To user:Giano_II and user:Dineshkannambadi: I notice that my emblematic example (up top), "This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum." has been changed to "This artificial source of light adds "mystery" to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum." That's an improvement? How are the quotes supposed to help us? Please enlighten. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dinesh is the bit about the mystery a referenced in Cousens' book? If so, it might make sense to rephrase the sentence with a direct quote to say something like.."In the opinion of some, this artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum..". I think this is fair. AreJay (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DK Reply Will make the change.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dinesh is the bit about the mystery a referenced in Cousens' book? If so, it might make sense to rephrase the sentence with a direct quote to say something like.."In the opinion of some, this artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum..". I think this is fair. AreJay (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the actual quote? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DK Reply Regarding the "mystery" sentence w.r.t artifical illumination in the inner parts of the shrine, this is what the book says,consequently a small oil lamp was usually burning day and night, to illuminate by its fitful glimmer, the object of worship, which thus gained in mystry, what it lost in visibility. The palpable darkness, pierced only by the reflected light from the inner most prominent portions of the image, was calculated to impress the approaching worshipper with that wholesome awe which was becoming to the occassion, and , to wrapt up in his religious frevour, he could believe he saw the sentinet movement of the deities grim features as the lights rays flickered over them.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no, no, that "mystry" in your quote is theological usage, going back to late medieval English and obsolete now. It means "mystical significance" as I remember it. (I don't have OED/Webster's access right this minute, but I'll provide more info later.) Beautiful passage though—the kind of writing (late 19th century?) that no art historian today would be caught dead writing (sadly for art history). Notice too that the author uses "small oil lamp," not "source of artificial light," which in the early 21-century usually refers to electric light. You know guys (and I mean this collegially and not as a personal attack), you've made a hash of the paraphrasing. Why not serve up the entire quote? It is beautifully written. It evokes the ambiance in a way nothing in the entire article does. Maybe leave out the bit about "wrapt up in his religious fervor" (subst. with ...), but keep the rest of the quote in. It is very evocative. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here it is OED: I. Theological uses. 1. Mystical presence or nature; mystical significance. in (also through) his mystery: in or by its mystical presence or nature. in (a) mystery: mystically, symbolically; with hidden or mystical significance. Obs. Examples: 1542 Plowman's Tale in Wks. G. Chaucer f. cxxvi, Hys fleshe and blode through hys mystrye Is there, in the forme of brede. 1560 J. DAUS tr. J. Sleidane Commentaries f. cxviij, Whiche place..is to be vnderstande in a mistery [L. mystice]. a1616 R. FIELD Of Church (1628) III. App. 205 The crucified body of Christ thy sonne, which is here present in mystery, and sacrament.
- I wouldn't change the spelling of "mystry" and let the reader figure it out (if they desire) by looking up a dicitionary. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - The article is in a great shape now with beautiful pictures adding value to the article. Almost all of the concerns raised above were addressed which prompt me to support the article. Gnanapiti (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest Support - This article should have been promoted in the first FAC. It, by all means, met all the FA criteria that time around, and has only got much bettered since then. Having copyedited multiple rounds by excellent copyeditors like user:Finetooth, User:Wetman, user:Writtenright, user:Michael Devore, User:Giano II, User:Rodw and user:Frutti di Mare, having so much of information about Western Chalukya architecture supported with plenty of images taken by the main author himself, having referenced with variety of authors and scholars, I must say this article would be one of the finest featured articles ever! I can bet, and User:Giano would support too, that among all those architecture-related FA's, this would stand way above in the list. Congratulations Dineshkannambadi and all other contributors for an excellent job! Thanks, - KNM Talk 02:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ridicuously strong oppose at a closer look, the article actually has ONLY 10 distinct references. this is completely unacceptable for an FA article, especially one of this size.Nergaal (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DK Reply Your comment is very unclear and vague. Nor sure what you mean by "Ridicuously". Not sure what you mean by "article of this size". Please clarify how many more distinct references you expect. There are more than 10 references, each one from a well known historian.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Umm, how is the fact that there are only 10 "distinct" references "completely unacceptable" for an FA article? How many references are you expecting to see? There's actually 15 distinct references. And anyway, how does an article with, say, 21 references qualify for FA over an article wtih 20 references based solely on the # of references? Please elucidate upon your "ridiculously strong opposition". AreJay (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - Amply referenced with excellent images. With the multitude of copyedits and the way all the concerns have been addressed by
Dineshkannambadi, I don't see a reason why this cannot be a FA. -- Naveen (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – related to the number of references, but nothing to worry about. Can you please look into using the "name=" parameter to <ref></ref>? For example, in the current version, refs 51 & 52 are identical, as are 54 & 55, 40, 71 and 76. There are more, no doubt. Thanks. Carre (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DK Reply Sure I will look into it. Sometimes, the same reference holds good for multiple statements cited from the same page in the source material. So there may be nothing wrong as such. So I have to club citations, thats all. will do.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - A well referenced, interesting article. The type of English it is written in is irrelevant, as long as it has some semblance of proper grammar, which this article does.Bakaman 18:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong comment - I find it amusing how opinions on this FAC are either "strong support" or "strong oppose", and nothing in between. Only on Wikipedia would the subject of "Western Chalukya architecture" divide public opinion so severely. indopug (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great article, reads easily for a somewhat technical subject. Congratulations, ~ priyanath talk 04:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series