melhordawiki beta







Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this 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. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. Nominators may post only one nomination at a time. Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

The FA director, Raul654—or his delegates, SandyGeorgia and Karanacs—determines 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 director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

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.

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 {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating—typically at least a few weeks.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents
Shortcut:
WP:FAC

Featured content:

Featured article tools:

Toolbox

Nomination procedure

Toolbox
  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} on the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination.

Supporting and opposing

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used sparingly, because it can cause the FAC archives to exceed template limits.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
  • Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

Contents

[edit] Nominations

[edit] Magdalena Neuner

Nominator(s): EnemyOfTheState|talk 01:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all featured article criteria. The article has been nominated before (here). I slightly restructured the page recently and made some improvements. With the Winter Olympics coming up, I think it would be nice to have a FA of an athlete competing in Vancouver. EnemyOfTheState|talk 01:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Alt text is present, but needs work: see WP:ALT. Alt text needs to be verifiable from the image itself to the average reader, but the average reader cannot see from any of the images that it is Neuner who is photographed, nor that the photo was taken during a World Cup. Ucucha 13:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Changed Neuner to female biathlete and World Cup race to biathlon race. EnemyOfTheState|talk 14:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Marriott School of Management

Nominator(s): —Eustress talk 00:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


I am (re)nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all FA criteria. Please take a moment to evaluate whether or not you agree. Thank you! [As of this timestamp, there are no issues with dabs, ELs, or alt text.] —Eustress talk 01:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I believe all comments from the last nomination were resolved, but no reviewers came by afterwards to support (or oppose). Wrad (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Alt text is present and seems reasonably good. Ucucha 13:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments I am new at reviewing so feel free to make suggestions on my user talk page. Consider formatting the article so there is not a 10 cm white gap at the top before the article.

Tweak the first sentence to reflect that the school is one of the schools and colleges of the university instead of being only "at BYU". The lead is not an accurate summary of the article nor does it thrill the reader. Someone advised me to have the lead summarize the article when I was writing a GA.

The history seems written organized by dean. I'm not sure this is the best way. Also is changes in endowment important or not important?

Help me answer the question, what is good prose? One random example (certainly not the best example) is the Tanner Building opened by George Hinckley. Is the George part important to be in the article?

Is the business curriculum different from non-LDS schools?

There are sentences, like "However, research productivity is hampered by the fact that the MSM has no doctoral programs, and therefore, no doctoral students focused on research" which seem awkward to me and are puzzling as to what the author is trying to convey.

Some of these suggestions may be impossible to meet but they are made in good faith and to stimulate thinking. I am not opposing FA. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Twin Spica

Nominator(s): Arsonal (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the featured article criteria of a comprehensive and well-researched article on a recently licensed Japanese manga series. It has been promoted to good article status and was peer reviewed to gather further input on its content. A level of external copy editing has been done on the article but may warrant further improvements by a larger group of reviewers to meet the brilliant prose criterion. Thanks in advance for your comments. Arsonal (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

DAB links - no dab links found
ALT text - present and detailed enough
External links - no problems or redirects
--PresN 19:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Nominator(s): Anonymous Dissident, G.W.


I am nominating this for featured article because recent restructuring, copyediting, and referencing leave me confident it's ready. This is G.W.'s baby, but he's given me the go ahead to sail it in. Thanks for comments and criticism (and a support, if you're feeling charitable). —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The message from G.W. that you linked indicates he should be listed as a co-nom; is that no longer correct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
He is, unless I've done it incorrectly. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Is it working now? G.W. (Talk) 05:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • comment <ref>Images from rockpapershotgun.com at [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/june08/limbo1-limbo.jpg] and [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/june08/limbo1-oblivion.jpg]</ref> - doesn't use a citation template, unlike every other citation. Also, there is a ref name called TVG that appears to have been duplicated. Parrot of Doom 12:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Both fixed. (The links were not really necessary, and arguably not appropriate.) —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment- Hey, I remember this article! I GA'd it back in the day, before G.W. completely rewrote it and took it to A-class. Anyways, please check that external link checker up in the right corner there- you've got a bunch of redirects happening on links in references, as well as a few dead ones. For the dead ones, go to web.archive.org and find the latest version of them if you can't find a replacement- I know you'll have to do that for the music4games one, as the site has completely died. You're also going to need to add alt text to all of the images- it's a bit difficult, so just ask me if you need any help. --PresN 16:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I've added alt text to all images but one. (I'm not sure the last one deserves to be in the article. I have left it for the moment to see if Dissident wants to keep it.) This is the first time I've done this for an FAC, so please let me know if I've done anything wrong. Thanks! G.W. (Talk) 06:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, the alt text looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Made a copy-edit of the article. I placed a couple of {fact} tags that people might like to look at. Cheers.  HWV258.  23:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose—Reluctantly, I find myself opposing an FA because I don't think this article is quite ready, based on criteria 1b: Comprehensiveness. There is a lot of good material, but there are also some holes. Here's a list of my concerns:
    • The lead doesn't summarize some of the sections. In particular, the Development, Audio and parts of the Gameplay sections. See WP:LEAD for clarification.
    • The Gameplay section needs to approach the subject by assuming the reader knows little about computer games in general. It discusses skills in reference to the Morrowind system, but it instead should stand by itself. It needs to explain what skills are in the context of the game. It also needs to explain that combat is real-time and mouse-driven. Part of this is somewhat mixed into the third paragraph when it mentions blocking, but that really should be in a separate paragraph on player interaction. Finally, I think it should also briefly describe character creation, since this is a fundamental aspect of the game.
    • The third paragraph of the Gameplay section starts off about the stealth and combat skills set. At somewhat random points it adds in comments about the magic skills (see below). These are a different subject and should be in a separate paragraph, along with some brief discussion of the magic skill system.
      • The ability to "forget" spells was also not included. (This statement also needs to be clarified.)
      • Enchantment as a skill, by which items are endowed with special powers, was not carried over from Morrowind to Oblivion; instead, items are enchanted via plot-specific processes.
    • "leading to the expedited creation of more complex and realistic landscapes present in past titles..." Is a "than was" missing here? Is this saying the landscape are as complex as in past titles, but were build more rapidly? Please fix the ambiguity.
    • "...uses more multi-level environments than previous games..." This statement is unclear, even with the appended remark about the topology. By multi-level, I assume you mean allowing movement between different levels of buildings and dungeons without necessarily requiring a transition screen.
    • There appears to be very little discussion about the Radiant AI system, which gives the NPCs full lives of their own, independent of the player's activities. I thought this was a highlight of the game, and it really brought brought the world to life. This issue proved a show-stopper for me.
    • "quest NPCs" is unexplained.
    • There are some cites that have what appear to be anonymous author names. In particular, APY, Finger, KingSix, Maeyanie and Polybren. How do we know that these individuals are reliable sources?
    I reviewed this article having played and enjoyed the game, but I tried to take the perspective of somebody who was unfamiliar with the release or computer gaming in general. Sorry to have to oppose at this point.—RJH (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    • All fair comments. I'm sure these are resolvable, and I'll get to work immediately. Thanks. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Aliso Creek (Orange County)

Nominator(s): Shannontalk contribs 01:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


Aliso Creek rises in the looming shadow of the highest mountain in Orange County, and converges with the sea at the mouth of a dazzling precipitous gorge on the border of one of the maniacal region's most beautiful cities. But in between, it merely exists as the convenient garbage chute of seven monstrous, lucrative, separable-only-by-name congregations of suburban sprawl that don't give a thought. This is the second time I'm putting Aliso Creek up at a shot at FAC and I'm sure all of the problems mentioned in the previous one have been addressed. All of the potentially unreliable sources have been taken care of and all the dead URL's and dablinks have been fixed. The context covers just about everything that can be proved about the little stream. I feel that it fully meets the criteria and has been improved dramatically since it was passed as a good article. Shannontalk contribs 01:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment. I'm confused about how you've cited the sources. You have inline citations listed under References, which is fine, but then under Works cited only two citations. I see some of the inline citations list the full citation, and others don't. I thought perhaps you were distinguishing between books, articles, and websites, but I see a book listed as an inline citation (with a full citation), but then not mentioned in Works cited, so I can't work out what your system is. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 14:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the book citation to the References section. Shannontalk contribs 22:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (This is independent of SV's concern listed above, which would need to be dealt with.) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments - I'd suggest renaming the "References" as "Footnotes", and "Works cited" as "References". Also, consider differentiating the templates with a {{citeweb}} for non-news sources; and a {{citenews}} for the news sources such as the LA Times and the OC Register. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Done. Shannontalk contribs 22:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I filled in what I could, but I don't know how to do alt text for maps, nor what the "road-sign template" is. Shannontalk contribs 22:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance on alt text for maps; there's a worked-out example in Template talk:Geobox/River. An example road-sign template usage is "{{jct|state=CA|CA|1|road=[[Pacific Coast Highway (California)|Pacific Coast Highway]] (1926)}}", which generates " SR 1 / Pacific Coast Highway (1926) "; please see {{jct}} for documentation. Eubulides (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Added alt text for maps, and finished the road-sign alts as well. Shannontalk contribs 16:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, almost done, but one image is still missing alt text. Please add a |map1_alt= parameter. The example at the bottom of WP:ALT#Maps suggests how to word alt text for locator maps like that one. Eubulides (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Done. Shannontalk contribs 02:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks, looks good. Eubulides (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment. I have just done some work on your first paragraph. All the right info seemed to be there, but badly ordered. Can I suggest you check other paragraphs and put linked ideas together so that the info flows logically. Amandajm (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Winterthur (1799)

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because... it fills a wikigap. I'm preparing several articles on the War of the Second Coalition, focusing in particular on the campaign in southwestern Germany and northern Switzerland, and including several battles and several generals (Johann von Klenau, recently promoted to FA, is one). This is a gap not only in wikicoverage but also in literature on the Second Coalition in general. Much of the literature focuses on northern Italy campaigning, which of course is where the great man himself was most active. Thanks for your comments and helpful critiques. As always, I will work hard to bring the article up to snuff; it has passed GA and Military History A-class review, and is in good shape, although I'm sure some folks will find some issues to bring up here. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I've checked Dabs, and as of now there are none. All pictures have alt text, or link=, and the link checker tool says the links are good. I'm also the primary editor. Auntieruth55 (talk)
PPS per talk page discussion, this is my fifth FAC. Unification of Germany, Cologne War, and Hermann Detzner have been promoted, and Johann von Klenau was promoted last week. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - you have multiple citations for the same page numbers. Use the <ref name> template. Parrot of Doom 22:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No thanks. I prefer to not use name templates because of the confusion they cause for newbies. This is not actionable. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you have diffs for this "confusion to newbies" thing? Is that the only reason you dislike named refs? ... Everything confuses newbies. Could probably find diffs of newbies being confused by wikilinks, citation templates, shortcuts, etc.
In refs but not notes: Hicks; Mörgeli; University of Zurich. In notes but not refs: Kurdna and Smith. • Ling.Nut 01:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm the newbie.;) I detest named refs and won't use them. I find them terribly confusing to read, and would prefer go the other route. Thanks for catching the Kurdna and Smith thing and the other ref. I'll fix that. Hicks is in there. Ref 45. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Well that's your choice, personally I think it makes things more confusing. If you're going for "east of use" though, a quick look at the formatting of your citations reveals:
References - inconsistent capitalisation of Accessed. Huerliman ref. fixed.
Ref 22 - check pp or p, also, why are there two page numbers? because they are two different books....?' Unless you mean citation 19, which refers to pp 45-46, and p. 48. In that case, since I've been castigated before for not being specific enough in the citations, I noted specifically where the information came from. pages 45-46 and page 48.
So why cite two book with one citation? You should use two citations instead, to avoid confusion. Parrot of Doom 00:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, why are several books quoted in full in Citations and Notes and Bibliography, while other books are summarised in the former, and quoted in full in the latter? All are cited in full in citations and notes the first time they are mentioned, and afterward, I use the abbreviated citation. In the Bibliography, I use the bibliographic citation format
Why? It just makes the references section needlessly complicated. Just list the books in full in the bibliography section, and use abbreviated citations in the notes section. Parrot of Doom 00:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Ref 48 - Smith, Data Book - Bibliography says Databook (no space). fixed
Bibliography - Peter, Armin... no full stop on the end. fixed
Seaton, Albert. The Austro-Hungarian army of the Napoleonic wars. London: Osprey, 1973, 9780850451474. - what's that big number on the end? fixed
Smith, Digby. The Napoleonic Wars Data Book. London: Greenhill, 1998, ISBN 1-85367-276-9. - why does this ISBN have dashes, and others do not?
Young, John, - this entry highlights that its in two volumes, but other books just quote the volume number. yes.

Parrot of Doom 02:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Comments -
    • Hugh Chisholm, The Encyclopædia Britannica, New York, The Encyclopaedia Britannica Co., 1910–11, vol. 29, p. 735 Can you give the title of the entry for this one, so we know what is being cited? it's duplicated in a lot of other place, so I took it out.
    • Current ref 18 (Terry J. Senior) "Ney had been promoted to General of Division only weeks early." do you mean "earlier" here or was he promoted two weeks earlier than his sceduled promotion? same as above.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Current ref 18 again, can you link to the actual PAGE you're citing on this site please, rather than the home page? Also, what makes this a reliable source?
all of this is replicated in the other sources for the paragraph, so I took it out.
    • Archibald Alison. History of Europe from the fall of Napoleon in 1815 to the accession of Louis Napoleon in 1852. N.Y: Harper, 1855, Chapter 28, p. 20 is a 150 year old source, surely something more recent is available to cite "On 22 May 1799, Friedrich Joseph, Count of Nauendorf led a large column across the Rhine at Stein and Eglisau, while Hotze led another column across the upper part of the river, where it is still a mountain stream. From from there, Hotze's force passed through the Grisons, into Toggenburg, and moved toward Zürich."
Very few detailed accounts of the battle. Most of the "modern" literature focuses on the action in northern Italy (where Napoleon and Suvorov were), not in northern Switzerland. This was the most specific description of that I could find, plus Jomini.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll leave this for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Current ref 23 (Smith) same problem as current ref 18 above, link to the exact page please and what makes this a reliable source?
link to page: cannot link to exact page. site doesn't allow it. I've included all the information one needs to find the page.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
reliability: well, first, it's Digby Smith. One of these days I'll get around to writing an article about him. He's written about 20 books or so on the Napoleonic Wars, plus many many articles. Second, it's the Napoleon Series website is one of a hand full of really good sites for research on the Napoleonic Wars. Most of the contributors are amateur historians and reenactors, but there are several professional historians involved. Third, it's Robert Burnham, the editor in chief, who has peer reviews for all the articles, if even if the quality of the writing isn't always top of the line, the information is. I refer my students to it (university students) as a legitimate reference, and a couple of my students have had their papers published on it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    • "Michel Ney". New international encyclopedia, Volume 17. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1914–1916" surely something more recent is available for information on Ney! Sure there is. This one is surprisingly detailed, though. And the basic facts don't change. Born, promoted, injured, executed.
    • Actually, occasionally facts CAN change. Granted, not often, but when you exclusively use older references, you leave yourself open to comments that you haven't done a good comprehensive survey of the available sources. I could sorta understand if you linked to the googlebooks page on this, but you're not even doing that. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I did give a preference to sources that are available online, either at Googlebooks or Gutenberg, but I didn't link to the pages, because that would make it appear that we are promoting one online book source over another, which I'm told we don't want to do. For the Unification of Germany article, I was told to remove all the googlebooks links, which was a real chore!, after I had taken great care to put them all in. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    • And I echo LingNut's comments above.
if named refs are made a requirement for FA, I probably won't be writing any FAs any more. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't mean the named refs, but the other bits. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I"m going to leave these out for other reviewers to consider. I'm not sure who told you to take out the googlebooks links, because it's never been required at FAC as far as I know, but I'm not going to tell you to put them back in either. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I went through this Google book links question before; we decided that there was no rule against them. • Ling.Nut 07:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Inauguration of Barack Obama

Nominator(s): Lwalt, Aaron charles, TonyTheTiger 22:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because its last FAC closed with no clear actionable issues and the article has improved modestly since.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 15:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is very good, except that it's missing for File:Barack Obama inaugural address.ogv; please add some for its JPEG rendition using the |alt= parameter that was recently added to {{listen}}. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • What is involved in adding alt to a .ogv file, which is an audiovisual file?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Use {{listen}} with its new |alt= parameter. Please see the {{listen}} template's documentation. Eubulides (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I have tried this. My point was more about the fact that since a blind person can hear the audio is what I have done correct, or is there more to and audiovisual file?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
          • The alt text is for the JPEG image, not for the AV file. I tweaked it. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought originally, when reviewing this article, my review would be skewed due to my opinions of Obama. However, after reading the article from end-end and skimming it, I think this article deserves my support. I give you guys a lot of credit for working so hard. Just a couple of nitpicks:
  1. Citation 23, the first use of the NY Times, should be the only reference wililinking NY Times. Check same for the rest.
    It is my understanding that redundant links are not applicable to the footnotes. In the text we assume that the reader has read the article from the beginning and would have checked the link upon the first usage of a term. However, we do not assume that a reader reads all the footnotes. Thus, it is acceptable and probably helpful to repeat links in footnotes. We do not assume that a reader of footnote 26 read footnote 23. Thus, when he does a mouseover on the footnote, we want the link to be readily available for him.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    I have seen it in policy, and I've made it important.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 01:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    I have not seen it in policy and have discussed it at FAC before. All my FAs use redundant links even the two already promoted this month. Where is the policy?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  2. I would love to see a pic of Bush and the Obamas departing the area and the Bushes leaving on Air Force 1. Those would be very useful
    www.flickr.com offers no pictures of Bush on January 20, 2009. I would not know where else to find one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    (On a sidenote, Bush left Washington on Marine One, not Air Force One.) P. S. Burton (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange - try here.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 01:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:George_W._Bush_in_Marine_One.jpg P. S. Burton (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    I have added it here and in Presidential transition of Barack Obama.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  3. I would switch Viewership and the unofficial events' order to where the unofficial ones come after the official.
    I am not sure I understand the suggestion since the Unofficial events section follows the Viewership section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    Um, why Events -> Viewers -> Un. Events? I would switch Unofficial Events to be right after the planned ones.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 02:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    I got it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Those are the best nitpicks I can come up with. The first one is the most important.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 22:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


(Comment by Suomi Finland 2009 (talk · contribs) moved from User talk:TonyTheTiger actual diff) The congressional committee released the full schedule of the January 20 inaugural events on December 17, 2008. The inauguration schedule referred to the President‑elect as "Barack H. Obama", even though Obama specified previously that he wanted to use his full name for his swearing-in ceremony, including his middle name Hussein, in "follow[ing] the tradition, not trying to make a statement one way or the other".[7]

The article should say what the conclusion was. What was used, H or Hussein? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Disappointed. And I've only looked at the top.

  • 44th, 56th, 200th? My head is spinning; well, I can work out what it means, but many readers won't be able to.
    • Do we need to explain that some presidents have had multiple inaugurations for having been reelected in the WP:LEAD (44th vs 56th)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The opening is very wordy; for example, do we have to repeat "President of the United States" fully for a second time?
    • I was hoping my co-author who is a professional editor (Lwalt (talk · contribs)) would come by and take care of this. I have addressed the specific complaint. I did not attempt further general changes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Compared with, not to, is better for contrasts.
  • The first photo looks like a theme-park entrance: undignified. Isn't there a better one? Or perhaps it looks better when bigger? It nestles uncomfortably with the first subsection title.
    • I am not a image buff, but I thought that was a fabulous photo. I resized it a bit. I am not sure what you mean by nestles uncomfortably. I guess you don't like the fact that the subsection header is forced right. I am not sure what policy is on issues like this. I am willing to compromise on location.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I would pipe to "the election campaign", to make it clear it's not to the common term "election".
  • "The District of Columbia City Council used the occasion to help bars and restaurants increase sales by staying open around‑the‑clock to provide hospitality services to the hordes of people planning to attend the inaugural festivities." Roundabout sentence; wrong meaning at start—they didn't use the event to do what they'd always wanted to do (that's the sense). 24-hours should not be hyphenated—it's not a double adjective like "24-hour" parking.
  • Invitation and ticket photos: pass me a microscope. Can anyone read a single word on them? Much bigger, probably vertically arranged. Tony (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Paschal

Nominator(s): Secret account 22:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


Self-nom. Backup outfielder for the 1927 Yankees, based on the current Bob Meusel FA. His rather lack of playing time keeps me from expanding this article further (can't find nothing on his life after 1934, nor does he has much of a legacy). Thanks for NatureBoyMD for a copyedit, it may need further copyediting, but I'm dylexsic and can't really help on that. One of many articles on that team I'm bringing to featured status. I feel the article is good enough to skip the GA process. Thanks Secret account 22:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 15:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments -
    • Per the MOS, titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
    • Surely there are book sources that cover him?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed the first part, as for book sources, it's mostly passing mentions, as he wasn't considered an important part of the Great New York Yankees teams of the era.
  • Comment. Please add alt text to the images; see WP:ALT, particularly WP:ALT#Portraits. Also, the article needs more images. I suggest at least File:Ben-Paschal-1925.jpeg, and quite possibly you can find other free images. Eubulides (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Added your picture thank you so much, also added alternative text to the image. Thanks Secret account 13:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • You're welcome, but I'm afraid both images still lack alt text. Please click on the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review page. Also, please look for more images, as the article needs them. They don't have to have Paschal in them; they can be about his environment. For example, it would help to have a picture of Sanford, Alabama, about the time he was growing up there. More generally, there's almost nothing in the article about Paschal as a person; more coverage of him outside baseball is sorely needed. Eubulides (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I which I could find information about him as a person, the only thing I found was that he was a quiet, soft-spoken fellow who was in the Yankees movie crowd. That was one sentence in a book. He doesn't have a famous personaly Ruth had. I'm still confused about alt text, so I need your help, but I'll fine alternative images. Secret account 19:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok now I understood the alt text, fixed Secret account 20:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: It concerns me a bit that none of the references have page numbers. Even for ones you could barely preview I'd have to think that information would at least be there for a few of them. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Umbriel (moon)

Nominator(s): Ruslik_Zero 20:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because, in my opinion, it is ready. This article is about one the five big moons of Uranus, the third candidate for the FA status. Ruslik_Zero 20:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  • The Uranus template at the bottom lacks alt text for its image.
    This is a purely decorative image.
  • Checklinks shows the URLs are all good.
  • Dablinks shows two problems: one Setebos dab link, and one redirect which points back to article.
    I removed link to Setebos before the nomination, but the toolserver have not caught up (it currently shows the article does not exist). The second link is in a navbox.
  • I don't think an en dash is needed in "co-rotates" and "co-rotation". A hyphen seems like enough.
    Fixed.
  • This sentence needs a second em dash or some other choice of punctuation or parentheses: "Umbriel as well as another Uranian satellite—Ariel were discovered by William Lassell on 24 October 1851."
    Removed emdash.
  • This sentence might be better with a colon swapped for the em dash: "The latter could include rock and heavy organic compounds—tholins."
    Enclosed tholins in parentheses.
  • This sentence needs a second em dash or a different punctuation solution: "Opposite to what is observed for another dark Uranian moon—Oberon, the surface of Umbriel is slightly blue in color..."
    Replaced with comma.
  • A colon for the em dash? "Scientists have so far recognized only one class of geological features on Umbriel—craters." Your call.
    I prefer emdash.
  • Need the words "of" and "wide": "...from tens to hundreds kilometers."
    Rephrased.
  • In the lede, the phrase "although there is evidence (canyons) of early endogenic processes" might be recast as "although the presence of canyons suggests early endogenic processes" or similar. The parentheses just don't seem necessary.
    Agree.
  • Does "carbon rich material" need an adjectival hyphen, to make "carbon-rich material"?
    Agree.
  • How about "from bombardment by charged particles" to replace your "caused by bombardment by charged particles"?
    Accepted.
  • What did scientists conclude when they saw all the craters with no rays? Let the reader know.
    There is no specific meaning. It is just an observation, which may be important, but may not.
  • The word atmosphere doesn't occur in the article. Please add something about the presence or absence.
    I added a parameter into infobox indication that surface pressure is zero (no atmosphere). However, it would be difficult to find a ref that unequivocally says this, because it is usually thought to be obvious. Ruslik_Zero 18:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Rather than adding a whole subsection of the infobox to say that the moon has no atmosphere, it could be stated in the article in two or three words. Binksternet (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I added something to the orbit section. Ruslik_Zero 18:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This sentence needs a bit of work: "Umbriel's most prominent surface feature is Wunda crater located near moon's equator, which has the diameter of about 131 km." How about "Near Umbriel's equator lies the most prominent surface feature: Wunda crater, which has a diameter of about 131 km."?
    Accepted.
  • Why is there one instance of the word "Umbral" describing polygons? Is this supposed to be "Umbrielian"?
    I removed it, because "Umbral" (it is not a typo) is more often used in the phrase "Umbral material" referring to the dark material on the surface of Umbriel.
  • "The polygons were identified from the accurate photometric measurements..." Which accurate measurements? Either state which, or remove "the".
    Clarified.
  • This sentence can be trimmed slightly: "Its surface may be covered by a relatively thin layer made of a dark material, which was excavated by an impact or expelled in an explosive volcanic eruption." => "Its surface may be covered by a relatively thin layer of dark material excavated by an impact or expelled in an explosive volcanic eruption."
    Accepted.
  • Which heavenly body is being referred to by "it"? Saturn? Uranus? Umbriel? "...it may have been relatively water-poor."
    Subnebula.
  • The word ocean is misleading, since the concept is one of a subterranean water body: "A layer of liquid water (ocean) rich in dissolved ammonia..." Most people will visualize an ocean as being between the surface and the atmosphere.
    Ocean or subsurface ocean are terms widely used in literature, so it should remain (see ref 20, for example).
  • Trim the redundancy: "no mission to this planet is planned in the foreseeable future" could become "no mission to this planet is planned", or "no further missions to this planet have been planned."
    Trimmed. Ruslik_Zero 11:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Good article! Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Comments -
    • Please spell out abbreviations in the references, I noted USGS but there may be others.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Spelled out. Ruslik_Zero 11:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Ongoing comments'
  • This source talks about a "fluorescent Cheerio" and speculates that the darkness of the surface to the presence of methane and irradiation from Uranus (a whole page about Umbriel is missing from the preview, and I have no access to books). Is any of this worth keeping? :* The "bright ring" mentioned in the article is apparently about 150 km across, and is twice as reflective as Umbrial's average..here. Keep or not keep; up to you. • Ling.Nut 11:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • More theories about coloration here. Up to yuo to decide if keepable.
  • More about methane ice, magnetic fields etc. here. • Ling.Nut 12:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually Wunda (fluorescent Cheerio) is already mentioned and various theories on origin of the dark material are already discussed. Ruslik_Zero 14:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. I thought that someone might see the Cheerio nickname and try to find it here, to no avail. Also, the links provided a few new details, or so I thought. I didn't see the methane etc. bit in the explanations, forex... but as I said, you know more than I do. If you think it doesn't need to go in, then OK. • Ling.Nut 14:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
"fluorescent Cheerio" is a colloquial name, which is rarely used now. So, I do not think it should be mentioned in this article. On the other hand, it can be included in the article about Wunda (crater). As to methane, it is actually mentioned in the 'Origin' section. However methane is not thought to have been abundant in the Uranus' system, as the main carrier of carbon was probably carbon monoxide, not methane. In addition, methane ice is not stable on the surfaces of Uranian moons, and I doubt organic compounds can be produced from it. Ruslik_Zero 19:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments - Well written, clear and quite concise (even the heavier parts!). I tweaked some things myself to avoid writing them here. There is a reference to 'N2', is this different to Nitrogen? One possible 'problem' I can see is unit conversions, I started adding additional conversion templates as there were some there already but stopped as the amount of numbers grew. Do the astronomy articles have an exemption from MOS:CONVERSIONS? Just wondering. I write articles on old British aircraft piston engines and had to add millimetres prior to FAC (although I think it looks daft personally). As a retired amateur astronomer this is not far off a 'support' vote from me. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    N2 is molecular nitrogen. (I added a clarification.) Ruslik_Zero 20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - massaged the prose a bit early on, but needed to do less in the latter half of the article. No dealbreakers I can see. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
One query - is antifreeze an accepted English word or would it be better to phrase as "compound with antifreeze properties"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this is an accepted word, because we have an article about antifreeze. Ruslik_Zero 12:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support • Ling.Nut 06:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments: The prose is reasonably well-polished. Some observations, though:
The adjectival form of the name is Umbrielian. Needs a citation; it doesn't appear to be covered by the reference at the end of the sentence.
If this is the case, the radius of the core (317 km (197 mi)) is about 54% of the radius of the moon, Parens within parens? I thought square brackets were used inside parentheses to indicate a parenthetical within a parenthetical. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
That would be my fault as I added the conversion yesterday. I've removed the conversion, noting that you can't use square brackets with the conversion template, could be done manually though. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed Umbrielian as can not find a ref for it. Ruslik_Zero 20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Reference 17 is actually two references listed together, in bullet points. What's the reasoning behind the banding together of two references like this? They are papers from separate journal articles in different years by different authors. It looks strange to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
They are used to support the sentence about mutual occultations. They are used only one time each. So I think it is appropriate to group them. Ruslik_Zero 18:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I can't object over such a small detail, so I will...
  • Support. Article looks terrific. Well-researched, well-sourced, and relatively clear to laymen. Well done, Ruslik. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: This article provides a comprehensive look at the current state of knowledge of this rather forgotten moon of Uranus, compared to its more geologically active neighbors, Ariel and Miranda. In terms of missing content, I would suggest adding some mention of the source of names for Umbriel's craters (dark spirits for mythologies and folklore around the world, IIRC). I too am a bit confused by the bit about "umbral material". Do you mean a lag deposit, like on Callisto and Iapetus? The wikilink used does not provide useful context, but from the description in the article, I think you mean lag deposit. --Volcanopele (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    I added information about crater names. As to 'Umbral material', it is mentioned in Buratti 1991, which in turn refers to Croft 1991. It means the dark material, which covers the surface of Umbriel, especially that of dark polygons. It is not lag a lag deposit, because no such deposits are known on Umbriel (due to poor resolotion of images—5 km is not enough). Ruslik_Zero 12:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support with comments. I gave it a read through and it looks to be of FA quality. I only found a few minor concerns:
    • "Both northern and southern hemispheres spend 42 years in complete darkness, and another 42 years in continuous sunlight." Should this say "poles" rather than "hemispheres"? For the full hemispheres, I assume the illumination is phased over the 84 year period.
    • "Other plausible candidates for the dark surface materials include rock, various salts and organic compounds." This follows a discussion of carbon dioxide, which I think forms a transparent ice. So is the "Other" appropriate here? Doesn't this sentence belong in the prior paragraph?
    • "The moon's surface shows a strong opposition surge..." Could the cause of this be briefly explained for lay people?
    Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Panellus stipticus

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


The bitter oyster mushroom is one of the best-known of a few dozen mushroom species that glow in the dark. I think the article is comparable to other fungus FACs in terms in comprehensiveness and quality, and look forward to further improvements the FAC process may bring. Sasata (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 15:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The information it is being used as a source for is a recent addition by Circeus, who indicated in his comments that the web source is temporary until he is able is cite it to something more reliable. I will drop a note here when that happens. Sasata (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Circeus has now supplied reliable sources for the etymology. Sasata (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem, it was discussed here and here. Sasata (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments (Ucucha)

Generally good article; I enjoyed reading it. A couple of specific comments:

  • No dab links or dead external links.
Taxonomy
  • Perhaps move the sentence about the occasional spelling "Panellus stypticus" to the first paragraph, which discusses other alternative scientific names? (ok)
    • Note: you didn't do that yet.
      • Argh - done now for real. Sasata (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Description
  • "When collected in deposit" - I suppose this means "When prepared as in a collection of voucher specimens", but don't think this wording is particularly clear. (changed to "When viewed in mass")
    • Is that a technical phrase? I don't think it's much clearer.
How about "The color of P. stipticus spores in mass—determined by taking a spore print—is white." Sasata (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know the phrase "in mass", but that may not mean much. Ucucha 16:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
In mass: "A grouping of individual parts or elements that compose a unified body of unspecified size or quantity." It's a common way (in mycological literature) to refer to a pile of spore dust. If the wording still bugs you I can take another crack at it. Sasata (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
OK. If it is exclusively a jargon term, it would indeed be better to use more generally understandable wording. Ucucha 20:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's mycological jargon, see this quote: "Take mankind in mass, and for the most part, they seem a mob of unnecessary duplicates." (Herman Melville). But I gave it another shot. How's it now? Sasata (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
With a further rephrasing of mine, I am okay with it now. :) Ucucha 20:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Why is the first sentence of the "Similar species" section commented out? It seems a good addition to the rest. (I've removed it. After rechecking the recent literature, the "two subspecies" in the subgenus comment isn't accurate, based on more recent phylogenetic understanding of how the genus is organized.)
  • What does "slowly mildly acrid" mean? (clarified)
  • The USSR no longer exists, and it was already gone in 1992. Perhaps you can replace it with a more detailed locale from the source? Poor people who tested that, by the way. (Checked the source. Some rural area (Primorsk, Vasnaya) in Russia.)
  • Might be useful to add in which areas it is used in folk medicine. (Good idea, done.)
Distribution
  • It looks odd for you to first mention it occurring in eastern North America only, and then mention both Alaska and Costa Rica. Does it occur in all of North America? Also, you mentioned the USSR earlier; surely that should also be here in the distribution (unless it's the European part only). (clarified that it's in all of NA, but only common in the east. Now the article specifies Russia, not USSR, so "northern temperate regions of Europe" covers that.)
Bioluminescence
  • Added an extra subsection header "Genetics", as these two paragraphs didn't really seem to belong under "Fruit bodies". (ok)
  • "and thus SOD activity has to be low or inhibited for the reaction to occur" - can't see the "thus" here. (Clarified that superoxide anion is needed for the luminescence reaction to occur.)
Images
This is true, these issues didn't cross my mind when I uploaded the pic. I cannot find a death date for Marie E.M. Johnson, so it looks like the image will have to go. I will see if the Graphic Lab can make a replacment. Sasata (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I was also unable to find her date of death.

I am not experienced with image issues, so another check would be good. Ucucha 04:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: Can you add something about the phylogenetic relationships of this species? Ucucha 15:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Sure, how's this? Sasata (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Go-getter passerby ManfromButtonwillow happened to see your request here and kindly made a cladogram. What do you think? (Species redlinks will be blued soonish). Sasata (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks good, but perhaps it goes into too much detail—the interrelationships among other Panellus are not really relevant to this article. Perhaps you can replace everything down from P. mitis with "Other Panellus and Hygrocybe citrinopallida" or something similar. Ucucha 14:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Wendell H. Ford

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


I believe this article is comprehensive and well-sourced. I look forward to addressing any concerns that might prevent its promotion to FA. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 15:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Alt text is mostly present (thanks), but it is missing for the lead image; please add that. Also, the alt text that is present conveys little information about the appearance of the persons pictured: other than age and sex almost nothing is said about what these people looked like. Please see WP:ALT#Portraits for guidance about useful alt text for portraits. Also, please omit phrases like "A black and white photo of" as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid. Eubulides (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments - This is pretty good, which is no surprise. I'm a little leery of the length, but knowing Acdixon's extensive work on Kentucky political history, I figure if there was more information to be found, he'd have found it. Some generally minor issues:
  • I've done some copyediting; feel free to revert what you don't like.
  • "He purged most of the Republicans from state office, including helping Walter "Dee" Huddleston win the Senate seat vacated by the retirement of Republican stalwart John Sherman Cooper." I gather we're talking about the U.S. Senate; is that really "state office"?
  • Seems like one of the sources called this a "state office" but the source eludes me at the moment. It is a state office inasmuch as it's voted on by people statewide. That's what I'm really trying to convey here. If there's a better way to say it, I'm all for it.
  • Do we know what he studied at U of K?
  • Not having much luck on this one. I'll add it if I find it, but I haven't so far.
  • Do we know his children's names?
  • Found them in Newsbank.
  • Do we know anything about where he served in WWII?
  • Found a good source on his service in the Army and the National Guard. This has been beefed up.
  • Do we know what issues Ford won on in 1965? I gather that his opponent was something of a heavy hitter.
  • I'm coming up empty here. My Newsbank archives don't go back that far, and Google News only turns up a couple of references to Ford being the choice of Governor Breathitt while Gardner was allied with Harry Lee Waterfield. Reading into this with my local knowledge, I'd say Democratic factionalism was the major issue. Ford was part of the ascendant Bert Combs-Ned Breathitt faction, while Gardner was a member of the waning Happy Chandler-Harry Lee Waterfield faction. It'd be original research for me to make that assertion in the article, though. I also vaguely remember reading something about Ford's association with the Jaycees being helpful in one race, but I thought it was the lieutenant governor's race. I'll try to go back and check, and if it was the state senate race instead, I'll add that.
  • Is there a wikilink or elaboration available on the Supreme Court ruling about residency requirements for voting?
  • I have found one article that would allow me to elaborate some, but I'm really trying to find the name of the case. More later on this.
  • Found it. Dunn v. Blumstein. I've added some elaboration now. Is this enough?
  • "He also increased funding to human resources..." This seems very vague. Did he hire more people? In what capacities and to what end?
  • Had to go back and look this one up. Landis Jones says: "Human resources expenditures were also increased with better benefits for dependent children, services for the aged, and increases in the food stamp program." I don't really think of some of these things as "human resources expenditures", so I assumed they were just various facts juxtaposed in a compound sentence. What do you think?
  • How did he save millions in printing costs?
  • Found one reference for this. It isn't much, but it helps a little.
  • The U.S. Senate section in particular seems a little thin for a guy who was in there for twenty-five years. Do we know anything about his relationship with successive presidents, or the extent to which he toed party lines? The stuff about NAFTA and the Panama Canal treaty is good, but is there nothing about the assorted other major issues to come before the Senate during that time? One that occur immediately to me are the Bork nomination and the Clinton impeachment, but there must be many more.
  • Landis Jones says of Ford that he "was astute at working behind the scenes" and Cross says "Unlike senators who specialize in one or more national or international issues, Ford was content to be an insider and back-room operator in the Senate." Further, he quotes Ford as saying "I wasn't interested in national issues. I was interested in Kentucky issues." Nevertheless, I'll search Newsbank and see if I can turn up anything about the issues you mention.
  • Those are actually really illuminating quotes, especially the last one. Could that be worked in somehow? If nothing else, it would convey to the reader why we're not told about any significant stances on national issues. Steve Smith (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I got the last one in there; not sure about the other two. The source about government printing did have a few more national issues in it, though.
  • Do we know why Ford was inducted into the transportation hall of fame? It doesn't seem immediately obvious.
  • I have broken out some of his transportation-related accomplishments into their own paragraph. I'll add more if I can find them.
I expect that I will, as usual, eventually support this. Steve Smith (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your confidence. I've addressed a couple of these above. More later. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
More responses above. I may be off-wiki this weekend, but I'll see what I can find today and get on the rest on Monday. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 12:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Still finding a thing or two here and there. Please go ahead and strike things you're satisfied with, and I'll keep trying to address the others. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 20:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Unrelated, but the last three sentences in the United States Senate section all begin with "He". Any way you can vary this?
  • Also, "He was as youth chairman" should be "a youth chairman"
  • Nothing on the 1998 Government Publications Reform Act named for Ford (according to this)
  • Christopher J., Deering (Winter 1986). "Leadership in the Slow Lane". PS (American Political Science Association) 19 (1): 40.  says: "During the 98th Congress Sen. [Dan] Quayle and Sen. Wendell Ford (D-Ken.) chaired a committee that reviewed, for the third or fourth time during the last decade, the rules and procedures on the Senate." No more is said about this in PS, but could you explore?
  • Clinton, W. (1997). Statement on Senator Wendell H. Ford's decision not to seek reelection. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, 33(11), 330 has Clinton's reaction to Ford's retirement: "Senator Wendell Ford has served his home State of Kentucky with pride and distinction for four terms as a Member of the U.S. Senate. He has been a leader in the Democratic Party and a personal friend for many years. Senator Ford's tireless efforts as a veteran, businessman, Lieutenant Governor, and Governor before coming to Washington, have earned him the admiration of all who know him. I will miss his leadership and advice on Capitol Hill but know that he will continue to find ways to improve the lives of the constituents he has served so well for so long. Kentucky and the Nation are better for his dedication and service. Hillary and I wish him, his wife, Jean, and their family well in the years to come." Mm40 (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] 2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes

Nominator(s): BT (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the article is complete. A fairly small article, yes, but the earthquake swarm consisted of minor earthquakes that were too small to cause damage or to be felt by people; the largest earthquake was only magnitude 3.9. Thus, only seismic devices were able to record the earthquakes. But the swarm is still notable, given the fact that these are only recorded earthquakes in the area it took place from, they caused interest to scientists and they were even mentioned on CBC Television. I searched the internet to gather as much information as I could from reliable sources, but some were just discussions from people on chatterbox websites that were interested in the earthquake swarm from when it began in 2007. The article is in a good state for such a small series of earthquakes..... BT (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I checked myself and everything appears to be ok. There are no disambiguation links or dead external links. BT (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks), but it doesn't convey the essence of the maps, namely, the useful information that they convey to the sighted reader. Instead, the alt text mostly just repeats the captions, which isn't what alt text is for (please see WP:ALT#Repetition). Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance on alt text for maps, and WP:ALT#Essence for advice in general. Eubulides (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully the alt text is better now. I have expanded and rewriten much of the text. BT (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, it's better now. I improved it a bit further. Eubulides (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Support - Sorry, BT, think the prose needs a bit more work. I'm concerned that the article has only 10 sources, though the length doesn't really concern me as much. Perhaps you could search a bit more for sources? I'd understand if there wasn't.
I searched everything and I could not find anymore sources. I would think 10 sources would be ok for a minor series of earthquakes compared to earthquakes that have been felt, done damage and killed people. While I was reading through the article again, I fixed some the of written information. BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
My concerns have been addressed, but I'm still a bit wary of the length. I recognize it's a rather minor series, but even so that gives me notability concerns. Despite these concerns, I'm willing to post a weak support. ceranthor 16:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
What is wrong with the length? It's not like every earthquake article has to be the same length in order to pass a FA candidate. The earthquake articles you brung to FA status are just a tad longer than this one (e.g.1968 Illinois earthquake, 1997 Qayen earthquake or 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake). And this minor earthquake swarm is most likely notable enough if it was reported on TV news channels, it caused an excitement throughout BC, it is the only notable earthquake series away from the BC Coast and it brung attention to scientists. That seems pretty notable in my opinion. BT (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It took place in the sparsely populated Nazko area of the central British Columbia Interior starting on Tuesday, October 9, 2007. - it? Wasn't it a series of earthquakes? Also, there's an inconsistency with the infobox with the date.
Yes. The reason I used "It" was because the earthquakes in general was an earthquake swarm. If you think about it as an earthquake swarm, it would be single. As for the infobox date, it is supposed to be for when the earthquake swarm began. BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The main shock epicenter - shock's epicenter
I deleted "shock" since the epicenter is really part of the swarm's hypocenter. While I was changing that I noticed another error; since it was a series of earthquakes, there would have been more than one epicenter. So I changed it from "epicenter" to "epicenters". BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Its cause is not clear, but the swarm originated from a magmatic source due to the existence of sporadic outbursts.[3] - due to the existence of sporadic outbursts?
Yes, meaning the outbursts of the earthquake swarm went off and on. BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Before the Nazko earthquake swarm began in 2007, the earthquake zone these earthquakes originated from did not necessarily exist.[6] - didn't they occur at the edge of the Anahim hotspot (according to the lead)?
The Anahim hotspot or Anahim Volcanic Belt was not known to be an earthquake zone before these earthquakes began. BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Seismologist John Cassidy said: "the depth is enough to rule out hydrothermal but it's up in the air as to whether the cause is tectonic shifts or volcanic activity. If it is volcanic there are certain characteristics that we would expect, there's a tremor-like character to it. And so we'll be looking for the types of events that we see beneath volcanoes and we'll be looking to see if they're getting closer to the surface of if they're migrating at all."[8] - he stated that...
True. BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

ceranthor 22:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  • The article looks overall pretty good. I can't find any issues with the science, just with wording and clarity. I'll be making some small edits to address these over the next few days, and if there's something large that I notice in the meantime, I'll post here again. Awickert (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] City of Blinding Lights

Nominator(s): MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 07:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


Hello everyone, I am nominating "City of Blinding Lights" for featured article because I believe that it meets all of the FAC criteria. It passed GAN with flying colours and recently underwent a Peer Review which led to some additions in both images and composition. I have compared it with several of the current song FAs, and I believe that this article either matches or exceeds the information that they have (although since I did a lot of work turning it from this into its present form, I probably would think that!). I'm pretty sure that all the sourcing checks out, and everything online is archived in case the webpages are later taken down. I hope that the article is to your liking. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 07:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment You can wait and see what others think, but I vote to lose the File:Midtown Manhattan as City of Blinding Lights.JPG image. It's a bit over the top, and its direct relevance is questionable. • Ling.Nut 11:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks; I'll keep it in mind, but I don't think that I'll remove it until I've had a bit more feedback on it from other editors. It was suggested in the peer review that the image be included to help illustrate the song's lyrics, so I'd like to see what other editors think about its inclusion. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Ling Nut. Maybe a different photo of New York would be good, but this particular photo looks cheesy. Consider adding a picture of GM Place, and maybe something from the Obama campaign. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
What about this image of the Brooklyn Bridge? It is one that I like very much, but my only concern with it is the length of the image. I will try to incorporate an image of GM Place or of Obama's campaign, but given the length of the sections and the number of images and quotes already used, I think there may be some difficulty in fitting both. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Images of GM Place and from Obama's campaign have been added. I've swapped out the previous image of NYC with the bridge image linked above. It's a featured image, so it should be okay I think. Alt's have been provided for all three, but I'm not particularly good with architectural alts so somebody may want to double-check what I've written for the GM Place image. Thanks for the feedback thus far! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-written and the sources look like they're of good quality. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • DAB links - no dab links found
  • ALT text - present, but for the images of people it's not detailed enough- for both Bono and Obama you just say "a man", rather than describing them
  • External links - Something funky is going on with the "Irish Singles Chart" (http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement) link; it's not resolving
  • --PresN 19:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Alt text has been modified accordingly; I tried to base it on the portrait examples on WP:ALT. I only hope that I didn't make it overly detailed. As for the website, I can only assume that it is a temporary downtime. I was on it just yesterday and it was working fine. Given that the site is run by IRMA and is their official archive, I can't imagine that it would be taken down wthout notice. I imagine that it should be up again within the next little. I've added a temporary back-up (reference 59) for the time being until the server issues are resolved. The source I have used for this backup is Chart Stats which, according to WP:GOODCHARTS, is reliable. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] L'ange de Nisida

Nominator(s): Andy Walsh (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


This is a shorter but fascinating article on a little-known but important opera by Gaetano Donizetti. It started as a whim to make a red link blue; soon, I was digging up everything I could find about this never-performed work. It's been thoroughly researched in books, journals, and at a major music library. I am confident I have discovered everything scholarly that's been written about L'ange. It's also had a thorough Peer Review by Brianboulton. I hope you enjoy reading about this interesting piece of opera history. Andy Walsh (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Comments You have two Wintons in the refs, but the notes don't provide a year to differentiate between sources... Oi, are we allowed to have Synopsis sections with no refs? In other words, are synopses a special case? • Ling.Nut 04:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed the Winton, thanks. The standard for Synopses is that they don't require a source; see for example Agrippina (It has footnotes, but no actual refs). In the case of L'ange, no one has seen it and no act-by-act synopsis is available. My only source of information was Ashbrook's description of the plot, presumably from his examination of the autograph in Paris. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Stop me if I'm wrong, but if there is any rationale at all for having no refs in synopses, it would be that the info is "common knowledge". I can certainly see where a synopsis Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" would not need refs. In this particular case, however, the synopsis is far from common knowledge (as you just stated). I would think that giving Ashbrook credit in the first sentence of the section ("Ashbrook states that blah blah..") would be appropriate. • Ling.Nut 05:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Good suggestion. It's not like anyone can dispute him and go see it for themselves. Attributed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: A fascinating piece of opera archaeology, on which I commented at length at peer review. One might say that this is Donizetti's equivalent of Beethoven's Leonore, the eclipsed forerunner of a more famous work. At any rate, I have never seen so much material gathered about L'ange de Nisida in one place, and this strikes me as being illustrative of the true function of Wikipedia; you can get information here that is not easily available elsewhere.
On Ling's point, the general rationale for no citations in the plot synopsis is that the work itself is deemed to be the source for a plain plot summary. It may be that in this case, with the work unperformed and (I assume) the original libretto unavailable, we are reliant on Ashbrook to tell us the plot, but this is a special circumstance. Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments For the synopsis... I'm not sure about the current "Ashbrook summarizes:". It's rather inelegant. I see no reason why this attribution can't be made as a footnote. Also, it might be worth mentioning in the article that a copy of the libretto is held in the library of the Fondazione Donizetti in Bergamo [1] and (I think) reprinted in The Donizetti Society Journal N. 7, Donizetti and France, 2002.[2] - Voceditenore (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps add further reading? There are two articles available the Donizetti Society Journal above:
Fulvio Stefano Lo Presti, "Sylvia prima di Léonor (con interferenze di un duca)"
William Desniou, "Donizetti et L'Ange de Nisida"
Also if there's any info on the singers who had been engaged to sing in the defunct premiere, that would be a useful addition too. I think I saw a mention of one or two in my perigrinations around Google Books. Voceditenore (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support now that my suggestions above have been implemented. This is not only fascinating subject, it thoroughly covers the material available in English sources striking the right balance between readability and scholarship, a valuable addition to Wikipedia. There is perhaps more detail available in Italian and French sources, but these have been added to the article to help the reader research further. I've taken the liberty of adding two more which were listed in Cassaro's Gaetano Donizetti: a guide to research.
Something you might want to consider, but it is by no means necessary, is to put the footnote about Juliette Bourgeois as an introduction to the roles table. Something like:
"As the opera never got to the rehearsal stage, little is known about the intended cast. However, in a letter to his close friend Tommaso Persico, Donizetti expressed his desire to give the title role to Juliette Bourgeois, a temperamental soprano who requested a large sum of money to perform in France. (She was later to create the title role in Donizetti's La fille du régiment)"
Incidentally, by all accounts, e.g. [3], [4], [5], Bourgeois was actually French, although she performed primarily in Italy and under the name "Giulietta Borghese" (and variants). It's worth double-checking Ashbrook to see if he actually says she was Italian as you currently have in the footnote. As you can see in my suggested wording above, I've left the nationality out, perhaps the way to go as it sounds a bit odd to say "a temperamental French soprano who requested a large sum of money to perform in France." Voceditenore (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
That's a great suggestion—I have converted the footnote into intro text to the Roles table. I checked Ashbrook and the wording indeed suggests she was a soprano "in Italy" but doesn't mention the nationality. As such, I took that out as you suggested. Thanks again for your insightful remarks. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Response to Voceditenore - Thanks so much for your input! I have performed the following changes in response to your comments. On the issue of the singers: I found that Donizetti hoped to give the role of Sylvia to Juliette Bourgeois, and I represented that in a footnote to the Roles table. Is that sufficient? I didn't not find any other information on who he wanted, since they never even began rehearsals.
    • I've changed the way the synopsis is attributed per your suggestion. I hope to avoid putting the note after the heading, which I've seen in practice in other articles and I find it visually noisy.
    • The transcribed libretto (both at the Foundation and in the Journal) is now mentioned.
    • Further reading section is added with the Italian-language articles.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Really well done, just got a couple of nitpicks, outside of that, it meets criteria well.
  1. The entire "context" portion is lacking images. This might make it a little better is the elegance department.
    #Roles section: Can we have a little more specification on the use of citations? The only citations in the third column of the chart. Does Ashbrook list all of these? If so, I'd have the citation post in all three columns.
    #""[I]t was expanded from an unperformed three-act French opera, L'ange de Nisida."" - for clarification, what is meant by [I]t?
  2. "L'ange de Nisida (The Angel of Nisida) is an opera semiseria in four acts by Gaetano Donizetti, from a libretto by Alphonse Royer and Gustave Vaëz." - Might want to add the place where all three are from, because the play may be from France, although people may not know that if they are or not.
    #Could we find a place to split two paragraphs in Contract and cancellation?

Outside of those, you're good to go (although I wish this would at least be a GA).Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Response to Mitch - Thanks for your review! Some replies:
    • I'm afraid any image I add would be gratuitous at this point. I did add a view of Nisida but even that is just there for idle interest.
    • I added the citations to the Roles table as requested.
    • The introductory phrase to the quotation mentioned specifies which opera it is in reference to.
    • I believe it would be unneeded detail to list the nationality of the composer and librettists, and it doesn't seem to be a convention in other similar featured articles; hopefully we can see eye-to-eye on that.
    • I would prefer not to split any paragraphs in Contract and cancellation; the first is exclusively about the contract and I can't find a way of splitting it that wouldn't cause an odd hiccup.
Thanks for your support, and I hope I have resolved and/or answered your items to your satisfaction. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
As for the nationality, I think we could use a reword of the sentence, something just sounds weird.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 23:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll think on it and try coming up with a compromise. --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Update: I added a line about Donizetti's nation of origin to the lead and the first para of the body. I don't think Royer and Vaëz are relevant; hopefully this is an acceptable compromise. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Further update: I have added a public domain image of a souvenir libretto from La Favorite to the Reworking section. I hope this resolves your concern about further images needed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Appears to be comprehensive, and is certainly well-written. Maralia (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Wildfire

Nominator(s): MrBell (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because of its importance as a global topic. It has been some time since the previous nomination and I believe that all of the concerns have been addressed. I just updated all the dead links and figured it was time for some additional feedback. MrBell (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Just a random comment: I'm surprised that there are no print sources at all. While I see a good number of online journal articles, print sources are usually far more thorough, and a topic like this is bound to have them. Any particular reason you didn't include any? NW (Talk) 00:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Print sources as in books? I have access to books on the topic, but I was under the impression that WP:Verify was essential, and most people seem to prefer information that is accessible from the internet. Is this not the case? MrBell (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "most people seem to prefer information that is accessible from the internet". Not the case. Definitely not the case. • Ling.Nut 04:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • All other things being equal, freely-readable online sources are better than non-free, because the free sources are easier to verify. However, Wikipedia articles should cite the best sources, even if they're not freely-readable. Eubulides (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Added both - your thoughts? MrBell (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. Eubulides (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yikes. You're in for some dissapointment. An important subject (like this one) should be sourced (almost exclusively) to books and scientific journal articles. You may have to rewrite the whole thing for FA. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The previous comment is a bit strong, as many of the sources cited are quite high quality, e.g., Bowman et al. 2009 (doi:10.1126/science.1163886). Anyway, here are some recent sources, some freely readable, that seem worthwhile looking into, and perhaps cited:
Eubulides (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the resources. I'll check them out and add them over the next few days. MrBell (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not opposing over sources. Personally I like web sources, since they can be checked easily. Another editor and I took Jackie Robinson through FA, and had to ad maybe 100 book sources so that it didn't rely on web sources. It depends on who the reviewers are. Not everyone is a stickler for book sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article took about 25 seconds to load, which is far too long to edit comfortably. The HTML took 21.614 seconds to generate on the server, a sign that it's using slow citation templates. I suggest switching from {{citation}} (which is the biggest, slowest, and hoggiest citation template) to faster templates (I like {{vcite journal}}, but I'm biased) or simply doing the citations by hand, without templates. Eubulides (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I changed them from citation to other templates - is it faster now? MrBell (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Not really. With the switched templates the page took 22.837 seconds of server time in my test. I was thinking of the vancite templates; with them, the page took 12.051 seconds in my test; much better. Also, the current version generates 300 kB of HTML, whereas the vancite version generates only 205 kB, so there's a significant savings in download time too. The vancite templates switch to Vancouver system style, which you may not want, so I reverted my edit to try them out. If you don't like the Vancouver system, other options would be to do the citations by hand, or to lessen the number of citations (does the article really need 200 citations)? Eubulides (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd love it if the images were bigger. They're so educational and visually appealing at full resolution, it's a shame they're so tiny in the article itself. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Agree with Juliancolton for all the non-panoramas (except maybe the lead image), and especially for the model near the prose end (I had to squint to read the labels). Give 'em an upsize, perhaps with upright for a percentage increase. --an odd name 15:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, mildly. This is not a major oppose, but rather a keen request for another prose copyedit. The prose is mostly professional, but there are some infelicities and grammar glitches that an independent copyeditor would surely catch. Some examples, all from the first third of the article:
  • The ability of a wildfire's burning front to change direction
  • Growth and behavior are unique to each fire due to many complex variables, but each wildfire exhibits several basic characteristics. The intention is presumably to claim they all exhibit the same basic characteristics. It would be clearer to say so.
  • in 1949 the Mann Gulch fire in Montana, USA, thirteen smokejumpers died. "In" or similar needs to come twice, since it happened both in 1949, and in the Mann Gulch fire. Or in the 1949 Mann Gulch fire would work, I suppose.
  • Sunlight warms the ground during the day and causes air currents to travel uphill, and downhill during the night as the land cools. Uncomfortable sentence structure.
  • (Caption)A tree struck by a lightning
  • (And yes, bigger images! Down with postage stamps, especially for attractive images like these!) Bishonen | talk 19:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC).
  • Ouch, it turns out that those images were downsized from the default. I just now removed all specifications of sizes smaller than 300px: this noticeably grew the images and addresses some of the objections noted above. As logged-in users can specify a preference for 300px thumbnails, articles typically shouldn't specify sizes smaller than that. If some images are still too small, "upright=1.1" etc. could be used to tweak them a bit but I wouldn't go overboard as the default size is scheduled to increase from 180px to 220px soon. Eubulides (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Flower (video game)

Nominator(s): PresN 20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating here Flower, an indie game for the PlayStation 3 that involves flying flower petals across a landscape, enlivening and brightening the world around you. It's had a successful GAN, I've tried to copy-edit it with a fine-tooth comb, I've checked external links and dabs, and all of the images have fair-use rationales and alt text. The game itself is only an hour long, but I think that the article gives a fair treatment of everything about it. --PresN 20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 15:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments by MelicansMatkin

Very nice article! As you say, dabs and external links check out, and the fair-use rationales all seem to be fine. I'm not exactly an expert on alt text, but it looks like you've got that covered too! I think that the prose could do with one polish in places; I did a minor copyedit to the lead so I apologize if I changed any meanings, but the sentence beginning with Flying towards flowers causes petals to follow the lead petal strikes me as being a little off; I'm not sure if its just me, but that sentence I think could do with a quick re-write/polish. Insofar as I can tell (game articles aren't really my speciality) all of the sources check out (though you might want to archive the online sources in case they are taken down later; use |archiveurl= and |archivedate=). Save for criterian 1a) (the prose), I think that it meets all of the requirements. My only quibble (and a very minor one at that) is that I think Development should be above Gameplay (if the Wikiproject generally has Gameplay above Development, then I'll be happy to strike that)? Switch that and a prose polish and I'll be happy to support. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! For video games, the typical flow is gameplay->plot->development, per WP:VG/MOS. I agree that the "flying" sentence is a bit off, I'm just not sure how to say it cleanly. You don't have to touch the flowers, but you do have to get really close... I'll try to think of something. --PresN 05:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I've struck that; thanks for pointing me in the direction of the VG MOS. I'll try doing a little more messing around with the sentence, but please revert me if I accidentally remove or alter the meaning. There are a couple of other prose inconsistencies I think spread out across the article; perhaps asking somebody at the VG WikiProject to do a quick copyedit could help. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Reworded to Flying close to flowers will result in the player's petal being followed by other flower petals. A gain in the number of petals following the player may have side-effects on the game world, such as bringing vibrant color to previously dead fields or activating stationary windmills. I think this makes it a bit clearer and preserves the original meaning, though it is a little more wordy. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I've done a copyedit which i think has addressed most of the uncertainties I had with the prose; since I can't see anything that I object to, I will support. While you wait for input from other people, I encourage you to review another featured article candidate. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] What Is and What Should Never Be (Supernatural)

Nominator(s): Ωphois 05:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is up to FA standards. Ωphois 05:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Support: Nicely written article! ATC . Talk 12:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a few "as" sentences that should be rearranged so they're more direct.

"Once the story was fully developed, Tucker was given free rein over the script; this surprised her, as she expected Kripke to "be more of a backseat driver than he was"."
What would you suggest? Ωphois 01:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
" However, John Winchester, who died in the second season premiere, remained dead, as Kripke felt that Dean would realize something was amiss if he was granted a "perfect dream world"."
Changed to: However, Kripke felt that Dean would realize something was amiss if he was granted a "perfect dream world", so John Winchester, who died in the second season premiere, remained dead. Ωphois 01:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
"As Jessica was an integral aspect of the storyline, production of the episode was adjusted to accommodate the actress."
Changed to: With Jessica being an integral aspect of the storyline, production of the episode was adjusted to accommodate the actress. Ωphois 01:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
"As is typical of the series,[11] the episode also featured rock songs.[12]"
Would "Following the series' tradition, the episode also featured rock songs." work? Ωphois 01:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This sentence sounds funny. "Kripke's favorite was a group shot of the Winchesters wearing matching Christmas sweaters, as it "cracks [him] up to no avail"."

I removed it. It doesn't really add anything to the article, IMO. Ωphois 01:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, looks pretty good. I'll give more comments later. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice fixes!
""Once the story was fully developed, Tucker was given free rein over the script; this surprised her, as she expected Kripke to "be more of a backseat driver than he was".""
Could be:
"Once the story was fully developed, Tucker was given free rein over the script. This surprised her because she expected Kripke to "be more of a backseat driver than he was"."
Done. Ωphois 18:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll make more comments soon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
This sentence is still indirect: "With Jessica being an integral aspect of the storyline, production of the episode was adjusted to accommodate the actress."
Maybe
"Because Jessica was an integral aspect of the storyline, the production schedule was adjusted to accommodate her." or whatever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05
20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but I kept the last part as "the actress". Jessica is the character, so your version implies that the schedule was adjusted to accommodate the character instead of Palicki. Ωphois 18:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"As David Nutter was one of the first directors that Kripke had gotten to know well and had learned a lot from" - Indirect "as" sentence should be made for forceful. "gotten to know well" is also a bit informal. I'd also replace that sentences semicolon with a period; it's pretty long.

Do you have any suggestions? Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Production attempted to match the camera angles" - Maybe "The crew attempted"

Fixed. Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Much discussion and details were put into each one" - Sounds funny.

How so? Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"one of the lowest ratings for the season." - Is that OR, or should the ref be moved to follow it?

It's based on the ratings from the season 2 page. Ratings there are done one-by-one, so the only way I know of to cite it would be to make 21 other citations. Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Actresses Samantha Smith and Adrianne Palicki were welcomed back" - Maybe something about them being "a treat"? Anyways, "welcomed back" sounds a bit odd.

Done. Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Tom Burns of UGO deemed the episode "one of the strongest hours of Supernatural all season, feeling that "the actors really stepped up their game...and sold every moment"." - MIssing quote?

Fixed. Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"He especially noted the "unapologetically emotional"" - "especially" is odd.

How so? Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"he feels that Ackles' "hardcore acting chops"" - "felt"?

Fixed. Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Writer Raelle Tucker won the Constellation Award for "Best Overall 2007 Science Fiction Film or Television Script" for her work on the episode.[18]" - Single sentence paras should be merged or removed.

Previous FAC's I've done have specified that single sentences that are unrelated should be separate. Ωphois 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)



  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I wasn't sure how to do it with the multiple image template, but it's been added now. Ωphois 18:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem; and thanks. Eubulides (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Needs some rewriting/revision for clarity. See the following examples:
  • "What Is and What Should Never Be" is the twentieth episode of the paranormal drama TV series Supernatural's second season on The CW, and was first broadcast on May 3, 2007." —A big first sentence for the reader to chunk.
    • I separated it into two sentences. Ωphois 18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "The narrative follows series protagonist Dean Winchester (Jensen Ackles) as a djinn seemingly fulfills his greatest desire: that his mother was not killed." —Does the "as" refer to the character, or is the djinn a separate entity?
    • Changed to: "The narrative follows series protagonist Dean Winchester (Jensen Ackles) as he finds himself in an alternate reality after a djinn seemingly fulfills his greatest desire: that his mother had not been killed when he was a child."
  • I've split into two sentences to avoid the confusing and repetitious pronouns. Revert if it's not correct.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • That works, though I made a couple minor edits. Ωphois 04:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "Though he finds happiness in this new world" —Which new world?
    • I think the previous revision fixes this. Ωphois 18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Try making it more active: "Initially he is happy in the new world until it becomes apparent that his previous work as a hunter of supernatural creatures has been undone. At that point he rejects the alternate reality, and finds a method to bring himself back." I'm not sure this is correct either, but essentially, the stacking of information in the sentences is hard for a reader who is not familiar with the topic. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Changed to: "Dean is happy in the new world until it becomes apparent that his previous work as a hunter of supernatural creatures has been undone. At that point he rejects the alternate reality, and attempts to find a method to bring himself back." Ωphois 04:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "Dean realizes that all the good he and his brother Sam (Jared Padalecki) did as hunters of supernatural creatures has been undone, and he rejects the new reality." —Needs a rewrite. What is the "new reality"?
    • See above. Ωphois 18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, stopped after the third sentence in the lead. Will return later to have a look at other sections. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Ninja Gaiden (Nintendo Entertainment System)

Nominator(s): –MuZemike 03:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


I don't know if much else can be done here, but here goes. I'm hoping this meets the FA criteria in that it's comprehensive, well-written, neutral, and stable. In a nutshell, this article is about one of the best video games released on the Nintendo Entertainment System (coincidentally, of all the numerous video game-related FAs, none of them are NES games) as well as one of the best games of all time. It's already been through three peer reviews (actually two and one-half as one of them wasn't much of one), a successful GAN, and very recently a successful A-Class assessment. –MuZemike 03:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 15:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

  • No dabs or dead external links—good.
  • Alt text looks great and detailed (and not too detailed).
  • Dates appear to be consistent Month Day, Year in prose, and ISO style (full) or Month Year (partial) in refs. OK to me.
  • For citations:
    • Shouldn't ref 48's book title use italics? Check the other ref titles to be sure.
    • "May-December 1989" (in ref 43) and similar date ranges should use the en (–).

I'd have sit this one out entirely due to another game that now robs my time, but this is Ninja Gaiden dammit. --an odd name 04:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I did the endashes (also changed a couple of emdashes I forgot in my last copyedit sweep) [6] and [7]. Hopefully I got the rest of the non-italicized occurrences of the title [8]. I also didn't realize that the {{cite book}} automatically italicized the title :) –MuZemike 21:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Image comments
    • All images are low-res, have proper licenses and fair use rationales. I'm a bit iffy on File:Ninja Gaiden NES Duel.png but since there's a source that specifically comments on it, I suppose it meets WP:NFCC.
    • On an unrelated note, "They and called the version in Ninja Gaiden Trilogy"→missing a word here.

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, David, for noting that extra "and" in there; I removed it [9]. –MuZemike 03:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] 1910 Cuba hurricane

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | Talk 02:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


This storm was first considered to be two separate storms that struck in rapid succession due to its initially unknown loop. Its unfamiliar track led to extensive debate and research, and helped forecasters understand cyclones that underwent similar loops. It was also deemed among Cuba's most significant natural disasters, but since the hurricane occurred exactly 100 years ago, information is somewhat scarce. Interested yet? Happy reading. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Cuba — "The city of Casilda was devastated." Any way of using a conjunction? Actually the whole sub-section seems a bit dot pointy. Also, shouldn't "city" have a capital? Aaroncrick (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean to be honest... –Juliancolton | Talk 16:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Basically, the sentence is too short and should be joined with another. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it's better as it is, but feel free to change it if you feel it's necessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Support — I don't know a great deal about cyclones; however, this looks comprehensive considering the sources that are available - or as I'm lead to believe. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  • It's a fine read, but I think more coverage of how the storm "helped forecasters understand cyclones that underwent similar loops" is needed. "[E]xtensive debate and research" would appear to require a section of discussion, rather than a sentence. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    Agreed - What is there is excellent but the article is missing an ==Aftermath== section, which is the place where a discussion about the research and lessons learned from this storm would go. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 03:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    Well, there's only one source that mentions subsequent research of the storm in depth. I can't find any journals or documents that would provide enough info for an entire section on it (especially considering that it occurred 100 years ago). –Juliancolton | Talk 04:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    One source should be enough to create a paragraph on the topic. I'm sure WikiProject Cyclone members will chime in if more is needed than that. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 04:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    There's only a couple sentences in the book, though. I doubt I'd be able to get any more information on that particular topic without resorting to OR. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    A search on Google books seems to confirm that. I'll add my conditional support and condition it on others not finding comprehensiveness issues. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 00:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    One other thing: Is Florida Fun Facts the best we can do? I'm sure there are more respectable and trustworthy sources to draw upon. I see it's not cited inline; I might consider just removing it, or at least confining it to a "Further reading" section. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    Addendum (again): "Well, there's only one source that mentions subsequent research of the storm in depth." If that's the case, you really should mine that source. I'm sure there's more than a sentence there – in fact, you confirm it: "... a couple sentences in the book..." Is it possible for you to get to a physical library to find out more? I'm pressing the issue because the "extensive research" line at the end of the first section really left me hungry for more, and feeling that information was missing. There must be sources out there; "extensive research" is published. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    Removed the superfluous source. As for adding more information, I don't know what else to say. There's nothing further on the topic in any of my tropical cyclone books, nothing in the Monthly Weather Review as far as I can see, and nothing in Google's newspaper archive. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments -
    • Julian! You have two last name first refs in your "general refs" then the last one is first name first! Consistency! (Normally I'd fix this myself but you know better!)
      • Ugh, sorry. Trouts for me I suppose. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • What makes http://www.cubahurricanes.org/history-hurricanes-chronicles.php a reliable source?
      • Normally it wouldn't be a reliable source, but I'm only using it to demonstrate an extreme unofficial report, so in the context it's being used in I think it's OK. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 05:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Mono-Inyo Craters

Nominator(s): mav


Hike395 and I have been editing this article off and on ever since I created it in 2003. Over the last few months, I purchased/found many good sources on the topic and have used them to massively expand the article. Much fine tuning by myself and Hike395 has occurred since then (including a Peer Review). I now think that the article is up to current FA criteria. If not, then what else needs to be done? --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 22:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Support - I read about half the article and glanced through the rest, and I'm impressed by the detail, comprehensiveness, and accessibility. I don't know a lot about geology, but I found this article easy to read, interesting, and concise. Nice work. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support—The article is in fine shape with only a few trivial nits, listed below.
    • "Inyo Craters form much of the southern part of that line and are either phreatic explosion pits or rhyolitic lava flows and domes." It's a nit, but is 'line' here intended as a synonym for 'chain'? Is the 'either' meant to indicate uncertainty or a mixture?
    • Please create stub articles for the red links.
    • "Mule Deer, Coyote, Black Bear, Yellow-bellied Marmot, Raccoon and Mountain Lions all have ranges that are coincident with forests that cover parts of the Mono-Inyo craters." I believe that the common names of animals are not normally capitalized.
    • "...to a depth of 8 inches (20 cm) 20 miles (32 km) downwind to 2 inches (5.1 cm) 50 miles (80 km) downwind." Was one of the 'downwind' supposed to be 'upwind'?
    Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks - All fixed except for the red-link stubs. I'll work on that this weekend. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 02:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    Please clarify the 'either' in the first bullet. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    Ah, missed that. Now reads " Inyo Craters form much of the southern part of the chain and consist of phreatic explosion pits, rhyolitic lava flows and domes" --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Alt text is quite good (thanks), except that the alt text for File:Mono-InyoEruptionsLast5000years.gif doesn't convey the essence of that map and diagram to the visually impaired reader. There's no need to give all the details but the overall gist should be given (as it is for the other map). Please see WP:ALT#Maps for suggestions. Eubulides (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    Alt text expanded to give a better impression of the image. Hopefully not too wordy now. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    No, it's good now. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. The precision to which the various conversions are carried needs tweaking. However, there is a problem to be overcome first. There are several in which conversions have been done by someone, either by Wikipedia editors or their sources, before the Template:Convert is used to "unconvert" them back to the original numbers (or at least to get back in the ballpark of what the original numbers were). In these cases, it is the number which is the input into the black box which has improper precision. But it is hard to tell for sure when this is the case. Can anyone help identify those cases? I'd sure like to see all the conversions going from the original measurements to other units, but at the very least, the conversions which are not made inside the article but rather outside it need to be reviewed. For example, "covered {{convert|38|sqmi|km2}}" which gives "covered 38 square miles (98 km2)" should likely be "covered {{convert|100|km2|mi2|-1|sp=us}}" or "covered 100 square kilometers (40 sq mi)". Or, at the very least, fix the input and output of the black box so that you have "covered {{convert|40|sqmi|km2|-1|sp=us}}" (covered 40 square miles (100 km2)); the area it covered nearly a millennium ago cannot be known any more precisely than that, and the 100 km² might indicate an even rougher measurement than what is apparent for 40 mi². Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    Good point. I fixed your examples and many like it. The books that I consulted used U.S. units but the USGS sources used metric. Per MOS, I had to choose a standard for the article and chose U.S. units as the primary. There are HTML comments in the wikitext that state the exact values and units used in the cited references. I created a feature request for the convert template whereby the cited value could be used in the template but the order reversed when parsed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
No, you don't have to "choose a standard for the article"; that isn't what the MoS says. It might come close to suggesting that at times, but never as a hard and fast rule, and then it gives many examples where it doesn't apply. And this article shows one big reason why it shouldn't be that way. It's hard enough to figure out the optimal precision when the originals are given first, and it is even harder when they aren't. Sure, if you have two similar measurements of the same quantity nearby, it's probably a good idea--maybe one standard for the elevations in the article, as in the example given in the MoS. But not one standard for every measurement of different quantities. It really depends on the individual measurements. I hadn't noticed any comments in the text, probably would have seen some of them if I'd tried to edit them first. That should help. I'll look at what's there now, see if I can do some tweaking. Unlike the one I mentioned above, in most cases there will be at least two, sometimes even three defensible places as to where the rounding should occur. My guiding principles are that the people who ignore one set of measurements should get basically the same information as the people who ignore the other set of measurements, and that the most common problem with overprecise conversions is that they bog down the reading speed for everyone. Keep in mind that even in the United States, much of our scientific work is done in the metric system, and in the portions of the articles which specifically with the results of those scientific investigations, metric units should usually come first.
I don't like the idea of putting converted values first. It often gives false information, and even if you convince somebody to make a template to do so, the readers who do not see the parameters used in that template will be misled. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
You've done a good job, mav. Looks like that problem is resolved. That's not to say I might not quibble on a couple of them, but it really does look good now, much better. Thank you. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments - just a placeholder for now, will review the rest of the article later. Sasata (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC) lead

  • "Politically, it is located in Mono County in the U.S. State of California." Use of politically reads oddly to me, can this just be left out without affecting meaning?
  • wlink cinder cone
  • "Various activities are available along the chain," Maybe reword, sounds a bit strange to say an activity is "available"

Geography and description

  • "Mule deer, coyote, black bear, yellow-bellied marmot, raccoon and mountain lions all have ranges" mixture of singular and plural looks inconsistent
  • "…as lava after its heat had already created a steam explosion crater." lava after its heat?
  • wlink Devil's Punch Bowl
  • "They were formed from slow-moving pasty lava" what's pasty lava?
  • There's still a mention of pasty lava in the "

Inyo Craters and Paoha Island" section

  • scree wlinked twice in this section
  • why are temperature given first in Celsius,with a F conversion, not the other way around (consistent with other imperial-metric conversions in the article)

History

  • "This book was published in 1872." Extraneous sentence, just mention the year in the previous sentence. Ellipses should be spaced on either side, according to MOS
  • "Gold rush-related boomtowns sprang up near and in Mono Basin in the 19th century to exploit local bonanzas." unclear - is the implication that there was gold to be found there?
  • N/m, found Bodie listed in the Gold Rush article. Sasata (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • wlink tributary
—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Sasata (talk • contribs)
  • Had a go at all your suggestions except for adding the wlinks; Devil's Punch Bowl is not notable by itself to have its own article and tributary is just a common English word which is not directly related to the subject. Tributary would be appropriate to link in the Mono Lake article, but not in this article. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 02:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • (continued) Sasata (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "Above that layer are basaltic to rhyolitic volcanic rocks" I'm not well-versed in geology… does this means there's a range of rock types between these two without any clear demarcation?
    Swapped "to" with "grading to". --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "The massive eruption of Long Valley Caldera some 760,000 years ago laid down a thick sequence of Bishop Tuff over the region." A sequence? Would "layer" work?
    "Sequence" is a better term since there is a layering of different rock/ash/welded ash. ---mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "A mix of ash and pulverized rock, called tephra, covered about 3,000 square miles (8,000 km2) of the Mono Lake region to a depth of 8 inches (20 cm) 20 miles (32 km) from the vents and 2 inches (5 cm) 50 miles (80 km) away. (Wind direction varied during that time)." Needs rephrasing, listing the depth and distance values right next to each other may cause confusion (interpret as distance = 20 miles and 8 inches). Not sure what the parenthetical sentence adds, nor why it's in parentheses.
    Good point. Put a "deep" in-between the depth and distance values. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "Pyroclastic flows of glowing-hot clouds of gas, ash and pulverized lava" were they glowing because someone saw them, or because "glowing" here means "really, really hot"? Does really hot gas glow?
    Not always but very often (the glow can normally only be seen at night). It depends on how far up the ash and lava go before crashing down. I removed "glowing" in this case b/c the source did not in fact say that - I was just trying to give an in-context definition of the jargon "pyroclastic flow" and got a bit carried away. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "…38 square miles (100 km2) in the second phase." Just to clarify, was the first phase the stuff that happened in the previous paragraph, or the first part of the sentence?
    " in the second phase" removed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "The rhyolite magma was rich in the mineral silica and thus oozed out of the vents to form several steep-sided domes" Why "thus"? Is molten silica well-known for oozing?
    The silica part not needed, so removed. Silica is sticky when molten and caused lava rich in it to ooze. Changed to "Rhyolite lava oozed out of the vents to form several steep-sided domes" --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments -
    • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes (I noted USGS, but there may be others).
    • REALLY picky but consistency in the notes - either US or U.S. (grins) Pick one.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Mav, did you do the two above? the ones above the bolded comments were Sasatas... not mine. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
U.S./US fixed and a few USGS fixed as well. The ones that remain are fine since the publisher on those same cites is written as the "United States Geological Service" and there are two instances of "United States Geological Service (USGS)" in the article to introduce the reader to the initialism "USGS". --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 04:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

  • I'm concerned about the grammar of "Mono-Inyo Craters is a chain of...."
Try "The Mono-Inyo Craters are volcanic craters forming a chain which runs north-south.......etc"
  • Mono-Inyo?! Make a clear statement in the first paragraph. Say that there are two types of craters, those called Mono and those called Inyo.
  • If you have any idea what the names Mono and Inyo mean, tell your reader that, too.
  • First parag again. You say North south, then describe south north. Decide which direction your heading and stick to it! Amandajm (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    • That and similar plural issues fixed.
    • First para already describes all major parts of the chain; Mono Craters and Inyo Craters are there and introduced as distinct parts of the chain.
    • Mention that Israel Russell named Mono Craters added. He did not say what he named them for, but "Mono Valley" (the old name for Mono Basin or "Mono Lake" are likely candidates. I could not find, after a great deal of searching, who named Inyo Craters or what they are named for.
    • North-south part fixed.
    --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 15:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Pentland

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


Nominating another aviation bio that I think meets the FA criteria, focussing on one of Australia's top-scoring aces of World War I, a great character in the annals of civil as well as military flying. Currently GA, plus A-Class at the MilHist project - any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 15:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason to link "Australian"? It's bunched up with six linked words out of seven in a row. Please see WP:LINK.
  • The title is "The King's School", so "The" should be blue too, I guess. Looks funny without. I had the misfortune to be interned there for six years, so I should know.
  • Could you remove "reading"?
  • MilHist of Australia during WWII is odd with a pipe "war was declared".
  • I think "radar" is a common term.

Looks good on a quick run through. Tony (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tks for review, Tony. Agree with and actioned all except the WWII link/pipe, which still makes sense to me as we're talking about Australia's declaration of war - but happy to hear other comments... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Support

  • Dabs and alt text look good. A couple of external links timed out, but the others looked good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Tks Storm. Yeah, those buggers always seem to time out with the checker but they're fine when you follow the link in the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Chadderton

Nominator(s): --Jza84 |  Talk  00:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I'm confident this article passes the FA criteria by way of being thorough, well referenced and of a befitting quality to feature on the main page. There was no opposition at its last FAC, but the article did lack some grace in terms of grammar, formatting as well as some of the most advanced/uber-new FA criteria (such as ALT text). Since the original nomination, Chadderton has gone through extensive copyeditting). Feedback welcome of course. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Minor comments addressed.

  • Prose: Are the Asshetons the Assheton Baronets? If so, please add a link.
    • Done. I didn't know we had that article. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I prefer the history section to be written in the past tense rather than using "ing" endings, but this is a minor point.
    • "correlated to supporting" is cumbersome; please try to find another way to phrase this.
    • Most areas are given in acres followed by hectares, but this is switched in the "Landmarks" section. Perhaps you should switch the imperial and metric units around in this section so that it matches the rest of the article.
    • Most -ise endings use the "s" form, but you have "Authorized" for the King James Bible. The "z" form is also used in British English, so perhaps you should consider using Oxford spelling throughout. Again, this is a minor point as both forms are correct.
  • Images: All licenses OK.
    • On the alt text, I'm not sure that "On this map Chadderton is..." is useful. Three-quarters in from the western edge of what? The southern edge of what? I think the sentence can be cut without detriment.
    • You haven't changed the translation of the motto: I thought it had been agreed that this was wrong?
  • I'm satisfied that the article meets all the other criteria. My main concern is the motto. DrKiernan (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC) amended 13:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] A Momentary Lapse of Reason

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 18:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


Its Pink Floyd lite's first outing. Some may view this article has being heavily-biased toward the infighting and politics that were going on at that time. Necessarily so, because all the sources used focus on these events, to the detriment of the technical details some may wish to read. I've also struggled (annoyingly) to find many online reviews for the album. I've done my best, however, and I present Gilmour's growing girth for your mirth. Parrot of Doom 18:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  • No dabs, alt texts present. JN466 22:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I find the second para of the lead somewhat confusing: "Guitarist David Gilmour had, in 1985, begun to assemble a group of musicians for what, at that point, would have been his third solo album. Later he changed his mind however, and then with the assistance of drummer Nick Mason and keyboardist Richard Wright, he helped craft what would become the group's first album since the departure of lyricist and bass guitarist Roger Waters in December of that year." December is the last month of the year, and the paragraph reads as though all these things happened after Waters left in December. Could this be reworded? --JN466 22:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, you're correct. I've clarified matters, have a look at the lead now. Parrot of Doom 22:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • We refer to Profiles as Mason's solo album, but according to our article on the album, it was a collaboration with Rick Fenn (the cover says "Mason + Fenn"). --JN466 22:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • A solo album doesn't necessarily mean that the artist worked alone - it can be inferred that a solo album is a body of work away from the artist's usual home (band). Blake (2005) refers to Profiles as "Mason released his second album, Profiles, a collaboration with former 10cc guitarist Rick Fenn". Schaffner (1991) says "they decided to try their hand at an album". While its primarily a collaboration, I'm happy to call it a solo effort when referring to Mason within Pink Floyd. Zee, which Richard Wright was a partner in, cannot be described in the same fashion, as he had left the band years previously. Parrot of Doom 22:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay. I guess one could see it that way. --JN466 01:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The citation of "In the Studio with Redbeard, A Momentary Lapse of Reason, Barbarosa Ltd. Productions, 2007" is a little cryptic. Given that it is a radio show, would it not be best to use the {{cite episode}} template for radio show episodes, inserting the show's official title (wikilinked) for "series", and adding the airdate along with season and number, if available? --JN466 22:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I only know the year it was broadcast (20th anniversary), not the date. I can't use the cite episode template as I'm using the citation template throughout. Parrot of Doom 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Per WP:CIT, there is no citation-family alternative to {{cite episode}}. Perhaps Sandy could advise us here? Is the citation template okay to use for radio shows? At any rate, I feel something in the ref should make it apparent that "In the Studio with Redbeard" refers to the radio show In the Studio (radio show), and that "A Momentary Lapse of Reason" refers to a (September?) 2007 episode of that show. But, you understand, it's not a big thing, and not something I'd oppose over. ;) --JN466 02:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I've added format = Radio broadcast to the reference. This should be enough information for anyone interested to track down the source, which unfortunately is no longer on Redbeard's site. I can't add a month as I don't know which month it was broadcast. Parrot of Doom 13:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "To drive home the message that Waters had left the band, a group photograph, shot by David Bailey, was—for the first time since 1971's Meddle—included in the gatefold. Wright's name appears only on the credit list." I think we should spell out who was included in the group picture. --JN466 18:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm thinking of adding an NFCC image of the centrefold for just this reason. Its pretty notable - the first group photo they put on a studio album since 1971. What do you think? Parrot of Doom 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I would like to have the picture if it's compatible with our NFC criteria (I don't have a very good understanding of those, so I'll keep shtum beyond saying I would like it.) --JN466 02:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I've added the picture, which includes the list of credits (emphasising Wright's role) Parrot of Doom 14:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • What we have in the article looks good and well researched, but I do miss information on the music itself -- the style and mood of the songs, the arrangement, the musicianship and the production values. --JN466 19:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I have no source material on these matters - and I have most of the best Pink Floyd books. I'd normally fill this in using album reviews, but I haven't tracked many down. Most people focussed on the Waters-Floyd feud, rather than the music. Parrot of Doom 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Amazingly, we have a separate article on each of the album's 10 or 11 tracks, but they don't cite more than 3 sources between them. And none of those are about the music. :( --JN466 02:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I've dropped Parrot of Doom a couple of possible sources on their user talk page. I do feel that in an FA on an album we have to say something about the music itself. --JN466 11:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I've added some details about individual songs. Thanks for this. Parrot of Doom 14:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I've left you some more sources on your talk page (including a Gilmour quote which I would recommend incorporating for balance -- we give Waters a lot of room, given that he didn't play on this). But I think the article is 95% there and therefore support. --JN466 19:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

  • External links look good.
  • Needs a link to The Final Cut.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • It already has one. Parrot of Doom 00:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Source comments Everything fine, but make sure the MacDonald book has a publishing location for conformity.

Comments I ce'd the lead+infobox and the lists at the bottom btw.

RB88 (T) 14:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Like a Rolling Stone

Nominator(s): I.M.S. (talk), Moisejp, Mick gold, Rlendog, Allreet - 18:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


Co-nomination from I.M.S. - I am nominating this on behalf of the WikiProject Bob Dylan Collaboration Team. We have all been working very hard on the article for almost five months, building it up with the eventual goal of FAC. We now feel that the article is ready. Please express your opinions on the article, and we will try our best to respond to you and address any issues raised. Thank you for your time. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Collaborators, please add your co-nominations to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Like a Rolling Stone/archive1

Media review: Three images. Alt text good for all.

  • Usage: Good, standard.
  • Rationale: Good.
  • Usage: Dubious. The cover provides the necessary and sufficient identification. Not clear at all what significant purpose this serves.
  • Rationale: Fine, except that Purpose of use is questionable, per above.
I have deleted this image. Moisejp (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Usage: Questionable. The event depicted is undoubtedly unique and famous, but is Dylan's visual appearance at all significant here? Surely it was the electrified sound of his music and the crowd reaction prompted by that sound that made this event historic. Is there audio of the event available—perhaps audio that captures both the sound of Dylan's performance and the crowd's reaction? Or the part that would explicate the article's mention of where he "recited the lyrics as if giving a speech"? That, I believe, would be more informative than the image. Of course, if there is something worthwhile to be said (i.e., sourced critical commentary) about Dylan's appearance at the event, that would improve the basis for the image's use.
  • Rationale: Inadequate. Full information must be provided on original source, The Other Side of the Mirror, including identification of copyright holder.

Three audio samples (fair use): Primary release version for infobox; significantly different alternative version, with sourced critical commentary; famous Jimi Hendrix cover version, with sourced critical commentary. Selection is good, but there are several problems:

I have added the copyright holder for File:Like a Rolling Waltz.ogg and for File:Bob Dylan - Like a Rolling Stone.ogg. Moisejp (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I have added to the rationale for File:Like a Rolling Waltz.ogg to try to clarify the necessity of including the sample in this specific article. Please let me know if my change is not the kind specification you had in mind. Moisejp (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Great job, Moisejp. Audacity is not working for me at the moment - I'll try reinstalling it, then I'll get to work on shortening the clip. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I.M.S., let me know if you don't end getting Audacity to work. I could easily do a shorter sound clip myself. It might not be as good as yours, which fades in and out to show different highlights as I recall, but it would at least do the trick and fit the length requirements. But if you can get Audacity working, all the better! Moisejp (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • MOS: There need to be quote marks around "Like a Rolling Stone" in the lead captions in the article's sample boxes.—DCGeist (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I will shorten "Like A Rolling Stone" and address the MOS problem. Should File:Dylan Rolling Stone Newport.jpg be deleted? - I.M.S. (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

All points addressed. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe copyright information for the Hendrix version still needs to be added. Moisejp (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I've done my best, but I don't know the copyright information for the Hendrix version... does what I've added look alright? - I.M.S. (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Questions:
  • I have long been of the understanding that Dylan is referring to Andy Warhol in the stanza she rode on the chrome horse with her diplomat who carried on his shoulder a siamese cat - ain't it hard when you discover that he really wasn't where it's at after he took from you everything he could steal etc. His friend Bob Neuwirth, and Joan Baez and Marianne Faithful don't seem very likely as subjects in the story to me, perhaps Nico?
  • I am a little disappointed not to see the lyrics, is that possible? Otherwise great job so far...Modernist (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment, Modernist. As to the Warhol reference, I agree with you that it would fit in with the "themes" section, but it would require a RS discussing the subject. Do you have one? - I.M.S. (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll look for a RS, and the lyrics, can you publish all or some?...Modernist (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • A source - This website has usually been accurate about alot of things: [10] - scroll down to the section about Bob Dylan and Bob Neuwirth. I'll check some other material as well...Modernist (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for doing the research—let's see what the other collaborators think, then perhaps we'll add it. In the past, however, Warholstars.org was contested by the GA reviewer of "LARS"—search the talk page for "Warhol". You might also want to take a look at this discussion about Warhol, Sedgewick, and Neuwirth. Many thanks for you help! - I.M.S. (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The reference to POPism: The Warhol '60s by Andy Warhol & Pat Hackett, Harper & Row, 1980, is interesting. On page 108, Warhol reports that someone told him: "Listen to 'Like A Rolling Stone'—I think you're the diplomat on the chrome horse, man." I think this counts as WP:RS for the point that Warhol believed, or people in Warhol's circle believed that LARS was referring to Warhol. Warhol then states "I didn't know exactly what they meant by that—I never listened much to the words of songs—but I got the tenor of what they were saying—that Dylan didn't like me, that he blamed me for Edie's drugs." Mick gold (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Well done Mick, I have a copy of the Edie Sedgwick biography by Jean Stein, although I doubt that it will offer anymore useful sources...Modernist (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I've re-written Themes to expand reference to Warhol and Sedgwick. Mick gold (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - good job...Modernist (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Source comments Generally fine.

  • Go through all the refs and make sure online sources and organisations (including radio stations) are NOT in italics. (Also there's a Rolling Stone that needs italics.)
  • Ref 82 needs a publisher.
  • The lead does not need any citations as the material has to be covered in the text. Please remove them and make sure the material is indeed covered in the text.
  • For conformity, ensure all books (or none, it's up to you) have a publishing location in the references.

RB88 (T) 13:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical Storm Marco (1990)

Nominator(s): Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 01:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC) and Hurricanehink 01:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I have done an all-over look of an old friend (now-retired Hurricanehink) editor's article. He offered me to nominate it, and I accepted it. All comments are welcome. NOTE: I will add Alt Text as soon as possible. Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 01:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 15:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
ALT Text is now in.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 02:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Alt text is good (thanks), except the alt text for File:Klaus Marco Rainfall Amounts.gif should briefly say the gist of the map (where did most of the rain fall? and how much rain was it?) rather than giving irrelevant details such as color. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance. Eubulides (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Done.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 14:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Check the toolbox; there are a couple of dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Done.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 15:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments by mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) -
  • In ==Preparations== it says "the Tampa Bay" - is an "area" supposed to be at the end of that or does the "the" need to be deleted?
Done.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Something odd about the construction of this sentence, suggest revision; "With most of its circulation over the western portion of Florida during its duration, Tropical Storm Marco produced tropical storm force winds across western Florida."
Done.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Watch out for excess commas. Many sentences are a bit choppy due to that.
Care to point some of these sentences out?Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't there be an ==Aftermath== section? If not, why not.
Klaus and Marco, since the two had an unusual interaction, caused rather little, outside of rainfall and about $30 million in damage.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments -
    • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
All done. :) - Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 02:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose—Poor linking practices.

  • Why is "United States" linked? And twice????
Done.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 07:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "during its duration"?
Done.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 07:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Rather than bunch linked words, this would be neater: Louisville, Georgia. Same for the other duplets.
Done.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Why are "inches" and "mm" linked? Why is Cuba linked twice? Why is "atmosphere" linked?
Done.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "Prior to the arrival of the storm"—bit ungainly. "Before the storm arrived"?
Done.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Chain link again: "Florida Governor" must surely appear as a link at the top of the Bob Martinez article. Why link both. Just the more specific one, please.
Done.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd have thought no need for "USD" at all. Certainly not $ and D. And why repeated three times in one line? We got it the first time, and didn't even need it then.
This is for inflation mainly, because the prices are written in 1990 US Dollar and the inflation is there for the 2009. I got most of these.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • cold-front linked again.
Done.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "President" doesn't need a link: it's bunched next to the guy's name.
Done.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • MOSDASH: unspaced en dash please.
Done.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Hidden link (2008). Why not put it 3 cm below in See also, not hidden?
Done.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 07:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Loxton

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


This fellow was notable for being an Australian Test crickeer from 1948 to 1951, yes he was in the Invincibles, he also played top-flight Australian rules football and was a politician for the Liberal Party of Australia for 24 years. He served as a cricket administrator for two decades, overseeing the Australian tour of Pakistan and India in 1959-60, which was successful. Since then, Australia have only won one Test in Pakistan and two series in India YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The political section is woeful. One small paragraph jammed in the middle of the "Later life" section for a 24-year career. Rebecca (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Are we looking at the same article? No "Later life" section here, and three paragraphs on Loxton's political career in the "Off the field" section. Not being an Australian I can't judge whether his political career was particularly notable, but it is as a cricketer, not as a politician, that he is most widely known. You wouldn't expect to find extensive stuff in the Bradman article about his career as a stockbroker, would you? Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I just went on Google News and did a search for him between 1954 and 1980, one year before the start and after the end of his career. There were around 190 hits, and less than 10% of these are about his politics. The other 90% was about the latter stages of his playing career (as he still played while an MP) or his work as a cricket administrator during the same time. According to MS Word's word count, 2300 characters in the main body are about politics, out of a total of 14,573 in the total characters for 1954-80, so the political coverage is punching above its weight already (15%). It only adds another two sentences to what is already there: that he was the youngest MP when he was first elected, and that they let him make the first speech of the parliament, and that he had a strong personal following at then when he retired his party lost lots of votes and the seat. It also said that he was "low key" representative; he was a backbencher, out of around 40 Liberals in Parliament, and he was also away for about three months of the year still playing cricket, managing the team (4 months in India), watching the players and selecting them so it's not surprising that he wasn't driving the political scene in Victoria. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • scraped out some more from all Google news had to offer, but the politics section is not disproportionately small YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Still waiting for Rebecca to reply YellowMonkey(bananabucket) 08:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
From her user page it seems as though Rebecca has left the project. Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
She hasn't updated her userpage since coming out of retirement, which was a while ago, and voted in another FAC just now YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I consider the the section relating to Loxton's parliamentary term to be more than adequate. Loxton was never a prominent MP and more detail could be seen as undue weight. If members of WP:AUSPOL wish to write it, a spin out article about his obscure backbench career could be developed. Just another point, use of the term "primary vote" is likely to be confusing to US readers, given the US system of primary elections. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Read through the 1948 England Tour:

  • "kicking a total of 114 goals before his retirement at end of the 1946 season to concentrate on his cricket career." Add another "the" after "at"? (Not sure if other prose reviewers would consider the change wordiness or not)
  • Early and war years: "at Wesley College, Melbourne, and elite private boys' school." "and" has one letter too many.
  • "First-class and Test cricket: Should "a" be inserted into "before going off to hospital with concussion"? I'm not familiar with British English that much, so I don't know if you would put it before "concussion" or not. Might as well ask about it.
  • Invincibles tour: "Loxton's attempts to break into the first-choice team was hampered by a groin strain he suffered...". "was" → "were".
  • "before scraping home without further loss after Yorkshire dropped both batsmend." Should the last letter be there? My lack of cricket knowledge strikes again.
  • Italics for Wisden Cricketers' Almanack? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Changing all except hospital. In things like going to work/school/university, the definite article isn't needed YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: — Why aren't some single digit numbers spelt out? Aaroncrick (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a rule that when you have a group of numbers together, they are all spelt out or numbered, so "3 and 43" not "three and 43", as "three and forty-three" would be mroe of a hassle YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Some may find this too comprehensive, however. Aaroncrick (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Source comments Everything fine. RB88 (T) 13:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Braid (video game)

Nominator(s): MASEM (t) 16:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


Braid has gone through two FACs before; the second one failed mostly due to the lack of discussion about interpretations of the game's plot (which has been purposeless left vague). Since that time, two additional ports for the game have come out and I have watched to see if any further statements about the game's plot (and any other details) have been made by reliable sources, but there really hasn't been any change. Nevertheless I was able to find some sourced missed the first time through that explore the plot a bit more, as well as addressing comments on the two ports. MASEM (t) 16:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment Check the toolbox; there is a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Grrr, GameCulture's done this to me before; they recently remapped their URLs and lost a lot of older content. I think it may be at archive.org [11] but presently getting a data retrival failure. If this fails to resolve, I can rewrite to take out one direct quote and will have to rewrite the last section. --MASEM (t) 05:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
      • It can take 6-18 months before results appear on the Wayback Machine. You can also try contacting GameCulture to restore the URL or turning into a dead tree reference (with their help). If you suspect something like this to happen in the future you can preemptively archive it using WebCite (this can be semi-easily done through Checklinks). — Dispenser 05:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose on sources What makes these reliable?

RB88 (T) 13:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

    • Penny Arcade link replaced with statement from J. Blow's own website on release date.
    • The "North County Notes" is an article by Jason Rohrer who is also an established name in the independent gaming development area; it is his expertise that is the source of reliability for this point.
    • Play.tm's is on the edge of reliability (formal web content publishing company with editorial staff), but the point here they are used for is to establish the name of the constellation for the meta game. (I have another source to establish there's a meta-game of collecting hidden stars, that's fine) Surprisingly, this is established well in the source from forums and blogs, but not main lit.
    • The Magnatune links are both from the music clearinghouse that J. Blow used to get music for the game and where players could purchase the music themselves if they wanted; they would be the primary expert source about the soundtrack availability.
    • The Steam Powered forum post is a direct source from J. Blow himself (confirmed identity on the forums) for the game's level editor, which the Rock, Paper, Shotgun link reiterates. I can replace the RPS link with something more reliable, but all reliable sources that talk about the level editor point back to that forum post to describe its features. Which is why I'd prefer to keep that forum post and back it with at least one more reliable source to assert it. (RPS itself can be considered a reliable source due to their editorial process and staff, but I've replaced this with a more established RS )
    • The remaining two sources (presspausetoreflect and tisource) are admittedly not normally reliable sources, but both are straight up interviews with J. Blow. 90% of the information of these interviews agree with other data points he's stated in interviews with other, more reliable sources (suggesting that these aren't faked), but the bits that I use from these interviews are unique to them. I can't offer any more than that for these sources.
    • I also point to the past FACs discussions for more review of the sources if there's still questions. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Leaning Support

  • I went through and performed some copyedits, you might want to check and see if I inadvertently changed the meaning of anything. Mostly it was cutting down redundancies and changing some parts to active voice where possible. I had a few questions, below.
    • " "Oracle Billiards", in which the result of a billiards shot would be shown to the player before he made the shot. Blow came to realize the result was informative, but did not work well as an entertaining game mechanic." What exactly does this mean? Where is there a billiards game in Braid? It's not mentioned before.
    • I was bold and removed the legacy subheading, because talking about the character being used elsewhere doesn't exactly strike me as "strong" enough for its own heading. Thoughts?
    • The third "paragraph" of the release section isn't really a paragraph, which by definition need at least three sentences. You need to merge it or expand it.
    • Methinks that File:Braid-art-1.jpg and File:Braid-art-2.jpg could be shrunk slightly to, say, 475 x 267 pixels (about .11 megapixels) from their current .19 megapixel resolutions without damaging the ability to see the small details (the key, Tim, etc.) They would also probably scale better if they were PNGs, and it would be nice to have stronger FURs. In the article, it talks about time moving back to Blow's original designs for the levels, is that something like the art-1 file? If so that could be added. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I've reordered the first point to be clear where the billards doesn't come into play. Expanded a statement about how Hothead is seeking to port additional games but strted with Braids. Images reduced, I don't know exactly if -1.jpg is what you can rewind time to, but it is certainly part of his concept during dev. I'll make the image furs a bit tighter. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] July 2009 Ürümqi riots

Nominator(s): rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this article for FAC because it has been worked on carefully by numerous respected editors since July, and has had many eyes on it to try to maintain a balanced POV on a difficult and divisive topic. We've been careful about POV, weight, referencing, and the reliability of sources; we also recently got some images and even video from an editor who was in Urumqi during the riots. With all the people who have been involved in this article, we have a small army of spot-checkers to keep watch over the article and catch vandalism, POV-pushing, and silly errors (like me accidentally using American English :P). Ultimately I'm hoping to get this to FA status on time to make TFA on July 5, 2010 (the first anniversary of the riots).

The other editors involved heavily in this article include Colipon, Seb az86556, Jim101, Ohconfucius, and Benlisquare. Wasn't sure if I'm supposed list them as co-nominators or not; feel free to add yourselves if you like.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Images need alt text, there is one dab link (Han (ethnicity) which redirects to the dab Han people). Multiple (8) broken external links. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, alt text and dablinks should be fixed by now. Will look at the deadlinks (with the number of news articles cited here, the article tends to undergo linkrot rather quickly). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I've corrected the broken links; the link checker tool returns some false positives (this is not the first time I've seen it do that).
    • The rest of the actually dead links are fixed now. Two were irretrievable (the Malaysian Insider one and the MSN "Uighur leader's family 'blame her'" one), so I just removed the links and kept the rest of the citation info. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs
      • Looks better now. I'll go through the prose now, but it seems like the first one still is giving me a 404. If it isn't giving you a 404 it may just be my (crappy) internet connection. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Hm, now that's strange. It worked for me just a few minutes ago, and now the exact same URL is not working. Interestingly, the external link checker now says it does work (I guess because of its lag, it's reporting whatever was going on when the link was working for me earlier). This particular link seems to be turning on and off. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I've gone ahead and removed that link, it seems too unstable to take a chance with. The title, work, date, etc. is still there. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way, great alt text on the video. It portrays the violence well.
  • "The number rose sharply, though, after the first night's rioting; at midday on Monday, 6 July (China standard time)". You mention time throughout the section before without indicating the time zone. Why mention it now?
  • I don't like the "as for property" in "As for property, Xinhua reported that 627 vehicles and 633 constructions were damaged."
  • "Despite many blocks and censorship, Internet watchers monitored continued attempts by netizens to publish their own thoughts on the causes of the incident or vent their anger about it." Is the "it" at the end talking about he censorship or the violence?
  • Also a lot of references need publishers.
TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Good prose suggestions, I have made the changes. As for publishers, I believe a lot of the news refs have |agency= and |work= (with work being used in place of publisher in the cases of things like, for example, an AP article found on the Los Angeles Times website, and agency being used in place of publisher in the case of, for example, a Xinhua article found on the Xinhua website). I'm not aware of any references that have none of the above. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Prose looks good (for me at least). However a lot of the refs need accessdates, and the xinhuanet.com refs are missing work/publisher or whatever you wish to use there. aa.com.tr ref is also using a bare URL. Other than the refs, I think the article is FA quality, though just me saying this isn't much of a consensus TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, think it's all done now (boy, editing like that will put some hair on your chest, let me tell you what). The first edit in that bunch explains the scheme I used to [hopefully] standardize the reference format. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Article looks great now. That was a ton of work! It looks great to me, so Endorse/Support/List, whichever you wish to do. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Thanks for adding all that alt text; it greatly improves the article's accessibility. However, there is still an accessibility problem with all those flags in the text. For example, the article currently uses the Wiki markup "{{flagicon|European Union}} The [[European Union]]", which generates "European Union The European Union", which a screen reader will read aloud to a visually disabled person as something like "link European Union the link European Union"; this is not good. These flags are purely decorative in the W3C accessibility sense, and so should be marked with "|link=|alt=" as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. If you want to keep the flags, the wiki markup "[[File:Flag of Europe.svg|22x20px|link=|alt=]] The [[European Union]]" generates " The European Union" which a screen reader will render as "The link European Union"; this is much better. However, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) #Do not use icons in general article prose suggests that this sort of usage should be avoided altogether, and certainly it'd be simpler just to remove the flags. Eubulides (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with any of the above solution (although, just my two cents, I think the flags make it a bit more easily legible—but perhaps they could be replaced by bolded country names); to be honest, I've barely been involved at all in the editing of that Reactions section. I'll leave a message with User:Midway, who did most of the work in that part of the article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I think bolding would be the best idea. You probably want the country name to stick out. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I see that bolding has been used and this fixes the remaining alt text problem; thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Admirable effort, but the section beginning with "All parties in the dispute..." leans effectively towards the conclusion that the protests were organized, giving amply room to the PRC position but it fails to investigate the possibility of a spontaneous eruption of violence. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure where you get that reading; I personally believe the opposite (that violence was spontaneous) and have been criticized in the past for not putting enough in about how the protests were organized—over the past few months we've fielded criticism for not have enough of the Chinese view (Talk:July_2009_Ürümqi_riots/Archive5#Pro-Uyghur/Anti-Uyghur, User talk:Rjanag/Archive7#Xinjiang Riots update, User talk:Rjanag#July 2009 Ürümqi riots info for Chinese views). It seems that no matter which way I go, people on each side are upset. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, the paragraph you are pointing to is only one paragraph of a two-paragraph section. The whole point of that paragraph is to present the Chinese view. The previous paragraph presents the other view. (And later paragraphs in the article also return to this controversy; specifically, the third paragraph of "Initial demonstrations" addresses the turn to violence.) Of course the paragraph presenting the Chinese view is going to give more weight to that view; that's what the paragraph is about. You only get the balanced view by reading the whole thing. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Then why don't you mark the paragraph as a summary of the Chinese position? "Immediate causes" is hardly the right section title for that. And the Uyghur counterposition should follow immediately, and not the reader to be forced to piece it together from the rest of the article. Right now, the paragraph starts with whether the violence was planned or spontaneous, winds through several government allegations, each getting stronger, and ends with a supposed terrorist connection to Al Qaida without ever representing the view of the opposition. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, "Causes" is the right section title. The Uyghur position is that the cause was the Shaoguan riots; the Chinese position is that the cause was terrorist intervention. We can all agree that that's a load of BS, but that view has been widely published and it's not Wikipedia's place to post an opinion on it. Besides, every time one of the Chinese views is mentioned, it's tempered with something along the lines of "X claims that..." to distance the Wikipedia article itself from that opinion.

          As for the Uyghur counterposition/view, it is located right before the Chinese position, in the preceding paragraph. To be honest, this is probably one of the first times I've heard someone call this article too pro-Chinese. Usually the criticism is the opposite. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

          • I think people won't stop complaining about this point until someone tag every non-Uyghur viewpoints with a template like {{Warning Chinese Propaganda}}, but that would just give excuses to all the pro-Han POV pushers to invoke terrorism on every pro-Uyghur viewpoints...I would say move on until there are more substantial concerns with this issue. Jim101 (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
            • In any case, I have now moved some things around and made some additions ([12]) to make the structure and message of this section clearer. It should be pretty clear that the purpose of the section is to present 1) the Uyghur story of what caused the riots; 2) the Chinese story; 3) a brief summary of what differs about them. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
              • "it fails to investigate the possibility of a spontaneous eruption of violence" Yes it does fail on that count. It's a typical situation in China, and we must accept that there will never be an investigation. Even if we do, it will never be independent, will almost certainly point to a separatist plot. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just here to reaffirm my oppose. Two times I tried to add "Chinese" analysts and both times I was immediately reverted. I looked the cited references up and actually the two of us were wrong: it is only a single expert, Mr. Rohan Gunaratna, who makes the allegations of an Al-Qaida or ETIM connection! Two references for one source, while the third, China Daily, can be considered a propaganda instrument and does not actually cite a single 'expert'. So the line should actually run: "According to a single terrorist analyst, ...." I am sorry, but I have no patience nor understanding for people who are quicker on the reverse button than looking into what they actually quote. In other words: I am now lacking faith in the way the article deals with citing references, and trust is obviously the most important capital with such sensitive topics. Good article status is already quite an achievement, let's keep it at that level. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

We all know that China Daily is a government mouthpiece and much of its stuff is propaganda, but unfortunately it's still a widely-disseminated source that has had a huge impact on the perceptions of this event, especially in the minds of Chinese citizens. We may all think that it's a load of crap (I know I do), but we're in no position to sit here saying which sources are allowed to stay and which should be whitewashed out of the article based simply on our beliefs. It is sad that we live in a world where people believe this crap, but unfortunately they do, and to exclude it from the article would be an injustice and make this article just as much a propaganda piece as China Daily is (which is essentially what User:David Straub pointed out to me at my talkpage when he persuaded me to add this material). You are welcome to oppose if you wish, but for the sake of maintaining a well-balanced article (which means allowing room for opinions we dislike or even hate) I will have to disagree with you. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
(And, for what it's worth, good article status is not that much of an achievement, especially when it does nothing to get this article closer to what we're ultimately hoping for, which is main page exposure on 5 July 2010.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Finally, if you haven't noticed yet: Ohconfucious already edited that section of the article to name Gunaratna specifically (instead of saying "several experts") and to reflect that China Daily made this claim without citing anyone. If nothing else, that should address all your concerns. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
It all started well and now I realise that the assembled editors of the article were being damned by Gunpowder's faint praise. Please refrain from falsifying a text without adding a reference or looking at the source already supplied. The sources clearly named at least one foreign 'expert', although he writes very circumspectly about a terrorist plot on the part of the WUC. I don't think anyone can object to the neutrality of the text as it is now, exactly as source, and adequately attributed. Whether it's relevant or not is another matter. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The second is a press release from the state news agency of Turkey (Anatolian Agency). The first one is a bit more of a stretch; it's a blog, but one of the only sources available from within Urumqi, and one of the few to have long-term perspective (most of the sources are news articles that came out when the events were going on and are prone to errors and hearsay; these posts were written several months after the events, since the writer didn't have internet access for a while). Also, the one place it is used in an article is with a statement that is already confirmed in another reliable source (Shanghai Daily) and gives some more information on pretty much the same thing. Overall, I thought it was safe to IAR here since it's a useful source, and it's not like the whole account of the riots is based on a blog (indeed, this source was only referenced once, and for a quite uncontroversial point). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
On the first one, how about you use the blog as an external link instead? Our requirements for those are much less strict, and as you say, it's already backed up by another source. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if putting it in the EL section would be helpful. It would distance that source from the particular spot where it's relevant, and I think it would attract POV issues (people might, rightly, ask "If this guy's blog is good enough to be listed as an external link, why not this other one?"). Plus, although external links have looser requirements, I actually believe putting a source in the EL section gives it more weight than using it as an inline reference: it seems to send the message "if you want further information, check this Wikipedia-approved external source, we've specifically chosen it for you". rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
But by using it as a source, we're saying the same thing. It does not meet the FAC "high quality" sources requirement, unfortunately. I don't think it even meets the basic requirements for a reliable source, but it's more of a gray area there. Personally, I'd just delete it, as it only barely comes close to meeting WP:RS and definitely does not meet the higher bar of the FA criteria. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I've removed it. I think it was nice, but its inclusion is not going to make or break the article so it's not a big deal. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • WP is not a dictionary. Why are items such as "riots", "excessive force" and "armed police" linked? Can you please audit the whole article for overlinking? "Central Asia" is next to more specific links: why is the sentence crowded out with three links? Plus much more. Tony (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for commenting. OhConfucius has now removed a good deal of links, and I have just gone through as well. But there are also some specific links that I believe are important to keep, even though they might normally be considered overlinky:
      • Uyghur and Han in the beginning of the Background section: yes, they are linked in lede as well, but it's easy to miss links there, and here those terms are used in closer context with what's important about them (i.e., they're used right next to a discussion of ethnic identities and stuff). Since these terms pop up a hundred more times through the course of the article, I think that it's good to make sure they're made easily available to readers, and that one extra link is a drop in the bucket.
      • "an incident" in "Immediate causes" section: pretty much the same thing.
      • Xinhua News Agency in same section: The article relies very heavily on Xinhua material, and often has to temper that with language such as "Xinhua claimed..." or "According to Xinhua...". I think in this case a link gives readers an opportunity to better understand why we're so hesitant to trust Xinhua (referring to it as "the official government news agency" also helps, but its own article is much more explicit about those issues). Although, I'm not sure if links to other publications, such as The Australian and New York Times are as necessary, so if anyone wants them removed I'd be fine with it.
      • separatist at the end of that section: looks like a dicdef, but this is a major concept throughout the whole article so I think it's good to present the reader with an easy way to clarify what it refers to if they want, rather than being confused for the entire article.
      • People's Armed Police in "Media coverage" section: technically this was also linked in the lede, but that was a long way away and in a different context (reference to a different incident). It's entirely possible that someone wouldn't have clicked on it back there but then wonder what it means when it pops up here, so a link shouldn't hurt.
      • Human Rights Watch in "Media coverage" section: linked in the "International reactions" section as well, but that section (a long list) is one that people tend to skip—few people sit down and read it, just like few people sit down and read the dictionary. I think it's fair to duplicate links in this situation.
    • Finally, I should probably point out that the reason the article looks so blue in many places is the relatively high density of refs (this being a controversial article, it has a ton of refs—there's 40,000 characters of references, as opposed to just 30,000 of actual prose). If I were to, as an experiment, remove all the references, I wouldn't be surprised if people said the article didn't look blue enough and asked for more links. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment — Why is their no cite for the last para of the Background sub-section (well it's not really but you get what I mean)? Aaroncrick (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't get what you mean, I don't see any paragraphs in that subsection without citations. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
"These disagreements have sometimes led to violence and ethnic clashes, such as the 1997 Ghulja Incident and the 2008 Kashgar attack, as well as the more widespread 2008 Uyghur unrest preceding the Olympic Games in Beijing." This statement I presume. And I believe the reviewer is trying to ask for a reference to see if other "violence and ethnic clashes" are within context and on topic. Jim101 (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I see. (Aaroncrick left me a message saying essentially the same thing.) I guess the issue, then, is whether there's a source saying that those three incidents are connected to/caused by the underlying ethnic tensions that are described above them. Personally I thought that was pretty much a no-brainer, but I can look around to see if there's an external source as well. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this should address Aaroncrick's concern. I reworded the sentence so it's not really controversial (just saying that, for example, "the Ghulja Incident happened" doesn't really need a reference), and added a reference anyway. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • oppose
firstly the background section, if possible, would benefit from sources from scholarly journals, as the Uighur/Han thing there has been going on a for a while, and some expert analysis is better than a random journo. I see only 1 out of about 10 cites are from journals/textbooks and not newspapers.
The international reaction is rather undue weight. I know it's customary for every current event bombing/natural disaster etc for every govt to make an obligatory condolence to the dead, condemn violence, etc, but it does get a bit repetitive, eg, every news outlet will report on the major bits, eg, the brawl in Guangdown, counter-riots in Urumqi, martial law, trial of rioters etc all the time, but they will only give a selection of responses by other worldl leaders, which are usually clones of each other. At the moment, the list of generic quotes are about 5 times longer than the brawl in Guangdong. I mean, the Micronesian response is the same weight as the Uighurs claiming the PRC covered up the Guangdong brawl. The international reaction section has to be summarised to say what the consensus is, it's uunsustainable to have endlessquotes like that
Fallout needs stuff on China trying to intimidate Australia, and maybe some other countries to not give KAdeer a visa. There was a filme festival in Melbourne with a doco about her, and after the directors wouldn't censor the film, Chinese hackers attacked the website and there was a uighur v han demonstration outside the festival. This type of thing might have been repeated in other countries YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I will look around for more sources for the background section, but to be honest it was only meant to be a brief summary (which is why it contains links to some other articles) rather than an in-depth analysis. As for the international reaction section, I agree that most of the quotations are 'sweet nothings' (and, in fact, I myself have in the past suggested they be removed), but it was discussed here and the consensus that time was to keep it. I don't think it can really be considered "undue weight" since I doubt anyone will really read through the whole thing; it's more like a big long table that people more or less skip over, or maybe look up one or two places that are of interest to them and skip the rest. As for the Australian film festival, I remember that as well and it is covered in Rebiya Kadeer#The 10 Conditions of Love. I chose not to bring it up in this article (and no one else ever asked us to) because I thought the connection to these riots in particular, while it certainly exists, is somewhat tangential. At some point we need to draw a line, otherwise this article could just include everything that ever happens to Kadeer (and Wang Lequan, Li Zhi, Ilham Toxti, etc.) for the rest of her life, under the excuse that "well, the riots influenced that". rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the assembled editors all agreed that a tight scope would be desirable. It seems that all the diplomatic pressure from China is targeted at marginalising Kadeer, and yes, people probably would expect to see this stuff mentioned here. Therefore, I have put in a small paragraph. However, it does not go into great detail about the film festival or the computer hacking - all that can be found in the Kadeer article. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I have now rewritten it into more streamlined prose, removing much repetition and redundancy. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Linking on newspapers and channels in teh refs is inconsistent YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've removed some of the links. I believe the agreement some time ago was to remove links to common names or names already used in the prose, such as NYT and Xinhua, but to keep links to relatively unknown news outlets (especially in the international reaction section, there are lots of names that would be unfamiliar to most readers). You're right that there were some stray links there, so I've removed them, but I did leave many links in using the standard just described, If you think all links should be removed, I would have to discuss that with the other editors. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I've also added some scholarly sources to the Background section. Also, I'm not sure if you were counting the "immediate causes" subsection in your above comments, but I just wanted to point out that there's no problem for now with having a large number of news sources in that section, as it's all recent stuff. The first half of the background section is what I tried to add some more sources to just now. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
That's fine. I meant scholarly sources for the long term stuff, not the punchup YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, you're right; now that I look at your numbers again, there was no reason for me to think otherwise. Striking that part of my comment. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments—I looked only at the first bit. It does need cleaning up a little.

  • Lead: communication was "curtailed" or there was a "blackout"? One or the other. "have faced criminal charges for their actions during the riots"—this says these charges are ongoing, still being dealt with, unresolved (the "have").
    • Changed "communication blackout" to "communication limitations" [13]. As for the "have", yes, they're still ongoing (new trials are happening periodically, I believe the most recent was just a few days ago). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC) addendum: I've updated the article to reflect the most recent death sentences, which were on 26 January. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "and 10% are of other ethnic groups"—remove "of".
    • Really? I think it sounds better with "of"—people aren't ethnic groups, people are "of" or "from" ethnic groups. (The reason it's not parallel to the elements earlier in the sentence is that people are Han or Uyghur.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "in the area" and "in the region" in the same sentence?
  • "Uyghurs believe that they are gradually being"—they is unclear. "Uyghurs believe that their ancient culture is ..." might be clearer.
  • This strikes me as rather forced POV: "Some say that their culture and traditions are being suppressed under the influx of Han migrants,[20][21] and that they are denied the rights to worship and to travel.[22] On the other hand, some Han people are dissatisfied by government policies which they believe favour Uyghurs,[23] and believe laws are more lenient towards Uyghurs than towards Han people." It's not parallel.
    • I'm not sure I see the problem. Are you saying that the Han complaints are presented as more petty/less concerning than the Uyghur complaints? These are what the sources say, though, and as far as I know these points pretty much summarize each side's view in the dispute. (And, for what it's worth, someone taking the opposite perspective could say that the article is currently presenting the Uyghur's complaints as more radical/blown-out-of-proportion, therefore giving more credibility to the Han ones). But I have added a bit more to the Han side to be safe. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "mostly-Han government"—no hyphen, please.
  • "manpower shortages;"—see Gender-neutral language. "labour"? Tony (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    • That works, changed to "labour" [16]. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments. I've left responses directly under each bullet point; I know some people don't like this format, so please feel free to move them to the bottom if you want. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
      • OMG - 'manpower shortages' is no longer considered gender neutral language? Political correctness has come a long way since I left university! Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I thought that as well, but since "labour" doesn't really sound any worse I figured there's no harm in making the trade-off, and if the language was grating for Tony then who knows how many other readers it would have been grating for. Better safe than sorry, I guess. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Parks and Recreation (season 1)

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 04:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


I've been working on Parks and Recreation-related articles for months now, and I believe this article is a comprehensive as can be. This article has already passed GAN and gone through a PR, and it's the main article of a currently ongoing GT nom that appears to have wide support. I think it's ready for featured status. — Hunter Kahn 04:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 16:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I noticed that several sections contain long lists of citations, when referring to "many critics", or "several [things]". Would it not perhaps be tidier—and a little more useful—to create a notes section in the references, and add a short quote from each critic into that notes section, together with a citation? That way, the reader can see briefly what each critic says, and they also don't have to look at a line of 5 citations interrupting the prose as instead of [1][2][5][22] you'd just have [nb1]? Just an idea. Parrot of Doom 12:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm certainly not opposed to that, but I've never done that before. I wonder if you wouldn't mind doing one of these so I can see what it looks like? Then I'll do the rest? — Hunter Kahn 14:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Have a look at Dick Turpin. The code for each [nb] is {{#tag:ref|Film reviewer Joe Bloggs:— "blah blah blah"<ref>Citation for <--- that line, in here</ref>, TV reviewer Frank Smith:— "etc etc etc"<ref>frank smith, publisher, date etc</ref>|group="nb"}}. You can put all your individual quotes inside those tag brackets, together with each citation. Then, to get them to appear in their own references section, just use {{reflist|group="nb"}} wherever in the article you want them to appear (usually near the standard list of sources).. Basically those tag brackets mean that anything inside them, references, text, the lot - gets moved down into the footnotes section. Parrot of Doom 15:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
        • OK, I took a shot at this. It seems like a good idea to me, but I'm still not sure I did it right. Specifically, I'm not sure if I'm going into too much detail in the footnote or not. I tried it on one first, so please let me know what you think. If this is correct, I'll add it for other areas with multiple cite tags. — Hunter Kahn 21:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Spot on. Parrot of Doom 21:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Excellent. I will finish the rest either tonight or tomorrow. Alright, I've added one everywhere that I thought it was necessary. If I've missed one that you feel should be added, let me know and I'll do it straight away. And thanks for this guidance; it was educational for me! :) — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Media review: Two images. Alt text good.

  • Usage: Good, standard.
  • Rationale: Good. Though the rationale for any image illustrating people would ideally identify them.
  • Usage: Borderline. This image seems as if it would be more appropriate to the article on the series, unless there were substantial cast changes between seasons 1 and 2 (it appears there were not). The substantial overlap between this image and the infobox image raises NFCC 3a concerns ("Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information"). We currently have two FAs devoted to individual seasons of TV series: Supernatural (season 1) and Smallville (season 1). They both include main text images that are much more specific to the particular season in question, and I believe, of greater benefit to readers.
  • Rationale: Decent, but rationales (or lead summary descriptions) for stills of people must identify them when possible. DCGeist (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I've added the names of the cast members to the lead summary description. You've identified this second image as borderline. Do you feel the image is problematic enough to prevent you from supporting the FAC? — Hunter Kahn 22:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
      • In most cases—and in this one—when I provide a media review, I don't go further to support or oppose the nomination itself, which I believe requires a comprehensive assessment. The media review is provided as a service to you, the nominator, and to the FA delegates. When I identify a problem, I try to be as detailed and explanatory as possible. If you're asking me if I think that the issue I've identified would be a FAC-killer if it was the single, solitary question mark in the article—no, I don't think it would be. On the other hand, as I tried to make clear, there is room for improvement here (and in the main series article, where—again—I believe this image would be more appropriately placed for the overlapping reasons of both informational value and fair use policy).—DCGeist (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Ok, thanks for the review. I think you've brought up some good points here, so I've removed the image from this article and moved it to the main Parks and Recreation article (where I will later address some of the other rationale concerns you've raised). I've replaced it in this season 1 article with an image of Amy Poehler, for which a free license is available. — Hunter Kahn 01:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Note, in the future, please do not put up a second nomination until your first has garnered sufficient support. Since both FACs are well underway now, I'll let this run, but the FAC page is seriously backlogged, so multiple noms are a hindrance. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry about that, won't happen again. — Hunter Kahn 22:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment

  • The plot summaries need to be heavily expanded. Per MOSTV, they should be ~100-200 words, and should give the episode's resolution. Ωphois 18:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I've never done a season article before, so I didn't know the MOSTV item regarding the summaries. I was using articles like The Office (U.S. TV series) season 2 as more of a guide. I will work on expanding the plot summaries this weekend! — Hunter Kahn 19:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Ok, I've expanded them. I tried to keep them on the short side, but they are all slightly over 100 words, and they all have the episode's resolution. — Hunter Kahn 19:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Petlyakov Pe-8

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because it recently passed a Milhist ACR and I believe it meets all of the FA criteria. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 16:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text looks good (thanks), except that the alt text for File:USSR stamp 989 Pe-8.jpg contain details that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image (and who has looked at earlier images and can be presumed to know what a Petlyakov Pe-8 looks like). Problematic phrases include "Soviet", "ruble", "from 1945", and "CPA #989". Please remove these phrases or move them to the caption, as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. Perhaps you could transcribe the text in that stamp instead, as per WP:ALT#Text? Phrases that could be transcribed include "ПОЧТА СССР" "1 РУБ", "Петляков-8", and "тяжелый бомбардировщик". Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, the phrases are Mail USSR, 1 Ruble, Petlyakov-8 and something bomber (Google won't translate the first word). So the verifiability issues are 1945 and CPA #989? I suppose I can always delete them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid that we can't assume that the reader of the Wikipedia article knows Russian, so the alt text should give the Russian, and the caption can give the English translation as needed. The caption is available to both visually impaired and sighted readers, and it should contain any English translation so that both sets of readers can see the translation. (Please see WP:ALT#Goal for alt text vs captions.) Yes, it's probably best to delete the 1945 and the CPA #989. Eubulides (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I would help you translate Russian words or sentences into English if you explain to me what you want (I didn't meet with ALT before this). For example, "ПОЧТА СССР" means "Post of USSR" or "USSR Post" just like "Почта России" means "Russian Post"; "1 РУБ" means "1 Ruble", the Russian currency; "тяжелый бомбадировщик" means "heavy bomber". CPA is the Soviet Union stamp catalogue. Tell me what you want and I'll help you. --RoadTrain (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind offer. I guess that what I need now is a citation for the catalog # and the date of release. If you happen to have access to one and can furnish the necessary information that would be most excellent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the translations, but the point is that the alt text should report only the original text, and any translations should be put into the caption so that both sighted and visually impaired readers get the translations. See, for example, the image in July 2009 Ürümqi riots #Arrests and trials: its alt text says the banner reads "维护法律尊严，严惩犯罪分子" and its caption translates this to "Uphold the sanctity of the law, and severely punish the criminals". Eubulides (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. I think that I did understand what you need. You can't use the detailed description text giving at commons: "Почтовая марка СССР 1945 года: тяжёлый бомбардировщик Пе-8. ЦФА #989, 1 рубль, гашёная." as you must cite the only text on the image, right? Then it will be: "Тяжелый бомбардировщик Пе-8, ПОЧТА СССР, 1 РУБ". It's equal to "The heavy bomber Pe-8, USSR Post, 1 Rub".--RoadTrain (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) How's this now?

There was a typo that messed up the formatting. I fixed it, and while I was at it, transcribed the text more accurately, removed a bit of confusion in the caption, and used "upright" to avoid having the picture be smaller than the 300px that some users prefer. That should do it for alt text; thanks again for your help. Eubulides (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments. A very informative article, but the prose still needs some work. A few examples:
    • "... a bomber that could carry 2,000 kg (4,400 lb) of bombs 4,500 km (2,800 mi) at a speed greater than 440 km/h (270 mph) from an altitude of 10,000 metres ...". From an altitude?
Fixed
    • "The engine cooling system was revised to alleviate the problem with the aerodynamics of the outer engine nacelles ...". What problems with the aerodynamics? This is the first we're told of any problems.
Do you think I should spell out all of the issues encountered by the prototype and then list the changes made to fix them?
No, I think that you ought to have explained earlier that there were problems with the aerodynamics instead of introducing this non sequitor. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
    • "The control system revised, an autopilot fitted and the electrical system was redesigned." Should that be "was revised"?
It should indeed.
    • "Other changes included the deletion of the 'beard' ...". Deletion seems a strange choice of word in this context.
What do you suggest? Dropped, discarded. Deleted seemed OK to me.
    • "The exhaust arrangements of the ASh-82 were not compatible with the guns in the rear of the engine nacelles and they were deleted." Which were deleted? The exhaust arrangements or the guns?
Yeah, unclear antecedent there.
    • "When Operation Barbarossa began on 22 June 1941 only the 2nd Squadron of the 14th Heavy Bomber Regiment (TBAP—Tyazholy Bombardirovochnyy Avia Polk), based at Borispol[15] was equipped with nine TB-7s ...". So other squadrons were equipped with either more or less than nine?
OK, rewritten
    • "... the others landing elsewhere or crash-landing in Finland and Estonia." So they managed to crash twice, once in Finland and then again in Estonia?
Multiple planes, multiple landing sites.
    • "He was forced to turn around after a fuel tank was punctured and crash-landed in southern Estonia." So his fuel tank crash-landed, but what about the rest of the plane?
OK
    • "By the eve of the Soviet counterattack at Stalingrad, Operation Uranus on 8 November the regiments had fourteen Pe-8s on hand ...". Is there a comma missing here?
Yep
    • "During the early part of the battle, the long-range aviation units continued to strike targets in the German rear areas during the night ...". Awkward repetition.
Fixed, thanks for your comments, they've been very helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see the whole thing looked at again, as I just gave a few examples. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Further comments. I'm no image expert, in fact some days I can hardly even bother to open my eyes, so feel free to ignore my comments, but I do have a few concerns about the copyright status of some of the images used in this article. For instance, the image in the infobox is claimed to be in the public domain, but I see no justification for that claim. Which of the Russian PD rules apply in this case? Similarly with this one. If the author is unknown, then how can the PD claim under Armenian law be supported? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Beats me. The Russian revision to their copyright law appears to reassert copyright over almost all WW2-era images which had previously been out of copyright. And I don't know what to do about the Armenian image. I guess I'll have to ask on the Village pump for guidance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't have to address this question, you do. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
<sarcasm>Really? I hadn't known.</sarcasm>Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any point in this. I don't think the article meets the FA criteria, and I'm not about to argue with you about that. If the issues I've raised aren't addressed then I will be opposing this article's promotion. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
As you wish. I'm still waiting for a response at the Village Pump on the image issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Based on the comments at the Village pump I've dropped one image and loaded the other here to change the license to FU.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Elcobbola can be consulted on Russian image concerns; he knows that area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments -
    • I assume that the Air International ref is the "Pe-8" article in the bibliography? Best to list the footnote closer to the style in the bibliography
Hard to do since no authors are given for the article. Should I stay with journal title or switch to article title?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd do "article title" Journal title myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I did not review the russian language refs for reliablity.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The "Post-war use" section seems rather thin. In particular, are any of these aircraft known to still be around? --Carnildo (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Nope, no survivors. Info on Cold-War era use for any Soviet aircraft is a bit thin on the ground.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Question can you explain what the ilpilots and allaces cites are? I couldn't read the main page, but the website does look amateurish YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • ilpilots is the Statistical Digest of the VVS during WW2 while allaces are regimental histories with citations. Be advised Google translate may show ilpilots as an attack site, but it isn't. Just use one of the other translation sites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Takalik Abaj

Nominator(s): Simon Burchell (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because it is a comprehensive treatment of the subject and is stable. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Alt text, disamb links and external links look fine. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Map alt text probably should not start with "Map showing", though—it should describe what the map is trying to show (not colors, lines, etc.). See WP:ALT#Maps. --an odd name 22:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, I've now modified the text. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Map alts look good. --an odd name 00:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I added some named refs for you. Note that here are many more instances of identical refs that could benefit fro being named. And yes, I used the long format for the named refs. It's easier to use <CTRL> + H that way. ;-) • Ling.Nut
Thanks Ling.Nut. The consensus at WP:MESO has been against the use of named refs which is why I tend not to put them in articles as I write. However, there are (at the time I type this) over 200 footnotes so I'll go through and name some. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've run down the citations and inserted named refs throughout. I've tried to be consistent with naming but a few notes:
  • With long and unwieldy Spanish-style surnames, I've abbreviated to initials e.g. Popenoe de Hatch & Schieber de Lavarreda becomes PH&SL.
  • Where the same author has written multiple reports I've put in a 2-digit year no. separated from the page no. by the letter "p".
  • I haven't split combined references, because multiple cite nos. tend to interrupt reading flow.
I hope this is acceptable. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Support A comprehensive article, seems to meet featured quality. A couple of minor issues. Shouldn't history come after Etymology, or at least before economy? Also in the long structure section I think that the left - right image alignment whilst complies with general guidelines I don't think works in this case. It really disrupts the list by having images on the left. I'd recommend right aligning those but using a double image type so the images needn't be so spread out. Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you support and your comments. In my articles on Maya sites I've tended to put things like Etymology, Economy, Location etc. before History because they tend to be shorter sections and nicely set up the general context of the site before diving into the nitty-gritty of historical detail, and may indeed allow the historical detail to make more sense knowing why the city was built where it was (for example).
I'm not sure what you mean by double images - is that a particular layout? I took plenty of photos on my last visit to the site specifically with the idea of uploading them onto Commons, I think there are 60-odd images on Commons and I probably have a few more I could upload. I've used 18 in the article, so I can always put more in. I just didn't want to overwhelm the article with photos just because I had them. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been playing with previews of image placement and shifting all images to the right makes the page look very unbalanced. Is the problem to do with the bullet points? If so, perhaps taking these out and leaving the alternating images might by a better alternative? Simon Burchell (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

By double/multiple images I mean placed together like in the Thikse Monastery article. In fact formatted that way you could probably fit in more images but arranged in a way that doesn't look too cluttered. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've taken out most of the bullets and put in a couple of extra photos doubled up as you suggested. I think it looks better now and most of the images can still be staggered left-right. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments -
    • Okay, the use of the Template:Smallcaps is incredibly annoying in the references. On my screen they render as an unitelligble blob. Please remove. The template itself says it should be used sparingly, and this is a case where it's not used well.
    • I have not reviewed the reliablity of the Spanish language sources, although a glance at the publishers seems to show that most are universities or museums, which should be reliable.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Ealdgyth. I've taken out the templates as requested. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not a big fan of the long lists of structures and altars. I think they could better be represented in their own article called for example List of Structures and Monuments at Takalik Abaj - I would leave summary sections in situ and have a "main article" link to the lists. This is my only reservation about an excellent article with good prose and good sourcing, and if other editors do not find this to be a problem I will be happy to support without this change being made. PS: one more nitpick - I think the lead could do a better job of summarising the article body. It can be quite a bit longer - per WP:LEAD and article this size typically has a lead of three or four paragraphs. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Maunus. I've expanded the intro somewhat but have left the lists in place, they come in the second half of the article so don't interupt the article's flow - they also give the opportunity to illiustrate the particular wealth of sculpture at the site with accompanying photos. However, if this is seen as a particular problem then I will reconsider. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Object Page ranges need to use a ndash not a hyphen. There is inconsistency in the authors in that some are list "Bob & Bill" and others "John and Jack", sometimes p. is used for multiple pages, otehr times pp. . The souces are tagged "Version digital" not needed and still in Spanish. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi YellowMonkey, I believe that between CJLL Wright and myself we've dealt with these concerns. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Rumours

Nominator(s): RB88 (T) 01:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


I feel like I've written a Jackie Collins novel.

Come on oldies, support. (Although you probably won't after I've just called you oldies.) RB88 (T) 01:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Media review: Single "free"-licensed image had incorrect copyright statement but was corrected. Copyrighted album cover and 19-second excerpt of Don't Stop are used as fair use material; their fair use rationales are justifiable. Jappalang (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

  • More descriptive alt text on the second image will probably be needed. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Added more description about performers. Should be OK now. Cheers. RB88 (T) 00:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'm too young to remember this first time round, but I've heard good things about it, and the article's looking good too. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Before my time too but definitely worth the effort. Also, I kept the lead as it was because it's pretty tight and flowing. Hope you don't mind. I look forward to more feedback. In the meantime, try and listen to it from start and finish. ;) RB88 (T) 00:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment I removed "Grammy Award-winning" because it was POV as a qualifier there (you call it award winning before even calling it an album). I'll try to squeeze in a full copy-edit soon, but until then, try to reduce passive voice, especially in the Studio sessions and Composition sections. (a search for "was" will point what sentences need fixing). Also, I am hesitant to consider this article as comprehensive as The Complete Guide to Their Music seems to be an important source not used.—indopug (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Complete Guide is some guy's interpretation of their music and lyrics, thus Further reading. Stop clutching at straws Wesley-style. Fleetwood Mac in the Classic Albums and Rumours DVD-A are much more qualified to talk about these things don't you think. Plus Rikky Rooksby has not got much more to say than what's already been summated in the article. I'll have a look at the passive though. RB88 (T) 03:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Ended up using it as a streamlining source, but not for musical elements though as it'd be POV. RB88 (T) 20:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The Grammy Album of the Year is important enough to be given a line in the lead. The 2004 reissue isn't.—indopug (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Course it is. Remasters are integral parts of old albums as the sound and quality is changed. Plus this one actually changed the tracklist and had a whole cd of the demos of each song (hence a summation of Track listing in the lead). RB88 (T) 03:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Update Sorted out the passive. Some is needed however in every written piece for varied prose. If you have any more issues, please bring them here. RB88 (T) 03:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Support: I am old enough to remember this, first time round (just). I remember thinking they were all rather old - some were in their thirties!! My detailed comments on the article were given at peer review, all addressed, and I am happy to support the article's promotion. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Brian. It wouldn't be in this position as an article without your input. And age is just a number etc etc. It didn't hinder FMac that's for sure. RB88 (T) 20:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - Rafablu88 has worked through all the points I raised, comments which I've moved to the talk page. Outstanding (minor) points are left below. I've made a fairly comprehensive review and, with a bit of copy-editing remaining, am generally happy that this is FA standard. Parrot of Doom 17:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  • "Fleetwood has noted that everyone made "tremendous emotional sacrifices" just to attend studio work." - when did he note this?
    • I don't know, and to be honest I don't think it matters. The content is more important. Anyhow, the verb tense shows it's retrospective. RB88 (T) 19:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Well I tend to think that whenever opinion is given on history, by those involved, its always useful to try and find a date - even if its just dated to the publication date of the source, with a footnote for clarity. Parrot of Doom 23:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I disagree here. It doesn't matter if he said in 1980, 1990, or 2000. The verb makes it clear it's some time after the event. Plus adding the sources year when it doesn't give the actual date of the quote is a bit futile. People can just click on the cite and see the publication date. I think adding years everywhere tends to ruin the prose or the timeframe flow. RB88 (T) 23:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Ok, it won't keep me from arguing but it would be helpful to know when he said it. Parrot of Doom 00:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
            • LOL, the book does exactly what I've done, i.e. use the quotes to inform the prose and the timeframe without a specific date. As I said, I don't think it's that essential to know the date, only the content. RB88 (T) 00:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "Fleetwood Mac's main lyricists—Buckingham, Christine McVie and Nicks—worked individually on specific songs, but sometimes shared lines with the band." - written lines, or sung lines? The former is implied, so perhaps "composed (individual?) lines" might be better?
    • "worked individually on specific songs, but sometimes shared lyrics with each other" - is that "hey, I've got this great lyric for your song!", or "let me see if I can help you with that song, and write you a lyric"? Parrot of Doom 17:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Pretty much both. As the rest of the section explains, with examples. RB88 (T) 04:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: A few points:
  1. Origins section, first paragraph: I'm not keen on "eponymous" instead of the name of the album. It substitutes cleverness for clarity.
    • Fair enough.
  2. It gave them radio exposure. Had they not had any before?
    • Used extensive.
  3. No need for a colon in "The line-up at the time was: guitarist ..." "Consisted of" would be better than "was."
    • I think the sentence would be too long and convoluted without it. The colon is a necessary break.
      • Actually, I think SlimVirgin is correct. Colons usually follow clauses that are complete sentences; "The line-up at the time was" is not complete. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Alrighty then. RB88 (T) 23:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  4. You introduce divorce before saying they were married. I wonder if the issue of emotional turmoil should have its own section, with some introduction to the characters to that readers can keep the names straight. Understanding this paragraph would be quite tricky for people who didn't already know the issues. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I put the marriage before. I don't think more detail is needed. The article is about the album after all, and not the band. The two paragraphs are a nice summary and flow well, i.e. last album, hit single, line-up, explaining the situation of each, press issues, start of studio, logistics. RB88 (T) 20:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Binksternet, more to come. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

  1. The starting of the second sentence "Recorded at US locations during 1976" has several problems: the abbreviation "US" comes before "United States" is introduced, and "U.S." (with two periods) is the abbreviation settled upon by WikiProjects I'm involved in, especially the large and exacting Milhist Project. The locations themselves were in Florida and California: perhaps the sentence can be recast as "Recorded in Florida and California during 1976..." The comma after Richard Dashut is not needed.
    Sorted out the whole paragraph. Also, British English uses US (check the BBC or The Guardian's MOS). RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  2. I love how the word "rumours" comes in during the discussion of the aftermath of the previous album. Nice!
    That only happened yesterday after edits, but I did notice it. RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  3. The Dashut quote "the craft of record making" must be referenced.
    All cites cover all the preceding material up to the previous cite or a paragraph break. RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    No, I don't agree. The guideline at Wikipedia:Citing sources#When quoting someone clearly states that the "citation should be placed either directly after the quotation" or "after a sentence or phrase that introduces the quotation." Not at the end of the paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  4. The phrase "he and Christine McVie jammed with guitar and piano" indicates which man? Dashut? Later, the word "latter" is clumsy.
    Added Buckingham, but I don't think latter is that clumsy, especially since it immediately follows the sentence with the two names, i.e. there shouldn't be any ambiguity. RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  5. The phrase "extensive of cocaine" should be "extensive use of cocaine".
    Done. RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  6. Buckingham's quote "the whole being more than the sum of the parts" must be referenced.
    All cites cover all the preceding material up to the previous cite or a paragraph break. RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    See Wikipedia:Citing sources#When quoting someone. Binksternet (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  7. The wording of "more abstract with the instrumentals in her songs" leaves the reader wondering what "her songs" were. Perhaps it could be "the songs on which she sang lead" or "the songs which she wrote" or something similar.
    Done. RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  8. From personal knowledge gleaned from the audio engineer grapevine, the phrase "damaged by the Record Plant's recording machine" is not precise. What happened to the multi-track master tape is that the main one was wa-a-ay overused—it went back and forth past the playback heads more times than in any previous album mixdown, and became worn out. Fleetwood Mac were too undecided about what the mixdown should sound like, and they spent too much time trying different mixes. When they finally settled on a mix, the tape was sounding dull from the loss of high frequencies from its wear and tear against the playback head. The multi-track backup tape (a one-generation down copy) was used to mix the recording session tracks down to the final stereo master. All this means is that the final consumer version is one generation removed from the original—a very slight diminishing of detail along with a very slight addition of tape hiss. The Record Plant's tape machine was not responsible... such a problem would have occurred at any recording studio given Fleetwood Mac's indecisive state at that time.
    The sources don't mention much detail on this, apart from mangling or "chewing", hence damage. And I can only go on them. But it would have been nice to add a bit more. As an expert, would you have any engineers' trade publications that might have mentioned it in more detail, even if it was just in passing? RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    Here is one technical mention of the multitrack tape dulling over time, with details about transients etc., though the author doesn't name the album. This one is the bonanza, an article in the recording industry rag Sound On Sound which talks about tape decay and the backup safety master. Say, I learned something new from that article: the backup tape was the same generation of basic tracks, so only the vocal overdubs transferred to it were down one generation. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks for that. Added the info in summarised, layman's terms. And also added a bit more here and there from it. RB88 (T) 22:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  9. The sentence which starts "The front cover features a stylised shot" is in the present tense, but the paragraph is talking about 1977. Is the past tense more appropriate?
    Using the past tense might suggest that the release is no longer in existence, when it is. But, I can change it if you still feel the same. RB88 (T) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    Let's hear from other editors on this. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    Alright. I don't think it's that big a deal though. RB88 (T) 22:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    I think the present tense is better, as if it was in the past tense one may think that the album cover was changed. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 18:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  10. I jumped in and changed a bunch of wording in the studio sessions section. My familiarity with the subject matter made me think I could raise the technical accuracy of the section without making it too opaque for non-technical sorts. I corrected some wikilinks that didn't point to the optimum target, and I changed some wording about Sausalito and Berkeley, places I've been to on countless occasions. Let me know if the results don't satisfy. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that. Some of the stuff needed a bit more. But in general, I simplified most of it as it seemed too technical. Even I struggled to fully understand it sometimes. It's better to keep it simple and summative rather than too expert-y. RB88 (T) 04:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
      • We-e-ell, I thought I would make all those changes so that we wouldn't be faced with supporting each one here on the FAC page, but I see that your simplifications have fundamentally changed some of the meanings that I had intended:
        • I wrote that the ladies stayed at a "condominium near the town's main thoroughfare along the waterfront" but you trimmed it back to "condominium in the city centre." Sausalito is one of those cities all on edge, where the so-called "centre" is shoved up against one border. As such, how can the popular waterfront shopping and restaurant district, the location of city offices, be the center of the city? It is instead along the waterfront, at the extreme eastern edge of the city.
        • I changed a phrase to this: "studio's lodge among the private residences perched on the steep hillside to the west" after which you restored it to "studio's lodge in the adjacent hills." The studio's lodge was on the slope of Sausalito, not in the adjacent hills. Sausalito has a tiny strip of flat land near sea level—the majority of its area is on a steep slope rising up to the west of the waterfront. Lots and lots of private homes are on this steep slope; it is the main residential district. The other two residential districts are the much smaller houseboat berth area and the waterfront area. The reference "DVD"... does it specify the lodge's address? If memory serves, the recording studio's lodge was simply one of the large private homes dotting the steep slope of Sausalito, not something farther away.
          • Well, I can only go on the sources available sorry. Everything is very vague. The waterfront was mentioned but no specific location was given for the women's place. The men's place only details "the hills" and that's it. I think it's enough info tbh without going on too much detail. RB88 (T) 07:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I wrote "monitor loudspeakers without extended high frequency response" but you scaled it back to "poor quality monitor loudspeakers". The source says "it had very dead speakers" which does not mean "poor quality" in pro audio; "dead" has a number of meanings but when applied to loudspeakers very often means "lack of high freqs." The Record Plant had some classic high quality studio monitors which did not have extended high frequency response up to where Caillat wished it to be. Aside from the attenuated HF response, the speakers in the Record Plant were spot-on for voice-range frequencies, and very neutral, not colored, within their intended bandwidth. They were very high quality but with a design goal at variance to Caillat's expectations.
          • I used Caillat's original "dead speakers" since you say "very often means". If he didn't mention it himself, then it's always better to quote instead of crossing the WP:OR line. RB88 (T) 07:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Let's go one step closer to the original and quote Caillat's "very dead speakers". One of the possible meanings of "dead speakers" is that they don't work at all; not the case here. Instead, Caillat used the phrase "very dead speakers" which, perversely, isn't used to mean non-working speakers. Instead, "very dead speakers" goes over the line into overstatement, to describe loudspeakers that are working but are not "brilliant" or "bright" or full range with appropriately extended highs. Binksternet (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I wrote "From the beginning, Buckingham took charge of the studio sessions to carefully build "a pop album"–he decided not to record all of the tracks together as live takes" but you restored the earlier "From the beginning, Buckingham took charge of the studio sessions to make "a pop album" and decided not to record tracks as live takes." The biggest problem I have with your version is that every "take" recorded was "live" for Rumours—all of them. There were no sequencers or drum machines recording "non-live" tracks. It works like this: you sing or play your part "live" in real time, you get recorded in real time. Your performance is "live", but all by yourself, with the other musicians canned on tape. To make the point intended in the reference, the sentence should say that Buckingham imagined that none of the tracks would be recorded the classic blues-rock way in which all the musicians would gather at the recording studio and play along with each other at the same time. Instead, Lindsay was thinking that each musician would record alone so that the parts would be very much isolated from each other for maximum creative scope in the subsequent mixdown.
          • Again, I can only go on the sources. The info came straight from the horse's mouth and that's what I put. In the end, I've decided to remove it. It doesn't add much and if, as you suggest, there is reader ambiguity, then it's better to err on the safe side. RB88 (T) 07:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I wrote "Baffles were placed around the drum kit and around John McVie" but you took out one word to restore "Baffles were placed around the drum kit and John McVie." Your wording puts baffles around a nucleus of two musicians who are unseparated from each other. My version puts baffles around two musicians, each one separated from the other by baffles. My version is what the Sound On Sound article states.
          • Done. RB88 (T) 07:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
        • About your version of the vari-speed oscillator wizard, you wrote "which played the Sausalito tapes in his left ear and the safety masters in his right" but both tapes were from Sausalito. Both the over-used master tapes and the pristine safety tapes were recorded in Sausalito, simultaneously on twin recorders, with the safeties put immediately in storage after the tracking sessions. Then you wrote "he converged their respective speeds and make-ups, especially in relation to the drum tracks." Yes, he converged their respective speeds, but what do you mean by "make-ups" or "especially in relation to the drum tracks." All the best tracks were getting "converged" during this operation, with none more important than the other, none "especially". Two of the drum tracks, the snare and hi-hat, were being used to line the tapes up in time, but these two were not made more important thereby—they just provided excellent timing information.
        • Just a little FYI: each 2-inch 24-track tape on its large aluminum reel would hold one normal-length pop song. Each song had a master tape and an initially identical safety tape. The guy with the VSO and headphones mixed each pair together using the best tracks from each.
          • This is where's it's at now based on your expert view: "A specialist was hired to rectify the Sausalito tapes using a vari-speed oscillator. Through a pair of headphones which played the damaged tapes in his left ear and the safety master recordings in his right, he converged their respective speeds aided by the timings provided by the snare and hi-hat audio tracks." Good? RB88 (T) 07:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Finally, one observation unrelated to my wording changes: the sentence "The album's working title in Sausalito was Yesterday's Dreams" seems wholly out of place in the paragraph where it now appears. Perhaps it can be moved down a paragraph or two, and be incorporated more skilfully into the flow of the paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Done. Used as a starting sentence. RB88 (T) 07:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. My concerns have been addressed; the wording of the studio sessions section satisfies me. The photo of Sausalito is nice, but I think I might try to pop by 2200 Bridgeway and snap a photo of the famed recording studio, now closed and held by a bank. Has anybody seen this little video of The Plant made by Mick Fleetwood last June? If you have enough cash, you can buy The Plant from the bank, with the audio equipment inside a bargaining point. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, on just the MOS matter about leaving direct quotes with no footnote at the end of the sentence which introduces each one. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#When quoting someone. A little fix! Binksternet (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I've just realised this and am a bit shocked that you've gone from a support to an object based on a minor redundancy. As I explained, all citations cover ALL the preceding material up to the previous citation or a paragraph break, INCLUDING ALL QUOTATIONS WITHIN THAT SPACE. It's a bit redundant to put the same number over and over, sentence after sentence. It also inhibits readership. RB88 (T) 20:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, it is a minor point, but one that factors directly in the FA requirement that the article follow MOS. Because they can hold up a FAC, no MOS matter is minor. The MOS appears to contradict your wish to keep the text uncluttered when it demands a footnote following the end quotation mark of a quote or at the end of a sentence introducing a quote. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I think it's implicit that the cites cover certain material. I have often been told at FAC to remove consequent duplicates, even when quotes are present. It's just intuitive. I don't see what fears you have or what fears will be alleviated by me coping and pasting a ref a few times. I mean you could have even done it yourself. I'm a bit puzzled why it warranted a support to oppose. RB88 (T) 22:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
          • The guideline at Wikipedia:Citing sources#When quoting someone states that the "citation should be placed either directly after the quotation" or "after a sentence or phrase that introduces the quotation." I don't see the implicit part you mention. I have no objection to you, and the article is excellent, but all FAs must follow MOS. It is a simple fix. You stated your belief that a footnote covering a paragraph should not follow each quote in a paragraph which is why I did not fix it myself, and why I changed my !vote to oppose. I'm not going to fix something against your wishes. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
            • DONE. RB88 (T) 23:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
*Support. This addition of some 70 named refs seems a lot like it should be listed as an example at Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I do not think you need to lower the article's readability by littering it with unasked-for footnotes. I will remove the ones I think excessive, and I will then support the article for FA. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

    • I wasn't disrupting Wikipedia. I was merely following the consistent citations rule and leading it to its logical conclusion, a ref for every sentence. I'm quite upset you've removed them. I want my article to overzealously adhere to every single rule in the book. I am sick and tired of rationality and intuition and I do think our readers are idiot sheep. Thanks for the support anyway. RB88 (T) 09:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Caption: "Nicks and Buckingham, here photographed in 2003, became integral members of Fleetwood Mac following the success of Fleetwood Mac in 1975 and Rumours two year later." Really--"following"? No. They wrote most of the songs on Fleetwood Mac and performed on all of them. Surely they were "integral members" of the group by early 1975, when that album was recorded. DocKino (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I think you're missing the point here. It's not denying they were members before Fleetwood Mac. It's merely saying that the success they had crafting songs for both albums, which sold well, made them crucial to Fleetwood Mac's songwriting. When Fleetwood hired them before Fleetwood Mac, this was not apparent and they were just back-up. In fact, only Buckingham was wanted as a guitarist but he brought Nicks along as well. RB88 (T) 18:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Excuse me? If I was really missing the point, I suppose you wouldn't have bothered to rewrite the caption, as you did. Care to apologize for your sour attitude?
      • Whatever, friend. I'm afraid it is still you who are missing the point. And the point is that you have still written a very poor caption. Fleetwood Mac consists of 11 songs—Buckingham and/or Nicks wrote or cowrote 6 of them. Nicks was the sole writer (and lead singer) of the album's third single. Rumours consists of 11 songs—Buckingham and/or Nicks wrote or cowrote 7 of them. But you'd have us understand that Buckingham and Nicks were not "integral to the band's songwriting" during the conception and recording of Fleetwood Mac, not "integral to the band's songwriting" after the successful release of that album, and not "integral to the band's songwriting" during the conception and recording of Rumours. OK. I'd say you've got a serious blind spot when it comes to the quality of your writing and I expect that I will find significant 1a deficiencies as I read through the rest of the article. See you again soon... DocKino (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Bloody hell. Didn't realise a single sentence would get you to find straws (and a thesaurus) to keep you warm (see below). I even changed it a bit, but I'll reword it if you're still sensitive. RB88 (T) 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Fixed by changing ONE measly word. What an an erroneous, amiss, askew, awry, defective, fallacious, false, faulty, flawed, inaccurate, inexact, invalid, misguided, specious, spurious, unfounded, unsound, untrue mistake that was! RB88 (T) 23:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Just want to make sure we're now communicating productively. Here is how the caption read when I first suggested it was problematic:
Nicks and Buckingham, here photographed in 2003, became integral members of Fleetwood Mac following the success of Fleetwood Mac in 1975 and Rumours two year later
And here is the caption now:
Nicks and Buckingham, here photographed in 2003, were integral to Fleetwood Mac's songwriting on Fleetwood Mac in 1975 and Rumours two year later
  • Just one question, tovarisch: Was I, in fact, "missing the point" or is the caption substantially more accurate now?
Well, as I said, I changed it cos you seemed a bit touchy. What you could have done when I said I saw no inherent problem in the meaning was: 1. change it yourself (and I really wouldn't have been bothered) or 2. explain rationally how you wanted it to be phrased (like all the other nice editors who have contributed so far). You did neither, and instead wrote the stuff above and below. Seemed a bit excessive. RB88 (T) 04:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment Fortunately, the problematic caption (and the problematic obliviousness to the problem) discussed above is not representative of the general quality of the article's writing. Nonetheless, the article is filled with awkward, infelicitous, and unclear phrasing. It is not quite up to our literary standard at this point. Here are a few examples, just from the lead:

  • "Rumours is Fleetwood Mac's most successful release after a Grammy Award win and sales of over 40 million copies worldwide." Surely "with" rather than "after". As sales are more customarily associated with "success" in this context, their mention should probably precede that of the Grammy Award. Instead of "Grammy Award win"--which is unnecessarily (even if only mildly) redundant--perhaps state exactly what the Grammy Award was for.
    • "A Grammy Award winner, Rumours is Fleetwood Mac's most successful release with sales of over 40 million copies worldwide." RB88 (T) 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "For the album, the band wanted to expand on the success of the 1975 record Fleetwood Mac, but struggled with emotional upheaval before and during the recording sessions." Unnecessary verbiage: "For the album". Rather overobvious verbiage: "The band wanted to expand on [the success of...]" (the informative point here is simply that Fleetwood Mac was successful, the rest is gaseous: it is the norm for any band that has a successful album to want to follow it up with a more successful one--apparent exceptions like Tusk are worthy of note, but this is pabulum). Awkward phrasing: "struggled with emotional upheaval" (could probably be cut, as it conceptually repeats content of next sentence; alternately the repetitive material in the next sentence could be trimmed). The "but" is also misplaced--as you go on to explain, that "emotional upheaval" contributed to the album's power.
    • Removed "for the album". As you have proven yourself with your Tusk comment, expanding on success is not 100% given in the history of music. The norm is your point of view. Sometimes, bands like to be extremely experimental to nullify mainstream success. The expansion of success has to be made clear for non-norm experts, but I added a "commercial" qualifier to the sentence. The rest was reworded in conjunction with the comment below. RB88 (T) 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "The studio time for Rumours was marked by interpersonal strife and hedonistic behaviour as all Fleetwood Mac members went through breakups; the lyrics were informed by these personal relationship failures." Infelicitous phrase: "studio time" (perhaps "the Rumours sessions" or "the Rumours recording sessions"). Awkward phrasing: "all Fleetwood Mac members went through breakups" (perhaps "each band member went through [or, experienced] a romantic breakup"). Underestablished subject: "the lyrics" (albums consist of "songs" or "compositions" or such--those, in turn, include lyrics; the leap demanded by the current phrasing is awkward).
    • (Maybe something along these lines: Their most recent album, Fleetwood Mac, had been very successful. In contrast to that record's largely harmonious recording sessions, the band entered the studio for Rumours rent by interpersonal strife. Each member went through a romantic breakup during the sessions. Their relationship failures informed the lyrics of most of the songs they recorded. ["Most" to accommodate "You Make Loving Fun".])
      • No offence, but this reads very poorly, with no flow. It has awkward phrasing, superfluous material, and infelicitous wording, whatever that is. All in all, not bad, but not good. I went with: "The band wanted to expand on the commercial success of the 1975 record Fleetwood Mac, but struggled with relationship breakups before recording started. The Rumours studio sessions were marked by hedonistic behaviour and interpersonal strife between Fleetwood Mac members; the album's lyrics were informed by these experiences." RB88 (T) 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "Influenced by pop music, the compositions were moulded through a combination of acoustic and electric instruments." Surely, many of the songs were more than "influenced" by pop music; rather, a substantial portion of the album is pop music, or straddles the line between pop and rock, or...something a bit stronger than pop "influenced". Awkward phrasing: "compositions were molded through...instruments" (a very odd construction--do you actually want to say something here directly about the compositions or about their arrangements?).
    • The album is not pop music, merely influenced by it. No critic in the history of mankind has ever called it pop music. "Pop" as in popular or popular culture maybe, but not musically. Pop rock is a subgenre of rock music. The compositions phrase is fine. It summarises the composition section nicely without going into much detail, which should and must be reserved for the article text. See WP:LEAD. RB88 (T) 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "The mixing process slowed the creation of Rumours". Infelicitous phrase: "slowed the creation of" (perhaps "delayed the completion of").
    • Done. RB88 (T) 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "Rumours garnered critical acclaim and commercial attention." What does "commercial attention" mean? I submit: nothing.
    • I submit: You're right. RB88 (T) 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "Praise centred on its production values and melodies". Confusing use of jargon: "production values" (are we talking about the quality or the style of the production? Or both?) Another awkward leap: "its...melodies" (again, like lyrics, songs "naturally" have 'em...albums can have 'em, but the phrasing must be adjusted to bridge the conceptual gap with some elegance).
    • "Production quality and harmonies". RB88 (T) 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "The record has aided the development of musical acts in different genres." Very infelicitous phrasing: "aided the development of musical acts". Albums don't "aid development". On either side of the Atlantic, this is an unidiomatic notion. An album may "inspire". Other acts may "build on its innovations". There are several possibilities. "Aid development" is not among them.
    • Done. RB88 (T) 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is just the lead, which appears to be representative of the article as a whole. The writing is not bad. Nor, however, is it good. I believe a careful, sensitive line edit is called for. DocKino (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

    • I'll fix/reply to these ASAP. For the record, Parrot of Doom, an extremely experienced copy editor and writer of FA classic rock albums, is going through the article bit by bit with only minor issues to bring up (mostly about word placement). But, you have your thesaurus handy so maybe you'll find some more. RB88 (T) 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I thank you for the compliment. I've still got some sections to go, once that's done I plan to do a copyedit of the whole thing and then support. Its only the prose letting this down right now, and it isn't far off. This is a very well researched article. Parrot of Doom 00:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, just wanted to say that the lead rarely, if ever, is a true representation of the whole article, which while still summative, is more historical and relies on sources and citations. See WP:LEAD for crucial differences and also maybe get together with User:Indopug who has never liked my leads but has never found massive error in the actual texts. Intros tend to be acquired tastes (as you have proven). RB88 (T) 23:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Cyclone Gwenda

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets FA requirements. I've thoroughly researched the storm and have found no additional information for it. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 16:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Image review: Please point File:STC Gwenda 06 apr 1999 0832Z.jpg to the page the image is displayed, not to the image itself. Jappalang (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Corrected the source Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support! --Article looks in good shape Jason Rees (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment; the final paragraph of the met. history section seems extremely technical (even for me!) and confusion. Could it perhaps be condensed and made more accessible? –Juliancolton | Talk 01:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how to make it any more simple than it currently is. This paragraph has never had an issue with other nominations before. If you have any suggestions for improving it, please share them. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good, comprehensive article.--Edward130603 (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Problems & concerns:

#^ Staff Writer (2009). "Tropical Cyclone Names". Australian Bureau of Meteorology. http://www.bom.gov.au/weather/cyclone/about/cyclone-names.shtml. Retrieved 1 January 2010. <-- Citation check, please

  1. What are you asking for here? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

#I have a numerous amount of problems with the fact that the ONLY newspaper cited is the Australian Associated Press. Also, every single one is written as "Staff Writer", which is not really a correct author in theory. This relates to the next problem.

  1. I've been under the impression that if there is no author listed, "staff writer" is used. Also, the reason why the AAP is the only newspaper cited is because that's the only one that had archived info on the storm. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    Removed Staff Writer from the author field Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

#You have one paragraph of impact in a three paragraph section, partially because of the use on 1 paper. Try looking for more papers and citations where possible, as its kind of dull. Yes lack of damage is a problem, but sometimes you find unusual things looking around.

  1. It's a three part section, with three paragraphs corresponding to the three things listed (Preps, Impact, Records). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    Where is the building damage stats? Was anything damged? Were there any injuries? If we don't even have a number amount, it really shouldn't even be featured.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 17:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    All that has been documented was minor structural damage in Port Hedland. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
    After futher research, what's in the article in terms of damage is all that's known. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

#It gets boring reading this article over, and over, because there's no imagery outside of the infobox (and storm path)! Images are needed, badly.

  1. I don't know of any images that are available and useful to the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    Look though sattilite imagery.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)
    I've added one of the storm nearing landfall. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

#"The Australian Bureau of Meteorology uses 10-minute sustained winds, while the Joint Typhoon Warning Center uses one-minute sustained winds.[6] The conversion factor between the two is 1.14.[7] The Bureau of Meteorology's peak intensity for Gwenda was 225 km/h (140 mph) 10-minute sustained, or 260 km/h (160 mph) one-minute sustained.[2][7] The JTWC's peak intensity for Gwenda was 240 km/h (150 mph) one-minute sustained, or 220 km/h (130 mph) 10-minute sustained.[4][7]" - get this out of here. This is better prepared for a separated records section.

  1. This blurb has always been at the end of the Met. history, no need to change it if there's never been complaints before. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    There is really no better place to put this bit of info, it's meant to define what ten-minute and one-minute sustained winds are and the difference between them. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

#"The conversion factor between the two is 1.14." - Not specific enough 1.14x? 1.14 divided? what?

  1. Fixed this myself, it was 1.14x.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 14:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

#Second paragraph of meteorological history: We go from April 5 to April 7 without describing much but intensification, no movement, no nothing. This needs to be fixed.

  1. There was nothing useful in the advisories during that period that could be added, it would just lead to redundancies. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    Movement is more what I meant, and there has to be something interesting on April 6.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 17:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    Added the storm's movement during the intensification phase. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes are needed here, and for good reason. I get bored trying to read it.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 00:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've struck the ones I am content with, just help get some kind of improvement in.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 14:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I've struck all but one, I still don't feel content with the impact.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 19:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral, but not comfortable with promotion - Yes now that we know we're talking a dud storm that did little damage, I will not oppose promotion, but I don't feel this should be promoted, being it did little to be actually interesting.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 01:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment:

  • Why not mention the year straight up instead of doing so in the following sentence? Aaroncrick (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just going through the lead was painful; the article hasn't been thoroughly prepared and checked against standards. The prose is far from 1a—basic errors are present, just in the lead. My one random source check came up red, indicating the need for a full source audit. Please withdraw and go through a peer review process (either at formal peer review or with peers in the storms WikiProject) to check sources, copyedit, and correct basic grammar and MoS issues. --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Why "30 hour span" (no hyphen) and then "10-minute sustained winds" (hyphen)?
    • That same sentence is lacking parallel structure; we're told that the winds increased from x to y, but then that the pressure changed by x to y.
    • "At the same time, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center assessed" At the same time as what? The 30 hours you just mentioned?
    • "assessed the storm to have peaked" No...
    • "Shortly after reaching this intensity" What intensity? You've not mentioned the term yet, and the reader will not know how intensity is measured.
    • "the name Gwenda was retired at the end of the season." The source doesn't say that. It gives a list of names that doesn't include Gwenda, but that doesn't really tell us anything. You need a source stating that it was retired and, more important, why.
      • Ive changed the reference, they dont tell us why they retired the name though no WMO committee does.Jason Rees (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
--Andy Walsh (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, per above I am withdrawing this nomination from FAC. Thanks for the comments, I'll get to them when I have time. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Wait, hold it. I'll go through with a fine-tooth comb and see if we can't save it. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Should be a bit smoother around the edges now. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I can do a ce. This article is only 7kb in prose, it can be ce'd in an hour YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What's with the US English? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I live in the US so that's the only style of writing I'm used to. I'm trying to gather Australian English over time but it's rather hard for someone not from the country. You're more than welcome to change it to Aus. English since that's the preferred style for this type of article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone pinged Laser to look in after the ce? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support following a series of copyedits. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Aaliyah

Nominator(s): — ξxplicit 20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article meets all requirements to become a featured article. Several months and hard research and dedication have gone into this article and I would like to get this through the "final" phase. Thank you. — ξxplicit 20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by an odd name

  • Some of the citations, like ref 80, contain quotes before the citation data. (I think they're quotes, because they have statements like "Actually, she's a streetwise Jackson with a far more soulful song selection" that aren't neutral.) Consider putting the quotes in the |quote= attribute of {{cite web}}, etc., instead. (You will then need to change double quotation marks within them to single ones if that's done.) I'm not sure it's required by the criteria (which demand consistency above all), but it's hard to tell they are actually quotes from the sources and not extra encyclopedic notes. --an odd name 20:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    Fixed. — ξxplicit 20:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool. More stuff:

--an odd name 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Support - A nice variation from the usual articles, however, I wouldn't consider the prose near the top of the article to be at FA quality (ie down to the beginning of Posthumous career). If you could contact an independent copyeditor, that would be nice. The rest of the article is good. I've given my nitpicks below.
  • She attended a Catholic school, Gesu Elementary, where she received a part in the stage play Annie in first grade; from then on, she was determined to be an entertainer.[7] - maybe better as became instead of was?
    Seems this was correct by yourself? — ξxplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Aaliyah's mother was a vocalist, - Do you know what type? Not particularly significant, obviously, but could be helpful
    Not haven't found too much information about her mother's background, I'm afraid. — ξxplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • She had the role of an ancient vampire, Queen Akasha, which she described as a "manipulative, crazy, sexual being".[11] - "had" the role?
    Changed "had" to "played". — ξxplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, looks great. Good work. ceranthor 20:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments: mostly fine citations, needs a little polish only.
Check your citations for titles, such as MTV News which appears to function as a magazine, ie if cite web |title=MTV News or MTV News if manual. Same with the following: Slant Magazine; CNN.com; BBC News; etc. You may want to check if CBS News; ABC News (which ABC pray tell? You mean ABC News [USA]) functions as if a newspaper or magazine.
I'm not aware that any of these websites have publications (Slant Magazine is a bit tricky; they're an online magazine with no publications whatsoever). — ξxplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
A publication is about its mode of presentation, not its physical format. BBC News online acts as a Newspaper. An online magazine that acts as a an edited magazine is a magazine not a website. A novel if online is a book not a website. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Unpublished report, ""NTSB Identification: MIA01RA225". National Transportation Safety Board. Retrieved June 11, 2009" remove quotes from around the title, consider cite report if using cite book type style. (Quotes and Italics indicate publication in an ISSN/ISBN/utterance for public consumption manner).
Now using {{cite report}} template. — ξxplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Bad citation. Article in title field, title (Billboard) missing, "Pesselnick, Jill (November 17, 2001). Madonna Earns Another RIAA Diamond. 113. Nielsen Business Media. p. 69. ISSN 0006-2510. Retrieved May 15, 2009."
Speaking of, why aren't you using volume, page, ISSN for all Billboard sources then?
Corrected title. This was the only information that wasn't obtainable on billboard.com. — ξxplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The Daily Telegraph. I think you mean The Daily Telegraph [UK]. no?
Yes, but does the [UK] need to be added? The article The Daily Telegraph is about the UK newspaper. — ξxplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes the UK does need to be added. Newspapers also called The Daily Telegraph are major daily newspapers of note in other nations as well. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Generally you're over linking news source titles, and inconsistently linking the first or all. Go over and either link all, or only the first occurance, or none.
I believe these were referring to the citations that used the {{harvnb}} template. I've unlinked all. — ξxplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Generally fine, this are polish (except that Bad citation). Fifelfoo (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Image concerns:

  • File:Aaliyah - More Than a Woman sample.ogg: I am not enamoured with inserting a sound bite that is accompanied by critical commentary in the form of a caption. It seems to render the music (a crucial part of her legacy) insignificant. Could not the commentary be worked into her Legacy section. User:Sfan00 IMG has tagged for further reduction of this sample. Please contact him to check if he has issues with the length or the fidelity of the sample (can either one or the other be reduced further?).
    The critical commentary on this specific clip is also in the text. I'll leave Sfan00 IMG (talk · contribs) a note. — ξxplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • File:Aaliyah - If Your Girl Only Knew sample.ogg: same as the above clip.
    I'll try to get to this later on today. — ξxplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed up some bits of File:Aaliyah in blue.jpg to comply with NFCC, so it should be fine. File:Ferncliff.jpg is verifiably in the public domain, thanks in part to the EXIF data that identifies it as a video cam shot. Jappalang (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

  • "... began to film for her second film ..."
    Reads rather awkward (repetition of "film").
    Reworded to "After completing Romeo Must Die, Aaliyah began to work on her second film..." — ξxplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "With the release of the Matrix Ultimate Collection series, clips of Aaliyah were included in the tribute section."
    Suggest changing this to "Aaliyah's scenes were later included in the tribute section of the Matrix Ultimate Collection series."
    Done. — ξxplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "... which led women in the United States and Japan to utilize her look."
    What does "utilize her look" mean?
    It basically means that women dress similarly (if not exactly) to how she did. Not too sure how to reword it. — ξxplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    Suggestion: "She often wore black clothing, starting a trend for similar fashion among women in United States and Japan." Jappalang (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    Reworded. — ξxplicit 04:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Farley, Kenyetta, and Sutherland have mentioned Aaliyah's involvement in charities, especially in her early life.[17] Why is this not explored?
    I'll give this a try a bit later today. — ξxplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    I've added some bits. — ξxplicit 02:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    Although stricken, I think there should be further exploration into this; one source, for example, made comments that her early charity work influenced her character. Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This source explains Aaliyah's Arabic name, which seems interesting. Why is it not used?
    I personally found this trivial. Additionally, other publications have stated what her name means in Swahali (same outcome, but difference languages). It seemed best to just leave it out. — ξxplicit 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    Okay, but I will leave this unstruck, in case others think otherwise. Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

From a casual read through. Jappalang (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Please add the {{Harvnb}} template to the book references as a number of books are being used to refer and it would be difficult to find a particular one at one go. Also consider using {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} templates for the book references section as that would make the section look tight and constrict. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Just a point here about citation templates. There's nothing in the policies or guidelines that says they ought to be used, and many editors prefer that they not be used. They can cause problems, including slowing down page loading considerably. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, {{Harvnb}} is in use. The ref parameter was adjusted to not display blue links; see comments above. — ξxplicit 21:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    No problems. Its not absolutely necessary, just the feel enhancer. The article is still FA worthy without it. So I support it. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Source comments Everything fine.

  • Slant should always be cited like this: Slant
  • If you're going to include both work and publisher for print media, then make sure all instances have it. I think a few are missing publisher.
  • Books only used once have to be placed in the notes rather than the ref section. It's a bit cumbersome especially when they're only cited once.

RB88 (T) 02:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

  • All done, except the last. Is this preference or something that's generally practiced? — ξxplicit 21:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    It's widely practised and I encourage it here. It helps organisation and reader ease. RB88 (T) 00:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    Wasn't aware there were so many... ate up half the list. But anywho, done. — ξxplicit 01:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    Great, but I think you've pasted over the page numbers. Make sure to put them back in, in the ref this time. RB88 (T) 01:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    D'oh! Restored. — ξxplicit 02:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Well written and nicely presented article that I feel meets the FA criteria. Pyrrhus16 23:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - the prose needed some minor tweaking but no deal-breakers remain that I can see. Comprehensive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I found this interesting and generally well written, although it still has some prose and organization problems. Organizationally, some of the paragraphs don't stick to their subject. For example, one paragraph includes info on her burial and the NTSB investigation. These shouldn't be together, paragraph-wise, or subheading wise, probably. There are many cases of tangled verb tenses. For example, she would sing at weddings (etc.), and in the next sentence, we hear she is 5. She was raised along side her brother....ummmm....and what precisely does that mean. She and her brother were raised in Detroit Michigan (or where ever it was)? It really could use another once-over by the editor, or someone. Otherwise, it's a very interesting article, nicely done. Just those comments, and if it could be tightened up writing wise, I'll support. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent and comprehensive article. I was impressed with it a couple months ago when I first read it, so it was a pleasant surprise to notice it at FAC now. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Subway (Homicide: Life on the Street)

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is well-written, well-sourced and as comprehensive as possible. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. Eubulides (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, forgot. Alt text added. — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, but could you please reword it to avoid proper names in the alt text? Please see WP:ALT #Proper names. Eubulides (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Sorry about that. Alt text isn't my best area. :) Better? — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: All of my issues were taken care of in the GAN review I conducted for the article—still, though, please add the ALT text. The Flash {talk} 05:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • This is the first article I've reviewed for some time, so please excuse me for being a little bit out of touch. That said, I don't believe that the criteria have changed that much.
    Prose
    Generally good, with some minor niggles, for example:
    • "as the man police believe may have pushed Lange" → "as a man suspected of pushing Lange"?
    • "...was filmed on location in a real-life Baltimore Metropolitan Transit Authority station.": you don't need "real-life"; the word "on location" implies that already.
    • "Pembleton (Andre Braugher) and Bayliss (Kyle Secor)": give context for people who never watched the show. Just saying the word "Detectives" before makes it much clearer. It would also be helpful to give their first names too, but it's not required for the context.
    • "Biedron says he was bumped from behind along with Lange, but other witnesses give conflicting reports, with some saying Biedron pushed Lange, others saying Lange pushed Biedron and yet others saying it was an accident." -> "Biedron says he was bumped from behind along with Lange, but other witnesses give conflicting reports: some say Biedron pushed Lange; others saying Lange pushed Biedron; and others saying it was an accident."
    • "Pembleton sends Lewis (Clark Johnson) and Falsone (Jon Seda)": see point #3
    • "In this particular episode" -> "In the episode he saw"
    • "Rashomon thing": italics are allowed in quotes
    • "But Goldstein remained convinced": "But", in this case, isn't needed to keep the same context.
      • I think I've addressed all of the specific items you've pointed out, and I'll conduct a more rigorous look through for some additional prose improvements over the next few days. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
    The prose can generally be improved with minor changes to remove extraneous words such as "but", "with", "where", and replacing them with things such as colons and semi-colons.
      • Let me know if anything more should be done! Thanks again! — Hunter Kahn 14:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
    Comprehensiveness
    At 45KB, it's on the long side of 45-minute episode FACs, that tend (or used to tend) to around 32KB. Still, I wrote a 110KB article about an episode of the same length, so I can't complain it's too long <g>.
    Well-researched
    Appears to be, using what scant material there would be from twelve years ago, when the Internet was in its infancy; generally, I don't oppose an episode FAC for not having been on LexisNexis.
    Neutrality
    passed.
    Lead section
    concise and offers a nice bitesize of the plot summary too: something I find very hard to do!
    Appropriate structure
    Your structure differs from mine, as I count writing to be part of the production process, but it's still good. If you want to appear a bit more professional, you could rename "Plot summary" to "Synopsis".
    • Done! lol — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
    Citation style
    consistent.
    Images
    you use two fair use images.
    • Infobox image: you are correct in your assessment that the concept is difficult to explain without an image. I also appreciate that you gave a good secondary reason: that it portrays the relationship Pembleton develops with a dying man, a crucial point in the script.
    • Filming image: again, good rationale, showing how the camer a tricks were visualised and showing how cramped the space was better than the text.
    Length
    not too long, not too short.
  • Support. All in all, the article is pretty good. There are some minor prose issues, but it will not stop me from supporting this candidcay. Good work. And, perhaps you could tell me: was this the basis for a similar Robot Chicken sketch? Sceptre (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm, interesting. I'm not sure, but I'll definitely look into it. Thanks for the review, and the support! — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Source comments Everything fine. Minor thing: If you're going to include publisher location, do it for all refs or none for uniformity's sake. As it is, some do and don't. RB88 (T) 23:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I added the publisher to all the news sources, but was hoping you could check to make sure this is what you meant. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 14:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
    I think he means locations of the publishers. The documentaries have the location of Baltimore, Maryland but some other references don't (6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18). Mm40 (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Since I can't get the location info for all of these sources, I just removed it from the ones who that had it, for conformity sake. — Hunter Kahn 22:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose on criterion three:
    • File:Homicide life on the street subway.jpg - Needs to attribute a copyright holder per NFCC#10A. (This is a minor issue; oppose is per issue below).
    • File:Homicide life on the street subway filming.jpg - Doesn't appear to be making a significant contribution to our understanding - NFCC#8. The purpose includes:
      • A) "illustrates the John Hopkins Hospital Metro Subway Station which was used as a setting". This is a real station (i.e. free image could be obtained - NFCC#1). Setting is also perfectly clear in File:Homicide life on the street subway.jpg. NFCC#3A requires minimal use.
      • B) "[illustrates] the camera and sound techniques used for the filming". The back of a seated cameraman and a man holding a boom mic is poor, at best, illustration. No meaningful technique is illustrated and technique, if any, does not appear counter intuitive, unique, or otherwise complex enough as to require a non-free image to understand.
      • C) "[illustrates] the cramped conditions the cast was faced with with during the making of the episode". Cramped quarters are illustrated equally well by File:Homicide life on the street subway.jpg. The crew is shown to have ample room; both images depict the limited space for the cast. NFCC#3A: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" (emphasis mine).
      • Image also does not credit the copyright holder, but that is moot as per above. Эlcobbola talk 17:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I've removed the filming photo from the article and added what I believe is the correct copyright info to the other image. — Hunter Kahn 19:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks. No further criterion three concerns. Эlcobbola talk 20:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - No major concerns for me; looks pretty good. ceranthor 23:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Reluctant withdrawal of oppose. Tony (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Not well enough written. Here are random issues just in the lead.

  • Remove the second word. Possibly remove "overall", which is odd. Can "simultaneously" be removed?
  • "helmed" is a word I've never heard before. I had to look it up. Why not use plain English?
  • "based ... off". Isn't it "on"?
  • NYC hardly needs to be linked; don't you want to avoid diluting the valuable links? Who would click on that link, especially when it's probably present in the link-target just before.
  • Remove "some"; both of them.
  • "overwhelmingLY"
  • only number three. Make the logic easy for the readers. Shouldn't the "but" be an "and"?
  • Remove "long". Replace "called" with a comma.

An independent copy-edit is needed throughout. Tony (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I've fixed all of the specific items you've identified (Except I kept the wikilink for NYC, which I think is totally appropriate.) I would suggest that since this article already has pretty strong support in this FAC, that any grammatical problems are manageable in this FAC process, and I'm willing to address any and all outstanding problems that can be identified. — Hunter Kahn 02:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Tony, now that a fairly thorough independent copy edit has been conducted by the reviewer below, would you consider withdrawing your oppose vote? — Hunter Kahn 23:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments from Binksternet (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The closing of the third lead paragraph is a sentence that is too long: "Fleder included cinematic elements in the episode that were uncommon in the traditionally naturalistic show, which led to conflicts between Fleder and director of photography Alex Zakrzewski." Split this up.
      • Done. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • "The conception, making and reception of 'Subway'"... I am wondering what would make this sentence better. Swap "making" with "production"? Losing all those words and starting with "Subway"?
      • I did the latter. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I think "discussing their lives and experiences" is redundant.
      • Dropped "experiences". — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • You can trim "a New York Police Department detective who responds to emergency situations" to just "a New York Police Department detective". The fact that some detectives don't respond to emergencies is not important here.
      • Ok. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • These two sentences need some tweaking: "Due to a long history of poor ratings, NBC officials had been placing pressure on Homicide: Life on the Street producers to improve its viewership and become more popular than its higher-rated time-slot competitor, Nash Bridges, or risk cancellation. Yoshimura and the other producers, however, decided to continue pushing the envelope with "Subway" because they felt the series to maintain its quality and survive." I think "risk cancellation" should be pulled off of the first sentence because "survive" is in the second one. The second sentence is missing a word, probably "needed" as in "needed to maintain". "Due to a long history of poor ratings" should be something like "Distressed from a long stretch of poor ratings, NBC executives placed pressure".
      • I incorporated all your suggestions and fixed the missing wor. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Please wikilink the first "greenlighted". Don't need "NBC executives": just "NBC" will suffice here, after greenlighted.
      • Ok. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Please split up a long sentence such that "Yoshimura anticipated backlash about the episode, but said, 'Every episode, we have trouble with NBC'" stops at "episode" and restarts "He said,..."
      • Done. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The phrase "a trend throughout the sixth season of the detectives" is clunky. How about "a sixth season trend in which the detectives"?
      • Ok. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • No need for hyphen in "visually-engaging".
      • Dropped the hyphen.
    • Need a reference after the quote "one of these indie kind of guys (who is) going to come in and try to reinvent our show". The GAN people missed that one...
      • Added. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • If Yoshimura did not say "who is" in his quote then that editorial addition goes in brackets, not parentheses. Same with "who are" which comes in another quote.
      • Replaced with brackets.
    • The quote, "frankly, nauseated me, the idea of that", where did that come from? Are you quoting Braugher? Needs a reference.
      • Added the reference. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Please clarify "not only based on his acting, but his short physical structure" to become "not only based on his acting, but on his short physical structure". Or "short stature."
      • Got it. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Trim "does not get along with him well" to just "does not get along with him."
      • Done. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Wikilink storyboarded.
      • Ok. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Can you change "Braugher had some previous scenes with D'Onofrio" to "Braugher had some previous dramatic interaction with D'Onofrio"?
      • Changed it. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't "become emotionally invested" be better than "become heavily invested"?
      • Yup, changed it. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Too many superlatives: "very over-the-top and bombastic" Over-the-top doesn't need very.
      • Dropped the very. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • What if the "the actor was acting too crazy" was changed to "the character appeared too crazy in earlier scenes—the actor was telegraphing..."? Pipe link to Telegraphing (entertainment).
      • Done. — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
        • The new wording is awkward, with "and the actor telegraphing". Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I was missing a word. Added it. — Hunter Kahn 21:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

...I'm back picking up where I left off yesterday. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

    • In the editing section, a guy name Felder helps. Fleder?
      • Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The quote "The feeling was let's get out of the insanity of the sweeps and say, 'This is a little different' (and) hopefully we'll bring more people to this episode" should have brackets, not parentheses. Or drop the "and" to replace it with a dash or a semicolon. When he says "let's get out..." he is sort of quoting the general feeling. Do you think we should use one more layer of quotes-within-quotes? If so, this would be the result:
Warren Littlefield said, "The feeling was, 'let's get out of the insanity of the sweeps and say, "This is a little different"—hopefully we'll bring more people to this episode.'"
      • I changed it to your suggestion. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • "When all Nielsen Ratings markets were accounted for, "Subway" was seen by 10.3 million households." It was seen by that many before the ratings were tallied. The tally only determined how many after the fact. How about "When all the Nielsen Ratings markets were accounted for, "Subway" was listed as having been seen by 10.3 million households"? Or similar.
      • Done. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The phrase "third-most ranked" probably wants to be "third-highest ranked".
      • Ok. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't much like "due to" in a sentence. As a result, I am turning one of your sentences around in my head to see how it could be reworded: "Although Homicide: Life on the Streets typically placed third behind those two programs, NBC executives hoped "Subway" would outperform Nash Bridges due to the amount of advertising and press coverage it received." Maybe this would work for you: "NBC executives had hoped that the extensive promotion and press coverage of "Subway" would help it outperform Nash Bridges and so lift Homicide: Life on the Street above its usual third place in the rankings. When it did not, "Subway" was considered a commercial failure..."
      • Sounds good! Changed it. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Need references after the quotes "a tour de force for D'Onofrio and Braugher" and "This is as gripping an hour of television as you're ever likely to see."
      • Ok. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • When you say that Jay Rabinowitz and Wayne Hyde won an award, you are following an account of awards not being won. Do you want a connective word to tell the reader that this next sentence is not about more losses? Something like "Nevertheless" or "However" or similar.
      • Added the However. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Please rewrite this sentence so that it does not have two instances of the word "history": "The documentary included a brief history of Homicide: Life on the Street and its history of both critical acclaim and low ratings."
      • Done. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The phrase "intelligent and quality episode" is clunky. How about "intelligent, high quality episode" or "intelligent and superior episode" or "intelligent and distinctive episode"?
      • I changed it to the first suggestion. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The term "radio microphones" should be pipe linked to, or changed to, wireless microphones.
      • Ok. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Two sentences in a row begin with "Fleder, comma" Rephrase one of them.
      • Done. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Fleder's feelings about the documentary crew's presence peak at his statement about pulling away from the focus. His final sentence "To me, they were kind of there lurking" is not needed for comprehension, and it weakens the power and finality of "pulling away from the focus."
      • Dropped the lurking bit. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • We need a connecting word: "Owen said, 'Rare, because' ". Maybe Owen said this was "Rare, because..." Or Owen said this was rare, "because..." If Owen's "Rare" is kept, the capital letter should be made lower case.
      • Changed it. Please check that I got it right. — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • In Manuel Mendoza's quote, his "Homicide" is capitalized. Why? Is he using a shortened version of the name of the TV series? Is he simply referring to the concept of murder? What the hell is he talking about anyway? You cast his quote as praise, but it could be interpreted otherwise. That quote doesn't make me understand the documentary or Mendoza's viewpoint more than before. Expand on it for clarity or delete it.
      • He is referring to the show. "Homicide" should have been italicized, and it is now. Does that clarify it enough to readers that he is in fact talking about the show, not homicide in general? Let me know, and if not, I'll rework it further... — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The whole article ends with a whimper, draining off into a humorous scene in the documentary that critics agree upon. If you had your wish (and you do), how would you like the article to end? A high note about artistic excellence? A cautionary note about aiming high but missing? Maybe Rob Owen can be tapped again to give the final sendoff quote to the article. It should end strongly.
      • Well, if you're asking me, I guess the ideal ending would be something to the affect of the John Leonard quote in the pull box, about how although the ratings payoff wasn't there, the artistic experience is genuine. But it seems to me the documentary should be at the end of the structure of the article, so how could I address this concern? — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't really know the answer. It's not a deal breaker for me at this FAC, but I wanted you to notice again how the article ends, and perhaps to begin thinking of what you want the reader to go home with. Overall, I'm this →||← close to supporting. Just fix the reading flow around "and the actor telegraphing" and you'll have it. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I've fixed the telegraphing item. As far as the ending, you bring up an interesting point I hadn't considered before. I'm going to give this one more thought and see if I can think of a solution without disrupting the structure of the article. Thanks for the thorough copy edit! — Hunter Kahn 21:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. My concerns have been addressed. Nice work! Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Nice nice work. A few minor quibbles.
I took the liberty of fixing a sstrange repetition "the a"
several characters describing different portrayals of a murder several characters offer differing description of the same murder.  ???
cliched moral...clichéd moral
add a artistic visual touch an artistic....? (in filming section)

Really nice. I'm happy to support. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the support! I think I addressed the items you pointed out. — Hunter Kahn 04:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Spot check: "Writing" subsection.
    • "wanted him to be placed into a situation where he"—I think "in", not "into". Later in the sentence "would cause"?
    • It's not wrong: "wanted the Lange character to be a mean and unpleasant person, rather than the nice and innocent victim more typically portrayed", but you might consider "wanted the Lange character to be mean and unpleasant, rather than the nice and innocent victim more typically portrayed".
    • "Yoshimura wanted Braugher to initially treat D'Onofrio like bad luck and try to keep his distance at first, but gradually ..." We have both "initially" and "at first". Treating someone "like bad luck" is pretty colloquial and not pan-English. I think I can work out what it means.
    • "A New York City Fire Department firefighter named Tim Brown served as a consultant for most of the technical information in the episode"—you could pipe out the "Fire Department" and pipe in "firefighter", to avoid the rep. We'd end up with this (plus other changes): "A New York City firefighter, Tim Brown, was consultant for most of the technical information in the episode".
    • Why is "Japan" linked? Is it obscure, even to a seven-year-old? Does the link-target increase the reader's understanding of this topic?
    • ""Subway" also continued a sixth season trend in which the detectives became more personally involved with the victims, and thus becoming more emotionally drained at their deaths." I'd remove "also". I don't think it works grammatically unless the "and" is removed.
    • "In order to". PLEASE. "To". And there's a clunky and redudant "also" soon after.
    • Comma a must for meaning, after philosophical". It's ambiguous without.

Well, I'm disappointed. When you said fairly thorough copy-edit I was worried, justifiably. It's admirable in its detail; it lets us into the production process. It's very long, but I'm not complaining; although if there's a way to trim it, please consider. I'm withdrawing my oppose reluctantly, and won't stand in the way of promotion. But I think you need to have it looked through by someone different. It's about 90 minutes' work throughout, whether it's done before or after promotion. Tony (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Ok. Thanks for the comments, and I've addressed all the items from the Writing section you've identified. — Hunter Kahn 19:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I have to concur with Tony here; just a brief glance this morning revealed several places where redundant words make some statements a bit of a slog to get through; where the intended meaning has been conveyed by the time the reader is halfway through a sentence, there's no sense in continuing said sentence with words and phrases that by that point are implicit and only serve to delay the reader's getting to the next piece of interesting information. And it is an interesting article, giving a deeper-than-usual insight into the production process. I considered lodging a weak oppose, but other than the redundancy issue, there isn't a whole lot wrong; it's probably good enough to sneak by, and having looked at the article in more depth since this morning, everything content-related I'm happy with. I hope the examples I presented earlier ([18]; [19]; [20]; [21]; [22]; [23]) give the nominator some idea about what I mean, as well as the deliberate strike-throughs in this statement. Was anything at all lost by removing those words? Long story short, I strongly urge you to give the prose another pass; it'll be worth it. And if you find it hard going, it's worth refreshing one's memory of Tony's redundancy exercises every so often. All the best, Steve T • C 11:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Support — This candidate has been here for a long time. To me it still lacks the full shine of a Featured Article, but there is nothing I can put my finger on precisely with regard to the quality of the prose. It is an engaging article—albeit a little too long for the subject—and the quality of the research is high. I think the article should be promoted in the hope that this will encourage the nominator and other editors to spend an hour or so more time working on it before it is chosen to feature on the Main Page. Graham Colm Talk 20:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates"


The content of this page was copied from Wikipedia and is licensed by GNU/FDL, for the copyright information check the original page

BestFromWiki.org is a small project to bring some good features to search and use content from Wikipedia, it is all funded by affiliate programs and advertising only. You can help maintain this site donating any value through the button here.