Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2007

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 2007

[edit]

Atomic theory

[edit]
You may be looking for what was at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atomic theory/archive1, see Talk:Atomic theory/FAC archive sort SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've touched up the article a little (every section now has references).Kurzon 18:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this. — RJH (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:52, 24 February 2007.

iPod

[edit]

FAC 1 - FAC 2
Self nomination. Is this article of featured standard? --IE 20:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a better nomination than that! We have addressed the issue of vendor lock in here, which was a main rejection the first time around. The article is comprehensive while still maintaining a healthy 45k length, and has more than sufficient sources and is illustrated with free images.--HereToHelp 20:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per the immediate above post.--HereToHelp 20:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Refs need work. Sometimes the dates in parentheses, sometimes not; NYT presumably stands for New York Times, not everyone will know what it stands for; publishers are sometimes before and sometimes afterwards; full dates should be wikilinked in all cases. Trebor 21:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better now? Check the article. --IE 22:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better but not quite there. At a glance, #38 and #39 don't have any source info, #35 doesn't have a publication date, and there's inconsistency with full stops and commas before retrieval dates. Trebor 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:DASH, WP:MOS; too many to fix myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOS says that em dash can have a space on either side, or not. I don't see what's wrong with the current style used, but I might change it to em dash with no space on either side. --IE 11:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed a few more references. There are probably still a few left that have some missing info. --IE 11:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on fair use, but the claim that the "Made for iPod" logo is critically discussed in the article seems suspect; it's given a passing mention at best. Trebor 17:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we could probably delete that image and all mention of it. --IE 19:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 1. The ToC is vey heavy. I suggest you clear some subsections out by merging with parent section. 2. Images width too wide, especially for smaller resolutions. Suggest you don't set a default pixel width and allow it to resize according to the thumnail specs specified by the user in special:preferences. 3. =Sales= needs a global, not US perspective. 4. =Models= section too heavy move it to a dedicated article and add a bulleted list here with the images. 5. Image licences not specified for many of the images. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have tried to remedy this; tell me if you think it could be further reorganized and how. 2. I have removed that for all images except for those in the Models table, which must be small, and the sales graph, which I think should be rendered larger than the average image due to the information it carries. The later, though, is not essential. 3. Agreed, the text is U.S. centric, thought the graph is global. 4. I disagree. The models section is important in illustrating the historical information on iPods. A daughter article would contain only that section (table, graph, image, and two paragraphs of text); that, I think, is too small. The table succinctly summarizes the important points that would be hard to deduce from the text without it. 5. Precisely what images are you talking about?--HereToHelp 14:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WRT #1, you can summarise 4.1 and 3.3.1 & 3.3.2 into the parent. #4, the table has superfluous data such as the exact date and cost. That can be moved to a dedicated article, and a 3-5 column summary table be used here instead. This table has simply too much data. I clicked on some random images like this: Image:IPod mini 2G.png, and it did not have an explicit licence. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to make the models table with a kind of "show/hide" thing (like with the ToC), so that readers can show or hide only parts of the table, instead of seeing the whole table all at once? For example, there could be a "show/hide" for each model - iPod, mini, nano, etc. Would this help with the models table being too big? I would prefer keeping the models table and the criticisms in one article. --IE 19:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Not that I know of. :( =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the TOC and image concerns.--HereToHelp 00:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It could do with a lead infobox and less sections. "Operating system and firmware" could be merged with "iTunes Store" and "Additional features". Likewise "Connectivity" could be merged with "Accessories". And maybe "Criticisms" could be spilt into a separate article. Also I don't know if this is relevant to weather or not this is a FA but ask anyway. It mention the nano having "lyrics support" I've got a nano and I've no idea what that is. Buc 08:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding lyrics support: See http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302244 and http://www.apple.com/support/ipod101/tunes/2/

Oppose Way too big, is more based on the United States, needs to be global Flubeca 17:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with the size; prose is under 5000 words. I would prefer a globalisation of the sales (at the moment it seems to say "here's the U.S.", "here's the rest of the world") but aside from that I can't see much country-specific stuff. Trebor 17:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose Image:Made for iPod logo.png is a fair use image that provides no value to the text. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the image, as I also can't see the value. Trebor 15:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved the discussion on A-class to the talk page, as tangential to the FAC. Trebor 13:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My objection from the previous FAC last month - that the criticisms section does not mention vendor lock-in, the necessity for Itunes, etc - still has not been addressed. Raul654 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Criticism of the iTunes store/iPod lock-in is described already in the iTunes store section (and described in greater detail on the main article on that topic). I note that IE has already asked if you wanted this criticism moved to the criticism section, but your response seemed to suggest that wasn't the problem. Your problem is that the article does not mention that

      An Ipod without Itunes is effectively an expensive paperweight. It loses all its music functionality and becomes nothing more than a portable USB hard drive. If you do not want to use Itunes, or you have an unsupported OS, you are out of luck. That's what is meant by vendor lock in.

      This is completely wrong, as clarified in the article. Please read the article and then raise similar objections again if you are still of the same mind. --C S (Talk) 23:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the article editors: there is some sourced info on the matter in this article. Trebor 23:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be mainly about the iTunes store. I'd have to check if it's already covered in that article. Perhaps the iTunes store section could also be further expanded. --C S (Talk) 23:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look and iTunes store does mostly have this info. The Norwegian stuff is described in excruciating detail, but the Slattery lawsuit could be expanded. In any case, the iTunes store section in iPod is outdated and no longer a good summary of the main article, so it should be expanded. Note this appears to be quite different from Raul654's objections though, which I responded to above. --C S (Talk) 23:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:52, 24 February 2007.

Queen (band)

[edit]
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum (such as at http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=963642), please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article meets the criteria of a featured article. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

This article is well-written, has a sufficient number of references and satisfies all the conditions and criteria for FAC nomination; that's why it deserves FA-status. The problems associated with the previous nomination, which caused the nomination to fail have been properly addressed. Please assume good faith before reviewing the article. XXSaifXx 12:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The prose looks awfully chunky, I'm wondering if you'd be better off combining a bunch of those subsections. Also, you use a lot of fair use images, none of which have a fair use rationale. I don't see any of them as a problem in use, but you have to explain why each of them is worthy of fair use at the image's page. Oppose. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed most of the issues you've mentioned. Would you please check out the article again and perhaps return with favorable support? :P. XXSaifXx 14:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the images have rationales, but the prose is still really chunky. Have you tried a peer review? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really enjoyed reading this article and learned quite a bit about the band. The sentence structure is quite good and the use of literary devices is commendable. support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackbrown1 (talk • contribs)
- Account has four previous edits. Ceoil 18:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article still need to be worked a bit more, but it's already good enough to be a featured article. It's really useful and full of interesting info. support. Rafael840 21:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above account was created today with two edits - both supporting this. M3tal H3ad 09:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't know about him but I don't really understand what you mean? Do you mean that he made the account just to support the article's nomination or do you mean that you support the nomination as well? XXSaifXx 14:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well as nominator, I forgot to give my vote as it seems one can do that...so yeah. support XXSaifXx 14:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't been on Wikipedia for a loooooooooooooong time but I hope that doesn't disqualify me from voting... but anyway, from a neutral point of view, I'd say the article is well-written, definitely. But I think there is some kind of consensus problem on the page maybe??? Because last time I checked the intro was well...I don't know...a bit better perhaps? Anyway, nice article overall; good job to those who worked on it. support Eric Straven 14:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific. XXSaifXx 14:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't edit or create articles in Wikipedia, but I do read a lot. This article on Queen is well made and complete (to a certain extent). It is based on one of my favorite rock bands and that is not the only reason I'm going to support. The author and end everyone who edited this deserve their article to be nominated for Featured Article. support Riksalot 16:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is account's first edit. Ceoil 18:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Account was created yesterday and has thirteen edits to date, including three to this page, and three to one of Queen's later, lesser albums. Ceoil 20:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Needs a lot of work still:
  • Lead is not an adequate summary of article per WP:LEAD.
  • Considering the bands stature and lenght of time together, the article seems slight. In particlar the "Pre-Queen" & "Finding their sound" sections are underdeveloped (either expand or merge as "Early years").
  • Refs are inconsistently formatted, and are missing author name, publication and retrieval dates in many instances. The level of citation is good overall, however.
  • Prose are choppy, and there are many stubby one and two sentence paragraphs that could be merged to help improve readability.
  • "Quotes from fellow musicians" section lacks quotation marks, and not sure a list of accolades is necessary or appropriate in an FAC.
  • Needs a copy edit:
  • "Gordon Fletcher of Rolling Stone said "their debut album is superb"[8] and The Chicago Hearald calling it an "above average debut"[9]." - Chicago Hearald called it.
  • "However, it drew little mainstream attention, as the lead single "Keep Yourself Alive", a Brian May composition, sold poorly." - Confused, did mainstream press ignore it beacuse of poor sales, or was it the other way around.
  • "The single "Killer Queen" also reached number two on the British charts, and was also their first U.S. hit." - Both also's are redundant.
  • "the entire album featured incredible diversity in music styles" - reads as POV. Also you should describe an album's sound in the present tense.
  • The album featured the huge worldwide hit, "Bohemian Rhapsody" - drop huge, it's implied in 'worldwide' and in the following statments.
  • "At this time Jim Beach negotiated the band out of their Trident contract, leaving Queen without a manager" - This seems unclear; Who is Jim Beach? What is Trident? How did the first event lead to the second?
  • "so they contacted John Reid, Elton John's manager." - Did he accept?
  • "where it recorded what may have been mistaken as a companion album to A Night at the Opera" - which may be mistaken - but you need to cite this openion.
  • "reached number one on the charts" - Which charts?
  • "critically panned at the time but has gained recognition" - has since gained.
Ceoil, I've addressed the issues you've mentioned, could you please re-evaluate? You're probably the only one who has constructively criticized the article. =) XXSaifXx 06:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object - Per Ceoil, one sentence paragraphs, unreferenced section and paragraphs and sock poppet votes. M3tal H3ad 06:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By unreferenced section do you mean the film and television section? XXSaifXx 06:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong object per Ceoil. And I would like to also point out that Wikipedia works by building consensus, not just by vote tally. Teemu08 18:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object As per the following reasons:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:52, 24 February 2007.

Pixar

[edit]

I am nominating this article for FA because it is well-written and there are no unimportant images on the page. It features a detailed description of their history, including the recent Disney • Pixar fiasco. The awards that the films have won are shown on the list of films. The traditions section is also very accurate. Please leave comments. If the article needs any improving, say so. I think this article would make a good featured article. A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN HERE, ANYONE! 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:45, 23 February 2007.

Rational Response Squad

[edit]

Although small in size I assess the size of the article to be relevant and sufficient to the subject itself, does not lack referencing and have an excellent coverage of the subject and all the Point of Views. Lord Metroid 12:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The article is too short. Sumbit it to PR to get feedback on its expansion. The article is just a month old, and I suggest it wait for another six months as the media picks on the story so that more references are available. Thing like who started it? What is on their agenda? Images/free videos etc can all be added. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Article is very short, possibly borderline stub. I suggest submitting it to its project (project atheism I believe?) for review and revisal. Also use images to help a user understand better. Christophore 00:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the topic doesn't merit a more substantive overview, as you imply. However, at present the article is well short of FA criteria. Ceoil 22:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It sounds like it would only benefit in advertising the group, rather than showing a feature-able article. If you go to the Rational Response Squad website, you can see on the front page the abundant advertisement, a notable ad to check out is the person working on his "thesis" asking people to buy books for him (He won't release info on his schooling however). I oppose on a matter of principle, you can see that I've been watching over the article for some time now.GravityExNihilo 02:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try checking WP:WIAFA if wishing to make future FACs. LuciferMorgan 00:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:44, 23 February 2007.

Nelvana

[edit]

Well, the article has had a peer review and is listed as a good article. I personally never heard of this company and some might get informed that such an organisation exists. After all, Wikipedia is great to learn about all things. --Spikelee 06:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Fair use images do not contribute significantly to article. Per FUC - "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was actually my seventh peer review as a Wikipedian. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 18:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

2006 Formula One season

[edit]

I really think this should be a feature article candidate as it contains all the useful information and some of the detail in the article really goes in-depth into the subject matter. There also aren't too many pictures, which I believe is a good thing. Davnel03 17:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Davnel, you should really try using a Peer Review before nominating a FAC.--Diniz 21:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

Magicians in fantasy

[edit]

Self Nomination Well, I've worked on it, I've put it up for peer review, if it needs more neither I nor the peer reviewers can see it, so I'm being bold and putting it up. Goldfritha 00:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page was moved to "Magician (fantasy)"; the redirect is going to the page I meant. Goldfritha 20:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the bad typo fix earlier. Apart from that I'm not happy about this article yet, it attempts to cover a large and fairly diverse area from which it isn't easy to draw very general conclusions, therefore I have trouble with its comprehensiveness.
Some specific points:
  • I'd be happier if it stated early on, or in the title, something that made it clear that the article didn't cover fantasy art, film or computer games or alternatively the article could be expanded to cover these.
  • The article is very focused on 'Western' fantasy, I know this is what you get in the bookshop's fantasy section but I think that there should be some discussion of magicians in, for example, Far Eastern fantasy and in general a comparison of the similarities and differences between magicians in world fantasy would make an interesting section.
  • There should be more on the appearance of wizards in fantasy, for example the tendency to wear robes, stereotypical evil sorcerers, crystal balls, familiars hanging round, etc.
  • The sentence that starts 'Despite the great powers' is confusingly worded. Can it be made clear what it is that is 'equivalent to the effects of technology'? Also subjects shouldn't be mentioned in the intro that aren't covered later in the article.
  • 'increasing tendencies of wizards to go on quests'. I assume you mean that in more modern books wizards go on quests more frequently than in older books?
  • The fantasy role-playing games section is very short. Are the wizards in these the same as in the rest of the article or in some way different? Explain what is meant by 'more clearly defined'? Do non-D&D games not get a mention? JMiall 21:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it, but I have a few questions.
I put in something abou their appearances, which is fantasy art, but I'm not sure what I could put in for fantasy film; are the wizards in film and written word so different?
I think that wizards in film and literature are very similar, given that film is so widely written about can you find any references about stereotypical magicians in film? It seems to me that generally where a film has stranger magic users it gets called horror etc.JMiall 23:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Put in some examples from film. Is that what you were thinking of? Goldfritha 01:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific about what Far Eastern fantasy you are thinking of? Most of the references I consult have found more similarity that discrepencies.
On the Far Eastern fantasy front I was thinking of things like wuxia where the extreme martial arts skills of the characters enables them to do magical things like fly or heal people which is rather different to a wizard like Gandalf say. I'm sure there must be other examples that I don't know about. Resorting to fairy tales for another example which probably doesn't exactly represent world fantasy you get things like:
  1. Witches riding broomsticks
  2. Indians/Aladdin riding a magic carpet
  3. Baba Yaga flying in a pot
I suppose that some categories of world fantasy make up their own genre separate to what we normally think of as fantasy. For example if a book involves voodoo it would probably not be classed as a fantasy book even if in other respects it is very similar. JMiall 23:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have overestimated the scope of the article. It is not about magic in general; it is not even about fantasy magic in general (that one's Magic (fantasy)). Witches riding on broomsticks is a historical belief of people who actually believed in magic. Aladdin's magic carpet does not make him a magician, because it does not require study; magical objects are treated in Magic (fantasy). Baba Yaga is also not a magician because she does not study; she is a forest spirit whose powers are innate.
wuxia might fit, but I would have to research it. Goldfritha 01:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified the scope in the lede. I hope this also addresses your concerns about the "large and fairly diverse area" Goldfritha 02:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added some info on wuxia. It's on the edges of suitable for this article, but I put in info to make it clearer. Goldfritha 02:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appearances -- working on
Reworded those two sentences; are they clearer?
Yes, basically wizards in RPG are wizards in fantasy; the enormous variety cuts across the genre boundries. Actually, I'm thinking of slicing the D&D references, because this article is about the magicians in general, and going into individual RPG does not necessarily make the concept clearer. Humm. . . Goldfritha 20:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done more. Goldfritha 01:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some short paras can be merged for better prose look. See also in text are bad style, try to transform into normal sentences. I have a feeling 'Wizards, magicians, and others specific to a work' section is rather incomplete, and besides it's a good idea to split lists off normal articles. I am hesitant to support as I am afraid the article is still incomplete - for example, no mention of fantasy-sci-fi crossbreads like Technomages, no mention of conepts like Mana... don't get me wrong, the article is impressive, but I am just not convinced it's ready.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added info about mana. Goldfritha 01:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose: I am inclined to agree with Piotrus, though it has alot of promise. The main issues are the prose and the comprehensiveness. There are other books which could do with a mention - Phillip Pullman's trilogy, the hilarious Bartimaeus trilogy, even the Thomas Covenant series (with the lords, esp. lord Mhoram continuing the wizardlike helper role, though the agelessness in this case is reversed). In terms of prose, the whole 2nd para could do with a rewrite: the first sentence, starting...."The magicians discussed in this article..." immediately makes me question its comprehensiveness. Why not just, "Magicians in fantasy literature...". Through the prose, I think there needs to be more use of words like "portrayed" or "depicted", some of the sentences sound like you are talking about situations as though they are real eg. Still, most fantasy wizards have a special gift, and most characters in their fantasy worlds can not learn magic. I feel really bad I didn't see this on the Peer Review and point it out. I think all it needs is a thorough copy edit and some more comprehensiveness but overall I think it shouldn't take too long. I'll try to point out some more stuff. cheers Cas Liber 12:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are other books which could do with a mention
There are lists for fantasy magicians. The purpose of this article is to treat the topic, not to itemize the instances. If a book should be mentioned, what is it that it is an example of that needs to be treated in this article?
I'll look at the style. Goldfritha 18:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question is: who decides which books and examples to include? We need to be comprehensive, and it's just difficult for one editor to know and write about all examples in literature (although I am impressed by the refs you use, are they comprehensive?).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need to be comprehensive on concepts, not on books. And if they are not comprehensive -- well, what's missing? You're another editor; what do you think is missing that needs examples? Goldfritha 19:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree about not having endless lists of books (I will comment in a minute once I get this point out). I think some link to this page - Hero's journey - is needed as the article is descriptive but this latter page provides some literary critique and synthesis of info. more in a minute Cas Liber 10:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prose issues "Still, most fantasy wizards are depicted as having a special gift, and most characters in their fantasy worlds can not learn magic." - this sentence is cumbersome - how about,"Still, most fantasy wizards are depicted as having a special gift which sets them apart from the vast majority of characters in fantasy worlds who are unable to learn magic." Cas Liber 10:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...in common belief and in literature", belies suggests fact when were talking about ancient stories, many of which would have not been believed literally - what about "...have appeared in myths, folktales and literature throughout recorded history" Cas Liber 10:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"..and as heroes, a more recent development." (too many commas; why not - "..and more recently as heroes themselves."Cas Liber 10:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Although they are often shown wielding the great powers, equal to or great than anything technology can produce, they seldom bring about major changes in societies, which in most fantasy worlds remain at a medieval level of technology." - this sentence has grammatical errors which need fixing (removing first "the" and "greater" instead of "great") -but could be written in a less clunky prose.
- all these are in the lead alone. Will keep going when I have a minute Cas Liber 10:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thoughts this is quite time consuming - do you want me to have a go copyediting though it?Cas Liber 11:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Hero's Journey"? Why? Magicians can appear in fantasy tales that are not, in fact, based on the hero's journey, and the hero's journey doesn't need even to be fantasy.
True, they can but the overwhelming majority of fantasy literature is modelled on the Hero's journey Cas Liber 03:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's disputed -- and there's still the question of why the hero's journey is suitable for the magician article. Goldfritha 04:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate your copyeditting it. I will take a look if you can't. Goldfritha 03:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flows better now. Goldfritha 04:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Good luck with the article, I like the choice of subject matter. A few thoughts upon reading the article:
  • 'History of fantasy wizards'- it's difficult to get a feel for the chronological history of fantasy wizards. The history section opens with a reference to Shakespeare's time (1664-1614), then jumps backwards to refer to Virgil (70-19BC) then forwards to refer to Merlin (1100s or earlier). What are the earliest instances of fantasy wizards / magicians? What time period does Gwydion of Welsh mythology belong to? Similarly, what time periods do the fairy tales Esben and the Witch, Molly Whuppie, How the Dragon was Tricked The Twelve Wild Ducks and The Wounded Lion belong to?
  • 'History of fantasy wizards' - "Others, even in medieval romances, learned their abilities by study; Merlin, despite his half-human origin, studied with Blaise.[7] Still others did not have consistent stories told of them; Morgan Le Fay clearly shows her origins in an innately magical being in her name, but in Le Morte d'Arthur, it is said that "she was put to school in a nunnery and there she learned so much that she was a great clerk of necromancy".[8] Likewise, a hag can be either a witch or a kind of fairy.[9]" The last line seems disjointed / out of place, it does not seem to follow on from the preceding discussion in the paragraph.
  • 'History of fantasy wizards' - "[...] Morgan Le Fay clearly shows her origins in an innately magical being in her name [...]" Should this sentence read "shows her origins as an innately magical being" rather than "in an innately magical being"?
  • It may help to provide context for some of the names which are mentioned in the article. I'm familiar with the subject matter, but many readers may not be. For example, in the section on Appearances, it would help to provide a few words explaining that Albus Dumbledore is in J.K. Rowling's series of Harry Potter novels (this is his first mention in the article): "The appearance of wizards in fantasy art, and description in literature, is uniform to a great extent, from the appearance of Gandalf to that of Albus Dumbledore." Likewise, it would help to provide some context for the first mention of Gwydion.
  • 'Appearance' - "The association with age means that wizards, both male and female, are depicted as old, white-haired, and (for men) with long white beards." It may be better to say 'are often depicted' or 'are frequently depicted' rather than 'are depicted' since the statement is unlikely to hold true in all cases.
--Jazriel 14:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it -- got some of it in, but will have to ponder "History" a little more on how to structure it better. Goldfritha 00:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the "history" section was not tracing the historical development of the fantasy wizard; it was pointing out sources. I have retitled the header to make the matter more clear. Goldfritha 23:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - The writing style is far too relaxed for my liking, & not really up to encyclopedic levels. It needs to be a bit more scientific sounding, just up to highschool level. This problem may have occured because only a limited amount of people, such as the person who nominated, have worked on the article, so that their level of writing is throughout the entire article. This can be easily remedied by having a couple of professional copyeditors & rewriters go through the whole article & put in better prose. Other than that, I can see no reason why this article couldn't make FA status. This may not occur this time round, but if its small amount of problems are fixed, then next time it should be no problem... Thanks, Spawn Man 23:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is interesting in light of requests to simplify it and make it more understandable. Goldfritha 02:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, don't listen to them, listen to meee! ;) By making it better prose, then it will become more understandable, by way of ease to read. At the moment the article sounds as if it's written in a weird way, that's why a couple of copyeditors need to swept through & bring it up to standard. Goldfritha, this is not the way to handle an FAC either. Making short defensive comments in reply isn't going to do any good for you , this FAC or the article. A posistive response would be "Yes, that seems like a good idea. Although there are requests above for the article to be made simpler (Which I suppose you knew), a good copyedit by an outside editor wouldn't hurt anybody." That my friend is why this article isn't going to make it this time around. Spawn Man 21:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

Raoul Wallenberg

[edit]

I would like to see him with a featured article, please read and let me know if you think it has what it takes. The article has been reviewed and approved by the The Raoul Wallenberg Committee of the United States. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not as well written as it should be. The lead section needs to be precise, and the current one rambles on a bit. The footnotes are good. In the See also section there is two links to Carl Lutz and there shouldn't be information in the see also section in the first place, it should be included in the article. --K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 07:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quote me the section of the guide that says there should be no "see also" section. Even the guide to creating a featured article has a "see also" section. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Converting a navigation device to prose would rob it of its utility. Looking at a random FA biography: William III of England has a see also section. Or are you saying that "see also" shouldn't have any descriptive information next to the links? Could you please clarify? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There shouldn't be a description in the see also section. It should be covered within the article. It seems to be fixed now. Most of my objections have been fixed, but the lead section isn't up to FA standards. More citations are needed in the Early Life.--K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 04:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All are removed or integrated.
Fixed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first image looks good, but I don't understand why the second is being used. There doesn't appear to be any text in the article that discusses the stamp. ShadowHalo 15:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. It may have been removed when the section was trimmed to satisfy GA review. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. The text does contradict the caption, though. One says 1996, the other 1997. The honors and memorials should also be expanded and probably converted from a list to prose. For example, it mentions that there is a Raoul Wallenberg Award but doesn't mention anything about the history of the award or what it recognizes. ShadowHalo 17:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll harmonize the dates. USPS uses the year it is approved, and most people use the year it was issued.
The honors and memorials section was trimmed to satisfy GA review. As you can see there is no fixed rule, so I want to avoid ping-pong changes to satisfy individual tastes. Is there any from the list saved on the discussion page that you think should be reinserted? Also, the Raoul Wallenberg Award has its own entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I would recommend is prosifying the text and expanding it to the degree that there is some context so that it doesn't look like a laundry list. Essentially, it should tell what the award/memorial is, and any detail about it should be at the separate article. Sorry if I was unclear. ShadowHalo 18:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand: it should contain concise information. Take a peek now.
More details added to memorials but bulleted format kept
  • Oppose Weak Oppose. Sorry, but I can find issues with almost every sentence. Wikilinking the name? For pronunciation? Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation) says to use IPA. Second sentence doesn't need second comma. "appears he was executed in Moscow" seems very debatable for such a strong statement, just reading the article itself; the only written source says heart attack, the alternate is hearsay. Early life mentions where he worked, but not what he did - what was his job? "His paternal grandfather was also a Swedish diplomat." "his" is ambiguous - RW or ROW? "was also" meaning like whom, Wallenberg himself? The article implies that he wassn't really a diplomat, that was just a cover, which makes the "also" inappropriate. Did the Gf's being a diplomat have any influence on RW's being a diplomat? Heck, was he really a diplomat? The header says "was a Swedish diplomat", but later the article says that was just a cover to save Jews. What was the Grandfather's name and position? It seems to have been more than trivial if he arranged a job in a South African firm. "recuited" is misspelled. How did he become a Swedish diplomat by an American agency? How did he become friends with a fascist? But the most important thing, the whole section about that which makes him notable is a single paragraph - how did he save "tens of thousands"? Only a few sentences on that, surely it deserves more. The next section says "may have" "may have" "may have" all over. Then the section on his death takes five times the space in the article than that on his work saving lives. He's not notable for how he died, lots of people were killed by the Soviets, he's notable for saving ten thousand people; the article needs to give more space to that, if not mostly be about that. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) Pronunciation deleted. 2) Grandfather diplomat reduced to a note. 3) I am assuming if you are issued a diplomatic passport you are a entitled to be called a diplomat. The same title is used by Americans working in embassies that have "official cover".
Better, thanks, but I still want more details on the actual saving lives, and how an American project could give him so much power in a Swedish embassy. Also you introduced grammatical errors (Holocaust section, second sentence), and a hanging /ref tag. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More added, take a peek
Better, better, I'll weaken my opposition. However, it could still be even better, and an FAC should be the best we can make it. Here are some better (more thorough, more comprehensive) articles on the main part just on the Web: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/wallenberg.html; http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/peopleevents/pandeAMEX100.html; http://www.raoulwallenberg.se/historymain.htm I think our featured article should be at least a strong candidate for the best on-Web source of comparable length on the subject; while this isn't bad, I don't think it can honestly be considered to be the best yet. You don't mention Horthy, who seems important to the sources above. You don't mention how he negotiated with Eichman - threatened him, in clear risk of his own life - that's pretty important. You don't mention Wallenberg family which seems to have an article here. You write that he put up buildings, but not how he used them, and how many were saved that way. You don't mention the yellow star. You imply that he worked with a few friends, and don't mention his group that grew into hundreds (350 according to one source above). You don't mention tremendous details from the letter at http://raoulwallenberg.org/who/who.html such as having to hide in a different house every night, that's pretty important. There are touching interviews at http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005211 you could cite. Sorry, I appreciate your efforts, but FACs should be the best. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even better. Objection withdrawn, a little more and I'll support. It's getting there. (However I don't know how long Raul's patience will last.) Some specifics:
  • "Miklós Horthy stopped the transporting of Jews to concentration camps on July 9, 1944. Wallenberg then started sleeping in a different house" - implies the second was a direct result of the first, surely that's not right. At leasst strike the "then", even better if you can add a sentence explaining the real cause.
  • Same sentence introduces the Arrow Cross Party rather abruptly - they do have their own article, but maybe a couple of explanatory words? Similarly Eichmann.
  • "The buildings eventually housed almost 10,000 people." - PBS article (linked above) says 13,000
  • "In college, he learned to speak English, German and French." - JewishVirtualLibrary article says top grades in Russian, and that his language skills were important.
  • You mention Horthy, good, but the PBS article mentions him trying to make peace, then being replaced by Szalasi of the Arrow Cross in the last days, and that this marked an escalation of anti-Jewish violence. Probably important, quite possibly the reason Wallenberg started sleeping in different houses - look it up, and say.
  • PBS (and our article) say Per Anger was in this business before Wallenberg. Wallenberg introduced "flashy symbols" (per jewishvirtuallibrary). Should be mentioned.
  • "Two days before the Russians liberated Budapest" - also give the date.
  • "remaining Jews in Budapest" - 115,000 by the PBS article, 97,000 by the JVL. Pick one of those or one of your sources, but some order of magnitude should be given.
  • "correspondences, indicated" - remove comma
  • If March 23, 1944, the Nazis installed a puppet govt, implying removing Horthy, how could Horthy stop the deportations on July 9, 1944?
  • Looking through the edit history, you seem to have stuck in the "dinner party with Eichman" bit from PBS somewhere, but it's not visible in the text. Could you be missing a </ref> somewhere? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • Oppose I agree with Kzrulzuall that many items in the "see also" section could be integrated with the text. Wikipedia:See_also#See_also says that the section "should ideally not repeat links already present in the article." I think many things in the list could be put in the article. For example it could contain a sentence with people rescued by Wallenberg. Furthermore, the prose is OK (at least for GA) but it is not of FA quality, per AnonEMouse above. It is hard to write "brilliant" prose. All in all, I think it just needs more work to be a featured article. / Fred-Chess 22:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
all integrated or deleted --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
are you asking for the bullets to be removed or more information added to the bulleted list to make it more prosy?
Both, in a way. Removing the bullets but leaving the text as is would make for very awkward prose. I want the bullets gone, and the text made smooth, "compelling, even brilliant prose". Fieari 15:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise offered below
I think the bullets are effective, how about as a compromise, we keep the bullets but add more text, and have fuller, richer sentences. Franklin D. Roosevelt uses a memorial section where each item is its own paragraph, and below it is a trivia section with bullets. I think the bullets make the second section easier to read. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not comfortable with the information being presented in list format. The FA Criteria specifically states that the article should consist of prose, with lists are not. There's a reason that there's a difference between Featured Articles and Featured Lists, after all. Some information lends itself well to list format, but I don't think this information needs it to be effective, and as such, I'm going to insist on prose. Fieari 04:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are written as full sentences in prose and not in truncated sentences. They are not written as poetry or as a rebus. I am confused, I think you dislike the bullets. Can you rewrite one of the bullet points as "prose" as opposed to the way I have written it to show me the difference? Or are you asking to have all the paragraphs mushed into one big paragraph? Please explain in more detail and give a clear example. Also it would be helpful if you cited the number and letter from Wikipedia:Featured article criteria so I know which one you are talking about that is being violated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't see a specific law, I will use case studies. Here are biographical FAs that use bulleted information:

Are these also in violation of the "prose rule"?

I've checked the Legacy sections of a few featured articles (Anne Frank, Mahatma Ghandi). Basically, they are lists, just disguised as paragraphs instead of using bullets. The same could be done for Wallenberg. I objected to combining them all into a single paragraph, but if multiple paragraphs will resolve the problem, then let's do it. I'll have a go at it, as I want to reorganize it a bit anyway. Clarityfiend 07:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

University of Oklahoma

[edit]

Self-nomination I started a major overhaul of this article in late May of last year and have worked hard to improve the quality of the article (it is currently a GA). I've had the help of other editors as well including three peer reviews (1, 2, and 3). The last peer review was by far the most helpful. I do not feel myself capable of "brilliant prose" so I look forward to criticism on this article so that it can be further improved and eventually an FA. I am a graduate of this school so please forgive me of any POV (I've been accused of this before). I have tried very hard to alleviate any of that and it was not much of an issue in the latest PR. The school itself is no Michigan or Duke or Cornell, but the article is very thorough and well-cited. I hope it is of FA quality, or at least close.↔NMajdan•talk 19:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments haven't yet read it, but referencing work is high quality, size is good. I cleaned up default info out of the refs, and removed two external jumps, but I see there are more that need to go - if you feel the external jumps are significant (they didn't appear so), they should be in External links or converted to references. Also, notables will need to be referenced. Section headings need WP:MSH attention. I hate small TOCs almost as much as I hate gynormous infoboxes - but I guess those aren't grounds for object.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs)
    • Thank you very much for your quick response Sandy. I removed a couple additional external jumps. I understand your complaint about the small TOC but I felt it was pretty lengthy and noticed this resize trick on the University of Michigan article and felt it was a good solution. If there is enough dissent about this method, I'd be more than happy to remove it. Also, could you be more specific with your issues on section headings? I read through WP:MSH and am not seeing any violations sticking out. As far at the notables section, are you wanting a ref for every person? Again, thanks for your comments.↔NMajdan•talk 19:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also forgot to mention I saw some attention needed to Wikilinking - common terms like garden need not be linked. One more runthrough to make sure first occurrence of important words are linked, and common terms aren't linked may help. On the TOC - I dunno - will defer to others. Perhaps my eyes are worse than most readers here, but I blame Michigan for the proliferation of a darn thing I can't even see. Yes, notables should be ref'd - we can't ask our readers to just take our word for it. On MSH, if Health Sciences Center is it's name, then that's a proper noun - correct heading (I hadn't read article). Should Presidency be capped in Boren's Presidency ? I haven't checked WP:MOS, but I'm not sure on the italicizing of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and their Innovations in American Government program - maybe you can check. The structure of the article looks quite sound, but again, I haven't yet read it to evaluate the prose and your concern about your own POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was one of those who chime in with comments during the most recent Peer Review, and found Nmajdan to be very accomodating with the suggestions proffered in PR. One thing that impresses me with this article is that the photographs (almost all by Nmajdan) are quite lovely and colorful, very attractive, and several of them are indeed professional quality. The writing is pretty good, the referencing is top-notch and I think the article provides a pretty comprehensive summary of OU. Now if I can only get Nmajdan to take pictures of my alma mater, Rutgers I'd be set...hint hint. —ExplorerCDT 11:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments/Question - Is the university officially known as "The" University of Oklahoma? I assume not, but didn't want to make the change in case it is like Ohio State University where "the" is actually part of the name. If it's not, the "The" should be deleted in the first sentence. On a quick glance, the article generally looks good. I think the image placement is kinda sloppy and the thumbnails are a bit small for my taste. I'd like to see them alternate sides and be larger. See Michigan State University for nice photos/image placement (although, admittedly, the MSU pictures do squish the text on large monitors). Also, I'd try to copyedit it a bit more. Sentences like "The university was founded in 1890" don't really follow 1a (the professional standard of writing). Also, don't link stand-alone years (e.g. 1890 in history) and also see Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context (things like airfield, pharmacist, wrestling, volley shouldn't be wikilinked). That's it for now. I will try to make a more detailed look later. -Bluedog423Talk 18:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much for your comments. I'll remove the "The" before the title as it is not known as "The University of Oklahoma." Regarding the images, I'll work on moving some to the left side. As far as size goes, it was suggested to me in a PR that I remove all the image sizes from the image and let the user's preferences decide the size.↔NMajdan•talk 18:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A few things.
  • First off, I personally don't like the use of "in the U.S. state of Oklahoma", and prefer complete disambig to "in Oklahoma, int he United States". minor point, admittedly.
  • I really mirrored a lot of stuff from the University of Michigan article in this article as it was featured and thus a good baseline. This was on those things I took from Michigan. I can reword it if necessary.↔NMajdan•talk
  • I don't think there are enough cites here for a featured article, there are quite a few uncited statements in there, and almost all of the cites are websites, whereas it would be nice to have more print cites. Also, why do athletics teams get a section where eg chess teams, debating teams etc do not?
  • Not enough? 86? Also, many of my sources are available in print but also have web versions which I would think is better cause it can easily be verified. I used the OU student newspaper, The Oklahoma Daily a lot which, of course, is in print. I used a Sooner Magazine many times. It is published by the OU Foundation and has been in circulation since 1928 and luckily for me, every one of them is online as well. There are other sources I used which are available in print such as Time Magazine, The Princeton Review, and a forthcoming article from the Journal of Historical Geography.↔NMajdan•talk
  • I'd be careful of statements like "153 baccalaureate programs, 152 master's programs, 75 doctorates, 20 majors at the first professional level, and 18 graduate certificates" without date qualification, because they are very quickly obsolete. For an example of those, you only have to look further down the page where Norman campus student figures are only accurate as of 2005.
  • I added another ref to that statement that specifies it is as of 2006-11-15 as per the source. Also, unfortunately, 2005 data is the most up-to-date I have at this moment. You can go to this website: http://www.ou.edu/provost/ir/FB_by_yr.htm and click "2006 Factbook" and you'll notice the enrollment numbers are for Fall 2005. Hopefully, later on this year the 2006 data will be released and I'll update the article.↔NMajdan•talk
  • "On October 1, 2005, OU engineering student Joel Henry Hinrichs III, committed suicide less than 1,500 feet (358 m) from Oklahoma Memorial Stadium where more than 84,000 spectators were attending an Oklahoma football game". Why mention the distance to the stadium or the stadium at all? If he was 358m away, there's no way he was visible from the stadium (especially since stadium seating is inward facing). I think this smells a little of melodrama (omg, he was only 358m from all those people). Also, the following statement about muslim extremism is questionable for inclusion - why suggest it only to say that it is without evidence? I wouldn't expect an article on George Bush to mention all the unsubstantiated conspiracy theories people throw at him. You are giving too much prominence to a conspiracy theory with no evidence just by mentioning it
  • Well, it was quite a huge deal in the state after it happened. I didn't feel I was giving the conspiracy theory too much prominence as I only had one sentence about it. I can remove that whole paragraph if you feel it is necessary. (For the record, I was in the stadium when this happened and personally, I do believe the conspiracy theories as do most people I know. I do have first hand knowledge of some of the FBI inquiries but it is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article.) I felt it was important to state the distance because he had a backpack bomb and it detonated very close to the stadium (I disagree with the 1,500 ft statement; I'm looking for other sources. Based on the location of the stadium and where the bomb detonated, it was closer to 300 ft according to this map (it detonated immediately south of the building labeled "G.L. Cross Hall").↔NMajdan•talk
  • "The university is composed of fifteen colleges, and is well known for its meteorology" weasel words. What does "well known" mean. If it is fifth best in country, state that and cite it.
  • OU is known for its meteorology department. I'll find some citations to back it up.↔NMajdan•talk
  • "OU has around 20 organizations related to Christian ideals.[60]" Why is this singled out in particular?
  • If there are sections on student life "The student union provides a place for students to relax, sleep, study, watch television, or socialize", I would have sections on more important matters such as funding, etc.
  • What do you mean by funding? That's a pretty broad and vague subject for a university.↔NMajdan•talk

Its a good article, I'm just being picky about things I think could do with improving - PocklingtonDan 14:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (For full disclosure purposes, I am a graduate of OU) The history section suffers from a "recentism" bias. A seperate section on the current president's 12 1/2 year to date tenure, but no mention within the history section of George Cross, who had a 25 year tenure and oversaw the period of the University's greatest growth. Seperate paragraphs are given for the death a alcohol related death of fratenity pledge and the suicide discussed above. Are we to believe that there were not similiar incidents in the past, that also made statewide headlines.
Thank you very much for your comments. Advice from somebody familiar with the University is especially useful. I do see your issue with "recentism" in the history section. To fix this issue, that section may need a thorough rewrite but I do want to be careful about getting too out of hand. I do intend on creating a History of the University of Oklahoma article but I'm waiting for the second edition of this book as it will be a valuable resource. In that same vein, I also intend to expand the George Lynn Cross article for the same reason you stated, he is probably the second most important president of the university after the founding president David Ross Boyd. I should probably just drop the fraternity death part.↔NMajdan•talk
This paragraph:
There are over 350 student organizations at Oklahoma. Focuses of these organizations range from ethnic to political, religious to special interest. The College Republicans club at OU has over 1,800 members, nearly 10% of the Norman campus undergraduate population. In addition, OU has around 20 organizations related to Christian ideals.
seems to be trying to imply something without actually saying it. Either the paragraph should say what it implies (with proper referencing) or it should be dropped. (How large is the College Democrats, and why give percentages of undergraduates, are graduate students not allowed to join?)
I need to rewrite this para as well, I guess. I dropped the meat of the paragrah because I didn't have a source so I guess I need to rephrase this entire para to shift the context somewhere else.↔NMajdan•talk
In a similiar vein, what is the purpose of this sentence: "In 2005, the average GPA for the Panhellenic Association was 3.30." Why is the GPA of only one of the four groups relevent?
Yeah, that should probably be dropped as well.↔NMajdan•talk
The sports section is amiss in not mentioning the 47 game winning streak of the football program (an NCAA record), or, for that matter, the careers of Bud Wilkinson or Barry Switzer. Some mention should made of the atheletic program's controversial aspects as well (recruiting scandles, crimminal players, etc.). There is no mention of OU's basketball program, which has made four final four appearances and played for (and lost) the championship twice. There is no mention whatsover of women's athletics
I'll expand the sports section a little. I did mention the softball (a womens sport) won a national title in 2000.↔NMajdan•talk
Although the article doesn't say so the implication is that only medical programs are offered at the Tulsa campus. This is not so.
I'll clarify this.↔NMajdan•talk
Should the Law School be lumped in with the other "smaller schools" like fine art, and architecture. It after all is a postgraduate only school, and the others are not. Dsmdgold 22:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't what I'll do to fix this issue yet, but I'll think about it. Once again, thank you for your advice. I hope in the future that you will also contribute to this article as you may have a vested interest. Seeing as to how the history section will take some time, I guess I'll assume this FAC to have failed. However, until it is removed from the FAC page, I would appreciate any continued feedback. And don't worry, this article will be back.↔NMajdan•talk 16:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the copyright on Image:HolmbergHall2.jpg needs to be cleared up, who took it, what license did they agree to release it under; the box the on commons is very vague.--Peta 00:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Sorry, not quite FA material, although still a really good article. My other issues above have also not been addressed (see above). There are a number of other issues:
  • 1.) Overall, the prose nowhere near brilliant, and not at the professional standard for FA's either. Needs a thorough copyedit throughout.
  • This thing has had three peer reviews and has had a thorough copyedit performed by a couple of the reviewers on this page. I am at a loss at what else is needed.↔NMajdan•talk
  • I guess that comment wasn't very helpful, I'm sorry. I'll try to give more specific examples in the future, and overall I think the prose isn't bad. I would revise my "thorough copyedit throughout" comment to "minor issues copyedit throughout." -Bluedog423Talk 18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2.)History section is way too short for a university founded in 1890. More details should be in a History of University of Oklahoma subarticle. Boren's presidency section should not have a bulleted list in it. Convert to prose.
  • Expanding the history section is on my to-do list as per the previous review. But as there is some research involved in that, it will take some time. Also, I don't feel like this article's FA status should be contingent on the creation of another article. The bulleted list you are referring to used to be prose, but was converted to a list by a copyeditor. I'll change it back.↔NMajdan•talk
  • 3.) The lead is full of academic boosterism (namely the second paragraph), and also contains information that cannot be found later in the article. A lead is supposed to summarize the article (i.e. information in it should be found later in the article).
  • I don't see how it is any different that other university FAs. I'll try to expand on some of the points in the lead elsewhere in the article.↔NMajdan•talk
  • The difference is that this article cites very specific statistics. Other universities may have one sentence saying "Noteworthy source (i.e. US News, THES, etc.) says the university is 20th best in the world in 2006." Also, research expenditures are 20th largest in the US. This article has things like "Best Value college according to the Princeton Review," "number of national merit scholars enrolled," and "The Carnegie Foundation classifies the university as a research university with 'high research activity.' " I don't think any of these things deserve to be in the lead - they can be found later in the article if you wish. I'd leave in the sentence about Neustadt International Prize for Literature, though. Also, if you state "OU is the sponsor of the Neustadt International Prize for Literature, considered to be second in prestige only to the Nobel Prize and often referred to as the "American Nobel" in the lead, a sentence similar to that is supposed to appear later in the article. Hence, what I meant by summarizing and not adding new information. -Bluedog423Talk 18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They aren't. None of the examples you mentioned are wikilinked. I feel I have rectified this issue. If you feel otherwise, let me know.↔NMajdan•talk
  • Those particular examples have been fixed sorry for using those again (I just copied and pasted what I said before). However, there are several other examples in the text. For example, in the history section, 1890, 1907 , 2001. Other links include alcohol, suicide, etc. Not as big of an issue as I once thought. I could probably just change them myself....-Bluedog423Talk 18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5.) Colors in infobox need to be fixed.
  • Thank you for your comments. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that I, personally, will not be able to get this article to FA on my own. As I said in my nomination, I am not capable of "brilliant prose" and just about all the reviews seem to reinforce that. I hope other editors will be able to assist me, as several already have. Otherwise, this may just be always be a Good article and no more.↔NMajdan•talk 14:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

Storm (comics)

[edit]

Self-nomination. Hi fellow Wikipedians, the article on Storm (comics) is already a GA, and after requesting peer review and adding many valuable proposed amendments, I have decided to go for the FAC. I tried to make the page look like Batman, one of the few other FAs of comparable comic book characters (i.e. North American superheroes). After reading the FA criteria, I think FAC can be proposed. Happy reading! —Onomatopoeia 08:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The image Image:Xmenstud`cio009zi3.jpg has an incorrect license, GNL wouldn't apply here, it would fall under fair use, no source is provided either. Also try have a reference for each paragraph. M3tal H3ad 08:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The way the article is currently written the "Fictional character biography" section seems superficial. All the information here is already covered in greater detail further up in the "Publication history" sections. I don't think a summary in the middle of the article is very useful. I suggest moving some stuff from "Publication" to "Fictional", alternativly moving "Fictional" above " Publication" Fornadan (t) 22:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, a fic bio was proposed per peer review, and a fictional bio is also part of the FA Batman, after which I modelled this article on. The thing is that retroactive continuity (i.e. rewriting history) is quite common (e.g. in Wolverine or Superman), so often pub history != fictional bio. But if you FA reviewers think differently, ok, I am not strict on that. —Onomatopoeia 08:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose excessive fair use media; most images claimed as fair use are too large.--Peta 06:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - What do you expect of a character who is copyrighted? I removed a couple though, but I support this well written and out-of-universe article. Wiki-newbie 16:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment These images need to be thumbnailed -- some of them are print quality, and need fixing. If you can click through to a larger filesize from the image description page, that's a good indicator we're using too much of the image. Jkelly 00:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've rescaled the images and tagged them with {{furd}}, though the previous versions will need to be deleted by an admin in a week. By the way, the Halle Berry picture needs a licensing tag. ShadowHalo 10:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IMHO, Storm should have following pics: a pic of herself with her storm power; Giant-Size X-Men 1; punk look; marriage to Black Panther; everything else in other media. Callisto, Forge and the variant Black Panther #18 (2006 African look) are debatable. I see Peta's point, but are there some, well, more content-based comments? —Onomatopoeia 11:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is certainly better than the average comic character article on Wikipedia, but not up to Featured standard yet. It needs a thorough copyedit, but before that it needs some underlying issues fixed:
    • Level of detail. In general the "Publication history" section does a good job of boiling all the convoluted plots down to a reasonable length, but the 80s subsection has some unneeded detail. I don't think we need quite so much information about why Rogue is wanted by the government in Uncanny #185, or why exactly Storm has to fight Callisto.
    • Character and plot insight. The "Publication history" section needs to explain the character development more fully. For example, the knife fight with Callisto is explained simply as "further establish[ing] Storm's character strength". But that misses the point; the surprise in that scene is that Storm is now willing to kill. (We know that because other characters comment on it -- Claremont never hesitates to tell you what to think.) Again, "Storm's outlook on life darkens after her struggles with the Brood" is a bland description that doesn't really explain what is going on and why. We're told that she was influenced by Yukio, but not what kind of influence it was. And so on.
    • Insufficient out-of-universe analysis. There are a few places where the article explains the reasons why things were done, which is good, but doesn't go far enough. For example, early on the article mentions that Storm was one of a new, international team brought in to replace the all-white, all-American original X-Men. That's a dramatic move -- whose idea was this, and why did they do it? Claremont and Lobdell must have given interviews at some point; what did they say about Storm? Also, the article needs more information about responses to the character. Was she popular at her introduction? How did fans respond to major changes like her "punk look" or the wedding? Is there any evidence to show whether or not Storm appeals to a nontraditional audience for superhero comics (African American girls, or girls in general)? What have reviewers said about her? Have her character or her character arcs influenced other comics? The article doesn't necessarily have to have every one of these things, but it does need substantially more analysis to go with the plot descriptions.
    • 1990s section. The repeated references to Lobdell ("Lobdell waited.... Lobdell continued.... Lobdell let....") are awkward. If there's information available about why he wrote what he wrote, by all means add it. Otherwise, repeated use of his name doesn't help.
    • Historical significance. It's odd to summarize a single pop-culture critic's view of Storm as a stereotype and then add, "However, in 2006, Marvel Comics editor-in-chief Joe Quesada called Storm 'one of the greatest female characters ever and certainly the greatest African character ever conceived'." A bit like saying "The District Attorney charged him with 37 counts of bestiality and mail fraud, but his mother thinks he's great." The section should examine a variety of views from people who aren't Marvel Comics executives.
    • Film. Another example of missing analysis: I know Halle Berry was a controversial choice to play Storm, and that she was reported (inaccurately?) as complaining about the idea of playing a comic book character. Please tell me about that. Also, what did reviewers think? The films brought the character to a much wider audience, so I think a longer treatment is justified.
    • A small point: the image described as the cover of Uncanny #225 is an interior panel from #226. I changed the caption, but the fair use rationale needs to be changed too if the image winds up being kept.—Celithemis 11:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. There are some unreferenced paragraphs (parts of the article are excellent in terms of reference coverage, but parts are not). Also, I find it puzzling the article doesn't link to bad girl art?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

James Govan

[edit]
  • Support: The article has been created with a lot of research, and exteme effort has been put into ensuring that all sources are correct and that it is factually correct. There isn't a great deal more that I can put into the article, and although it is fairly modest in size I should not think that it therefore is excluded from being featured. Everyone has different views, and I am aware that it might need a little tweaking for that. Perhaps other people can add to it some how? Thanks!--TheEditor20 19:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - the length of the article should have nothing to with its comprehensiveness. It depends on the article. An article on NASA is obviously going to be long, whereas this article on a fairly well known blues singer may well have considerably less. I have brought together most of the information available on the subject, and I think it to be comprehensive.--TheEditor20 09:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: Article suffers from a combination of comprehensiveness issues ( there is no information on the artist's sales figures, critical response, or the date and reason he was presented a key to the city) and peacock claims (the lead states "Govan has become one of the most influencial musicians in Beale Street" yet provides no information to back up this claim). --Allen3 talk 14:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi Allen3 thanks for your input. When I get home tonight (currently at work) I'll have to address those criticisms. Also, thanks for reading the article and providing constructive criticism. It makes it a lot easier for me :p --TheEditor20 15:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

Organic food

[edit]
  • This article has been a "Good Article" for a while now. It includes many references, and is fairly comprehensive about the area of food industry which is growing the fastest. With more and more new stores (including Walmart) now carrying Organic food it is a topic of increasing importance. This article describes Organic Food accurately and even addresses it's criticisms. JabberWok 22:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object External jumps in text, citation tags. "Legal definition", "Sustainability" & "For the environment" should be converted from lists to prose. + Ceoil 11:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Citation needed tags, lists and clunky prose do not a featured article make.
Organic food is produced according to certain legally regulated standards.
The opening sentence doesn't adequately explain what organic food is. The concept is not so difficult as to defy a one-sentence explanation.--Nydas(Talk) 11:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Observation Quite a few things are produced according to certain legally regulated standards. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Due to cosmic rays nothing can be produced in the absence of ionising radiation.
  • I dislike the split of the discussion of the effects of organic farming and organic food into "for" and "against" sections. These should be merged.
  • The often-claimed nutritional benefits of organic food are not discussed.
  • Residues from organic pesticides such as copper, rotenone and pyrethrin and are not discussed.
  • Large numbers of one and two-sentence paragraphs.
  • What does the "Facts and statistics" section contribute to the article?
  • Some references are just links with no title or access date.

Drop me a note on my talk page once these concerns have been addressed. TimVickers 00:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • To your ionizing radiation comment, strait from the National Organic Program website, "Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation." It's just the legal definition.
It is indeed possible to make something without using ionising radiation, however, the article states that "they were processed without ionizing radiation or food additives." Read literally, this sentence says ionising radiation was not present during their processing. Just inserting the word "using" would fix this.
  • Having separate "for" and "against" sections has precedent, for example, here's a couple articles which have separate sections for critisism:
I know this happens, but I think it is both unnecessary and poor style.
  • I'm not sure where these "often-claimed" nutritional benefits of organic food are being made. Do you have a reference?
Link the article is incomplete if this common topic is not discussed.
  • Pesticide residues? As mentioned in the Food safety section with two references, Organic food has consistently been shown to have about 1/3 the pesticide residues that conventionally grown food has. Why do you specifically ask about rotenone and copper? JabberWok 04:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to imply that organic food is grown without the use of pesticides. This is incorrect as copper, rotenone and pyrethrin are used in organic farming. Discussion of pesticide residues should therefore at least mention the toxicity and environmental stability of these allowed pesticides. TimVickers 05:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence of the article states that organic food is made "without the use of conventional pesticides."
The next mention of pesticides says "Organic farms do not release synthetic pesticides..." and another mentions "...organic farms using 50% less fertilizer and 97% less pesticide."
Later, "While organic agriculture aims to keep pesticide use to a minimum, it is a common misconception that organic agriculture does not use pesticides."
My question to you is, what sentences specifically imply that pesticides aren't used? JabberWok 01:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had missed the pesticide mention in the sustainability section, this needs to come much earlier and be integrated into the pesticide residue section. This lack of clarity stems from the strange separation of facts that should be integrated, rather than separated into "For" and "Against" sections. TimVickers 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No changes in response to suggestions. TimVickers 21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

Saint Petersburg

[edit]
  • I am nominating this article for FA status as it is listed in the Vital articles, and I will make an effort to address objections, however I hope more people will chip in. My reasoning being: I take the following quote from Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_failing:


--Parker007 18:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that a completely uncited article will definitely not meet GAC - a whole swathe of uncited GAs are being delisted, and it's part of GA requirements to have a form of inline citation. LuciferMorgan 21:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot use the SNOW clause here because you have missed this:

Bibliography

  • Нежиховский Р. А. Река Нева и Невская губа, Leningrad, Гидрометеоиздат, 1981.
  • Oleg Kobtzeff, "Espaces et cultures du Bassin de la Neva: représentations mythiques et réalités géopolitiques", in-Saint-Petersbourg: 1703-2003, Actes du Colloque international, Université de Nantes, Mai 2003, ouvrage coordonné par Walter Zidaric, CRINI, Nantes, 2004. ISBN 2-9521752-0-9
--Parker007 19:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I want to congratulate SandyGeorgia (Talk) for re-enforcing:
--Parker007 19:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I also want to state that the FA director has congratulated SandyGeorgia (Talk) for her hard work so far. So if the FA director decides to close this FAC pre-maturely (before 1 week so objections can be addressed); he will be doing that unilaterally. --Parker007 19:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly WP:IAR shouldn't generally be used or stated, it isn't a call to be reckless or go against the general consensus of the wikipedia community. It is however recognising that our our goal is building an Encyclopedia, not an exercise in rule making, not a bureacracy etc. As such many of or rules as descriptive not prescriptive, i.e. they are what we do, not "what we do is what they say". As such they change over time depending on need and the version written doesn't necessarily match current practice (though is likely to be very close). --Parker007 20:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I am sorry if I was rude, look I have added 2 references :) . --Parker007 20:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you want more references? Could you please put {{fact}} there so I know which references you are looking for? --Parker007 20:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object I've fixed a few WP:MOS issues, however there are no inline citations and only two references are listed. I admire your effort to improve this article; take a look at currently featured city articles, such as Ann Arbor and Boston, and take note of how those articles are organized and presented. CloudNine 19:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an added tip, when adding references, try to use the citation templates; it gives more information about the reference. CloudNine 20:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
THank you, I will try my best to improve this article within 7 days. :) . --Parker007 20:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a strict time limit - it's only removed or promoted when a general consensus has been gained. CloudNine 20:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your edits to the article CloudNine. :) . --Parker007 21:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are already 2 inline citations. Where exactly you want more inline citations? Could you please put {{fact}} [citation needed] there so I know which references you are looking for? You are all confusing me! --Parker007 21:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2 inline citations isn't nearly enough for an article of this size. I could add {{fact}} tags after almost every sentence, but I don't see what it would accomplish. Have a look at something like Houston, Texas for an example of a well-cited city article. Trebor 21:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nom looks pointy, taking time away from more productive uses. The types of questions you're asking about how to finish the article could be more effectively handled at peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I could add {{fact}} tags after almost every sentence, but I don't see what it would accomplish." It will accomplish where I need to add references :) . --Parker007 00:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, pretend that I've added tags after every uncited sentence (excepting the lead) and work from there. Trebor 00:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a real idiot in this FAC, I appologize. If sandy/raul feel it must be removed from FAC asap. please feel free to do so. --Parker007 00:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

The Lion King

[edit]

Self-nomination. I believe this article, after many failed nominations, is ready to make featured article status. Please let me know if there are any errors, and I will correct them as soon as possible. Also, feel free to help! Here is the most recent failed nomination. PlatformerMastah 02:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, not ready yet:
  • References need some work. Why aren't there dates or primary authors? Is something cited to the IMDB trivia section really reliable, when that stuff is user-submitted?
  • The "Reaction" section needs expansion, at least to include views of those who didn't like it. One way to judge is to see roughly what proportion of positive to negative reviews it got, and provide quotations in the same ratio.
  • It needs a proofread and copyedit; there are basic mistakes including full dates not wikilinked, missing hyphens, use of words in WP:WTA (for example, "claim"), stubby paragraphs, and so on.

Still some way off featured quality. Trebor 14:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fixed some of the problems you addressed, but I'm not sure how to get the author names in the references. They are there, but they won't show up on the page itself. Also, I will begin to fix the minor issues with the way the article is written. PlatformerMastah 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at WP:CITET - none of your references are done correctly, and you added the author name to the ref name, not the cite template. You've also used the wrong template on some (cite web vs. cite news) and left off publication dates on news sources. You only need named refs for repeat refs - putting the author name in the ref name won't make it come out in the cite template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, If you want to keep the wording in the section "Subliminal message" you need a better reference. If it is true that "several of the films' animators assure" then there shouldn't be a problem finding something better then a fansite. Keep up the good work. Pax:Vobiscum 13:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are still some cites to IMDB trivia, which should probably be replaced with better sources. Also, I'm not sure of the reliability of (fansites?) lionking.org or disney.wretch.cc. Nice work in general though. Wickethewok 21:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those two images are not from the same scene, but are rather to illustrate the similarities of the beginning and the ending. I added fair use rationales and licensing information to the images you listed. PlatformerMastah 21:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

Anabolic steroid

[edit]

This is an extremely comprehensive article that meets all of the criteria to be a featured article. This article contains numerous sources,references as well as citations for nearly every statement made. This article is an exemplary article in the Drug portal as well. This article is also extremely scientifically accurate citing the most reliable and most cited scientific studies to support it's facts.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

former fac SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose refs aren't correctly formatted, See also contains terms already linked in the article, and lists should be converted to prose. But you were just told all of that a few hours ago on the GA review :-) Also, section headings should be reviewed per WP:MSH, there's no reason for Further reading not to be alphabetical, and there are External links which don't seem to fit with WP:NOT and WP:EL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How aren't the references correctly formatted?Wikidudeman (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is no single acceptable format for references, and no where in WP:WIAFA or WP:CITE is any one proper format mentioned. That would appear to be a personal preference backed up by zero Wikipedia policies. As long as they are all in the same format and not several different formats I see no problem with any reference format using inline citations that provides the source, access/publish date, and title. Quadzilla99 19:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for basically the same reasons as last time. There are still paragraphs without citations, there is still no explanation as to why the US government and other governments consider anabolic steroids dangerous enough to make them illegal. (Besides this, the section on the movement for decriminalization seems very US-centric. The article notes that they are available without a prescription in other countries. Wouldn't it make sense to have a section on "Legal status worldwide" instead?) Besides all this, there is a general POV tone to the article, and there are some prose problems, which I've listed below:
  • "There are also side effects that are particular to sex..." This needs fixing
  • "Other male specific side effects which can occur is testicular atrophy..." It should be "effects...are" but in any case you've listed only one.
  • "The demographics of steroid users tend to be mostly males between the ages 15-25 and noncompetitive bodybuilders and non-athletes who use for cosmetic reasons." The use of "use" in this context strikes me as slangy and un-encyclopedic.
  • "...at the center of a lot of controversy..." Again, un-encyclopedic tone. "A lot of" just isn't formal enough.
  • There are some paragraphs of only one sentence, which ought to be merged with other paragraphs.

On the whole, the article has a long way to go to achieve featured status.MLilburne 06:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, the following response was left on my talk page rather than here. I'd prefer to keep the discussion all in one place. MLilburne 13:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the response for Anabolic Steroids to become a featured article you state the reasons it should not become one are..

  • There are still paragraphs without citations Which specifically don't have citations? If Some articles aren't cited then it's likely they are explained in the references.
  • there is still no explanation as to why the US government and other governments consider anabolic steroids dangerous enough to make them illegal. This is explained in the introduction "Today anabolic steroids are controversial because of their widespread use in competitive sports and their associated side effects."
  • "There are also side effects that are particular to sex..." This needs fixing What needs fixing about this?
OK, I see what you were getting at here. MLilburne 17:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you explain something in the introduction, then it ought to be just a short summary of information that is available in detail somewhere else in the article (like why governments ban anabolic steroids). And as for the one-sentence paragraphs and paragraphs without citations, I have confidence that you can find them. MLilburne 17:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MLilburne, I have no idea why Governments Ban anabolic steroids to be truthful. I could say due to the fact that they believe using them is especially dangerous but I would just be guessing (which is Original research) and U.S. for instance outlaws AAS but alcohol and tobacco are legal and much more dangerous so it does not make sense to me.Wikidudeman (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lead needs work.
    • "natural and synthetic steroid hormones" Are there other types besides natural and synthetic? If not, why is natural and synthetic needed here?
    • "Different anabolic androgenic steroids have varying combinations of androgenic and anabolic properties" Different is redundant in combination with "varying". Why is "and" italicized?
    • "The most widespread use of anabolic steroids is their use for chronic wasting conditions" "is in treating" is much better than "is their use for"
    • The word "numerous" is used far too many times.
    • Please remember that commas are your friend, especially when joining independent clauses: "Anabolic steroids have also been associated with numerous side effects when administered in excessive doses and these include elevated cholesterol (increase in LDL, decreased HDL levels), acne, elevated blood pressure, hepatotoxicity, and alterations in left ventricle morphology." And here, the reader is out of breath at the end: "Anabolic steroids are controlled in a few countries including the United States where they are listed as Schedule III in the Controlled Substances Act as well as Canada and Britain who also have laws controlling their use and distribution." BuddingJournalist 07:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While I'm not an expert on steroids, at least some steroids are dangerous - but some side effects can indeed be minimized and proper use significantly reduces risks. But even then, some steroids still remain dangerous. And the article should not assume an ideal situation where every user uses the steroids in the least risky way. The fact that some steroids are dangerous is not a popular misconception and a FA should not claim that they (all) are. For instance there are some indications that Human growth hormone makes certain (but not all) types of cancer cells (such as colorectal cancer cells) divide at a faster rate, thus decreasing the likelihood that the body can kill those cells at the early stage and increasing the long term lethality. [1] When one uses anabolic steroids cancer in the search engine of the same medical database, one can find other lethal side effects of AS: [2]. Sijo Ripa 12:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sijo Ripa, The article doesn't make such assumptions. The article explains both circumstances where a user may use dangerous doses of anabolic steroids as well as well as safe doses. The "Possible side effects" section lists numerous side effects that won't appear if a user uses safe doses. However they're still listed and in most cases it is explained that it only occurs in high doses, Such as hepatotoxicity. Some other things, HGH isn't a type of 'anabolic steroid'. Also, your end link doesn't work. If you do a search in pubmed for "anabolic steroids cancer" you'll get numerous unrelated circumstances where sex hormones can cause some types of cancer in some circumstances as well as studies where steroids are used to treat the wasting symptoms in cancer patients but there are not many studies out there showing AAS can cause cancers.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

Ben Thompson

[edit]
  • Support- Excellent writing about a historical character. I'm not a vandal...have a look at the article a lot has been written by me. Also I removed the FAC but someone added it again. Also, I admit that I did some minor vandilism on the page but only as a quick joke to the person who i know who made the page. I knew he would remove it instantly. That persons name is also Ben Thomson. --TheEditor20 15:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose- Not worth wasting time reviewing it here. Give it a peer review and send it to GA. The references are terrible to start with, it doesn't have a lot of polish, and the lead section is non existant. See WP:LEAD.-BiancaOfHell 14:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I think hell just lost one of its flames :) It seems TheEditor20 (talk · contribs · logs) was just a vandal though. darkliight[πalk] 15:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

Bob Marley

[edit]
previous FAC

This article is very well written and has all the characteristics of a featured article. The proper revisions appear to have been made since the last attempt. --GBVrallyCI 01:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

C. S. Lewis

[edit]

I think this article is in a FA status. Tomer T 15:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Prose could use attention as well—there are numerous one- and two-sentence paragraphs, and an external jump in the prose:
  • Several C. S. Lewis Societies exist around the world, including one which was founded in Oxford in 1982 (see their website) ...
    • Comment Although it's a bit short on citations, it does have a fair number of them. They're Harvard style. I do, however, agree that the link farm has got to be weeded out. MLilburne 16:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I might be willing to show support if the there was citation. There are plenty of references they just need links in the article. Buc 16:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object it does have inline citations of the Harvard form, though it's not what I'd call well-referenced; even facts and figures such as the movie gross are missing citations. The reference sections are also bizarrely formed; why in the world is 'References' (presumably these are the works references by the citations) below 'Books about Lewis', and why is there both a 'Biblography' and 'References'? There are also weasel statements that need cleanup ('Lewis's work is not without its critics') and the header style 'the author', etc. is an affectation that begs for fixing. Opabinia regalis 17:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The article is GA, but I'd much rather more references, and all of them in standard format. Something bugs me about Harvard. Wiki-newbie 18:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: To be candid, it doesn't matter what you like. Harvard does not make or break a FAC. It is the content, not how it is referenced. One style is not superior over the others.-Hairchrm 22:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Harvard citations are usually enclosed within ref tags on Wikipedia, so they don't interrupt the flow of the text. Doing this would also make it easier to see what's a reference and what is just a parenthetical statement. Jay32183 03:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my view Harvard makes it difficult to see what is being cited. Wiki-newbie 20:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue isn't that they're Harvard style, but that they're parenthetical rather than footnotes. There are other FA's that use Harvard citations, but still enclose them in <ref></ref> so the flow of the prose isn't interrupted. Jay32183 20:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly oppose - I've been putting a lot of work into this article to try and get it up to GA standards, but I know it's definitely not good enough to meet FA criteria. I have no doubt it will get there sooner rather than later, but this nomination seems somewhat premature. It is helpful however, to hear others' comments, so I welcome it for that if nothing else. Martin 17:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Fair use Lewis in 1919 image, C.S. Lewis with his books image do not contribute substantially to the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not too far off FA, but why not the standard inline refs? May not be compulsory (?) but other FACs all seem to have them. cheers Cas Liber 22:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

World War II

[edit]
Previous Comments of FAC located atWikipedia:Featured article candidates/World War II/Archive I

Re-structred the entire article and re-wrote many sections. I think this is FAC Quality. Mercenary2k 03:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI dont see why that is a problem. Most people know facts about World War II, like Allies invaded Normandy on June 6, 1944, Germany invaded Russia on June 22, 1941 or Japanese bombed pearl harbor on december 7, 1941, etc....Mercenary2k 06:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose "Most people know facts about World War II" is not an excuse to do a half-assed job for the citations. For crying out loud man entire sections of bookstores have been written on this subject and you have come up with... 17 citations? I came up with more than that for USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin, and that was after copying and pasting the entire DANFS entry for both ships into their respective articles here. I am not sorry to say that there is simply no way I can support this. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comparing the citation of articles on individual warships, no matter how notable, with entire world wars is neither fair nor reasonable. This topic is for the most part well-known and uncontroversial, even if some aspects (especially casualty figures) do need well-balanced referencing to placate reference sticklers and careful editing to avoid POV. That there is an obscene amount of literature on this topic is actually a pretty good argument not to treat it like far more obscure topics. I would only be annoyed if I read this article and saw paragraphs on major battles and campaigns plastered with 3 foonotes per sentence. A lot of the facts in the article are of the magnitude of "Moscow is the capital of Russia" and should be treated accordingly. / Peter Isotalo 16:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment nobody wants 3 footnotes per sentence (last I checked, the standard was every third sentence? ;) but there are statements in this article that could use citation. Keep in mind I'm one of those who dislikes the trend of nervously footnoting every obvious statement and trivial deduction. For example, direct quotes, even if well known ('peace in our time') and facts and figures ('The Japanese would suffer approximately 18,000 casualties, the Soviet-Mongolian forces 9,000.'). Because so much material has been written, pointers to subtopic-specific books would be very useful to the reader, provided as a single footnote covering a whole paragraph or section with text like 'For an authoritative treatment of X, see source Y. For a popular account, see Z.' For example, I'm sure there are noted reference works specifically treating the China-Japan conflict, and a pointer to an appropriate source of further information would be useful. (I chose this example in particular because, if you are an American schoolchild, you have likely been taught that WWII began in Europe in 1939, but ideally each of the chronology sections would have a few well-chosen references.) Opabinia regalis 17:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the record, I am not comparing warships to world wars, like apples and oranges, they are entirely differnt, sharing only broad similarities. What I am pointing out is that if I can copy and paste 90% or so of an article and still come up aproximately 15-20 citations you should be able to do much better with a well known and highly documented war. I don't see that here; which I find to be an embarressment: 17 citations for the largest war in human history to date (and God willing, forever) simply does not do WWII justice in any way shape or form. I am not going to hound you (or anyone else for that matter) into citing every single sentence in the article, that would be long and time consuming, but at the absolute minimum you could cite lines with specific dates, quotes, causulaty figures, and so forth. Isn't that what an FA star is supposed to represent? These articles should be second to none, not second to last. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding inline citations, I'm willing to put a few in myself. However, the first citatin is 'ibid.' There is no previous citation that denotes what ibid. is referring to. It has to be cleared up, or removed and recited, IMO. JonCatalan 17:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't think a few missing citations are anything to get into too big of a tangle about, because this is such an excellent article all-around, with heap loads of info and lots of external links. Everything this article provides is more than enough to make up for the few things it lacks. Also, since World War I is FA, it seems illogical not to make its historical follow-up one too. The historical significance and impact that the article covers is enough to make me strongly support this cause. 2Pac 00:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've never been enthusiastic about nitpicking references, especially for 'overview' articles that are supported by a large number of subarticles, but this is just incredibly weak. As someone mentioned above, the first note is "ibid" - ibid what? That makes no sense as a reference. While citing the date of Pearl Harbor is probably overkill, you should be providing at least footnotes for facts and figures and appropriately placed footnotes to authoritative historical references as well as primary sources. This is not source-poor material, much of its interpretation is not uncontroversial, and this article is the subject of frequent POV bickering that may introduce inaccuracies; I see no good reason this can't uphold a high referencing standard. On another note, the nav templates at the bottom are placed in a bizarre order topic-wise; why do city bombings precede theaters of war? Although the prose is generally good not that bad in a distilled-distillation sort of way, the lead is completely inadequate, there are awkwardly placed stubby sections (Overview > Aftermath), and the media section is abbreviated past the point of saying anything important. (And, is the Saving Private Ryan poster really fair use, as it is not discussed in the text?) Opabinia regalis 05:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per SandyGeorgia, with two additional comments: Firstly, I think that WP:LENGTH can be disregarded in this (exceptional) case. There are few events in world history that were so complex and influential as World War II. The other remarks of SandyGeorgie remain valid. Secondly, this page is full of errors, assumptions and non-included important facts. I have fixed several (but there are plenty more). Some examples: the USSR annexed Sakhalin AND the Kuril Islands, it was never mentioned that Truman was the U.S. president (which isn't obvious to a young reader), etc. Sijo Ripa 22:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I do not support citing the blatantly obvious for the heck of it, come on; 17 citations? I also agree with Pascal.Tesson, this article really must be perfect to be FA. As unfair as that sounds, this really needs to be an article where we put our absolute best foot forward. American Patriot 1776 00:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per Sandy, strongly. The thing about citations: the point isn't that these items are common knowledge. The point is that wikipedia cannot be cited in academic papers, as we are not a reliable source. On the other hand, where we SHOULD be reliable, is in summarizing information contained in reliable sources, and then pointing to those sources. By this I mean, say someone is doing a school research paper on WWII. He or she comes here, finds an awesome amount of good information, and he/she wants to put it in the paper. What does he/she put in the footnote for the paper's citations? Can't put us... needs to put what WE cite. So we need to cite, so they can. Fieari 01:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the fact that this article probably won't become featured strongly shows the inexact science of the process of making it one. Articles with many times less significance and information, such as Hollaback Girl and Flag of Lithuania, have bronze stars, and even many articles associated with the war such as the Battle of Normandy do too, while the article documenting the biggest conflict in human history does not. In my opinion, that alone makes it hugely notable to an encyclopedia. And also, most of the article is built up of reliable historical facts, not trivia, so you don't really need citations anyway. If you really think the article needs them, it is still going to take forever to get them all in, and it may never happen. So it's hard to really give out the perfect article for something like WWII, but it is still a much better article than so many other featured articles, and if you are going to measure it the same way you measure those, than sorry, it's just irrational to expect it to be fully appreciated the way it should be. Just some thoughts.
    • Core topics seem to have a much rougher time getting to FA. Then again I think they're more important to the success of an encyclopedia, so the extra difficulty is worth it. — RJH (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. --[|K.Z|] T • V • C 04:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

Center for Consumer Freedom

[edit]

This article started life as text from Sourcewatch, a left-wing wiki [4]. Although it has been controversial, it has been dramatically improved, with appropriate detail on the group's corporate funding, but also a lot better and more balanced than the original article's stance of 'this group is a nasty corporate shill group'. There's plenty of information, references and where there were previously differences, the content now seems to have reached a state that users sympathetic and those opposed to the group are both happy. Nssdfdsfds 01:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object External jumps, some references aren't formatted properly switches from <ref> to [1], white space between sections, one sentence paragraphs, image doesn't have fair use rationale, references are missing details such as publisher, date, author (if there is one), unreferenced paragraphs, references before puncuation. Refer to Peer Review. M3tal H3ad 01:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object M3tal H3ad covered most of the bases (missed WP:MSH). Refer to WP:PR. (I have changed nothing in my sig, but it's returning an error; I don't know how to sign. SandyGeorgia).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

Halo 2

[edit]

I basically got this up to GA, and it certainly was a learning experience... I certainly think its up for FA, but it of course depends on you. Be brutally honest! Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (obviously) Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 22:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article has {{fact}} in it. It also has external jumps in the body that I assume should be refs in {{cite web}} format. The Audio section is completely uncited, as is the Limited Collector's Edition section. Full dates should be properly linked. Jay32183 22:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- sorry about the note cite-web format links, someone sneaked those in while I wasn't looking. I've cited some stuff in the audio and cleanup and cut down the respective sections; as for dates, I'm on it. EDIT - ok I don't see any issues with the dates. The full ones are properly linked according to WP:DATE, and the rest don't need links as they don't establish any more context. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 22:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually went ahead and formatted the dates after you demonstrated that you were willing to work on the citation issues. I'll review the article again when I get a chance to make sure nothing else needs to be cited. If anything else needs to be cited, I'll be sure to let you know. Jay32183 23:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Undeveloped reception section. Only one review is referenced, could do with a reviews snapshot as seen in other FAs such as Halo: Combat Evolved. The List of Awards seems completely arbitrary, who cares about what Gamefly, a games rental service awards it? You also shouldn't list things like trivial in-development E3 awards, which have no real qualifier on the quality of the game, although they could be mentioned in the development section. - hahnchen 21:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aye aye. I copied and updated the Halo:CE table with Halo's awards, added roughly a new paragraph of copy into reviews with quotes. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some sections are still lacking. The development section barely touches on the development at all. - hahnchen 21:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is... I've added some more, let me know if you think its moving in the right direction. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do know that sales are part of the reception, not the development right? Development is the "Making of ...". Reception is the "Responce to ...". Jay32183 00:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be why you're reviewing it :P my bad. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

Big Brother (UK)

[edit]

I'm nominating this article for the extensive work that has gone into it in the past few months. Dalejenkins 19:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Has potential, but the refs are crazy. Some are links, some say url accessed, and there's an unreferenced tag in there. Plus there is a trivia section, so this still needs alot of work. Gran2 21:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Needs more refs. The links to the individual series should be removed as thet are linked in the template at the bottem. Lead needs exspanding. Buc 10:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the {{unreferenced|date=November 2006}} that's been in the article since November is a clue that it's not yet reached FA status. There's still plenty of work to be done here └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

Southern United States

[edit]

This article is well-written, with GA status and good standard of neutrality, even it is a sensitive subject. Wooyi 03:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:11, 11 February 2007.

Dannii Minogue

[edit]

Self-nomination: This article has come a long way from where it was a couple months ago. It has been greatly expanded, with references and citations and such. It received very little attention in peer review, but I think that this article is ready now, and I hope you agree. -- Underneath-it-All 03:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • /Comment - Please add an additional paragraph to the lead, to summarize her personal life and the controversy section. I also suggest you go back and copy edit it, as I already fixed one very obvious typo in the lead paragraph. I have only skimmed the rest of the article, checking references and such, but I quite enjoyed what I saw (I'm a sucker for pop-culture articles). I'll go back and read it again later tonight or tomorrow. Jeffpw 20:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Now that the lead has been expanded, I can support this article. It's a fun read, and very well referenced. Jeffpw 21:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Abstain - The article is almost there, but some things should see some improvement:
    • Problematic prose: Minogue achieved early success with hits such as "Love and Kisses" and "This is It", though by the release of her second album, her popularity as a singer had declined and this led her to concentrate on other fields such as television presenting. You might want to insert a full stop somewhere in there.
    • Run-on sentence: The late 1990s saw a brief return to music, Minogue reinventing herself as a dance artist with "All I Wanna Do", her first number one UK Club hit.
    • Problematic prose: Minogue was born in Melbourne, Australia to an Australian father, Ron Minogue, and Carol Jones, who in 1955 had immigrated as a child from her native Maesteg, Wales to Townsville, Queensland. You might want to split that up a bit.
    • Weasel alert: She reportedly began recording her third album ...
    • Problematic prose: After the release of her first two albums, Minogue had discovered an interest in dance music, which had began with several remixes of her songs by Steve Hurly. The dance music genre was created by Steve Hurly?
    • Run-on sentence: Minogue's interest in dance music and clubbing influenced her third album Girl, released in September of 1997, which featured collaborations with musicians such as Brian Higgins of Xenomania, and Minogue contributed the majority of the lyrics.
    • Content question: In 2001, Minogue signed a six album deal with London Records The "London Records" section, however, only mentions one record being released (Neon Nights). What happened to the other albums (or to the contract)?
    • Not my kind of prose: "Perfection", another collaboration, this time with the Soul Seekerz, followed in October of 2005.
    • Superfluous prose: The single, however, remains without a confirmed commercial release date. How about adding details about said single if and when it is released?
    • Section overload: The "Acting career" section also details her stints as a television presenter. Unless she was faking her way through those jobs, you might want to rename the section title.
    • Crystal ball alert: In 2007, Minogue is scheduled to begin filming ... You might want to check WP:CRYSTAL and see if there's sufficient reason to put that paragraph in.
    • Copyright alert: Although it takes great pains to say it, I doubt the Esquire cover image will qualify under Wikipedia's fair use policy. Check Wikipedia:Fair use, and counterexample 7 in particular. Obviously the image has great... eh... "educational" value, but it doesn't establish anything of relevance to the article. Yes, they're sisters, and yes, they're gorgeous. It doesn't require the use of an Esquire cover to establish that. Note: someone with more experience in copyright matters might want to check if my ramblings are somewhat on the money.
    • Where's that source?: While part of her appeal lies in her upbeat dance music and her confident sexual posturing ... According to whom?
    • Comma fatigue: She has long been a supporter of breast cancer research and, in October of 2003, performed in a London comedy show, titled Funny Women, which raised money for breast cancer research, as well as awareness of domestic violence.
    • Word fatigue: I counted twenty sixteen instances of "success" or "successful". You might want to tone that down a bit. Check on "popular" as well, while you're at it.
    • It's so... quiet: How about adding some sound samples of her greatest hits?
    • Random, probably not-to-be-acted-upon remark: Minogue's debut hit single "Love and Kisses", described as "excellent" by All Music Guide ... What were they thinking?
    • Thanks for the great work so far, and good luck! --Plek 23:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have started to make some changes and will continue to later tonight and tomorrow. I have also asked a couple other editor to look it over to help fix some bad prose. -- Underneath-it-All 00:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're getting there... I think one final, critical copyedit session is still in order to get the remaining pesky prose in line, but it's coming around nicely. You might also want to play with the positioning and content of the samples boxes a bit; putting a box on on side and an image on the other leads to some less-than-ideal page layout. Changing vote to abstain. --Plek 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object - I want to read through this a few more times but there is a lot of good in this article. A couple of things that jump out at me as problems.

  • It's not our place to blame Julian McMahon for the marriage breakdown and without a source the comment about "the media" just adds a weaselish tone to a comment that is already out of place. It contravenes Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. It's only mild but it's still making a value judgement about someone that is negative, unsupported.... and unnecessary.
  • I am absolutely certain that the Esquire image does not meet our fair use criteria. It's being used solely to show the sisters together but the magazine itself is not mentioned in the article, and their appearance on the cover is not particularly noteworthy. For it to be fair use, the magazine cover/article would need to be discussed in such depth that an illustration would provide clarity to the text. A fair use claim would need to also make it clear why, of all the images that could possibly be used, this particular one was chosen. We've got free images of both Minogues so we know what they look like individually and the magazine shows us nothing new or unique.

I think Plek has raised some valid points, and addressing them can only improve the article. Congratulations on your efforts so far. This article has taken on a new life since you started working on it. Rossrs 10:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed both the statement about McMahon and the magazine cover. I will continue to work on Plek's suggestions over the next day or two. Thanks for your feedback. -- Underneath-it-All 13:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Prose and copyedit problems in the first section I glanced at: In January 1994, Minogue married Australian actor Julian McMahon, whom she met at while working on the television series Home and Away in 1991. References for bio info include fan sites and IMDb.com, and full biblio info on news sources aren't given in Refs (provide author when available, article title, publication date, and source). Are song titles italicized or not? A serious copyedit by a fresh set of eyes might help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other featured articles such as Angelina Jolie and Uma Thurman use fansites and the IMDB as references. I have gone through the references and have made sure everything is cited properly. Only album titles are italicized, songs are supposed to be in quotations. -- Underneath-it-All 01:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Definitely a good article, but some changes need to be made before I can support this for FA status. Some of the basic ones, especially MoS-type stuff, I've gone ahead and done. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Here are some things that still need to be addressed:
    • There are several mentions of her work with other acts (Steve Hurly and Flower Power, for example) where the other acts aren't linked. Could you check into seeing if these acts are notable and, if so, add red links to the appropriate pages?
    • Is the surname spelled Hurly or Hurley?
    • "In the summer of 1994, Minogue returned to television as a presenter." Whose summer? My summer's around July; if I remember correctly, that's winter in Australia. To maintain NPOV, dates like these should be more like "September 1982" or "mid-1992".
    • "It...was a tribute to Australia's gay and lesbian community." In what way? Its lyrics, its music video, just a note in some album liner?
    • The section about music focuses heavily on the format of mentioning the album/song, stating its chart/commercial success, and often mentioning the critical response or genre influences. This becomes formulaic after awhile, and combining the music and acting sections into one biography section would probably alleviate this. When doing this, consider also merging in some of the information from "Personal life" (especially the controversies section for NPOV).
    • The sections on LGBT activism and fashion design need expanding.
    • "Dannii had been closely followed by the media, who wanted to know about Kylie's developments." Why? I know that Kylie's a major figure, but it hasn't yet been presented. There needs to have been an earlier mention of Kylie's success, however brief it may be, possibly in the early life section about Dannii's family.
    • The chart positions under "Top ten singles" need references. If the references used are the same as the ones in the article text, then add citations to the headers or song titles as appropriate; if you need to find new ones, you may just want to add a separate section to keep the table from getting too messy.
    • The navigation template at the bottom is lacking; consider adding links to her studio albums in it. ShadowHalo 05:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:11, 11 February 2007.

Amarillo, Texas

[edit]

This is mostly a pessimistic FAC nomination. I worked on this article since early 2006 by revamping the article and trying to make it have featured article status. However, I stopped working on it since autumn. Not because it is "perfect" and "finish." Just don't have the time and effort to find flaws. Also the last two peer reviews for this article were not exactly helpful. Especially, the second one consider nobody responded. Now to why I'm wasting my time to nominate this. The article has the right amount info regarding the size of the city and metropolitan area. (about 200,000 people) Most of the article's photos were taken by me except the Palo Duro Canyon and of course, the photo dated back to the early 20th century. No problems with the photos and they're tagged properly. It has over 70 references even though most of them are just from the city's main newspaper, Handbook of Texas, and the City of Amarillo's website. If the nomination fails, at least I will have some feedback. :-P --J. Nguyen 03:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Well-written article. It is also very well cited with footnotes in almost every line. The sources are reliable and the self-made pictures are very good too. Front page article. --Ineffable3000 04:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I only read through about the first half, but it's not the most well-written article. Could definitely use a thorough copy-edit.
    • Lead could use expansion per WP:LEAD.
    • Amarillo's name probably derives from the nearby Amarillo Lake and Amarillo Creek, named in turn for the yellow soil along their banks and shores (Amarillo is the Spanish word for the color yellow) or the yellow wildflowers that were plentiful during the spring and summer. Kind of awkward. The "or" is ambiguous, it's unclear whether the "yellow wildflowers" stuff is referring to the lake and creek or Amarillo itself.
    • Sanborn also offered to trade lots in the new location to businesses in the original city’s site and help the expense of moving buildings. "Moving buildings"!? Did they really move the actual buildings? Also, I think "help with the expense" is better.
    • It rained heavily and almost flooded Berry’s part of the town in 1889... "It...almost flooded"? Try "Heavy rains almost flooded Berry’s part of the town in 1889..."
    • By the late 1890s, Amarillo had emerged as one of the world's busiest cattle shipping points, and its population grew significantly. The "by the late 1890s" seems to indicate that this should be "...its population had grown significantly".
    • ...feed-manufacturing center after an increasing production... Awkward. Try either "after an increase in production" or "after increasing production".
    • In order to try to help revitalize it, the organization Center City of Amarillo was formed to establish partnerships with groups who have a huge presence in the city to support the downtown. Redundancies abound! Get rid of "in order to try". The later "...to support the downtown" is probably unnecessary too, since we know the group is trying to revitalize it. "huge" is not the most encyclopedic word.
    • Since its conception in the 1990s, Center City created archways over two streets, sponsors public art projects such as murals, and started block parties in the downtown area. Tense issues with those verbs. Should be "has created", "sponsored".
    • The 31-story Chase Tower, the tallest building between Dallas and Denver, was opened in Amarillo's downtown in 1971. It is an office building and had two prior names: SPS Tower and Bank One Center. Is the second sentence really necessary?
    • A local newspaper article in 1914 promoted the planting of trees as a sanitary asset due to the author cited studies by the New York County Medical Society and the New York City Park Commission which claims areas with trees have less bacteria and fewer dust particles
    • Amarillo is in an area of the United States which tornadoes are most frequent called the "Tornado Alley."
    • Some curious wikilinking...I would think that most readers know what the words "color", "yellow", and "sunrise" mean (also see WP:CONTEXT). I also saw multiple wikilinking of the same phrases (nuclear weapons, helium, oil). Gzkn 09:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some dates in your footnotes are wikilinked some aren't. Pref is to wikilink all. Using the accessdate=yyyy-mm-dd option makes it easy.Rlevse 11:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm hesitant regarding the culture section and subsections - I think they need more of a historical context. How has Amarillo's culture changed over time? Tuf-Kat 04:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. WP:MOS issues; for example, full dates are not wikilinked,[5] and non-breaking hard spaces are not used on units of measurement. [6] Interestingly, this article didn't receive peer review feedback, where those sorts of basic issues are usually detected - which leads to concern about what other WP:MOS issues might exist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Okay, I can understand I had to put a non-breaking space on the measurements. Didn't catch that one. I fixed that but what I don't understand is your dates issue. Prior, to the nomination I wikilink all full dates expect the one in the intro because I didn't catch that. Most of the full dates are in the "History" section and they have been wikilink prior to your complaint. There's no wikilink on partial dates. ("April 1887" shouldn't be wikilink according to the style guide.)--J. Nguyen 16:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Though there's a lot of good information here, I don't think that the article is up to FA level yet. I agree with Gzkn that there are several sections that need to be rewritten. For example, "Completed in 2000, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Park adjoins with a shallow playa lake which located south of it was the original town site of Amarillo." The flow needs to be improved as well, like one paragraph which starts with a sentence saying that the city suffered a depression, and then the next sentence talks about all the highways that intersect in the city, bringing business, which seems to contradict the first sentence. I'd also like to see references closer to some of the more unusual claims, such as about being the helium capital, and having an organization that's hosting block parties. --Elonka 04:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:11, 11 February 2007.

Aquinas College, Perth

[edit]

This article has under-taken extreme measures to become a very good article on Wikipedia and has done everything asked of it in regard to peer-reviews and general feedback on the talk page. It is high-quality work and is far-better than its current rating. Smbarnzy 12:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the article's history, but there's no mention of an FAC nomination in there. I did find the archived peer review, though: Wikipedia:Peer review/Aquinas College, Perth/archive1. --Plek 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no previous FAC Smbarnzy 11:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article is rather disorganized, both in terms of content and layout, but the layout in particular needs work. There is a somewhat jarring combination of many different types of lists, boxes, templates, galleries, indented block quotes, and so on; the text has a lot of awkward line breaks and white space, at least on my browser. I think the pictures are also overdoing it, particularly as the school's crest appears no fewer than three times, and the gallery of sports uniforms is a bit much. Prose is quite problematic; lots of very short and choppy sentences with numerous one-sentence sections and paragraphs, as well as subheadings that are unnecessary (such as under "Geography"). Also, it needs a copy edit - I am seeing comma splices and typos. The lead does not provide a road-map for the article, and focuses almost exclusively on one aspect of the school, its location. On another level, I think the article delves deeply into the realm of trivia; even the article about Eton is not this long, and do we really need to know so much detail about the uniforms, the school grounds (including every building), every dean, and so on? The article does not seem to have a length and bredth appropriate to its subject, which is after all just a high school. I recall a number of AfDs a while ago relating to a number of daughter-articles that had been created detailing the exploits of every sports team at this school. All of this generally smacks of boosterism (not an accusation, mind you!) or at the very least partisan involvement, which is not necessarily a bad thing but does suggest that the article needs more independant editors with no school connection who might be a bit more ruthless. Maybe I'm being somewhat harsh, but there you go.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I might also suggest that some of the daughter articles that do exist are a bit problematic too; this article makes it seem like there are substantive articles about the house system, the sports, etc, but really those daughter articles are just lists upon lists that, after all, probably belong more on the school's website than on wikipedia.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, one of the block quotes is just an inspirational message from the school's religion teacher, the sort of thing you'd expect to see in the student handbook but not in an encyclopedia. This is a further sign that the article needs third party involvement.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for prose at the least. Far too many one- or two-sentence paragraphs. Lots of listy sections. Why exactly is "Coat of arms" a subsection of "History"? The references need accessdates. Why is "former" wikilinked in "Notable alumni". Trebor 10:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the Trivia section only contains info on the solar car team, consider creating a "Solar car team" section and turning the short list into a small paragraph. Paragraphs are usually better than lists and some believe that trivia as it is trivial should not be included in an encyclopedia. See here for a more detailed explanation of what I meant. Mr.Z-mantalk 00:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This article in general is a very good article, it has all of the relevant information regarding the school, its operations and affiliated groups. In parts it is slightly narrow, but is good enough for featured article status. Smbarnzy 11:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I don't mean not to assume good faith, but I'd like to point out you're a student of the college. Trebor 07:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Support - I beleive that it has quality images, the paragraph stuchture is "crisp" and to the point and, the Article is not wordy whatsoever. The article is also interesting which cannot be said for a lot of wikipedia articles - articles are ment to educate and not bore people

symode09 06:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you go this college as well? I've got to be honest, I don't find it interesting in the least. Trebor 07:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bit of discussion regarding some of the daughter articles going on at AfD, and my general impression is that this article and its offshoots, while more or less well-written by wikipedia standards, are engaging in subtle and understandable POV pushing to make the school seem super impressive by giving it a Harrow or Eton-style treatment.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For the following reasons:
    • Refs are not adequate. They are not formatted correctly. One even points to a page that doesn't exist. Half of them are in the middle of a sentence. Too many come from the Aquinas website - not an adequate source.
    • Trivia Section...need I say more - see WP:TRIVIA
    • The same picture is shown twice in the article. Why???
    • Pages such as Christian Brothers, Mount Henry Peninsula and Perth are wikilinked several times.
These are just formatting issues, but as well as this prose is unexciting nor compelling or brilliant. Todd661 10:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment trivia section removed, 2nd use of college logo is removed, why cant they be wikilinked a few times? i cant see the one which points to a page that doesnt exist (i think you are referring to "Aquinas College History (access restricted)" that page is only open to people who are staff/students at Aquinas - hence the login when you click on the link. Smbarnzy 11:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article doesn't explain why the school is notable and seems to fail all three criteria for notability at WP:SCHOOL. Not only are none of the references non-trivial published works, but the article doesn't state that the school ever has been the focus of such works. Furthermore, it's not asserted that the school has gained non-trivial national recognition in any field. Based on the information in the article, this school doesn't seem to be significantly different from the average Australian school aside from having better than average facilities. --Nick Dowling 04:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not going to vote here as I have seen the article's progress over a number of months, and made a few fixes and recommendations at an earlier stage. One of the peer reviews (I forget which one) listed two hardcopy books which give a very solid historical treatment to the area and to the school - IMO these should have been consulted and referenced before coming to FAC. The school is on a par with Hale School and Guildford Grammar School in Perth terms, but probably not many others. Sydney's equivalents would be The King's School or Cranbrook. I agree with you that the article needs to assert this more clearly, although I acknowledge the difficulty that a student at such a school may have in performing a bird's eye comparison of this kind, and finding a way to make such a comparison in a non-POV way will be a challenge. Orderinchaos78 16:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:11, 11 February 2007.

Chris Gardner

[edit]

Feature article candidate. New promotion. After many hours of work, this article is ready for featured article status. This article has come a long way from where it was a couple months ago. It's currently rated at GA status and has gone through a peer review. I feel that it is comprehensive on the subject & accurate. It has been greatly expanded, with references and citations. It's the most comprehensive biography on Gardner out there. The peer review is here.
Trade2tradewell 15:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please hold off while I fix this dramatically wrong submission - it's listed as a FAR, not a FAC. I'll do the moves to correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think everything is corrected now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments WP:MOS problems - I corrected for WP:MSH, full dates are not wiki'd per WP:DATE, solo year wikilinks should be removed unless they provide WP:CONTEXT, publisher not identified on all sources (e.g.; ^ "Man Who Inspired B.O. Hit Skips Opening"), and the article is heavily sourced to Gardner's own website.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. full dates are not wiki'd per WP:DATE
2. solo year wikilinks should be removed unless they provide WP:CONTEXT,
3. publisher not identified on all sources (e.g.; ^ "Man Who Inspired B.O. Hit Skips Opening")
4. the article is heavily sourced to Gardner's own website.
  • Oppose. The lead needs work. The first sentence goes into excessive detail, naming where and with whom he struggled with homelessness - is it really first-sentence material? Sentences like "After the birth of his first, son Chris Jr. (born in 1981)" are messy and have redundancies. "Within the next several years," is vague. "Today" should avoided as it will ecome out-of-date. We get told his firstborn is called "Chris" three times in the lead. I haven't read any further. Trebor 15:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. The lead needs work. The first sentence goes into excessive detail, naming where and with whom he struggled with homelessness - is it really first-sentence material?
2. Sentences like "After the birth of his first, son Chris Jr. (born in 1981)" are messy and have redundancies.
3. "Within the next several years," is vague.
4. "Today" should avoided as it will become out-of-date.
5. We get told his firstborn is called "Chris" three times in the lead.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:11, 11 February 2007.

Sri Lanka

[edit]

Sri Lanka article has had peer review and says content is excellent ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 07:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:11, 11 February 2007.

United Kingdom

[edit]

This article was formerly nominated but rejected. I have re-nominated because I think it has reached the standards of a featured article. --Rcandelori 14:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

former fac
  • Not yet I didn't even get past checking ref fmt: some say "accessed" some "retrieved", some mdy, some not, some wikilinked, some not. They should all be the same format, suggest "Retrieved on m-d-y". Use accessdate parameter and it'll do it for you. I always check this issue first because if it's correct and consistent, it shows attention to detail in the rest of the article. And footnotes normally come right after punctuatiuon with no spaces.Rlevse 16:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Patricknoddy (talk · contribs)
  • Support I think that this article finally reaches the Featured Article criteria. --Wolftalk 20:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. 122KB overalll with 73 KB prose is a non-starter. See WP:LENGTH and WP:SS. Reference formatting problems mentioned by Rlevse (I fixed the footnote placement, but refs aren't formatted correctly). The infobox is a killer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this article is well written & presented. The links are all specific for the subject in hand.LondonAngel 20.35 4 February 2007
  • Support Trishm 02:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC). I think it's a good job for a large topic, it may be worth considering forking. I see nothing that is a show stopper. US reviewers should note that the British style of footnotes is reference tags before the punctuation, see note 4 of wikipedia footnote guidelines. Also, m-d-y is US style. Most others use d-m-y, or better still the Swedish(?) style of yyyy-mm-dd, because it sorts correctly.Trishm 02:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The British style of footnotes is indeed before punctuation, but Wikipedia uses the American style, even in British articles. Trebor 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rcandelori 14:35, 5 February 2007 (AEST). I would also say that the criticism regarding the footnotes in the info box are misplaced because they are appropriate given the unique and disparate cultures that exist in the United Kingdom. This article has long been FA-Class quality and thus it should be recognised as such.
  • Object - there are a variety of issues that need to be addressed. 1) There are still three "citation needed" sentences that need to be cited, two of which are in the Economy section. 2) The Visual Art section does not use proper summary style, and the Culture section as a whole is rather poorly-structured and unbalanced. 3) The Transport section is far too long and is not written in nicely-flowing prose (instead utilising bullet points, and list-type statistics). 4) Overall, the article is not optimal, probably because there is too much content accompanied by poor use of summary style (lack of tight prose). I don't generally have a problem with long articles per se, but this one isn't really indicative of FA status (though I concede the UK is one of the harder countries to write an article on, due to its complexity). Ronline ✉ 09:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - What is this? (under Climate) at Edgmond, near Newport, Shropshire. [2] and this Faversham, Kent. [1]. Seems like external links but there's no links and they should be converted into references. 3 Citation needed tags, one sentence paragraphs. The article is severely under cited, "Sports" has fourteen paragraphs and two references, Religion is about nine paragraphs and five or so references, the article should decide on either British or American English, automated peer-review brings up lots of problems, some references aren't formatted properly. I haven't looked at the prose but these are pretty simple things to spot out. M3tal H3ad 09:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the time being, per above. There are numerous problems with the article. Trebor 15:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose first strip out at least 30% of content, as per SandyGeorgia. (Caniago 19:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose If only on length. I suggest to take a look at the recently promoted Turkey and Germany for inspiration and smart use of summary style and subpages. Pascal.Tesson 20:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I thing this artcle can't be Featured article.--Absar 13:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per Sandy's concerns. LuciferMorgan 04:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:11, 11 February 2007.

Rocky Balboa (film)

[edit]

Self-nomination. Nominating for featured article status. After much crafting and shaping, this article has really come a long way. It passed GA status with only minimal edits - I think it might just be ready for prime time. Theirishpianist 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Preliminary comments (haven't read it yet)- video game section is short; suggest merging it with the soundtrack section as some sort of "Merchandise" section. I noticed "Rocky Balboa" isn't italicized in the soundtrack section, but it should be wherever it appears (unless you mean the character). The "Statistics based on figures obtained from boxofficemojo.com" is awkward just dangling there- move it to a footnote, or incorporate it into the text. Also, the article has a tag, although this one, a "this section documents a film's box office" is kind of obvious/redundant so you may want to remove it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object 1a, 1c. I corrected a section heading to conform to WP:MSH, reference punctuation to WP:FN, and removed white spaces between sections. References are not correctly formatted: please expand all footnotes to include full biblio info (publisher, author and publication date when available - see WP:CITE or WP:CITET). Prose is not compelling, example - Several items of note also appear at certain points in the movie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment refs are fine Sandy seems to think that her personal preference is a Wikipedia policy, see the FAC for Mutual Broadcasting System among others for more on this. Her views on this subject can and probably should be ignored. Quadzilla99 00:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The lead needs work.
    • It is the sixth and final film in the Rocky series, which began with the Oscar-winning Rocky thirty years earlier in 1976." We're told that Rocky Balboa is a 2006 film. Either thirty years earlier or in 1976 is fine; no need for both.
    • "The film portrays Balboa in retirement, a widower living in downtown Philadelphia, and as the owner and operator of an Italian restaurant in the city called "Adrian's", named after his late wife." No need for "a widower"; "his late wife" signals to readers that he is one. This seems to suggest he's working, not retired. Perhaps "in retirement from boxing" is meant here? The sentence in general is long and awkward.
    • "Rocky Balboa was produced as the final sequel to the Academy Award-winning Rocky." Didn't we just establish this?
    • "The film also holds many references to people and objects from previous installments in the series, especially the first one." Can you hold references? This sentence could be much better phrased. BuddingJournalist 07:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for prose. Heavy overuse of "also" throughout the lead, it's rarely needed. Synopsis is over 1000 words long, the film Wikiproject recommend around 600 unless the plot is particularly complex or integral to the article. You could also check out their style guidelines for formatting of cast: actor and character names tend to be bolded, and then there's a colon before the descriptive text. Clumsy sentences throughout. The article is undercited throughout, for anything interpretative it's a must. The "Critical response" section is just a list of "positive" reviews (it's unclear how you measure that). It would be better to give a metacritic or rotten tomatoes rating to give an overall impression, and then quote specific sections of reviews to show which bits of the films were liked or disliked. Trebor 12:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I won't go as far as oppose because I haven't read the article in full detail but it seems odd to promote such a recent film to featured status. The box-office numbers and DVD sales numbers will still change and any info about the legacy of the film (if it ever has one) won't be included. So we can't expect that the article is really stable. Also, when articles are written so quickly after the movie has come out, much of the critical discussion relies on sources with no perspective beyond "should you go and see this movie this week" and the result is an article lacking in depth. Pascal.Tesson 20:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:11, 11 February 2007.

Raven banner

[edit]

Self nom as initiator, though many others, including User:Berig, contributed as much as or more than I did. This is an article about a somewhat obscure topic, drawing on multiple primary and secondary sources. It has been featured on DYK and is a "Good Article". Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I have three major issues with the article as is...
  1. The first image is of exceedingly low-quality to be the primary image of a FA. The image needs to be recentered, with the anti-aliasing corrected and the background color changed.
  2. The second section is far too long and tangental, and perhaps should be forked off to Symbolism of the raven in early Scandinavian culture. Mentioning the import of the raven in Viking art, literature and heraldry does set the stage, but quoting blocks of Old Norse text detracts from the article.
  3. The lead describes (and the image depicts) the flag with "a rounded outside edge", yet later in the article, it is described and shown as being triangular, too. Is it one or the other? Both? The lead needs to be crystal clear on this, otherwise the article contradicts itself. And if it is (or can be both), then the depiction of the flag should show both variants.
Caknuck 08:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:11, 11 February 2007.

Houston, Texas

[edit]

After many months of work, we feel that this article is ready for featured article status. Thank you, Postoak 01:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First FAC, for archival purposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looks good. I've only done a quick reading. Will give it a more thorough look tomorrow, but I think I will be supporting. Regards, --Jayzel 02:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support The article shines and is well referenced and appropriately cited. Regards, --Jayzel 03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Object
1.Image:Houston grid system.jpg, Image:Houston streets 1942.jpg, Image:MainStreetHouston1864.jpg have no source information.
Fixed Removed images and replaced with PD image. Postoak 05:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. The image Image:Houston City Hall Ariel.jpg is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial license, which is not an acceptable license for Wikipedia.
Fixed Removed image. Looking for a replacement. Postoak 05:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. The image Image:Houston freeway 002.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but is reasonably replaceable and does not contribute significantly to the article. It needs to be removed.
Fixed Removed image Postoak 05:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Carnildo 04:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm moving to Houston in the next two weeks, so this article was of particular interest to me, but I do have several concerns.

  • The intro feels very choppy with little natural transition in the LEAD.
  • The history reads like a series of evens "In XXXX this happened" and "By XXXX this happened." There are 3 consecutive setences begining with the word "By."
Changed that instance. Ufwuct 15:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MD Anderson should be wikilinked---if there isn't an article on them, there should be, they are one of the countries premier medical facilities for cancer. (Create the link, you don't have to create the article.)
It appears to be wikilinked already at Houston, Texas#Healthcare and medicine. Ufwuct 05:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal preference, I'd like to see the history section broken into subgroups that are more digestable. But that isn't required.
The history section was in subgroups for (I think) over a year. It was only very recently changed to one large section and this was because of comments from a peer review that suggested we have one large history section. Ufwuct 15:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tends to feel still" unencyclopedic.
Reworded by User:Ufwuct
  • "Temperature peaks at 94"--So it never goes above 94? That isn't even true in Denver.
Changed to reflect that the average peaks at 94. Ufwuct 15:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Afternoon rains are common and for most summer days, Houston meteorologists predict at least some chance of rain." Huh? Needs a citation and rewording.
Reworded as general statement that would be true for most humid subtropical climates in the world. Ufwuct 15:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Government and politics section needs citations.
Added several refs to this section. Removed several unsourced or vaguely sourced sentences. Ufwuct 15:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only 28 nations other than the United States have a GDP exceeding Houston's GAP" get rid fo the US reference... makes it wordy.
Reworded: 29 nations total. Ufwuct 15:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demographics section needs to be cited... I also don't like the GR citations, but don't know if they are acceptable or not.
Other featured U.S. cities articles include Boston, Massachusetts, Cleveland, Ohio, Louisville, Kentucky, Marshall, Texas, San Francisco, California, San Jose, California, and Seattle, Washington. The featured versions of these articles (Boston(Current version)ClevelandLouisvilleMarshallSan JoseSeattle(used U.S. Census Bureau but currently uses GR2)) all used GR2, except for San Francisco, which uses less accurate population estimates from a state agency instead of the U.S. Census Bureau. So, I'm fairly certain that GR citations are acceptable. Ufwuct 00:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed a duplicate sentence and cleaned up a few of the other sentences. Ufwuct 01:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reordered (and reworded) the sentences into a semi-chronological order. Ufwuct 01:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This objection apparently has been resolved. This article has numerous references. 128.249.204.216 23:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's just not true, I didn't even get past the first para without finding "The Port of Houston ranks first in the country in international cargo and second in total cargo tonnage. Second only to New York City in Fortune 500 headquarters, Houston is the seat of the Texas Medical Center, which contains the world's largest concentration of research and healthcare institutions.

", all uncited. Those should be easily citable facts right there - PocklingtonDan 22:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references are in the body of the article. Postoak 03:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OBJECT: Too many one/two sentence paragraphs, stubby subsections, writing often reads like a dull recitation of statistics (even stats can be made into compelling prose). History section is decent, but even that could use quite a bit of tweaking. Uneven writing means it ain't "well-written". Could use a few more facts being cited. —ExplorerCDT 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article is well-organized and well-written. Contrary to complaints, the article has 93 references - versus 63 for today's feature ad, ahem article, Half-Life 2. That doesn't include the countless Wikilinks to detailed, informative articles about area landmarks and history, which contribute greatly to the value of this entry. Mike Serfas 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have no problem with 93 references as long as there are only 93 facts asserted. The issue remains that there are numerous facts asserted without required referencing. It's not merely a matter of quantity. It's that all facts asserted are cited, and verifiable (per WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:V). Until facts that are currently uncited are cited, there's no reason to claim well: "it already has 93, more than article x, so that must mean that's plenty.". —ExplorerCDT 21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm honestly not sure to what standard this article is being held. Looking up at the other U.S. city featured articles (see above), Houston now (with 96) has more footnotes than any one of those other articles. Cleveland had very few in comparison its featured version. The featured version of Seattle has NO inline references, though it does have 7 external links embedded in the text.
If each sentence in a Wikipedia article can be thought of as an assertion, and every assertion must have a footnote-type source, then every article on Wikipedia (including all featured articles) miserably falls short of this standard. Even it is narrowed down to only sentences with numbers, percentages, or dates, or to strongly worded sentences, I would still venture to guess that no article on Wikipedia lives up to this standard. The featured version of the Cleveland article surely has more than 19 assertions and the featured version of the Seattle article has more than 7 sentences.
Basically, some facts have to be accepted as coming from the book sources, from non-linkable sources, or daughter articles. Otherwise, every sentence would end up having a ref after it, which would be unnecessary and distracting. I now think that this item (of sourcing) has become a strong point of this article. If the quality of the prose is lacking, that's a different issue, and maybe that should now be the focus of further improvements. Ufwuct 22:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up, note that the featured article criterion 1(c) requires that the article be "factually accurate". The article must be verifiable against reliable sources. This does not mean that an hyperlinked reference is required for every sentence. In fact, no reference need be given at all - provided the material is accurate! It's a little bit paradoxical, but that appears to be the policy. To raise an objection you must actually point to something that is not factually accurate. Mike Serfas 00:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything except "common knowledge" requires a source. Any claim that doesn't have a source is liable to be deleted although it is common practice and wikiquette to request a source, (possibly) mention it on the talk page, wait, wait some more, and then delete it (or move the claim to the talk page). However, I would like to again emphasize my question: To what standard is this article being held? There is no requirement for featured articles to be perfect. In fact, one of, if not the main reason that the main page featured articles are not protected or semi-protected (despite heavy vandalism) is that even featured articles need to be improved. Featured articles often are improved based on this main page exposure and were therefore not perfect to begin with. Ufwuct 01:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Held up to each reviewer's interpretation of the criteria given their reasons, connotations, associations, and understanding of wikipedia policies and guidelines. FA status, as it stands now, demands a better article. Not perfect, but it does, superlatively, have to be the "best" work Wikipedia has to offer. The above aren't suggestions that the article sucks and is irredeemable (sometimes they are), but in this case, all I'm saying is the article does need a bit more improvement (and citation) before I will switch my objection to support. Lastly, several FA articles from 2004/2005 don't meet today's standards so comparisons of "well, this article is like this other article" are sometimes specious...considering the other article probably should be put up for FA Review given it's only here until someone notices how it doesn't match the current criteria.—ExplorerCDT 02:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I watched this article grow for years and I find that it is currently of excellent quality. It has dramatically improved since its last FAC, and many fine Wikipedians have worked on it over the years. I do not find the reference assertion to be neither practical nor practicable. I pulled out several books, including Gone to Texas, by Randolph B. Campbell, considered the current definitive history of Texas, by scholars of Texas history. In it and the other texts that I reviewed, I did not find that every assertion made in passing is directly referenced neither though footnotes nor endnotes. The fact that it has more than references than any other city FA, eliminates any lingering concerns that I might have had. I find that most of the pictures—if not all of them—are of good quality and illustrate the article well. Since it is not the pictures themselves that are being featured, and technically an FA does not have to have any pictures at all, I see no need to dwell on that point further. GR references were the first broad attempt that wikipedia made at having inline references. They are de facto part of many US geography articles. I don’t see why a discussion about their worth should affect Houston more than say New York or Kalamazoo. I’m not saying that the worth of GRs isn’t worth discussing just that this is not the proper venue for it, nor should the article be penalized for something that all of the other. My only suggestion is that the weather chart be include in the climate section of the main article, as that is information that people want to see up front rather than in a sub article. I find the arguments of the oppostion to be unconvincing and the absence of the weather chart is not enough to change my opinion that the article deserves to be featured. -JCarriker 04:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The prose is not compelling (example: Many of the schools are accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by Texas Private School Accreditation Commission (TEPSAC). ), some of the links in the references are dead already, Further reading contains both External links and References, References are inconsistently formatted (some have last access date, some have retrieved on, some have no date), some refs are blue-linked URLs, and the templates are all over the place (some at top of section, some at bottom - they belong at the top). FAs should represent Wiki's best work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. As others have stated, the prose is less than compelling. Many of the sections are just one fact after another; no good flow. The Politics section is inadequate; an article about a city this size should have info about how Houston's politics affect Texas and the US in general. The article needs to be copyedited by a strong writer. The article makes several claims without citations, such as:
  • (lead section) "Houston is recognized as a global or world city by the Globalization and World Cities Study Group & Network." (I found this citation later buried in the article).
Wikilinked. Ufwuct 00:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (crime) "Since 2005, Houston has been experiencing a spike in crime which is due in part to an influx of people from New Orleans into the city following Hurricane Katrina, according to the Houston Police Department."
There was a reference there before (I remember formatting it), but I guess someone decided to remove it. Ufwuct 00:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is there, a few sentences later, and I've put it after the sentence in question. Ufwuct 00:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Mus Musculus 21:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object this reads like a collaborative effrt that is getting pulled in too many directions - as above, it needs one individual capable of compelling prose to copyedit it in one sitting and sort out the narrative/flow of the article from start to finish in one sitting. This is never going to be achieved with piecemeal collaborative editing. After a really good copyedit, this would be a good article - PocklingtonDan 14:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Okay, I gave the article a copyedit up to tourism and recreation, so if people with prose complaints could take another look and see if it's improving. Points which I couldn't/didn't deal with are:
  • More recently, new higher-density residential development has resulted in an urban lifestyle. The outlying areas of Houston, the airports and the city's suburbs and enclaves are outside the loop. - I'm not sure what the first sentence means, so it needs improving. The second appears to be saying that the outlying areas are on the outside, which is slightly odd. Could you make the meaning more explicit please.
You're right. This is a bit fluffy. I don't like the "urban lifestyle" part much. Ufwuct
Revised [User:Postoak|Postoak]]
  • During the summer months, the average daily high temperature peaks at 94 °F (34 °C) at the end of July - messy. Summer months is implied by being in July. I'm not sure what is meant by "average daily high temperature" or exactly how one can peak. Also, should there be a space between 94 and °F (I'm not sure, so that is a question)? Needs tidying.
There should be a space between numbers and their units.
Also, you're right; the two phrases don't appear to belong in the sentence. It should something like:
"During the summer months, it be wicked hot down there (or whatever one would want to say). The average high temperature peaks at 94 °F (34 °C) at the end of July."
var.:"...The hottest time of the year is at the end of July, when the average high temperature is 94 °F (34 °C)."
For each one of the 365 days of the year, there is an average high temperature. The highest that this number gets in Houston is 94. The time at which this occurs is the end of July. This would be the peak. Ufwuct
  • The city of Houston has a strong mayor-council government. - is strong a piece of jargon for the type of government, or an assessment on how well the system works? If the latter, it doesn't need to e repeated in the following sentence (and is, arguably, a tad POV).
It's describing the type of government. If it's confusing, maybe someone with fresh eyes could reword it. Ufwuct
Slightly changed the wikilinks to make it a little clearer Postoak
  • There is a small but growing Muslim community that exists in the city with an estimated population of 50.000. - dunno when this was added, but sort out the ref.
I read the entire thing when I sourced it recently. I don't remember this sentence. Let's take it out. Ufwuct
Removed Postoak 03:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is crime a subsection of Demographics?
Fixed Postoak 03:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Houston has long been the focus of an independent hip-hop music scene, influencing and influenced by the larger Southern hip hop and gangsta rap communities. - needs a cite.
I read the entire thing when I sourced it recently. I don't remember this sentence. We could do without it. Ufwuct
Removed until it is sourced and fits better into the article. Postoak 03:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added the source link from The New Yorker. I think it important to include something about this portion of the music scene in the culture section.Deatonjr 03:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a shame if this wasn't featured, given the obvious amount of work which has gone into it, but it's not quite there yet. Trebor 00:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Ufwuct 01:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuing with the copyedit (up to Healthcare and Medicine), more issues which have come up:

  • and the Angelika Film Center presents the latest in art, foreign and independent films - that needs clarifying, are you talking about "art films" or "art" and "foreign and independent films". If the former, add an "and" after art; if the latter, don't wikilink "independent films" together as it is confusing if it also shows "foreign films".
  • The sentence beginning Other tourist attractions include the Galleria, is also very ambiguous. There are parenthetical commas used within list-based ones, making it unclear which is which.
  • The San Jacinto Battlefield is in the nearby city of Deer Park. - relevance to Houston is unclear.
  • Is the first part of Sports too recentist? Has Houston not hosted events in the past?
  • contributing to an urban renaissance that has transformed Houston's center into a day-and-night destination - I don't like that, it's too flowery and a bit meaningless. Who thinks it's a "day-and-night destination"?
  • Actually, the sport section as a whole needs work. It seems messy to me, focusing on recent events and being inconsistent in the level of detail.
  • its only major daily newspaper with wide distribution - is "major" being used to mean anything other than "wide distribution"; if not, it's redundant.
  • Citation for the circulation of the Post.
  • Sometimes the metric units are stated in brackets, sometimes not; is there a reason for the inconsistency?
  • The sentence beginning The third-largest airport... and the one after it both contain "primarily". Could one of them be changed? I'm not sure what is meant by primarily in this context, otherwise I would make the change myself.

The second bit I've read on the whole seems weaker. And a quick comment on the refs: be consistent with how your phrase the accessdates. I think the best way is to begin a new sentence and say "Retrieved on Month day, Year". At the moment they're a mess of "last accessed", "last retrieved", "last retrived on" etc., with different phrasing and capitalisation. It's a small thing but it looks a bit messy if you don't do it. Trebor 00:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finished off looking through the article and the only other thing I found was mentioned by Sandy above: Many of the schools are accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by Texas Private School Accreditation Commission (TEPSAC). is a horrible sentence, but I'm not quite sure how to tidy it up. Perhaps once you've dealt with my comments, you might like to ask those opposing for prose to take another look (not trying to big up my own skills, but I'd be interested to see what faults remain). Trebor 15:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object This article needs quite a bit of copyedit work done to be FA.
Isn't Rice University, an extremely prestigious research institute with the academic reputation of being the most grueling undergraduate university in the US located in Houston? It's also a major part of the reason for Houson being able to capture biotech and being a leading medical reserach city. This deserves a space in the lead.
The lead section needs to introduce Houston to the world, not to Americans living in the good ole USA.
"The Port of Houston ranks first in the country in international cargo and second in total cargo tonnage." In what country? The audience is English speakers, not Americans. In international cargo shipped, in total cargo tonnage that goes through a port, what?
A large part of "the world's largest concentration of research and healthcare institutions" is ye ole prestitigous university sitting nearby.
Who are the "Globalization and World Cities Study Group & Network?" I hate reading an article in a general encyclopedia that mentions some supposedly prestigious institution that I've never heard of.

""where its Mission Control Center is located" We all know whose it is, but again, let's be clear, as it is also a generic term. Also, is it still active, is it used for shuttle flights, can we assume we're not talking to only those in the know?

I think this article really overdoes the -- and ; for my taste. Simple sentences are not an enemy of good prose.
When did Houston gain the nickname "Space City?"
The paragraph that begins "Lawlessness, epidemics, and financial problems ..." Is all over the place. It looks like 20 people mad-libbed a sentence each then pasted it together. What epidemics? What lawlessness? You start with "lawlessness" then go onto settlers from the South and the plantation system. Were they lawless? "Slaves lived scattered," sounds like people dispersed their slaves throughout Houston to hide them or something. What are you trying to say? Slaves were kept, "lived" sounds like they chose or were just dispersed. Throughout what "neighborhoods?" Were their established neighborhoods in early Houston, mention something about them. What does slavery have to do with lawlessness, epidemics, and financial problems? It could have something to do with the latter if you stated that Texas and Houston endorsed the economics of the slavery-plantation system. "Texas interior," not "Texas inland." Place Galveston in its geographical relationship to Houston, also as you've called Houston a port city, but mention rail lines went to other ports, spell it out: Houston was not a port city at this time, so shipping was out of nearby Galveston and Beaumont Texas or whatever the specific case was.
"Spindletop" is an oil field, a very famous one. If your mom was an exploration petroleum geologist it leaps out at you, but not for most people. Either just oil in a salt dome oil field near Beaumont, or Spindletop, an oil field near Beaumont or something. Not just for Americans, but not just for the oil patch, either. Also, whose oil industry, seems like you're talking about the Houston or Texas oil industry, but wasn't it a rather bigger oil industry that began when Spindletop gushed in?
Don't like the wording on the Galveston sentence about the hurricane.
Was air travel common in the 1930s?
"World War II started, tonnage levels fell," tonnage levels of what where? Tonnage levels through the port? Was five shipping lines significant? Were there 11 total or 129?
Houston's base ecosystem is more diverse than just prairie, aren't there wetlands? Did the city spread and build only on prairie? Is it shortgrass prairie in Houston (own curiosity)?
Did they only train bombardiers there, not pilots or any other part of the crew? I suppose bombardiers could be trained separately, just like pilots are, but I don't know?
Did aircraft and shipbuilding become large industries statewide, or was shipbuilding confined to the Gulf Coast of Texas?
The "Eighth Wonder of the World" nickname comment is kinda taken out of relevancy by the sentence saying it was no big deal. If it ain't a big deal, delete it.
So folks moved to Houston due to the Arab Oil Embargo? (Oh, you say "ad" here where you mean to say "and.") Why? Because of jobs in the oil industry? Then spell it out, this neatly ties it in with the collapse.
Say when the "Space Shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after launch," or something. It's colloquial as is.
Don't like the wording on the sentences about the recession, clean it up, make it flow.
Houston is reducing its dependence on petroleum or the petroleum industry? Since you're talking about the aerospace industry and biotech, I assume you mean petroleum industry.
Mention why so many folks were evacuated to Houston from New Orleans--not until I did the drive did I realize those two cities were anywhere near each other. It still surprises me, but don't assume the audience knows that.

:"leaving little damage to the Houston area" is sufficient. Postoak

How does flatness relate to flooding? My friends live on a flat plateau in the Rockies, so flat that the USGS does research their on its flatness, but there is no danger of flooding whatsoever. Add extensive wetlands and a spring melt, maybe they would get flooded. You need a relationship between the flatness, the elevation, and Houston's wetlands.
What's "the Heights?" "runs through the Heights, a neighborhood in northern Houston," or whereever it is. You do this better in the rest of the paragraph. Postoak 03:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't layers series of sands and clays "deposited on decaying organic matter," but rather organic matter trapped in deltaic depositions of some nature. Don't use "tier" as a synonym for depositional layers, as it isn't. Be careful in general about supplying your own synonyms for scientific terms. Maybe this is a petroleum term I don't know, but I do know it's a soil science term used in Canada, so unless you're certain, don't use it. This paragraph needs some work.
Also, you have Cityscape in the middle of Geography/Geology/Cityscape/Climate, and it should be Geography/Climate/Geology/Cityscape, but the latter last.
So, Houston's grown in a different manner from what? From other US cities, other major US cities most of which have organized growth under zoning laws? "Five additional business districts in addition to the downtown business district," for a total of six?

:Are the deserts of Mexico really south and southeast of Houston?

fixed Postoak 01:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this format for Wiki dates, 2000 September 4? Shouldn't it be on September 4, 2000 in prose? Postoak 01:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Christmas Eve snow is not really relevant. Postoak 01:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:"strong mayoral form of municipal government"

fixed Postoak 00:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use nicknames, it should be "William White" or "William Middlename White."
He is known as Bill White - How about William "Bill" White? Postoak 00:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably appropriate in this case, as is usuall done with Jimmy Carter. Anyone else have any say-so? KP Botany 02:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The current city council line-up was based on a U.S. Justice Department nadate which took effect in 1979?" REally? But you just said they only have two year terms. Oh, wait no term limits. Or do you meaqn the method of at large and district council members, not their line-up? A line-up is people, not their seats.
How does Houston having home rule tie in with municipal elections in the state of Texas being nonpartisan? This latter point makes it sound like Houston doesn't have home rule, or has it only in other areas than form of municipal elections, which doesn't sound like home rule to me.
Paragraph beginning "Houston's energy industry" is all over the place. Oh, those "--" just make for poor prose. Can you say it without them? Is Houston known for any type of energy besides petroleum? Don't say "first in the country," unless you've just mentioned US, this is an international encyclopedia.
What is GAP's relationship to GDP? It's not obvious.
Revised, please see article Postoak 03:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Houston's ranking as metro area, in the world, or in the USA? Forbes? You mean Forbes magazine or what?
clarified Postoak 03:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it 5.31% Asian or Asian American? Since Houston has a large Vietnamese immigration population, it's not clear.
The paragraph on Hispanics and illegals is just all over the place, please be very clear that there is a large illegal Hispanic population and a large resident Hispanic population and just whom you are speaking about when. How is the Mexican population sorted, Hispanics and non? I don't really understand what is being said here.
Instead of "The following year" say "In 2006" and "like other large cities," "like other large American cities," or are you talking world cities? No need to name the largest gang, unless it started in Houston, or is found only in Houston, then need contextual statement.
Add reference to first word spoken on moon.
At "Reliant Park, in whateverpartofHouston." Put the Houston Pride Parade in context, is it the biggest parade, how long Houston has had it. If it's not the biggest, or longest running, substitute the biggest or longest running parade.

:Is the city "host to local folk art?" Usually you don't host the locals but the out-of-towners. The city is "home to a folk artists" or something.

ok Postoak 01:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Exhibitions, like "auto, boat, home, and gun shows" are NOT art!:

I agree..removed Postoak 00:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any country music or classical in Houston, or just hip-hop, any tejano even?

:Include year in Super Bowl XXXVIII, plus also NFL's Super Bowl. Is the Shell Houston Open golf or what?

fixed Postoak 00:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Which San Jose? fixed Postoak 00:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:What plays at Hofheinz Pavilioni, etc., are these the homes of teams, or just general use municipal stadiums? Ah, Rice, world famous Rice gets mentioned finally.

Fixed Postoak 00:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Does this free alternative weekly really have a daily circulation count or a weekly? It's a fairly wealthy weekly if it can count daily.

Fixed Postoak 00:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:You've dropped a sentence, or maybe I did: "Several radio and television... are in" and then nothing.

Fixed Postoak 00:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KP Botany 20:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your valuable input. Postoak 21:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let's give this article a little more time as a FAC to pull it together. It's not ready now, but most of these criticisms aren't issues that will take additional substantive research, just a lot of picking. KP Botany 18:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:11, 11 February 2007.

Social Distortion

[edit]

I'm adding Social D to the featured article candidacy list because I think a lot of work in this article, done in the past few months, days or weeks, has turned out to be OK. I do think it definitely deserves FA status. Alex 00:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • White Light, White Heat, White Oppose. Love the band, love the importance, but the article has way too few inline cites. Needs a lot more work if it's going to be considered a featured article. Suggest withdrawing the nomination and get some sources, preferably from books and magazines, and try out a peer review. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object No fair use rationales, trivia section, gallery of album covers, and I think the line-up table is broken. ShadowHalo 04:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object To add to the above, the influences section has no references, one sentence paragraphs, solo years are wiki-linked and the whole article is under sourced (7 inline references). M3tal H3ad 06:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per ShadowHalo and M3talk H3ad. Article needs a lot of work to meet FA criteria.
  • Object
  • "They are (along with Minor Threat, Black Flag, Dead Kennedys, Bad Religion, and many others) often credited as one of the leading bands of the 1980s' punk revival." This line seems weasely. Who credits them with that? Can we find a source?
  • Just looking through quickly, I found a few minor errors (such as lack of spaces between words, etc.) which I fixed, though there are most likely some that I missed.
  • It seems odd that the section on their mainsteam success would be shorter than the section on their "Early career and first hiatus". Besides this, each of those sections only have one source for their entire length.
  • In partiular, the line "...Dennis was moved to rhythm guitar, Brent Liles (died, 01/18/07 in truck/bicycle accident) who was also with The Band Easter was brought in to play bass..." should be fixed. A sorce should be quoted, and the parenthesis should be reformatted Webster100 16:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
← ANAS Talk? 11:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:11, 11 February 2007.

Gordon B. Hinckley

[edit]

I have nominated this article for FA is it is well written, very long, with Citations, full detail, very advanced, with quality images in it. Also being very intresting on the president of the church of Latter day Saints. It is also a spoken article for Wikipedia. I don't know why this article hasn't been nominated yet. Retiono Virginian 14:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones?jj 18:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for above, for numerous issues with the prose (stubby list-like paragraphs for the main part of "Life", large overuse of "also" and "additionally", wikilinked single years, etc.) and comprehensiveness (only two real sections: "Life" (should that be "Biography"?) and "Awards"). Trebor 15:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Needs a thorough copy edit. Examples only:
  • Born in Salt Lake City, Utah, Hinckley completed high school there in 1928. - A bit clunky. Maybe try something like - Hinckley was born in Salt Lake City, Utah, where he graduated from high school in 1928.
  • He served in the British mission headquartered in London in 1933. He started in... Consecutive sentences beginning with "He" - reduces flow.
  • but for most of his mission worked in the mission office - "Mission" is used twice in one sentence.
  • Hinckley returned to the United States in 1935 after having completed - "after" is redundant.
  • preaching the gospel in both Berlin and Paris. - ditto "both"
  • Out of this meeting - From this meeting. + Ceoil 20:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:11, 11 February 2007.

Pirate Party

[edit]

Well written article on the topic of political parties. Containing a well referenced body and factual substance regarding the associated subject that is interesting for a reader. Lord Metroid 00:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm not going to go either way on this one since I'm not a FA expert, but it seems to me that you need more inline citations verifying various sections of this article, especially the history section. As it stands, much of what is claimed appears to be unverified. JHMM13 (T | C) 01:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nice start, but going from AfD to FAC in a month, without a peer review, is amibitious. External link farm should be pruned; lacking citations (some examples only - The web server received a million hits on its first day of operation, two million the next. and Less than 24 hours after the opening of the website, the party had collected over 2,000 signatures (2,268 at 16.05 CEST). ) This is not a reliable source (Active country sections on Pirate Party International forums), and foreign language sources should be identified with the appropriate language icon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as undercited; there's only one reference in the whole of "History and founding" (which could, incidentally, probably be shortened to "History"). Trebor 12:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted

What It's Like Being Alone

[edit]

Partial self-nom. Yes, it's short; but it's comprehensive for a CBC show that bombed. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
    • "Indeed, these ratings were considered to reflect a generally poor performance of CBC programming in 2006." -- Article as a whole seems well referenced, but that's certainly a sentence in need of a reference!
    • The Characters section does not read like a dispassionate, encyclopedic entry.
    • "finds any way out blocked by a lake monster and a dangerous forest, among other things." ... begs the question, what else?
    • Quite a few red links. Mark83 19:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The introduction is meant to summarize the article and does not need references since the rest of the article will expand upon its ideas- the ratings reflecting generally poor ratings is covered below under reception and has two references. I'm not sure if the character section having some livelihood makes it unencyclopedic; it reflects what happens in the show, and doesn't contain any original research. Additionally, do we need all the details as to what else? 24.64.165.149 20:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • All good comments. I saw that reference later down and considered adding it to the intro using <refname>, but thought it was better to leave it as a comment here and let someone who knew more about the subject decide. By livelihood do you mean it doesn't matter that there's slight informality? That may be so, some of the words and phrases used just struck me as too informal. And sure, summary style suggests not every triviality should be listed, and maybe this is indeed trivia. Mark83 20:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two of the redlinks were accounted for by the use of "Peter" for a person who did already have an article, albeit at "Pete". That's been corrected with a redirect. Bearcat 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Overall the writing just feels choppy and not ready for FA status. I have several comments: "Indeed, these ratings were considered to reflect a generally poor performance of CBC programming in 2006." Indeed shouldnt be there, the opening only breifly mentioned CBC and indeed requires the audience to know more than it does. Could you elaborate on this statement, what other shows were failures during this time? This could be its own section.

Secondly, I would consider seperating the Story section into two section. One section would be a backround on the season/show and the second part would be a summary of the episodes. As it is now, its hard to read.

Thirdly, "One CBC critic commented that What It's Being Alone has "arguably the most surreal opening sequence in TV history" Which CBC critic? I wouldn't say that this is weaseal words, but context would be nice.

Fourthly, put the ratings into some context. I see that they are bad. How bad? Whats the average rating in a time slot like that on a channel like that in Canada. I have no clue.

Why don't you request a peer-review? I think that the article would be greatly helped by it. Warhol13 23:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought I'd be doing some work on it during this. Anyway, I've given some other shows that have flopped at the time, but the sources don't say what the average is and digging it up would be original research; the fact that the ratings are bad is referenced. I'm kind of surprised by the weasel words comment and the reference was there but the article doesn't become more confusing in naming the critic. I've also tried merging a few sentences for flow; and I've subsectioned the plot section. The first part wasn't so much "background" as it was the pilot. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as my fourth point goes, I meant what are the ratings of the other shows on national tv during that timeslot. Or what was the rating of a show in a similar timeslot on that channel a few years ago. I didn't mean that you try to figure out for yourself what the ratings should be. Also, it wasn't weasel words because you cited a source. When I read that section I just want to feel like I am reading a few respected critics from respected newspapers and not "one cbc critic". I don't know how you feel about my second suggestion, though. I think you should have an episode list, with the name of each episode in bold, and possibly a overview of the plot synopsis for the show on the whole. Combining the two just reads funny IMO. Thanks. Warhol13 00:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wary of putting in another list- this isn't WP:FLC- and originally the titles were bolded but that made the article look messy, so I settled on italics. Anyway, I tried restructuring the plot section. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Too unprofessional a topic to be featured. Media-related articles don't exist in normal encyclopedias; retaining an article (also unwise) is one thing, but featuring it only encourages further abuse and gaming of the system. Altogether the wrong focus of what should be presented as the pinnacle of achievement, for an encyclopedia. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose doesn't cite anything actionable; being featured is about the quality of the article, not the topic. Trebor 23:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:
    • Passive voice sentences to not identify subjects properly, such as "These ratings were considered to reflect a generally poor performance of CBC programming in 2006." "The style of animation was chosen due to Peyton's personal interest in it." "Additionally, some animation was done through computers." "The airing of the series had been stalled for a year, perhaps due to difficulties within the CBC."
    • The lists of characters and episodes compose too much of the article - half the article is a list and not an article.
    • Is the show canceled? I can't find where, why, or who.
    • Need much more substantial information on production methods and technology to be comprehensive. --Mus Musculus 14:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're asking for a bit of information that does not exist; and the episodes section is not written as a list. The article is clear that the show is cancelled- "The final episode, 'Silver Screen Lucy' or 'The Sweet Stink of Success,'" "On September 18, the series finale had only 163,000 viewers." Moreover, other TV series FAs have character lists- Arrested Development (TV series) for example. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, to be fair, if the information isn't accessible, then it's not possible to be comprehensive enough for FA status. The article may seem clear to you, but I'd rather see a concise section detailing the cancellation, the circumstances, who made the decision, etc. Again, if that information is not available, you do not have a comprehensive article. Many readers skim articles for information - if one were looking for that information, it is difficult to locate at a cursory glance. As for the character list, I do not weigh FA candidates against other FA's. I weigh them against the criteria listed here. Thanks for your response! --Mus Musculus 15:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • IMO, the theory that any article can be a FA dictates that the article can be considered comprehensive if you've covered the published, notable commentary. I don't think WP:OR would be justified for a more "comprehensive" feel. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Where is that theory published? I don't agree with it. I'm looking at the criteria at WP:WIAFA. It lists "comprehensive" as a criterion, and defines it as "the article does not neglect major facts and details." There is no disclaimer of "unless you can't find it." In my opinion, in-depth production information including technical details, and circumstantial details of the show's cancellation are "major facts and details" per the criteria. I definitely wasn't suggesting you violate WP:OR, I was just suggesting that if the information is not available, the article isn't appropriate for FA. --Mus Musculus 15:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • This has been debated countless times, including right above you: The topic doesn't preclude an article from FA status, and in this case the topic's obscurity is preventing books and journal articles. Here's another diff- [7] - if it can have an article, it's eligible. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well... that is a different argument. I'm not saying your topic can't be an FA - I'm saying it isn't currently. If someone has said everything there is to say about a topic, and it's still short, then it could be an FA. My point is that you haven't said everything there is to say. That you can't find sources is inconsequential. The person above me was claiming that your topic is unprofessional, which is completely different from my claim that the article is not comprehensive. What it boils down to is this: When one can say about an article, "I have said everything there is to say" then it can be an FA assuming it meets the other criteria. If one can only say, "I have said everything I can find sources for." then you don't have a comprehensive article, and thus, you don't have an FA. Make sense? --Mus Musculus 15:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Right now, I have good access to sources, including Canadian newspapers as you can see from the article, all of which I added, as well as access to journals and whatnot, and the Internet (obviously), so I don't think you can cast me as the guy who can't find sources and never bothered to look. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nay, that wasn't my intention at all. In fact, I commend your research on the topic. But do you concede my point that even if the information simply isn't available online, said information may still need to be in the article, and if it isn't, the article isn't comprehensive? Let me use another example. Say I decide to write an article on a notable hockey player. All I can find are his stats, and maybe his trade history. I know that he has a whole biography that I can't find anywhere online, but I have stated and sourced everything I can find - his stats and his trades. I write about those things brilliantly. Do I have an FA, even though his article is not effectively comprehensive per WP:WIAFA? --Mus Musculus 16:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've missed my point; my access to sources is good enough that there is a high probability that the main points are covered; I think you'd need to point to specific source material to show that info's missing. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I've just added some production information (not sure you'll be happy though) from an already-listed source. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I appreciate the addition. Have you considered my other suggestions re: use of passive voice and possibly adding a subsection entitled "Cancellation" that summarizes the circumstances? --Mus Musculus 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've tried to highlight the cancellation in the intro although the infobox makes it clear. But I can't give you a subsection. I wasn't sitting in on the meeting where the execs chose not to buy another season. I can't speculate why there wasn't another season, although the reader will have imagined it was because of the ratings. As for passive sentences, I've adjusted a few (and generally set out to avoid them in the first place) but there I some sentences you point out that I actually don't agree are passive. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:39, 3 February 2007.

Military history of Pakistan

[edit]

I have nominated this article since it seems to fullfil all the criteria of a Featured article. It seems to NPOV though there might a few statements which need rectification. The article also has a large number of references(31). It gives a complete and comprehensive idea of the military history of Pakistan. Gambit 321 06:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object - fails 1c, and uses weasle words. With just a quick glance, I found glaring examples of text that should be cited/attributed. One example only:
  • Pakistan used American weaponry to fight the Afghan incursions but the weaponry had been sold under the pretext of fighting Communism and the USA was not pleased with this development, as the Soviets now became the chief benefactor to Afghanistan. Some sections of the American press blamed Pakistan for driving Afghanistan into the Soviet camp.
  • I also find the word "famous" unencyclopedic - prefer notable. It would also be helpful if you would shorten your book references - all info need not be repeated in each footnote - see Battle of Ceresole. I also have 1a and 1b concerns; an example is the single, short paragraph in the section "Yemeni civil war". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject - Although this article is quite interesting, and although Pakistan, its military forces, and the history of both are extremely important to our world, I must write that this article is poorly written. I wrote a first draft of this commentary that pointed out the errors in the third paragraph of the introduction; however, my list of errors became so long that I decided to omit it. Also, the article contains many uncommon words and phrases that need to be linked to appropriate Wikipedia articles.

Here follows a suggestion of how the current article's third paragraph could be rewritten to conform with standard English-language usage. I quote the current text, and follow it with a possible revision that repairs the grammar and faulty structure.

The Military was created in 1947 and was staffed with veteran officers and personnel who had fought in World War I and World War II. It was also given units who have had a long and cherished history during the British Raj such as the Khyber Rifles. Since independence, the military has fought three major wars with India and numerous border skirmishes with Afghanistan. It has also fought a limited conflict at Kargil with India after acquiring nuclear capabilities. After 9/11, the military is engaged in a protracted low intensity conflict along its western border with Afghanistan with the Pushtun tribesmen.

Pakistan's military forces were created in 1947, and were staffed with veteran officers and personnel who had fought in World War I and World War II. Some units, such as the Khyber Rifles, have long and cherished histories dating as far back as the British Raj. Since Pakistan's independence, its military has fought three major wars with India and numerous border skirmishes with Afghanistan. In the 1990's Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons; since then, conflicts with neighboring India (which also possesses nuclear weapons) have been of grave concern. Subsequent to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, Pakistan's participation in the War on Terror has resulted in a protracted, low-intensity conflict against Pushtun tribesmen along Pakistan's western border with Afghanistan.

Note that this is only a suggestion that addresses possible corrections to faulty grammar and sentence structure; my proposed paragraph has its own faults, and is only presented as an example of possible mechanical repairs.

GrouchyDan 05:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not Ready Yet - I have done general copy-edit for style & should have opened another window for comments here, but, from memory:
No reason given for first coup
In general political interface of military, which can hardly be ignored, not well explained or covered at most periods.
famous units - famous not the best word - dates please.
not enough on ISI/army relations
not enough on where troops recruited from, how much paid, no National Service/conscription & general social issues. Are army units mostly regionally based (ie from same region)?
Possibly a bit too much on the glacier, expensive though it is.
Current position - who supplied current arms - quick overview needed.

I have made some changes to part of the para Grouchy Dan rewrote above - his changes to 2nd part probably needed also. I did not really look at the citations. Johnbod 02:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:39, 3 February 2007.

Dundee United F.C.

[edit]

This article has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria and could be worthy as a featured article, particularly to those interested in football and sport. Fedgin | Talk 09:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object Most of the way there, but still has some rough edges.

  • Facts mentioned in the lead should also be mentioned in the relevant sections of the main article.
  • What critieria for incusion are used for the list of notable past players?
  • Lack of images - while images are not obligatory to pass FAC, it should be simple enough to create at least one free-use image, such as a picture of Tannadice. The fair-use Euro 2008 logo should not be used in this article, as Euro 2008 is not the subject of the article.
  • What is the origin of the nickname Terrors?
  • When did Dundee Hibernian join the Scottish Football League? In what year did the club first reach the top division?
  • There are a few too many one or two sentence paragraphs, which should be merged or expanded.
  • A few things require citations, including
    • Dundee F.C. protesting the use of the name Dundee City
    • The significance of the Scandinavian players of the 1960s
    • Being the first Scottish club to reach the UEFA Cup final
    • Uniqueness of their record against F.C. Barcelona
    • Newspaper headlines following the FA Cup win
    • Being the only club promoted to the Scottish Premier League by a playoff
    • The proximity of Tannadice to Dens Park.

Oldelpaso 20:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ack, I missed the PR for this one, as did everyone else it seems. Anyway, object.
    • Everything Oldelpaso said.
    • I'll re-emphasise the need for freely-licenced images of the team or the stadium, this is the biggest sticking point.
    • The italicised comment at the top of the "Colours and badge" section (The jerseys below are meant to reflect either a change in colour or prominent design. Please see the discussion page for more on this.) should not be there - articles should never refer to their own talk pages.
    • List of supporters should be deleted, consensus is they are of little merit in articles.
    • List of managers should be ideally be given tenures, statistics for the matches, as in e.g. Arsenal F.C.#Managers. If, as I fear, it gets too long it should be moved into a separate article and only the most significant managers in the club's history listed.
    • Succession boxes for trophies should be removed - can you imagine if this was done for every trophy in every article? Too much of a waste of space.
    • All managers and players should be wikified, not just ones with existing articles. If there are too many red links in the article from wikifying, then create articles for them.
    • Records should be better formatted, and could even be split off into a new page. e.g. Arsenal F.C. records. Qwghlm 21:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection. Agree with Oldelpaso. The writing could use a copyedit. Several paragraphs are in bad form, comprised only of two sentences. Repeated use of whilst is archaic usage and should be changed to more modern usage. I would prefer if the "Achievements" section were turned prose rather than be a list. This isn't a bullet point on a resume. Elaborate on these "achievements." While not absolutely necessary, it would be nice to have some real images other than .gifs of the uniform. —ExplorerCDT 09:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:51, 3 February 2007.

Tenacious D

[edit]
Previous FAC

Self Nomination

I am renominating Tenacious for FA status for the following reasons:

  • I accepted all the comments of from the last nominations, and implemented all the suggestions provided.
  • This article has been through a peer review, with all considerations dealt with.
  • As far as length is concerned, this can be accounted for by the fact that Tenacious D have been together since 1994 but only released 2 albums.
  • I have consulted the Featured article criteria:
    • The writing is concise, and compelling
    • No major facts are neglected
    • I have ensured that all assertions are backed up with verifiable sources; like in the case of describing Tenacious D as being pro cannabis legalisation
    • I have achieved neutrality (I hope) by documenting the critical response to Tenacious D, in that, the consensus amongst critics looking at the first album Tenacious D and the second The Pick of Destiny was somewhat negative. I also made sure the fact that Tenacious D in: The Pick of Destiny did not do well at the box office was well documented.
    • Tenacious D is stable, I as of yet have not been involved in any edit wars, and I have not witnessed any.
    • The lead section is an informative, but not overly bulky, introduction.

I would like all respondents to this nomination, to distance themselves from their attitude towards Tenacious D, and focus on the article. If you do not think this is worthy for FA status, please explain why and I will try to make the relevant changes.

Tenacious D Fans (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. No the objections from the last FAC haven't been fixed. There are still stubby sections and paragraphs; there are still comparisons to other bands in the lead that aren't substantiated later on; there are still images without detailed fair use rationales. Trebor 17:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is quite choppy. Far too many stub-like sections, "lists" with only one item, very short subheadings that are unnecessary.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

Campaign history of the Roman military‎

[edit]

Reason for nomination: I split the old military history of ancient Rome article into 4 sections - campaign history (covering military campaigns), structural history (covering reforms of the army), political history (covering political changes in its command and use), and technological history (covering weapons development and use over is 1300 years of existence). My aim is to work through these one by one bringing them to featured article status. The first one I have worked on is the Campaign history of the Roman military. It has recently undergone a peer review and I have made several changes, primarily to layout rather tha content, based upon the feedback from this peer review. To my mind the article is FA-ready and so I am self-nominating it as such, but I am happy to incorporate any requested changes. I am happy to answer any and all questions. - PocklingtonDan 14:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Looks really good at first sight! Because I didn't check the whole page thoroughly, I won't support or oppose, but merely comment.
  1. Is it possible to emphasize in the introduction that the page deals only with the Western Roman Empire after the split? Not every reader will be informed about the split and even if they would: the Eastern part is also considered Roman, so it is confusing.
  • The term "Roman Empire" normally does include only the west after the split, the east normally being termed the "byzantine empire", but I will make this clearer in the introduction. updated in lead para now to make this clearer - PocklingtonDan 17:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is at the hands of the Gallic Celts that Rome suffered a humiliating defeat that temporarily set back its advance and was to imprint itself upon the Roman consciousness. reads a bit narrative and unnecessary imo.
  • Not sure I see a problem with that sentence, can you suggest an alternative?I was trying to build some narrative in to tie the sections together better and prevent the article appearing stubby - PocklingtonDan 17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is it possible to add more specific campaign info (the used strategies, the generals in command, the assumptions made, specifics of troops: infantry, cavalry, etc?) if they aren't (yet?) specific battles wiki-battlepages. E.g., How were the Celts driven off or bought off? Especially the "driven-off" seems to be an important part, as it includes campaigns/battles.
  • If I go into too much detail in every section the article will get far to lengthy - the idea is to cover every campaign briefly, and then the campaignboxes to the right provide links to more detailed articles on each campaign and battle. I'd really rather not have the article try and incorporate that kind of detail, with 1300 years of battles to cover there just isn't room for it at this level - PocklingtonDan 17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it possible to add in a line (or two) when Rome created legions. They are first mentioned in the Pyrrhic War - a bit out of the blue.
  • I'd rather not cover that, since that is the job of the companion article "Structural history of...". Instead I will try and parse the article and replace legion -> army. Especially given how "legion" meant so many different times during different periods, I think its use at all here is probably confusing, and should remains in the companion "Strucutral history of..." article - done now - PocklingtonDan 17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The map of the Pyrrhic War can be improved. The geographic names are not in English (I think).
  1. Can it be added in a few words that Pyrrhus campaigned against Carthage - raises questions now.
  • I will look into this now I've added the very briefest of mentions of this now: although technically its not a Roman military campaign I see how it fits into the historical narrative - PocklingtonDan 17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Better remove the use of the term superpower as the meaning of that term does not correspond with the powers of that era. Use instead regional power or major power. Sijo Ripa 17:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed superpower->power, but for the record one of the source reference works on Rome's military is subtitled "Military History of the World's First Superpower", I believe the term does fit - PocklingtonDan 17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me that you might not be understanding this very common form of referencing, similar to the Harvard system, udner which the book title and page number are provided in the reference, and then full details of the work, including author, publisher, date of publication and ISBN number are provided in the bibliography section. This is very common and means that you don't have to cite the publisher details etc over and over again for every single citation. I'm more than a little surprised that you opposed the FA candidacy of the article on this point. Do you withdraw this opposition now that this has been explained? - PocklingtonDan 07:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can you cite a precedent for this? I've never seen it in any work that I've read. Regardless of that, systems of reference should aim at clarity for the reader. In this case, many of the titles are so generic that your reader will not know which author go with which title. "Rise of Rome", "History of Rome", "Fall of the Roman Empire" are part of the titles of several of the items. Make it easier for the reader to know what you're reading. Semperf 13:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • obviously where titles are given they refer to the main title of a work, not subsequent subtitles or only part of the main title. This is not inconsistent with convention. Where two titles might be confused, eg "The Histories", they are differentiated int he footnotes by author also. If you have specific concern that the works of two titles might be confused, let me know and I will correct them. - PocklingtonDan 14:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment References come after punctuation, example it's currently like this [149][150. when it should be .[149][150] FInd a citation for the [citation needed] tag. Try remove weasel words like allege. Make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), defence (B) (American: defense), pretence (B) (American: pretense), organize (A) (British: organise), realize (A) (British: realise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), counter-attack (B) (American: counterattack). Avoid using contractions like wasn't spell it was not. Also remove, merge or expand the very short one-two sentence paragraphs. I also think the article is too big, and the above objection will be ignored as it isn't valid. M3tal H3ad 10:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments:
  • References and punctuation - I was always taught (in the UK) the opposite. Since the language is in British English, is it not permitted for the article punctuation to follow British English convention also? It would seem perverse to use British English spelling and American English punctuation style!
  • Citation - sorted
  • Weasel words - removed
  • Spelling - should now be standardised on British English but American spellings are so common in online materials my brain subconsciously accepts them now so its difficult for me to recognise them. Let me know if I've missed any
  • Contractions - think there was only instance, sorted
  • Article Size - I'm not sure what to do on the article size issue. I know it is large, but I'm not convinced its " too large" (too large for what?) since any contraction of the article would be at the cost of reduced comprehension of the events and an FA criterion is that the article must be "Comprehensive". I have already cut out as many names of non-esential figures etc as possible but its hard to see how to cut it down any further whilst still being able to give an accurate overview of 1300 years of warfare. This is a big topic and if the recent FA Alcibiades (a single individual) can have an (officially "too large") size of 89kb, it doesn't seem unreasonable to have a 112kb article on the military campaigns of an empire over 1300 years. The only official FA criterion regarding size is that "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". I would arguse that the article size was appropriate for the massive scope of of te article, and that I have avoided unecessary details. I will have another go but I doubt I can reduce te article length substantially without simply losing information.
Thanks for your comments, please let me know if there's anything else you find that you think needs fixing PocklingtonDan 11:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only oversight on my part, added now - PocklingtonDan 13:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you judge the "quality" of the reference works but if references to Gibbon, Liddell Hart and Livy aren't good enough for you, I wonder what would be? I have several books that go into great detail on individual battles, wars and events, but since the article aims only to give a brief overview of these, they are redundant and add nothing that the summary works do not, in my opinion - PocklingtonDan 13:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. An article like this is really a long list of details with little analysis of the history (what changed and why?). It is a better Featured List candidate than a Featured Article Candidate. Semperf 13:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
History is "the branch of knowledge dealing with past events", there is no necessity for it to provide analysis of every event. You are correct that there is little analysis, rather the article lays out a chronology with links to individual articles on individual wars, battles etc that one might expect to contain commentary and analysis. As explained above, the "what changed and why" matters will be informed in the sister articles "Structural history of...", "Political history of", and "Technological history of". I think the article's coverage is implicit in its title, ie it covers only campaign history. It is outside the remit of the article to consider the impact of campaign, especially as the article is already being judged as over-long even before the inclusion of this information. There is also no requirement for analysis in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria - PocklingtonDan 14:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Bibliography has quantity, but not quality. Amyot-North is a translation of Plutarch from the 16th century and should not be used except as a link to Plutarch; Chaliand's The Art of War in World History is too general to be useful to a reader (references are for readers who want to do further research); Gibbon became a classic of English literature, but now is too old to be useful as a reference for history; Michael Grant is too general, as are Boris Johnson, Lane Fox, Matyszak; I don't know the Rogers, but any work that calls Rome the world's first superpower (Persia?!) can surely be improved upon; Rolfe is a translation of Sallust and therefore belongs in the primary source column; do Saggs, Trigger, and Wood really have much to offer? Also, lack of consistency in capitalization (either use capitals throughout or not) and naming of authors (Jones?), where sometimes it is full names, sometimes only initials, sometimes before surname, sometimes after. (Matyszak, by the way, is Philip; his friends call him 'Maty') Semperf 14:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is now your fourth oppose vote. As above, please consider consolidating your objections under a single vote.
  • Bibliography quality I'm not aware of anything in WP guidelines that makes pronouncements on the quality of given sources, and I have confidence in the sources that I have used. If you believe that I have cited a fact that is reputed by, in your opinion, more reputable sources, the correct action would be to change "X is so" in the text to "Although A says X, B C D E and F say Y". Your point is academic unless you can cite an example of a cited fact that a more reputable source disagrees with.
  • Lack of consistency with capitals Please feel free to copyedit to correct this or point out any examples you want me to correct
  • Consistency of Authors names in footnotes Are you seriously suggesting the article fail FA nomination because I refer to one author in the references as "LAST NAME, INITIAL" and another as "LAST NAME, FIRST NAME"?? I will change this if you really believe that is an important issue - PocklingtonDan 14:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fine, this is now done - PocklingtonDan 14:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I haven't really focused on this article, but I just noticed that it has a massive number of footnotes for the simple reason that named refs haven't been employed - the footnotes would be FAR more readable if named refs were used consistently throughout to eliminate all the repeats. Also, the article doesn't currently conform with WP:GTL - External links are listed in Sources. Which are they? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes - hadn't been keeping up with named references when adding new cites, done this now. Let me know if I missed any - PocklingtonDan 11:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GTL - I'm not sure quite what you mean by this or how it doesn't comply with layout guidelines, or what you're saying the problem is. Could you expand on this please? - PocklingtonDan 11:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article Size - I have already addressed this issue above. I have read the length guidlines wikilinked above and I think the article broadly complies with them. The hardest guidline given is that articles over 50kb "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". This is not a hard and fast rule (let's not forget that WP guidelines are just that - guidelines to which there are always exceptions, not laws) and I note that it has already been broken by several feature articles including the recent Alcibiades, which is well over this. I think its hard to argue that a single figure of ancient Greece is a topic that "has a topic that justifies the added reading time", but easy to argue this for 1300 years of military history. I do not believe that the article can be significantly reduced whilst still maintaing an authoratitive overview of 1300 years of ROme's military history. Some articles are by their nature bigger than others, even in traditional print encyclopedias. To addres the four concerns with size specifically:
  • technical issues, (e.g. browser limitations, upload speeds, cellular connections, etc.) - this seems a poor reason for reducing article size. The broswer limitations listed are noted in the guidelines as being largely legacy and redundant now and not an issue. Upload speeds, etc are increasing every day on both fixed and portable devices. It seems a shame to butcher an article to meet technical restrictions that are at best rare and may be irrelevant the same time next year due to technical progress anyway.
  • reader issues, (i.e. readability, organization, information saturation, attention spans, etc.) - I think very few people sit and read every word on many of the larger WP articles. The key point here is that article is presenting an overview, which then allows drill-down to more detailed articles on specific sections. I would not expect a casual reader to read throught he whole article in a single sitting, but an interested reader would do so.
  • editor issues, (e.g. talkpage tensions, arguments over trivial contributions) - this does not seem to be an issue with this article.
  • contribution issues, (i.e. articles stop growing significantly once they reach a certain size) - this does not seem to be an issue with this article - PocklingtonDan 11:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/February_2007&oldid=996108809"