Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2013

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Ian Rose 17:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Jean Baptiste Point du Sable

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jeremy (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked on this article on and off for a long time now. I think that it includes all that is known (or at least published) about this fairly enigmatic man, who is often called the founder of Chicago. It has been marked as a good article for two years and has completed a peer review. Jeremy (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-1923, own work). Sources provided (some author info is unknown, but PD-1923 applies). GermanJoe (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Check for doubled periods caused by templates
  • FN67: page?

Review by Rschen7754

[edit]

Placeholder; hoping to review soon. --Rschen7754 23:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite a short article, so it's difficult to know what else to put in the lead; but I'll have a go.—Jeremy (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Preliminary Comments from Ceranthor
Biography
  • A "biography" published in 1953 (see below) helped to popularize the commonly recited claim that he was born in 1745 in Saint-Marc in Saint-Domingue (now Haiti).[13] - see below is not typical within articles I have seen here. Why is biography in quotation marks?
  • Thanks for your review. I've never been happy calling Graham's book a biography, especially as its author acknowledges that it is largely fiction. But when I first came across it it was cited as a biography. Given that the writing style of the book is more akin to a novel, and some libraries file it under fiction, I have changed the descriptor to 'historial novel', —Jeremy (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point du Sable married a Potawatomi woman named Catherine some time in the 1770s, they had a son named Jean and a daughter named Susanne.[14] - comma splice.
  • In a footnote to a poem titled Speech to the Western Indians, (published 1813) Arent DePeyster, - published 1813 bit disrupts the flow of the sentence. It should just be part of the prose, or omitted altogether, since it isn't really important; just a minor detail.
  • I think the date of publication is important: some sources present it as if the footnote were part of the 1779 speech. I have tried to better integrate it into the prose.—Jeremy (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • DePeyster wrote that this poem was a speech that he had made at the Indian village of Abercroche (now Harbor Springs, Michigan) on July 4, 1779.[16] - Not clear whether he refers to DePeyster or du Sable.
  • In August 1779, Point du Sable was arrested at Trail Creek by the British and imprisoned briefly at Fort Michilimackinac[19][20] on suspicion of being a spy for the United States who had helped George Rogers Clark in his capture of Vincennes.[21] - The part after "who had helped" sounds awfully specific for a "suspicion". Does the source elucidate all of this? What does the source say exactly?
    Meehan gives some background on the activities of George Rogers Clark and says that Clark was assisted by Major Godfrey de Linctot. He goes on to write "Du Sable is said to have been one of the Major's spies". However, Meehan later in the same section says "The story that Du Sable was a spy is doubtful". The primary sources (letters by the arresting officer) don't give a reason for Point du Sable being arrested, so I've removed the reason for his arrest.—Jeremy (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • which he wrote during a journey he made from Detroit across Michigan and through Illinois.[26] - The way this is written makes it sound like du Sable wrote it.
  • Heward's party stopped at Pointe du Sable's house en route to the Chicago portage - Don't think en route really needs to be italicized.
  • University of Illinois at Chicago should be linked. Same with Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis.
Theories
  • great lakes region - Capitalized and linked.
  • Link Lexington, Kentucky
Legacy
  • He is therefore widely regarded as the first permanent resident of Chicago[23][56] and given the appellation "Founder of Chicago".[8][57] - Therefore is redundant, and the "given..." part is awkward and doesn't fit with the rest of the sentence.
  • The expedition headed by Louis Jolliet and Jacques Marquette in 1673, though probably not the first Europeans to visit the area, are the first recorded to have crossed the Chicago Portage and travelled along the Chicago River.[58] - The expedition refers to the trip itself, not the people.
  • Explanation of who La Salle is would help.
  • At this time, few Chicagoans had even heard of Point du Sable[69] - Remove the even.

Sorry, but I don't think the prose is quite there yet. There is a lot of choppiness, and the article could use a copyedit. Sometimes the prose rushes from one topic to the next without fully explaining the idea, or it assumes that the reader knows who a person or event was. For the more obscure events it would be nice to have a concise explanation. I have to oppose for now on prose. ceranthor 23:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 00:30, 17 February 2013‎ [2].

Sacred Cod of Massachusetts

[edit]
Nominator(s): Found5dollar (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have been working on Sacred Cod since 2009,have gotten it thought GA, and I feel as though it is of FA quality. This is my first FAC I have attempted by myself, and I think it could make a great TFA for April 1.--Found5dollar (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Good luck with your first FAC. I hope it's successful and the first of many. On the substance, I was very surprised that I couldn't find any mention in the article of why it's called "Sacred". This seems to be a major oversight (unless it's just my error!) and needs to be addressed, even if it's just a sourced comment that says we don't know why it's called that. --Dweller (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The title is in italics. Should the term Sacred Cod be in italics throughout the article? If not, the title should be unitalicized. Designate (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it is in italics because of the infobox. I used infobox:artwork ans i think it does that to article titles. I do not believe that is should be in italics as no source italicizes the name and it is more of a ceremonial name than an official one (see the section about the etymology i recently added). I do not know how to fix the italicization of the title.--Found5dollar (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a piece of sculpture, yes, the title should be in italics. See WP:ITALICTITLE which says, "Use italics when italics would be used in running text; for example, taxonomic names, the names of ships, the titles of books, films, and other creative works, and foreign phrases are italicized both in ordinary text and in article titles." (emphasis mine) Imzadi 1979 → 07:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest removing the infobox because not only it causes that italication problem, it serves no real porpose as we can find that information aleady in the lead.--Tomcat (7) 22:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • good point. I have removed the info box but left the image.--Found5dollar (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • {{Infobox artifact}} could have been used to avoid the italics, but Tomcat's point about "serv[ing] no real purpose as we can find that information aleady in the lead" is not a valid reason to remove the infobox. Infoboxes are designed to be a quick summary of key points, even more so than the lead. Have only 30 seconds to scan the article for the gist of the subject? Read the infobox. Have a bit more than 30 seconds, read the lead. Have enough time to read the whole article, then... well, you get the point. See the talk page of this FAC for a sample infobox that would have retained all of the information and avoided the italics, however, as a sculpture, the article should be italicizing the name throughout. Imzadi 1979 → 07:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • So your suggestion is to re-add the infobox and italicize Sacred Cod throughout the article? I am just a little hesitant because the term "Sacred Cod of Massachusetts" is not it's official title, as it has none, and is almost more of a description people use to identify what is being talked about, than an artistic work's title.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images - spotchecks not done

  • File:Atlantic-cod-1.jpg: source link returns 404 error
  • Be consistent in whether shortened citations include comma between author and date
  • FN42: can I borrow your time machine? ;-)

Not ready for FA

[edit]

This article falls well short of being Wikipedia's "very best work".

  • The writing is far from being "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" e.g.
    • fisherman devised a story that cod was the fish multiplied by Jesus during the miracle of the loaves and fishes. This false claim helped distinguish the two fishes' markings
    • Wood was incredibly scarce during the occupation
    • the theft plan continued without a hitch
    • While the Sacred Cod was dusted for fingerprints, and threats of the responsible parties being charged with "criminal trespass" and "attempted larceny", no one was ever charged for the actions of that weekend.
    • The Massachusetts State Police were called in to assist with the search for the cod. They went so far as to dredge the Charles River, in hopes of recovering the Sacred Cod. The authorities also found out that a member of the Lampoon staff was on board a plane heading to Newark, New Jersey. They searched Boston Airport and wired the authorities in Newark to search the plane the student was on when it arrived, but the cod was still not recovered (How about The State Police even dredged the Charles River and, learning that a Lampoon editor had flown to New Jersey, had the plane searched on landing.)
    • On April 27, the Crimson gave the staff of the Lampoon an ultimatum; if they would not give the Sacred Cod, by midnight, to them so the Crimson could take credit for its return, the Crimson would go public with its findings. After not receiving a reply from the Lampoon, the details of theft were printed in the next morning's edition of the Crimson.
  • Irrelevant material is included for no apparent purpose e.g.
    • A fire in 1747 destroyed the Sacred Cod as well as state owned records, books and paintings, and large amounts of wines and other liquors belonging to private business who used the cellars of the building as storage. The entire interior of the building was destroyed, but the brick walls were left intact and used when the building was rebuilt. (Told the entire interior of the State House was destroyed, most readers' native shrewdness will tell them that records, books and paintings would have been lost. And what do the liquor and reuse of the walls have to do with anything?)
    • the Atlantic cod's conservation status was changed to Vulnerable species in 1996 and it is in danger of becoming commercially extinct.
  • Inapproriate use of sources:
    • Stating flatly that, "To help determine the difference between cod and haddock, fisherman devised a story..." simply because a popular magazine recited this folkway is not appropriate. Anyway, the source doesn't even say that fishermen devised the story; it says the story about the origin of the markings is "part of New England mystique" and, separately, that fishermen distinguish cod from haddock via the markings.
    • The Museum of Hoaxes website, which is cited extensively, cannot (I believe) be considered a reliable source -- it appears to be just someone's fun website. Note that it asserts something ("Traditionally, the head of the cod points at whichever party is currently in power") which the article explicitly denies.
    • Celebrate Boston also appears to be simply a commercial website without obvious editorial oversight
    • Since the Crimson itself participated in the incident, its own report is essentially a primary (not secondary) source and can be used as a fact source only with great caution, especially since it clearly speaks with tongue partially in cheek.
  • There's far too much "Background". All that's needed is one or two reliable sources establishing that the reason the cod hangs in the State House is its traditional importance in the area, or whatever, plus a few examples of the cod's use as a symbol in seals etc., and maybe something like the Morison quote. This isn't an article about the fishing industry -- all this detail about the number of boats and so on is irrelevant.
  • The photos of the Crimson building and UMass are deadweight far disconnected from the article subject. "This is the building that housed the newspaper that had an editor who was kidnapped by the jokesters that stole the cod that hung in the chambers that were in the House the Bulfinch built." Exterior photos of the Old and modern State Houses would be more appropriate.
  • Useful and enlivening sources are not incorporated e.g. (some of these might be in the article already, and probably most are not fruitful -- but some absolutely belong):
  • There is far too much detail about the thefts -- exact time of recovery; order in which various parts of the State House were searched; what was worn by men jumping out of the car; that a chair, then a ladder, then wire cutters, were used; etc. -- about 1/3 of the article. Each incident should be covered in a paragraph or two at most. For example,
Three days after the theft, a search of the State House began when another phone call was received, this time by a man described as "the father of one of the students reported to have taken the cod." He explained that the students never removed the carving from the State House and they had stashed it somewhere in the cellar of the building. Capitol police searched the cellar, found nothing, then continued their search on the upper levels of the building. At 5:30 p.m. on November 17, 1968, the Sacred Cod was found standing on its tail just outside the House Chamber behind a door in a hallway used only while the House is in session. Apparently after the thieves had taken the 80 pounds (36 kg) fish down from its hanging place, they had brought it down a private staircase and left it in this hallway undamaged.
Do we really need to know it was standing on its tail? That the police searched the cellar first? The exact date and time they found it? Why not
Three days after the theft the police, acting on a tip, found the Sacred Cod in a State House hallway used only when the House is in session.
(The 80 lbs, if included at all, should be part of the object's description.)
  • What source supports Representation of a codfish as any kind of official name?

EEng (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • As it says on my user page, time on the internet is currently at a premium for me, as I do not have it at my house right now. I will begin working on these notes as soon as possible, but I have also noticed you are extensively editing the article as well. When looking at a few of your suggestions here, it seems you have already fixed them yourself. Could you please note when you do that? Also much of the "detail about the thefts" and the information in the background section you do not agree with was requested to be included in previous peer reviews. The same goes for the section about the theft you moved to notes. It was explicitly requested to be in the article in a peer review. Later today or tomorrow, when I have time to edit, and have internet available, I will begin working on your notes. Found5dollar (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- Given this has been open over a month with no support for promotion as yet, I'll be archiving it shortly. Found5dollar, I realise it must be a bit frustrating trying to satisfy contradicting suggestions for improvement but try not to be discouraged. I think EEng is right that there is a little too much forensic detail but one should take care not to remove interesting points as well. For instance in Three days after the theft example above, I'd suggest that there's a compromise between the detail of the original passage and the brevity of new suggestion. For one thing, I'd have thought it worth retaining that the tip came from the father of a student reported to have taken the cod. Anyway, finetuning the detail, adding missing citations, etc, should be undertaken at your own pace outside the FAC process. When that's done you can renominate, as long as it's a minimum of two weeks after this nom is archived (probably not a factor if web time is a premium). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:14, 13 February 2013 [28].

Penticton Regional Airport

[edit]
Nominator(s): TBrandley (what's up) 15:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria following my first nomination. TBrandley (what's up) 15:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The issues with the map still remain - it doesn't show what communities it serves, nor what other airports are nearby. Both of these are mentioned in the text, but maps are a case where a picture really is worth a thousand words. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to create a map, but I am currently not aware of how to. I will try to get some ideas together. TBrandley (what's up) 00:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I don't think the FA nominator has to do everything, but I think it'd help the article a lot if somebody did it. Do we still have an active graphics lab? We used to 5 years ago, but... Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Creating a basic map of a modern locality is pretty easy: go to Open Street map (link), size the map to whatever works best, take a screenshot, paste it into your preferred image editor (MS Paint works fine), crop it and mark it up as you see fit, save it as a JPEG file or similar and then upload the results to Wikicommons under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license (CC-BY-SA). I've just had a go at creating an example File:Penticton Regional Airport location - initial version.jpg (which I think also partially answers the question of why Kelowna International Airport is more popular, given that it's next to the main town). You may want to use this map, but I imagine that you could make a much better one given that you have knowledge of the local area while I have none whatsoever. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but this article still falls short of FA standards on the grounds of completeness and prose.

  • In regards to completeness, the article's content isn't up to date. It still includes mentions of 'as of 2012', and the air movements data isn't the most recent which is available from Statistics Canada's website (I found the 2011 air movements figures in 5 minutes [29], and there seems to be tons more statistical data on the airport in this report and probably elsewhere on the Stats Canada website which could be included - it would be really easy to develop a graph of the historical trend in air movements, for instance, and it would be interesting to know why over 600 military flights a year pass through this airport each year, making it one of the most Canadian military's most frequently used civil airfields by my reading of the report). In light of this and the issues which came up in the previous FAC, I'm afraid that I'm not convinced that this article is comprehensive.
  • In regards to prose, the article still doesn't read well. For instance, the paragraph on the Indian band's protests starts with 'Controversy has occurred over airport ownership before.', another paragraph starts with 'The Penticton Flying Club operates at the airport, which is a club where children receive a flight in an airplane with the pilot, and learn about the airplanes themselves', some wording is unclear (eg "Two of the aircraft's eighteen occupants, both crew members, were injured."), and some sections confuse the airport with the airlines who operate out of it (eg, "there has also been consideration for the airport to provide direct flights to the Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport provided by Air Canada." - the airlines provide flights, not the airport which serves as their start/end point). Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank everyone for their comments, they will help improve the article significantly. But for now, as per the above, I now understand a featured article nomination at this time is not appropriate due to concerns over prose and comprehensiveness. I plan on performing basic copyedits and digging deeper for information within a couple of weeks using advanced search engines such as Google News Archive, which I didn't think of when I initially started working on the page. Then, after that and perhaps a peer review, I will nominate the article again. Again, thanks for the comments, but I withdraw this nomination for now. TBrandley (what's up) 21:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:GrahamColm 19:44, 9 February 2013‎ [30].

John W. Stevenson

[edit]
Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took this article to GA status back in 2007. Although comprehensive sources are scarce, I pieced together some stuff from less comprehensive ones, and after a recent encouraging peer review, I decided it was worth a shot at FAC, to become part of a potential Governors of Kentucky featured topic. Just three more FAs needed! Hope to respond to comments quickly, although January could be shaping up to be a little busier than usual. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Image review: Can an author be added for Stevenson's picture if one is found? I assume it's Brady like the others but want to check. All the other ones are fine. I'll try to find some time to do a prose review too, I don't know why yours can never seem to find reviewers. Wizardman 22:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments:

  • " was born May 4, 1812, in Richmond, Virginia." I've probably noted this in previous FAs but I've never liked the comma after the year in this kind of sentence; would prefer removal.
    • I find it a little odd, too, but some editors seem insistent on it, and I think there used to be some consensus on it, although I can't find it now. I think I'll leave it for now, if it isn't a condition of your support. Given my luck, someone else will make including it a condition of theirs! Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1828, at the age of fourteen, he matriculated" Shouldn't it say 14? That's how MOSNUM had it unless they changed since I last looked.
  • "he was a delegate to the National Union Party's convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1865." in 1865
  • "In 1870 election," In the 1870 election

As usual, just a few nitpicks to fix. Support, assuming good faith that that big will be fixed. Wizardman 05:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as always, for the review. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:GrahamColm 19:40, 9 February 2013 [31].

Sesame Street research

[edit]
Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because its last FAC failed due to lack of support. I think it's close to FA; it just needs support, please. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article. Why is the lead so heavily sourced though? A lead should be a summary of the article, so any information in the lead should generally be sourced throughout the article. Is the lead made of of info not in the article itself?
Thanks. The lead was heavily sources (I removed the unnecessary sources just now) because I wrote it before I learned that leads don't require references if it's a summary of the article, which it is. Thanks for catching my oversight, as well as previous reviewers'.
There appears to be quite a lot of unnecessary use of parentheses.
To be honest, when I read this feedback, I went, "No way!" Then I looked, and went, "Ew, you're right!" ;) So I went through a did a copy-edit and removed most of them, keeping the ones I think are necessary. It's much improved now, thanks.
You also have "Educational Testing Service (ETS)" three times throughout the article, when it just needs to be done at the lead. Ωphois 21:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you about that, but here's my opinion about this: Of course, ETS should be spelled out and linked in the lead, since it's the first time it's introduced. I believe that it should be spelled out and linked the first time it's mentioned in the body of the article because it's not a summary, making it technically the first time it's mentioned, and in case the reader hasn't read the lead. The third mention is an exception to the policy about abbreviations and linking after the first mention because ETS is important in the section; it's almost like a new article. I'm not committed to this position, however, and if you tell me I need to change it, I will. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my comments, but unfortunately I don't have enough time now to do a full review to offer support or opposition. Ωphois 01:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "As of 2001 there were over 1,000 research studies regarding the efficacy, impact, and effect of the children's television show Sesame Street on American culture." I don't see the over 1000 fact sourced later in the article. Seems odd to have the lead sentence mention the "efficacy" of Sesame Street when it has not yet been stated what the desired or intended result of the show is. Is it designed to be educational? If so, what is it supposed to be teaching? (I see this is covered later in the lead, but I think it should be mentioned sooner) Perhaps the lead sentence should be used to introduce the reader to the show? More background would be good to help put these numbers in context – when did the show premier/how many seasons has it been running?
  • "It marked the first time research was used in the development of a children's television show." To what does the "It" refer?
  • Who is Michael Davis, and is his opinion so important what he needs to be quoted in the 3rd sentence of the lead?
Made some changes to the lead; the above issues have now been resolved, I think. I removed the Davis quote because it's not mentioned in the body, anyway. Thanks, writing leads is one of my weakest points as an editor, so I appreciate the assistance. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • please audit the article for the use of "which": which generally follows a comma; if not, "that" is often a better choice
The only two instances of this were in the lead; fixed.
  • "Changes based on their findings were made, and a body of objective data was compiled." I think this would sound better in the active voice
Done.
  • "demonstrated that viewing the program had positive effects" … "demonstrated the positive effects of the program" repetitious
Improved.
  • "As author Louise A. Gikow stated, what set Sesame Street apart from other children's programming was its use of research." its use of research for what?
Clarified.
  • "Other children's television shows in existence were widely criticized …" that last bit sounds weaselly; can you confirm the sources will back up this strong wording?
I added "According to..." the guy who came up with it. Should I do more and directly quote him?
  • "Despite of her lack" fix
Oops, how did that get past me and everyone else?!
  • possibly useful links: curriculum, television producer, Muppet, literacy, experimental design, control group, social behavior, socioeconomic status
Done. Thanks for the input. Got any more for me? ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for making these changes. Next a bit of 1b and 1c: there's been some interesting recent research that hasn't been mentioned in this article. I'm not quite sure how I feel about that; on the one hand, I appreciate that the sources currently used are all good secondary sources (and thus preferable from a Wikipedia sourcing perspective). On the other hand, judicious use of primary sources can be ok in some instances, and I think the average reader would be interested in knowing about these studies. Hopefully some other reviewers will weigh in on this as well. So please have a look at these, and think about whether they might be integrated into the article somehow: PMID 23300386, PMID 23300385, PMID 16718304, PMID 15446663, and this. There's some more that can be found in a PubMed search, but these are the ones that stood out to me.
I've looked at the articles you list and since I have access to a university library (actually, two), I did some of my own research and found a few more. As I suspected, much of the more recent journal articles and studies about Sesame Street don't provide new information, and are reiterations of the older studies included in the sources used here, especially the G is for Growing book, which was published in 2001 by the Sesame Workshop and was a summary of the major studies done up to that point. (They really need to publish an update, perhaps for The Show's 45th or 50th anniversary.) I get your point, though; I've been thinking a lot lately about how in article creation and improvement, the concept of comprehensiveness sometimes trumps the policy of source reliability. Sometimes, in order to treat a subject comprehensively, you have to use not-so-reliable sources or even primary sources. I'm inclined, then, to summarize some of the primary sources so that the research about The Show is up-to-date. It's my intention to do just that. Please be patient with me as I do that, since I'm busy, so it may take a little while. If this article is failed again before I'm finished, I'd be disappointed but I'd understand. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So I've been able to add some content from more recent research to this article. I think it add to the comprehensiveness you requested. As I state above, many of the sources I found in this most recent search didn't add new information, or didn't really have any applications to the use of Sesame Street in research. Please let me know what you think about what I've added. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the new additions are appropriate in length and weight, but some tweaks are needed:
  • "In 2010, researchers at the University of Michigan studied the effect of combining video clips of Sesame Street and related print materials, online activities, and teacher training and mentoring." The effect ... on what?
  • What are the "post-implementation tests"? (I suppose this may become evident when the previous sentence is fixed)
  • "studied children's and adults' brain responses" think the position of the possessive apostrophe needs to be adjusted in one of these
  • is there a useful link for verbal IQ? (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale?)
  • "... responses to real-life stimuli by using Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to test the brain's response to real-world stimuli." can this be tweaked to avoid the repetition of "real-world stimuli"?
  • just noticed that the "et al."s are inconsistently italicized. Sasata (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All the above has been addressed. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a shame that there isn't freely-licensed pic that could be used to help illustrate the show or its characters. Have you considered writing to Sesame Workshop and explaining what you're doing here on Wikipedia? It seems to me that they might be amenable to releasing a couple of low-resolution images for our use, especially considering the positive exposure they'd get if/when this hits the front page, the complimentary nature of this article, and the generally compatible missions of Wikipedia (free info for all) and their organization (using the educational power of media to help teach children). The worst that happens is that they say no, right?
Believe me, after years of working on these articles, I feel your pain. I have emailed the Workshop in the past, but got no answer. I think that it is about time that I write them. I would really like the main article to be on the main page by The Show's 45th anniversary, and having free images would help. The interesting thing is that in the Gikow book, they include a quote by Jimbo Wales about this very thing--about how compatible WP and the Workshop's missions are. I've even put the quote on my own userpage here [32] I will use that when I write them in the next week or so. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm satisfied with the changes and new additions you've made, and am leaning support, but would like to hear what other reviewers have to say before I commit (I don't usually review this type of article). Hope some others will drop by ... Sasata (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the majority of children's programming - would "Unlike most children's programming..." (shorter) lose any meaning? trying to make writing more succinct.....
No problem, fixed.
CTW's researchers were strongly influenced by behaviorism, a popular movement in psychology during the late 1960s; therefore, many methods and tools used were primarily behavioral - a tricky sentence...I am wondering if we can use some other word than "behavioral" here which makes me think this sentence is somewhat circular...I can't think of an alternative. I guess my concern is the word "behavioral" gets bandied about alot by folks with a somewhat plastic meaning, so am thinking some more precise or explanatory word or words would be better....
I agree that the term "behavioral" and even "behaviorism" has lost its meaning. Let me rework that a bit. Hmm, is this better: "Most of the methods and tools CTW's researchers used were influenced by behaviorism, a popular movement in psychology during the late 1960s which they embraced"?
Yeah, I like that better..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd link efficacy somewhere.
Done, to the article.

Overall looking more polished than last time - it can be a little heavy going to read but I think that is due to the scope of the article and technical nature of the subject matter. As I am not sure how the prose could be made more engaging I think I can 'cautiously support this as FA on prose and (it appears) comprehensiveness grounds. The above quibbles are not deal-breakers for mine. Like Sasata I'd be interested to hear other input/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cas. One of the best things about the FAC process is that it usually results in substantial improvements to articles, if the main editor is open to reviewers' suggestions. There are few places in this project, and in life for that matter, that offers this kind of thing. I think this FAC has certainly helped improve this article. I wasn't sure what to think about your comments; I mean, to me, this is an immensely interesting article, perhaps because I'm so close to it. After thinking about it today, I love it. I love it that an article about Sesame Street has been called "technical", as if its complexity makes it inaccessible. It's a huge compliment, to me personally, as an editor and writer, and to the topic. So thanks! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I've read to the end of the background section. No huge problems, but a few niggly prose issues. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Unlike the majority of children's programming, it used research to both create the show and test its impact on its young viewers and marked the first time research was used in the development of a children's television show.": Long sentence, and two "its" and an "it" make it a little repetitive.
This sentence has been reworked so many times! Is this better: "Unlike most children's programming and for the first time, the show used research to both create the show and test its impact on its young viewers"?
  • "As author Louise A. Gikow stated…": Suggests editorial agreement, which we should avoid.
Changed to: "According to author Louise A. Gikow..."
  • "When Sesame Street was created during the late 1960s, children's programming was, as Cooney later called it, a "wasteland"." And again.
Ok, I regulated Cooney's comments to the following note, and connected it more strongly to Minow's speech about TV.
  • "According to writer David Borgenicht, other children's television shows in existence were widely criticized for being little more than cartoons depicting violence and reflecting commercial values": Some redundancy.
  • "The Carnegie Corporation, which was one of Sesame Street's first financial backers, hired Cooney during the summer of 1967 to visit experts in childhood development, education, and media across the US and Canada.": More of the same
  • "Despite her lack of experience in education,[10] her study (which spelled out how television could be used as an aid in the education of preschool children, especially those living in inner cities) was well received.": The section in parentheses looks like it should belong in the previous sentences.
Fixed above.
  • "Throughout the history of Sesame Street…": While I know what this means, I'm not sure about the use of "history" like this.
Ok, changed to: "The show's research staff and producers conducted regularly-scheduled internal reviews and seminars..."
  • Last two sentences of "Background" section begin "As of 2001…"
Actually, these instances were separated by another sentence, but I changed the second instance of "as of 2001" to the middle of the sentence. If you think it's best, I could remove it all together.

I'm hoping to read the rest soon. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I usually say at this point, "Take your time," but I won't because this FAC has been here for a while and I'm afraid it's gonna get failed again. ;) Thanks, some great feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by Evanh2008: In the lead, the sentence beginning "As of 2001" should read, "As of 2001, there had been over 1,000 research studies examining the show's impact on children's learning and attention." That corrects the tense to past perfect as opposed to an ambiguous form of the simple past which could imply that all those studies were ongoing in 2001. A comma is also inserted after "2001", in keeping with standard punctuation usage (some say it's not necessary, but I differ). As a whole, this article looks pretty good. I'll see if I can't give it a thorough look in the next few days. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 13:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks. I'd appreciate your review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: I've read the rest of the article now. I think it reads pretty well and is not too dry or technical apart from the last couple of paragraphs. Otherwise, I think the prose could stand some tightening in places, but nothing major. Although I'm not an expert on Sesame Street, I've a bit of an educational background, and everything seems to be on the button from an that viewpoint. I will be happy to support once my nit-picks are addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sarastrol, for the review and for these kind words.
  • "a system of planning, production, and evaluation which did not fully emerge until the end of the show's first season": What about "a system of planning, production, and evaluation which only emerged after the show's first season"? Tighter, but may lose some meaning?
I'm fine with it; it doesn't lose that much meaning. Changed.
  • "The CTW model consisted of four parts…": Perhaps let the reader count: "The CTW model involved…"?
Fine, I'm good with assuming the reader has intelligence. ;)
  • "and independent summative research into what its viewers learned"
  • "whom CTW hired to design the program's educational objectives": Are objectives "designed", or just written?
Above two fixed. I'll bow to you as an education expert regarding the better use of the term.
  • "for bridging the gap between the show's producers and researchers."
  • "each side contributed "its own unique perspective and expertise"": In-text attribution (while not demanded by the MoS in these instances) is always helpful for the reader.
Um, that's ref 25, right?
  • "The production staff recognized early in Sesame Street's history that access to researchers gathering children's reactions and guiding production was a valuable resource.": I think this sentence is a bit laboured. "History" is being used again, too. What about something like "Early in the [planning?] process, production staff recognized that it was necessary [or valuable, or vital, or helpful. Something like that.] to have access to researchers who could gather [or record, or register, or similar. Not sure that gather works.] children's reactions and guide the production."
How about: "Early in the planning process, production staff recognized that it was valuable to have access to researchers who could analyze children's reactions and help them improve production."
  • "Researchers, acting as experts, advocated for children, while the show's writers and producers brought their instincts for and their past successes with entertaining children through television.": I'm afraid I lose the meaning of this sentence, even after re-reading a few times.
I hear you. Looking at it again, it occurs to me that the phrase regarding the writers is redundant, so I removed it and then tightened up and added the second phrase to the previous sentence. It now reads: "Early in the planning process, production staff recognized that it was valuable to have access to researchers who could analyze children's reactions and help them improve production, and the show's writers and producers brought their instincts for and experience in children's television."
  • "The writers were initially skeptical about their collaboration with researchers and about the curriculum…": Do we need to have the curriculum, or could we cut from after "researchers"?
Sure, no prob. Tightened up the sentence some more.
  • "but, as Stone reported, eventually came to see it as "a backbone" of the creative process." And perhaps we could lose the quotation marks.
  • "The need for preschool education in each country was accessed through research and interviews with television producers, researchers, and educational experts, similar to what had been done in the US.": As written, this suggests that they were looking at how necessary pre-school education was in each country. And "similar to what had been done" is inelegant. What about "similar to the process followed"?
  • "They were able to record almost every second of Sesame Street this way": Is "record" the right word, or would "assess" or "test" work better?
Above suggestions followed. At first, I thought that "record" was the best choice, but I looked again and saw that it was redundant. "Assess" works better, I think, so that's what I put in.
  • "and became an irreplaceable part of CTW's research on its programs' effectiveness for decades": Irreplaceable suggests editorial judgement.
If you say so. ;) Removed the offensive word and tightened up the sentence.
  • "found that the program resulted in more learning when children watched carefully": Perhaps "found that children learned more when they watched the program carefully". Or perhaps something else is intended here. If so, it is unclear.
  • "it found that children had retained most of what they had previously learned": And presumably what they had learned from the specific show?
  • "were comparisons between children who watched it regularly and those who did not"
  • "Instead of using groups of viewers and non-viewers, later large-scale studies used statistical designs and methods for estimating cause-effect relationships.": This one loses me a little.
Previous comments addressed. This is research-speak, but I changed it and deleted some dross to make it clearer. How about: "Instead of using groups of viewers and non-viewers, studies conducted by the ETS after the second season used statistical designs and methods."
  • "ETS, whose prestige enhanced the credibility of its findings,[50] conducted two landmark summative evaluations in 1970 and 1971, demonstrating that Sesame Street had a significant educational impact on its viewers.": A little too much going on here. Perhaps a split is needed. Also, perhaps "the prestige of which" would be more accurate than "whose".
Done; changed to: "ETS, the prestige of which enhanced the credibility of its findings, conducted two landmark summative evaluations in 1970 and 1971. These studies demonstrated that..."
  • "ETS reported that the children who watched the show most learned the most": And should it be "learned more"? (There can only be two groups)
  • "an informal home setting": A what?
Next two done. I was going for the home, as opposed to at school, which tends to be a more formal setting. But I can see how it can be confusing, so I changed the phrase to "at home". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Regular viewers scored higher in school adjustment, had a more positive attitude toward school and better peer relations.": What is school adjustment? And we are comparing something ("more") but do not specify what.
Fixed by adding "non-viewers" to both groups being compared. Then I separated it into two sentences because it felt a little clunky to me. "School adjustment" is a psychological/educational term, but since you needed clarification, I re-worded it and defined it.
  • "The show's positive general effects, as cited by ETS)": Missing parenthesis somewhere.
No, extra one; removed it.
  • "Palmer found that Jamaican children's interest dropped during segments with the Muppets, possibly due to language differences": Something a bit off here; language is the wrong expression as Jamaicans speak English.
Actually, English is the official language in Jamaica; they also speak Patwah, a creole. Gikow states that the reason the Muppet segments didn't work with Jamaican kids "due to difficulties in translation". I took that to mean that it didn't translate well from the Jamaican language to English, but it could mean that it was due to cultural differences. I'll just quote her directly to clear up any confusion.
  • "watching Sesame Street daily did not increase children's viewing of other categories of television, or made them less likely to participate in other educational activities.": Should be "nor" rather than "or".
  • "In 1994, research was conducted for a study entitled "The Recontact Study", funded by the Markle Foundation, that examined ": I'm pretty sure it should be "which examined".
  • "When the study's research subjects were statistically equated for parents' level of education, birth order, residence and gender": Equated for?
Next few comments addressed. I wikilinked "statistically equated".
  • "but only for theSesame Street material": Missing space.
  • "While the time they looked at stimulus decreased for all types of stimulus from fourteen to twenty-six weeks, the length increased depending on the stimulus": This just about makes sense, but the contrast between increasing and decreasing means that it needs reading twice. Maybe re-word a little?
Next two. Re-worded as you direct: "The time they looked at stimulus decreased for all types of stimulus from fourteen to twenty-six weeks, but the time they looked at it increased depending on the stimulus."
  • I'm struggling to get the point of the very last paragraph.
I'm not sure I understand what's unclear. The final two studies discussed are studies done later, in more recent years.
  • A few too many "founds" in the summative section.
Now there are 5, down from a whopping 15.
Not now. ;) Thanks for the feedback. I believe that I addressed all the above. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Review by Evanh2008:

  • I wonder if there isn't a public domain or CC-licensed image we could add to this article. Perhaps you've already looked into it?

Lead section

  • "Unlike most children's programming and for the first time" is awkward and unwieldy. I suggest changing it to "Unlike earlier children's programming," or something similar. This improves reading flow and eliminates redundancy with the last sentence of the second paragraph.
  • Similarly, I recommend trimming "The producers changed the show based on their findings, and they were able to compile a body of objective data." to something like "The producers changed the show and compiled a body of objective data based on their findings."

Background and development

  • "According to author Louise A. Gikow, what set Sesame Street apart from other children's programming was its use of research to both create individual episodes and to test its effect on its young viewers." ---> "According to author Louise A Gikow, Sesame Street's use of research both to create individual episodes and to test its effect on its young viewers set it apart from other children's programming."
  • "child-development" doesn't need to be hyphenated.
  • Who is Palmer? That's a rhetorical question; I know it is referring to Ed Palmer, but his full name needs to be used on the first mention. After that, all references to him should use only the surname, except within quotations. On the first mention you should also introduce him, as is now done in the first paragraph of the following section. A simple copy and paste from that section to this one should be sufficient here.
  • "preschool children" ---> "preschoolers". This one isn't a big deal, but I feel like "children" is being used quite a bit here. This is unavoidable to some degree, but where we can shake up the terminology, we should.

The "CTW model"

  • "interaction of television producers and educators" ---> "interaction between television producers and educators", for clarity.
  • Place a comma immediately after "to shape the program". You used the serial comma in the previous section, and you'll want to keep this consistent.
  • Per MOS:QUOTE, "its own unique perspective and expertise" needs to be attributed to the person who originally said it.
  • "gathering children's reactions and guiding production" is redundant here. The sentence works just fine without it.
  • Change "ensure" to "create". Strictly speaking, one "ensures" a verbal construct, as in "ensur[ing] the creation of the best possible product". For brevity, though, we should simply change it to "create".
  • CTW sounds like an acronym. What does it stand for, if anything?
  • The "acting as experts" clause is unnecessary. Researchers very rarely act in any other capacity.
  • "The writers were initially skeptical about their collaboration with researchers and about the curriculum but, as Stone reported, eventually came to see it as "a backbone" of the creative process." ---> "Though initially skeptical about both the collaboration and the curriculum, the writers eventually came to see both as integral parts of the creative process." Excising the quote allows for better prose in this case.
  • Similar to the Palmer bit above, who is Stone?
  • "accessed" -- I am certain you mean "assessed".
  • "Then they convened the experts in a series of meetings," ---> "They then convened the experts in a series of meetings,"
  • "its set and characters" ---> "its set, and its characters" (That serial comma again, as well as parallel structure.)

Formative research

  • "to see if the show held children's attention" ---> "to determine whether the show held children's attention"
  • "academicians" ---> "academics"
  • "writer Malcolm Gladwell" ---> "author Malcolm Gladwell", so no one confuses him with a writer for the show.
  • "formative research and working" ---> "formative research, and for working". Parallel structure.
  • "These reinforced their results" ---> "These reinforced earlier results"
  • "reactions and responses" ---> "reactions, and responses". Serial comma.
  • "described by Sesame Street researcher Shalom M. Fisch" ---> "described by Fisch"
  • Either put "distractor" in quotation marks in every instance or only in the first.

Summative research

  • Remove "Educational Testing Service", leaving only the acronym. It has been named and wikilinked in the section above. See WP:OVERLINK.
  • "testers and observers" ---> "testers, and observers". Serial comma.
  • "Although adult supervision was not required for children to learn the material being presented" ---> "Although adult supervision was not required for children to learn using the material presented". Minor tense adjustment, clarification that, presumably, children were learning using the material, and not learning the material itself.
  • "toward school and better peer relations" ---> "toward school, and better peer relations". Serial comma.
  • "well-to-do and poorer children" ---> "well-to-do children and their less wealthy peers".
  • There is a stray right parenthesis at "as cited by ETS)".
  • "in Jamaica of the effects" ---> "in Jamaica regarding the effects"
  • "or made them less likely to participate in other educational activities". I assume you meant "or make them less likely to participate in other educational activities", but this sentence means the perfect opposite of that, in a grammatically confused way.
  • What is the difference between "word" and "printed-word" in "letter and word recognition and printed-word identification"? Also, spot the missing serial comma.
  • "research was conducted for a study entitled 'The Recontact Study'" ---> "research was conducted for 'The Recontact Study'". Brevity and redundancy.
  • "The effects were stronger in adolescent boys than adolescent girls" ---> "The effects were stronger in adolescent boys than in adolescent girls". Parallel structure.
  • I am unsure that the clause, "and there was no evidence that the show had a negative effect on creativity", is necessary, as there is nothing in the surrounding text that would lead one to expect any such negative effect on creativity. If the study makes this observation in contrast with other programs, proper context should be added. If not, this clause should be removed.
  • "In the spring of 2001" ---> "In spring 2001"
  • "supporting the evidence that movement" ---> "supporting the idea that movement"
  • "both on age and the type of" ---> "both on age and on the type of". Parallel structure.
  • "the length increased" ---> "the duration increased". "Duration" is more specifically a measurement of time elapsed, while "length" is ambiguous.

A lot of prose issues here, but I'm confident they can be overcome. The content and overall structure is good, and I look forward to supporting shortly. Good luck! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:GrahamColm 19:36, 9 February 2013 [33].

George Harrison

[edit]
Nominators: GabeMc (talk|contribs) and Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've been working at preparing this article for several months now, and are now both confident that it meets, or is very close to meeting, all of the FA criteria. The article has held unchalleneged GA status for almost three years now, and we hope that the FAC process can help resolve any outstanding issues and result in a successful promotion to FA. Thanks in advance for your time and attention! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Review from Tim Riley

[edit]

Comment from Tim Riley – I'll be pleased to add comments, but it's a big article and I may take a few days to do it justice. Meanwhile as an alumnus of that temple of learning I just add the preliminary observation that no-one has ever referred to the "Liverpool Institute for Boys": if being formal it was the Liverpool Institute High School for Boys and, if not, just the Liverpool Institute. Oh, and Harrison's (and my) English master, A J Smith, would have had a fit at "Paul McCartney, who was eight months older than him" (my italics). More soonest. I'm looking forward to this. Tim riley (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks Tim Riley! We look forward to your comments (I've fixed the two issues you mentioned above). GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First comments. More to come.

  • Lead
    • "widely regarded as the first significant benefit concert" – there had been benefit concerts for centuries! As it stands, the statement is plain wrong. You'll need to tighten your definition a lot – e.g. "widely regarded as the first significant benefit concert on lines later followed by Live Aid etc"
    • "He was a close friend of Eric Clapton" – it isn't clear why this particular friendship merits mention in the lead.
Sorry, GabeMc (and greetings, Tim Riley) – "penned" was my doing, whereas your wording was just fine. JG66 (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good so far. Tim riley (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Tim! I look forward to the rest. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second batch:

  • The Concert for Bangladesh: 1971
    • "Clapton, who made his first public appearance in months (owing to a heroin…" – I see what you're getting at, but it wasn't his appearance that was due to the drug problem, surely: it was his absence.
  • Living in the Material World to George Harrison: 1972–1979
    • "written after Harrison's break-up with his wife Pattie and while he was suffering from laryngitis" – it isn't immediately clear what his laryngitis had to do with the quality of the writing. The next sentence makes it a bit clearer – it mucked up his singing – but I think you might like to revisit this section.
    • "but both failed to chart in the UK" – is the verb "to chart" usual in this context? Fair enough if so, and the fact that I haven't seen it before is hardly relevant.
    • "His final studio album" – the last person mentioned before the "His" is Tom Scott. Better to use "Harrison's" here, I think.
    • "Following the former Beatle's departure from Capitol, the record company was in a position" – I was confused by this. Which record company? Capitol or Apple? Better clarify.
    • "reaching number 11 on the US charts" – isn't it usually "in" the charts? But what do I know?
  • Live performances: 1971–1992
  • The Traveling Wilburys: 1988–1990

More to come. By the bye, having read thus far I have little doubt that I shall be adding my support for its promotion in due course. It's good. Tim riley (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim Riley! I look forward to the rest of your comments, and of course to your support. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for the encouragement, Tim Riley! I also look forward to the rest of your insightful comments, and after we've earned it, your support. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last lot. Hardly anything:

Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. I'll be glad to add my support when these minor matters are dealt with. Tim riley (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. It is clear, balanced, sensibly laid out, formidably referenced, easy to read, and evidently as comprehensive as one could ask. Excellent! Tim riley (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by JG66

[edit]

please see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/George Harrison/archive1 for JG66's review

  • Oppose. Having just read through the John Lennon and Paul McCartney FAs and seen the level of discussion permitted in those articles, I'm now more sure than ever that this article is not worth of Featured Article status. It's not size for size's sake: the apparent willingness in those other articles to embrace the artist's achievements and provide details on points that contribute(d) to the subject's artistry is in a contrast that's quite astounding to the approach you've adopted here. In this article, details that should be central to a discussion are shunted off into note form, as if they're some sort of an aside. While I acknowledge at the same time that User:John (below)'s culling skills would be very welcome in the Lennon and McCartney articles, there is so much general information on George Harrison missing from this article – as John put it: "I find myself wishing there was more of Harrison the man in there." Where the Lennon article provides great detail on his troubled upbringing, here so little appears discussing Harrison's stable family life, particularly the support he received from his mother. That and the abundance of siblings had a great bearing on Harrison's role within the Beatles (Lennon and Starr having been only children; Lennon and McCartney losing a parent during their teenage years), and also his ability to facilitate and bring his skills to the greater good of others' projects. His innate humility and ability to be a genuine friend are at the root of all his notable projects, just as the demons from Lennon's past were pervasive in his activities.

This issue leads to what I've already described as glaring omissions in the Harrison article – specifics such as collaborations with Shankar, his commitment to developing the careers of Lomax, Preston, Badfinger and Splinter, session work for numerous others. Whereas you've stated that a new article like "George Harrison's musical career" should handle all those apparently nonessential points, and you've siphoned off mentions of his extracurricular musical work to the end notes, McCartney's musicianship receives significant attention in his biographical article (rather than the one on his musical career), just as Lennon's various creative outlets are discussed in detail in John Lennon. As author Simon Leng finally brought to light, Harrison's solo career is only half the story. To not see Harrison's work with Apple artists, his session work, collaborations with Shankar, Dark Horse Records, and especially Splinter merit a separate section is astonishing. And whereas McCartney's first tours with Wings in 1972 get a generous paragraph, Harrison's 1974 North American tour – much-discussed, controversial (to put it mildly), first tour there by a Beatle since 1966, since recognised by some as groundbreaking in its fusion of musical genres (precursor to world music) – this gets dismissed in a couple of phrases covering the concurrent album. Even Lennon's (two-song) 1968 Rock and Roll Circus performance is afforded more detail. And your willingness to go with a flawed generalisation regarding the 1974 tour (when a well-reasoned alternative has been put forward by Leng, the only author I know of who's actually bothered to research the subject rather than parroting the Rolling Stone verdict) – that just smacks of a laziness that's completely at odds with the apparent eagerness in the Lennon and McCartney articles to tell the full story. Another example would be the listing of McCartney's 1990 band members, when Harrison and Shankar's musicians constitute a far more impressive line-up. In this FAC, you've also repeatedly identified any missing details as being "excess", that related articles should be left to include those points, yet that's a completely different approach from the one adopted for Lennon and McCartney. (We get to read that "Live and Let Die" earned Martin a Grammy, for instance, but you don't feel the need to add here that The Concert for Bangladesh earned Harrison and his fellow performers a Grammy for best album. Likewise, Lennon's standing as a peace activist is rightly discussed in the Lennon article, yet we have no mention here of Harrison's standing as a result of the 1971–72 Bangladesh aid project.)

The role of Pattie Boyd, her inability to conceive children – Harrison's first marriage hardly gets a mention. Yet Yoko Ono's miscarriages are detailed, and in the McCartney article, the Personal Relationships section is almost as long as the two sections in Harrison covering the Beatles and his solo career up to 1987 put together. In fact, rather than the inadequate, cover-all "Family, friends and interests" section, Harrison is the one who really deserves that sort of coverage. He was the one who cultivated friendships, through decades – that's what governed all his work. Similarly, he wasn't just an ex-Beatle after 1970, he was a non-Beatle (actually from about 1966), and the article comes nowhere near to outlining this crucial point (which fed into and out of his own music, his collaborations, his spirituality, his championing of Indian music) the way a reader of that Lennon article is left in no doubt as to what made Lennon tick.

I've tried to draw your attention to the issue of scope repeatedly. The reason I've had to write comments of such extraordinary length is that the basic foundations for a thorough overview of Harrison's life have never been there, unlike in the Lennon article, which, though definitely overlong, appears be founded on an impressive understanding of the man. That just shines through from reading the Lennon article. Ideally, User:John's pruning of the text should've made way for the inclusion of much of this Harrison-the-man/the non-Beatle discussion, relevant to a number of sections, but it's obvious that that's not going to happen. To repeat, the difference in scope and general engagement with the subject between this article and the ones on Lennon and McCartney is just extraordinary. (And before anyone wheels out more of those WP guidelines to paste into a reply, let's be honest: we all compare similar articles when considering how to treat various points in music articles. When it suits us.) My very first comments in the review that was deftly removed (now at least restored with a link) were to say how surprised I was that this article was up as an FAC already. I've been impressed with your editing, Evanh, as well as the way you've been prepared to investigate a new issue that's been raised. But I'm afraid I can't see the article approaching the standard of "one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community" – this piece is lightweight, and the poor coverage reflects what I think is a shallow understanding of the subject. I oppose its promotion on the grounds that the basic foundations simply aren't there, and the necessary information is easy to find, but not within the timeframe of this FAC, I'd imagine. JG66 (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review from John

[edit]

Oppose on prose quality based on preliminary sample. More detailed review to follow. --John (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead para:
    • "he enjoyed a successful solo career" is a bit weasely
    • "...and "Something", which would become the second most-covered Beatles song." Why "would"? Wouldn't we just say "which became"?
      • I agree, and actually did quite a bit of work removing unnecessary subjunctive and near-subjunctive wording throughout the article. Whether those you noticed slipped through the cracks or were somehow reinstated, I'm not sure. In any case, they're gone now. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 13:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Harrison organized the 1971 Concert for Bangladesh, widely regarded as an innovative precursor to modern benefit concerts such as Live Aid." An "innovative precursor"? Wouldn't one of these on its own be enough? Fanspeak. Also, Live Aid was 1985; would that really count as "modern" compared to 1971, when we are in 2013? --John (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree in re the use of "modern", and have now altered it to "later" to make the point clear. Regarding "innovative precursor", I personally don't feel that it's redundant. It was a precursor to other events, but it was also innovative in that it differed in important ways from previous events. Two separate points. If others feel the same way, though, we can certainly trim "innovative". Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 13:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early solo work: 1968–1970
    • "It was during this tour that Harrison began to write "My Sweet Lord", the song that would later serve as his first single as a solo artist." -> "During this tour Harrison began to write "My Sweet Lord", which later became his first single as a solo artist." 27 words -> 20 words without any loss of meaning!
    • "It was only after Harrison had separated from the Beatles that he released what is usually regarded as his first solo album, the commercially successful and critically acclaimed All Things Must Pass." I suggest removing this completely or greatly reducing it. At all costs get rid of "commercially successful and critically acclaimed"; that is verbiage which should have no place on a FA.
  • All Things Must Pass: 1970
    • "After years of being restricted in his songwriting contributions to the Beatles, All Things Must Pass contained such a large outpouring of Harrison's songs that it was released as a triple album, with two of the discs composed of his songs and the third containing recordings of Harrison jamming with friends." -> "After years of being restricted in his songwriting contributions to the Beatles, Harrison released what is usually regarded as his first solo album All Things Must Pass. It was a triple album, with two of the discs composed of his songs and the third containing recordings of Harrison jamming with friends." Eliminates ambiguity, reduces wordiness and captures the essential part of the sentence removed from the section prior.
    • "Later sued for copyright infringement over the song "My Sweet Lord" due to its similarity to the 1963 Chiffons song "He's So Fine", Harrison denied deliberately plagiarizing the song; he lost the resulting court case in 1976, as the judge decided that Harrison had subconsciously plagiarized the earlier composition." -> "Harrison was later sued for copyright infringement over the song "My Sweet Lord" due to its similarity to the 1963 Chiffons song "He's So Fine". He denied deliberately plagiarizing the song, but lost the resulting court case in 1976, as the judge ruled that he had subconsciously plagiarized the earlier composition."
  • Living in the Material World to George Harrison: 1972–1979
  • Later life: 1988–2001
    • "Although he is filmed playing the drums, Starr did not actually play on the track; Harrison played acoustic guitar." -> "Starr is filmed playing the drums, but did not play on the track; Harrison played acoustic guitar."
    • "Also in October of that year,..." -> "The same month, ..."
    • "John Fugelsang, then of VH1, conducted the interview, and at one point a guitar was handed to Harrison. When an audience member asked to hear "a Beatles song", Harrison gave a sheepish look and answered, "I don't think I know any!"" This is not in the reference and I would suggest is too chatty. If included it would need to be sourced and rewritten. "Sheepish look" and the exclamation mark are signs of non-encyclopedic writing. I suggest removing this sentence completely.
    • "That same year he attended the public memorial service for Linda McCartney,..." It was in June 1998, so give the date rather than "That same year", which is clunky.
  • Guitar work
    • "Rolling Stone founder Jann Wenner described Harrison as, "a guitarist ..." Lose comma
    • "Harrison listed his early influences as Carl Perkins and Chuck Berry. Harrison also identified Ry Cooder as an important later influence." -> "Harrison listed his early influences as Carl Perkins and Chuck Berry and also identified Ry Cooder as an important later influence."
    • "Harrison's use of a Rickenbacker 360/12 during the recording of A Hard Day's Night helped to popularize it" The "it" is ambiguous; use "the guitar" or "the 360/12" here.
    • "Harrison's guitar work on Abbey Road, and in particular on his song "Something", marked a significant moment in Harrison's musical development." Too many "Harrison's"; use "his" the second time
    • "...the dobro, an instrument that would soon become one of his favourites." -> "...that soon became..."
  • Sitar and Indian music
    • "Shankar influenced Harrison and the other Beatles not only musically, but spiritually." -> "Shankar influenced Harrison and the other Beatles spiritually as well as musically."
    • "Initially staying in Bombay, Harrison moved (to avoid crowding fans) to a houseboat on a remote lake in the shadow of the Himalayas where he was taught by Shankar for six weeks and read spiritual texts." -> "Harrison initially stayed in Bombay, then moved to avoid crowding fans to a houseboat on a remote lake in the shadow of the Himalayas. Shankar taught him there for six weeks." Much shorter and clearer, and we can take the spiritual texts as read.
    • "Indian classical music reached a larger audience than it ever had before." -> "Indian classical music reached a larger audience than ever before."
  • Rest of article
  • Suggestions for further sharpening of the article's focus:
    • I think there are maybe too many quotations in the article. It might be worth choosing the ones that are really crucial and paraphrasing the others.
    • I think there is considerable overlap between some of the sections and as a result the same material is included twice.
    • After an extremely detailed reading and review of the article I find myself wishing there was more of Harrison the man in there, rather than a listing of his musical accomplishments. Unfortunately I don't have a positive suggestion to make to address this. --John (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, he was a very private man in general and I think this leads to him being a bit of an enigma, something even Clapton has commented on, that he never really knew where he stood with Harrison in terms of respect and friendship. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last comment from me for now; I am not sure about the image sizes. The MoS discourages hardcoding image sizes unless there is a good reason not to let registered editors set their own preferences for image sizes. Is here a particular reason this article diverges from this guidance? --John (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You lost me on this one, but I'm sure Evan will know how to resolve this issue. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No good reason at all! Fixed. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • We seem to have gone back to the sized images. Again, I would need to see a reason for this. They look tiny on my monitor at this setting. --John (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't get a reply so I put them back to the recommended settings. I wouldn't necessarily oppose over this, but I would need to seee the rationale for departing from MoS. --John (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Per WP:MOSIM: "The thumbnail option may be used ("thumb"), or another size may be fixed." Per WP:IMAGESYNTAX "Forced image size": "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." Also, WP:IMAGESIZE says: "Sometimes a picture may benefit from a size other than the default", and the MoS in general would seem to be advising against larger images, not smaller ones (any user can click on the image to see a full size version). Having said that, its nothing I will spend time debating, but I will say that the way some of the pics display now, crowd the text on my 20 inch monitor, a size which I think is pretty standard globally. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I got carried away and boldly removed and integrated most of the info from the live performances section into the chronological sections. I could see why it was organised that way but I thought it was a problem that it was trying to be too comprehensive and we need more of a summary style on the article. It also allowed me to take out the repeated mention of his laryngitis. I think there may be one or two other possible nips and tucks we could do to streamline the article even further, if you thought that was ok. As with all my edits, I am of course open to others not thinking they are improvements and undoing or refining them. See what you think. --John (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks great to me. Thanks much for your effort John! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It really is a pleasure. I keep thinking it is almost there. I wonder if there are any other sections that could be integrated? I think it is going to be largely chronological when it is finished, which is maybe no bad thing. I might ask Sandy what she thinks as I respect her opinion. Incidentally, did you see my suggestion way up there about the lead? --John (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can no longer oppose based on the improvements that have been made during the review. At this point I welcome comments from Sandy or from further reviewers. I have enjoyed working with Evan and Gabe on the improvements and I thank them for their collaborative approach, but I will find it hard to be a neutral reviewer now! Let's see what others think. --John (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Tomcat7

[edit]

Good work overall (in much better shape than last time I read it). The major issue is the layout, which for me is a bit too chaotic. I think the death section should be moved up to the biography section, "Interest in Indian culture" merged with "Personal life" and the "Citations" paragraph could be separated into three or four columns.--Tomcat (7) 16:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive reinforcement Tomcat! I agree with you on the layout issues, thanks for bringing it to our attention. I've now moved the death section to the end of the bio and merged "Interest in Indian culture" with "Personal life". I'm not sure what you mean about the "Citations" paragraph, could you please clarify? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the number of columns in the "Citations" section to four, and I think it does make everything easier to navigate. Thanks for the suggestions! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a "two-up, two-down terraced house "? Two attics and two basements?
  • Perhaps link cul-de-sac
  • I think Knife attack could be merged with the next section, and renamed "Knife attack and aftermath: year", since it is somewhat connected to his disease, and you suddenly time travel back to 1997.

Review by SandyGeorgia

[edit]
  • Oppose per the length of this page and John's prose reviewreview. We have as of January 22 32,000 words of review on a 11,000-word article. I suggest the article should be withdrawn, subjected to an independent copyedit, and per WP:SIZE and WP:SS, cut to about 8,000 words by focusing on sections which can be better summarized ("The Beatles" and most of the sections in "Solo career") and trimming verbosity. Here's one sample only:
  • Despite extensive treatments and operations, Harrison died on 29 November 2001, aged 58,[229] at a mansion in Hollywood Hills that had once been leased by McCartney.
    • Of course he had extensive treatment, who doesn't. Who cares that the mansion was once leased by McCartney? Unencyclopedic trivia.
  • Harrison died on 29 November 2001, aged 58, in Hollywood Hills.

I suggest an independent copyeditor with brutal use of a red-pen be called in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as your oppose based on "the length of this page and John's prose review", well, John only started his review less than 48 hours ago and unless I've missed something, each of his points have already been addressed. As far as "the length of this page" as a rationale for opposing, that is not necessarily indicative of the quality of the article per se, as the vast majority of words on this page are JG66 requesting that we add more detail (review now moved to talk) to an article that you have deemed too long. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article size update. - Thanks for the suggestion. After a top to bottom copyedit by Evan, John and myself, the article currently contains around 43 kB and less than 7,300 words of readable prose, well within our guideline's parameters according to WP:SIZE, though we will gladly continue to trim wherever needed. Any specific suggestions would be greatly appreciated. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 09:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit by SandyGeorgia
I am most pleased to find a trimmed article of appropriate size, but I am still seeing the same kinds of prose issues I mentioned above. Random samples only:

  • In mid-1997, doctors discovered that Harrison had developed throat cancer after they analysed tissue from a lump on his neck.
  • Unnecessary wordiness ... Harrison was diagnosed with throat cancer in mid-1997.
  • In May 2001, it was revealed that he had undergone an operation at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, to remove a cancerous growth from one of his lungs.
  • Same ... A cancerous growth was removed from one of his lungs (in May 2001??).
  • While I strongly agree with Sandy's sentiment, I partly undid this; it needs to be this vague to follow the source. It's likely the op was in April 2001 but with this source I think it would be OR to say that. --John (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article said that the operation took place earlier in the week. I had a look at my desktop calendar before changing it and found that the Sunday and Monday of that week were in April. May 1 was a Tuesday. Your wording eliminates ambiguity and avoids making the 5:2 guess that it was in May. Thanks for double-checking my work! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • They laughed and joked throughout the 90-minute meal and when Starr said he had to go, Harrison's family and other friends retired so as to give them privacy.
  • Unencylopedic trivia.

More review for same needed, throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the issues above, and will give the article another look later today for similar problems. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Just on a very quick (i.e. non-exhaustive) pass, File:Harrison Birth Cert.jpg is listed for deletion. Also at the moment I have some doubts about the authorship of File:George Harrison Vrindavan.jpg as claimed. Needs some further investigation, I think. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed File:Harrison Birth Cert.jpg per the deletion discussion. Should it latter be determined that the image is indeed PD, then it can be added back. I'm not sure why the authorship of File:George Harrison Vrindavan.jpg is dubious. How could we prove authorship? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to doubt the authorship and permissions for that second file. Every single usage of it I can find online lists Wikipedia or Commons as the source, and I've never come across it in any biography or photo book of George or the Beatles. The user's page on commons has many other photos of religious sites, services, and figures in India. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the uploader's Commons history, with very few image source problems over a long period of contributions, i agree with Evanh2008, this seems unproblematic. But the other two fair-use images need some checking, both have weak rationales:
  • File:Sutcliffe_and_Harrison.jpg - Sutcliffe is not even mentioned in the article. If he was crucial for Harrison's carrier or there are other missing noteworthy facts about the two influencing each other, fair-use may be appropriate. Currently it fails NFCC#8 "contextual significance".
  • File:Harrison_&_Shankar.jpg - Free (albeit bad quality) images of Shankar exist, aswell as a free video (failing NFCC#1).
Both fair-use images are good illustrations, but add little additional encyclopedic information. The depicted information can be easily summarized in-text, making fair-use difficult to argue. The easiest way to move forward would be to exchange the first one with a different, free Commons image from this period (some more from 1964 are available) and replace the second one with a free image of Shankar, if needed.
Indeed, I had considered replacing that Sutcliffe picture with one of the public domain ones prior to the nomination. In hindsight, I probably should have. I'll give it a look now; thanks. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about this one (not PD, but under a CC license)? I can crop it if necessary. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All license conditions look fine, so should be OK. Regarding cropping, it depends if the scene fits into an encyclopedic article (no idea what's going on with those girls - please add an English description to the image summary). If the event is worth a very brief mention, you could just keep the image as is, but up to you either way. GermanJoe (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've now swapped out the image. I much prefer the old one myself, but working out a definite fair use rationale will likely have to wait for later. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) Please check the second fair-use image aswell (see above), when you got some time. Fair-use is always a somewhat difficult topic, thank you for adressing those issues. GermanJoe (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it a look and am now ready to swap out the Shankar image as soon as I have some input here. My first choice for replacement image is File:Ravi Shankar 2009 crop.jpg. My only hesitation at the moment is that it is also the infobox image at Ravi Shankar. I don't know if there is an issue there with using the same image on closely related articles; I know there's no legal issue, but I'm not sure what is most... encyclopedic? We could also use Commons:File:George Harrison, Gerald Ford, Ravi Shankar.jpg, which features both Harrison and Shankar, along with President Gerald Ford (for some reason). I don't really want to use that one, though, as Shankar is barely visible, hiding out in the lower right corner. Its only saving grace is that it includes Harrison and Shankar, much like the current image. Commons:File:Dia5275 Ravi Shankar.jpg, featuring Shankar alone, is also an option, but it is much lower quality. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the contested image with the 2009 pic of Shankar alone, pending further comment. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Indopug (mostly) about the lead

[edit]

While the rest of the article looks good, I think the lead can be significantly improved. The key problem for me is that it's unordered and a bit all-over-the-place. It starts with his international fame as Beatles guitarist, and then jumps to his Indian influences (without any more context about Harrison the Beatle). Then we have brief mentions of his solo career, the Wilburys and a Rolling Stone list. In the second para, we hit these same points again (Beatles, solo, Wilburys), this time naming a few successful records and shows.

I think a better approach be: after starting with a small "lead-within-a-lead" para, talk about his life mostly chronologically (somewhat like John Lennon). This summarises Harrison's life better (you can start with the Quarrymen, for eg) and makes for a much more readable story. You can then also have stuff about the Fabs' unprecedented popularity and acclaim (remember, we write assuming that the reader knows nothing of the subject) and how his guitar-playing was influential (the RS list isn't really enough). The Indian influence can also come with context, "Though Harrison's songwriting was initially overshadowed by Lennon and Macca, he came into his own by incorporating Indian influences...", as can the successful singles. Third para would be about the rest: solo work, Bangladesh, the Wilbury and Handmade.

Thanks for your insightful comments. I've now made some edits to the lead that will hopefully address your above concerns, with which I generally agree. If there are details missing it is perhaps due to the last several weeks, during which the noms have been strongly encouraged to trim any excess detail for brevity. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other things:

  • Please see JG66's extended "review" at talk. Feel free to trim out as many as you like. I am really not interested in an infobox dispute. To me, they are almost all excessive, but consensus at FAC trumps my opinion, or at least it sure seems to. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1943–1957 → 1943–57 per WP:YEAR.
  • Audio samples: neither of them seem to have been discussed in the prose. So, what purpose do they serve? How do they satisfy WP:NFCC #8? Wouldn't "Something" (in Guitar work) and "Within You" (Songwriting) make for much more relevant samples?—indopug (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. I've now introduced some detail on the audio samples. "Something" is too short to get anything usable guitar wise (18 seconds max) and I'll consider uploading a sample from "Within You". Otherwise, "OBS" and "HDYS?" contain two of Harrison's finest guitar solos. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per your suggestion, I've uploaded an audio sample of "WYWY" and added it to the "Songwriting" sub-section. Thanks again for your comments. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:GrahamColm 14:24, 9 February 2013‎ [34].

Doctor Who

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kelvin 101 (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a featured article and would like to see it a featured article for Doctor Who's 50 Anniversary Kelvin 101 (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal. Far too many uncited paragraphs, and several "citation needed" tags. Sasata (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was demoted in 2009 because of the standard of referencing (Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Doctor_Who/archive1), and also because of the in-universe plot summary in lieu of a lack of critical history and commentary. In the five minutes I have before I go to work, I would point out that we have {{refimprove section}} on Spoofs and cultural references, (this section includes an inline external link) and several sections are lacking inline reference, for example Viewership: International, the first half of Companions, Spin-offs, International and Theme music. In passing I note that reference 89 is dated 2008 and provides a citation for a statement that begins "As of 1 January 2013"; I have not time to confirm referencing for the list that follows. Checklinks reported twelve dead links. The quality of the sources needs looking into, as mentioned at the FAR. Just glancing at the prose, there appears to several single sentence paragraphs. I would ask the nom how they are going address these issues in a timely manner? Normally these are addressed before nomination. I think some work is needed to address these issues (possibly using the books mentioned in Further Reading and on the talk page), and a Peer Review sought. Edgepedia (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal - an admirable goal, but one that is this point not close to being achieved. Lots of uncited material, WP:MOS inconsistencies, maintenance tags, poor or inconsistent citations...plenty of work yet to be done here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:13, 8 February 2013 [35].

Joe West (umpire)

[edit]
Nominator(s): AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that although it was recently promoted to good article, it qualifies for featured article status. I have no real experience in this area, so I may be wrong, but I've decided it is worth a try. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am sorry, but I must oppose the nomination at this time. Although this article certainly meets the good article criteria, as I reviewed it, I do not feel it is yet to be ready for featured article status. Its prose requires further work, but these concerns could be addressed fairly quickly, I did miss some of these previously:

  • Unlink "baseball" per WP:OVERLINK
  • Same goes for "umpire", "golf", "football", and "country music"
  • "re-hired" remove hyphen per MOS:HYPHEN
  • "that is endorsed" use "are"?
  • "helped to negotiate" remove "to", there is no need for use
  • "While in college West hoped to play both baseball and football, but spring football practice interfered with the baseball season" grammar problems throughout the whole sentence there
  • "and he was" name was clarified earlier in the sentence, and the "he" should be removed hence
  • "and umpired high school baseball games on the side" on the side, is that really a requirement?
  • Per MOS:NUM, do not use "th" after numbers
  • "Milwaukee, Wisconsin" should be linked per WP:UNDERLINK
  • "He has worn number 22 throughout his career. He has umpired" doesn't fit right, merge them together perhaps
  • "$500 (USD)" would suggest stating "$US500" rather. In any case, the first mention of the dollar is further above in the 'controversy' section
  • Merge two short paragraphs into larger ones
  • Place portals under the templates for readability
  • "Internet Ventures accessdate = November 24, 2012" there is a problem there
  • It is suggested that one should not "shout" in reference titles, regardless of if the actual title is like that
  • Check your link orders in references; "ESPN" is linked first in reference 5, but not above in reference 3
  • "ESPNBoston.com" change to simply "ESPN"
  • "Joe West (umpire) at the Internet Movie Database" remove the disambiguation from the title, in brackets
  • Throughout the article, I can see a bundle of sentences starting with "he" one after another, specifically the second paragraph of the lead, change it up a little and put some tune into it
  • Ref. 7 is missing the publisher

TBrandley (what's up) 00:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not all of the above has yet been addressed (as far as I know), but I have couple objections. First, I don't believe "that is endorsed" should be changed to "that are endorsed". I could be wrong, but that didn't seem to be an improvement to me. Also, I don't agree that "and he was" should have the "he" removed, as it doesn't improve the sentence. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with removing the "he" is that it would no longer be a compound sentence, so the comma would have to go too. I think that sentence needs a comma (or a rewrite). I could just be thinking about this too hard or misunderstanding the grammar rules for commas. EricEnfermero Howdy! 01:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an experienced reviewer, so let me try to help. In response to your first question, if the phrase was in the Umpiring career section, I agree with you, although the phrasing is cleaner as is, without either. For the second question, I assume this is for the college section (not having sections identified in the review is making it hard for me to find the issues). In this case, I agree with TBrandley that removing "he" would be an improvement in the prose. When a person's name is out in front of a sentence, and there are no grammatical issues, the "he" is a redundancy, as it basically duplicates the name and is not needed in the context of the sentence. Often, knowing when to dump an excess word or three here and there can be the different between success and failure at FAC, and I think it should be done in this instance. If you have any other questions about reviewer comments, please let me know and I'll attempt to clarify them for you. And it shouldn't need another comma or major rewrite, although Eric may be looking at something else. Again, some of the shorter comments are hard to find. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you are right. It's not that big of a deal anyway and I've removed the "he". AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you guys for your comments on that. EricEnfermero Howdy! 06:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I can't recall seeing a baseball umpire's article appear here before in the five or so years I've been here, and my curiosity increased when I found that one of the articles I created is linked to here. In that respect, I'm interested in seeing how the article fares. I didn't get to review all of it, but have looked at a fair amount and have come up with the following thoughts.

  • As a group, World Umpires Association should be linked in the lead. This is especially true since there is no link in the body.
  • Early life: "After high school graduation, West intended...". Wouldn't this be better and make more sense as "After his high school graduation"?
  • Is it Elon College or Elon University? The lead and body are inconsistent.
  • College football career: Could have some kind of link to the North Carolina women's basketball team. Also, in what year were West and Yow inducted into the Elon hall? If the MLB.com page doesn't say (I admittedly haven't checked), perhaps Elon has a page that lists its hall members.
  • Umpiring career: National Labor Relations Board definitely deserves a link here. Overlinking is capable of sinking an FAC nom, but don't be afraid to link something once if it is an important concept or group such as this.
  • "but West and several other umpires were rehired by the MLB in 2002." Two points here. First, it should be just "by MLB", not "by the MLB". This is roughly equivalent to saying "by the Major League Baseball", which is grammatically awkward and not seen in any baseball-related writing that I can recall. There are numerous other instances, from what I can see. Second, does the source say how many other umpires got their jobs back in 2002? I'd swear it did from memory, but could be wrong.
  • As potential baseball jargon, balls and strikes could use a link or two.
  • "and has worked in six League Division Series". Since you put an abbreviated version in the lead, why not use it here?
  • Reception: "a Sports Illustrated survey asked 470 MLB players to identify the best and worst MLB umpires." Two points here. First, since SI is a printed publication, it should be italicized in the lead and reference 8. Second, since there's one MLB for the players, the second MLB is a prose redundancy. It should be obvious to the reader that the MLB players are critiquing MLB umpires. You should be able to remove it and improve the prose without affecting the sentence's meaning.
  • Conversely, The Hardball Times is not a print publication, which means it should not be italicized. Also, I'm not convinced that Bleacher Report is a reliable enough source for this information; it has a lot of blog-type writing from what I've seen, and I'd only consider it reliable if the writer had some credentials. Maybe Hardball Times itself can be cited for its own review?
  • Incidents: Since Fay Vincent's first name was given earlier, it doesn't need to be repeated in full here. The last name alone will be sufficient.
  • Linking bat may be an optional one, but I like to err on the side of linking anything that may come off as jargon.
  • Full names of the Yankees and Red Sox should be given. While I'm here, was there anyone in the press who agreed with West's viewpoint? I'm a Yankees fan and I certainly did. Those games were painful to watch. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to your last question, I don't know, but I think that most people were simply looking to take West's quote and run with it. After all, people love it when they think they have validation for their hatred of officials. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wallace Matthews (ESPN.com) did make that point in an article. He said that West should be rewarded for saying what everyone was thinking. I'm having computer problems and I'm editing from a mobile device for a few days, so adding sourced content is a bear. The article comes up in a search though. EricEnfermero Howdy! 06:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe most of the concerns raised by both of the above have now been addressed. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notable games: Curveball is another item that could use an appropriate link.
    • "West's crew ruled Yankees batter Alex Rodriguez out for interference after Rodriguez appeared to swat the ball out of glove of opposing pitcher Bronson Arroyo on his way to first base." Needs "the" before "glove".
    • Terry Francona can just be referred to by his last name here.
    • "and NYPD officers in riot gear took the field to calm the crowd." Should there be "to" after "took"?
    • Ref 7 has a double period for the publisher.
    • Title of ref 14 shouldn't have any parts in all caps. The first word should be made into sentence case instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a second look at the article, I'm still uncertain about it. The main issue I have is the organization of the section on his umpiring career, the most important one in the article. It starts off with some background and his debut, which is fine, but then jumps 20 years ahead, skipping all of the interesting things that happened in games he umpired and saving them for later. For this article, I'd prefer to see a more chronological order, with the reception still as its own unique section. Just as troubling is the text on his most significant games umpired, which takes up only three sentences. That's not a lot for five World Series and numerous other playoff games. It would be interesting to see what positions he umpired during the Series, or at least which games he called balls and strikes for. Some of this could be combined with the interesting incidents mentioned already (Howell, A-Rod) to liven up the prose and expand it. For example, I saw in West's MLB profile that he was the youngest League Championship Series umpire. Something like that should be mentioned in a comprehensive article on him. As the article is now, I'm not sure the structure is at an FA level. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Along these lines, what about breaking up the umpiring career section into three or four chronological periods (maybe early career, the period leading up to his resignation, and the recent years since his rehire)? Reception could still stand on its own as well. I'm still plagued by connection issues and limited to periodic bursts of editing, so I wanted to discuss before I got the nerve to rearrange a key section of a Good Article. EricEnfermero Howdy! 01:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a great improvement over the current structure. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a shot. I'm not sure how it flows now. We can just revert if it's terrible or if someone has other ideas. EricEnfermero Howdy! 08:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)
WP:LEAD
Early life
Umpiring career
Notable games

Comments Nice to see another Aggie! Good work here.

  • "West's suspension was believed to be the first issued to an umpire in MLB history" -- I see that this was the tense used in the source, but is this no longer believed?
  • "... when Chicago Cubs outfielder Andre Dawson bumped him after a called third strike during a game at Wrigley Field" -- grammar?
  • "tossed fourteen bats onto the field" -- WP:OVERLINK, is bats really necessary?
  • "He worked his 4,000th career game on July 30, 2009 at Miller Park in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; he ejected Washington Nationals manager Jim Riggleman from the contest." -- is 'contest' the same as 'game' here? I'm not familiar with much sports lingo.
  • "Reception" seems like a strange name for that section; this isn't a film or event. Is there any precedent for this? "Legacy"? "Criticism"?

Jujutacular (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points: Contest is the same as game, yes. Also, it was suggested above that bats be linked. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The "bat" issue is a very small matter, so I wouldn't hold up support on it, but I fail to see how that could be considered jargon. I know very little about baseball, but I know what a bat is. Jujutacular (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. It appears that West is not the first umpire to be suspended. I have added a sentence to reflect that. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it wasn't actually the first time an umpire was suspended, is it really relevant to say that one source believed that it was the first at the time? This is especially true given that you simply found examples of two earlier umpire suspensions, not a source that analyzes umpire suspensions in general. Jujutacular (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I'd like to hear some other folks chime in. It's a good question. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading an article on the suspension in which West himself actually asserted that he was not the first one suspended. I don't know if that article was ultimately one of our references, or whether we would even mention that aspect of it, but I thought I'd bring it up. EricEnfermero Howdy! 06:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my issue is, we have one source that says "it was believed" to be the first umpire suspension. Believed by whom? We have no idea how widespread the belief was. It could have been a random off-the-cuff remark. It doesn't seem fitting for inclusion. Jujutacular (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Jujutacular - and gig 'em. In regard to the Reception section and precedent in general, we're a pretty small and new task force. This is the first umpire article promoted to GA via the work of the task force. We've made significant contributions to dozens of umpire articles, but each is still structured differently. In other words, there may not be a consistent precedent to follow. We had Controversy as the title at one point, but it didn't seem quite right for a BLP. I like Legacy and have used that one in other articles, but I think it's a better choice for a retired or deceased subject. I'm not sure what the answer is. EricEnfermero Howdy! 06:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did find "Legacy" on one other BLP (Janet Jackson), but that seems more fitting there on such a notable figure. Striking that comment. Jujutacular (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the mention of possibly being the first umpire suspended. EricEnfermero Howdy! 10:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment - nominator appears to have retired. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, tks Nikki -- even if it wasn't the case, a month without anything approaching consensus is long enough, so I'll be archiving this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:GrahamColm 13:59, 6 February 2013‎ [36].

My Chemical Romance

[edit]
Nominator(s): Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because is well cited, well written, feature-worthy and meets criteria. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail
  • Too short lead.
  • Several uncited sentences.
  • Dead links in the references.
  • With a grand total of six edits, nominator is not the primary contributor to the article.
  • Unbalanced coverage: there's more about some tabloid incident than their musical style.
  • POV worries: there's a section called Controversy.

This article is a solid B, definitely not GA-worthy, leave alone FA.—indopug (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as above. Review should be closed. A long way from FA status, and would certainly benefit from work before going to GAC, though perhaps that is within reach. I agree with the above comments, and particularly echo the unbalanced coverage concerns. There are even citation needed tags in the article. J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Simply not good enough at this point. There are entire parts of the article (like the "Controversy" section) that have barely any reliable sources cited, are completely irrelevant, and don't reflect anything besides how a few fans of the band feel. Friginator (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 08:37, 5 February 2013‎ [37].

John Van Antwerp MacMurray

[edit]
Nominator(s): Homunculus (duihua) 01:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because John V.A. MacMurray was a prominent American diplomat and China expert whose analysis of the events leading up to the Second Sino-Japanese War were both novel and highly prescient. The page was promoted to a Good Article with ease about three months ago. Homunculus (duihua) 01:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Back in the morning, but I'll get started with this: "The school’s president, Woodrow Wilson, therefore encouraged MacMurray ...": See WP:Checklist#because. What does "therefore" mean here ... that everyone who was noted to be proficient in language was encouraged by Wilson? It's better to leave the word out if the meaning isn't clear. I made the edit ... see if that works for you. - Dank (push to talk) 04:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All the changes you've made are agreeable to me. The source does suggest that Wilson's recommendation to MacMurray was directly related to the aptitude he displayed for language: "[MacMurray] also manifested a sensitivity for language and literature that led Princeton's president, Woodrow Wilson, whom he greatly admired, to urge him to pursue an academic career." But if we want to keep these two things separate, that's fine with me also. Homunculus (duihua) 16:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I want to keep them separate. "A, therefore B" tends to imply causality in careful prose: whenever A happens, B happens as a direct result. I'm not getting that from that quote. I've tweaked; does that capture the sense you wanted? - Dank (push to talk) 00:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looks fine. Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 00:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Use a consistent date format, and pick one that works with WP:DATESNO
  • Be consistent in whether quotation marks in footnotes appear before or after other punctuation
  • FN10: page formatting
  • Be consistent in when you employ access dates
  • Compare FNs 1 and 11
  • Compare FNs 9 and 18
  • FN20: page?
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations for books

Some general cleaning up needed here for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is very helpful. I'll try to take care of these issues tonight as time permits.Homunculus (duihua) 19:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got to work on a few of these, and will address the rest tomorrow. My timing with the nomination was less than ideal; it's turning out to be a busy week. Homunculus (duihua) 05:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've now addressed all these issues, hopefully to satisfaction. Please let me know if you spot any outstanding issues. Homunculus (duihua) 03:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments as noted below:

  • No alt text on any of the images used.
  • It seems to me that the MacMurray text is relied on very heavily, perhaps too heavily. Are there any additional sources available? (to clarify, both the use of the subject's book and his papers are extensively cited, especially compared to other, secondary sources)
  • It would be good for someone with better knowledge than me to review the screen capture of MacMurray's film for compliance with Fair Use, as it is a copyrighted image.
  • There is no information to speak of concerning his life (16 years) after he retired from government service.

I'll try to come back and look at it some more later. GregJackP Boomer! 03:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Greg. I am hoping to have more time over the next couple days to address these issues in some more depth, but as a point of clarification, the MacMurray book on the 1935 memorandum includes a lengthy introduction by UPenn historian Arthur Waldon, written in 1992. That part of the book, which I used to substantiate most of the analytical and many of the biographical details of MacMurray's life, is a secondary source (and a very good one at that). I hope that's useful. Homunculus (duihua) 03:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added alt text for the images. Hopefully they are descriptive enough.
  • I would also be interested to hear from someone more familiar with Fair Use rules. I'm actually not sure that MacMurray's collection of photos and videos were ever copyrighted. They were captured in the 1920s, and as far as I understand it, he left his collection to his family, which donated it to the Princeton University library (in the 1960s, if memory serves). They might be in the public domain. But if they aren't, I'm reasonably certain that a screen grab from one of the video reels should be alright.
  • I will see if I can find any information on his life post-retirement.
Is there anything else? And does my comment above assuage your concerns about over-reliance on the MacMurray book? There are actually one or two more secondary sources I've found that I could integrate to offer some alternate perspectives. I will get to that in the coming days. Homunculus (duihua) 03:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- Open over a month with no consensus to promote, and no activity for over two weeks, this nom appears to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. While I'm here I'll make some suggestions for improvement just based on one section, Film and photography:

  • A collection consisting of more than 1,600 of MacMurray's photographs taken in rural China between 1913 and 1917 is available through the Princeton University library. -- "available through" sounds like an advertisement; a more encyclopedic way to say it would be "held by".
  • "Video" is anachronistic here; "film" and "movie" would be the appropriate terms.
  • Unless your source indicates that "Motion Picture" is the actual name of that Cine-Kodak camera, the words should be in lower case.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:GrahamColm 14:07, 2 February 2013‎ [38].

Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wer900 • talk 22:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the last FAC revealed no content problems, no substantial changes have been made since, and while there were title issues discussed in the previous FAC, the current title appears to be the shortest one that adequately gets the point across. All other FA criteria are met by this article, as evidenced by the previous two FACs. Wer900 • talk 22:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are lots of densely-packed identical cites, for example in the Extraterrestrial artifacts section, every sentence in the penultimate paragraph uses ref no 66, whereas just a single cite at the end of the paragraph would remove the clutter. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This system exists as a response to concerns raised in the good article candidate review for this article. Statements on the subject of this article are by their nature easily challenged, so it was suggested that each statement have a citation in order to avoid this. Otherwise, many statements in this article would be interpreted as unsupported original research. I think that for that reason the system of citations after almost every sentence should stay. Wer900 • talk 23:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A tricky subject - it would be easy to fall into the trap of writing it like an essay given the structure of the topic, but so far the prose has managed to avoid that.
I'd link altruism.
some extraterrestrial civilizations are malevolent. - would "inimical" be a better adjective here?
We cannot state if these extraterrestrial civilizations have something against humanity, only what would happen if they were good or bad (benevolent or malevolent) in general. Therefore, I think that "malevolent" is a better term. Wer900 • talk 23:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"hostile" is another possible word, but I take your point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think hostile would be better, in terms of NPOV. "Malevolent" (in my mind) carries an intrensic judgement that the civilization is "evil", altogether different from hostile; since we can't judge their reasons for acting as they do, just their current (hostile or friendly) attitude, hostile is probably a less loaded term. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: hostility implies simple aggression, such as one would find from an enemy in warfare, who may not also be malevolent. Hostility often operates with a compatible set of ethics or morality. In other words, two hostile enemies may have a compatible set of ethics. In a situation where one party is malevolent, their ethics or morality will be incompatible. A good example of this scenario can be found in Torchwood: Children of Earth. In this science fiction series, Torchwood attempts to protect the planet from the malevolent extraterrestrial entities known simply as the 486. It was at first thought that the species was simply hostile to Earth, and needed Earth children for some unknown reason. But once it was discovered that the 486 use human children as recreational drugs, the species became known as malevolent. Further, the government, in an attempt to save some of the children from this plight, became hostile to Torchwood who wanted to reveal their past dealings with the alien entitles (a malevolent relationship of convenience between the government and the aliens). Finally, Torchwood's leader had to make the hard decision to sacrifice the life of one child in order to destroy the aliens and save all of the children of Earth. To the mother of the child who died, this act was malevolent, but since it saved the planet, the true nature of this act is somewhat murky from an ethical point of view. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's closing comments - After 30 days, there is no consensus to promote this candidate, and I still see problems such as "direct face-to-face communication", which I know is a metaphor - but an unfortunate one, and there is an image of the structure of DNA, which is used to illustrate "extraterrestrial biochemistry". I think the highly speculative basis of the article is a core problem and this is (rightly) troubling reviewers. Graham Colm (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Your last sentence makes it appear as if this article could never be featured, due to its speculative nature. Although closer scrutiny is warranted, this has not been provided by the editing community to nearly the same level as they would review other articles.
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:GrahamColm 13:30, 2 February 2013 [39].

KFC

[edit]
Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 12:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked to get it to good article status and I want to get it to FA status. If it isn't ready, then I'm sure that any feedback will be immensely helpful and will allow me to improve the article. I have run out of ways that I can see that I can improve the article now, although this may be my fault, a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees. I have not gotten an article to FA level yet, although I have got 12 articles to GA level. Farrtj (talk) 12:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While the article is in OK shape, I'm afraid that it's not of FA standard yet and would need a fair bit of work to get there. Based on reading selected sections of the article, I have the following comments:

  • The 'operations' section is not at all comprehensive, and needs a lot of work. This section is heavily focused on recent news stories (typically scandals of various sorts) rather than providing an overview of what the operations of the company in each country actually are, and the issues which it's encountered (good and bad). The weighting given to each country seems odd - Indonesia's 420 stores get a sentence and the 600 stores in Australia get a paragraph and a sentence by itself. Other countries aren't mentioned at all (most notably, Japan where KFC is a big deal - Google japanese kfc christmas for instance).
There really isn't much out there about KFC Indonesia unless you speak Indonesian, which I don't. If the single sentence looks daft, then perhaps I should just remove the sentence? Farrtj (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't believe the stuff about the measures being taken to protect the 'secret recipe'. Food scientists or chemists would have no problem working out what it is, and I'm sure that this has been done. It's clearly in KFC's commercial and legal interests to keep this out of the public domain and encourage a mythology, but it's hardly top secret in reality. It would be better to focus this material on the mythology around the recipe and the industrial practices and legal strategies the firm uses to avoid disclosure rather than the current material about the executives.
If newspapers could hire boffins to figure out what the secret recipe is, then why haven't they done so yet? After all, it's a high interest story: the media went ballistic when there was a possibility that a Kentucky couple had discovered the secret recipe. Farrtj (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'advertising' section also seems to be weighted to relatively recent events, and doesn't cover different advertising strategies (in broad terms!) used in different countries/markets; for instance, KFC spends a lot of money sponsoring cricket which obviously wouldn't win it any business in Japan, China or the US where other sponsorship approaches are used.
It looks like KFC have stopped sponsoring the Twenty20 in Australia? I don't know if sponsorship of cricket in Australia continues, but if they only sponsored it for a few years then it hardly warrants a mention. KFC advertising is usually the same all over the world. Farrtj (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on a quick read of the 'history' section, it seems unduly focused on issues at the head office level, and doesn't really discuss the expansion of this chain across the US and internationally.
The chain is sheepish about this fact (as you'd expect), but a lot of international franchise operations weren't profitable in the early years, and expansion was slow, especially in Western Europe. Italy and Scandinavia failed, and France and Germany were only really cracked in the last 10 years or so. Farrtj (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the number of restaurants as of 2011 or 2012? The article states both (and can this be updated?)
Well it's both: from the Annual Report 2011 which ends on 31 December 2011. So the figure could be called the 2011 or 2012 figure. But I've made them say the same thing now.Farrtj (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is almost entirely referenced to news stories and the like, and doesn't make much use of the available books and journal articles on this chain (for instance, [40], [41], [42], [43] as some examples I found quite quickly - I imagine that there are lots more and/or better books and articles as well).

Overall, my concerns are that the article is not comprehensive (criterion 1b) and does not reflect the full literature which is available (criterion 1c). Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not keen on the Ozersky source. It seems at times speculative. And as it is written for a general audience, it seems to take liberties with the truth at times. And I don't have access to those academic sources. Farrtj (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other articles you list as potential sources are all terrible.Farrtj (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your post on my talk page, I'm afraid that my above concerns have not been addressed. I'd suggest that this nomination be withdrawn or closed by the delegates as it has no prospect of succeeding. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to all of your concerns, and I have made some changes, but on the whole, a find that your criticisms are without validity.Farrtj (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: KFC opened in Argentina five days ago. Here is a RS.--Neo139 (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I feel the article needs some more work.
    • I would like to see the latest SEC 10K statement for Yum used to establish facts about the operation when it is issued in a couple of weeks.
      • Yes, well it hasn't been issued yet, that's why I've used the 10K to 31 December 2011. That one was released on the 21 February 2012, so I'd expect that is around the date we can expect the next 10K to be issued. Farrtj (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article lacks detail, it needs deeper coverage.
    • There needs to be a lot more regarding the history of the company. If you do searches in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Nation's Restaurant News, and Google Books you can get a much more comprehensive list of stuff that can be used to fill in the history. Trust me, it takes some serious digging: look at the Burger King and the history of Burger King articles to see where you can find some of these types of sources - you can find the facts out there.
    • The Chinese operations is woefully inadequate, by the company's own admissions that is its largest market and the source of half of its income. You need to develop it, and the other international sections, better. While researching one of the articles I have been working on, I have found several article referencing KCF being an American company with most of its operations outside its home territory. This is important, as it is now a bellwether for American companies expanding abroad. In Many articles I have researched, it is the base of comparison as opposed to McDonald's.
      • Okay. I have since improved the coverage there. But I am a little sceptical of the China success story. As I now mention in the article, KFC had only 100 restaurants in China in 1997. The whole thing reeks of a bubble, and if you check the most recent headlines regarding KFC and China, it looks as if the bubble has already burst, or is beginning to do so.Farrtj (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are the three points I see need addressing before FA status can be granted. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Working from the bottom of the article up, I see lots of problems. Weird phrasing, bad organization, questionable research, etc. I haven't delved into the History or the bulk of Operations yet.

  • While in some cases a variety in phrasing can be helpful, I find it a bit confusing to refer to people in different ways throughout the article. I see "Colonel Sanders", "the Colonel", and "Sanders" to refer to the founder. This only works if we assume the reader already has some familiarity with the topic or has read the Origin section in its entirety. This phrase is particularly confusing: "Early advertisements for KFC regularly featured Sanders, and the Colonel made several appearances as himself" My advice: drop the nicknames, stick with "Sanders" throughout.
"Sanders" refers to the person; "Colonel Sanders" of "the Colonel" refers to the character that Sanders played in public and on television. Farrtj (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, where in the article is this distinction made clear? Looking at the first three instances of "Colonel" in the article, none of them offer any explanation. Second, why doesn't the entire article follow the convention you've described here? Example: "the Colonel grew incensed when Massey decreed that company headquarters would be in Nashville"
There are two simple reasons why I say "Massey and Sanders did not like each other, and the Colonel grew incensed...". In the second reference to Sanders in that sentence, to use "he" it would not be immediately apparent to the reader that I was referring to Sanders rather than Massey. And secondly, it would be a poor prose style decision to repeat "Sanders" twice. As Harland Sanders regularly went by the name "Colonel Sanders" or simply "The Colonel", I have used that name here. As to your other question, it wasn't official that the Colonel was a character that Sanders played, officially "the Colonel" WAS Sanders. But Ozersky in his book about the Colonel hints that the Colonel was a "character" played by Harland Sanders, even though he can't prove it.Farrtj (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "chains across the UK and Ireland ceased to use palm oil and switched to rapeseed oil to reduce saturated fats across its range by 25 per cent and cut food miles by sourcing from Kent instead of Asia." Too many ideas being presented without any punctuation.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Other international operations reads like a trivia section. This is partly because everything is presented in choppy one- and two-sentence paragraphs, and partly because the material presented is quite insubstantial.
Okay, I've edited this to make it more substantial and less choppy.Farrtj (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but now this puzzles me: "there are almost 900 KFCs in Africa, including long-established markets such as South Africa, Egypt and Morocco..." which seems to contradict the new title of the section Developing markets. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.Farrtj (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the province of Quebec, Canada, KFC styles itself 'PFK' (Poulet Frit à la Kentucky) to avoid harassment under Bill 101." Why? Also, citation?
Removed now.Farrtj (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I saw a section titled Products, I expected to read about products. Instead, the first three paragraphs are a folklore story about a secret recipe. The third paragraph in particular is blatantly not related to products whatsoever. Regardless of where this stuff ends up, I'm extremely skeptical about some of the statements made here, particularly since they are presented as fact when they are much more likely to be myths.
You don't believe that Coca-Cola has a secret recipe either then? The secret recipe is often the reason why KFC receives mainstream media coverage. Besides, Pete Harman and John Y Brown Jr at least partly credit KFC's success to the secret recipe. If you disagree with them, then you either think they are stupid, or liars. Harman and Brown are both self made millionaires, and Brown became Governor of Kentucky, which implies that they're not stupid. The Brown quote was made relatively recently, and as he no longer runs KFC, what is his incentive to lie? The third paragraph refers to the secret recipe, which is a core component of Original Recipe chicken, the most famous KFC menu item. The three paragraphs about the secret recipe that you object to are entirely cited to major media organisations. I am simply reporting what they have said. I also add a sceptical note at the end. What exactly is your problem with that as I do not quite understand your angle here(?)Farrtj (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sanders had also differentiated his method" Since this is the first sentence of the paragraph, it is not clear what "also" refers to.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sanders had also differentiated his method by varying the amount of oil used with the amount of chicken being cooked" So when you say that Sanders "differentiated his method" by doing this, are you suggesting that no one else varied the amount of oil they used? I'm sorry, but that strikes me as being a rather silly claim.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now the question is: How did he apply pressure while cooking? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is already explained in the History section.Farrtj (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2012 the KFC breakfast menu began to be rolled out internationally." What's on it?
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The "It's finger lickin' good" slogan originated in the 1950s." This opening to the Advertising section really only works if the reader already knows about the phrase. Otherwise, it is a very abrupt way to begin the section.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a KFC manager called Ken Harbough" why is he "called" that? Is that not his real name? I suggest replacing "called" with "named".
Dealt with.Farrtj (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since 2005, an updated version of the original 1950s logo has occasionally been used at some locations, such as the U.S. and New Zealand." When I first read this, I thought "locations" meant individual restaurants, which made "such as the U.S. and New Zealand" clause confusing, as it would suggest that there is only one KFC location in either country. But if, on the other hand, "locations" does not mean individual restaurants, and we're talking about restaurants throughout the U.S., then I don't see how the usage could be called "occasional" unless the location given were much more specific. I think you need to go back to the source material and figure out what point you're trying to make here, because I just don't see it.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In May 2007, KFC UK requested that the Tan Hill Inn in North Yorkshire refrain from using the term "Family Feast" to describe its Christmas menu." Why?
Dealt with.Farrtj (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a helpful source. "KFC" is mentioned four times in the article, each time alongside other fast food restaurants.Farrtj (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It mentions the Indian protests. And frankly, KFCs, such as in Libya recently, are often targeted as symbols of American imperialism, rather than any specific thing regarding the company itself. Farrtj (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was useless. Again, a couple of lines about KFC. And the sources I already have are valid.Farrtj (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read this. Wasn't hugely impressed.Farrtj (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, KFC is only mentioned in passing, and does not get an indepth treatment. And I think I make enough of a deal of protests already in India and by Greenpeace and PETA.Farrtj (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is Schlosser's child's adaptation of Fast Food Nation, and I own and have twice read the adult version. FFN discusses KFC very little directly, and is very impartial and non-academic. In fact, Fast Food Nation is already referred to in the article. Farrtj (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have read this chapter. Frankly, it is not very in-depth, and doesn't add anything to the article.Farrtj (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not prepared to buy this. And I doubt even the British Library here in the UK has a copy, as I doubt it found a British publisher. The History section is already comprehensive anyway. Besides, Massey was only with KFC between July 1964 and 1966. That's less than two years. And Massey is already referred to 14 times by name in the article. That's more than enough. Farrtj (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well those sources were an utter waste of time. I can't access the Quality Management one, but given the uslessness of all the other sources you list, I can't say I'm that bothered. Rest assured, I've already checked all the academic databases, and Google Books for good sources, and there aren't any that I haven't either fully utilised, or found to be utterly unhelpful. Farrtj (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now dealt with all comments.Farrtj (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't. You've dismissed pretty much every single academic journal or book which has been suggested (even if such works only have limited coverage of the topic, they often have useful details, and most of the above works include a specific focus on KFC). Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't dismissed them. I've read all but two, and already mined them for any useful information.Farrtj (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Farrtj, the manner in which this FAC is progressing (or not, rather) is somewhat concerning to me, particularly when it comes to the issue of sourcing. When the reliability of the sources you have used is questioned, your response is that you are "simply reporting what they have said", yet when potentially useful sources are suggested, your arguments for not using them amount to little more than "this was useless" or "[I] wasn't hugely impressed". Let me ask you this: What criteria are you using to evaluate the source material? If all you must do is "simply report what they have said", then why are you unwilling to do that for the sources suggested above? Or, if it is necessary for you to be "hugely impressed" by a source in order to use it, what is it that you find so hugely impressive about the sources you have used? I'm not attempting to disparage you or your work, as you have very clearly put an immense amount of effort into this project, I am simply looking to establish some consistency where it appears to be lacking. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to improve the article as much as anyone else. But I have already scoured the academic databases and Google Books, so I am already familiar with the sources you list. And I have either already used them as far as I can, or they are simply no good. And frankly, broadsheet newspaper sources are perfectly legitimate. Regardless of whether you think the 11 herbs and spices genuinely affect the flavour of the chicken, or whether it is just a clever marketing ploy, it is the basis on which KFC differentiates itself from its competitors. And if a secret recipe is held in a computerised vault, with only a handful of executives knowing it, then I think that it interesting information. Yes, I accept your point that an academic article is generally a better source than a newspaper, and if I such articles existed with useful information, I would have used them.Farrtj (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/February_2013&oldid=557825524"