July 2009[edit]

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 Karanacs 21:44, 28 July 2009 [1].

Wildfire[edit]

Nominator(s): MrBell ^(talk) 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because of its importance as a global topic. MrBell ^(talk) 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comment - stunning imagery Fasach Nua (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comment agree with Fasach Nua, if it was only a question of images, this article would deserve promotion without further ado!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

another comment Where does the definition in the first sentence of the article come from? I don't see it in ref 2.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both Ref 2, slide 35 and Ref 1, page 4 have the definition. Wildland is just a US term for the wilderness/outdoors. MrBell ^(talk) 16:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sitting here thinking about it, the definition in the ref is kinda odd, because in the US, wildland fire includes wildfire, wildland fire use, and prescribed fire. Basically, a wildfire is any uncontrolled fire of the wildland fire type. And since wildland fires occur in the wildland (aka wilderness), then a wildfire is any uncontrolled fire in the wilderness. MrBell ^(talk) 16:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: The images are so good that there is a danger that people will look at these and not read the article. I found myself doing this. I will read it; meantime, I couldn't understand the caption under the tryptich ("Forest development in the Bitterroot National Forest...") How exactly does one interpret these pictures from this caption, and why is it in quotes? Brianboulton (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about now? I hesitated rewording the direct quote from the text, but you were right, it was difficult to interpret. MrBell ^(talk) 15:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

However, would the picture fit better after the discussion of fuel build-up in the suppression section? MrBell ^(talk) 15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Makes sure that the ISO-style dates in the citations are formatted correctly: I've seen several that are YYYY-M-D, M-D-YYYY, etc., instead of YYYY-MM-DD. Scripts or bots might not notice them all—you may need to go through by hand (ugh), and I'd rather not, at least yet (sorry). I agree that there's great images here.--an odd name 08:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC) doneReply[reply]

Comments -
~~You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.~~ done
~~Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. I noted NIFC, NWCG, USDA, etc.~~ done
~~Newspaper titles should be in italics, and the articles should be in quotations marks.~~ done
~~In your notes, titles of books should be italicised, such as "Are Big Fires Inevitable, 14" where the title should be in italics, to match the form given in the references.~~ done

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

done At least I think I fixed them all. Let me know if there are others I missed. MrBell ^(talk) 16:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On first glance, this article looks fantastic. I'll have some comments for you as soon as I have time to edit. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note Please don't use templates such as ((done-t)); they slow down loading time of the FAC page. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I apologize. I was aware that the use of the image templates ((done)) and ((notdone)) was discouraged in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates ("Supporting and opposing"); however, I was under the impression that the use of the non-image templates ((done-t)) and ((notdone)) was encouraged, per Wikipedia:Peer review "How to respond to a request." Is this not true, and should their use be discouraged on the peer review page as well? MrBell ^(talk) 15:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even though those are "non-image", they are still templates, and they can still cause the FAC archives to exceed template limits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure about peer review, as I don't follow what goes on there much. I just know that SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) doesn't like them on FAC because of template limits and FAC's load time. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Good job overall, great images. But broadly speaking, there are large parts where US-specific situations are described as if they were broad generalisations. Specifically:

Lead

General comment - the lead reads more like an introduction and less like a summary of this article.

Better?

I don't think the first sentence requires three separate refs to support an uncontroversial statement of what a wildfire is. Not a fan of refs in the lead (since it's a summary of the article, anything in the lead should be supported by refs in the body of the article), but that's neither here nor there.

Better with only two?

Yes and no. All three are very similar - they appear to be standard US government definitions, and they're linked to fire management laws. But wildfire has a meaning in English that's fuzzier than this one, I suspect. Unfortunately, most people who write about wildfire seem to assume it's a common English word that doesn't need to be defined. One thing though - if you're using US government definitions, I would recommend that you stick a bit closer to them, and use "wildland" rather than "wilderness"; it's more accurate "wilderness" has an element of "pristine", while "wildland" is merely uncultivated land.

How about now?

sentence 2: Greek fire really doesn't deserve more than a hatnote here, but if it's mentioned at all it should be further down in the lead. It's not central to the understanding of the article, it doesn't deserve second billing.

sentence 3: "bushfire" (in Australasia) - bush fire has much wider usage than just Australasia (see here, for example); phrasing it like that suggests that it's a local usage, which creates a misleading impression.

~~para 2, sentence 1: e.g., as a Latin abbrev, should be italicised~~

~~para 2, sentence 1: "peat, shrub, trees" goes from a collective noun ("peat") to a singular noun ('shrub") to a plural noun ("trees")~~

~~para 2, sent. 2: "or an action of man" - non-gender-specific language is preferable, as it something other than passive voice.~~

~~para 2, sent. 3: "nine out of ten" - is the source speaking globally, or only about the US?~~

~~para 2, sent. 4: there's a shift in tense in this sentence: "are common" to "occurring"~~

~~para 3, sent.1: "Along with the direct damage" - damage hasn't been mentioned yet, so you can't talk about "along with...damage"~~

para 3, sent.1: "direct damage...beneficial effects" - you can't really contrast "direct damage" with beneficial effects; if I see "direct" damage specified, I'd expect to see it contrasted with indirect damage. Alternately, you could contrast "damage" with "beneficial effects"

para 3, sent.1: "as many plant species are dependent on the effects of fire for growth and reproduction" - while strictly speaking this is true (every system has got to have at least a few pyrophytes), the idea that fires are important for plant regeneration isn't true of all systems. This should be re-phrased to make it clear that this observation is a (broad) local, rather than a global generalisation.

para 3, sent. 2: "too much wildfire may cause other negative ecological effects" - "too much" isn't an appropriate term for wildfire. "Too many"/"too frequent" (too short a return time) or "too large" (in areal extent), but not "too much"

para 3 in general is too North-American-specific; the following can't really be generalised outside of the US or, at best, the developed world:
- "The strategies ... have varied over the years"
- "now incorporate techniques that permit and even encourage fires in some regions"
- "Wildfires generally do not involve property"
- "with extensive urbanization of wilderness"

I've made some changes. I agree that the above statements may not apply to countries that don't have the resources to fight fires. However, I have yet to find anything discussing their actions one way or the other. What do you suggest?

I realise the source is quoted correctly, but are there really such things as "arched power lines"? "Power line arcs" seems more likely to me. Maybe we can find a different source. --Jc3s5h (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changed; new ref and wikilinks added. Better?

Yes. that looks good. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Distinction from other fires

~~para 1, sent. 1: "peatlands" rather than peat, for consistency with grasslands. woodlands, scrubland...~~

para 2: the "defining characteristics" seem local rather than global. Ref [14] does not appear to support the assertion that "wildfires" are 100k+ acres, it simply calls them "large fires"; I couldn't find anything in my skim of ref [15] to support the assertion that speed was a distinguishing characteristic of wildfire. :Additional ref, page number added

I still don't see it.

Some of the defining characteristics of wildfires are the large area of burned land, from hundreds of acres

is supported by ref [2], the "definition of map terms". It only defines a wildfire as "Any nonstructure fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in the wildland"; it says nothing about size. The previous term, "Large Incident", is defined as "A wildfire of 100 acres or more occurring in timber, or a wildfire of 300 acres or more occurring in grass/sage". I don't see this as supporting the idea that wildfires can be defined as fires that burn "hundreds of acres". The second ref supports the assertion that wildfires can be much larger, but it doesn't support the idea that they are by definition large fires. It simply lists "Large Fires (100,000+ fires)". The idea that wildfires can be large isn't the same as the idea that wildfires are, by definition, large. The same issue with the speed of spread - the Otways fire speaks of one that spreads quickly, but doesn't appear to say that especially rapid spread is a characteristic of wildfires.

These two sites[2][3] suggest that, at least in the US, wildfires could mean just a few acres (USFS site, average of 31 acres ~ 0.12 km2). Should the "definition" of hundreds of acres be removed altogether, or can the term "features" be used instead and just point out certain "general descriptions" of wildfires?

Is the additional ref after "continuous fuels, thick vegetation and continuous overhead tree canopies" sufficient to claim wildfires have rapid spread?

~~para 2, sentence 3: you should provide some context for the "Mann Gulch fire" - where is Mann Gulch, at least identify the country it's in.~~

~~para 2, sentence 3: after using imperial units earlier in the para (acres) the article switches to SI (°C)~~

~~Question: If a reference uses either units, should I convert it to one standard unit, or would that interfere with verifiability?~~

Use one standard. That's fine. Conversion is a simple mathematical operation. Guettarda (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Physical properties

~~para 2, sentence 1: "required to evaporate the contained water" - "the contained water" isn't really normal English usage.~~

~~para 2, sentence 5, 6: these sentences are grammatically inconsistent~~

~~I've made some changes, but I'm not sure what you meant; could you elaborate further?~~

~~That's fine~~

para 3, sent. 1: In the previous section, you clocked the fires at 11 km/6.8 mph, while here a speed of 10.8km/7mph is used, based on the same source. While part of the problem is inconsistent specification of the number of significant figures in ((convert)), there's also the problem of inconsistent rounding. These need to be fixed.

Fuel type

~~Photo captions aren't specific enough - "Utah" and "Northern Cascades" - should specify country~~
~~para 2 ("Ground"), sent. 2: "which was a result" (or something such) rather than simply "a result"~~

~~para 3 ("Crawling or surface") - this is unreferenced~~

~~para 4 ("Crown, canopy, or aerial") - six references to support an uncontroversial statement is a little excessive~~

Those references are all the sources that contributed to the section. Should they stay there or where they are now?

The slow-moving wildfires that are causing major changes in the Amazon need to be mentioned here, as should the synergism between logging, ranching and small-holder cultivation in the advancing frontier in the Amazon.

Mentioned in the ecology section; see next note...

Climate change is mentioned in the next section (the ecology section) but would probably fit better in this section.

I'm not sure I understand. I was under the impression that climate change is an ecological focus. Could you elaborate?

Ecology

para 2, sent. 1 (and continuing) - these statements about fire-dependence and fire-suppression are specific to the US (and perhaps a few other areas); they should not be presented as broad generalisations

Moved to the Plant adaptations section. It is appropriate there?

Plant adaptations

~~Why is plant defense against herbivory linked as a "see also" here?~~

~~para 1, sent. 1 - "wilderness" in unnecessary here, since the operation concept here is "ecosystem", not "wilderness"~~

~~Many of the "see [xxx]" are capitalised (like "pioneer species", "serotiny") - these are not proper nouns and should not be capitalised mid-sentence~~

~~What about those in the ((see also)) templates, should those be lower case as well?~~

~~Those are fine, IMO.~~

Prevention

~~para 1, sent. 3: "Current policies often..." - again, which policies, where? (This sounds US-specific)~~

~~para 3, again, seems overly tied to the specific case in the US, but is written as if it's a broad generalisation~~

Detection

Again, it sounds like the US situation is being generalised too broadly.

Should I add statements and citations that name countries in particular? (see [4], [5], [6]) MrBell ^(talk) 18:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guettarda (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added some further comments in blue; more later. Guettarda (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. ~~Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.~~ To help you get started, I added alt text to the image included via ((Wildland Firefighting)). Eubulides (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the text I added appropriate? MrBell ^(talk) 16:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for adding it. I tweaked it a bit to try to improve it. Hey, that's the Ionian Sea, not the Aegean! Eubulides (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. ~~There is no History section or subsection, could be very useful just below the Characteristics.~~ Brandt 08:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What should a history section or subsection include? Should it be combined with the ecology section, or perhaps move the Fossil record info to the history section? MrBell ^(talk) 17:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that there's now a History section in progress. Suggestion: add a summary of the historical record (which basically begins where Fossil record leaves off). For example, how about when the ancients set wildfires deliberately, as part of hunting or raising crops or fighting wars? How about wildfires in mediaeval Europe or ancient China or 19th century America? that sort of thing. (I'm no expert, but surely there are sources about this.) Eubulides (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added some detail; is it suitable?

Deliberate fires such as this are already covered in Causes through a link to Slash and Burn. I'm not convinced that it needs to be duplicated in History, but a {seealso} link and a short summary could provide a useful addition to the History section.Pyrotec (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. Looks fine now. Brandt 12:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. I reviewed this article sometime ago and having read a few papers since then I think that there is another 'point' that could be added to Ecology. A Wildfire in Heather in Fylingdales Moor, in 2003, in the UK, stripped the moor of peat back to bare bones and exposed prehistoric archaelogy, which was good for the archaeologists in the short term. One of the problems (not mentioned in this article) was continuing severe wind errosion which could have had serious consequences, especially with rain and frost errosion compounding the problem. The decision was made to manually 'seed' the affected area with grass and heather seads to stabilise the surface and to allow the heather to regrow. I have a reference for this. On a non-wildfire topic, Iceland has also experimented with manually 'seeding' areas of desert affected by volcanic debris to minimise losses from wind errosion (I don't have a reference for this).Pyrotec (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can add that info if you'd like (if you're too busy). Could you direct me to the ref regarding the peat burn/heather reseeding?

Nice ref, thanks for adding it.

Support. I reviewed this article at WP:GAN back in March 2009 and was impressed by it's quality, which appeared to me to be a Good WP:GAN. It has been further improved by the nominator since I reviewed it; particularly as a result of this WP:FAC. Having seen several recent articles progress from GA-level through to FA-level, I am very happy to support this one at WP:FAC.Pyrotec (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, thanks for the reminder. MrBell ^(talk) 21:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose: See my comments here. --Moni3 (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:29, 26 July 2009 [7].

Ashley Tisdale[edit]

Nominator(s): Decodet (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because we've been working on this article for months and I think it's now good enough to be a featured article, since it only has relevant and well-sourced text. The article also has good images and a informative infobox. The lead section summarizes the topic very well and it's also well-written and comprehensive. Decodet (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. The Ashley Tisdale article is generally well-written, neutral, well-researched and does not neglect any major facts or details in Tisdale's life and career. Nevertheless the article has faced several edit wars in the past. The article is well sourced and the article has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. The article is not a target to vandalism because of it's protection level. Vandalism on the article is very low. There are several questionable sources in the article mainly due to the content in Tisdale's old site being lost, the questionable sources include SuperiorPics and NetGlimpse. On the other hand, most of the text in the article is attached to reliable sources. But in conclusion, the article still requires cleaning up and better structure. Olivewildes (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: Don't see any issues, but splitting up the reflist to too would be good. I know there's no different for IE, but still. Great work, BTW. The Flash ^{talk} 23:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose This is nowhere near FA quality. Needs a thorough overhaul; unreliable sources, narrative flow is non-existent.
- Unreliable sources. Not good when the first two sources I see (and that are heavily relied upon for her early life section) in no way meet WP:RS.
  - http://www.netglimse.com/celebs/pages/ashley_tisdale/index.shtml
  - http://www.kidzworld.com/article/7115-ashley-tisdale-biography
- This does not meet FA's 1a standard of professional prose. The entire article lacks a narrative flow, and reads like a collection of shallow facts converted to prose rather than a compelling encyclopedic article. Examples:
  - "At the age of three, Tisdale was discovered by Bill Perlman, her current manager, at South Shores Mall.[2] On her first audition, Tisdale landed a JC Penney spot and went on to appear in more than 100 commercials as a kid.[1] At the age of eight, she was cast in a leading role in the Broadway musical, Les Misérables, and later toured internationally with the cast of Annie.[1] She began her acting career by appearing in Gypsy: A Musical Fable and The Sound of Music at the Jewish Community Center of Monmouth County.[1][10] At the age of twelve, Tisdale sang for Bill Clinton in the White House.[1]" Take some lines from a resume and convert it to a paragraph, and this is the result. "...at South Shores Mall." <-- an anecdote cut short? Where the heck is South Shores Mall? What does "discovered" mean? "On her first audition," When? What type of audition? "JC Penney spot" spot = what? "as a kid"? Could we be more generic? This sentence is not supported by the given source. "later toured" - let's be more specific. "She began her acting career by appearing in Gypsy:" Wait, what? We just read that she appeared in Les Mis and Annie... When was this? "At the age of twelve, Tisdale sang"... what was she doing there?
  - "In January 2007, Blender magazine said, "Tisdale has a gift. Not an angelic voice or a dazzling personality, but an even rarer commodity: millions of "pre-sold" tweens eager to buy her debut album!".[42] Tisdale was romantically involved with Jared Murillo until March 2009.[43] In March 2007, Tisdale told Blender she was drug and alcohol-free, and doesn't smoke and went on to add, "my mom really instilled confidence in me, so I'm not somebody who'd be under peer pressure".[44] She was ranked #10 in Maxim's 2008 Hot 100 list.[45] In June 2008, Tisdale was ranked at #94 on Forbes' Celebrity 100 list.[46] Tisdale has appeared on the magazine cover of Seventeen, Cosmopolitan, Shape and other magazines. Tisdale is cited several times in David Denby's book Snark.[47] Tisdale was ranked #6 in "Forbes' Hollywood's 10 Top-Paid Tweens" list.[48] Tisdale earned $2.8 million from High School Musical 3.[49] In 2008, Tisdale was ranked #17 in "Forbes' High Earners Under 30" list.[50]" Just try reading this paragraph. TwilligToves (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Comment I've read your opposition. I tried to find better references for her early career and I put a Billboard reference istead of the previous sources, which are less reliable. About her performance for Bill Clinton, I didn't find any reliable sources explaining what she was doing there. The only thing I found is she was singing. Also, there was a error, she began her theatrical career by appearing in Gypsy, not acting, since she was already featured on other Broadway musicals. It was fixed. Also, I tried to improve 'Personal Life' paragraph, I think it's more comprehensive. Decodet (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article was not listed at WP:FAC; please resubmit when TT's objections are met. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:05, 25 July 2009 [8].

Kareena Kapoor[edit]

Nominator(s): Hometech (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this can make it to FA. Hometech (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Were the primary contributors consulted before this FAC? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Withdraw, no evidence nominator consulted with primary contributors, and all issues brought up in previous withdrawn FAC have not been addressed. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Withdraw, I would also suggest to withdraw as of now because no one was notified and it was decided to wait with it. For the record, the article is very good. The previous editor has mentioned his own concerns which are not specifically relevant to the article and were not accepted by other editors. The images are properly used and do increase the understanding of the topic (if there is any complaint about the use of unfree images in BLPs, this should not be discussed here -- far too many FAs use unfree images and get promoted with them). Other than that, attempts to recreate old and closed discussions don't belong here. I know that problems of synthesis have been taken care of by other editors, and the article has also been copyedited. It was just to make some things clear. Otherwise I think we should wait with the article; there is a number of recent and upcoming crucial releases which have to be taken care of, so I would suggest to withdraw. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:05, 25 July 2009 [9].

OverClocked ReMix[edit]

Nominator(s): Orichalcon (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is clearly up to date on information, well referenced, and easy to read. I can't see anything further that's needed to make the article better at this moment. Orichalcon (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool. I'm the primary editor of the article, so just noting that I'll keep an eye on any criticisms and suggestions regarding the nom. Thanks! - Liontamer (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

does File:OverClockedReMix.png significently increase the readers understanding of the subject? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to think so. For a website, it helps to illustrate what it looks like. Pretty standard to have it, and the caption provides additional information & context. - Liontamer (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Illustration is not grounds for taking private property in our articles, and neither is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, oppose failure to meet criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

4chan, a recent FA, also has an infobox image of the website, because it is useful to the reader to be able to visually tell what the article is talking about when it refers to "posting" songs or "publishing" albums. Also, dismissively citing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a really rude, please refrain in the future. --Pres N 19:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what "taking private property" implies. After reading Criteria 3, the image appears to meet no qualms. Please elaborate further on what exactly needs fixing. Orichalcon (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. ~~Image's alt text does not describe the image's appearance.~~ Please see WP:ALT for advice on good alt text. Eubulides (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I got you. I made an edit that I believe should work. Comments welcome, thanks. - Liontamer (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: is it necessary to have the album list hidden? It's not exactly long. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there any sort of standard on that? I've seen it done both ways. - Liontamer (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose, fails criterion #3. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please be more specific. Where exactly has the article failed? 203.59.135.16 (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At times, some ppl like Stifle doesn't know how to read: "To oppose a nomination, write *Object or *Oppose, followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed."

It does not fail #3. It does not need images.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remark - not knowing anything about music or sounds, and being tone-deaf, i can't support or object. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:05, 25 July 2009 [10].

Military career of L. Ron Hubbard[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisO (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I rewrote this article from scratch a couple of months ago to resolve some outstanding issues and get it up to featured article standard. It's been through two reviews, first under the auspices of WP:MILHIST, the Wikiproject with which it is associated [11], and latterly a good article candidacy which it has passed with flying colours [12]. It meets the Good Article criteria and I believe it's of a sufficiently high standard now to be considered for Featured Article status. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick review

Currently 4 dab links, see dab checker tool.
Missing a number of access dates, see checklinks tool.
Sisterlinks to relevant content like wikiquotes/commons?--Otterathome (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All now resolved. The checklinks tool shows a handful of false positives (essentially places where references include hyperlinks, but the hyperlinks are not themselves references). I've added a sisterlink to Commons; there doesn't seem to be anything relevant on the other sister projects. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(e/c)

Comment WP:DASH: Instances of space-hyphen-space should be replaced with space-ndash-space. (The n-dash can be typed using Alt-0150 on a PC.)
Comment ~~Two paragraphs lack citations: the paragraph starting "In the early hours of May 19 ...", and the one following that starting "Hubbard stated ..."~~ Some other non-trivial sentences lack citations too. This being a contentious topic, I would prefer seeing every sentence unambiguously cited.

I've resolved the two paragraphs. If there are other sentences which you feel need additional references, please list them and I'll sort it out. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I note that according to Atack, Hubbard "does not seem to have recounted" the submarine story to his followers (p. 77). It seems Atack was not aware of the tape we cite when he wrote his book. JN 466 02:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I have a WP:OR concern surrounding the I-76 submarine. We are putting together
(1) an obscure talk from Hubbard himself, chatting informally about a submarine he believes he sank in May 1943, which he refers to as the "I-76" in that primary source;
(2) a source which does not comment on Hubbard but says (on p. 258) that the Japanese "I-176" submarine (not "I-76", as it says in the sentence cited to it) was sunk at a particular date and location in 1944, i.e. one year later;
(3) a source not commenting on Hubbard (cited in the caption for the submarine image on the right-hand side of the page), which says that the Japanese submarine "I-176" was named "I-76" while being built, but renamed "I-176" when it was commissioned in August 1942.
The juxtaposition of these three sources – with the third one needed to establish the logical connection between the second and the first – implies that the "I-76" submarine Hubbard referred to and believed to have sunk in 1943 was in factthe "I-176" sunk in 1944. This represents a novel historical analysis, and is not found in secondary sources discussing the topic of this article, L. Ron Hubbard's military career.
Comment ~~The following links in the article lead to disambiguation pages: American Theater Battlefield Earth Coke Tilden~~ JN 466 23:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll look into the first, second and fourth issues you've raised. As for the third, I discussed this with you at length in the peer review, and I don't propose to continue the discussion with you here - as I have said before, you are misinterpreting the original research policy. I will just point out to other readers that there is no analysis, only a juxtaposition of autobiographical statements and the official record, just as with the rest of the article. The other peer reviewers and GA reviewer did not agree with your interpretation of WP:OR - I refer you in particular to The_ed17's comments. [13] -- ChrisO (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is quite possible to engage in WP:SYN by mere juxtaposition, connecting facts that are not connected in the secondary literature. Here an example: "3,000 disciples of Maitreya Yogeshwara chanted mantras to aid the world economy on Tuesday.(source 1) On Wednesday, the Dow Jones Index rose by 8% (source 2, not mentioning the chanters)." Only juxtaposition, but clear SYN.

Only 3 people ever commented at the peer review; the GA review, from transclusion to "Pass", took 20 minutes, and did not raise a single content query. JN 466 01:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jayen, we've been through this before. There's nothing further that I can say that I haven't already said to refute your arguments. I suggest that we leave this issue to one side, since we are not going to agree on your idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:OR, and let others give their views. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Chris, per my referenced comments above. An article on this subject which does not mention I-76/176's sinking date as given by the U.S. Navy is not complete; to give both sides, we need Hubbard's claim and the Navy's assertion. This isn't reaching "A and B [...] joined together in an article to reach conclusion C", this is "opinion A, assertion B, [C is missing]."

I like this quote from David Fuchs (talk · contribs) regarding SYN (link): "As long as you're not linking items in a suspect way (to advance a position, as WP:SYNTH says), you're find [sic]." Here we are not advancing a position; we are stating the opinion of a U.S. Navy commander that he sunk a submarine along with what the official record on the submarine states. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, at least I note that Fontenoy too does refer to the earlier I-76 designation of the submarine on p. 257, and mentions the renaming on p. 258.

Still, I'd rather there were just one reliably published source out there, among the dozens of sources on Hubbard, which said, in essence,

"Hubbard always claimed to have sunk the I-76 Japanese submarine in 1943. But in fact, war records show that this submarine, which was renamed I-176 in 1942, was sunk in 1944 by someone else."

Given the absence of such a source, our article is ahead of the field. JN 466 11:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your point might be valid if the section in question - Military career of L. Ron Hubbard#Pacific service: USS PC-815 - was phrased in the way you've just put it. But it's not, so your argument is based on a strawman from the outset. It's very carefully worded to avoid synthesis. It presents two principle facts, both from reliably published sources. The first is that Hubbard said he sank the I-(1)76 off Oregon. The second is that the US and Japanese navies recorded the loss of the I-(1)76 a year later on the other side of the Pacific. If there was a "however" in there, we would be introducing an analytical element - specifically a counterbalancing consideration. But there is no "however" and no analysis, merely a statement of two facts from two sources. Re-read what Ed says about synthesis. Your interpretation is at odds with how we conventionally approach such matters, since we're supposed to present conflicting perspectives non-judgmentally ("where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly"). -- ChrisO (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You cannot "avoid synthesis by wording". Synthesis occurs by the novel juxtaposition of unrelated sources. Your very argument that you have avoided it by careful wording indicates that you are guilty of it. On the WT:NOR talk page, editors regularly argue that as long as they haven't used the words "but", "however", etc. when combining material from unrelated sources, they have successfully avoided synthesis. Here is an editor advancing that notion just yesterday in this post. See the replies by Blueboar (talk · contribs), not a novice when it comes to this: [14][15]

Here is an earlier discussion between SlimVirgin (talk · contribs), no slouch either, and Bob_K31416 (talk · contribs), again about the very same point. Bob is arguing that as long as there is no explicit conclusion drawn, only an implicit conclusion, there is no synthesis. SlimVirgin responds that an implicit conclusion is just the same as an explicit conclusion:

... it makes no difference. A SYN violation is when an implicit or explicit conclusion is reached by synthesizing sourced material that wasn't explicitly reached by the source(s). (And a juxtaposition is just one form of synthesis.) SlimVirgin talk/contribs 21:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the current wording of WP:SYN. Another example was added recently. Check the WP:NOR talk page, too; e.g. the examples given here: Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#More_examples.

We have plenty of good sources explaining that Hubbard's superiors believed he and his crew were mistaken about the submarine. We have good sources stating that none of the other ships attending the action thought there was an enemy submarine in the area, etc. There is the safe and responsible ground to walk on in an FA; synthesising novel arguments from primary source research and army records that no other researcher has combined before you may make a fine book one day, if you ever want to publish your research, but the theory should not have its first airing in Wikipedia. ~~The OR content should be removed; until it is I'll Oppose.~~ JN 466 18:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC) (Following SlimVirgin's input, I'll Abstain for now, pending further discussion.) JN 466 20:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion, but the fact is that no other editors have supported your unusual interpretation of NOR. Your quotes don't support your case. Note that SlimVirgin, in the quote above, is speaking of a case "when an implicit or explicit conclusion is reached". There is no comparison in this case; no conclusion, implicit or explicit, is reached; the two opposing positions are stated without any conclusion being drawn. Furthermore, the OR issue was specifically addressed during the Good Article review and was passed by the reviewer. As far as I'm concerned, a decision to oppose that is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:OR is inoperative. The consensus of everyone who's commented on this issue is against you, I'm afraid. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry, ChrisO, the GA review did not comment on this issue at all. The only other editor who has ever taken an interest in it was Ed, who commented above as well, and commented once in the peer review, a few weeks after we had stopped discussing it.

The OR elements are
(1) the importance you attribute to an obscure primary source quote, for which I was able to find all of three google hits outside Wikipedia (all of these are on other Wikis). There is not a single hit in google books for "Ron Hubbard" and "I-76": [16];
(2) the assumption that Hubbard would have known that the I-176 was formerly briefly called the I-76, and that he was talking about the I-176 when he was referring to the I-76 (rather than just bragging, playing to his audience and pulling a plausible-sounding number out of the sky)
(3) the absence of any reliable source commenting on a claim by Hubbard to have sunk the "I-76" and countering this claim with extant navy records.

It simply is original research -- it may be brilliant original research for all I know, but you didn't summarise the existing literature on Hubbard. Instead, you aim to add to it through Wikipedia. WP:OR is policy. SlimVirgin's latest. JN 466 23:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is from existing literature. The fact that you can't find it in Google Books or via Google is irrelevant and is another strawman argument - Google does not (yet!) contain all published material, and actually has very little Scientology literature in it (presumably for copyright reasons). As for the GA review, you're dead wrong on that point - see Talk:Military career of L. Ron Hubbard/GA1 and note point 2c. The reviewer checked for OR and passed it. Like I said, the only person who thinks this is OR is you, so I suggest that you accept that consensus is against you and move on. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Existing literature, yes, but not existing literature on Hubbard! Rather than vaguely implying that there are secondary sources on Hubbard and his I-76 that don't show up in Google Books (nor Questia, nor google news, nor JSTOR ...), cite them if they exist.

To summarise, in my view Chris needs a secondary source that ties all his elements on the I-76 together, otherwise he is engaged in original research (he has self-published a lot on Hubbard's war record online). It may be genuinely interesting original research, but WP:NOR doesn't say that we allow good original research. JN 466 10:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about someone solicits opinions from the FA director and the two delegates? It's rather obvious that none of you are going to budge :) To Chris: other cites you could use for the sinking of I-176 are the official DANFS entries: Franks and Johnston, although I note that they conflict; Franks says "In May, screening minelayers in Buka Passage, Franks and Haggard (DD-555) contacted, attacked, and sank Japanese submarine I-176 on 16 May.", but Johnston says "[...] she took up antisubmarine patrol off Bougainville. During this duty 15 May 1944, she depth charged and sank Japanese submarine I-176." —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 13:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was asked to comment here on the SYN issue. I don't see this as a violation of SYN. SYN involves combining source material in a way that advances a position (a suggestion, argument, conclusion, implication) that isn't advanced by any of the sources. It's a form of POV pushing, often inadvertent.

What this article does is combine source material in a way that is purely informative. What position is being advanced regarding Hubbard? The article makes clear that he believed he had sunk a Japanese submarine, and that others disagree. It also says that the British and U.S. analysed Japanese losses and there appeared to be none missing during the period Hubbard says he did this, though a submarine called I-176 was sunk a year later than the Hubbard timeframe, and that same submarine used to have the name Hubbard gave for it. Is the writer of the article supposed to keep this information to himself? "Ha, ha, I know something they'd all love to know, but I'm not going to tell them!" Perhaps yes, if we were dealing with a sensitive BLP issue, and harm could come of it, but in an article about a historical figure, it's simply interesting, and I think it would be obtuse of us not to mention it, even if the sources don't make reference to Hubbard.

SYN does say that source material must explicitly refer to the topic, but that shouldn't be rigidly interpreted to mean, "must explicitly refer to the title of the article," because that would be very disabling. SYN exists to stop editors from sliding in their POVs with the poor use of source material that isn't strictly relevant, to say something none of the sources wanted to say. It's not there to stop editors from using source material to inform readers in a way that seems to flow naturally from the narrative. I admit that this can be a fine line, often based on intuition, but I don't believe it has been crossed here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to comment. One concern I had is that we are giving a weight to an obscure primary source – i.e. the 1950s Hubbard audio talk referring to the "I-76" – that it does not have in the secondary literature, which ignores it completely. This may be simply because no one noticed the talk before Chris, but it could have other reasons too. For example, I don't know how often Hubbard talked about this incident, and whether the story and the submarine type were always the same, each time he told it. I have no way of finding out either. Yet we are devoting a sizeable part of the article to this material. We are giving a 225-word verbatim quote from the talk; whereas it would take just a dozen words to say that Hubbard once expressed a belief he had sunk the I-76 Japanese submarine. Thoughts? JN 466 20:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Btw, the POV position put forward, such as I saw it, was that Hubbard was either a Munchhausen character, someone who enjoyed telling tall tales, or a fool; and put forward using sources that hadn't been used in that way before. Maybe I'm hypersensitive, but it reminded me of various Internet pages entitled "Ron the Nut", "Ron the War Hero" etc. All very good fun, but not necessarily encyclopedic. Then again, I am quite prepared to entertain the notion that I've asked too much of Chris here, as long as I also hear it from someone else than Chris. :) I've changed my Oppose on this issue to Abstain above, so we can leave it at that if you like. Cheers, JN 466 20:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean. When you say the "1952 Hubbard audio talk," do you mean this ref: Hubbard, L. Ron (October 23, 1956). "CRA Triangle". Fifteenth American Advanced Clinical Lectures. Bridge Publications? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. JN 466 21:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We had this problem a few times with LaRouche quotes that hadn't appeared in secondary sources. One editor who was very familiar with LaRouche had back copies of one of his magazines, and would use quotes from it. Some of the LaRouche supporters said it amounted to OR. It boils down to two things: (a) is there any reasonable doubt that the subject really said these things? and (b) is the quote being used to bring him into disrepute, in a way that's unsupported by any other source? As the issue of whether he did or didn't sink a Japanese submarine is being discussed by secondary sources, I see no harm in quoting Hubbard directly on the subject. It's hard for me to comment in more detail, because I'm not familiar with the source material, so I can't judge whether the long quote is being used in a way that might be unfair or out of character for him. It certainly seems okay to me, based on the little knowledge I have. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There actually isn't any alternative to quoting Hubbard's published works directly, as there is no official biography of his life, and certainly no official coverage that addresses this period of his life in any great detail. On the other hand there is a great deal of critical coverage of this period of his life from unofficial biographers and exposés. The problem I faced in (re)writing this article was how to keep it balanced given the disparity of sourcing - a massive amount of anti-Hubbard material and sparse pro-Hubbard material. The only way I could find to resolve this was to quote what Hubbard himself actually said in his own works, such as books and lectures, and let the man speak for himself to supplement the otherwise sparse pro-Hubbard material on this period. There's no issue about the authenticity of his spoken words, since they're not only given on tape/CD but are published in transcript form (which I think would technically count as a secondary source?) by his official publishing organisation. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find it stretches credulity that you might have put that 200-word quote in to show Hubbard in a good light, and to balance the anti-Hubbard sources. He comes across like an ass. So if that is your intent, just say something like "Hubbard claimed in a 1956 talk that he had sunk the I-76.", bearing in mind that the research we can call upon today as to the fate of each individual ship was not then available, and delete the rest of the quote.

Also, coming back briefly to the sparsity of "pro-Hubbard" material, during the peer review I pointed you to a 2009 (2000) Oxford University Press source that said it did seem like Hubbard had sunk a submarine after all: [17].

It appears that PC 815 did engage and sink a Japanese submarine off the Oregon coast, a fact only recently substantiated because of the American government's reluctance to admit that the Japanese were in fact operating off America's Pacific Coast during the War.
— J.R.Lewis (ed.), Scientology, Oxford University Press 2009, p. 20, identical passage also in Melton (2000)

I suggested that because it was verifiable, and reputably published, we should think about dropping it in, with attribution, just to satisfy NPOV, but you were adamant and wouldn't have any of it.

Coming to the wider issue SlimVirgin raises, the use of primary source quotes is something that I generally prefer to see handled through the filter of secondary sources. In the German Wikipedia, where I sometimes do a bit of work as well, this is actually policy – the very act of selection from a primary-source corpus is considered an original analysis, and inappropriate whenever there is a sufficient body of secondary literature available. It is that body of secondary literature that should be reflected in the Wikipedia article, with due weight (e.g. what to quote) established by that literature. Personally, I think that makes sense. Bypassing existing analyses of a primary-source corpus in favour of making original selections from it strikes me as not in line with the spirit of WP:OR. So I'd have some sympathy for the LaRouchies there. Just think of a politician that you really like (if there is such a thing), and then imagine someone compiling a list of all the daftest things your favourite has ever said, all the stumbles, all the jet-lagged interviews, etc., and making these statements overwhelm the article with the justification, "But he did say that", and passing it off as an encyclopedic treatment when there are reputably published, rounded analyses available that the article could draw on. --JN 466 00:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Come on, Jayen, this is just tendentious. We've discussed Melton before and the reasons for excluding his claim: the lack of any corroboration, the fact that he's not a military historian (or an historian of any kind) so has no qualifications to make such a claim, and the fact that it completely contradicts the entire corpus of WW2 Japanese naval history - a classic red flag situation. You've been obsessing over this one single point literally for months. Please just move on and let the rest of us get on with developing articles in peace without the constant wikilawyering and wall-of-text arguments. I do not propose to reply to any further comments you post, since there is clearly nothing that can be gained by doing so. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only pointing out the inherent contradiction in your bemoaning, above, the sparsity of "pro-Hubbard" material, while at the same time insisting that we shouldn't cite any such sources, even if reputably published, because you think they're wrong. JN 466 00:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jayen, I agree with you about editors picking and choosing from primary-source material, and I have quite a lot of sympathy with the German position, though I wouldn't want to go that far. I certainly agree that, where an issue in someone's life is not mentioned at all by secondary sources, we shouldn't use primary sources to draw attention to it. However, in this case, the sinking or not sinking of this submarine is discussed by secondary sources. Even if this particular quote isn't in secondary sources, the subject matter is not something that a Wikipedian has unilaterally chosen to write about.

As for J. Gordon Melton, personally I would use that. The book is published by Oxford University Press, and the editor, James R. Lewis, is a specialist in cults. I would use it simply for the sake of providing balance, though I think I also agree with Chris that it's not clear how Melton knows this, and he doesn't seem to explain, so it's not ideal. Actually, what I would do in this situation is write to Melton to ask him what his sources were, and I'd try to follow up from there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, just to clarify, I wouldn't see the disagreement over Melton as a reason to object to promoting the article. There are legitimate arguments for and against using him, and if anyone were going to write to him to request clarification, it could take some time, so I'd see that as part of the normal editing process, not something that had to be done for FA. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As it happens, I know what Melton's source is - the late L. Fletcher Prouty, an ex-USAF officer who was a fairly notorious JFK conspiracy theorist associated with the holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review. The Church of Scientology turned to Prouty during the 1980s to comment on Hubbard's military career and he wrote a number of pieces for them arguing that there was a US government conspiracy to falsify Hubbard's naval records. Prouty has absolutely zero credibility as a reliable source for anything, so I'm not surprised that Melton has declined to attribute a claim that originated with him. But the main problem with Melton's claim isn't so much the lack of sources as the fact that it contradicts everything that is known about Japanese military history from World War II. The US, Japanese and Royal Navies and naval historians all state that no Japanese submarines were even anywhere near Oregon in 1943, let alone were lost there. Melton appears to be completely oblivious to the implications of his claim - one would think a responsible or competent scholar would attempt to verify it or cite a source. His claim contradicts over 50 years of scholarship and dozens of published works. As I said, this is a classic example of a red-flagged claim: "a claim that is contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community [in this case military historians], or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons." Even if Melton were to write back to disclose his source - he's not very responsive, I gather from others who've tried to clarify or correct his statements - the claim would still have to be excluded on the grounds of being way out on the fringe. There is nothing in any published literature that would back it up - I've checked - and a huge amount that actively contradicts it. It is literally a one-man viewpoint in opposition to all the published accounts of the Imperial Japanese Navy's history. It's not that I think Melton is wrong (though I do), but that he's making a claim in an area (military history) in which he has no expertise, without any sourcing, and which is contradicted by the entire corpus of sources on the IJN's submarine fleet. Note that it is not a claim about cults, so his (alleged) expertise in that field is not relevant. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(e/c)(outdent) Some scholars like Melton and Frenschkowski say that critics lack access to "many pertinent documents housed in the Chuch's archives". Frenschkowski has written that "Hubbard's assertions about his military career in WWII, e.g., have been much nearer to the truth than Russell Miller [widely cited in our article] is trying to show, as can be seen from his naval records that have been made public during the processes following the publication of Bare-faced_Messiah (a complete set of the relevant documents is part of my collection)." But unfortunately, and somewhat maddeningly, Frenschkowski fails to give further details, except to say that "This material so far is not part of any bibliography of Hubbard." I still think it unlikely that Melton is right on the submarine. Even though he is a reputable scholar – he writes the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Scientology – other scholars have commented that he tends to follow the Scientology party line rather closely. On the other hand, I wouldn't bet my house on Melton being wrong either. ;) I'd be in favour of mentioning his view, with attribution, simply because it is a notable minority view, and in Miller and Atack we are ourselves citing sources whose accuracy others like Melton and Frenschkowski have at least partly questioned. It may not be a bad thing if the reader gets the impression that there are still disputes about some of the details of Hubbard's military career, and that future publications may shed more light on these. JN 466 01:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be against this inclusion in the article—IMHO, this is clearly a fringe theory, so why should we include his viewpoint? If anything, it should be clearly shown in the article that he is probably wrong: "Although an overwhelming majority of sources support that I-176 was sunk in May 1944,<many refs> scholar (first name) Melton supports the claim that PC-815 sunk the submarine off of Washington on (date)." —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 01:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Melton does not refer to the I-76 or any other designation; he just says "a submarine". JN 466 02:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC) - ChrisO (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Without providing any sourcing and contradicting the long-established facts that the Japanese navy withdrew all of its submarines to the western Pacific by the end of 1942 and didn't lose any submarines off the US west coast at any point during the war. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If Melton's source really is L. Fletcher Prouty, he shouldn't be used; Prouty is at the centre of a swirl of conspiracy theories. Chris also has a point about Melton not being a military historian, and it did rather jump out at me that Melton didn't cite a source. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I recall, Prouty made a statement on Hubbard's notice of separation and the number of his medals, rather than anything to do with the submarine story, but I am now out of my depth. Short of writing to Melton, I couldn't tell you what this particular passage is based on. FWIW though, what ChrisO said above about all Japanese submarines retreating to the West Pacific, and the Japanese not losing any submarines off the US west coast at any point during the war, is directly contradicted by this Naval Institute Press source, which says that

"a very few [Japanese] submarines continued to operate in the North Pacific after the loss of Attu and the evacuation of Kiska" [which was in May 1943] ... the I-180 was sunk during a late night attack in the vicinity of Kodiak by the USS Gilmore (DE-18) on 26 April 1944.
— The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II By Carl Boyd, Akihiko Yoshida, p. 160

Kodiak is jolly well not in the West Pacific. It's on Southern Alaska's west coast, so it seems overconfident to say that an Oxford University Press-published scholar can be discounted without second thought, because there "simply weren't" any Japanese submarines on the US west coast after 1942.

I would suggest we give the date of Hubbard's lecture and shorten the quote from the lecture to the essentials; 225 words is excessive. Let's leave the rest for another day. Thanks for looking in, Slim. Cheers, JN 466 03:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm fairly confident that Chris' use of "west coast" is not meant to apply to the Aleutian Islands. Also, while Dutch Harbor is 2500 miles from Tokyo, the state of Washington is 4784. I-176—and I'd assume her aforementioned sister I-180— had a range of 8000 miles, meaning that to simply get to Washington and back would require more fuel than they could carry. To patrol off of a coast waiting for a target would take even more fuel! As such, I seriously doubt that any Japanese submarine would have been sent to patrol off of the west coast in the latter stages of the war due to the massive logistical problems it would entail. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kodiak Island is not an Aleutian Island. It's 250 miles southwest of Anchorage, Alaska. A Japanese submarine was sunk there in 1944. Another Japanese submarine made attacks on the Oregon coast in 1942. The Washington coast is somewhere between those two locations, so it's at least conceivable for a Japanese sub to have been there in 1943.

If anything, the west coast would have been easier to reach for Japanese submarines in spring 1943, because from June 1942 until May 1943 they had a base on Attu Island, about halfway between Japan and the US. They didn't need that base though to reach the west coast in '42 and '44. Let's take any further discussion of this to the article talk page though. Cheers, JN 466 08:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's drop the discussion about Melton; I am myself in two minds as to whether we should or should not mention him. Let's just assume it is irrelevant to this FA, as SlimVirgin said earlier. Okay? --JN 466 08:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Fixed; thanks. The alt text is present, but it contains info that is not that helpful (see WP:ALT). For example, the lead image's alt text is "Photograph of L. Ron Hubbard in naval uniform in Astoria, Oregon in 1943." but a typical reader won't know what L. Ron Hubbard looked like back then, or that the photo is dated 1943, or that it was taken in Astoria. Alt text should focus on appearance: it should say only what a typical reader would see and understand without looking at the containing article or caption. Better would be something like "Head and shoulders portrait of man in circa 1940 U.S. uniform of a junior naval officer". Similarly for the other images. Eubulides (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also fixed. ~~One other thing: the reference to File:United States NR Seal.svg does not have alt text. That's OK, but as per WP:ALT it should contain "|link=", as this image is purely decorative.~~ Eubulides (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've expanded the alt tags to take an approach which, to be honest, I'm more comfortable with than a vague description - a little bit of specificity to start off with followed by a description of the scene. For instance: "Photograph of the submarine chaser USS PC-815 viewed from the starboard (right) bow (front) aspect, showing a single-masted vessel running at speed with a large wake visible, a deck gun prominent on the bow and a crew member standing at the starboard aft (rear) railings." Let me know if you think this approach works. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is much better, but the visually-impaired Wikipedian that I've corresponded with has expressed a strong preference for brief descriptions, I suppose because they didn't want to get bogged down listening to info that's only marginally relevant. The alt text should not say "L. Ron Hubbard" when the caption already says "L. Ron Hubbard"; first, that will result in the same text being read twice to the visually impaired reader, and second, most people don't know LRH's appearance from a hole in the ground so saying that an image looks like LRH is not conveying useful information to them. I took a shot at trimming down the alt text somewhat so that it covers only what's visible in the image, and omits details (such as whether we're seeing the port or starboard side of a vessel) that aren't that immediately useful; please revert any part of this that strikes you amiss. That change also adds the "|link=" for the decorative image. Thanks for helping out with alt text. Eubulides (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much, that looks good to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am hugely reluctant to get involved in this area of WP, however File:Lronhubbard_1943.jpg fails to meet WP:NFCC, and therefore the articles ~~fails FAC~~ Fasach Nua (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source is dated significantly after the image was taken, is this source even correct? if it was taken by the military it is probably PD Fasach Nua (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two questions: could you explain which NFCC criteria you believe it fails? Secondly, I don't really understand your concern about the source. It's a 2008 book which includes a biogaphical profile of Hubbard. The accompanying caption reads "Portland, Oregon, 1943. L. Ron Hubbard, captain of the US Navy subchaser PC 815". -- ChrisO (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image fails to meet nfcc#8. Was 2008 the first time this image was published? Is the copyright of the image asserted by the publisher? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I've seen the image published in other publications dating back to the mid-1990s. There is no attribution of the copyright. However, it may be moot anyway - I've found an alternative copyright-expired image, published at the time by a now-defunct newspaper. Take a look at File:Hubbard and moulton.jpg and see what you think. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well done on finding a free alternative. The original image may fall into this category, and it is of better quality, FA should be our "best work", but it is not an easy thing to prove the origin of some images. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content queries[edit]

Comment Our article includes the statement, "Their reports do not list any Japanese submarine losses for mid-May 1943, and do not list any Japanese submarine losses off the US coast during the whole of the war.[42]", cited to a June 1946 source.
Later sources – Fontenoy, p. 258, Carl Boyd, Akihiko Yoshida, p. 160, [18] – list the I-180 as sunk off Southern Alaska, while Boyd + Yoshida (p. 211) list the I-31 as lost on 13 May 1943 off Attu (Aleutian island).
Both halves of the statement cited to that 1946 source appear to be outdated and superseded by later research. --JN 466 05:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've amended the article to take care of these points. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I've tweaked the wording, please review. --JN 466 22:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that looks OK to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Goodie. --JN 466 23:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Our article contains the passage,
Among the other awards listed on the record released by the Church is the British Victory Medal,[70] an award issued for service in the British armed forces in the First World War and that was never awarded by itself.[71]

The record distributed by the Church is shown in the article. As can be seen, whoever typed it had trouble fitting everything in. The text runs out of the box on the right, and at the bottom. In particular, the line

American Defense, Br.& Dtch. Vict. Meds.

runs out of the box on the right by some considerable margin. The entire word "Meds." does not fit in the box. Hubbard himself, according to this source ;), referred to the medal in question as the 1939-45 War Medal. This redlink would seem like a suitable candidate for a redirect to War Medal 1939–1945. This was a British World War II medal comparable to the World War II Victory Medal (United States) in that every Brit soldier who had served 28 days at sea got one. The assertion that the Church document refers to the World War I Victory Medal (United Kingdom) is sourced to the Church record itself, but surely represents a Wikipedian's interpretation of this primary source. Likewise, the source cited for background information on the British Victory Medal again does not mention Hubbard; its relevance to this article hinges on a Wikipedian's interpretative claim about the primary source. Now, a plausible alternative interpretation of the line in the Church record surely would be that it is simply short for

American Defense Victory Medal, British War Medal 1939–1945, & Dutch Bronze Cross

At any rate, if I were the typist required to fit all of that in, and I was already on the last line I could fit into the box, and the box was only 35 characters wide, I might have decided to just call the British and Dutch things "victory medals" as well, because they were rough equivalents to the United States' World War II Victory Medal. Of course I am not suggesting that this analysis should go in the article; I am just saying that it is an alternative and equally plausible analysis of this document. Just like your analysis, it is not based on a secondary source, and has no business being in the article. --JN 466 23:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jayen, the document is signed by an officer who didn't exist, it lists Hubbard as commanding one vessel which didn't serve in the war and another which didn't exist, it shows Hubbard with a degree (civil engineering) which he definitely didn't possess as he dropped out of his course, and it shows Hubbard with multiple awards (including European ones!) of which there is no record of him ever having received. Your analysis is pure unsourced speculation. We are not in the business of speculating what might have been in the mind of the person who typed that document (probably Hubbard himself, actually); the facts are that the document attributes Hubbard with a number of things, and reliable sources state that those things either did not happen or did not exist. It is a parallel situation to the issue with the I-176 that was discussed above. I suggest you re-read the advice that others have given you, as you seem to have forgotten it already. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The document does not say Hubbard got the British First World War victory medal. That is purely your speculation, or the speculation of whoever added this passage. You are forgetting one thing here: by laying it on too thick, you serve no one. Just stick to the stuff that clearly is off base, without trying to turn the whole thing into a Laurel and Hardy pantomime. That may go over well on Operation Clambake, where you are preaching to the converted, but not here. --JN 466 00:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It says he was awarded the "British Victory Medal" - fact one. There was only one British "Victory Medal" issued in Hubbard's lifetime, for service in the First World War - fact two. Both facts are indisputable and reliably sourced. Your speculation is based on supposition and no sourcing whatsoever, and your POV agenda is obvious. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 1939-45 War Medal has sometimes been referred to as the ‘Victory Medal’, though this is not its official title. Hubbard himself referred it to it as the "(British) 1939-45 War Medal", according to this self-published researcher. I think Hubbard had brains enough to tell apart the first and second world wars. --JN 466 00:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The service record document we're discussing does not credit Hubbard with the award he claimed in the 1970s. Again, it's supposition on your part to suggest that the document's author was referring to that particular medal. We do not know what was in the author's mind and it's pointless and OR to speculate. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With all due respect JN, how can you say that "American Defense, Br.& Dtch. Vict. Meds." is the same as "American Defense, British 1939-45 War Medal and Dutch Bronze Cross"? I am totally at a loss as to how we got from A to B. —Ed ^{Talk • Say no to drama} 01:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought I had made myself clear? I said that this was just as speculative as the conclusion that "Br. Vict. Med." referred to the World War I Victory Medal, especially bearing in mind that the British 1939-45 War Medal is also referred to as the "Victory Medal" and Hubbard himself claimed quite clearly in his writings that he got the British 1939-45 medal. There is no secondary source cited that says Hubbard's notice of separation [is so badly forged that it] claims he got a World War I medal for his role in the Second World War. Given that there is no secondary source that has made this (rather odd) analysis of the primary source, it's original research. JN 466 00:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I see. I think this arguement could go both ways; if there was only one "Victory Medal" given out by the Brits, and it was that WWI one, there is a strong case for linking it. What else could it be referring too, outside of something non-existant (like the Dutch one is)? —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 01:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I have said several times now, the term "Victory Medal" was also current for the British 1939-45 war medal. Hubbard himself appears to have claimed in his writings that he got the British 1939-45 medal, as well as the Dutch Bronze Cross. JN 466 01:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, but Hubbard didn't serve with a British or Commonwealth force at sea, making him ineligible for the medal; also, while that page says that he claimed he got the 1939-45 War Medal, it makes no connection between that and the "British Victory Medal". Same problem with the Bronze Cross and the "Dutch Victory Medal". —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 01:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I believe Hubbard claimed he participated in some form of joint action with them in the South Pacific. What we should do is to look for reliable published sources that comment on Hubbard's claims and their likely veracity, and then we should summarise what they say in the article. We should not be looking at the primary source document and write what we think.

Please remember that we have multiple strong sources in the article that call Hubbard "virtually a pathological liar", that he had made "false claims", etc. It is not as though excising the original research will leave the reader with the false impression that Hubbard's claims are generally held to be correct, or that we are endorsing them. All I am trying to do is to keep the article honest, and that means no original research. JN 466 02:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re War medal: Hubbard was not part of the British or any Commonwealth military—as a member of the U.S. Navy, there is no way the medal could have been awarded to him. I think that a mention of Hubbard's claim to be owed the medal followed by its requirements would be helful though, assuming we find an RS for the claim of the war medal.

Okay, so how about we remove the 'WWI Victory Medal for WWII' sentence, as I see that it could be ambiguous. Without the ambiguity, though, Chris' interpretation would certainly be justified. —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 04:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We do not have a reliable source for Hubbard's claim to be owed the 1939-45 War Medal, which is why I didn't include that in the article; the only source for that claim is an unpublished letter which, as far as I know, has never been published or quoted in print. Miller and Atack refer to it but do not quote from it. Although I've got a copy of it myself, I purposefully avoided quoting from it as it's unverifiable for most people. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition, the "self-published researcher" you gave above really says this regarding the two medals:

British Victory Medal
- This medal simply does not exist. It does not appear on Hubbard's official file. Furthermore, the British Ministry of Defence has no record of a Lt. L. Ron Hubbard ever having been awarded a British decoration.
[...]
Dutch Victory Medal
- Like its supposed British counterpart, this medal simply does not exist. It does not appear on Hubbard's official file. —Ed ^{Talk • Say no to drama} 02:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I might point out that the Bronze Cross (Netherlands) was not a "victory medal". It's an award for bravery that has been been awarded in numerous campaigns since World War II. The Dutch did not have a "Victory Medal" as such; the Medal of Recognition is probably the closest equivalent. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are we agreed that the 1939–45 War Medal is at times referred to as the "Victory Medal" for World War II? Can we agree then that it is perfectly plausible to assume that this was the Victory Medal referred to in the Church document? Is this not in fact more plausible than to assume the Church document is trying to refer to a World War I medal, given that Hubbard was seven years old when World War I ended? My concern is that we might be seen to be erecting strawmen to knock down which have no existence anywhere in the literature on Hubbard, except in your self-published online writings. JN 466 00:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, we are not agreed. That is unsourced original research. It stays out of the article, period. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You misunderstand me. I have never argued for inclusion of this in the article. I have argued that the assertion that the British Victory Medal must be the World War I medal should be deleted, because this assertion is not supported by the available secondary literature. (I actually deleted it, and Chris restored it.) JN 466 12:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: This is concerning the ship, "Mist".
We first mention her in the Military_career_of_L._Ron_Hubbard#Atlantic_service:_USS_YP-422_and_after section. We say that Hubbard lost command of her, but never mention that he was given command of her. Could that fact be added, perhaps with a date, if available? This section makes clear that the "Mist" was converted for military service, and that Hubbard commandeered her. Later on, when critiquing the supposed forgery of his military record, we say that the "USS Mist" referred to on that record "left US Navy service in 1919, when Hubbard was six years old". Clearly, the ship referred to on the supposed forgery is the ship we have described at length in the Military_career_of_L._Ron_Hubbard#Atlantic_service:_USS_YP-422_and_after section, which Hubbard indeed briefly had command of, and not this ship here. JN 466 00:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was no "USS Mist" in World War II, period. The USS YP-422 was never called the USS Mist at any point in its service. You are speculating again. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All I am saying is that it does not make a whole lot of sense to tell the reader, at length, about how a ship named "Mist" became Hubbard's first command, and then to say a few paragraphs further down that there wasn't ever such a ship, or rather, that it left US Navy service when Hubbard was a kid. We'll have to find some other way. JN 466 01:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've reworded the lines in question to clarify this point. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment The recent Scientology arbitration case concluded that

13) ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) significantly edited, between August 2005[19] and September 2007[20], a subsequently deleted attack page, re-instating unreliably sourced material[21] and voting to "Keep" the article in an AfD discussion.[22] In his sysop capacity, he protected the article[23]; declined a CSD[24]; and blocked the subject of the article herself.[25] and twelve of her sockpuppets. Elsewhere, he added disparaging material[26][27] from an inadequate source to a BLP; and restored self-published material [28][29][30][31][32].

The last of the above diffs in which ChrisO cited self-published writings was this very article that is the subject of this FAC. ChrisO has reworked the article since then, but it still contains several lines of argument that are unique to his self-published research and not found elsewhere. I will oppose this nomination until these elements are removed. Our job is to summarise the reliably published literature. Any primary-source analysis, such as analyses of Hubbard's purported notice of separation, has to be based on secondary sources other than Chris's self-published research. JN 466 01:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you even look at the last diff? It's from 2007, and he's reverting the addition of copyvio'd material. Perhaps you should let others comment on this FAC, because it sure looks like you are on a vendetta against Chris. —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 02:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course I looked at the diff. The article cited his private correspondence (!) as a source for an assertion, and ChrisO left it there as a reference. I am not on a vendetta against Chris, beyond this: I believe this Wikipedia article should reflect what is written about Hubbard's military career in reliable sources. It should not reflect ChrisO's self-published writing. JN 466 02:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that he cited his personal correspondence then and reverted the copy/paste addition of his personal correspondence then, but does that have any bearing or effect upon the article today? Please give a list of the references you have problems with, please; it's difficult to reply without knowing which ref(s) you think are "ChrisO's self-published writing", especially as Chris' email is no longer a reference... Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 04:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has no bearing whatsoever on the article today - this is blatant tendentious editing from Jayen in an obvious POV-driven campaign to sabotage this FA nomination. He's raising objection after objection, promoting his personal, unsourced suppositions. These are not good-faith actions. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The medals and separation notice are one example where I feel we are going beyond the analyses available in reliable sources. (There used to be much more original analysis of this in the article in earlier days, so there has already been a dramatic improvement.) Here is "Hubbard navy medals scientology" in google books and in google news. Those are the views we should summarise, in due proportion to their published prominence in the best and most reputable sources, and without going beyond these sources. No?

In these sources, there is wide support (with only a small number of sources dissenting) for the assertion that Hubbard claimed to have 20 or more medals, and that the Navy said he only got the four standard ones. That is all we need to say on the topic. There is no support in these sources for discussing British WWI medals. (There is well-sourced scholarly support though for the assertion that Hubbard was determined "to place personal truth before objective truth" and "believed his own lies" [33][34][35], if anyone were looking to add analysis.)

Here are the available news, scholar and book sources that specifically mention Hubbard's separation notice document: google books, google news, google scholar. Please look at them; the one source that discusses it takes the opposite view to the one represented in the article; so using this search term, there is no RS support for our analysis of the separation notice document either.

Given the history of the Scientology topic area in this project, as outlined in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Characterising_the_dispute, I feel passionate about having responsible NPOV coverage of it in Wikipedia. In particular, it should comply with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Neutrality_and_sources:

4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional. Passed 12 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Due weight being established by reliable sources means that we do not add analyses of things that have remained unanalysed in RS. Another example is the alleged non-existence of the USS Howland, or the history of the 1919 USS Mist; if it is not discussed in a single RS, how is mentioning it in line with the above arbcom principle? So unless such sources can be brought forth (the ones cited do not relate to Hubbard and do not establish due weight), I am in favour of deleting the material shown in red in this diff. I don't believe the article will be appreciably diminished by that.

Chris means well – he has researched this matter deeply, he feels passionately about this topic and has strongly-held opinions about it. Given this background, I believe it is very hard for him to not add further analysis beyond what the RS say. I can understand his passion. But for this to be an FA, it should comply with policy and arbcom principles, and it should comply scrupulously. This is the first Scientology article up for FA since the arbcom. It is not a bad article by any means, and I am sorry that tempers have gotten frayed. Despite the apparent heat of the discussion, in my view there is not much standing in the way of this article receiving FA status. I'll be taking a break from this review for a few days. JN 466 12:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment The first paragraph in the section "Western Pacific service" does not have any references for the most part. Could we add them? I think the material is mostly taken from Atack and Miller. JN 466 04:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. You would be right about the sources, by the way. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments on sources

~~Many of the books lack publisher location information~~
~~The Malko book lacks ISBN~~
~~No need to give the page reference of the Corydon book in the source listing~~
~~Citations lacking publisher details: [8], [52], [58], [70], [72], [73], [85]~~

Otherwise the sources look solid. Brianboulton (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Publisher info has been added.
The Malko book apparently doesn't have an ISBN. None is listed - it was apparently published just before ISBN was adopted.

According to Abebooks, the ISBN for this book is 1-112-96373-1. ISBN was introduced in 1966, but it didn't become universal until 1970, and I dare say some editions of this book (yours, perhaps) were printed without the code. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I'll add that to the article. I was unable to find any ISBN details in the book. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redundant page reference has been deleted.
Publisher details have been added for [8], [52], [58], [72], [73]. [70] is a bit complicated as it is a document attributed to the US Navy, which the Navy itself has disowned; I've done what I can with the reference. The citation format for [85] is correct - it's a series of reports called the Family Law Reports. They don't appear to be attributed to any specific publisher.ChrisO (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Law reports in the UK are usually published by Jordans. In this case the xenu site webmaster probably got them from there. However, since Ealdgyth has struck on this issue, I don't think it's worth pursuing. My sources concerns are all met now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments -
~~Current ref 58 (Scientology myths: Psychiatry....) is lacking a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?~~
~~Current ref 64 is "Greenwald, David (1984-12-21). United Press International" but this doesn't help me locate the reference. Is there a title missing, perchance?~~
~~Current ref 70 is a scan of the document. I'd prefer to see the link to the newspaper article also given with this reference. What'd the Times say about it's reliablity?~~
~~Current ref 85 (Re B & G (minors)...) is a court document, but I'm unclear on where exactly this was filed. Also what makes the xenu.net site a reliable source for court documents?~~

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was under the impression that this was an official Scientology website. Looking more closely, it appears to be either an unofficial or a semi-official pro-Scientology one. I'll try to find a replacement for this citation.
The original story didn't have a title. Weird, I know, but there it is.
I've added a reference to the newspaper article and the original source of the document (i.e. the Church of Scientology). Above reproductions of the two records, the Times says: "Records detailing L. Ron Hubbard's military service released by the U.S. Navy and the Church of Scientology contain discrepancies." It summarises the two records and adds: "The Department of the Navy says it has no record of the additional decorations the church says Hubbard received." Unfortunately this only appears in the print version; the online version (and copies in newspaper databases) doesn't include the images or the captions in question.
The court document is from the Family Law Reports; the citation is in the approved format for this publication. The site is just a convenience link. I've got a hard copy of the same document; it could probably go on Wikisource if needed. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the court record, can we expand the FLR into something non-acronymnish for those that aren't up on court publications. I gather this is a published law journal/etc. of some sort? If so, the title of the journal/etc. should go in italics so folks realize that the title. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough, I've expanded it. It's not a law journal as such, as far as I can make out (I'm not a lawyer myself), more of a published compilation of judgments. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good. I'll strike the last one when you get a replacement. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. I traced the original primary source from which this apparently unofficial website was quoting, and quoted it along with a tertiary source which also quotes it via a secondary source. I think that covers all the bases. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:05, 25 July 2009 [36].

Jack Coggins[edit]

Nominator(s): Avi (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have reviewed the constructive criticism from its first FAC and I have implemented many of the suggested changes, re-ordered some of the sections, copyedited the text, and brought more sources. At this time, I think that it is ready for another critical review as a featured article. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. ~~Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.~~ I added alt text for the first image, to help get you started. Eubulides (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- done I've added the rest; thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments - Prose-wise, word choice needs work.
who is best known in the United States for his oil paintings of predominantly marine subjects and for his books on space travel. - remove the second for
- Corrected. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Coggins wrote and illustrated many books, covering a wide range of subjects, and provided numerous illustrations for advertisements, magazine articles, and magazine covers. - did he cover them or did the books?
- Removed the "wide range of subjects" phrase. Reads just as well. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
for YANK magazine in the United Kingdom and Europe - do you know which countries, you shouldn't just say a country then continent, it's illogical
- Good point, removed countries; "war time scenes from front lines" is sufficient. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Coggins produced in excess of 1000 paintings during his long career, and taught master art classes for 45 years - master or Masters?
- I think both; but removing the master is just as good IMO, so done. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He retired in May 2001 at nearly 90 years of age and died at his home in Pennsylvania in January 2006. - End should probably read, at the age of 94.
- Done. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Coggins was born in in his father's military barracks in London, England on July 10, 1911, - His father owned barracks?
- No, the barracks where his father was stationed. But it is an awkward construction so I'll rewrite it -- Avi (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Coggins enjoyed "fiddling around with drawing" and his family had not discouraged him - Why would his family discourage him? I assume this is close to the source?
- Quote from outre source, but unnecessary, so removed for smoothness of prose. -- Avi (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Coggins's interest in military subjects was due to his father's military service and his early education in a military school. - Cite?
- Removed. -- Avi (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because of the quality of his maritime illustrations, Coggins was invited by publisher Doubleday to provide artwork for a planned children's book about the U.S. Navy. The author was to be Fletcher Pratt, a well known military historian, and the publisher sent Coggins to meet him. Their common interest in maritime history created a lasting friendship and a fruitful association between the two men. - No citations at all
- Based on Outre and Berks. Re-written for clarity and citations brought. Three or four sentences in a row with a citation at the end means that the entire group of sentences are based on that citation, as opposed to putting the same note after every sentence. -- Avi (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Coggins produced in excess of 1000 paintings during his career. - Almost repeated from the lead, perhaps you could rewrite it?
- section rewritten. -- Avi (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that sums up my concerns. ceranthor 20:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While there is opportunity for more enhancements, I have reviewed your excellent comments and used them to further enhance the article's content and prose. Thank you, and for the record, done. -- Avi (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - Excellent improvement, from reading over the last FAC. ceranthor 15:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments on sources: The Donald H Tuck book is isolated from the other references, for some reason. If there are no citations to it, should it be listed as "Further reading"? Otherwise the sources look sound. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point, done. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments -

~~What makes http://www.askart.com/askart/lists/art_definition.aspx a reliable source?~~
- See http://www.askart.com/AskART/help/AskART_about_us.aspx. What makes us think that they would not be a reliable source about the artists? -- Avi (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I'm seeing borderline reliable there, honestly. I'll leave this out for others to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Military Personnel Records, National Personnel Records Center, National Archives, St. Louis, Missouri are these actual published records?
- That was added by Dcoggins, I believe he either has copies of the original or saw them. I can ask him again. -- Avi (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Dcoggins has scanned copies of the originals. However, I did find the enlistment record in the National Archives and Records Administration database, and linked to that. The overseas and discharge dates must remain sourced to the archives as checked by the paper copies that Dcoggins has. -- Avi (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Likewise Naturalization Records, Southern District Court, New York
- That was added by Dcoggins, I believe he either has copies of the original or saw them. I can ask him again. -- Avi (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Dcoggins has scanned copies of the originals, but pointed me to a link posted by the Italian Genealogical Group. I did not place that as publisher, as the citation is to the actual records as eyeballed by Dcoggins This is just a WP:Convenience link. -- Avi (talk) 05:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question, why did you change the publisher tag to work regarding Reading Eagle? Reading Eagle is a newspaper. If you don't mind, I'm switching those back for now. I'll update this section when I get answers from Dcoggins. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because newspaper titles in references go in italics, and if you put the title in "publisher" it won't be in italics. To get the italics properly you must use the work field. I thought I'd be nice and just do it for you, but instead I can tell you that you need to turn it back if you did so. Newspaper titles go in italics, and the publisher field in ((cite news)) is for the actual company that publishes the newspaper, such as Gannet, Knight-Rider, etc. (and it's not needed either) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I did not know that; I'll correct it now. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Sorry if I sounded cranky. Bruised my knee this morning and the ice packs and the general "keep the leg up" thing is making me crankier than usual. On the two things you're going to email on, you need to know that if the records aren't published or easily available they may not be usable. At the least, they are a concern since they'd be primary sources, so no conclusions should be drawn from them, they should only be cited for bare facts. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- No problem; get better soon and perhaps ingest some ibuprofen :). As for those two sources, they are only being used for bare facts (enlistment date, date sent to Britain, discharge date, and citizenship date respectively) - no conclusions are being drawn from them. -- Avi (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - So that takes care of one part, but the other concern isn't addressed. Can these records really be considered "published"? (And I don't see a link to the military records..) If you can access the actual military records online, then yes, they are published. But if the only way to see them is through a records request at an actual building or through the mail/email, I'd have to be on the fence if this is considered published. It's treading awfully close to original research that historians do, although it's not all the way there. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The records, according to Dcoggins, are available to anyone who requests them, not just next-of-kin, and Dcoggins actually has them. He does not want to post them online as there may be some copyright issues. The way I see it, and I'm open to being corrected, is that the records exist, are acessible, and have been eyeballed by a wikpedia editor. The US gov't is a reliable source, and we allow sources that do not have on-line links as long as someone can verify them when asked, which was done by Dcoggins. Yes, they are primary sources for the two remaining dates (shipping overseas and discharge) - see note #18 for the enlistment date, which is why that is all they are being used ofr. There is nothing originial, no criticism, no synthesis, no commentary, that is based on this note, just the bare facts that coggins went to Britain on this date, and was discharged on that date, so according to my understandning of WP:OR and WP:PSTS, that should be acceptable. Of course, I may be wrong, or outdated, which is why discussions like these are so important. -- Avi (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This one isn't one I'll be able to solve, I'm more throwing it out for other reviewers to consider for themselves. I have it pretty easy, as the articles I write about medieval bishops, most information is already published, even the "original sources" and what little isn't published, well, it's pretty clearly OR to use it (as you're reading and interpreting medieval Latin documents). On the horse articles I write, I do indeed use some online database records, but I do not use items from archives (which indeed I do have access to), if that can help with guidance. But I recognize that that's my choice, and it may not be required. If you replace the art cite with the mystic cite, I think we're done here from me, and I can leave the rest out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, I believe all issues here have been addressed, pending further discussion on AskART. Thank you very much for your comments, corrections, and suggestions! -- Avi (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding AskART. Would this citation from Mystic Seaport be more acceptable http://mobius.mysticseaport.org/detail.php?t=objects&type=all&f=&s=coggins&record=4? -- Avi (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that would be a better citation. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Done Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions, and I look forward to seeing others' comments on the Military records issue. Thanks again! -- Avi (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to make things easy for Sandy/Karan, the remaining issues on sources have been left out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note Dcoggins reviewed his copies of the documents and we removed the departure date as that was not in the records. The other two exist, but the original card was damaged in the 1973 archive fire. I believe he has both the original and a copy. See Talk:Jack Coggins#Military Service for details. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment it was rather obvious to someone with some knowledge of the British Armed Forces that the authors of the sources used for Coggins' father didn't really understand the organisation of the British Army. I've tried to straighten things out to remove the more obvious gaffes, and added in a few more refs from British official sources. David Underdown (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Thank you very much for your corrections. I admit to little-to-no knowledge of British military structure and was relying on the sources. It's good to have an expert come in and clean things up. -- Avi (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Indeed, thank you for your input. In addition to adding to the article, those links have given me some more information for my family history. Unfortunately though, the last of the three links doesn't seem to work here, but I could access the page through another route. Dave (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:05, 25 July 2009 [37].

Unification of Germany[edit]

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, after major revisions, it is broadly inclusive of the topic, plus focused specifically on unification, it is appropriately and amply cited, representative of a variety of widely accepted historiographic viewpoints, is well written and properly illustrated, and generally and specifically documents and explains the important factors leading to unification of Germany. In addition, it lays the ground work for problems that arose after German unification, and directs the reader to further articles on Kulturkampf, etc. I am the primary editor. In addition to informal assessments (see archive), the article has undergone several (archived) peer reviews, plus a good article assessment (listed). Thank you for your consideration. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Deutsches_Reich1.png.....the eng...lish language wikipedia? Fasach Nua (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the file is from wikicommons, and is used in several articles in different languages. Are you suggesting that I should change the name of the file? (requiring everyone else to use an file with an English name) or perhaps duplicate it, and change the title on the picture? (equally pointless...why alter the image...?) The point of wikicommons is to share files, and that being the case, we need to share languages as well. Besides, the caption is in English. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Auntieruth55 - there is no need to change the name of the file. Note that the image description page uses both English and German, so there are no problems with accessibility. Awadewit (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue is the content of the file, placenames should either be English or bilingual, unless the document is of historic significance, which this is clearly not! Fasach Nua (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this was unclear from your original post. I've switched out the file for one of far lesser quality in terms of information, but it is in English. This switch is against my better judgment, because the first file had far more information, showing far more explicitly the "kleindeutschland" solution of a Germany without Austria, which is not as clear from the new map. It seems to me that we can pander too much to people who must have everything in English; the other map was understandable even a couple of 10-12 year olds here with me now. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images should be high quality and accessible, it shouldnt be one or the other The source of the licencing in the current image is missing Fasach Nua (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quality? I'm not referring to the pixels of the image, but rather its ability to illustrate the subject of the article. The picture I took out illustrates this better than the one I put in. I didn't select it off the top of my head, but rather after some consideration of what needed to be in the map, and what was unnecessary. I would MUCH rather use the deleted image than the one I have. How about if I explain what the terms mean in the caption? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about we ask someone to simply create a new map based on the original map but which includes English names? We could even have a dual-language map, if you think that would be best. Ruhrfisch has created some maps in the past - he might be able to help. Awadewit (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

that is a good idea. Ruhrfish makes great maps. I did tweak an old map I had, though, and replaced the "questioned" map with this one. See if you like it better? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fasach Nua, what do you think? I thought the original map was much better. If we could get an English or English/German version of that, I think that would be the best choice. It is almost impossible to read the names on this one because the resolution is so low. Awadewit (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments -
~~Okay, you need to standardize your references. Some are Location: PUblisher, year others are (Location, Publisher, year).~~
On journal articles, we customarily put the article in quotation marks and the journal title in italics. So Jürgen Kocka, "Comparison and Beyond". History and Theory, Vol. 42, No. 1 (February, 2003), pp. 39–44
I'm unclear why you have a bibliography section if you give the full form of the reference in the notes section? Normally, when you give a bibliography section, it's to avoid giving the full bibliographical details in the notes.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm an academic. We AlWAYS ise a bibliography. Are you suggesting I take it out? It includes sources that are not cited, but which I read. And I'll standardize the references now. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, i'm more suggesting that if you have a bibliography, you just use a "short form" of the source in the notes. See Wilfrid or Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. for examples. And if you did not cite a work in the article, it should go in the further reading section, not the bibliography. On Wikipedia, bibliography is only for works actually cited, and further reading is for works perhaps read but not used. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I don't mean to be obtuse. I looked at OWH Sr and I don't see the difference between the shortform there and the shortform in Unification, other than minor punctuation differences? Once a source is cited the first time, unless there are two or more sources by the same author I don't use the title again, just name and page numbers. I would be happy to use a shorter form in the citations as long as it doesn't involve a-b-c-d etc. I don't like reading articles with the multiple cites using the a-b-c-d, because I find them very difficult to figure out. So, withint that constraint, I'm happy to change the citations to whatever they need to be.

re the merged bibliography and the "additional sources" or whatever we want to call them, I had them separated once, and a reviewer suggested I merge them for space. so I did. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The main difference between what you have now and what's in OWH is that OWH never uses the full citation in the footnotes. Instead they are all short form, with the full citation only occuring in the sources section. does that make sense? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

not really. Short form is last name and page? I did look at it. There are at least a dozen, although not all, that have the full citation. It's not consistent at all. I also separated out the "Suggested Reading" (am I allowed to use that word, even if it isn't neutral?) again ;) and I went through the citations and made sure they were as short as I could make them. I guess a question is, what is the point of using the short form, is it just to save space??? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Example from your article. Footnote 1 is "David Blackbourn, The long nineteenth century: a history of Germany, 1780–1918. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998, Epilogue" but you also list the full citation in the bibliography, is there a need to list it long in the first footnote? Anything in the bibliography should only be listed in "short form" in the notes, if you list any short forms in the notes. You can also list EVERY note long form, if you wish, but right now you're inconsistent, some are long some are short, some are always short, some are long in the first footnote and short later. The idea is that you're consistent and right now it's not. And you've still got a few spots of titles not in italics (see notes 62 and 63). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I understand what you're saying. I consistently listed every footnote the first time in long form, and after that, in shortened form, as I would do in a paper or published article. I've gone through and eliminated the long form on all first footnotes, however, so this should work, I think. I'll check back after lunch (I'm on vacation right now, and have to pay attention to some others.)--Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

okay re citations and footnotes and bibliography. I went back through the entire article, and checked, rechecked, and fixed where necessary. Each citation, the first time, has a complete listing, and after that lists the author's last name, and the page number(s). If there is more than source for an author (such as for Blackbourn or Sperber), I've listed a shortened form of the title. In the bibliography, everything that is referred to in the text is included, but I did use the shortened form (shortened according to CMS, which I gather is the MOS here). I separated the material that is not directly referred to in the article, and listed it under further reading. If a journal article is the source, I've put the journal article in quotes and the journal name in italics, as you requested. So, everything is done consistently, according to style, by the book, so to speak. Hope this works. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the bibliography, please list the publication location and the publishing house for all books. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done this, put all the publishing houses BACK into the bib. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image issues resolved

Oppose on criterion 3 I worked a bit on the images, but many of them need information that I cannot provide. Hopefully with some additional attention, we can retain most of them.

*File:Germanempire1871.jpg - I don't see any evidence of this map being in the PD, however I might have missed where it says that on the website. Could you point me to that? Thanks.

this one has been removed. A different one put in its place, authorship explained. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a user named Wiggy did some translations on the original map I had up, but he didn't do all of them. You might take a look at File:Deutsches_Reich1.png.File:German Reich 1871.png --Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Germanempire 1871 english plus language.jpg - This is the new image. I see that the image is licensed under CC-by-SA 3.0. Can you show me where on the website it says that the maps are licensed under CC-by-SA 3.0 and add a link to the source on the image description page? Awadewit (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

::::I don't know if that's the correct license. Actually, I don't know what the correct license would be. I've changed some of the text on the licensing page. This is a WIDELY distributed map, \ in German and English. I substantially modified it by adding additional information on language overlays, and some other stuff. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please add a link to the image HTML page on the image description page? That way I can start to investigate the licensing. Also, I am still concerned about the low-resolution of this map, as I stated above. The words are very hard to read. I think all of the maps we use should be able to read if one clicks on them. Awadewit (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~link added. that seems to be the best resolution available there. The original image I used (the one in GERMAN) is beautiful resolution. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)~~Reply[reply]

~~used the original file (the German one), Wiggy had translated some of it, and I translated MORE of it. Higher resolution. See if this works better for you....?~~ ~~Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)~~Reply[reply]

*File:Hambacher Fest 1832.jpg - This image needs a source and an author. Notice that the license claims PD status based on the death of the author, so for this license, we must know the author.

I've translated the German info on the file. The picture comes from a web page of the city, Neustadt, which is near where this festival was held. They are not claiming any copy rights on the images on the website. The commons page claims PD old on the copy right. this is a hand colored drawing from 1832.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've found a different copy, this one not colored, and with higher resolution, and it has much clearer and more detailed sourcing information. --Auntieruth55

I've added a more specific source link and fixed the license for the new image. This is a better image! Awadewit (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~File:Nationalversammlung.jpg - This image needs a source and an author. Notice that the license claims PD status based on the death of the author, so for this license, we must know the author.~~

this is a hand colored lithograph (from a newspaper) (mid 19th century). --Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bildarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz Use permissions here

As you will notice, it says that "All materials included in German History in Documents and Images are intended solely for individual, educational, non-commercial use." - This is not consonant with Wikipedia's free license, which also allow commercial uses. We can still use images from the website, however, as long as we demonstrate that they are in the public domain. To demonstrate that the above is in the PD, it would be best if we could get the death date of von Eliott (the original artist) since the copyright expires 70 years after his death. Awadewit (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Parliament Frankfurt Pauls Church 1848.jpg has been substituted for the Naitonalversamlung. Its sources are clearer, I think. Also have death date on artist. It may need some additional tweaking in the description page by someone.Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The new image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Charicature stitching Germany together.jpg - "German wikicommons" is not the original source for this caricature, nor is Pischdi the original author. Since the PD license is based on the life of the author, we need to know the original author or change the license. Please also translate the description into English.

as close as I can tell, it was a caricature in a newspaper, and I'm not sure which one, either.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We really need a source here. Is this caricature reprinted in any of the books you used to research the article? Perhaps you could try and contact the original uploader and ask them where they got it from? If we can't find any documentation for this image, it will have to be deleted. Awadewit (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've given it an invisibility cloak with those codes, so when I eventually find a source, I can add it back in. At this point, it should be "gone" (unseeable).Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Striking because it is not in the article. Note, however, that we should really delete the image if you cannot find a source. Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~File:BismarckRoonMoltke.jpg - This image needs the name of the photographer since the license depends on the death of the author.~~

done some searching, the photo was dated 1860, but no indication of the author. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

more searching. A copy of this photo is located in the Archiv des WSA-Kiel (Archive of the WSA-Kiel (city in northern Germany). here This is an article on the construction of the north sea canal (water street=WS). --Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added the date information and changing the licensing since we don't know the name of the photographer. Awadewit (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:1866 prinz-friedrich-karl-bei-koeniggraetz 1b-640x428.jpg - This image description needs to be translated into English. If you could clearly identify the author, source, and date, I'll assess the rest afterward that.

artist seems to be that world famous painter, "unknown." All other copies of it that i've seen have no author. I'll look in Wawro tomorrow, see if there is one there. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think "unknown" is the most talented painter out there. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~File:Battle of Sedan Surrender of Napoleon to Wilhelm.jpg - The source for this cannot be the "German Wikipedia" - we need to find the original source.~~

this is a drawing by Wilhelm Camphausen, 1878. This was an artist who made a series of pictures about the " national war." He died in 1885. He painted historical scenes (such as Bluecher crossing the Rhine, and a very famous picture of Frederick the Great on his horse). Under the category of historical painting and nationalist painting. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We need to have some sort of source here. Do you know a book that this is reprinted in or a museum that holds a copy of this, for example? Awadewit (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~File:Napoleon III Otto von Bismarck (Detail).jpg~~ This is the actual file in the article. Someone had substituted another file, not sure why! There is a source in the description page (I put it there yesterday. Another source for it: Heritage History Famous Men of Modern times, John Haaren, New York, American Book Company, 1909. Count Otto von Bismarck, p. 344-. here Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This file checks out. Awadewit (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~File:Reichsgründung1871-AW.jpg - We need a date and a source for this image. For the source, the museum where it is currently held is sufficient.~~

Anton Werner was the court painter, and the picture appears to be in the exhibit at Wannseehaus Museum. Werner died in 1915.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no it's not at Wannsee, or if it was, it's permanent location is Schloss Friedrichsruhe. I found it listed in a catalog (Getty).

This is done. Awadewit (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*File:Prussiamap.gif - The uploader of this map, Electionworld, is not the creator of it (as it states on the image description page). Electionworld has stopped contributing, so we cannot discover the contributor. This map will have to be recreated by someone else and this one will have to be deleted.

I'm not married to this photo.

Do you want to get someone to recreate it? Awadewit (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

that would be good. Or....we can just do without it I suppose, although it's good to have it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you want to do? Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you cannot find someone to create a new version of this map, we need to delete it as we have license verifying its release. Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will delete it and add some text that covers the issue.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issue has been resolved. Awadewit (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*File:Kolonialbesitz.png - This image does not list an author, but the license claims "life of the author plus 70 years". Do we know the author? If not, we can find a different license.

this one was pulled out because the article doesn't deal with the colonies.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we know who the author of the map is? Note that the license states "life of the author plus 70 years". Awadewit (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

there is a Ruhrfish recreation. Beyond this, I'm not sure...

What do you want to do? Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per your question on my talk page, the image description does not say anything about Ruhrfisch creating this map. My question about this map relates to its author - do we know the author? For the license to be applicable, we need to know the author. If we do not know the author, we can try to find a different license or perhaps a different map. Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

since the map was removed, the issue is irrelevant, I think. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Please do list those sorts of updates, as I look here to see how the image issues are progressing. Awadewit (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kaiser Wilhelm Deu. Eck Koblenz.jpg - The quotation from the website is not an explicit release of rights. I believe we need something more solid than this. The images need to be released under a specific license - this is too unclear. This image needs to be deleted or the licensing clarified.

the website gives a specific release of rights as long as the website is credited. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1) Notice that the website attaches specific conditions to the release of the rights (journalism and tourism). 2) There is no specific license here, making the entire release ambiguous. Awadewit (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no problem, lots of pictures of the corner, a very impressive and much photographed space. I swapped it out for one posted by a german user, it's his own picture.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New image is fine. Awadewit (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am enjoying reading the article. These image issues will take some time to resolve, but they are not difficult. Awadewit (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've shifted someof the images around, using ones that have clearer sourcing inf. Hope this helps.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

::Some of the images are sandwiching text, which is strongly discouraged by the MOS (see WP:MOS#Images). You might want to work on the layout a bit. Also, images are not supposed to be placed before === and lower headings. There are several of these in the article. Awadewit (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take care of this, and the other issues you've brought up. I think sometimes the sourcing on some of these images is a best guess by whoever uploads (including myself). Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've taken care of the sandwiching, I moved some images to a gallery at the end (I like it, and they make sense there), I switched out the Frankfurt Parliament image with one that has clearer licensing, although I might need you to tweak that sourcing, I wasn't sure about it.Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DONE.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments I was impressed by the scope and readability of this article. I do have some comments and suggestions.

The critical role played by Blücher's troops, especially after having to retreat from the field at Ligny the day before, turned the tide of combat against the French. The Prussian cavalry pursued the defeated French in the evening of the 18th, sealing the allied victory. - After the Battle of Waterloo FAC, I realize that this is one particular POV. Since this article is not about Waterloo, we obviously don't need to go into great detail about the debates, but I think we need to acknowledge that this is a particular POV and that there are others.

I'll take care of this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still think the fact that this is a particular interpretation needs to be acknowledged. Awadewit (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

modified this some more. Related it to the development of the Borussian myth, in which Prussia's actions at Waterloo receive glorious coverage, and this links to the last section but one.From the German perspective, the actions of Blücher's troops at Waterloo, and the combined efforts at Leipzig, offered a rallying point of pride and enthusiasm.[8] This interpretation became a key building block of the Borussian myth expounded by the pro-Prussian nationalist historians later in the 19th century.[9] Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crucially, both the Wartburg rally in 1817 and the Hambach Festival in 1832 had lacked any clear-cut program of unification. At Hambach, the positions of the many speakers illustrated their disparate agendas. Held together only by the idea of unification, their notions of how to achieve this did not include specific plans, but rested on the nebulous idea that the Volk (the people), if properly educated, would bring about unification on their own. Grand speeches, flags, exuberant students, and picnic lunches did not translate into a new political, bureaucratic and administrative apparatus; no constitution miraculously appeared, although there was indeed plenty of talk of constitutions. - This is entertaining, but I'm wondering a bit about the language. It sounds a bit sarcastic, especially the bits about the flags and picnic lunches. There are some other examples of this kind of language throughout the article which can be toned down.

I'll tone it down a little, but generally I don't think it is too sarcastic. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am still worried about this tone. What do other people think? Awadewit (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure if JN had problems with this or not. I've toned it down some, and enhanced language linking it to future developments.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The historiography section at the end only mentions 19th-century historians. Is there a reason it stops there? If so, that should be explained. If not, the section should be expanded to include 20th-century views.

This last section on "building" is dealing with the problems inherent in "starting" a nation. Consequently, I left the nationalist historiography of the Empire and so on to the other articles. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. Awadewit (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pro-Bismarck - The article seemed a bit pro-Bismarck to me as I was reading. Statements such as the following gave the impression that Bismarck was a diplomatic genius who could do no wrong: This required political and diplomatic skill worthy of a Machiavelli, and Bismarck manipulated circumstances to suit his needs. - Again, I'm wondering about the presentation of the Bismarck material.

well, he did, and it's cited. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm concerned that the article presents Bismarck in a way that suggests he could do no wrong - is that really what the scholarship suggests? Awadewit (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

of course it doesn't suggest he could do no wrong. But there is a fairly broad agreement that he did a lot of things right, at the same time as his opponents did a lot of things wrong. I've modified the text somewhat. See if this is better. I don't want to go into a lot of detail on Bismarck because there is a full article on him (and I've directed people there). Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*All of the images also need alt text. (This requirement was just added for FA.)

Oh Joy! Oh Bliss! I'll take care of it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DONEAuntieruth55 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I look forward to supporting this article in the future as these issues are resolved and I learned a lot from reading it. Thanks so much for working on such an important article! Awadewit (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DONEAuntieruth55 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just let me know when all of these things are finished. Thanks for all of your hard work! Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have all of these issues been addressed? Awadewit (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prussia map is removed. Kolonialbesitz removed more than a week ago.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I meant, have all of the content issues I asked about above been resolved? Awadewit (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't cross out my comments - I'll do that. Awadewit (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. As per WP:ALT and WP:FACR #3, all images that are not purely decorative should have alt text. To get the ball rolling I added alt text for the lead image, and fixed Template:History of Germany [38] and Template:Table of states in the German Empire [39] to follow the alt-text guidelines. ~~Please add alt text to the rest of the images in the article.~~ Eubulides (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks, I'll take a look and follow the example. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment ~~Per WP:LEDE, the lede should not exceed four paragraphs. I've joined a few paras to make four overall.~~ JN 466 19:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~okay, we ran into an edit conflict while you were doing that. However, I think I've everything I added while you were working on the lead back together.~~

~~:: alt text is done. :: citations added at ambiguities re Bismarck :: German enthusiasm for Prussian performance at Waterloo added, plus ethusiasm over Leipzig~~

a couple of places sort of toned down, but...Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about the edit conflicts. The lede still seems a little long. I noted it has two mentions of Realpolitik, as well as two mentions of the Zollverein. I wonder if it can still be tightened up a little further, by referring only once to the role that each of these aspects played? JN 466 21:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I shortened it. See if that is better.Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well done, I think that flows better. JN 466 22:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Summary of stuff so far:

The lead has been fixed, as far as I can tell, yes? So everyone is happy with that?
Images are properly sourced and attributed, placed, sized, captioned, and so forth,. The one that is still problematic is invisible, and when I find the appropriate source on it, I'll add it. Meanwhile, it's not "there"... so we're happy with that?
Alt text is added to all images, so we're okay on that?
Bismarck material is properly (overly perhaps) cited, so it can stay? I think it needs to. His contribution was critical.
I'm adding a sentence to link to the "sarcastic" section, here here

So, what else needs to be done? Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The maps are still an issue - see the images that are unstricken above. Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

::Images of File:Prussiamap.gif and File:Kolonialbesitz.png The latter is not necessary to the article on German Unification, but it should be necessary to an article on the German Empire (Second Empire, whatever we call it). I've removed it from Unification. I'm not sure what needs to be "fixed" in it. It's a Ruhrfisch adaptation. Re the former, it is important to this article. What is wrong with it? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Reply[reply]

~~I have responded above, underneath each image. Please respond there. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]~~

Comment Could you check the reference for our mention of the "prolific historian, Wilhelm Raabe"? Wilhelm Raabe was a novelist; I can't find any trace of a historian called Wilhelm Raabe. JN 466 17:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sheehan implies he is an historian; clearly he's a novelist and possibly he wrote historical stuff as well. I've clarified that. Also added a bit on roads and rivers at that point.Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I've corrected the German title of Lenau's poem, and have altered the description of it slightly. Pls review. JN 466 18:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes, that is fine, looks good to me. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I think I am calling it a day for today; I am about half-way through. Will still need a day or two to read through the rest of it, it is a long article. Interesting though, must have taken you yonks to put together. Cheers, JN 466 21:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad you're finding it interesting. Yes, it is long, but it is a big subject and a top priority for the project. Not as long as the battle of Waterloo ;) One reviewer in the GA process didn't want to read the article, although he wanted to review it. Ummmm, not sure how that would have worked. It definitely was not a short process to put it together. Had to find all the references, etc. I'd done the reading as part of comprehensives, but then pulling out the specific pages, etc., was time consuming. Initially I tried to just "improve" the existing article, but at some point I realized the whole thing needed to be redone. So.... Thanks for taking the time to deal with it. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alt text is done; thanks. Alt text is still needed for the images in the The Nation in images: Germania depicted section. That section used to be a gallery, which doesn't work with alt text; I changed it to a table (which is better anyway), and somebody needs to add alt text there. Thanks for doing the alt text for the other images; I tweaked the text a bit and fixed some bugs. Eubulides (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I discovered it didn't work in gallery. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Re perception of emphasis on Bismarck. I've subsumed that section re him and Realpolitik into the previous section, which de-emphasizes him considerably. Text isn't remarkably change~~d.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

done. :)

Sorry, I didn't like the modifications done to this section yesterday. I understand what and why they were made, and I've seriously modified it. Hope this works. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was not all that happy with them myself. :) You know your way better around this, so I am glad you had another look. We're still not quite there, though; Bismarck gets appointed twice (once in the first para, once in the second), and Wilhelm is first Wilhelm and then William. Also, the army reforms mentioned in the first para are the same as those mentioned in the second. It might make sense to get everything in time sequence, i.e. start with Moltke and v. Roon (currently in 2nd para), explain that their reforms cost money and there was a conflict about the budget (currently in 1st para), and that the new king appointed Bismarck because he believed Bismarck could sort it (currently in 1st and 2nd para). The rest should flow fine. If I've slipped up or got hold of the wrong end of the stick, or you'd rather do it differently, please let me know. Best, JN 466 00:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

see of this works better 7-14-09 revision Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a long article. I've spot-checked much of the content and dates against the Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropedia and de:WP; the writing in the article is good, in some places outstanding; I'm only three-quarters through with the review (hoping to do the last quarter this coming week), but am pretty confident that the last quarter will not be much different than the first three. Based on textual content I would Support. JN 466 22:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a user Pedant17 (talk | contribs) made a bunch of copy edits which diffused the content, increased wordiness, and in some cases changed meaning in subtle and important ways. He also changed a citation style, and there are a lot of citations, so his single change would mean going through and changing all the others. I reversed his change. If he does it again, I'll call it vandalism, should I? In some cases he is outright wrong in his changes, and in others it's simply meaning less edits that increase wordiness and diffuse the meaning. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that the majority of his/her copyedits did not clearly improve the article. There were one or two exceptions; I've incorporated a couple of them, there may be a few more. JN 466 20:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes, one or two were good, and I included a couple. Are we done? I've asked Adewait to look at the last image, not sure she has, so I made it easier to find (below).Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

one more thing: I went through the links to make sure they all lead exactly where I wanted them to lead. And they do....now. :) I also fixed a couple places of verb weirdness, and a few other things. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last image issue (I hope) is this one: File:German Empire 18711918.png It has replaced the one of low resolution and dubious ancestry. In English. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:05, 25 July 2009 [40].

Chinese classifier[edit]

Nominator(s): rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is thoroughly researched and has been through several rounds of copyediting (GA, PR, and repeated copyedits from me over about a month and a half). I feel it's a comprehensive treatment of this subject that should be both an informative introduction for people unfamiliar with it, and a well-researched analysis for people who already have a background in linguistics and/or Chinese language. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kwami's comments

I'd link classifier (linguistics) in the introduction.
- Linked; also linked measure word (linguistics). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Different nouns often require different classifiers": Reword. Maybe s.t. like "nouns require specific classifiers (classifiers are lexicalized)" would make it clear that it isn't just random or speaker choice. I think much of this is lexicalized: other than 个 being generic, and apart from poetry, AFAIK each noun has its "correct" classifier, which means that it is not being assigned semantically, even if semantics or analogy is the historical explanation for the assignment. ("different dialects often using different classifiers to count the same item" makes it clear that speakers aren't deciding which classifier to use while speaking, but that the assignments are already set.)
- While I personally believe they are lexicalized—at least for the most common words—just like you do (at the very least, they are certainly taught that way, as classifier-noun pairs) I'm not sure we could call it a fact yet. While most of the papers I'm familiar with seem to like the prototype theory and argue that classifier-noun pairings are often lexicalized/arbitrary, I don't think it's 100% accepted yet, and even some of these papers think there are still some semantic factors floating around (for example, the Zhang 2007 paper); it also gets messy, of course, trying to draw a distinction between classifier use synchronically (probably lexicalized) vs. where the classifiers came from in recent history (probably arose through analogy to prototypes, a bit more semantic). Mainly I was just trying to keep the lede simple (ie, what a person just starting to learn Chinese would know-- that books go with ben, pants go with tiao, etc.). I will try to think of other possible rewordings to make this clear. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)'Reply[reply]
- After looking at this more, my impression is that the word "require" does make it clear that this isn't random or speaker choice. I can't really think of any better way to put it that still flows well; maybe something like "each noun can only be used with certain classifiers (based on inherent properties of the noun or on learned/lexicalized associations), and cannot be used with other classifiers." I'm hoping to avoid using intimidating jargon like "lexicalized" and "association", though, in the lede, since it might make the article less accessible to lay readers, so that parenthetical might not be so good to include. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"they are just motivated by analogy": there's no "just" about it. This is an ongoing and productive avenue of research. Might want to link prototype theory.
- Removed "just" and linked. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"the mass-classifier 盒 (hé, "box") may be used with anything that fits into boxes": Reword. You mean 'anything that's in a box', or maybe the quantity of a box, don't you? You wouldn't use "1盒cigarette" for just one cigarette, which is how I could read this. Would "1盒cigarette" mean only 'a pack of cigarettes', or could it be used to mean 20 cigarettes that aren't actually in a pack?
- Ah, yes, you're right. Changed to "may be used with anything in a box". As for the other question, I'm pretty sure it would only mean a box of cigarettes, not "a box's worth of cigarettes" (for that I would use "1盒的cigarette", lit. "1 box COMP cigarette" or "1 box's cigarettes"); I don't think it has that second meaning, although I'd have to consult a native speaker to be sure. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC) update: I checked with a friend from Shanghai and she agreed with this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"where the Chinese system originally came from": "originally" is redundant.
- Good catch, removed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"and slowly had their meanings bleached away": Reword as active voice.
- Do you mean like "and their meanings were slowly bleached away"? That is still passive but less passive (I guess "had their meanings bleached away" is doubly passive, not sure what the official description of it is); I don't see any way to reword this as truly passive, since there's no agent. Certainly couldn't say "people bleached their meanings away", and I don't know if 'bleached' can be used intransitively ("their meanings bleached away")... I've changed it to "their meanings were gradually bleached away" for now, does that work? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

usage: you might want to use 'cattle' in your English examples, in place of perhaps in addition to 'cat', because that requires a classifier in English ('cattle' is not directly countable in English, and has no singular ("neat" being obsolete), much like Chinese nouns): a head of cattle, this head of cattle, three head of cattle, these three head of cattle, three head of black cattle, three head. (Yes, 'this head of cattle' is not common in English, but it does occur: I can sell you this head of cattle; At five years of age this head of cattle is worth perhaps $40.) Also: do you say 'many head of cattle' in Chinese, or just 'many cattle'?
- Ah, wow, I could have sworn I mentioned cattle in there somewhere (AFAIK "head of cattle" the most famous, if not the only, example of a count-classifier in mod. English), but I can't find it. I will try to add mention of it tonight, at the very least in a note (something along the lines of "English doesn't really have classifiers, but there is this one"). As for 'many'.... just "many cattle" is probably the best. "Many头cattle" sounds like a students' error to me, although again I'd have to check with a native speaker to see if it's entirely impossible or not. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Update I asked a couple friends and there was disagreement, but the general consensus I've taken away from it is that "many-CL-N" may not be technically incorrect but it's never, or almost never, said. (It seems complicated...sometimes I miss the comforting arms of prescriptive grammar and ignorance...) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I added a brief note on "head of cattle". A lot of the sources I've read mention it, but I can't find it right now (and most of them are scans of things, rather than nice PDFs, so they're not searchable), but I think the one source there is sufficient. Personally, I don't agree with the view that "head of cattle" is an example of a count-classifier in English ('cattle' seems more like a mass noun for me, and 'head of cattle' just like 'grain of salt'...note that we don't say "five head of cows"), but the example is cited enough that it's worth mentioning. As for using it in the "usage" explanation... I actually specifically avoided it, partly because it's unusual English (either it's a count-classifier, which makes it different from the norm, or it's a mass-classifier, where I was trying more to give an example of a count-classifier), and partly because I wanted to use an example with a real countable noun to highlight the major difference between English and Chinese--that Chinese uses classifiers for counting discrete objects, but English leaves that space empty. I'm worried that if I used "head of cattle" as the example, then readers might not realize that with other English nouns, a classifier-less phrase ("five cats") would have a classifier added when translated into Chinese. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

other uses: you might want to clarify that 片 is not the classifier for clouds.
- Added a brief clarification, let me know if you think it's enough. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't read this far, but if you don't explain where 个 came from, that would be of interest to me as a reader.
- The article doesn't currently mention it, but there is a ton of literature on it and it would be easy to add (off the top of my head, out of the current references, Erbaugh, Ahrens, and Wang all have sections on it; Erbaugh even has sort of a timeline of all the different things 个 has meant over the years). Appropriate places to add a little bit on it would be the Neutralization section (if I put it there, it would probably have to go in a footnote, unless I do a bit of reorganizing) or the Origins/History section. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, enough for now. I'll try to take up the rest of the article later. kwami (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the comments; I'll leave responses above (I know the FAC guidelines say not to, but I find it easier to keep track of which responses go to which comments that way; if you don't want your points to be split up, let me know and I'll move my responses down below). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, with "Different nouns often require different classifiers", the problem I see is that the meaning, that for each noun there is a specific classifier, is rather opaque. Yes, it is logically required by the following text, but I think it would be better to simply say it to begin with.

"their meanings slowly bleached away" sounds fine to me.

Good point on 'cattle'. You could maybe have the 'cat' example to show the difference, then the 'cattle' example in parentheses to make the construction intuitive. I think it's important to tie material in with things the reader already knows, as far as reasonably possible.

'Head of cattle' has nothing to do with mass nouns. You can say either 'five cattle' or 'five head of cattle', 'five sheep' or 'five head of sheep'. The 'head' shows that you're treating the animals as livestock rather than generic animals. AFAIK, 'five head of deer' or 'five head of quail' would only be used if they were being hunted, farmed, considered for wildlife management, etc. But then you get "1000 head of cattle and to 20 head of horses", "30 head of horses and mares", with a clear plural. kwami (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About "different nouns often require different classifiers"...not sure if I'm understanding you, are you basically saying that it might be better for the introduction to have a bit of a "white lie" for simplicity's sake (ie, suggesting that every noun has one and only one classifier that it absolutely must use) and then further along in the article clarifying the issues of variability, usage, etc?

As for the cattle example...I suppose I could put a cattle sentence directly below each cat sentence, to give two examples of each structure. That would fit the most nicely into a table, and I could add a note to the table along the lines of "notice how in English, 'three cats' doesn't need a classifier but 'three head of cattle' does, whereas in Chinese they both need classifiers". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I made a mock-up example here. The top example is both cat & cow sentences in one table, as I had suggested above; as it turns out, once I put it together I think it's hard to read. Below it is the examples in separate tables, which I like a little better. (Another problem, though, is that I think the cow examples sound very awkward in English...can you think of any times where you can use an adjective in "X head of cattle"? My adjective examples don't translate well, but I figured since there were adjective examples for cats there should be adjective examples for cows as well.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"head" is uncountable: 5 head of cattle, not 5 *heads of cattle.

No, I don't think we should lie in the intro. I just don't think the word "different" in that sentence is very clear. "Nouns are associated with particular classifiers", maybe?

Color: As is, the color doesn't add much to the chart. First, I think the Chinese words should be color coded to match the schema. Second, IMO the CL should be the brightest color. NUM and DEM could share the second-brightest color. It's the adjective IMO that should be left black.

Arrangement: I think the simpler examples should come first: num-cl N and dem-cl N. Then the one w/o the noun. Only then introduce the adj. Also, we might want to add san zhi hei-de for "three black ones", "five head of big ones". kwami (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your suggestions for arrangement of the table are good, and I've reorganized it and also redone the colors: here is what it looks like now. I tried to use a bright color, red, for the CL, and dull colors for all the others (I ended up putting color on the ADJ because when left black it stood out, whereas we probably just want CL to be standing out...so I made it brown--I tried orange, but it was too light to read easily). I just want to make sure it doesn't cause accessibility problems for people with screen settings different than mine...if there is a chance that it would cause accessibility problems, maybe it would be better just to leave the whole thing black?

As for the lede, "Nouns are associated with particular classifiers" sounds pretty good...I just also want to make sure it's clear that noun X is also associated with different classifiers than noun Y is, since I think that is one of the main ideas. I'll have to try to think of a good way to express both of these things at once without getting overly complicated in the lede. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I've added the new tables to the article, I think they're ready. As for the sentence in the lede...I realized that what I was worried about isn't a big deal, since the following sentence clarifies the point I'm trying to make. So here are the possible rewordings I have in mind; they're pretty similar to what you suggested:

"Each noun is associated with particular classifiers." (even shorter than what's there now, but the rest of the paragraph explains it)
"Each classifier is associated with a particular kind of noun." (different emphasis... probably more accurate than the other sentence, but might also be more confusing for readers)

Any preference? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the first. The second is linguistically dubious: nouns don't likely come in "kinds", but in semantic networks. But nouns are associated w particular CL, AFAIK either lexically or though association with semantically similar nouns. kwami (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, regarding your question about 个...after starting to read Wang a little more closely, there is easily enough on this topic for a good paragraph about the origins/history of 个. The question is just where to put it--in the Neutralization section, or the "classifiers themselves" subsection of the History section. I am leaning towards the second, partly because it would flow better (it will probably be easiest to talk about the historical development of a particular classifier after we've already discussed the historical development of classifiers in general), and partly because that section is already pretty small and could use some beefing up. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Update Added it, in a new subsection. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Types:

While you say 书本 has a "plural" sense, your examples both involve "all". Is it perhaps exhaustive rather than simply plural? Chinese obviously doesn't normally use number: what makes these constructions different?

Since some of the most salient mass classifiers in English are "loaf/slice/piece of bread/cheese", etc., it might be instructive to give a Chinese equivalent.

I'm a little concerned that so much attention is given to mass-CL, which are not of much interest to an English speaker, compared to the amount of time on count-CL. Also, the section on verbal CL could be and maybe should be expanded.

What kind of "event" does 場 count? I assume that it's extremely general, like 个 for nouns. Are there also more narrowly applicable verbal classifiers, or is Chinese rather semantically impoverished in this area? (E.g., are there different ways of counting human activities that might actually take place in an arena, as opposed to weather or calendrical events? Would 場 be used for "2 solar eclipses"? Is it the only CL that could be so used?) If spoken Chinese uses two dozen noun classifiers, how many verbal classifiers does it use? And come to think of it, how many of those two dozen are count-CL? An English speaker wouldn't think twice of learning the Chinese for a "cup" of tea or "slice" of pie, but would consider 只, 头, etc. to be a challenge, and it would be considerate to be explicit about the extent of the challenge.

I haven't read the rest of the article, but do you cover how much semantic play is involved? For example, in medieval Japan, the 'wing' classifier for birds was also used for rabbits, though I don't know how seriously. (People will laugh at this today.) The supposed motivation was that their ears resembled wings, but some suspect that it may have been a way to justify violating Buddhist proscriptions against eating meat. kwami (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About 书本...I think you're right. I don't know much about the formal differences between plural and exhaustive, but AFAIK these forms are closer to exhaustive—it doesn't necessarily describe every item in the set, but describes them all in a general fashion (for example, 书本很多 would literally mean "the books are very many", ie 'there are a lot of books'—on the shelf, or whatever...slightly awkward example, I think 车辆 'the cars' is more common). I could modify that sentence to say "to convey a plural or exhaustive sense); I just can't find anything on WP to link "exhaustive" to.

"Exhaustive" isn't a linguistic term. I would just describe the sense rather than trying to find a (probably unhelpful) label for it.

About loaves of bread/slices of cheese...I'll do some brainstorming and then add one. Interestingly, the best examples (the ones you named) are precisely the foods most people in China don't eat ;). Perhaps the best example is "pizza": 一张比萨 one-CL-pizza has a count-classifier and refers to a whole pizza, whereas 一块比萨 one piece pizza has a mass-classifier and refers to a single piece of pizza. It doesn't sound too awkward in Chinese, and it's still a phrase that all readers can recognized.

Yes, that occurred to be when I wrote it! The pizza example would be good. "Bread" is an odd word this way (where you need a measure word for the basic unit), and I can't think of another example like it. I know: for pizza you could give the literal translation "one pie of pizza" (or "one pizza pie") as well as the idiomatic "one pizza".

As for attention to mass-CL...actually, my concern has always been the opposite. Beyond the "types" section, the article focuses almost entirely on count-classifiers to the exclusion of mass-classifiers; there simply has not been much research on mass-classifiers, since count-classifiers are more interesting (especially back when people still believed studying count-classifiers was going to give us insight into how categorization works in the human brain...although that has not really been the case). For example, the "relation to nouns" section, where prototype theory and neutralization and usage variation is discussed, is pretty much all about count-classifiers (since mass-classifiers can be used with pretty much anything, there's nothing interesting to say about 'which nouns they pattern with'); same goes for the "purpose" section, since mass-classifiers are nearly universal cross-linguistically, whereas count-classifiers are somewhat special.

Okay. I just haven't read enough of the article.

As for verbal classifiers....it's pretty much the same issue, there's not much written on them. Li & Thompson don't even acknowledge them as their own category (they essentially give them two sentences, and describe them as "another type of measure word is one that denotes an instance of occurrence of an event"), and most papers on classifiers tend to have a footnote somewhere near the beginning basically saying "there are some verbal classifiers out there, but I'm only gonna talk about nominal classifiers here"...for example, Zhang 2007 has "Chinese classifiers are not limited to nominal ones (mingliang ci) but also include verb classifiers (dongliangci), measurement units (danwei liangci), and so on. In this study, I am only concerned with nominal classifiers." Personally, I'm not even really convinced yet that verbal classifiers deserve their own category, because they seem similar to nominal classifiers to me; for example, one of Li & Thompson's six examples is 那场火没人死 (that-CL-fire not.have people die "Nobody died in the fire")—seems to me like it's just another nominal classifier, where the classified noun happens to be an event. The only verbal classifiers that I'm really confident about are all the ones that roughly mean "times" (次 ci, 遍 bian, 回 hui, etc.), which is also the only example I included in the section; those are the only ones that seem clearly "verbal" to me.

Yes, I was a bit dubious about the distinction myself. I wonder if we could make this more overt?

As for your question on 場, it is basically just a classifier for events in general (perhaps I should say that instead of "general classifier for events", to avoid sounding like I'm comparing it to the super-special 个/個). For example, Li & Thompson's examples are 那场球很紧 (that CL ballgame was very tense), 张那场火没人死 (no one died in that CL fire), and 昨天有一场电影 (yesterday there was a CL movie); I could include these examples in the article if you think it would help.

As you said, it seems 球, 火, and 电影 are just nouns, that 'event' nouns take a separate classifier than long thin nouns or small animal nouns, not that they're verbal. I can't see creating a special subsection for them. The "times" counters, okay. That would seem to be a distinct category.

Questions about other verbal classifiers.... well, I believe there are pretty specific and pretty general verbal classifiers, like there are for nouns. For example, the ones I listed above (次、遍、回) all roughly mean "times" and can be used pretty generally ("I did X however-many times"), but there is also 躺 specifically for trips/journeys, so you can say "I went to Beijing one 次" or "I went to Beijing one 趟"; the meanings sound a tiny bit different to me but not in any way that's translatable. (Also, with ones like 躺 there is the same problem I mentioned above, that I'm not totally convinced it's a verbal classifier, rather than just being the nominal classifier for trips/journeys.)

Worth mentioning.

As for the number of verbal classifiers, I have not yet found any data on this (probably because not until fairly recently did anyone bother trying to consider them as anything separate from nominal classifiers, and even then the boundary between 'verbal' and 'nominal' classifier is very unclear). I also have been unable to get my hands on any of the Chinese-language "classifier dictionaries" that are mentioned in the article. My impression is that the system of verbal classifiers, while not necessarily "impoverished", is certainly much smaller than that for nominal classifiers; while they're similar in that both systems have a small subset of classifiers that do 99% of the work in real-life, for nominal classifiers there are hundreds of extra/rare classifiers beyond that core set, whereas for verbal classifiers there seem to be very few. Likewise, while the so-called "core" set of nominal classifiers consists of over 20 common classifiers, anything that could be called a "core" set of verbal classifiers would probably be more like 5.

Worth mentioning too.

About semantic play.... the "Purpose" and "Variation in usage" sections both briefly mention ways in which classifiers can be used for stylistic purposes, etc. I don't know of any specific examples as interesting as the birds/rabbits one you mention in Japanese, but there is definitely a good deal of similar stylistic use in Chinese (especially if you listen to enough pop music...). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haven't gotten to those sections yet. That's what I find interesting. kwami (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Calliopejen

Comment I started the article because I thought it would be of interest - I'm somewhat of an armchair linguist. Before I finished the introduction, though, I got bogged down. I'm actually familiar with classifiers because I learned to speak a tiny bit of Thai a while ago, but I didn't even recognize that this was basically the same thing I was already familiar with until quite a ways through the introduction. I would try to make the intro even less technical because if I didn't really get the picture--as a well-educated person who actually has used classifiers in the past (though never learning their name, or maybe just forgetting what they were called)--I don't think a lot of other people are going to get it either. Maybe it would help to frontload the intro with stuff from the second paragraph so that readers understand that one word is used for things that are similar to each other etc and get a bit of a practical understanding of what a classifier is before (or immediately after) confusing most readers with reference to bound morphemes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take a look at it and see if I might be able to reorganize things. You're right, there's a difficult balance to strike—for the sake of comprehensiveness and stuff I feel obligated to give a basic linguistic description of what they are (how they're bound morphemes, yada yada), but on the other hand I also want to start off with a simple description for lay readers and gradually work up to the more complicated stuff. In my experience the first sentence of a lede often has the more formal/technical definition of a topic and then the rest of the lede goes on to explain it in simpler English, which is what I tried to do here, but I'll try and see what I can do to simplify things more. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. ~~Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.~~ Eubulides (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Added. Thanks for catching that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support I reviewed this article for GA; it was a good article then, and has improved since. I believe it meets the FA criteria, and is an impressive and useful explication of a complicated topic (I now use it as my go-to reference on the subject in my studies of Mandarin, as I have not found a better, more concise discussion of the topic). Ricardiana (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments

Explain convention of underlining classifiers. Maybe use a coloured line so as to distinguish the "underline" from an actual "character line".
link Mary Erbaugh, Lianqing Wang (maybe redlink)
"There may be specific patterns behind which classifier-noun pairs may be "neutralized" to use the general classifier, and which may not." Grammar problem.
一层楼 -> ceng is not underlined; same for 条鱼 tiáo yú
"*"three muds" is ungrammatical" why is there a star?
"Researchers" is used 4 times in the article and is a bit vague. Replace each occurrence with a more specific word: grammarian, linguist, linguistic historian, etc.

92.134.30.204 (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

replies from rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs

I think underlining is most conventional in the academic literature; as far as I know, there's no way to make an underline that is a different color than the character (although if anyone knows how to do so, I'm open to suggestions). A brief conversation was held at Talk:Chinese classifier#Tasks about the underlying, and we weren't able to settle on any good alternatives. (If underlining is the only way to go, I guess I could always add a note, like you suggested, explaining that the classifiers are underlined). The best alternative I've thought of so far is putting classifiers themselves in a different color (although we'd have to worry about accessibility for colorblind readers or different screens).
Added a link for Erbaugh in the text; I don't think one is necessary for Wang, because I don't think she meets WP:PROF and I doubt there will be an article about her anywhere in the near future (and the thing that's cited in this article is only her PhD dissertation); the only reason her name is used in the article is for avoiding weasel words, more or less. Erbaugh, though, is relatively prolific, and could have an article written about her.
I don't see anything grammatically wrong with "There may be specific patterns behind which classifier-noun pairs may be "neutralized" to use the general classifier, and which may not"—although one can always argue that there are stylistic problems. How about a rewording to Classifier neutralization may follow specific patterns—certain kinds of classifier-noun pairs may neutralize where others do not.
Added underlines, thanks.
Asterisks * are conventional in all linguistic literature to indicate that an example sentence is ungrammatical.
Replaced "researchers" with other terms.

Thanks for the comments, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:05, 25 July 2009 [41].

TNA X Division Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): --WillC 04:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it should be an FA. Plus the previous one had to be withdrawn due to a dispute. I assure everyone, that will not happen this time around. All concerns will be addressed quickly.--WillC 04:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments -
http://solie.org/titlehistories/ What makes this a reliable source? (Yes, I read the page, I'm not seeing how this satisfies WP:SPS.)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- That page should have said how they check their facts and where they get their information. Oh well. I can't say. It is used in multiple FLs, GAs, etc. So I can't say why it is considered reliable. Sorry. I'll ask the project.--WillC 19:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Though I can't explain how it is reliable, it should be alright to use, since it covers mainly non-controversial things. I'm also going to add more references to help verify the things solie covers.--WillC 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images should go through WP:OTRS Fasach Nua (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Alright, well I have no idea how to do that. I would if I could understand how though. Never heard of that process before.--WillC 07:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - commons:Commons:OTRS Jappalang (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - I will upload them to commons shortly. I do not have a copy of the original e-mail, but the editor who sent it to the author is a friend of mine and I will ask him to send it to permissions as soon as I get in contact with him.--WillC 04:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Have been uploaded. E-mail has yet to be sent, waiting to get in contact with the editor who sent the original e-mail to get a copy of it.--WillC 07:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments – I did a partial prose review at the first FAC, and will begin in the Creation section, where I stopped last time.
~~"Later, A.J. Styles would defeat...". Changing the last part to "defeated" would take out some passive voice, which can tighten the writing in a given sentence.~~
- Done--WillC 04:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Significant moments: Initials in parentheses would be nice for World Wrestling All-Stars.~~
~~", with then-champion Christopher Daniels (Daniel Covell) defending the championship...".~~ → "; then-champion Christopher Daniels (Daniel Covell) defended the championship...". This change will give the sentence a better structure.
- Done--WillC 04:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - ~~"defending" is still in there. If that stays, the semi-colon should be a comma.~~ Giants2008 (17-14) 03:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - My bad, I must have missed that. Fixed now.--WillC 04:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"where Kurt Angle defeated Samoa Joe to not only win the TNA X Division Championship, but also the TNA World Tag Team Championship and to retain the TNA World Heavyweight Championship...". Another sentence in need of some structural improvement, such as this: "where Kurt Angle defeated Samoa Joe to win the TNA X Division Championship and TNA World Tag Team Championship, and retain the TNA World Heavyweight Championship...". Better, if still a touch long.
- Done--WillC 04:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Space in the middle of "sametime".~~ Giants2008 (17-14) 02:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- All done--WillC 04:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. ~~Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.~~ Eubulides (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Done.--WillC 15:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Alt text is now present, but it needs work, as it often mentions things that are not obvious to a casual viewer of the image.~~ Alt text should be only about appearance. For example, the first alt text "The title belt contested for in TNA's X Division" doesn't say anything (other than "belt") about appearance, the second alt text has the same problem, and the 3rd alt text "A still image of a Ultimate X contest held in March 2006, with A.J. Styles [yellow trunks] and Christopher Daniels [red trunks] both trying to retrieve the X Division Championship belt, which is suspended on the steel red ropes" has some good alt text (which I've italicized) but most of it should be removed as it is not describing the appearance of the image in terms that a casual reader would easily understand. Could you please read WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples and then take another crack at it? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, will do.--WillC 17:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done.--WillC 16:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I never heard of alt text. Plus I must have forgot to say it was done. I believe I did it Wednesday or Tuesday.--WillC 18:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose, 1c and 1d. I haven't evaluated the prose in-depth, but I see some basic problems with research/sources and neutrality. There is a heavy reliance on primary sources, and the secondary sources are quite weak. Solie.org is not acceptable. Are there no print sources that cover this stuff? Wrestling magazines with a reputation for fact-checking, an editorial staff, and so on? On the issue of neutrality, you have a section titled "Significant moments" that, on the surface, promises some departure from just listing match results and facts and perhaps some critical commentary. However, it is all sourced to primary sources and promotional material. As such, we have no independent, reliable commentary that these are indeed significant events. Primary sources cannot be relied upon for subjective matters. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see alot of primary sources within the article other than TNA, which I don't see how is a bad thing since the project feels the promotion's site is the most reliable one. Solie has been agreed on as reliable because they get their information from magazines, books, etc. Also the claims it covers also have extra citations to back them up. It is also used in multiple FLs, GAs, FAs, etc. As for print sources, IDK. I don't buy wrestling magazines and I don't know of anyone from the project that has alot of them. I've checked some when I'm at the store here and there but none had anything on the history of the X Title or the X Division. While the Significant moments section is sourced mainly by third party. Though Slam Sports could be considered primary but has always been called a third party site. WrestleView is also within that section. While I only see two or three refs from TNA, when one of them could be removed. While your "critical commentary" state would suggest you wish for reception within the article. That would be hard to even add and at the sametime wrong. The only opinions when it comes to the title is mostly always directed at the division itself, so then that would be better placed within the X Division article. I ask for you to reconsider your vote, while I begin looking for more refs.--WillC 22:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Primary sources can be used for basic facts, but when they are used heavily in an article, a dearth of independent commentary is created. My point about critical commentary is that when there are notable sporting events, they are inevitably covered by the prominent media for that sport. This media provides independent coverage and commentary, as well as support for statements that the events are notable or significant. This may take some time in a library with access to newspaper and magazine archives to discover. I'm not sure who was involved in agreeing that Solie is reliable, but I would like to see a reliable source referring to them as reliable or authoritative. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - TNA is still a pretty small company. They aren't covered widely in the mainstream media. They are covered widely in the wrestling community since 2006 but there are very few reliable sources when it comes to wrestling. The lead and from speciality matches down can all be sourced by non-TNA refs. Slam Sports, WrestleView, and PWTorch all have plenty of refs to cover that information. While the X Division section is tough. Before 2004, wrestling websites did not cover TNA all that much in depth. Most felt TNA would not last over a year, so they didn't waste the energy. 7 years later they have a bit more. But with the X Division section, most of the claims there are by TNA and would be best sourced directly to the DVDs in which these statements are made. There are a fair amount of TNA refs within the article, but recently TNA have been uploading footage from their early years and I felt it would be useful to add to the article. I'll search for a link. It shouldn't be much of a problem if I don't. All the information solie sources within the article is backed up by another citation or is non-controversial.--WillC 22:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - If they are a small company not covered in reliable sources, why do they have an article? More to the point, if there is not much information available in secondary sources, this article should be trimmed down and merged. I'm sorry, but this is not at the FA level. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Primary sources might be considered reliable for sourcing champions and dates of reigns, but using them for history and significant events are another thing. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        TNA is covered but not "widely". They don't get spots on NBC, CBS, etc because wrestling doesn't anymore unless there is a drug scandal. They are notable enough for articles as you can see by the massive amounts of expansion this article has went under in the pasted few months with reliable sources presented. Maybe you can be more in depth on how it is not. Because the sourcing problem can be taken care of in a few minutes, which it will.--WillC 21:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Of 35 refs, only 10 are primary at the moment. I'm still trying to bring that number down.--WillC 23:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:05, 25 July 2009 [42].

Senedd[edit]

Nominator(s): Seth Whales (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has already passed as a Good Article, and has had a Peer Review. It is my first ever nomination for FA, so all advice will be gratefully received. Seth Whales (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review: Generally everything's good. The only fair use image is File:Axonometric drawing of the Senedd.jpg, and I find the rationale entirely satisfactory. The only image I'm not sure of is File:Floor of the Siambr (Senedd building).jpg. UK freedom of panorama law, while very liberal, does not apply to "graphic works", only to "works of artistic craftsmanship". The best clarification I am able to find on this is that most two dimensional art is considered a "graphic work"; however, anything which would require the creator to be both an artist and a craftsman is a "work of artistic craftsmanship". In short, I'm not really sure about this image, though I'm leaning towards thinking that it might need to be used under fair use. Other views, especially from people with a stronger grasp of UK freedom of panorama rules, welcome. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm certainly no expert on UK freedom of panorama rules, but the creator was both the artist and a craftsman. Also the artwork is not strictly speaking 2D, as it is domed. Seth Whales (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've done some more looking into this, and my slightly more informed opinion is that that art probably is eligible for freedom of panorama. I'd still defer to anybody who seemed to really know what they were talking about on this point, but for the time being I'd say that the images are good to go. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 09:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments -
~~Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original~~

Done

~~Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return~~

Done

~~What makes http://www.axisweb.org/pbCOMM.aspx?SID=15824 a reliable source?~~

Done, changed to National Assembly for Wales site for reference.

~~Likewise http://www.newswales.co.uk/?section=Politics&F=1&id=14495?~~

Done changed to Charles, Prince of Wales site for reference.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. ~~Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.~~ Eubulides (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done...hopefully this is okay. If you feel they need better explanations, then please let me know. Seth Whales (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They look good. I did one little tweak to get it to work. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. I wasn't sure if Senedd had any connection with Corus, so I put a link with Sened instead. Hope this is okay? Seth Whales (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was this fixed? The dab link checker still reveals one dab. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Corus has no connection with the Senedd so I do not understand why it needs to have a disambiguation link?? Seth Whales (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So should it be delinked? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is that done? Seth Whales (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The offending link is in ref 73 (publisher). Do you know which "Corus" published the article? If not, delink it. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. I had worked it out a few seconds before your note....thanks for your help. Seth Whales (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Oriel ~~"Hall"~~ ("Gallery") would appear to be an English loan-word, from Oriel window. Even if this is not true, it should be clarified. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have used the BBC English - Welsh dictionary at www.bbc.co.uk to confirm that gallery is English for the Welsh word, oriel. I agree the history of the English word would appear to come from Oriel window from various sources. However, the Welsh word oriel, is commonly translated as gallery (see above), and more commonly used as in art gallery, also many sources available. Therefore I am happy to use the BBC translation, however if you want me to do further work on this, please let me know. Seth Whales (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, please indicate that Welsh oriel is a loan word (or, if true, add a note that it comes independently from Anglo-Norman). Not only is this helpful to the reader, it will save you the trouble of watching well-meaning readers "fix" it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added the Old French: Oriol with a reference against Oriel, hope this clarifies this point. Seth Whales (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That should be fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, support. It is a worthy representative of Wikipedia, and better than most of what FA approves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, 1a and MoS issues. It's not bad, but a lot of fit and finish is needed along with attention to grammar.
- The lead image isn't great, photographically-speaking. It emphasizes the underside of the overhang, rather than the more interesting archetectural features of the building. I would almost recommend getting rid of it and replacing it with something more compelling.
- ICT: The standard format is to provide the full name, followed by the acronym in parens.
- "because the National Assembly did not have an independent cost of the project" Worded badly. "have a ... cost" is awkward, and the meaning of "independent cost" is unclear.
  - Adding appraisal, although the text quoted may be idiom in Wales. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The places where it looks like you turned lists into prose are riddled with punctuation problems. Also, some of them have serial commas and some don't.
- Penchant for using the vague "with" connector, where a better replacement is available. Examples (there are many more):
  - "The two disagreed on the valuation of the site, with Davies offering what was believed to be the market price ..."
  - "24 proposals were received, with 14 from the private sector ..."
  - "Before deciding on Capital Waterside as the site of the National Assembly, Davies announced on 13 March 1998 that an international competition would be held to select the design of the debating chamber building, with the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) overseeing ..."
    - In the first two, with can probably be removed entirely - I don't think it can be replaced; the last seems unobjectionable.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - All three have been recast as independent clauses by the nom. Probably just as well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- MoS problems with inconsistent logical quotation. Ex. "Davies wanted a building 'to capture the imagination of the Welsh people.'" but then "Rhodri Morgan, Assembly Member (AM) had called the whole project 'a dog's dinner'."
  - There is no consensus on logical quotation (and never has been) - the inconsistent appearance it produces is one reason why; controversy over this is why MOS is presently protected.
  - Perhaps more significantly, the examples quoted are logical quotation. In the first case, the period is in the original source; in the second it isn't.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And much more. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:05, 25 July 2009 [43].

Geraldine Ferraro[edit]

Nominator(s): Wasted Time R (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an article about the first woman to be a major-party nominee for national office in the United States. She had a meteoric political career that never quite fulfilled its apparent promise. There is also involvement (and interesting parallels for the reader to see) with the 2008 presidential campaign. The article has been GA since January, and has now been gone over and supplemented with a few aspects I hadn't gotten to then. I think it is ready for FA, and there is a possible TFA angle with July 19 being the 25th anniversary of her vice-presidential nomination. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment OurCampaigns is not a reliable source. Could you please find primary sources for the electoral history, such as the NY Secretary of State? Reywas92 ^Talk 22:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. I thought OurCampaigns had been blessed by a prior FAC, but going back I now see I was thinking of Wikipedia:Peer review/John McCain/archive1#Reliability of OurCampaigns, which didn't end conclusively ... and that article avoided the issue by yanking the electoral history into subarticle that no one cares about. I'll ponder what's the best course here. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well don't fork it off like them as an excuse to ignore it. There are not as many elections for Ferraro in the first place to require a split. Perhaps Ourcampaigns has some sources that you can just take. Otherwise, federal election results shouldn't be too hard to find. Thanks, Reywas92 ^Talk 23:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OurCampaigns is now gone, everything replaced (and in a couple of cases, results numbers tweaked) by reliable sources. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review: File:FerraroMondaleFlyer.jpg is listed as being self-created by you, which it obviously isn't. I assume that it's under copyright, and so you'll need to make a case for fair use in this article. The rest of the images look good, though note that per WP:CAPTION image captions that are complete sentences, as most of the ones in this article are, require a full stop. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've recreated the flyer image with a low-resolution scan and have recast the image description with a fair use rationale. I was aware of the WP:CAPTION requirement but thought that the "this house" and similar references in the captions might make them viewed as not fully standalone, self-supporting sentences. But I'd rather have them with periods, so I've changed them accordingly and reworded a couple to make them even more full-sentence-like. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on your rationale, I don't think this meets WP:NFCC #8. I'd welcome other views, though. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NFCC #8 is "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This is the only picture the article has of Ferraro during the vice-presidential campaign, which is the thing she's most famous for, and the only picture the article has of her with Mondale. The Sarah Palin article has three photos of her on her veep campaign, including one with McCain. The Joe Biden article has two photos of him on his veep campaign, including one with Obama. So clearly in other contexts, pictures of vice-presidential candidates and their presidential ticket partners are viewed as significant. Given that we don't have any free ones here that anyone has come forward with, I see no reason not to use this fair use one. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree File:FerraroMondaleFlyer.jpg satisfies NFCC #8. However, this image is still too-high resolution (I suggest keeping it under 100,000 pixels). Also, it's a pretty bad image. A much better one can be found at http://photos.america.gov/galleries/amgov/4110/women_gov_fr/electoral10.jpg (this image is published for free by the U.S. State Dept., so it's not like AP Images will care if we claim fair use). Also, the State Dept. image is 90,000 pixels so it better satisfies the low-resolution requirement. The State Dept. image is page 8 of "Des pionnières de la vie politique aux États-Unis". Eubulides (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've uploaded a new version of File:FerraroMondaleFlyer.jpg that's 30Kb, which should meet anyone's definition of low resolution. As for the america.gov image, it's marked as "copyright AP Images". I believe that copyright still holds even if the image is on a federal government site. If you look at the upload text for a federal government image, it says "This form should be used to upload an image that is a creation of the United States federal government that is in the public domain. Note that this does not apply to works of state or local governments. State government have other, different, laws applying to their works. Also note that images on government or government agency websites are not necessarily public domain and not necessarily works of the government itself; always look for copyright notices." That's the case here, and I don't believe we can use it. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. File:FerraroMondaleFlyer.jpg and (a low resolution version of) the AP photo are equally objectionable on copyright grounds. We couldn't use either one, were it not for the fair-use exception. The AP photo is much better, though, so if we're going to claim fair-use, why not use the better image? Eubulides (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't believe they are on equal footing with respect to fair use. The flyer use rationale is based on it being an event poster, and posters, book covers, album covers, etc. have special roles in fair use. On the other hand, the image you point to is a stand-alone photo. Per WP:Non-free content#Images 2 #6, unacceptable use includes "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article" (which it isn't in this case). So I do not think we can use the AP photo. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by William S. Saturn[edit]

Good work on the article. I see a few problems.
- Thanks very much for the comments, I'll start work on responding to/addressing them. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I think I've now responded to everything. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - Again, good job on the article. All my concerns have been addressed. I support promotion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks very much and thanks again for your detailed comments. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overall[edit]

There is too much use of "In...", it gets repetitive.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A number of of "In...," constructs have been been redone or replaced. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The same words are repeated in close proximity like "won" and "her."--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some 'won's and many 'her's have now been eliminated. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Early life and education[edit]

"So Ferraro attended Marymount Manhattan College with a scholarship"

Why is it necessary to use "so"?--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 'so' was just to indicate causality, that that Ferraro's going to college was largely a consequence of her mothers's determination, which overrode cultural forces. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "so" seems out of place since it follows the information about her uncle. Did she do this to spite him? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see what you mean. I've removed the 'So'. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

House of Representatives[edit]

"Her Italian heritage also benefited her"

How?--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because the district was ethnic in composition (established earlier) and she was an ethnic too. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The district is 71% caucasian. Asians seem to make up a large percentage as well. I am assuming Italians are included among the caucasian count. Is there a source that states the electorate was more apt to vote for her because she was Italian? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reworded it a bit to "Her Italian heritage also appealed to ethnic residents in the district.[23]". The source discusses several factors that worked for and against her candidacy, then says "... and her Italian heritage in a district with ethnic neighborhoods gave Ms. Ferraro a running start." Yes, in NYC, Italian, Irish, and Jewish are big ethnic groups and all are considered "caucasian". Wasted Time R (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Male colleagues viewed her with respect as someone who was tough and ambitious"

Who?--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other members of the House. Germond didn't name any specific names, from what I can remember. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"an anti-busing amendment to the Constitution"

I would like to view this passage's source, or for it to be replaced by an online source, because this is somewhat hard to believe and controversial.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can see the cite in question in Google Books here. (Since this book source is 'full view' in Google Books, I have now linked to it.) You can see other book mentions of it in this Google Book search result; although they're all snippet views, you can see enough to verify this. School busing was the wedge issue of the day back then, and Ferraro's stance on it fit in with the "'small c' conservative" side of her political persona. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1984 Vice-Presidential candidacy[edit]

This is the best section, very good work, its only problem is that there is no source at end.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added an instance of an existing cite for Palin being the second woman. That she lost is hopefully once of those "Paris is the capital of France" type statements that doesn't need citing ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First Senate run and ambassadorship[edit]

"The evidence against Zaccaro was weak"

WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves. I oppose the use of "weak." Describe the fact of the case that led you to label it as "weak," rather than using the label.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've replaced "weak" with some particulars of the case. There are more, but I don't want to go into too much detail on this because it was him on trial, not her. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commentator and second Senate run[edit]

"Her New York accent still intact"

What is the significance of this?--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It shows that she was successful on national TV being herself, and didn't try to soften her personality for greater general appeal. Is there better wording to get this across? Wasted Time R (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems out of place. It reads as if her accent caused her to fit in better. What about something similar to what you just said above: "She kept her New York accent for the show and did not try to soften her personality." --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rereading the source, I've reworded and expanded this to: "She kept her brassy, rapid-fire speech and New York accent intact, and her trial experience from her prosecutor days was a good fit for the program's format.[125]" Wasted Time R (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2008 presidential campaign involvement[edit]

"And if he was a woman (of any color)"

Where does it state in the context of her quote that she was referring to women "of any color"?--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The " ... (of any color) ..." is part of her quote in the interview, not an explanatory aside by us (that would be indicated by different syntax: "... [of any color] ..."). You can see this in the first cite given, or in this LAT story, or a bunch of others you can verify on the web. How did she happen to speak in parentheses? Not sure, but it could have been a pause in her cadence. But in any case, that's how the interview was written up. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Books authored[edit]

No references for the bottom two, seems like a list. I would like to see this as prose.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I 'inherited' this section and never liked it much. I have removed it and dispersed its contents into the appropriate chrono parts of the mainline text. I have added cites for the second and third books. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Could we avoid all the level-4 and level-5 headers please? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No because it makes it easier to comment.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed them anyway. Please see FAC instructions. Use horizontal dividers or semicolons if necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Oppose~~. This article is looking good overall, but has a few small problems to deal with before becoming an FA. I am particularly concerned about the section on the 2008 Presidential campaign, which smacks of recentism by spending a lot of time talking about material that is only marginally important. Including so many qutoes in this section makes it read like a newspaper account as opposed to an encyclopedia article and goes against the requirement for summary style. Furthermore, including her comments about Sarah Palin adds nothing to the article since this is just a matter of her own personal opinion with no indication that her views were influential. I am sure just about every pundit and politician had a view on Palin, so singling hers out does not seem necessary. I attempted to make changes to the article to rectify these issues before posting here, but was summarily reverted. Indrian (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The comments on Palin are particularly notable considering that Ferraro was the first female Vice Presidential nominee and Palin was second.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, no, because they constituted one person's opinion either way. If her comments influenced the outcome, then absolutely they would be important, but as they stand it is merely x said y about z. No controversy, no major story, just one more pundit giving an opinion. Anyway, give me a reliable source that states these comments were important and I will drop that particular objection. Indrian (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wait for Wasted Time's reply. Geraldine Ferraro did receive alot of media coverage during the campaign, and her opinion of Palin is notable given that she was in the same position as Palin. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are mistaking unique insight with importance. As the only other major party female vice presidential candidate, Ferraro was able during the election to provide commentary from a unique perspective as a news show pundit. That does not mean these comments actually matter enough to appear in a retrospective of her life. This requires the comments to have some influence, and I have yet to see a reliable source presented that indicates such influence. Her Obama comments make the grade because the controversy was great enough that she had to resign a position on the Clinton campaign staff, the Palin comments, not so much. Indrian (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am well aware of the dangers of recentism. When I first got seriously involved in this article last year, it was dominated by the 2008 campaign fracas. I subsequently trimmed and improved that part and greatly expanded the rest of the article. But Ferraro's involvement in the 2008 presidential campaign is quite important to her biographically, and to the themes of this article. (The section header has the word "involvement" in it because normally, "YYYY presidential campaign" sections in our BLPs indicate the subject was a candidate, which is not the case here.) 2008 was both the first year that any female presidential candidate had a realistic chance of winning, and the first time since Ferraro that any female was on a major-party national ticket. Ferraro's statements about Obama and race were important to the campaign, as this was a historic contest between two "firsts" where race ended up playing an (unfortunate) role; see these Google News Archive hits as a reminder of how much coverage her remarks got. And Ferraro's statements are quite important biographically because (a) they illustrate her outspoken nature and (b) they resulted in many people who would otherwise support her, actively disliking her – it's a year later and you can still read blog comments that trash her for what she said. It may well be that this episode tarnishes her forever in many people's minds. Given that, BLP guidelines and normal biographical practice indicate that it's only fair to exactly quote what she said, not just quickly paraphrase it as your edit did. And when she says "This has been the worst three weeks of my life," it's good to quote that too, especially given the other press and public ordeals she went through earlier in her life. Reflective quotes of this nature are sprinkled throughout the article, and not appear just in this section; they help liven up otherwise potentially dry narrative. The coverage of Palin in the section is less (one paragraph compared to three) but warranted. Ferraro at one point seemed to be leaning towards supporting Palin, both because she was ticked off at Obama supporters and because she had a natural sympathy for what Palin was trying to do (and soon would be going through). In the end she supported the Democrats, but her viewpoint on seeing the first female national candidate in the 24 years since her is notable biographically. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do agree with some of what you say here, but we are still a ways apart and at this point probably need to work towards a middle ground compromise. I certainly agree that Ferraro's Obama comments are important to her and her image as you say, but I think we can trim some of this still to make it less like journalism and more like an encyclopedia article. If you really believe BLP requires some quoting, I will compromise on that point, but I still think the amount of quoting can be trimmed. The Palin stuff, however, I am pretty adamant about being useless fluff. Ferraro is not a kingmaker, and so her opinions here really do not matter. Ferraro probably had opinions on every presidential and vice presidential candidate that has appeared in the last 25 years, and it would not suprise me that if we went into the archives deeply enough we could find those views and put every last one in the article, but I think we both agree that this would be excessive fluff. Our disagreement on this one point seems to stem from your belief that because she was a female vice presidential candidate, every thing she says about other female vice presidential candidates is notable. I disagree. I will drop this objection if you can show me reliable sources stating her comments on Palin were important. This is different from news coverage, obviously, which she certainly received. Her Obama comments may have permanently tarnished her image as you say, but can you show similar impact from her Palin comments? Anyway, I will take a stab at rewording the Obama stuff again if you do not mind, to see if we can create something mutually acceptable on that front. Indrian (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can see from your user page essay that you don't like long, heavily detailed articles, and this may appear to be a long, heavily detailed article. But be assured that I know and found out a lot about Ferraro that I didn't include in this article; each of her senate primary campaigns could be a lot longer, for just one example, and her 1984 finances problems had a couple of further complications regarding Zaccaro that I didn't include here, as I didn't want to lose the narrative momentum. Your essay says "Wikipedia will never be more than a collection of indiscriminate facts, which is ironically something that wikipedia is not supposed to be according to policy. Eventually, nearly every article will be subject to this extended treatment. Many users will pride themselves on how much data they were able to collect on a subject; the wiser users will just wonder what the point is of the article or its subject." I also worry about this, and so I've tried to organize this article along a few recurring themes, with gender and ethnic background and Ferraro's tough personality being the primary ones. I agree completely that her views on Edwards, Kerry, Gore, Lieberman etc. are completely undeserving of inclusion here. But her view on the 2008 general election – wavering about supporting Obama, still resentful of what happened to Hillary, and intrigued by Palin, the first to follow her in 24 years – provides a nice recap point specific to the themes of the article. It kind of gives the reader a sense of history looping back on itself. And none of the other readers or editors or reviewers of this article have objected to the Palin paragraph being here. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm, I may have to tweak that rant I wrote several years ago if that is what you got out of it. I have nothing against long, heavily detailed articles that highlight important points and synthezise material that supports these points. I believe the majority of this article covers the subject well, though stylistically, I think it could use an overhaul to reduce the number of short, choppy sentences. Indeed, the one paragraph I take serious issue with would, if removed, not really make the article less long or less heavily detailed, so I do not see how this perceived bias would play into my objection. My issues is that Ferraro's views on one candidate in one elction have been singled out. Doing so, it seems to me, requires making sure that these comments are worthy of such attention. If they had an impact on her life, like the Obama quotes clearly did, then that would certainly be sufficient, but no evidence of this has been presented. In absence of significant impact on Ferraro, therefore, I believe at the very least it should be shown these comments had significant impact elsewhere. This has not been proven either. I might be able to buy your argument that the quotes "provide a nice recap point specific to the themes of the article" and give "a sense of history looping back on itself," but as currently written, I do not think the paragraph really does that. If it could be rewritten to actually accomplish those goals, my opinion might change as well. Indrian (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for your request of reliable sources that aren't news coverage stating her comments on Palin were important ... that's kind of contradictory. The news covers things it thinks are important. Likely no one called Ferraro to find out what she thought of John Edwards or Dick Cheney, but many did on this. Just taking one of her quotes, "it is wonderful ...", there are some 3,000 hits on media outlets and blogs etc that use it. The acid test for biographical importance is to see what other, real biographers do ... this works well for someone like Hillary or Ted Kennedy or John McCain, who have had multiple biographies published about them, and I've often 'polled' those biographies to figure out what or what not to include in their articles. But Ferraro doesn't have any book biographies of her (someday for sure there will be one), and the kind of long biographical retrospectives you can find in newspapers or magazines about her predate the 2008 campaign. So I'm not sure what kind of 'proof' you are looking for here. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The news does not cover things it thinks are important; it covers things it thinks will interest the public. Newspaper articles that merely record events and reactions are primary sources unsuited for establishing importance for an encyclopedia. News analysis, on the other hand, may be useful. If relevant campaign analysis can attest to the importance of Ferraro's comments on Palin, that will be sufficient for me. With all the retrospective material already available on the course of the campaign, it should not be overly difficult to do if the comments do indeed warrant attention. Obviously, there would need to be evidence of some consensus as to this importance as well (not unanimous, but more than just one random article), as any individual journalist, author, or scholar can establish a position, but it takes more than that to establish the notability of said position. As for a lack of biographical material, encyclopedia articles, as tertiary sources, are really not supposed to be drawn from primary sources at all, though wikipedia's unique ability to record events as they happen does tend to blur this distinction much of the time. If no good analysis exists, then it is ususally best for wikipedia to stick to the bare facts as much as possible and not attempt to imbelish with material such as the Palin comments. Indrian (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right in your comment above that the Palin material didn't wrap the themes as much as it should have. I've added a statement about Ferraro seeing parallels in the media treatment of Palin's family and background to her own treatment (I mistakenly thought this was already in there) and added an academic study that also found media treatment similar. I've added several references to this long Newsweek cover story about Palin and the evolution of how women are perceived as candidates for major office; I believe it's the kind of news analysis (rather than news reporting) that you're looking for, and it both begins and ends (click through to page 5) with quotes from Ferraro and by framing Palin's run again Ferraro's experiences. I've removed the Ferraro bit about liking Hillary as Secretary of State (not very remarkable, and two recent SecStates have also been women) and finished the section with a Ferraro quote from the Newsweek analysis piece that reflects both 2008 and 1984. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding your other comment above that "stylistically, I think it could use an overhaul to reduce the number of short, choppy sentences", I've tried to vary the sentence (and paragraph) length to keep the pace changing for better readability. If you could point out a few of the ones that you think are too short or that don't flow smoothly, that would help. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still not entirely happy with how that paragraph plays out, but I agree that it now serves a function in the article and will drop that objection. I thank you for working with me to fix things up. Indrian (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose. Since the last section got so long related to one point, I have struck through my oppose above and put a new one here. Content-wise, I feel the article is ready to go, but stylistically, there are a lot of short, choppy sentences. I will try to go through the article later today and fix some of this myself. Indrian (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, thanks. I'll be away for a bit but will check back on this late in the day tomorrow. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problems Nice article but has problems. The article has some biases which disqualify the article unless they are fixed. If some biases have made their way into the article, someone who knows who this lady is could probably find more examples of bias. For example, the family, lawyer, prosecutor section says she worked on pro bono work. However, this seems like cherry picking because the other sections hint that she did far more other work. That would be like saying Hitler was the head of state and once helped a little boy who had fallen in the mud instead of saying Hitler, as head of state, killed Jews. Note that Ferraro is not Hitler.

I've added "some" in front of the pro-bono work (the previous "occasionally" was meant to cover this as well, but that may not have been clear). While she was raising the children she didn't work full-time at anything, but instead dabbled in different areas; we're mentioning all of those areas. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, in that section, first major political job? What was the very first minor political job?

I've changed "major" to "full-time". Her other political involvements are described in the previous paragraph. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It says that she was one of the rare women but she was appointed by her relative. Nepotism? Was there a controversy? Or just chance?

There was a minor controversy re nepotism, which I've been on the fence about including but I've now added it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no evidence that she was fair. Was she fair? Is the reference just a sympathetic supporter? The fair part and the refused to give cases to the prosecution is disjointed.

I've clarified that the "fair" is in reference to plea bargain negotiations. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the congressional section, the fictional All in the Family has nothing to do with the lady. It would be like saying Obama attended a college located in a bad neighborhood and scene of the movie, ----.

I strongly disagree on this one. Many sources talk about her district being where All in the Family was set, as a capsule way of describing the nature of the district in terms of the ethnicity and conservative views of its residents. Also, it makes the section more interesting to read, which is an FAC criteria ("engaging"). Wasted Time R (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was she a Democrat or a Liberal? In NY, the party names are different, like MN.

It's clear that she was a Democrat, as their primary is talked about. She never had the Liberal Party line, although her Republican opponent sometimes had the Conservative Party line. This is given in the "Electoral history" section, but I didn't think it important enough to mention in the mainline narrative, as it might be a puzzle to readers not familiar with New York State politics and (unlike, say, for Giuliani's elections for mayor) it didn't have a real impact on the elections. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was supporting the Pershing II a break with the party???? Some German thought the US was evil.

She supported some defense programs of the time and opposed others, so I don't think her stance was a major break with the party (and least a new Time magazine source I've added doesn't indicate this). I've expanded this description a bit. However the support for the anti-busing amendment was a break with her party, and I've added that. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 1984 election should have a financial subsection since is a major part of the section. Strong performance is opinion.

I was trying to avoid subsections in the article, and our campaign sections rarely have them. A number of sources talk about the strong performance in that press conference; she answered questions for two hours until reporters were exhausted. I've added a bit on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inclusion of 0.8% net gain by her is shaky math. Better to leave out speculation, even if you can find a single source.

I strongly disagree on this one. Many assessments of whether a vice presidential candidate helped or hurt the ticket are based on pundit guesses. Here, there are actually polls and studies that calculate it, and we should include that. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saying Palin lost could be subtle bias to say that women ruin the ticket. Best to leave it out.

It's just a simple fact, and the article needs to make clear that no woman has yet won an election on a national ticket. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 2009 post office is just trivia and should be left out.

I've commented it out for now. If it actually happens, it can be restored then. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you put her official photo at the top of the article? That would be better.

This is the most official photo there is. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Red childhood home needs a citation to prevent any bozo from taking a picture of an old house.

It closely matches the description given in her memoir Framing a Life. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The same goes for her Forest Garden house. How do we know it was not Son of Sam's house? References, please! Let's not be sloppy!

It matches the description given in several sources. I also made sure to include the street number in the photo for verification when I took the picture; you can find this address on the web, but I didn't want to include the full address in the article out of privacy concerns for the current residents there. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Newletter photo is fluff. Fix the caption. Otherwise, you could take a photo of feces and say "like all members of congress, they excrete this". Fixing the caption is easy and would improve the article.

I agree it's not a great image, but there are very few images of Ferraro that are available under WP's image use rules, so I was using whatever I had. It's not clear to me what your objection to the caption is; foreign readers, for example, may not know that Representatives issue regular newsletters to their constituents. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ferraro's picture with the other women should be replaced by a photo taken when she was in congress or running for vice president. That would be more relevant to the article.

This shows what she looks like in the 2000s, so it belongs in the article. Would love to include the others you mention, but none are available to us under WP image use rules. At least not that I've been able to find, looking through all the recommended public domain sites. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The intro paragraph doesn't do a good job. There's no mention of the financial troubles, which is a significant point that may have caused the election loss. Also fix that paragraph which makes her (with some browsers) look like she was the UN ambassador. She wasn't. She was the ambassador to a commission.

I've been on the fence about adding the finances to the lead, but I've made a brief mention of them now. Note however that this did not cause the election loss, as Mondale was going to lose to Reagan no matter what. I've added a non-breaking space in the lead between "United Nations" and "Commission on Human Rights" to try to solve your layout issue; beyond that there isn't much more that can be done. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References need a lot of fixing. Not the same style. Missing retrieved dates. Please fix this before considering it to be featured!!!!!

I'm not aware of style differences, they are intended to be all consistent in style. Please point out a few examples of "not the same style". Retrieval dates are not needed on newspaper sources that refer to the pre-web-stories-era; see WP:CITE. In other words, a 1984 New York Times story is a fixed, known piece of content, that is available in library microfilm archives and the like as well as online. Adding a retrieved date to a cite of that story is pointless clutter that makes it harder for the reader to see the real date of publication. A 2008 New York Times story is a different matter, since the online version sometimes varies over time and against the print version; for those I do include a retrieved date. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links should be rewritten to show she was the Democratic nominee for VP.

Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can do it if you just fix some stuff. Happy writing. Amthernandez (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks very much for your detailed comments. I believe I've now responded to all points. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

still problems

The references still have problems. Look at 56 and 61. No retrieved dates. If the references are online and are cited as online with a link, they should have a date. If they are in print, they should be like the standard volume, number, date and not be written like a online link.Amthernandez (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I respectfully disagree. See WP:CITE#HOW – for a newspaper cite (which 1984 editions of Time and US News & World Report are equivalent to, as newsmagazines), retrieval date is not required. What purpose would it serve? The July 30, 1984 issue of Time magazine (fn 56) is fixed in content; you can go to a library's bound stacks and read a paper copy of it. The online version is identical to that. Retrieval dates are mostly intended for sources which have changing content over time, such as a company history page at a corporate web site. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the criteria: It is— (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;

I think it is not quite there, but more than half way there.

You have to give some examples of what is "not quite there" for this to be useful. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (^[1]) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).

See under "still problems" a few lines higher.

See my response above. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images. It has images that follow the image use policy and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, brief and useful alt text when feasible,

It seems like original research to include the two houses, let's make sure that they are not hoaxes. 95% chance they are legimate, I would guess. There doesn't seem to be enough photos for a contemporary person.

I took the second one, and so I'm sure it's not a hoax. That address is readily found on the web, and anyone can go to that address and verify that the house in the photo is the right one. Wikipedia has many photos of buildings, landmarks, etc. that aren't "cited" per se; the check is similar, you can go there and verify it. I didn't take the first one, but I checked the description of it in her memoir and it matches closely. As for not enough photos, I agree, but that's a chronic problem in many WP articles and I don't believe it's a disqualifying condition for FAC. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overall, I think this is not yet featured quality and not quite meeting the featured criteria. However, if the policy is to allow slack so the authors of this article will not feel bad, I would not be too opposed to grade inflation if it is done with other articles, too. Maybe a temporary featured status for 3 months will make the authors happy yet not cause permanent grade inflation. Amthernandez (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be honest, I have no idea what you are talking about here. There is no slack, no grade inflation, no temporary FA's. The majority of FAC's end in failure. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. ~~Infobox image and File:Pelosi_clinton_graves_ferraro.jpg need alt text as per WP:ALT.~~ Eubulides (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both now added (one was there but done wrongly, one was an oversight). Wasted Time R (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks; that was quick! Eubulides (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment/Oppose The non-free campaign photo is really quite unnecessary. Do people need to see what she looked like standing next to Mondale? The infobox photo gives a good idea of what she looked like at that time period, if that's even necessary at all. You should contact the author of this photo on flickr to see if he'll remove the NC restriction so it's usable. (He probably will - many of his photos are just "by" anyways.) I agree that the newsletter photo is unhelpful and if anything detracts from the article. There are many recent photos of Ferraro on flickr. Why don't you get permission for one of these, so you can move her old photo down to her congressional service? It doesn't make sense to have the old photo up top when she's still active. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We disagree on the first point; I think it is important to see the presidential and vice presidential candidates (and officeholders, if the ticket gets elected) together, as that's invariably the "frame" that the public views them in. We also disagree on your last point; looking around at articles of living people who were national candidates in that era, the large majority of articles use "prime of career" photos, such as Michael Dukakis, Howard Baker, John Glenn, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, George McGovern, Bob Dole, Dick Gephardt, and Alexander Haig. Walter Mondale uses a photo from his ambassador days rather than vice president. But I didn't see any examples of photos being used of people when they were in their seventies and semi-retired, which is what Ferraro is in those flickr photos. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:05, 25 July 2009 [44].

Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907[edit]

Nominator(s): Crum375 (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a self nomination. The article was started when the accident occurred in 2006, and kept evolving as news was trickling in, until the final report was issued at the end of 2008. It has been very stable since that time. It has been listed as a GA since April 2007, and has recently been reviewed by several editors with FA expertise, whose issues have hopefully been addressed. Thank you for your consideration. Crum375 (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments just a quick first read, I'll give a proper review if I get time.

Why is the altitude conversion ft/km, rather than ft/m? I'd expect heights to be ft/m and distances to be mi/km
- The primary international aviation units in much of the world are feet for altitude and nautical miles for distance. For example, FL370 (which played a critical role in this accident) is "Flight Level" 37,000 feet everywhere. So these units are used as the primary ones when the focus is the aviation perspective. To make the values more understandable for general readers, many of whom (internationally) understand best the metric units, we add a metric value. For ease of reading, the height and distance for small numbers (e.g. less than a couple of thousand) is expressed in meters, and for larger values in km (there is no "FL" equivalent for meters, AFAIK, so km is an approximate equivalent). Since these are templates, it's easy to switch to any desired combination of primary/secondary values. My only concern is to have an aviation focused primary value, and for reduction of clutter, preferably no more than one secondary, and metric is best. Crum375 (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

still seems odd to me, not a big deal though jimfbleak (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you be more specific? Crum375 (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the point of the list of deaths section? If it's notable, it should be a proper section, but imho opinion it isn't and should be relegated to a footnote or perhaps an external link...
- It is notable in the sense that the list has been published in Brazilian newspapers. It is also important because it adds a human dimension to a mostly technical accident article; otherwise it's all dry, impersonal facts. I like the concept that the list is hidden by default, and available for interested readers instantly, at the click of a mouse. The problem with using external links is that they take longer to come up, come up in a different browser window, are cluttered with extraneous information, and are in a foreign language in this case. I know if I were the reader, I'd find the hide/show passenger list a good resource, but I defer to the consensus here for this issue. As you say, it can be an EL only, or a footnote. Crum375 (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough, see what others think jimfbleak (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...speaking of which, the ELs seem to be a total ratbag - at least three items are linked in the text and shouldn't be ELs, and the crashes outside Brazil seem of only peripheral relevance. I'd dump all but the last EL (jimfbleak) (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Which ones? I am confused. Crum375 (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Traffic Collision Avoidance System, 2006–2007 Brazilian aviation crisis, Vasp Flight 168 and TAM Airlines Flight 3054 are already wikilinked in article, no need to repeat in EL. Varig Flight 254, 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision and Tenerife airport disaster seem to of dubious relevance other than as major crashes. The List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft is a suitable EL jimfbleak (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems you are referring to the "See also" list (which are wiki-links), not the EL (External links list). For "See also", the applicable MOS guideline is WP:See also, which includes the statement: "Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." In the article under review, the See also items were selected based on editorial judgment that a reader may want to read more about these related issues to gain a better perspective. I have removed a couple of items from that list, leaving a total of six items at the moment. Since this accident had a record in fatalities for Brazil, we provide the reader wiki-links to other related record accidents for perspective: the deadliest one before; the one after (deadliest in Brazil so far); an earlier crash in the same general area which could have averted disaster had they used the "jungle strip" used by the Embraer in this accident; the deadliest collision anywhere (which eerily had the identical flight number!), and the deadliest aviation accident anywhere. Adding perspective is a common goal of the "See also", and repeating a small number of items which may already be wiki-linked in the main text is allowed per editor's discretion, as are two out of the current six here. Having said all that, it's no problem to remove any "See also" item, if the reviewers here feel it's needed. Crum375 (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review:

The "author" field of File:2006FABGolSelva.jpg lists it as being taken by the Brazilian Air Force, while it's tagged as being taken by a Brazilian news agency. My Portuguese is rusty, so I can't tell from the source which it is.
- Both the BAF and Agência Brasil, (now part of "Empresa Brasil de Comunicação" or EBC) are run by the Brazilian government, and all Agência Brasil's images are public domain, as stated at the bottom of every page. If you click on the source link for the image you specify, and look at the bottom of the page, you'll see "O conteúdo deste site é publicado sob uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 2.5. Brasil. [The content of this site is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5. Brazil]" This is true for all their images (don't we wish all were like that? ;^)). You will also note the URL for Agência Brasil, "www.agenciabrasil.gov.br", shows it's a government site. Crum375 (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - That clarifies somewhat, but now I'm confused: are the images claimed to be in the public domain, or released under the CC license? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - As i quoted above, the media pages on this government site state at the bottom: "the content of this site is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5. Brazil." As I understand it, they are releasing their media to the public via the CCA-2.5 license. This is how we label the media uploaded to WP or the Commons. Is there some other needed procedure or mechanism? Crum375 (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Okay, it seems clear to me that they're released under the CC license. You just confused me when you said that they were in the public domain, but I gather that that was a misspeak on your part. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Yes, I was speaking loosely, sorry. Crum375 (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Same with File:DamagedLegacyInvolvedinGol1907.jpg, File:Legacy2 fab.jpg, and File:Legacy1 fab.jpg.~~
- Yes, see my above reply, for all Agência Brasil images.
~~File:Caixa-Preta GOL.jpg lacks author information, and looks like it might be another situation like the above.~~
- Yes, all Agência Brasil images are CC 2.5, as you can see at the bottom of the source page. Crum375 (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Same with File:GravadoVoz.jpg.~~
- Yes, again see the bottom of the source page for the CC 2.5 license. Crum375 (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~File:Br-map1.jpg lacks author information, and I strongly suspect that the underlying map comes from a different source (possibly a non-free one) than the lines drawn on to it.~~
- The original is this one, which originally comes from the CIA site, and the lines were added by a Wikipedian and released to PD. Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Okay, good; that information needs to be added to the image description page, though. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both File:H4-BRS.jpg and File:H4-Teres.jpg lack full source information ("DOD FLIGHT INFORMATION PUBLICATION ENROUTE HIGH ALTITUDE CARIBBEAN AND SOUTH AMERICA" is not an adequate source citation), and both contain the rather dubious quote "Copyright 2006 by the United States Government. No copyright claimed under Title 17 U.S.C.". Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 08:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Both are cropped from the same instrument navigation chart, published by the U.S. DOD in 2006, and are therefore public domain, as works created by the US Federal Government in their official duties, per Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. I'll try to find the original website which hosted the charts. Crum375 (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - So "Copyright 2006 by the United States Government" is an error? As for the source, if you can't find the website that's not critical, but if you could clarify on the description pages exactly what the source is that would be great. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - IANAL, but as I understand it, the US government is saying they have copyright in principle, as they do for all their works, but they are specifically waiving it for distribution per Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105. So they state (I am quoting from the top of the original source hi-res PDF file, which I still have): "(c) Copyright 2006 by the United States Government. No copyright claimed under Title 17 U.S.C. DOD." As far as I know, this is their standard language, but correct me if I am wrong. Crum375 (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - I have added clarification on the image description pages that the source is the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), 2006. Crum375 (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - I have never seen that wording, but since it's straight from the source I'll assume that the U.S. government probably knows better than I do. If you are able to find the link, that would be preferable. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Here is an example of another DOD publication, this one currently online, with the same wording (see the bottom right of each page, in red). Crum375 (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        
        Another example, this one by the United States National Imagery and Mapping Agency. Crum375 (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        
        Another one, this one also aviation charting related. Crum375 (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments -
What makes the following reliable sources?
- http://www.airliners.net/
  - Airliners.net is one of the largest aviation websites in the world, and as far as I know has the largest database of high quality photos of airliners. It is a commercial operation and has people vetting its content, esp. its media. I would not trust them for anything technical or controversial, only for links to photos of aircraft, which typically are self verifying (the tail number is a unique identifier). In this article, we use them only for this image link, where you can clearly see the Gol 1907 tail number (PR-GTD). I am not aware of any case where anyone has ever falsified an image there, and if anyone did it would hurt their bottom line, so they have a good incentive to keep their reliability and reputation high. Overall, they are a good (and unique) resource for WP's aviation articles, as long as we stick to self-verifying photos. Crum375 (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Having said all that, I have moved it to the EL section, as it's not really supporting anything in the main text, but still of interest to see. Crum375 (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return
- I agree, they shouldn't be forced to leave for an abbreviation. What I tried to do is to always link to the full expanded version of the wiki article, so you can instantly see the full version by just placing the mouse over the abbreviation, with no need to click or leave the article. My concern was that expanding them would create too much clutter and require more scrolling, without adding useful information. If you feel this method of instant abbreviation expansion via mouse placement is unacceptable, I can take out the short form from the wiki-link. Crum375 (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Generally, it's a good idea to give authors when they are known. Many of the magazine articles lack the author name, even when it's given on the webpage linked to. It's not a requirement per se, but best usage is to give all known information on a source.
- My concern here was uniformity and consistency. In many cases we don't have the authors, as you say, and in some we do. I felt that including the authors in the few cases we have them will make the ones where we don't appear awkward or less valuable (which they aren't). If there was something very controversial in a source, I would still include the name, but all critical or controversial information in the article is sourced to official U.S. and Brazilian government reports, which are normally nameless. And if a reader is interested in reading a source, they'll see the name (if available) immediately as they click on the link. So I guess it's a matter of my personal preference for consistency unless it's unavoidable, but if you still feel that we should include the writers' names wherever available, I'll put them in. Crum375 (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. I'm on the fence about the airliners.net source, but do agree it's nothing controversial it's referencing. I just prefer full names and full information when known, that's all. I know that a lot of times newswire articles won't have a byline, but that doesn't make something coming from a reputable newspaper any less valuable, so I don't discount such sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See above regarding the airliners.net source, which I have demoted to EL. Crum375 (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. ~~Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.~~ See Template:Infobox Aircraft accident/testcases for a suggestion for the lead image. Eubulides (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I added alts for the images where I felt it would add information to the visually impaired beyond the caption. Thanks for the suggestion for the lead image, which I adopted verbatim. Your comments about the alts would be appreciated, as I have never done them before. Crum375 (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Thanks, I tweaked that alt text a bit. However, there should be alt text for every image. For example, Image:Gol B737-800 Curitiba.jpg, the first image that lacks alt text, is captioned "A similar model of the Gol aircraft" which says nothing about visual appearance other than "aircraft". That image should have alt text that says something like "mid-sized twin-engine passenger jet with red-and-white GOL logo, whose wings end in 2-meter upturned winglets, on an airport runway". Similarly for the other images lacking alt text. Eubulides (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - I followed your lead and got all the remaining images. Thanks for your help. Crum375 (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose, 1a. This looks to be well-researched, and it was an interesting read. However, the writing style is quite jarring. Many of the sentences are long series of prepositional and other phrase types separated by commas—reading is labored as a result. I really think this could use the services of an independent copyeditor to smooth these out and reword them for readability. Examples of problem sentences:
- The first sentence of the lead.
- "The newly built twin turbofan Embraer Legacy 600 business jet, serial number 965 and registration N600XL, owned and operated by ExcelAire Service Inc., a Ronkonkoma, Town of Islip, New York-based company, was on a delivery flight from the Embraer factory to the U.S."
- "It departed from São José dos Campos Regional Airport (SJK), near São Paulo, at 14:51 BST, and was on its way to Eduardo Gomes International Airport (MAO) in Manaus as a planned en route stop."
- "The five passengers consisted of two Embraer employees, two ExcelAire executives, and The New York Times business travel columnist Joe Sharkey, who was writing a special report for Business Jet Traveler, a magazine specializing in corporate jets."

--Andy Walsh (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On deeper reading of these example, it looks like the main problem is that you're trying to incorporate too many ideas in one sentence. Take, for example, the second bullet. You've introduced the plane, gave its information, and stated who owned and operated it... which is enough for one sentence. However, you went on to state where they operate, and then what the plane was doing and where it was. That's a lot for one sentence, and it creates the need for multiple phrases. Consider instead:

"The twin turbofan Embraer Legacy 600 business jet, serial number 965 and registration N600XL, was newly built by owner/operator ExcelAire Service Inc. of Ronkonkoma, New York. It was on a delivery flight from the Embraer factory to the U.S."

In fact, with the fat trimmed off a bit, you could almost make that into one sentence again:

"The twin turbofan Embraer Legacy 600 business jet, serial number 965 and registration N600XL, was newly built by owner/operator ExcelAire Service Inc. of Ronkonkoma, New York and was on a delivery flight from the Embraer factory to the U.S."

I think you could solve many of the problem sentences by either breaking them up, if they present multiple ideas, or trimming the unneeded words as I did here, or both. Hope this helps. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately your example changes the meaning, since the jet was built by the Embraer factory, not its new owners/operators. But I tried to follow your logic and simplify the sentence anyway, like this:

"The twin turbofan Embraer Legacy 600 business jet, serial number 965 and registration N600XL, newly built by Embraer and purchased by ExcelAire Service Inc. of Ronkonkoma, New York, was on a delivery flight by its new owners/operators from the Embraer factory to the U.S."

If this sounds better (or needs further tweaking), please let me know. Then I can try to do the rest. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is looking a lot better and more concise. This is one that could be combined, but there may be some can could be broken up. It'll be a judgment call. I appreciate your willingness to work on it! --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I think perhaps it's a matter of style: I personally like to squeeze as much information as possible into every sentence, and feel that broken up tidbits impede the flow, though I realize that I don't necessarily represent the typical reader. But I did revise all your examples, including the lead. If there are any more you feel need simplification, please let me know and I'll break them up too. Thanks again, Crum375 (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a note, the sentence you mention as "problematic": "It departed from São José dos Campos Regional Airport (SJK), near São Paulo, at 14:51 BST, and was on its way to Eduardo Gomes International Airport (MAO) in Manaus as a planned en route stop" originally followed the other one(s), which is now hopefully better. I am not sure if anything else needs to be done with this sentence now, since it's pretty straightforward. If I am wrong, please let me know. Crum375 (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments I have followed this article since its creation, and am thrilled it has been developed into such an excellent source of information. A couple of nitpicks and questions:

Is it customary to refer to aircraft by their manufacturer, rather then by operator (e.g. "the Embraer pilots" and "Boeing aircraft" rather than "the ExcelAire pilots" and "Gol aircraft")?

In my experience of reading accident reports in professional publications over many years, yes. The aircraft type is typically the short form for the aircraft in a report, presumably because factually and objectively all we really know is that the aircraft did X or Y, though we presume that most of it (but not always all) was controlled or caused by the crews. Another reason is that the government (which is normally the main investigator) looks at accidents from air traffic control perspective, and controllers primarily think in terms of aircraft types, not crews. Crum375 (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"though its autopilot disengaged and the required manual control inputs were high, especially at slower speeds." I can't really make sense of this—is there any way to make it more lay-friendly? Does this mean they had trouble manually controlling the aircraft?

Yes, they had trouble manually controlling the aircraft, in the sense that it required a significant force on the control yoke to keep the wings level. I'll add a footnote explaining it. Crum375 (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should " Cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and Flight data recorder (FDR)" be capitalized?

Good catch — there is an inconsistency there. I think it should be capitalized, following the logic of WP:MOS and the CMoS, so I'll fix it. Crum375 (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The Brazilian Air Force sent five fixed-wing aircraft and three helicopters to the region, one of which equipped with a magnetic anomaly detector, for an extensive search and rescue operation." Is there a reference for this? Which aircraft was equipped with a magnetic anomaly detector, a plane or a helicopter?

I believe this was added by someone right after the accident in 2006, with some Portuguese news articles as reference. Since I can't find the source at the moment, and it's not at all critical, I'll remove it pending identification of the specific source. Crum375 (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When did the NTSB issue its report?

Per the NTSB's website, they sent CENIPA a draft on November 18, 2008, and CENIPA then incorporated it inside their own report, which was issued on December 8, 2008. Crum375 (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

—Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the copy-edits and your comments. Crum375 (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:05, 25 July 2009 [45].

Christopher Smart's asylum confinement[edit]

Nominator(s): Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because of extensive copy editing and correcting during GA, copying editing from others, and private discussions about improvements for the article. The article covers most of the views held on the matter and should be FA ready. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Right-facing image should be placed on the left Rotational (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lead image is generally placed on the right. Majorly talk 12:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Generally, yes, but not always -- some editors dislike image subjects looking off screen, and would rather they direct the reader to the text, rather than elsewhere. For the record, I disagree with Rotational; although Smart's body in the portrait is facing right, he is looking straight ahead (as with the lead image for Robert Sterling Yard). I have no problem with it being on the right-side. María (habla conmigo) 13:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments: The prose may need to be examined at length again by a new pair of eyes. Some comments/suggestions from the lead only:

I had no idea who Christopher Smart was, or what he was notable for, while reading the first paragraph, so a little more context would not hurt; a simple addition of "English poet" would help.
He may have started in a private madhouse before being transferred to St Luke's, where he transitioned from being "curable" to "incurable". Smart... Switch the first "he" and "Smart" -- since the previous paragraph ends on an ambiguous note, mentioning the opinion of "many", the next paragraph should re-establish who the subject is by name.
Smart was later moved to Mr. Potter's asylum after St Luke's ran out of funds for which to provide for his care. The latter part of this sentence seems needlessly wordy. I don't think it's even needed; that they ran out of funds is enough for me.
It is not known what exactly happened during his years of confinement... this would be a good place to establish how many years.
what exactly happened during his years of confinement, except that Smart's wife separated from him and took their children to Ireland and that he wrote on two of his most famous poems, Jubilate Agno and A Song to David. This is confusing two separate things, I think. When I read "during his years of confinement", I thought that this sentence would address what happened to him, specifically, while in the institution. That his wife separated from him seems peripheral, since it occurred on the outside. I would move this info to a new sentence, since it is important.
Among literary critics, it is debated as to whether his turning inward to examine himself in his poetry represents an evangelical type of Christianity, his poetry during his isolation does show a desire for "unmediated revelation". Missing connection, here. Also, I feel that "turning inward" and "to examine himself" is somewhat repetitive and clunky; "whether this self-examining poetry", perhaps?
"A Song to David" should be linked the first time it is mentioned, not the second. Same with the other poem, which is mentioned twice before it is linked.
...two poems that are currently viewed as Smart's greatest works. This really should be noted previously, when the works are first mentioned.

On rereading, it feels like the lead is working itself backwards, which is somewhat confusing. The lead could be better organized by subject: context, background, motives, effect on life, effect on poetry? Just brainstorming. I haven't read the rest of the article, but I would gladly continue if the above were addressed. María (habla conmigo) 12:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Julian Colton can be blamed for the lead. I am notoriously opposed to bothering with them. :) Will be fixing shortly. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made changes here. I hope that satisfies your concerns (although some are less direct). Ottava Rima (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. I normally don't do the "it needs seven more copy-editors and I just read the lead" thing... but there are some problems... in the lead, and it will need seven more copy-editors. :-)

You already fixed four "Smart"s in one sentence. Good.
"it is possible that his self-evaluation found within his poetry"—less awkward as "the self-evaluation found in his poetry"
"Smart may have started in a private madhouse"—you are emphasizing a transition, but "started" is colloquial, I'd think, when an encyclopedic entry discusses asylum residence. Wouldn't "resided" or "lived in" suffice, when the next clause makes the transition obvious?
"where he transitioned from being "curable" to "incurable""—this is close to a euphemism, except that the quote marks suggest that this is a viewpoint belonging to someone. Can you say who, even if in the most brief, generic terms?
"the traditional genres of the 18th-century that...—"18th-century" is not a phrasal adjective here, so does not need a hyphen. This occurs twice in the lead and about three times in the body.
"Also, his poetry..."—everything is an "also", and the start of a sentence is usually the worst place for the word; I'm not seeing a particular contrast or need to "re-orient the reader's attention" in the context of the sentence before this
"what this "madness" meant varied amongst those who knew Smart"—this is hard to explain, but let's rephrase what this says: "the meaning of Smart's madness varied among Smart's acquaintances"; it's a very indirect way to say that his acquaintances' thoughts or opinions or construals of his madness varied. We get the meaning, but the construction isn't quite right.
"during his 7 years"—spell out one-digit numbers in non-technical writing.

Obvious some items are easy to fix but I hope this is instructive. (I do not mean to suggest that I've listed every area for improvement in the article.) Outriggr (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lived in seems too... willing. :) Also, 18th-century is the wiki article page now. There was some boring MoS discussion about it.... but the 18th century page apparently got moved back to the non-hyphenated... I don't know. Sandy might know. Now, the one digit number thing I agree, but MoS sided against me last time. Another Sandy question. By the way, I made changes based on the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More comments on section One:

Check the two consecutive paragraphs beginning "It is not known what exactly happened during his seven years of confinement"... quite a bit of redundancy there.
Decide on "St"/"St." and "Mr/Mr."
"Hunter describes that Samuel Johnson would visit Smart while "mad""--who was mad??
"He was immediately released."--I changed the wording in this section: could you add a date here to fill out the sentence?
"John Sherratt", "Arthur Sherbo", "Piozzo"--who? In general, please introduce figures on first appearance, or don't mention them if minor. Outriggr (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe the Britishism is to remove the fullstop after "Mr" and "St". I removed all except for those inside of quotes. "who was mad?" Probably both. :) I changed it to "during this time" (i.e. the time of the "Asylum" section - vague, but Johnson's time of visiting was very vague). "could you add a date here to fill out the sentence?" We don't have a date. The dates are incredibly vague. Page 203 for verification. There are a lot of details of this time that I wished we had more information (especially when I worked on him in my real life scholarship - but I am sure if we had the information, there would be a lot more competition, so, a double edge blade). By the way, I think I removed the redundancy in those two paragraphs (made one about asylum stay specifically and the other to poetry). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments -
~~Not a requirement, but ISBNs or OCLCs for the books would be nice.~~
~~http://www.mdx.ac.uk/WWW/STUDY/4_13_TA.htm#StLukes deadlinks~~

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

I switched out the B&W Smart engraving for a color oil painting. See what you think.
~~File:Jubilate Agno let.JPG - We need a source for this image.~~

I look forward to reading the article! Awadewit (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Agno image is an original copy of the manuscript. I would have to see if any books republish it. I uploaded that from my own copy, which was passed to me from my mentor. I can only assume that Karina Williamson has an edition in The Poetical Works of Christopher Smart, I: Jubilate Agno. Ed. Karina Williamson. Oxford: Clarendon, 1980. I would have to track down a copy to get specific numbers. I recall a few other works having reproductions of it (and some other pages), and I will see if I have any on hand. Since it wouldn't be on a "numbered" page, it would be easy to just attribute it to Williamson's edition. Ottava Rima (talk)

"Copy in uploader's private collection" would be better. It needs a source; that doesn't mean it need be an academic source. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is just easier this way, or, at least, more promotional to academia. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All images have adequate descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments.

(I fixed these ~~Alt text problems:~~)

File:Christopher Smart from NPG.jpg alt text "1/2" should be reworded "half" (for benefit of screen readers) and should not say "Christopher Smart". A naive sighted reader won't know what Smart looked like, and so can't immediately verify that it's Smart. See the 1st and 3rd examples in WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples.
Image:Jubilate Agno let.JPG alt text shouldn't say "Jubilate Agno" or "copy", as a naive sighted viewer can't immediately verify that either.
File:Christopher Smart.jpg (included via template) lacks alt text.

Fixed. ~~The lead image File:Christopher Smart from NPG.jpg is way, waaaay too dark and needs to be retouched. One can't even see that he's wearing a mortarboard. Ouch. It's even worse than~~ File:William Wordsworth at 28 by William Shuter.jpg (remember that? compare it to the retouched File:William Wordsworth at 28 by William Shuter2.jpg).

Eubulides (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree about the image darkness. I can't even tell what I'm looking at with the replacement image. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Christopher Smart from NPG.jpg is too far away from what Smart actually looked like, so I replaced it with a retouched image File:Christopher Smart from NPG retouched.jpeg that I just now generated. The retouched image is still too dark but I couldn't lighten it further without messing it up. Please feel free to improve it further (I am not an expert at retouching). Eubulides (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. One of the best known parts of Jubilate Agno is For I will consider my Cat Jeoffry. The cat is mentioned elsewhere in the article. I would like to see a short quotation. Amandajm (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anything in particular? It is quite a lengthy excerpt, but if there are any five or six continuous lines that you are particularly fond of, I can create a box for it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about this bit:

"For I will consider my cat Jeoffry....

For when his day's work is done his business more properly begins.

For he keeps the Lord's watch in the night against the adversary.

For he counteracts the powers of darkness by his electrical skin and glaring eyes.

For he counteracts the Devil, who is death, by brisking about the life.

For in his morning orisons he loves the sun and the sun loves him.

For he is of the tribe of Tiger.

For the Cherub Cat is a term of the Angel Tiger.

For he has the subtlety and hissing of a serpent, which in goodness he suppresses.

For he will not do destruction, if he is well-fed, neither will he spit without provocation.

For he purrs in thankfulness, when God tells him he's a good Cat."

Amandajm (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added in excerpt. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose, 1a. On reading a sample section, this appears to require the attention of a copyeditor. Samples, from the first couple sections:
- ~~You've placed periods inside partial quotations here.. but not in some other places. Attention needed to MoS issues.~~
- ~~"Monro instead believed that those who were mad ..." The "instead" here is redundant to the "however" in the previous sentence.~~
- "His suggested treatment, beating patients, was equally as harsh as Battie's ..." Either "equally" or "as" need to go, probably the former.
- ~~"the treatment for the patients were simple"~~
- "The Hymn to the Supreme Being marks the time in Smart's life after his mysterious "fit" was resolved and the beginning of Smart's obsession with religion and of his praying 'without ceasing'." I read this a few times without success at understanding its meaning.
- "Smart's praying began in regular intervals but slowly devolved into irregular praying in which he would interrupt his friends' activities and call them into the street to pray in public." Messy. For a start, why not begin with "Smart prayed at regular intervals at first"? The "in which" seems odd in reference to "praying".
- ~~"This continued until an incident ..." One of several uses of the ambiguous "this" in reference to a previous idea; for clarity, always restate or paraphrase the reference.~~

--Andy Walsh (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~There are no periods within quotations unless there are periods within quotations. Adding a period within a quotation that is not there is not proper in any form.~~ (Matter clarified and fixed) If there is a "however" in a -previous- sentence, then it is not redundant for a current sentence. Removing any "as" or "however" from that sentence would make it 100% grammatically inaccurate and improper. Now, for you not understanding the meaning of the sentence, I don't really know how to help you. It is rather clear - 1st clause states talks about the fits being resolved and the 2nd clause clause talks about his obsession with prayer. It is rather straight forward. (rewrote parts of the system after a few things were changed by another user, so this all became unnecessary) Then your other calling into question a sentence is over things that are not grammatically incorrect. But here is the killer - you claim that I have to be redundant about something instead of using "this", which contradicts your first claim. Sorry, but your comments are inactionable as they do not follow standard grammatical rules and contain internal contradictions. (Some terms were flipped around and many of the "this"s stayed but in a different form that seems to work out) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me try clarifying my comment about the ambiguous "this", and you're welcome to ask for a second opinion: When you use "this" in reference to a previous idea, you create an ambiguity because the reader can't be certain what you're referring to. Clarifying the ambiguity does not create a redundancy. ESL readers have a particularly difficult time with this concept. For example: "Charlie couldn't find a parking spot, and then the store was out of his favorite beer. This caused him to have a very bad day." You can guess that "this" refers to everything that preceded it, but you can't be sure. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ESL readers have simple wiki. And this always refers to the events of the preceding sentence. If there are any preceding sentences that you think are obscure, then please mention. But to perform the remove of "this" would require in some instances at least 10 or 20 words to be added. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think sending ESL readers to Simple Wikipedia is a good solution to this particular problem. However, perhaps it is a subjective matter. I will read through again and list any that look like they need clarity. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I linked to your talk page of an edit - I kept many of the "this" but added a noun to help generalize. It would not cover what is really said in the sentence before, but it would at least guide anyone who can't tell. Some of the "this" ("this time") were arbitrary and only refer to a general context. I doubt you were referring in the above, but I swapped them out. At the very end, there was the use of "this" instead of "his", which was changed. However, I doubt you were referring to them. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate it. See, it didn't take long to wear me down, did it? --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wasn't that. You just phrased it in a way that made it seemingly impossible. I had to pressure you for clarifications of things that I could work with. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed - I guess someone decided to start moving page titles again. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:32, 21 July 2009 [46].

Crayola[edit]

Nominator(s): Dougie WII (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel it's a quite comprehensive article about a very well known subject. If there are any suggestions to improve it before becoming a featured article, I'd be all too happy to try to comply. Thank you. Dougie WII (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: This seems very sparse to me for a featured article on such a major company and recognizable brand. Are there really no sources available to expand it to something more closely resembling, for example, BAE Systems? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I'm all for expanding it with relevant information, but this company makes crayons and pencils and stuff, not supersonic jets or nuclear weapons, so I don't think that comparison is really fair. I am trying to read as much as I can and add things that are notable. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Comment~~ Oppose I agree with Steve. The (only?) manufacturing plant is barely mentioned in passing, and surely even for a private company there must be some information - how many employees? any indication of profitability - Wall Street Journal perhaps?. The brand is claimed to be global, but I don't see anything much that's not US-based. Some of the web refs have no publisher or retrieval date, or are of dubious reliability - Amazon for instance. Prose needs some work too - did I see isn't? Images lack alt text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment There are three manufacturing plants listed in the infobox. There's not much else to say about them other than they exist, but if they should be in the main text, I can add them. I'll take a look at the refs and try to put in as much info as possible. Is the word "isn't" banned?

As a regular FAC contributor, I dislike opposing nominations because I know how hard it is to get articles through. However, Crayola does not appear to meet criteria 1b and 1c, and the nominator's reply gives little reason to assume that it will do so in the limited time available. I therefore reluctantly oppose the nominationn now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment -- The number of employees is listed in the infobox, should all the information in the infobox be repeated in the prose section? -- Dougie WII (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another Comment/Question -- Regarding links to stores such as Amazon, they are being used solely to show that a product exists and is currently being sold. Since Crayola doesn't have any retail catalog, how else could such information be reliably sourced if such stores are not considered reliable sources for this limited purpose? -- Dougie WII (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Except for the color swatches; as per WP:ALT #When to specify these can have "|link=" instead. Eubulides (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done -- Dougie WII (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for adding some alt text, but I'm afraid that it still needs work. For example the alt text for the lead image is "Crayola's corporate logo" but this conveys little useful information to a visually-impaired reader. It should be something like "Wide orange oval logo with green "Crayola" above a rainbow smile". Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples and then rewrite the alt text in the light of that discussion. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose, 1b and 1c. You've got a great start! However, this is a long way off—it is neither comprehensive nor well-researched. For a start, hit the library and search major services such as EBSCOHost for major articles on this historically important company (ask a research librarian to help). This is perhaps a solid B-class article, but not further. --Laser brain (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment/Question -- Living in New York City, I have access to great libraries, but what is it to look for, can you be more specific? There's plenty of information I've read on the web, but I guess it's a bit difficult to separate the crufty stuff from some valuable thing to be noted in a good article. -- Dougie WII (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comment -- please don't interpret my responses and questions as hostile, this is the first time I've done something like this. I've tried to put this particular article up for peer review and good article status before, but without much feedback. Although this might (actually probably) won't pass FA muster now, I'm getting more feedback here in less than a day than I have ever before after weeks. Thank you all! -- Dougie WII (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another general comment -- OK, now I'm being criticized for making too many edits to the page here Talk:Crayola#Too_many_edits.3F, as I try to edit it to make it conform to the standards and ideas stated here about improving the page... Am I doing something wrong? Should I just abandon work on this article? -- Dougie WII (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The comment you reference is baseless and rather ludicrous, in my opinion. You are doing fine! Your responses here have been courteous and reasonable. I hope you don't abandon the article—it needs the careful attention you seem willing to give it. I would, however, recommend withdrawing this nomination to work on the article. In answer to your question above, you should definitely seek the help of a research librarian. They can help find the right places to look for articles and books about companies. --Laser brain (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - sorry, it's an interesting article but not of FA standard yet. I agree with Laser Brain, please do not give up, this is exactly the kind of subject that Wikipedia excels at. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment -- I wouldn't have a problem closing this early if my questions are answered, most importantly does every fact noted in the infobox need to reiterated in the text? So many people here criticized the article for not providing information that was provided in the infobox. -- Dougie WII (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - 1b and 1c (comprehensiveness and sourcing). These are the same issues I raised at the peer review. Again, I urge you to read the dispatches here and here about how to do research. Awadewit (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose - sources are lacking. Most lack a publisher, many lack a last access date, a number are totally unreliable. (Examples: http://www.hotelfun4kids.com/hotelproducts/craft/crayon.htm#CRAYONS, http://listoftheday.blogspot.com/2009/05/20-most-recognizable-scents-in-world.html, http://www.irememberjfk.com/mt/2008/09/crayola_crayons.php, http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/3644). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:32, 21 July 2009 [47].

Oxford United F.C.[edit]

Nominator(s): Eddie6705 (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has undergone a large amount of work since the last nomination. However, as ever, there will probably be a few little things which need addressing and i will happily look at any pointers. Thanks in advance. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. This still seems a bit raw to me. What is this doing in the Supporters and rivals section, for instance (uncited)? "Oxford United's firm is called the SMHS (South Midland Hit Squad) but have smaller youth firm called The Oxford Youth Outfit." Other parts don't seem to have an encyclopedic tone:

"However, results didn't go their way ..."

"Maxwell also threatened to fold the club if the merger did not go through."

Some parts seem a little awkwardly written, for instance:

"After the match, manager Maurice Evans asked long-serving physiotherapist, 72-year-old Ken Fish, to collect a winner's medal instead of himself."

--Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images ~~File:BronzeOx_Kassam.JPG looks like a derived work from a 3d art work, please clarify the licence for this~~. I feel the images should be alternated left/right to balance the article (as far as possible). As for File:Oxford_United_FC.svg, it is unclear why this is used in preference to the older logos which are in the public domain Fasach Nua (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See freedom of panorama in the UK If a work is on public display, as this one clearly is, then photographs can be taken without breaching copyright. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

that's fine, I've been dealing with too many North American articles Fasach Nua (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are flags used for all players? Have they all declared intention to play for that national side, or are they only eligiable to play for one particular nation? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~How do we know that this is the milk cup?~~ Fasach Nua (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't guarantee that it isn't a replica, but it looks real. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even if it's a replica, it's still representitive, there have been so many milk cups over the year Fasach Nua (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Milk Cup which Oxford won was the sponsored guise of the Football League Cup for about four or five years, and that is definitely the trophy used. Here is a picture of the Oxford players celebrating with it after the match, and here is an image of Liverpool with it, in which the trophy itself can be seen slightly more clearly...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose – As Malleus said, the prose is rough at the moment, with many faults to sort out. In addition to his (unfixed) examples, here are a few of my own.

"Oxford United Football Club is an English association football team who play in the Conference National." A club is not a person; therefore "who" is incorrect, and should be "which" or "that". Also, "play" probably should be made plural.
"The club has been a non-league side since relegation from League Two in 2005–06." Add "its" or "their" before "relegation"? For the record, these are the first two sentences of the article. The fact that I'm finding problems this early doesn't fill me with confidence regarding the rest of the page.
The lead appears to be brief considering the size of the article, with a pair of stubby paragraphs. In addition, it fails to summarize the article as a whole, as it is missing any information from the Crest and colours and Supporters and rivals sections.
Move the relegation link to its first mention in the lead.
Headington United: "during the 1940s. in 1899". Check capitalization (hint, hint).
Is the club meant to be singular or plural? I'm seeing a lot of inconsistencies as I read. This is not the first time this issue has come up in FACs for football clubs.
There are a couple uses of "being" that lead to weak sentence structures, such as "Despite the plans being postponed".
Promotion and Robert Maxwell takeover: "Jim Smith would have managed the club with Reading boss Maurice Evans becoming his assistant." Many times, a with+-ing connection will lead to an awkward sentence, and this is one of them.
"The merger was called off as a result of both clubs protesting against the decision and the Reading chairman stepping down to be replaced by an opponent of the merger." Long, convoluted sentence. I sense an overuse of passive voice here and elsewhere.
Move Maurice Evans link up.
Printed reference publishers, such as Oxford Mail and The Guardian, should be presented in italics. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments -
What makes the following reliable sources?
What are the footnotes to "A Complete Record" referring to?
Alphabetize the further reading section.
Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using ((cite news)), use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
Current ref 56 (Oxford United...) has a bare url in it, and I suspect it's got other formatting issues.
Current ref 63 "Club Colours", Headington United is this a website? No link though.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The late Tony Kempster was the undisputed "guru" of non-league football data in England. He was a columinst in the national Non-League Today newspaper and according to the Football Supporters' Federation, who gave him an award in 2008 for services to supporters, his website "provides unmatched information on results, gates, tables, fixtures and even distances to grounds, is an invaluable source of information for thousands of football fans each week and carries a huge amount of information which no other site can match". This football club called his site "probably the most comprehensive football site in the world". The Non-League Paper (the other national newspaper devoted to non-league football) described him as "legendary statistician". Here is more about him from the Beeb. Hope it helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:32, 21 July 2009 [48].

Jackie Robinson[edit]

Nominator(s): BillTunell (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...

I nominated this article a little more than a month ago for FA status, which discussion is archived here. My comments for that nomination still apply, with the update that the project has now grown to a 1000+ edit process, adding about 100 original references, including ten new books.

The main snag during the last nomination was the inclusion of five non-free images. I've adressed three of these images, in the following way:

I've removed two prior images of Robinson in military and UCLA uniforms, and replced these with free equivalents (although I had to purchase electonic files from the Library of Congress to be able to upload adequate copies to wikipedia), and
I've removed a prior image of Robinson's signing a contract with Branch Rickey, for several reasons. First is that it is non-free. But it also is described by some sources as dated to 1948 rather than 1945, and various other sources have lead me to doubt the authenticity of any image purporting to portray the origial 1945 signing. The prior image is also still available at the Racial integration in baseball section of the baseball history article.

As a result, there are now only two non-free images in the article:

Both of these were discussed extensively in the last nomination. I am hoping that even if there is continuing disagreement about their inclusion, that discussion this time around can be streamlined. For the record, I consider Robinson and Satchel Paige to qualify under criterion #8 of the policy on non-free-content as a historically significant image. I've researched any other potential avenues for a free image that depict Robinson's Negro League days and can find none. Robinson's Negro Legaue days, IMO, would be worthy of its own article were it not duplicative of the content here, and so one illustration of the topic is, IMO, justified. The specific image was also chosen as an image that represents Satchel Paige as well as Robinson, which is designed to minimize non-free use by allowing for the image use in the Paige article as well. The photo also shows the relative height of Robinson and Paige, which otherwise gives information on Robinson's physical stature which I cannot find described in such detail by any narrative source.

On the other side of the issue, a couple commentators in the prior nomination disputed either the "significance" of the Negro League photo under the non-free content criteria, or the adequacy of the typewritten rationale in the image's upload history page. I've included all information I know abot the photograph in the description page. Substantively, I think there is a good faith argument given the way the non-free content criteria read, but adminstrators have not ruled on this issue because of the length of the last nomination discussion. I'm re-submitting the FAC nomination in hopes we can get resolution on the issue one way or the other. IMO the Negro League photo is the only issue likely to generate meaningful FA-status oppostition for this article.

As for the Robinson Memorial photo, the Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_use sub-criterion No. 8 (specific to "Images") indicates that depiction of a public statue is allowable in connection with a discussion of the statue itself, separate from the discussion of its subject. Given the treatment within the article's "Awards and recognition" section of the statue itself, I think inclusion of the image is appropriate. But again, if there are any oppositions on this basis, I'm hoping adminstrators will be willing to rule on the issue one way or the other.

Non-image-related editorial issues should be well taken care of at this point. Some discussion of stylistic differences remain from the last nomination, but I know of no substantive changes that haven't been made. Several editors have done a lot of proofreading and copyediting changes, there's been a thorough plagiarism review, etc.. Thanks once again to all those who have looked at the article. Let me know if there is anything left to do.

BillTunell (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from TonyTheTiger

The article retains "Robinson's contract was for $400 a month ($58,250 a year in current dollars)..." - This continues (see complaint in prior FAC) to be a point of confusion where you present a 1945 monthly salary and convert it to a yearly current salary. Baseball monthly contracts usually can not be multiplied by 12 so there is all kinds of confusion. Please just convert to the current monthly salary amount.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've made the change, although I still think that it leads to confusion when compared to the other current-dollar reference in the article. Personally I'd prefer to drop the current-dollar templates altogether. BillTunell (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the international reader, who may not be able to conceptualize three generations worth of inflation for the U.S. Dollar, this is helpful. I don't think there is much question it should stay. The reader knows what $5k a month is today, but may not know what $400/month was in 1945.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am disappointed that you went to the effort to contact the Library of Congress, without pursuing sourced material for the relationship with Walter O'Malley that I mentioned in the prior FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I'd mentioned in the earlier FAC review, your suggested entries relate to a book by Golenbock that I do not have, and are not in my local libraries. I do not feel comfortable citing sources I cannot verify. Again, if you (or someone else with access to the book) want to make the changes, I have no objection. BillTunell (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, I have inserted two references to the Stout book (which is partially web-accessible) on this issue at the end of the "1948-1950" subsection. BillTunell (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- The above are two of the three issues that caused me to oppose the prior FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments:

I've done a copy edit of the article. Please check my edits to ensure that nothing was changed incorrectly.

Thanks. I've changed the article in accordance with your suggestions below unless noted otherwise. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The third sentence of the lede is somewhat long. I suggest breaking it into two sentences.

I you're referring to the sentence beginning "This eneded a nearly 60-year erea . . . ", then I'm not sure how to do this without ending up with a sentence fragment. I'm also loathe to change the lead at this point because it's been the subject of intense negotiation during the other FAC and peer review phases. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Were Robinson's junior high and high schools segregated?

I don't know -- I'll see if I can confirm. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, says Rampersad on p. 37: "In all of Jack's schools, most of his teammates were white, just as all the student bodies were predominantly white." Maralia (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updated. BillTunell (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Were his junior high and high school athletics competitions segregated? There's a mention of a Pacific Coast Negro Tennis Tournament, so I'm assuming yes, but I'd like to make sure, especially since UCLA wasn't segregated.

As with the above, I don't know. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most of his teammates were white, and competitions in football, baseball, and basketball are explicitly team efforts, so I feel confident in concluding that at least the bulk of his teenage athletic competitions were not segregated. It is not clear whether the tennis tournament was even school-affiliated (a tournament on the 6th of September is somewhat incongruous with the typical school year), nor is it clear whether Robinson was even a member of his school's tennis team ("Jack played tennis only sporadically", Rampersad, p. 37). Maralia (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updated. BillTunell (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure that the sentence about his fractured ankle belongs in the early life area. The effects of it don't show up until the military career section, so I'd suggest moving the first reference down there. Otherwise, a reader is introduced to his military career before you're ready to explain it in the article, and it might prompt interest (as it did for me), distracting from the early life section.

This was another subject of earlier comments and edits. Without explaining why the ankle injury later became significant, it reads as a non-sequitor. Accordingly, I've left it alone for now. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first reference to UCLA needs to be spelled out. Right now, it's spelled out in the second instance.

changed. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the significance of the Order of the Mast and Dagger?

Don't know. I'll check the Rampersad book later, but it will require another library trip. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rampersad describes this as a "significant honor: induction into the junior college's most respected honor society...each semester, Mast and Dagger tapped a few students who had performed "outstanding service to the school and whose scholastic and citizenship record is worthy of recognition."" (Rampersad, p. 56–60; "outstanding service" quote is cited to the 1939 Pasadena Junior College Yearbook). Ten students were inducted that year; the Pasadena Post ran the story on the front page, with a group photo. Maralia (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updated. BillTunell (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a mention of "only season" in his UCLA baseball career ... did he only play in college for one year, even though he attended for almost four?

He was at UCLA for a little under two years, and although I suppose he could have played a second season of baseball if he had wanted to, I don't find an explanation in the sources. As such, I wouldn't want to speculate. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He attended UCLA from fall 1939 through early March 1941. When he enrolled, he announced his intention to compete in "football and the broad jump only" (Rampersad, p. 63). In 1939 he competed in football only; in 1940 he competed in football, basketball, track, and baseball; in 1941 he competed in basketball only (UCLA Robinson bio). Maralia (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure if user:JKBrooks85 was just fact checking or wants an explanation of why Robinson played only one year of baseball. I'm not sure any explanation would help the article, so I have not inserted one yet. BillTunell (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article mentions that Isum was "familiar with Robinson as an athlete from PJC". That sentence isn't clear to me ... was she just familiar with his success, or did she attend PJC and know him from his success at the school?

changed. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the final sentence of the military career section, it's a bit unclear to whom "who" refers: is it the Kansas City Monarchs or the ex-player?

The ex-player. I consdiered changing this but all the alternatives seemed too wordy and distracting. The use of "who" as opposed to "whom" or "which" should make the reference clear. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now further clarified by the next sentence. BillTunell (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The post-military section includes a sentence about Robinson being offered the position of athletic director ... I'd suggest making it more active by saying he accepted it. It's inferred, but never actually stated.

changed. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did Robinson follow up on the suggestion that he write the Monarchs and ask for a tryout?

I think so, although I can't find confirmation of a letter or a tryout in the source material, so I don't want to speculate. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes; from Rampersad, p. 113: "On Alexander's advice, Robinson sent a letter of inquiry to Thomas Y. Baird, who owned the Monarchs along with their founder, J. L. Wilkinson. Answering promptly, Baird offered Jack $300 a month—if he made the team." Maralia (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updated. BillTunell (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd suggest switching a sentence in the Monarchs section so that he actually accepts the contract, rather than just being offered it. Again, it's inferred but not stated outright that he does accept.

changed. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article states that "during this period, Branch Rickey" ... what period does that refer to: 1945 or something else?

changed. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You mention "current" dollars twice: Is that 2009, 2008, or something else? Put the year so that when the article ages, we have an absolute comparison, regardless of future inflation. Unless, of course, it's some automatically adjusting template.

It is an automatic template. I don't really like it, either, but it was inserted at the suggestion of user:TonyTheTiger -- see above. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Three different dates are listed for the last player to break the color line before Robinson: "the 1880s", "at least 1890", and 1887. I'd suggest picking one and sticking with it.

changed to "the 1880s." BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How did Robinson receive the gash in his leg?

It was in a game againt the St. Louis Cardinals. I've sourced the claim rather than go into a lot of detail, which IMO isn't really that germane, and possibly would cast unproven aspersions on the culprit, Enos Slaughter. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 1948 to 1950 subsection references "pressure"; what does this refer to?

changed. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the 1949 season paragraph, I'd suggest moving the sentence about him raising his batting average after the sentence where he "explodes". You'll have to remove one of the references to a .342 batting average to avoid being repetitive.

changed. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What did Robinson say at the HUAC hearing, and what effect, if any, did it have?

This is all dealt with at the "further" link. A detail of the episode is pretty tangential to the Robinson article, so I previously swtiched the discussion to the Paul Robeson article. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the paragraph explaining the 1950 season, you mention that a biographical film "was planned ... delayed ... was released in 1950"; how much could it have been delayed if it was released in the same year it was planned?

Don't know whether it was "delayed" in 1950, so I've reworded. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 1952 season summary includes the word "finish" twice; I'd suggest rewording that.

changed. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The clause "one of the most difficult feats in baseball" appears to be referring to Robinson's 19 steals of home plate, rather than stealing home plate itself. I'd suggest rewording that sentence.

changed. I've just deleted the whole "most difficult feats" claim because it's subjective. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is Leo Durocher?

Robinson's former manager. That's explained in the first instance, and he's linked in the two instances he appears. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was it his son's death or the experience of guiding his son through treatment that "turned Robinson Sr. into an avid anti-drug crusader"?

I'll have to source a reference for the statement to eliminate any confusion. I don't find any decent reference offhand, but I'll include this in my follow-up book source search. The quick answer is both. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It began before his son's death, with the family's experience of coping with Jackie Jr.'s addiction. From Rampersad, p. 438: "Earlier in the year [1970] Robinson had spoken publicly about his experience as the father of an addict to a meeting called by the group Ministers Against Narcotics at the HOliday Inn at LaGuardia Airport, attended by Governor Rockefeller and other high-ranking officials. He said that his decision to "stick by my son" had been "tremendously rewarding." That month, on a Harlem street corner, he also addressed some two hundred people at an antidrug block party on the subject of the epidemic sweeping the city." Note also that in 1971 Jackie Jr. "testified frankly and in detail about his drug experience before Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut's Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency in the United States" (Rampersad, p. 443). Maralia (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updated. BillTunell (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The wikilink for Rachel Robinson should be moved far forward.

She's linked in each instacne she appears. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Robinson would be inducted into the California hall of fame" ... was he?

changed. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's about it. I know it's a lot of stuff, but they're mostly minor fixes. It's a complete, well-cited article, and it appears to cover all aspects of his life, which is a really good thing in my eyes. Usually, the biography articles I see at FAC don't include much if anything about the early aspects of the subject's life. This article doesn't fall into that trap. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Good work so far, and good work getting the article to featured status. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your review. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have Rampersad and several other relevant books at hand; will endeavor to address some of the unresolved queries above. Maralia (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replies interspersed above. Have not made an effort to incorporate any of this clarified/additional information into the article; Bill, let me know if you want me to do so. Maralia (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Maralia, you saved me a trip. I've updated the article with the relevant citations. Anything else you feel would be warranted, JK?. BillTunell (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope. You've answered the questions I had and addressed my concerns. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support — My concerns and questions have been addressed and answered. As best as I can tell, the article gives a complete and clear overview of Jackie Robinson's life. I can't vouch that it's perfect in every respect, but from my point of view, it is a superior article that deserves to be featured. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments 7-5-09 – I opposed over the fair-use images last time, but am content to let others debate them here. I never got to review the prose last time, so that's what I want to focus on.

Facts don't need to be cited in the lead if they are in the body, as they should be. This is not mandatory by any means, but consider removing cites from basic facts from the body that are backed up later.

I've eliminated about half the lede references and re-inserted any unique citations in the body of the article. I've left those citations which might be controverisal (e.g., "precursor to the Civil Rights Movement") and some cumulative citations that are used differently in the article (usually citing stats year-by-year).

"he helped establish the Freedom National Bank, an African-American-owned and -controlled entity based in Harlem, New York." Remove space after "and"?

changed. Some may object; the lede was heavily edited in the first FAC stage. The hyphen is meant, I beleive, to emphasize the notion of being "African-American-controlled"; but I've re-worded to avoid confusion.

"In recognition of his on- and off-field achievements". Why is there a space after the hyphen? Am I just not reading this properly? (wouldn't be the first time)

changed. Same as above.

While reading, I've noticed that only certain photos have alt text, a new feature that is not widely used in candidates. The ones that use alt text have great details, which leave me wondering if the rest of the images could be treated the same way. There would likely be no fair-use ramifications, if that is a concern.

inserted alt text for each picture

Military career: "despite the fact that Robinson neither drank nor smoked." The structure is somewhat awkward; as a replacement, I recommend "even though Robinson neither drank nor smoked."

changed

Post-military: Southwestern Athletic Conference could be linked.

changed

Negro Leagues: Cite would be useful for Boston being the last team to integrate. I've seen that fact numerous times before, so it shouldn't be hard to find something that covers it.

inserted

Minor leagues: Overlinking is usually advised against at FAC. Here, the International League and the Montreal Royals were already linked in the last section, leaving no real need for more links in this section.

changed

Major leagues: Remove apostrophe in 1880's.

changed

commemorates this event ny representing Reese with his arm around Robinson." There's a typo in the middle of this sentence.

edited. BillTunell (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From what I've read thus far, this is an admirable effort on the prose side. I only made it about halfway through, but that's fairly common in long articles. On the negative side, there are still some references of questionable reliability, and others lack publishers or access dates. I hope this receives a thorough source check, because a figure like Jackie Robinson deserves nothing but the best. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Let me know if you have anything further -- especially any cites you consider unreliable. I only found two web sources without access dates (now re-checked and access dates inserted as of today). BillTunell (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose – 1c. I finally got some time to go over the references, and the problems were worse than I thought. What concerns me most is the use of numerous questionable sources. I compiled a list below, which shows that much work is needed. Some formatting suggestions are included as well.

Thanks. See my comments/changes below. In general, it appears you are looking at sources individually without reference to whether they are being used as duplicate sources for the substantive claim in the article. In the last FAC nomination there was a whole stage at which I double-sourced to dubious-reference claims. A few claims were removed completely as not being verifiable. In general, when a claim can be double-sourced I have not removed the remaining less-authoritative citations provided they have some residual value (often for pictures not otherwise includable in the wiki article). Where there was no residual value (such as with parallel wikis and the like) but the claim was verifiable, the original link was removed in favor of new citations.

In a couple other places, I think you're concentrating on the web host site address rather than on the author, which should be the real focus of reliability concerns.

But you make a number of valid points below. Note that most reference numbers have now changed. Let me know your thoughts. BillTunell (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~What makes http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public/2003/march/mtpub.asp a reliable source? This is missing a listed publisher as well.~~

Publisher now listed as "WorldandI Online." The substance of the claim involved is that Robinson's career "was a a significant precursor to the subsequent Civil Rights Movement." The source is Ira Glasser, who was a fifty-year career advocate on civil rights issues and the former head of the ACLU. I don't know who else you could sponsor that would be more qualified to to make the claim at issue. Given the fact that the sourced claim is attributed to an individual author, I don't really consider "worldani.com" as the source of the claim, just the webhost of the article in question. But if the bona fides of the publication are at issue, it is apparent from the main site of "WorldandI" that it is a quarterly publication in print since 1986. I wasn't familiar with the pulication before edting this article, but I don't know that that makes it unreliable. Its other accesible articles seem well-researched.

As an additional citation I've inserted the Baseball Hall of Fame article that had previously been in the External Links section.

As a printed publication, it should be fine. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Baseball Almanac (reference 6 and others) hasn't been found to be reliable yet. If Baseball-Reference has All-Star voting totals, consider using them as replacements.

I don't see any other voting totals, but I've inserted the baseball-reference.com page for Robinson, which includes All-Star appearance information. Is it the baseball wikiproject that disapproves of Baseball Almanac? Any informational links would be appreciated.

I've seen it questioned at many FACs and FLCs, and no one has yet been able to prove that it is a reliable source. I'll have to look in the FAC archives for an example. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robinson's official site (reference 13) is a primary source, a type of source that should be rationed carefully. The facts in this reference aren't controversial, so this one should be okay. Might be good to check other cites from this website, though.

This was the subject of review in the last FAC nomination. The offical site, as well as any other family-based source information, are only used as backup sources for any potentially controversial claim. Note 13 is an example, in that the primary source for the claim is the Rampersad book (note 12). I have not removed any first-party source material just for the sake of removing it, since they add some context.

Reference 26 (YANK Magazine) links to a Wikimedia Commons page. I'm not sure whether we should be linking to a fellow wiki; consider making it an offline citation.

I don't know what you mean by "offline citation." Are you saying that I should delete the url tag? Honestly I don't see the value in that. The citation is not to wikimedia; it is to the magazine article, a copy of which just happens to be hosted on a wikimedia site.

Brittanica (ref 38) is relaible, but there are surely better sources avaliable than other encyclopedias.

This was a tough one, but I found an academic article to cite in addition to the britannica article. It's not web-free, but you can buy for $1.99.

There's some excess formatting in that citation. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

fixed

Reference 46 needs a publisher. So does 48. And 76 (NPR can be moved from author to publisher), 77, 105, 141, 197, 198, 212, 214, 216, and 220. Some of these give the publisher as part of the link, when it should be made a seperate part of the cite.

I've inserted publisher information for all these with two exceptions: note 48 (now 49) and note 141 (now 145). Both of these are Library of Congress archives, which by their nature do not have "publishers," so I'm not sure what to put there, or if it's necessary.

I'm guessing that the Library of Congress should be the publisher since it's their website. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~About.com (ref 85) is almost never considered reliable.~~

Again, this is another example of a claim with multiple citations, the about.com cite being only one. But I've added a cite to the Lamb book for further confirmation. The about.com cite is mostly derrivative of other sources, but it does contain some images not otherwise publishable in the wikipedia article, so I've kept in the reference.

Update: I've gone ahead and deleted the about.com reference. The claim has three other citations, and the about.com article's only incremental worth was a gallery of two public-domain pictures. BillTunell (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What makes http://www.mrbaseball.com/ a reliable source? Note that if this is John Thorn's personal website, there's a decent chance he would meet WP:SPS as an expert on the subject.

As with the Glasser article, the source is the author, the webhost site of the article being incidental. John Thorn (and Jules Tygiel, as co-author of the article in question) are established baseball historians and biographers of Robinson, respectively.

Why is a Robert Edwards Auctions page (ref 98) used to cite a cancelled game? Aren't better sources possible?

Again, an example of a multi-sourced claim. The primary citation is the Lamb book. I've kept the auction citation as a supplemental reference mainly because of its incidental content (pictures, plus interest for anyone that likes to bid on memorabilia)

Update: I've deleted Robert Edwards Auctions as a reference, since its claims are derrivative of the Lamb book, and the site itself is primarily commercial rather than informational.

What makes http://sportmag.us/product_info.php?products_id=86 a reliable source? I'm sure this is not an official Sport magazine website, because the publication went under years ago (I had a subscription at the time, so I would know). This is used over a dozen times.

This is a holdover from before I got invovled in the article. From my review the SportMag.us biography is actually pretty good, although it is not credentialed in any real way. I'd previously double-sourced any potentially controversial claims relating to the article in the last FAC nomination. As of today, I've double-sourced two remaining claims: the Montreal fan base's enthusiasm for Robinson (double-sourced to the Linge book) and the statistic about Robinson's career stolenbases/slugging percentage (double-sourced to San Francisco Chronicle article).

What makes http://blackfivesblog.com/ reliable? Blogs are often unreliable.

The blog entry is cited for Robinson's pro basketball career with the Los Angeles Red Devils. I've double- (and triple-) sourced to pages from the Rampersad and Tygiel books to substantiate Robinson's career with the Red Devils. I've kept the blog reference, though, since it has some interesting and unique material including venue pictures, old tickets/programs from the Red Devils, etc.. Substantively, the blog-creator/article-author, Claude Johnson, seems to have decent bona fides. His bio is here -- educated Carnegie Mellon and Stanford, a member of several professional research organizations, etc..

A Flickr photo (ref 121) isn't what I would call a good source.

I've kept the picture link but included an additional New York Times cite to substantiate the information about the statue.

~~What makes http://carterbrotherssportsblog.blogspot.com/ reliable? Another blog.~~

I agree on this one -- this is the "I thought it would take another war" quote. I've tried and failed to find a copy of the October 1948 issue of SPORT magazine that the blog references for the quote. I've been hoping someone could confirm. The only independent confirmation I can find is a USAToday blurb here, but this itself is based on another blog, which in turn is based on wikipedia.

Update: I've deleted the Carter Brothers Blog reference and added the SportMag.us bio page as a reference for this quote (which appears to be where the blog got the quote to begin with). The SportMag.us bio page still has questionable reliabilty, so this does not necessarily resolve the ultimate issue. But the citation as it exists now is an improvement, in that the cited source is now from the archive website of the publication that the quote is allegedly from. I've separately e-mailed SportMag to see if they can sell me a copy of the article with the quote in question (which judging from their website seems to be something they do on special request). I'll let you know if I can directly confirm the quote that way. BillTunell (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: I'm not getting any response from SportMag.us, so I'm just removing the "I thought it would take another war" quote from the article. If I can get real confirmation on the quote I'll add it back in at a later time. BillTunell (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Refs 134 and 195 need en dashes for the page ranges, though that's not my primary concern now.~~

None of the footnote page numbers use en-dashes, so I haven't changed this. Is there a WP:MOS provision I'm missing? If so, I'll change all.

Update: just saw WP:DASH, so I've inserted en-dashes in all pp. references instead of hyphens. It would be appreciated if someone could please shoot whomever came up with that policy. BillTunell (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What makes http://courageouscharacterofjr.org/index.html reliable?

Again, a double-source issue. Since the second citation was in combination with the SportMag.us biography, I've triple-sourced.

Update: I've removed the two reference notes to this site in the body of the article (the substance of both claims was statistical, not within the baileywick of the courageouscharacter site), but kept the site in the External Links section (again, for reference to picture galleries). BillTunell (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What makes http://www.baseballhistorian.com/ reliable?

I don't know why it isn't, but I've double-sourced the claims to baseball-reference.com

Ref 191 (TIME 100) should have all caps in TIME removed.

I don't think this is correct. All the sources I see use the title of TIME in allcaps. This is true on the website showing the "TIME 100" list, as well as the masthead in the current print magazines. Accordingly I've changed all lower-caps references to "Time" to allcaps "TIME" instead. If there's a MOS provision on this, let me know.

Wordpress (ref 201) is also low on the reliability scale.

Another double-source issue. This specific citation is there mostly for the pictures.

With so many great books in the references, why would low-quality sources be used? We should be striving to use the best possible sources, and the numerous blogs and similar only bring the article down. No matter how well-written I think it is, it doesn't matter if the works it is based on are unreliable. I won't be avaliable to check for responses until at least Monday, so you should have time to work on these. Please do, because I feel strongly that the article not be promoted unless these are addressed. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again. Let me know what you think of the comments/changes. The upshot of all the above commentary is that, with one exception, each referenced claim in the article is supported by at least one source that you have not questioned on reliabitly grounds. All questionable sources, within the context of the article, are used as backups. BillTunell (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some strikes and comments above. Forgive me for asking, but why are you so adamant about retaining references that have pictures? The external links section includes numerous photo galleries for those who are interested. In fact, I think a few links could easily be removed from there without doing any damage. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My concern is not so much to keep pictures, as it is to look for any potential reason that someone might have originally referenced the material before we make the determination to delete it. Each of the changes you suggest eliminates information that others put in the article (none of the references we're talling about were inserted by me). So I just want to be conservative in eliminating other people's work.

That being said, I think most of your proposed deletions are defensible, and I have made some more recent changes (see above for updates). What I believe remains of our discussion is the following (tell me if I'm missing something), with my current reasons for keeping the material cited. When judging backup citation material (which is almost all of what we're talking about) my general attitude is that deletion almost never helps improve the article, unless there is some defect in the backup citation itself.

SportMag.us biography While this is not bylined to an author, I don’t see any substantive errors in the biography. In fact, I consider it the best internet biography not derived from wikipedia, and the only such one that concentrates much on non-baseball or social issues. It does not appear to derived from any other internet source, nor does its content appear replicable by any easy subset of other links. As such I think it has a unique reliable perspective that at least justifies its existence as a secondary citation. That being said, I’ve eliminated a few of the propositions within the article that cites to the SportMag.us biography (namely the Bill James reference and the Minnie Minoso reference) which are clearly based on a separate third-party source for which the SportMag.us citation would be simply derivative.
BlackFivesBlog This is well-researched and written by blog standards. Unique content, not just in pictures, but contemporary newspaper quotes, player quotes, dates of Robinson’s tenure with the Red Devils, offer from the Harlem Globetrotters, etc.. This is the kind of informational content that none of the books provide.
Flickr pic of statue of Reese and Robinson The fact that this is a flickr site does not make it unreliable for purposes of depicting the statue via a photograph. This happens to be the best photo of the statue I find (there are others on mlb.com and brooklynpaper.com, for example, but of lower quality or cropped). For purposes of confirming the artist, date, medium, etc., the flickr site is just a backup to the NYTimes article that immediately precedes it.
baseballhistorian.com (1950) and baseball historian.com (1951) These cites have unique commentary and stats regarding not only Robinson but the 1950 Dodgers, and the other leading position fielders of 1951. I think that’s useful for putting Robinson’s best two fielding seasons in perspective, while not having to delve into commentary about other players in the article itself.
publicheart.wordpress.com This is similar to the Flickr reference in that the footnote is only there because it has the best pictures availabel of the statue at issue, and the substatnive information about the statue is verifed by other footnotes. I’d like to keep the publicheart.wordpress.com reference because the other, fair-use-claim photograph of the memorial statue in Pasadena is being challenged in this FAC. If the article image is removed then the publicheart.wordpress.com images become especially important. If not, I don’t really care.
The Baseball Almanac citations. These are primary rather than backup citations for two issues: (i) All-Star Game Voting results, (ii) stats form the 1945 Negro League All-Star game. I can't find anything that directly confrims this information, although various sources cite Robinsons's appearance in the Negro League All-Star game, and MLB.com at least confirms the year-to-year All-Star lineups. So this information should be credible from what I can tell, and I cant' find good replacement information. BillTunell (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The External Links section, whcih is now substantially reworked. I've found a treatment at WP:External Links and as a result, eliminated the auction site, the Bettman and Getty image search pages, and a secondary link to the Baseball Hall of Fame site (which I've nevertheless inserted as a backup reference to the "precursor to the civil rights movement" claim above). I've also elevated the two "official" webistes to first on the list, and alphabatized the rest. BillTunell (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Done, and good work! Thanks. Alt text needs to be rewritten to conform to WP:ALT. For example, for File:Jackie_robinson_ucla_track.jpg the alt text is (my italics) "In 1940, Robinson (pictured here in his track uniform) became the first athlete at UCLA to letter in the same year in four sports: baseball, football, basketball and track". But almost none of that text describes the visual appearance of the image. Only the part that I've italicized should be in the alt text; the rest should be omitted (and the alt text rewritten to focus on just what a naive reader can immediately verify by viewing the image). Generally speaking, proper names should not be in the alt text, as a typical reader won't know what these old-time players looked like. See WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, particularly the 3rd example. I tried to get the ball rolling on this by writing what I hope is good alt text for the lead image. Eubulides (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I was not aware of this standard. All alt text has been changed, and some captions revised as a result. BillTunell (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand this comment. Can you please explain? BillTunell (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the top of this page, there is a "toolbox". The first of the links in it says "disambig links". Click on it, and a list of links that need to be redirected to the correct article will appear. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. It caught two issues that are now fixed. BillTunell (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment The External links section is a bit large, can it be trimmed? I don't think we need so many gallery links or biographies. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've found a treatment at WP:External Links and as a result, substantially reworked the section. Details above. BillTunell (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose for non-free content concerns:

File:Robinson paige monarchs.jpg: showing two players, standing to each other, impart no significance (neither is there critical commentary on this scene: "Larry Doby ... and Satchel Paige played for the Cleveland Indians," or Robinson's stint at the Monarchs are not critical statements nor do they require illustration).
File:Jackie robinson memorial pasadena.jpeg: "... a $325,000 bronze sculpture ... depicting oversized nine-foot busts of Robinson and his brother Mack ..." is perfectly illustrated with text alone (especially when Robinson's head, in various angles, is displayed prominently throughout the article), neither does it have enough significance (thoroughly lacking in critical commentary) to warrant its inclusion.

I congratulate Bill for finding the non-copyrighted images of Robinson in his athetlete and military days, but non-free content issues from previous FACs still remain. Jappalang (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I disagree and would like to keep the images, but your point of view is welcome.

I obviously was over-optimistic about anticipated suggestions to the article's text, as opposed to images. But given the above changes to the text, I still anticipate that the image issue will end up being the only controversial element of this FAC review. If the inclusion of one or both of the above images is the only barrier to FAC status, then I'd like the reviewing adminsitrator to confirm that fact, if at all possible. At least then we'll have resolution. BillTunell (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:32, 21 July 2009 [49].

International Space Station[edit]

Nominator(s): Colds7ream (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to put this article forward for consideration for a third time, if there are no objections. :-) I feel that this article discusses a Vital topic in a very comprehensive and accurate way, and meets the Featured Article Criteria. Since the last FAC, a number of editors have been doing a lot of work on the article, notably with referencing, copyedit and addition of a few extra sections. The general organisation of the article has also been improved. As a result, I think that all the points raised regarding this article in the past have been dealt with, and that the ISS is ready for Featured Article status. Colds7ream (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments

For such a long article, the lead could be somewhat longer.
In the Pressurized modules section, I don't see the need for the station view images; they are too small to be useful. The isolated view is good. Also, don't use the same image twice for Zarya.
- I don't like the scattered use of sentence fragments among complete sentences in the descriptions.
The altitude control section says "ISS station keeping." Isn't that redundant? And there should be a hypen there.

"Station keeping" is the term for keeping something stationary in its orbit (Orbital station-keeping), so there is no redundancy. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made many copyedits myself, and I see no further problems. Reywas92 ^Talk 16:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having just done a bit of work, I think I've fixed points 4 and 3a, however wrt point 2, I've opened a separate discussion on the talk page, which you can see here. As for the lead, I think general consensus is that it's long enough as is - we don't really want a great long essay as the intro? Colds7ream (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments -
What makes the following reliable sources?
~~Current ref 18 is just a bare url. Needs to be formatted with title, author, publisher and last access date at the least.~~
~~Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references, I noted ESA, JAXA, but there may be others.~~
~~Current ref 49 (Docking compartment..) is lacking a publisher.~~ Also, what makes this a reliable source?
~~Current ref 50 (Robert Z. Pearlman..), the publisher is space.com, not collectSpace.~~
~~Decide if you want the authors in the references listed first name first or last name first, right now you have both which is inconsistent.~~
~~Current ref 64 (Ad Astra...) is lacking a publisher.~~ Also what makes this a reliable source?
~~Current ref 65 (Propulsion system..) is lacking a publisher~~
~~Current ref 73 (Space Station Observation..) is lacking a publisher.~~ Also what makes this a reliable source?
Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using ((cite news)), use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
~~Double check that all websites have last access dates. I noted that current ref 101 is lacking one (Chris Bergin..) as is 103 (Space Operations MIssion ..) but there may be others.~~
~~Current ref 108 (Space Adventures..) is lacking a publisher.~~

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I've run though the article and, I think, unified the author style and given everything a publisher & last accessed date (obviously, if I've missed any, please don't hesitate to let me know). However, insofar as abbreviations go, I'd hesitate to say that ESA and JAXA are 'lesser-known', and they are listed in their full form in the article anyway. Finally, with reference to source reliability, what I'd say is what makes them unreliable? For instance, Heavens-Above can have its reliability tested physically, a rare thing on the internet, simply by printing off pass data for the ISS then heading outside at the listed time and looking in the specified ditrection to see the orange star that is the ISS pass across the horizon - I've done this several times, and it's always correct. Colds7ream (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. As for the ESA and JAXA being well known, they won't be to anyone not familiar with the subject matter. --Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, for a start, [50] is hosted by the University of Maryland, and, as I've said, Heavens-Above.com can be tested physically. Can I also ask where there are any other newspapers needing italics, as I thought I'd got them? Colds7ream (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ON the newspapers, I'm in a hurry to get some other stuff done, so didn't have a chance to make sure they were all taken care of, that's all. I should be back later to double check it. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Details for the websites:

AstronomyExpert - About Us
SpaceWeather - weather data is via the NOAA, and the website is written by Dr. Tony Phillips, a member of the Science@NASA team: [51]
The Space Review - Submission Guidelines
SpaceRef selects its writers dependent upon prior experience in the field: Guest Writer Application.
RussianSpaceWeb - The author has been published in various aerospace magazines: About the Author.
ParabolicArc - About the Author
I have removed the absolute astronomy source and replaced it with a Boeing one. Colds7ream (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll leave these others out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Couple of new things:

Is it space.com (Imaginova Corp) or Space.com? Pick one (I suggest the latter since you seem to use it more often. )

What makes http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/ a reliable source? (Used in current ref 36 (Chris Bergin..) which lacks a publisher)

Current ref 50 (Robert Pearlman..) lacks a last access date.

What makes http://www.astronautix.com/index.html a reliable source?

That's all I saw. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NASASpaceflight.com is reliable as the entire site is populated by NASA engineers and contractors, and bases its articles directly on NASA source documents, which can be seen in their L2 section.
Encyclopedia Astronautica is a fairly well-known and well-regarded website by those with an interest in spaceflight.
I've dealt with the Space.com problem and refs 36 & 50. Colds7ream (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support The lead could be longer, but overall this point is not enough to hold it back IMO. Very informative, and it leads with a Featured Picture. Some of the other photos may be FP quality, as they are interesting and educational. A great article, overall. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - A lot of work has gone into this, and I think it is more than ready for FA status. --G W… 14:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will the previous two supporters please address the concerns about reliable sources? Leading with a featured picture, when "the lead could be longer" or "a lot of work" going into an article don't provide good reasoning for support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Oppose votes are much easier to explain than support votes." I read the article, reviewed the sources, checked the images. I found nothing, in my opinion, that would give me a reason to oppose this article. Therefore, I support it. I hope that is reason enough because I don't know what else to say about it. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 15:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WRT the previous comments, if you support on a narrow basis, please specify it, so the scope of the support is clear to everyone. Putting work into a nomination isn't a reason that it should be promoted. Tony (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was referring to work going to the article. As for specific rationale, I agree with ErgoSum's assessment above. --G W… 11:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose unless the writing is significantly improved. 1a; here are random examples from the lead alone.

"As of 2009, the ISS is the largest artificial satellite in Earth orbit, larger than any previous space station." I had to read this twice to work out how the past/present and the artificial satellite / space station map onto each other. I'm still unsure.

Done. Colds7ream (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The second para is a mess of blue. Do readers really derive relevant understanding by hitting "United States" or "Japan", when the title of their space agencies are linked as well? And "China" ... the name boggles my mind. Why a link? It's not even to a specific part of the China article (or is there an article on Chinese space science?). Skilled linking, please.

Done. Colds7ream (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Space station" linked again in the lead. "Naked eye" is very borderline as to whether most English-speakers above the age of seven don't already know what it means. "Earth" linked on third, not first appearance; and isn't that article too general to link? "mi" (miles) linked?

Done. No, I don't think the Earth article is too general to link - the body the station orbits is the planet Earth, and if we were dealing, with, say, one of the Viking Orbiters, we'd link Mars. Miles are linked, yes. As opposed to nautical miles. Colds7ream (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would it make sense for nautical miles to be used in this context? See WP:OVERLINK on linking common terms, including units of measurement. Agree with Tony that "naked eye" is borderline linking material. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove "all" and "it"; isn't "becoming the first crew member from another space agency" redundant? And it raises the question of "programmes" vs. "agencies".

Done. Colds7ream (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Prior to"—personal preference only: "Before".
" The crew of Expedition 20 is currently aboard."—When is "currently"? Please see MoSNUM on chronological vagueness, is it. Tony (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Currently as in 'at this moment' - that statement is updated regularly as expeditions change, and any implementation featuring the as of template doesn't read anywhere near as well. Of course, if you have a solution to that, feel free to fix it. As for any other problems, please specify what they are - the number of prose reviews we've had is ridiculous, and it's probably getting to the point where points raised in them are in direct opposition to one another. Colds7ream (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is lots of "currently". It's a problem. I've just copy-edited a small portion and found many little things to improve. Tony (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem there is the ongoing nature of station operations - a lot changes fairly regularly, and we have to keep the article updated well, but a lot of statements are date-dependant. As for the other problems, fair enough, but please tell us what they are, so we can fix them! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was wondering when this was going to pop up... :-) Righto, I'll get on it. Colds7ream (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How's that looking? Colds7ream (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for starting on this. A few comments:

The first alt text doesn't tell a visually impaired reader what the ISS looks like. Could you please add a description there? Pretend the reader simply can't see the image, and you're trying to briefly tell them what it looks like. Later images don't need that level of detail for the ISS itself (you can assume the visually impaired reader has heard the 1st alt text) but as things stand a blind reader right now won't have a clue about its appearance.
The exploded view's alt text doesn't contain any info on what it looks like; some should be present. You needn't explain every little detail (the text is mostly unreadable, for example), just the overall appearance. Ideally you'll give the visually impaired reader the same level of insight into the ISS's structure as a sighted reader would gain by a second or two's glance; due to space constraints you won't be able to achieve that goal but that's the direction to aim for anyway.
The alt text for the two flames describes mechanism. It should describe only appearance. Something like "Side by side images of a candle flame (left) and a glowing translucent blue hemisphere of flame (right)".
Image:ISS on 20 August 2001.jpg has alt text that just repeats part of the caption and gives info that isn't obvious from appearance. It should describe just appearance and give useful info.
File:ISS 26.07.07.jpg has alt text with a phrase "The ISS, seen as" that should be removed. It's not clear from the image itself that this is the ISS. "Seen as" is redundant: alt text is about what is seen.
Most of the images (including the .ogg and the table of modules) lack alt text so I assume this is a work in progress. Thanks again for starting on this.

Eubulides (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I've had a go at sorting some of these issues - is that better? Colds7ream (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Much better, thanks. The two images you wrote up are fine. More, please! Eubulides (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll continue to do so in a week's time - I'm off to RAF Lossiemouth for a week, and will be without a web connection for a while. Please don't fail the FAC in the meantime! Colds7ream (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose on several niggling and one major image issue:

File:ISS March 2009.jpg: point the source to the page the image is hosted on, not directly to the image itself.
File:ISS configuration 2009-03 en.svg: as above
File:Harmony Relocation.jpg: as above
File:Iss Node 3.JPG: as above
File:Space Fire.jpg: as above
File:ISS altitude.gif: as above; this image should also be transcluded to a PNG per WP:IUP
File:Cycle.gif: this image should be transcluded to a JPG per WP:IUP; I also advise to remove the logo to eliminate the need for a ((insignia)) clause to be added (restricting its legal use for reusers).
File:ISS Zvezda module-small.jpg: Wikipedia is not a valid source.
File:ISS Hardware Allocation.png: what is the source for those figures?
File:ISS Logo.svg: are any of these flags copyrighted?
File:Atlantis Docked to Mir.jpg: I cannot fathom how this is PD "because it was created by NASA." It was taken by the Mir crew, not NASA... are Russian cosmonauts under NASA employment?

Awaiting feedback (willing to wait for Colds7ream's return). Jappalang (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:57, 20 July 2009 [52].

Magdalena Neuner[edit]

Nominator(s): EnemyOfTheState_|talk 18:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. The article had a peer review here. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 18:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment – All caps in the references should be removed. I want to take a close look at the prose later, but will hold off for now. One thing I noticed during a brief scan was that the season link for 2005–06 goes to 2006–07 instead. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed the references and the incorrect link. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 01:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Took me longer to come back here than I wanted, but time for the promised prose review.

"She started biathlon when she was nine years old and ~~she~~ won five junior world championship titles from 2004 to 2006." The subject of the sentence has already been made clear, so the struck word adds nothing. There are numerous other examples of this in the article.
"As of March 2009, Neuner has won 14 World Cup races and ~~she has~~ achieved 22 podium finishes."
"to become a member in the government-funded Customs-Ski-Team." "in" → "of"? Of course, I dont know which word is commonly used in Germany.
Early life: "who are both aspiring biathletes as well and they participate in junior competitions." Remove "they", as it makes the sentence awkward.
"She started alpine skiing when she was four years old and ~~she~~ later tried various other winter sports at her hometown ski club SC Wallgau."
"One of her team mates is alpine ski world champion Maria Riesch." Should "ski" be "skiing"?
Career: "she claimed two silver medals (pursuit and relay), and ~~she~~ repeated her win in the sprint discilpine."
2005–06: "she was fourth in the sprint and ~~she~~ came in ninth in the mass start race."
2006–07: "her World Cup wins four through seven." I didn't think this read well and would rather see something along the lines of "giving her seven career World Cup wins." Giants2008 (17-14) 15:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Fixed the issues above. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 16:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"She ended her first complete season fourth in the Overall Biathlon World Cup and ~~she~~ finished second in the pursuit discipline." Similar to a few of the above comments.
2007–08 season: "Neuner decided to again compete at Junior/Youth World Championships". Add "the" in the middle?
Spell out the International Biathlon Union.
"She again won the Biathlon Award for Female Athlete of the Year, and ~~she~~ was voted the best biathlete...".
"She also received her second Goldener Ski of the DSV, and ~~she~~ came in third".
"She beat team mate Kati Wilhelm by 0.2 seconds in the Ruhpolding sprint race and ~~she~~ also won...". That should be enough struck shes to get the point across. Please audit for this throughout.
"She finishing eighth in the sprint...". "finishing" → "finished".
"she came in seventh in mass start race." Again, is "the" needed in the middle? Unsure on this because I'm unfamiliar with what phrasing is used for such events.
Skiing: "today" may be seen as too time-sensitive.
Shooting: Remove space in "per cent"? Or do they use this in Europe? Also remove spaces in some percentages (the ones inside parentheses).
- "Per cent" is correct British English spelling.
Record: "she again claim three gold medals". "claim" → "claimed".
Captions that are full sentences should have periods at the end.

Unfortunately, I'm inclined to oppose due to the large amount of prose tightening that is required here. The excessive number of "shes" is the most serious issue, but the entire text could use some attention. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried to address the issues. I guess the main problem is the "and she" construct when "she" is already used earlier in the sentence. I removed all of them except in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the '2008–09 season' section and in the last sentence of the 'skiing' section; in both cases, I don't think the "she" can be removed. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 16:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not evaluate the non-English sources, which make up a good chunk of the references for this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose for now on 1a and 1c grounds. I concur with Giants2008 that the prose needs work. It's dull, and is mostly a list of statistics in narrative form. Lots of repetition (quickly proved, quickly emerged, etc.) ungainly phrases like "who are both aspiring biathletes as well and participate in junior competitions", "repeated her win", "did not start in the individual race in order to prepare", etc. Heavy reliance on primary sources (statistics sites) is worrying; the sparse information collected from secondary sources is unverifiable. The entire article reads like a hagiography; there is no critical discussion at all. --Laser brain (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. I don't believe I can address the objections here; I suppose the nomination can be closed. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 17:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:31, 14 July 2009 [53].

The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest[edit]

Nominator(s): ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 20:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess the last nomination was closed on July 6 because of apparent non-activity. Restarting and re-posting the last aspects to be discussed:

4 - Writer's bible. If the website's the only issue, it could be removed from the citation, with the publisher being Hanna-Barbera. If the authenticity in question, Lance Falk can vouch, and I even sent the link to Peter Lawrence, who hadn't kept the original draft after leaving Turner. It was "leaked" in the form of photocopies on Ebay, and sometimes still pops up as an auction. A lot of quotes and the creative sections hinge on it, so I'll take pains to prove its authenticity if needed.
~~Winnie Lim's FAQ~~ - I've removed it from the article, but I've left the statement it affirmed; "Time Warner's acquisition of Turner negated the separate series idea, leading to the episodes' release as the second season of Real Adventures." This was verified by Larry Houston in that FAQ and Lance Falk in his own writings, and the revised writer's bible is entitled The New Jonny Quest, so I'm hoping we can get away without a fact tag for this statement.
38 - Francois Lord's comments on QuestWorld, mostly covering the process at Buzz F/X. These offer an interesting look into the history of the project and why QuestWorld was panned (and also why Buzz F/X went into bankruptcy), but if they absolutely had to go, the article could still stand without his notes. He is able to be reached through his personal website and Gmail in case it's relevant. Sadly, it probably would fail the self-publishing self test since he's making claims about third parties (Buzz F/X).
71 - Lance Falk's Semi-FAQ. I was able to cut it down to two uses: "Falk defended his portrayal as giving her realistic, human fears, such as claustrophobia." "Falk felt that virtual reality paradoxically undermined the show's "strong connection to reality", and suggested that after so many dangerous incidents Dr. Quest would have simply turned the system off." This is self-published material on the self, and so it may pass the five stipulations at WP:V.
128 - Peter Lawrence e-mail defending Race Bannon's accent. Based on WP:V, this may pass the five self-published stipulations, assuming #2 doesn't cover fictional characters and that the authenticity is not in doubt. If you whois PL's old site http://gealepeterlawrence.com/ at Godaddy, you can find his e-mail, which is how I did it when I originally contacted him about the show in 2007. I can also provide an image of the e-mail and its header information; they're still in my e-mail's inbox. This cite also now doubles as helping to prove that there was fan criticism over the accents; that assertion's cite was lost with Lance Falk's semi-FAQ. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 20:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Just a note, but it's usually expected that nominators will take a couple weeks to sort the issues out before resubmitting to FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issues were being sorted out in real-time; I was away from the site for five or six days attending to real life matters. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 22:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:FACR #3. I added alt text for the lead image to help get started, but the remaining images still need it. Could you please add it? Please see WP:ALT for more. Eubulides (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, except for the two photographs in the marketing section which will probably be replaced due to copyright paranoia. I'll be sure to give the replacement alt text when it's up. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 05:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose—1a. Here are random issues at the top; the whole text needs work.

Why is "television series" linked? Is that a concept English-speakers struggle with? Same for "animated" (which is also linked in the infobox a few cm away); then you leave the two links in the middle, more exposed (which is desirable). The link "3D"—readers will ignore it because they know the term; yet it goes somewhere more specific. Any way of piping it that will make it more functional? "3D cyberspace domain"? Why are "English" and "USA" linked in the infobox?
Why the "defunct" website link?
Why is "Turner Entertainment" linked in the second instead of the first sentence of the first section? Why is it linked so soon after the link to it in the lead?
"Led by director Dick Sebast, the first Real Adventures development team was briefly dismissed in favor of writer Peter Lawrence"—briefly ... it was a text message, was it?
Tense and mood issues: "She previously appeared in the 1986 The New Adventures of Jonny Quest episodes as a general's daughter, and would debut in the telefilms as Race's daughter by Jezebel Jade." Perhaps "had appeared"; the conditional-as-future "would" is unsatisfactory here, and does this refer to some time between 1986 and 1993. I'm confused.
"also researched"—you haven't previously mentioned their research, so why "also"?
does one "inspire" nightmares? Tony (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not inclined to read further unless the writing is significantly improved. Tony (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC) PS I agree with dabomb87: this needs time out for improvement before resubmission. This is not an article-improvement service. Tony (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clearly, you have too much faith in the peer review system, which has never gotten attention to any of my articles. I can't even find relevant image policy for the public domain images I tried to make, which have now been flagged, and it seems people are even flagging toy images as copyvio which will defeat an image of an action figure that I had in backup. I must ask to be excused for not realizing that a 4-5 day absence is strictly punished these days in WP:FAC. Could you please direct it some place it'll receive attention from other editors at? I'm trying to get it passed with enough time for placement on TFA for August 26th, its 13th anniversary, and I'll need all the points I can get if I'm to overcome the pop-culture article hatred going on over at the request page. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 04:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm putting this in Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 09:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support: I have to say, amazing work. Very rare to find TV series article of this caliber. I've been told fan sites are not considered against WP:V, but in the previous nomination you gave several reasonable reasons why it's valid, so I'll let that slide. There's a lot of fairuse images - I can't say I understand why the Marketing ones are considered it, but still, removals would be best, not several, as they all seem important, but a few to lower the fair use count. Anyways, great work. The Flash ^{talk} 03:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I was told at the village pump that even toys are derivative works, so I'm going to Plan C and asking one of the writers for a self-pic that he can release to the public domain. Until then, the other ones have been removed. I really wouldn't care about another image in the article, but I'd really like one for TFA, if only as a protest against the WP:JIMBOing of copyrighted images on the main page (which sort of ceremonially punishes editors of copyrighted-topic articles). ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 09:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, well that's odd. Is it possible to find one on Flickr? It might me easier. The Flash ^{talk} 15:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose - the prose is not FA quality and this is not helped by the blatant use of jargon throughout the article. Here are some examples of poor writing.

which brought him into conflict with ethically-differing villains - what on earth does "ethically-differing" mean?

The villains' ethics differed from Dr. Quest's.

In what way? Graham Colm ^Talk 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Each team produced twenty-six episodes for fifty-two overall - this doesn't make sense.

Two teams produced 26 episodes, making 52 for the entire series. Not that hard.

How about "half of the"? Graham Colm ^Talk 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

while later writers invoked more liberal science fiction and paranormal plots - "invoked"?

Yes, they relied and called upon more liberal plot ideas and conventions for their stories.

Why not say "insisted on"? Graham Colm ^Talk 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

and no other animated series featured realistic youth going on life-like adventures at the time. - "youth" is ugly.

This is nitpicking. Youth sounds much more professional than "kids".

Who suggested "kids"? Not me. How about "young people realising life–like adventures"? Graham Colm ^Talk 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the push is jargon.
addressing criticisms of the classic series - I think "in light of" would be better.

The criticisms occurred in the 60s, for the 60s series. TRAJQ was addressing those criticisms, which stuck with the franchise, so I feel this is correct.

I still think " in light of" is better. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turner pushed is more jargon, as is Japanese and Korean animators drew traditional cel sequences and colored. - "colored what?
A team in Paris specialized in computer expertise - is meaningless tautology.

Quoting the source.

The source is poorly written. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Teaser is jargon.

I'd wager that most people are familiar with the term "teaser" thanks to teasers and trailers for upcoming movies. Anyone who's gone to download a teaser has no doubt encountered the term.

The word is not fully accepted or understood yet in this context. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QuestWorld was designed as an extension of contemporary technology ??

Take current technology, and imagine futuristic applications and developments tied to it. Like a 4 cylinder engine going to a 14 cylinder engine.

Given that you have to explain this expression here, illustrates my point. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amateur employees struggled with lighting and syncing jerky motion capture -more jargon, and ugly too.

Really, motion capture is jargon? They're capturing the motion of the people moving.

"syncing" = "synchronising" ? Graham Colm ^Talk 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turner leveraged the series in forty countries and fourteen languages to crack international markets. - "to crack" is jargon.

Perhaps, but I thought it added variety to the article. I don't want to bore people to death.

It does not add variety—it is lazy prose. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jane Rosenthal optioned the rights for the live action film - "optioned" is jargon.

Again, I'm not in the animation business, but through news-reading and life experiences, I've come to know what it means.

I don't. Graham Colm ^Talk

In my view, the whole article needs a thorough copy-edit, which I do not think can be done in a reasonable time. Graham Colm ^Talk 19:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia, and my same writing style has been passed in other featured articles. I think you're underestimating the reading level of this encyclopedia audience. I also appreciate your vote of confidence. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 22:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey please, your other FAs are not relevant here; this article is the FAC, and past form does not count. On the contrary, I do not underestimate our readership, which expects a higher standard of writing than this in our FAs. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chrono Trigger was TFA recently, and I keep all my articles up to current standard. I'm just a little amused that you took the time to find criticisms in every part of the article, but are quick to dismissively write off the nomination instead of help. I don't criticize Tony for this since he's a busy guy and only takes a section of the article as representative of the whole, but if you're willing to critique the entire thing, you might as well fix it and help out. I've been totally frustrated in getting help copyediting this one. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 23:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not shoot the messenger. I am just as busy as Tony in real life, very busy in fact. And, FAC reviewers are not expected or obliged to fix articles. Sorry. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to say, reading your comments Graham, a lot of them are nit-picking and don't make sense; things like optioning and syncing aren't difficult words to understand. And neither is teaser, especially if it were to be linked. There have to be limits on how dumbed down FA prose has to be, right? Skinny87 (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not suggesting it should be dumbed down, I would like it to be "well-written: its prose engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". I can live with some of the jargon, but I had to open another tab find out what "retcon" means. Let's see what other have to say. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Damn, it really is a delicate balance, isn't it? Well, all right. If this doesn't make FA, I'm going to take it on a world tour peer review circuit until I can finally get some help. By the way, Graham or any others, how many fair use images do you think this article should use, given it's 88kb? User:Fasach Nua is on a crusade with his overuse tag. It's down to the title card + 3 images, and I'd rather not remove any others given how they illustrate the characters and the Questworld concept, which is an integral part of the show's history and critical reception. I'm not even sure FN is a legitimate user, since they keep their user and talk page wiped. It'd just get into a revert war if I tried to remove the tag right now, so can anyone comment? ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 18:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(un) I don't know anything about US fair use law sorry. But going back to my comments above, I have looked into the articles history and I found this comment from Tony at this article's first FAC nearly two years ago: There's a tendency to use slightly too informal language for an encyclopedic register, when you're translating from the sources. Here's an example: "Hanna-Barbera axed Lawrence and Takashi, hiring John Eng and Cos Anzilotti to finish the first twenty-six episodes.[18][2][17] Turner pushed for ...". "Axed" and "pushed for".[54] This exact sentence is still in the article. At the restart of the nomination he makes this point: Each team produced twenty-six episodes for fifty-two overall" plus other hard-to-read numbers—MOS says normally digits for numbers over nine. Any reason to spell these out?[55]. He has also pointed out somewhere that there shouldn't be a hyphen in "ethically-differing". This gives me the impression that despite pleas for a peer-review, good advice has been ignored. Graham Colm ^Talk 19:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I checked the last FAC archive, but didn't go back in the history for the one predating it, since I thought those had been covered by the participating reviewers in my absence (as when SandyGeorgia fixed the references, etc.). Also, I don't think Wikipedia is so Amerocentric as to limit discussions of fair use images to the arena of US law. Can anyone else comment? ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 19:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Putting to one side the problem with the images for a moment, I would have checked that all previous criticisms had been addressed. They were not, and this convinces me that this FAC is poorly prepared. I do not like opposing FA candidates, and I am pleased to see articles that I have reviewed promoted. I am thinking right now that you do not like me for having opposed the promotion of this article—but this is nothing personal. I admire your commitment to WP, but I wish more of an attempt to reach a consensus could be made. I notice that not many edits have been made to the article in response to comments. I admire editors who stand their ground when they know that they are right, but I admire more those editors who concede that consensus is paramount. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not at all; I haven't edited in light of your comments and Tony's yet because I'm waiting to see if any other copyeditors will take up the reins. I removed 3 images, several references, and a few comments in response to other concerns in archive2 (which was last week; the closure / reboot was a mishap). If you want the truth, I didn't check the history of archive1 because I was personally embarrassed at getting mad at SandyGeorgia, and didn't want to read through that again. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 21:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Double post: okay, it looks like User:Fasach Nua has been blocked in the past for violating the 3R rule and other questionable actions. I'm going to restore the digital animation painting image, bringing the fair use image count back to five. If no copyeditors at the guild stop by before the FAC terminates, then I'll just try to have it peer reviewed and wait until 2-3 other editors look at it, then resubmit. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 21:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I looked earlier this evening at User:Fasach Nua's chequered past—blanking is futile. Please, do not be embarrassed with regard to past experiences, look at the mess I made of this: [56]. I am tempted to offer help with the CE required, but I just don't have the time. I am trying to think who can help—perhaps User:Mailer diablo might? Graham Colm ^Talk 22:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

strong oppose - This is not plausible as a featured article, massive copyright abuse, failure to meeet WP:NFCC hence fails FAC #4 Fasach Nua (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose, fails criteria 3 and 4 due to the images. Also, per GrahamColm, the quality of writing needs work. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:31, 14 July 2009 [57].

"Weird Al" Yankovic (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I've worked on it significantly since its GA-promotion and peer-review, and can't think of anything else to improve. I could soundly be wrong, but this is my first attempt at this process, so please be kind. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose. Seems thin and has some problems.

The lead is too short for an FA. "... garnered a lukewarm reception by critics and reviewers" is redundant. What was its commercial reaction? What was the most famous song from the album? What effect did this album have on Yankovic's career?

What is the "ace rock guitarist" description of Derringer about? How much influence did he really have – "Rock and Roll, Hoochie Koo" was already a decade before.

If "Promotion" and "Album cover" are this short, they don't need to be separate sections. Or expand them - what kind of promotion did the record company do? And the "Production" overall section name doesn't cover these activities; maybe "History"?

Transcribing all caps ("AN EVENING OF DEMENTIA WITH DR. DEMENTO IN PERSON PLUS 'WEIRD AL' YANKOVIC") is generally not a good idea.

Any more specific month or date when it was released in 1983?

"in subsequent albums it's only used where deemed appropriate or wholly inappropriate" is a good line.

In Track listing, the link to "I Love Rock 'n' Roll" should be repeated, rather than force to reader to go back up and hunt for it.

Other reviews? Rolling Stone? Newspapers? This Google News Archive search doesn't show much; perhaps you could use it to indicate that newspaper reviewers completely ignored it.

Try to avoid repeating the same footnote over and over in the Personnel section.

How did/does Yankovic feel about this album? How does Derringer feel about it?

How did the satirized artists feel about this album, then (if they ever heard it) or later?

The lead's "and satirizes American culture and experiences of the same time period" isn't really explored in the article body. What is Yankovic's outlook on American society as expressed in this album?

Overall, as I said, the article seems a bit thin for FA status. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thinness was one of my chief concerns for the article, despite having searched for any and all available sourcing since my initial reconstitution of the article in October 2008. The biggest problem with searching for sources is the album's eponymous nature, all searches for "Weird Al" Yankovic tend to provide me with a large amount of results for information relating to this particular article.

Yes, searching is hard in cases like this, I've had the same problem with title songs of albums and the like. But that's what we get paid the big bucks for ;-)

It's my understanding that the lede is supposed to summarize the content of the article and its contents, I can't put information about "commercial reaction", "most famous song", or "career" effects unless they're already brought about in the body of the article, right? For the information that is in the article's body, does the lede not summarize well? How so?

If there's so little in the article that the lead has to be this short, that's a symptom that the article isn't really FA material, in my view.

The quoted description of Mr. Derringer was simply for clarification purposes. The source described him as such, and since I can't assume any reader to know who he is, I thought the descriptor applicable. Do you think it's putting any undue weight on ... something? When you ask about his influence, do you mean the influence as described in the article ("music indistry prestige"), or something else?

There's no footnote on that sentence, so I can't tell what the source is or who is saying it. Most people don't exactly think "Rick Derringer" when they're thinking of rock guitar gods! He is nowhere to be found on Rolling Stone's 100 greatest guitarists of all time list, for example.

I tried to combine the two sections, but I couldn't think of any header or descriptor that would make sense for these two unrelated subjects to be under. Again, I couldn't find any information about the production company's promotion efforts, I would be thrilled to include them as the section is short.
"An Evening of Dementia with Dr. Demento in Person Plus 'Weird Al' Yankovic"? I wasn't sure how to properly de-CAPIFY something w/o potentially changing any inferences or meanings, and neither the GA or PR processes had any input on this in particular.

What you propose here looks good.

I can provide a reliable source that the contract specified an April 1983 release date, but not that it was actually released in that month.
Thanks. :^)
Sure, easy peasey. I tend to lean moreso in the direction of underlinking to prevent overlinking. No biggie.
You came to the same realization that I did: that either there wasn't much in the way of reviews, or we just can't find them. The problem with noting their absence, is that doing so draws specific note to that fact without any sourcing to back up that it's pertinent; you know what I mean?
I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean I shouldn't use the same citation multiple times? Can you clarify, please?

Just put one footnote at the end, something like that.

/sigh No sources available/found.
Again, no information available or found.
The lede's description of cultural and experiential satire is just a condensed description of the individual songs' subjects. They all describe their subject matter and manner of parody or satire; I was just reflecting this in the lede. I have no sources on Yankovic general worldview on the subject matter, and didn't mean to infer such. I don't read it that way, but if anybody else does, how would you recommend I repair that?

I'm very aware of its thinness, but can/will that fact alone deter or derail this article's FA chances? Perhaps it fails in this instance, if there are little-to-no easy (or even moderately difficult) sources to be had, would it not be eligible for nomination again? If it were, how long should one wait before doing so? I worry of having to prove a negative. What are your thoughts on that matter? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other views may vary, but I feel that this article doesn't have enough heft, and may well never have enough heft, to be FA. If you know some of the history of GA, it was created in part to give a goal for articles that would never be suitable for FA, and the first sentence of WP:GA still conveys some of this idea, although many editors now just see GA as a preliminary stop on the way to FA. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ouch; I'm going to reply to your points here, if you don't mind.

Regarding the Rick Derringer quote; the citation for the entire paragraph contains the same for the quote. As for Mr. Derringer's actual qualifications or "ace" status, I'd never heard of him before or after reading about his participation herein, so I'm certainly not qualified to comment. That being said, Barret Hansen, my source, described him as such and I think its use warrants inclusion as Mr. Hansen specifically made use of it. Would you prefer a different, un-quoted descriptor? Do you have any preference or suggestion?

Liner notes aren't the world's most objective source for this kind of assessment. I'd just give a short, neutral description of Derringer's work to that point. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I implemented by de-CAPITALIZED version of the quotation as you suggested. ([58])
I still don't understand what you mean about my footnotes. The article is using twenty-five separate citations, ten of which are used multiple times by virtue of duplicating the reference name in my -- WAIT. I'm sorry, I misread your initial comment; you specifically referred to the "Personnel" section, and I missed that. Okay then, my question now is how to indicate that nine of the ten people come from one source, while the tenth comes from a separate? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say at the top of the section "As listed in the album notes:" and then cite what the album itself says, using template ((Cite album-notes)) or the equivalent. Online sources like this that you are using are notoriously unreliable when it comes to getting the credits right, I've seen many mistakes compared to what the actual albums say. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose. Prose needs polishing; choppy; slender.

Two pet peeves: Why is "American" linked in the first sentence? Is it an arcane term that English-speakers struggle with? Can you pipe "Compact Disc" to "compact disc", please?
When there's an "of" to the right, put a "the" to the left. This is a saying I came up with for non-native speakers, and it solves a lot of "the" issues. "the pop and rock music of the late 1970s. However, you don't want "the" for the "culture and experiences of": let me work on that one (it's eluding me at the moment).
"garnered a lukewarm reception by critics and reviewers"—too fruity, "garnered" ... go plain: plain is elegant, uniquely in English as far as I can tell. "received ... from critics and reviewers".
"the perfect producer"—it's just a style thing ... p p. What about "ideal producer"?
"Derringer used his music industry prestige and convinced Cherokee Studios to record an album's worth of Yankovic's songs gratis, to be paid when the album sold." First, "to be paid for"; second, sold its first copy? Consider "to be paid for from sales revenue"?
Quotation in box: two sets of ellipsis dots are bounded by square brackets; one is not. This means that one is in the original?
Choppy paragraphing in "Critical reception". Choppy subsections in a few places.
A bit listy. Rather slender. Tony (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll bite on the former ([59]), but the latter is a proper noun as far as I can tell, and should be capitalized. Ergo, why else would the article be located there?
I ... think I'll let you think on that for a bit. :^)
Meh, okay. No biggie. ([60])
It's not quoted specifically, but "perfect" is the word used in my source, and "ideal" != "perfect". Does that make sense? Do you have any input on that?
I don't like "paid for" because it says to my mind an exchange of goods, whereas Cherokee Studios was providing services to the artist and producer. For example, "I gave you a pork chop, to be paid for later" works, but "I vacuumed your house, to be paid for when you have the money" doesn't. That being said, I'm fine with generalizing to "sales revenue". ([61])
Yes, exactly; the quoted ellipsis was a "disgusted pause" (if you will).
As to the "critical reception" section specifically, how would you recommend formatting it? As to the choppy sub-sections, as I said above, I tried to come up with a way to combine them, but when I did, they read as inappropriately related and the move from one to the other was rather more jarring than the short, choppy sectioning. Do you have any specific input or suggestions?
I think it seems listy because the track listing consists of more of the article than I would prefer. Unfortunately, as I said above, I've simply unable to come up with more content and sources than I have currently in the article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- There's only the one: ballast, and as its part of a quotation, I don't know the author's specific intent for meaning. Should I remove the link altogether, then? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Use a wiktionary link if possible. Generally though, we should be modifying quotations as little as possible (reduce links). Dabomb87 (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:08, 11 July 2009 [62].

Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge[edit]

Nominator(s): Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets FA criteria. I considered waiting until I had a screen capture device, but the two pics should be sufficient to describe the gameplay. Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose the prose is not up to 1a standard; it requires a good deal of auditing for extraneous phrasing and just plain poor grammar. I'm not sure that File:CS HR Zeppelin.jpg's rationale meets WP:NFCC. There's also some rather strange layout choices (putting development before plot, separating the soundtrack from the rest of development and putting it after marketing tie-ins.) I would suggest withdrawing and finding some copyeditors to work on it. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've restructured the article and hopefully resolved any objections to the second screengrab. Can you give me any examples of this bad phrasing and grammar? --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose I agree, the prose is poor. This interesting contribution suffers from redundancy and bad grammar. I have offered some pointers here [63]. This nomination is premature, sorry, I suggest you find a good copy-editor who is also a gamer. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: On its own, the prose isn't bad enough to warrant a withdrawal. Prose can be fixed quickly. However, I noticed a lack of exrensive referencing in many sections, particularly Gameplay. That, the use of bulleted lists and unnecessary detail, and the prose makes me suggest a withdrawal. Try having the article peer reviewed, and look at recent VG FACs to get an idea of the standards. For example, the very recent Halo Wars. As for the prose, it's going to need a complete overhaul. I'm not sure who you could ask for help on that; most of Wikipedia's best copyeditors are hard to get, because of their busy schedules. In conclusion, sorry, but it isn't there yet. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 22:24, 7 July 2009 [64].

Chinchilla[edit]

Nominator(s): FuzzyPandaBear (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... FuzzyPandaBear (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose - Drive-by nomination, lack of citations, existing references not formatted properly, lead not comprehensive enough, etc. This nomination is premature I'm afraid. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. I like the term drive-by nomination. Like a lot of articles for animals kept as pets, this one needs a good bit of work before it can qualify as FA. This is an article that would benefit from going the GA route first. --Aranae (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 21:01, 7 July 2009 [65].

Syed Ahmed[edit]

Nominator(s): Bangali71 (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is developed very well, cannot be expanded further more, sections and references are excellent, and meets the guidelines as it is well written with neutrality. Bangali71 (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments

Hi, I am not ready to support this article because:

the lead is too short I think. It does not adequately summarize the article and gives Reader very little basic information about the man.
I copyedited his "Personal Life" section. There are many sentences which need prose and punctuation help throughout the other sections.
I am not sure the flow of ideas is logical, I personally like to see the personal life section come first in a biography but I'll wait to see what others think.
In the US, the British tabloids have a horrendous reputation for gossip. Isn't The Daily Mail one of these tabloids? I am not sure that it is appropriate to use this type of newspaper for a biography see [66].

NancyHeise ^talk 16:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Close - thank you for your comments and help Nancy, but I would like to close this FA candidate because there is currently a dispute of information about the money laundry information which needs to be in the article however disputed between other users, that dispute needs to be fixed first. thank you. Bangali71 (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:54, 7 July 2009 [67].

Che (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): J.D. (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because a lot of hard work has gone into this article to make it as comprehensive on the subject as possible. It has achieved a GA status and I believe that it can achieve FA status as well. J.D. (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments

I don't think "Part One/Two" as well as the names of the different parts need to be bolded in the lead.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The film is slated for DVD release in the UK on June 29, 2009." Is there no Blu-ray being released? If there is, consider rewording to home media release. Also, a home media release should be mentioned beyond the lead.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The box office total citation in the infobox needs to be formatted properly.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure on the guidelines for this, but different dashes are used in the multiple quotes in the article. I think they're supposed to be consistent throughout the article, such as using — instead of --. Be sure to check, because I may be wrong.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a reason why the plot comes after the production section? Every other film FA/GA I've seen has the plot come first.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the plot, the actors' names don't need to follow the character names if there is a cast list directly after the plot.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"...with a 15 minute intermission..." I think it should be "15-minute".

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"As of January 30, 2009, Che was doing poorly in the US theatrical market." This needs to be updated.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tagged both of the non-free images to be reduced in size, see WP:FILMS' image guidelines.
Throughout the article it should be The New York Times, make sure to fix all occurrences.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"On December 7, 2008, Che premiered at Havana's 5,000 + person Karl..." Remove the space after 5,000. Fix the other occurrence a few sentences later.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no citations for the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's currently a red-linked category, was it recently deleted or is it still waiting to be created?

Removed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no mention of the music/soundtrack in the article, is it possible that a section can be added on it?

To be honest, I really couldn't find much in the way that could be properly sourced. I think I'll hold off until it given a proper DVD release to tackle that.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is well-written and covers the film well. Hopefully the above comments are helpful, and if you disagree with any of them, feel free to state your rationale. Good work so far. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose, recommend peer review Article is pretty close, but there are some issues:

The article relies heavily on the Cannes film festival program as a source. While Cannes is a high-profile event, I'm not sure that a pamphlet is an appropriate source for a featured article, since it was never really published and it's not even clear who wrote/edited it.

Well, other film articles have relied on Presskits and Production Notes for sources of info and those anonymously written but I think just as valid. I would say that you might have a valid point if the bulk of the source material came from it but the article also cites Amy Taubin's two articles extensively as well as Michael Guillen's and Ben Kenigsberg's articles.--J.D. (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article switches between the names "Che" and "Guevara" to refer to the subject of the film.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What makes DVD Times a reliable source? Also, the citation is formatted differently from all the others.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "External links" section is strangely formatted, with lots of "------"s.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first two sentences of "Development" are plagiarized, copied directly from the Miami Herald source.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Del Toro confessed he had previously only thought of Guevara as a "bad guy" since he was a child." "Confessed" is a very strong word here. "Previously" and "since he was a child" shouldn't be used together.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Additionally Del Toro read Don Quixote, one of Guevara's favorites, and the first book published and given out free after the Cuban Revolution." This appears to come from the Telegraph article, but it's cited to the Backstage article. You don't need all these "also" and "additionally" words.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Del Toro then personally met with people from different stages of Guevara's life, including Guevara's younger brother and childhood friends in Argentina." "Research also included traveling to Cuba where Del Toro met Che's widow, family, and "tons of people that loved this man". These appear to be describing the same incident. The first source doesn't mention Argentina specifically so I think these should be combined.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The modified quote "bucketful(s) of love" should have []s, not ()s, but I recommend just using the original wording since there's no way to define a bucketful of love anyway.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"...collaborating with the three surviving guerrillas from Guevara's ill-fated Bolivian campaign, and with several guerrillas who fought alongside him in Cuba. While researching for both films, Soderbergh made a documentary of his interviews with many who had fought alongside Che in both Cuba and Bolivia." Were these different events? The wording "fought alongside ... in" shouldn't be used two sentences in a row.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's just the first two paragraphs; I'm gonna leave it there for now. As the first two sentences are plagiarized I'm hesitant to critique the rest of the article. I see this was peer reviewed in February; I think it should be peer reviewed a second time. Content-wise the article looks great, but there seem to be a lot of minor nitpicks like these that need to be cleaned up before we can address the real FA issues. —Noisalt (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you think that is what should be done that's fine with me.--J.D. (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments -
Current ref 6 has the author listed in the middle of the ref, make it at the start to be consistent with the rest of the article.
A bunch of deadlinks that need to be fixed
Current ref 22 (Phillips..) has a bare url in it and Chicago Tribune should be in italics
What makes the following reliable sources?
- http://www.collider.com/entertainment/interviews/article.asp/aid/6916/tcid/1
- http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/30/che-release-strategy/
Current ref 80 has the author listed in the middle of the ref, make it at the start to be consistent with the rest of the article. Also needs to italicise Boston Herald.
Does the article really need ALL the further reading and the external inks?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 07:18, 6 July 2009 [68].

Hawaii hotspot[edit]

Nominator(s): ErgoSum•talk•trib 06:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC), ResMar 06:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has undergone a major improvement within the past month or two. I have been working with ResMar to improve the references, images, and prose. I've done all I can for it, a Peer Review was recently completed and now I think its ready. ErgoSum•talk•trib 06:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, epic fail. 4 days and no comments. :( ResMar 19:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They will come. If we review other noms and ask them to review ours perhaps we can get some action going. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose - mainly because of problems with the prose. *Could the nominators justify the excessive use of quotation marks as in "hotspots", "hotspot", "mid-plate", "Big Island", "Hawaiian", "bump", "established", "evidence", "leaky", "plume head", "trail", "crack and magma", "leak", "great fissure", "attached", "shell", "saddles", "lava trees", "runny", "battle", and "blessing"?

- Would you like me to remove all or just some of them? Some of them are probably unnecessary, but ones such as "great fissure", "plume head", "crack and magma" should probably stay as they are direct quotes and are not necessarily commonly used terms. But it wouldn't bother me to delete them all. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 17:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I have removed the ones I think were unnecessary. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Here, "The Hawaii hotspot is one of the best known and most heavily studied" - the sources do not seem to say this.

- Number 2, 5th paragraph- "Hawaii is perhaps the best known hotspot". #3, 1st paragraph- "Perhaps the best-known [hotspot] is located beneath the active volcanoes of Hawaii". New source added $4, "Hawaii's hot-spot volcanoes are the most studied in the world" --ErgoSum•talk•trib 17:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Most volcanic activity occurs along some type of tectonic plate boundary" - some type?
- Volcanoes occur around mostly subduction zones, but that doesn't exclude other boundaries, so I thought it was best to be nonspecific. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 17:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*"A bend in the chain at 41 and 43 million years ago sharply divides the Hawaiian and Emperor sections" -which formed?

- Previous sentence states "The volcanoes of the chain range in age from 20 years to 82 million years, progressing steadily in age from southeast to northwest, and most of them are in an advanced state of deterioration. A bend..." --ErgoSum•talk•trib 17:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*"where volcanic activity is to be expected" - how about often occurs?

- Changed. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 17:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*"But theorized "hotspots" can occur far from any boundary" - theorized?

- Changed to "theoretical". --ErgoSum•talk•trib 17:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*This is cumbersome "At this speed, the Kure and Midway atolls have been traced to where the present island of Hawaii is now about 30 million years ago."

- Changed. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 17:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*"is dated to 82 million years" B.C? A.D, old?

- I have added the word "ago". --ErgoSum•talk•trib 17:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*"Alternate" - should be "alternative".

- Done. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 17:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Here, "The Hawaii hotspot is unique, considering the vast majority of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions occur near plate boundaries, but the Hawaiian Islands are an exception, as the nearest plate boundary is more than 3,200 kilometers (1,988 mi) away." - I challenge the use of "unique" since we have have "vast majority" and not "all others".

- How about "unusual"? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 17:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*In this confusing sentence, "The direction, distance between, and size of the chain and its volcanoes presumably indicate the direction and speed of movement of the Pacific Plate, and records the history of plate movement." should "records" be " record"?

- Changed and re-worded entire sentence, you are right it was pretty confusing. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 17:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*"came up with" - is lazy writing.

- I didn't write it, but I changed it "proposed". --ErgoSum•talk•trib 17:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*"in order to" - spot the redundancy?

- Removed. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 17:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*"The theory claimed" - I am not sure a theory can claim anything.

- Changed to "Tuzo claimed". --ErgoSum•talk•trib 17:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*More redundancy here, " At a point roughly 40–50 million years ago"

- Changed. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"This seeming coincidence may indicate that the lithosphere acts as a lid on melting by arresting the ascent of the magma." - a lid?
- What would you prefer? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*"Pele's seaweed are sheets of brownish volcanic glass which form when pāhoehoe lava pours into the ocean." - which or that? If we want to retain "which" it needs a preceding comma.

- Changed. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*More redundancy here, "its rate of eruption gradually increases over a period of several hundred thousand years".

- Removed. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*"The lava produced is pressurized by the sea, disallowing explosive eruptions" - I am not sure "disallowing" is the right word.

- Changed to "preventing". --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~*"For that reason, the typical type of lava is pillow lava, typical of underwater volcanic activity." _ typical....typical~~

- Changed. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are just a few examples, I do not think the article is of FA standard yet. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is much improved. I have made a few more edits today, mainly to tackle redundancy and issues with the grammar. My remaining major concern is the very long bulleted list under the Challenges section; it is too long, spoils the flow and would be better as prose. The article still requires an image review and have all of Ealdgyth's comments on the sources been addressed? PS. I think you might attract more comments if you made your signature less garish. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wouldn't consider the list that long, but thats fine. Change it if necessary. I have responded to all of Ealdgyth's comments, but I have not received a response. Is this color better? :) --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments -
~~You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.~~
- Done. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 16:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original~~
- Done. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 16:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return
- I'm confused, you mean the "USGS" notes? Those links do not leave the article. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 16:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - You some of the abbreviations (such as SOEST and USGS) in the references themselves. Most folks aren't going to know what that abbreviation means, so it's better to spell them out. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Changed. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Current ref 2 has the publisher of the information (The USGS) in the title. Please break it out as a separate section in the ref~~
- I also formatted it to keep it consistent. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 16:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Journal titles in the references should be in italics, and the title of the article goes in quotation marks. (I noted current ref 6 Wilson, J. T., current ref 8 Whittaker,~~
- Formatted. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 16:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What makes the following reliable sources?
- http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=172197
  - This is a free learning project, see here. References are provided for the images. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- http://www.mantleplumes.org/index.html
  - This is an open project among scientists, which publishes peer reviewed papers, see here. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- ~~http://geowords.com/histbookpdf/g08.pdf~~
  - This is an online version of a published book, see here or here. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- ~~http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/SYNBAPS~~
  - Changed. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- http://www.solarviews.com/eng/hawaii.htm
  - References are provided. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- http://www.peaklist.org/lists.html
  - Hmm, I'm not an expert on mountains, but I see this site used as a reference for peaks a lot. Probably could be replaced if necessary. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I have replaced this ref. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- http://scienceray.com/
  - Changed. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- http://library.thinkquest.org/J003007/Disasters2/volcano/formed/formed.htm
  - Removed, the statement supported by this ref was redundant anyway. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/flow_features.html
  - This site is sponsored by NASA and maintained by a professor, see here. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- ~~http://www.coffeetimes.com/pele.htm (Okay, it's a print magazine, but it's put out by a coffee company... surely you have a better source?)~~
  - Agreed, replaced with reliable book of mythology. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following refs are lacking publishers:
- ~~Current ref 15 (rance Hugh)~~
- ~~Current ref 27 (P., Wessel...)~~
- ~~Current ref 84 (Dyar..)~~
  - Done, done, and done. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Decide if you're going with last name first or first name first for your authors in the references~~
- Done. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Current ref 54 (The Horn of Africa". On the Volcanoes of the World (Science Channel). 2009-06-06.) is this a TV show? I'm unclear what it is from the ref~~
- Yes ((cite episode)) is for TV shows. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Current ref 64 (Decker...) needs a page number. THe book is 321 pages long.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support an important topic and good overview. I fixed one nit, and would suggest putting the Mythology section before the History but I just like things in chronological order. Then perhaps tied together with a mention at the start of the history section about early explorers and missionaries who recorded their experiences. Maybe one of the following:

Archibald Menzies (1920). William Frederick Wilson (ed.). Hawaii Nei 128 Years Ago: Journal of Archibald Menzies, kept during his three visits to the Sandwich or Hawaiian Islands in the years 1792-1794. p. 197. Retrieved 2009-7-4. ((cite book)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Rev. William Ellis (1823). A journal of a tour around Hawai'i, the largest of the Sandwich Islands. Crocker and Brewster, New York, republished 2004, Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. ISBN 1-56647-605-4.

Charles Wilkes (1849). Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition. Vol. Volume IV. p. 111-162. ((cite book)): |volume= has extra text (help)

Titus Coan (1882). Life in Hawaii. New York: Anson Randolph & Company.

Also might mention Mahukona, a small submerged volcano off the coast of the Big Island, and perhaps Mokuaweoweo which I am going to split off from Mauna Loa, since the summit has a history of its own vs. the rift zone eruptions, but those might be too detailed. W Nowicki (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the info, I will read over these and see if there is any useful info, although I'm not sure if these would be relevant to the hotspot itself, they seem like something more suited for the Hawaii article. I also thought the "mythology" section should be first, but ResMar disagreed and we compromised by putting it last (previously it was located second to last). So I was waiting to see what others thought about it. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 06:57, 6 July 2009 [69].

Jade Goody[edit]

Nominator(s): --MarkusBJoke (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...the article is sourced good, and its overall standard is high in accordance to the FA criterias. think its time for it to become a possible Featured article. MarkusBJoke (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

images File:OKMag.jpg fails to significantly increase reader's understanding, fails WP:NFCC, hence FAC Fasach Nua (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Was the significant contributor consulted before this nomination? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose - uncited statements dating back months. Fix them. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose. Uncited statements; misattributed references (www.thisislondon.co.uk is the website of the Evening Standard, not a paper called This Is London, ref 1 gives the wrong publication date…); poor grammar ("Goody had become involved in vicious fight" etc); rather dubious claims ("Christian religious beliefs"? She converted three weeks before she died); a dubious statement sourced solely to a (broken) Yahoo link – and that's just on a quick skim. Please withdraw this FAC unless you're prepared to clean it up top-to-bottom – it needs a lot of work. – iride scent 17:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose per Iridescent and Sceptre. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose per Iridescent and Sceptre. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 16:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 06:57, 6 July 2009 [70].

Cuisine of the Thirteen Colonies[edit]

Nominator(s): Jeremy (blah blah) 18:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is an extremely well written and researched article on the historical cuisine of British Colonial America. Jeremy (blah blah) 18:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC) As a note, the primary editor of this article is not available for comment. I have nominated it on the strength of the article as it stands now. --Jeremy (blah blah) 09:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

images Given the subject of the article, I think the first image should be the food not the colonies, some of the images are stunning, and could really pull the reader into the article Fasach Nua (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm slightly hesitant about such a choice. Wouldn't it mean we'd have to choose among any of the four closely related yet distinct culinary cultures?

Peter ^Isotalo 12:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could use a montage such as File:Greeks.JPG Fasach Nua (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose - Right now, you are missing Maryland and Pennsylvania. There is a lot of information on sea food, especially Oysters, being harvested out of the Chesapeake Bay by Marylanders. There is information suggesting that the St. Mary's River, which is home to the first settlement in Maryland, was filled with Oysters. Pennsylvania also had a lot of information. I find it a little worrisome that Delaware is limited to Quakers, when they were a minority. There are many, many German cuisines that were brought into Pennsylvania, and the ethnicity in the Colonies was not predominantly English (it was made up of Natives, English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Germans, French, and Dutch). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for the English statement, yes there were other cultures, but the Colonies were under English rule and as such were influenced as a whole by English culture. Many of those that also came from other countries were people who had fled the English empire, moved to those other countries and then went to the Colonies. Additionally, the Scots, Irish, Welsh, were part of the English empire at the time. The French were not part of the colonies, especially at first they were "enemies" of the colonies and were actually pushed out such as the Acadians who were pushed to New Orleans, which is not one of the origional colonies. Regionalism which is found in the article addresses some of the local differences. When talking about any "cuisine" one must talk in broad strokes until you get to the local level where you can speak of the regional differences to which you are refering.--Chef Tanner (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still feel that a section would be needed to discuss Maryland and Pennsylvanian cuisine before I can support - one would have a great deal to discuss about seafood (and pork, as Baltimore was known as "pig town" since its early years) and Pennsylvania had a large German and Dutch population (and there was a large Dutch population in New York). There are things like Scrapple are said to be "of the Delaware region" when they really came from Pennsylvania. Since this is based on colonies, I think you should put items into their colony of origin and deal with all of the colonies. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question to Ottava Rima - Please do not take this the wrong way, but could you provide a reliable source supporting your assertion about scrapple being from PA? The actual article on scrapple has serious flaws in regards to its citations, most are questionably reliable at best. The sources provided in this article are very reliable texts on the subject written by notable authors in the field of historical cuisines. I understand this is a small thing but I want to understand you position on the matter. --Jeremy (blah blah) 19:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will look for reliable sources later. I am from the Mason Dixon border and have eaten scrapple my whole life and, like most people, have been subjected to the long, detailed history of the area and various things like that. This seems to be a decent source. Another. And another. Try here for more. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From these sources, I don't see any reason to correct the article. It says that scrapple originated in the Delaware region, which is part of PA. Simply saying that it originates in PA would make the article less, not more, accurate. And it seems as if all the sources that are linked to directly refer to much more modern recent history of scrapple. I also don't really agree that the article is a history of the cuisine of individual states. It would result in equating political boundaries with cultural boundaries which is never a satisfactory solution. Peter ^Isotalo 11:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I take offense to that, being from the area. First of all, the area is DelMarVa, not the "Delaware Region" if you are going to call it anything. Delaware was originally part of Maryland. Secondly, Philadelphia is not part of the Delaware region, nor is the region between that and York, which is where Scrabble is said to come from. It is on this side of the hanna, not the other, so it would be Pennsylvania and only Pennsylvania. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend in any way. Is it only "Delaware region" that is the problem, though? I'm only asking because as far as I understand it "The Delaware Valley" focuses mostly on what is today western PA. Peter ^Isotalo 21:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The offense is not real. :P But yeah, the Delaware Valley is problematic. Why not just said Mid Atlantic, swap out some of the Quaker info for generic German (as the Quakers were the minority of the Germans) and then discuss some of the seafood dishes and the rest that the original colonists relied on, especially in the two bay regions. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we're to swap out terms and state different facts we need alternative sources relevant to the time period. Are you thinking of any in specific ones?

Peter ^Isotalo 13:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just did a good search, and the first one that popped up was a source that you have currently - Oliver's book. For Maryland, here is this and this (that book would be harder to get). I seem to get quite a few hits when I type in "Colonial ___ food" (put the state in). Here is another source. Here is another and another. Good luck. I'm just pointing to the tip of the iceberg. Also, that book by Oliver has a lot more than what you have introduced into the article so far. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maryland and PA aren't excluded, as was the initial complaint, and it's been argued that a degree of generalization is always necessary. There's always more literature on just about any topic, and everthing doesn't need to be included. So what exactly is missing in terms of comprehensiveness?

Peter ^Isotalo 19:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question What's your source for "One of the icons of American culture, the apple pie, had its origin in East Anglian cooking traditions", which may be true but sounds extremely dubious (and is currently unsourced). East Anglia in this period was about 50% Fens and 50% rolling hills, and while Norfolk Biffins did grow there, there's no particular tradition of apple pie in the area (most traditional East Anglian recipes involve the ubiquitous mustard, lamb and turkeys, ). Not saying it's not true, but it certainly needs a source. – iridescent 23:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Everything on East Anglian tradition and the four regional cultures is based on Fischer and is footnoted as such. Peter ^Isotalo 07:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Fair enough; follow-up question – "As many New Englanders were originally from Great Britain, game hunting was a familiar beneficial skill when they immigrated to the New World" (again unsourced) seems a bit of a non sequitur. Why would being British have anything to do with game hunting? – iridescent 14:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Statement tweaked. That specific part is Christopher's so I can't vouch for it personally, but as far as I can tell, the sourcing is there since there's a footnote only three sentences down. Peter ^Isotalo 18:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Btw, the apple pie caption refers to the East Anglian tradition of oven baking, not pies with any specific ingredients. This connection is also explained in the text. Peter ^Isotalo 14:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose, per Ottava Rima. The fact that Pennsylvania and especially Maryland, which is not mentioned at all outside of "In the mid-17th century a second wave of British immigrants began arriving in North America, settling mainly around Chesapeake Bay in Virginia and Maryland", are missing means that the article is not comprehensive enough. Therefore, the article does not meet all of the FA criteria, and I cannot support at this time. NW (Talk) 15:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- PA is mentioned both directly and indirectly (through the Delaware Valley). Maryland straddles the two regions mentioned here, so there doesn't seem to be any point in trying to establish some type of unique Maryland-specific cuisine. Neither state is "missing" other than in the sense of being explicitly mentioned by name. Peter ^Isotalo 14:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Agreed, remember that territorial borders in the colonies were not were they are now or even when the United States was formed. Many of the states today were regional areas settled around geographical regions such as the Hudson River Valley or the Delaware River Valley. The political differentiations that would become the eastern states came later. Also, areas that eventually became other eastern and mid-western states changed ownership over the course of the colonies' and United States evolution, two examples of this include the Massachusetts Bay Colony which originally encompassed the areas that became the states of Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Maine and claimed parts of what later became Michigan and Wisconsin while what once was the Colony of Virginia became Virginia, West Virgina, Tennessee and also claimed what became Ohio and Michigan, Indiana and what is now Western Pennsylvania. See the maps below to see what I mean--Jeremy (blah blah) 18:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - I am keeping an eye on this discussion, but Ottava Rima's posts have me convinced, at least for the time being, that more could be added to this article. NW (Talk) 00:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Examples of colonial and state claims in English Colonial America

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment A minor problem with the article is the clumsy use of the word "British". In most instances the word can and should be replaced with "English" (the exception being that it is fine to refer to the London-based monarchy and state as such after 1707). If you're gonna talk about Welsh, Irish, Scots-Irish and Scottish (Highland and Lowland), you ought to do so separately, as they are different peoples and were regarded as such at the time by both the English in England and the English in North America. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I switched to "British Isles" for the initial paragraph and used "English" instead of "British" for the Virginian settlers. The rest is best described as "British", though, since the Gaelic migration occured under British rule. There were many Gaelic speakers (according to Fischer even among some slaves), but English remained the dominant language. Peter ^Isotalo 19:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I'm Australian. I've just found this. I haven't got a clue what the Thirteen Clonies are, and my vocab doesn't stretch to "cuisine". OK! You have told me in the first sentence of the article where the cuisine of the Thirteen Colonies comes from, but you haven't told me what it is. I don't mean that you haven't given me a menu. I mean that you haven't told me what the article is about. Don't presume on my knowledge. You are writing an encyclopedia. Amandajm (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found definitional issues in the first para as well ... New World linked at the end of the parapraph, after it was used much earlier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 06:57, 6 July 2009 [71].

Atlantic City – Brigantine Connector[edit]

Nominator(s): Dough4872 (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have put in a lot of work into improving this article. I first brought it to Good Article status and then took it through an A-class review in which many major issues were resolved. The article is well-sourced and covers the aspects of the road broadly. If this passes, it will be the second FA for WP:NJSCR. Dough4872 (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I'm surprised this wasn't raised at the GA/A-class reviews, but I am really uncomfortable with using a set of Google Maps directions as a reliable source, especially on multiple occasions as done in this article. While it may well be accurate, there's no way of knowing that the route as suggested by Gmaps is the route, the whole route and nothing but the route; that the measurements are accurate and not rounded up/down; and, most significantly, that the route as suggested by Gmaps won't be subject to change whenever there are construction works in the area. Surely there must be reliable sources – the contract for the road's construction, for example, or the Department of Transportation's own publicity – that specify the length and places served? – iride scent 18:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are other sources out there, such as the New Jersey Department of Transportation's straight-line diagrams (SLD) and a map of the connector by the South Jersey Transportation Authority (SJTA, which owns the road), which are also used in the route description. However, Google Maps was the best source I could find for which the mileage of the "whole" connector can be determined, as the SLD has the road going off at one of the exit ramps (This issue came up in the A-Class review). I believe that Yahoo Maps has mileage to the nearest hundreth, but to find the exact mileage would requiring using a GIS program, which I do not have the capability of using. Otherwise, I mainly used Google Maps as a reference to show the physical surroundings around the route that cannot be seen in the SLD or the map by the SJTA. Dough4872 (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment – I have put a lot of work into the article as well and helped get it to GA-status, but I do not think it is ready for FA-status. There are some errors in the article that need to be fixed (which I updated and were then reverted) and some more information about the construction and its controversies can be included. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you know of this information, and it can be accurately be desicribed with reliable sources (Alps' Roads is not a reliable source), then you may add it in. (In addition, if you truly feel your version of the exit list is the most accuarate in describing the route, you may undo my revert). In my reckoning of the exit list, I tried to describe it from south to north progression following the lettered exits (which goes against the SLD). Dough4872 (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you have already added the changes, we can stay with your version for now. Dough4872 (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 06:57, 6 July 2009 [72].

ToeJam & Earl[edit]

Nominator(s): bridies (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My first, tentative FA nomination; I think it meets the criteria. I believe it has enough content and research to satisfy the "comprehensive" criterion and any issues with the prose and layout can be addressed. bridies (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Initial comments:
- File:ToeJam & Earl split screen.png needs to be shrunk to a much smaller resolution to comply to WP:NFCC. (320-400px width is pretty much the maximum, aiming at a file resolution less than .1 megapixel as a rule of thumb.) Fair use rationale could use some beefing up; what were the unique elements that were the subject of critical commentary?
  - Any idea how to shrink the resolution? I only know how to reduce the file size (PNGGauntlet). I've expanded the FUR, see what you think.
    - Tag it with ((Non-free reduce)) and somebody (probably User:Melesse) will come along and do it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Don't worry, I got it. I also expanded the FUR, so look upon it and learn :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The article needs a thorough copyedit, especially for syntax agreement and fluff/extraneous terms. Currently it does not meet criteria.
  - I added a note at WP:VG. If no one is interested I'll try and go through everything again myself. bridies (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- There's a decent representation of contemporary refs, but send me and email and I'll send you a few additional print resources I found with a cursory search.
  - Sent you an email.
    - I've replied with attachment. Nothing much, but some good tidbits for expansion. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Thanks. I'm in the process of acquiring a few more articles, so I'll do some expansion in due course. :P bridies (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        I've added some comments from a few more reviews, although it only amounts to a few sentences. bridies (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- You really should think about formatting your references using ((cite web)) and ((cite news)).
  - Not doing it. :P I dislike the format the templates produce and I dislike the additional mark-up they clutter the edit box with. The issue of aiding consistency is all but moot since no one else has or likely will add any citations. The MOS states that any citation format is fine as long as it's consistent and that the use of templates is "neither encouraged nor discouraged". bridies (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments - A very respectable first effort - well done! I've done some copyediting, and have a few points to raise besides:
- The lead describes it as an action game, but the last paragraph of the article seems to suggest that its genre is disputed or unclear. How can this be reconciled?
  - Action game is the broadest term, and probably includes the others as subgenres. If you think it's problematic, I'd be inclined simply to remove the mention of genre from the first sentence. bridies (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I'm not sure that the last paragraph of the lead, excepting the first sentence, adds much to the article. It seems that rather than just repeat the praise and criticism with which reviewers greeted the rerelease, you could either focus on how reviewers felt that the game held up over time or focus on differences between its initial reception and its 2006 reception.
  - I added another sentence on how they felt it held up over time. I'm a bit wary of putting too much weight on the re-release, as the game was probably a much bigger deal when it was originally released (whereas the re-release often just got a mini-review in a "retro round-up" article or such). bridies (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I echo David's points about the prose; I've done some, but I think getting two or three other copyeditors to go over it would be beneficial. In particular, parts of the article suffer from a pronounced case of Thesaurusitis and other parts are verbose and awkward. I'll try to do a little more later in the process, but the prose is definitely the biggest current sticking point to my supporting.
- The phrase "over-the-top appropriations" is in quotation marks, but there's no indication who it is that called them that. This is also true of numerous other phrases throughout the article; in most cases, I'd suggest paraphrasing and losing the quotation marks entirely.
- "The game's levels are randomly generated..." If memory serves, this is true only of one play mode.
  - Yes, there is a "fixed mode" but it's not as beloved and kind of ignored by reviewers. I'll look through the sources again and see if there's any mention of it, so it can be clarified. bridies (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - I clarified it to "main mode", which is what the source says. bridies (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The first paragraph of "Development" could use some dates for signposting.
  - Added another date (1989) in... it seems Johnson met Voorsanger, formed the company, finished Starflight 2 and started work on TJ&E all within that year. bridies (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The article seems awfully short for an FA about a prominent and successful video game. That said, there are no gaps obvious to me; I'll defer to Fuchs and the other video game writers on comprehensiveness issues.
  - I would expect the article to be shorter than most because of its age. Like most 16-bit console games there's no real plot and thus no plot summary/section. The gameplay is pretty simple although its innovation means it's been commented on a fair bit. I will expand the reception section with a wider representation of sources though. It's hard to know what the length "should" be because older video games aren't well represented in terms of FAs. The main exceptions are hugely successful and influential games life Space Invaders or Donkey Kong and ToeJam & Earl doesn't really have that sort of status, successful though it was. bridies (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's it. Again, good job on what you've done so far. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments -
What makes the following reliable sources?
- ~~http://sega-16.com/feature_page.php?id=247&title=Interview:%20Greg%20Johnson~~
- ~~http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/32309/98/~~

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed those sources. With regards to Sega-16 (which isn't reliable) I was citing Johnson's comments but the IGN Funkotronics source pretty much has it covered. bridies (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conditional Support if the lead is expanded. Just one paragraph isn't enough, even for a short article. igordebraga ≠ 16:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Err, someone removed the lead and inserted it into the main body. I reversed the edit. bridies (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 06:57, 6 July 2009 [73].

The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest[edit]

Nominator(s): ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 02:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've admittedly spent an embarrassingly long time on this article after getting some free time this month. I'll summarize the changes since the last FAC:

Researched a ton of new and obscure academic search databases and newspaper sources, rounding out references to 145.
Found good international information on the marketing push and series airing in other countries.
Reorganized the critical reception section to go in order of comparisons to classic Quest, premise success, characters and cast, and animation and sound quality.
Per my new searches, added a lot of new information to the article, and reorganized the first history and development section. I only touch on the biggest changes to the original Quest premise there now, having moved some character and premise commentary down to the Creative Premise and Characters sections.
User:SandyGeorgia helped tremendously to fix up and format references.
Placed punctuation outside quotation marks where appropriate.
Added an image to the marketing section and replaced images with clearer versions.
Got rid of the awkward reliance on quotations from the sources; the article should read much more easily. There are still several quotes; I kept some since they made sentences more succinct and concise versus paraphrasing.

If there are any loose ends...

Haven't touched some of the numbers (twenty-six instead of 26), so right now, numeric numbers include only huge dollar figures, character ages, and some figures in the Quest World Adventure paragraph. I have no opinion on which is better, so if it'd be better to replace words with figures, I'm ready.
I have about five sources that I'm still waiting on through interlibrary loan. To my knowledge, three reference the show's animation in passing, while the other two are mostly about the marketing drive (which will probably add nothing new). I don't think these sources will radically change the article or warrant a breach of stability in the FA criteria. (There are still 8-9 web link sources about the show that will probably never be recovered and aren't in the Wayback Machine. They aren't used in the article, obviously.)
I'm trying to get a free image replacement for the digital style guide in the marketing section. I own the physical style guide for the series, but I'm not sure if I could take a picture of it (since it's mostly art assets) and pass it off as public domain. There are other options, like pictures of action figures or other merchandise, and I plan to try and e-mail a staffer for the show in case they have any items of interest that they can make a free image with. (This may not pertain to the FA so much as it will to an effort to get Today's Featured Article.)

There's probably more that I'm forgetting. Anyway, I'm glad to be bringing this back, since I feel it represents what one empowered Wikipedian can do (well, with a university subscription to academic search engines and libraries, too). WP:TV doesn't seem too fleshed out, so I based some of my style decisions on convention at WP:VG, which I'm more familiar with. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 02:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, welcome back, Zeality. It is always good to see such major contributors coming back from long breaks. Anyways, could you clarify what QuestFan.com/wiki is, its role in the article, as well as your role with QuestFan.com, with direct reference to Wikipedia:Reliable sources? I ask because it seems to be a wiki that is maintained by you and I would like assurance that it satisfies the criteria for reliable sources. Thanks. --maclean 06:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a fan site I set up in 2007 coinciding with my research on the series. It's much like the Chrono Compendium, which served (for Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, and Radical Dreamers) as a repository for any hard to find information or images that were notable enough to be included in the Wikipedia articles but would never, ever be found in third-party sources. WP:VG maintains...

Okay, it did maintain that fan sites could be admitted if they offered unique, notable information which seemed legitimate to peer reviewers, but it seems that's been excised, so I'll have to ask why at the project. It was useful because in WP:VG, a plethora of video games are made and promoted in Japan only. When it comes to translations of commercial materials, interviews, development history, or other information about the games, the community has to rely on fan translation. This was used to improve Chrono Trigger dramatically; its development section went from being nearly nonexistent to a core part of the article. Another issue is that video games, defunct television shows, etc. are usually pop culture affairs that don't receive the treatment of serious academic subjects or news events, and so references and information are hard to come by. The Chrono Compendium would host the translations and allow a citation in these cases. While some people have questioned this use, WP:VG would almost always support this stance.

I was going to use that rationale for QuestFan, but it seems WP:VG has pulled the appearance of consensus out from under me by removing that part of their guidelines. I've basically used the site to archive Internet and print sources related to the show. Rather than call everything into question all at once, I'll go ahead and make a preliminary defense of some items:

#4: This is the writer's bible to the show, written by Peter Lawrence and edited by Glenn Leopold; on the page, both versions are juxtaposed. These became available after the show's cancellation through photocopies auctioned on Ebay. There are currently no auctions for it to back up this claim with some visual evidence; sorry. The bible is incredibly important to the creative premise and character sections of the article. While these sections could stand without referencing (anyone who's watched the show would immediately recognize the assertions), there are a few quotes and excerpts that would need some kind of note. It's also used elsewhere in a few cases in the article.
#6: This is a document that writer Lance Falk wrote in 1997 and published on AOL's Quest newsgroup while it was still up. It's used for much of the second season changes. Again, any fan of the show knows that all the assertions in that section are correct, but it is used in a couple other places in the article thanks to its look at the show's development. You'll notice the attitude and writing style are backed up by reference #7, which is a true trade journal interview with Falk. Lance Falk is on Myspace and is able to be contacted; I spoke with him a few times in 2007 to make sure some of the facts were straight about the second season changes, although I didn't self-publish this stuff; it was just asking for him to fact-check. (I also asked yesterday if he can fact-check the article in its current state.) Falk appears on the classic Jonny Quest DVD 2004 release as an expert on the subject, so you can match up his picture there with the one for his Myspace profile if you need some proof it's him.
#35: Fan FAQ published in 1998 again in the AOL newsgroup, containing a quote from Larry Houston and one from Lance Falk.
#37, #75, #76: These are AOL Quest newsgroup commentaries for specific episodes posted by Lance Falk, used for a couple season two changes assertions (again, recognizable by fans of the show).
#42: Francois Lord's comments posted to the AOL newsgroup in 1996-1997. He's name-checked in the article as a QuestWorld animator, and his story corroborates what happened to Buzz F/X (it filed for bankruptcy thanks to the difficulty of the Quest contract) and also Sherry Gunther's / Alberto Menache's criticisms. It's sort of an important reference because it gives an in-depth look at the hellish schedule the animators worked on.
#70: Vehicles. This is just an in-universe encyclopedia page at QuestFan with images of the vehicles described in the sentence referencing it.
#78: These are fan questions I submitted to Lance Falk in 2007. There's a lot of unique information on that page, but I haven't used it in the article because it's unabashed original research, and though I could argue it from the same point, I don't want to push my luck.
#80: These are fan questions from the Jonny Quest mailing list given to Michael Benyaer. Since they never were part of AOL's newsgroup or anything like that, I've avoided using his answers except to back up another statement about playing characters of different ethnicity. (I'd love to use the entire thing and talk about how he got a position with the show, but again, not pushing my luck.)
#81: Same story, but for Quinton Flynn. These are old questions from 2000, but self-published. I used it for a fact about how he landed the role.
#90: This is a link to the digital style guide. It was very necessary before I found newspaper articles about the style guide, so it could go if needed. The link contains images of every portion of the guide, including its art.
#123: These are two corroborating anecdotal accounts of the parade in California. The parade is mentioned in reliable print sources, but not the exact nature of the float (an elephant chasing a jeep, as shown in this promotional art). Used it here to preempt any "citation neededs" about the float structure.
#139: These are a few Q&As with Peter Lawrence, the show's creator, that I made in August 2007. This is honestly a holy grail coup for fans, and contains tons of valuable information about the show's early development...all of which I've avoided adding to the article, because it's ultimately original research. Lawrence is a busy man and hasn't been able to correspond since then, though he provided Takashi's contacts for me too (Takashi's also been busy, but I haven't recently tried to contact either of them for more information). Anyway, I just use it to defend the Race cowboy accent criticisms under critical reception, since that's an iconic controversy to fans of the show. It's heartbreaking not to add his other information, but ah well.

As an aside, I hope any reviewers might sympathize with the external link to QuestFan, since it contains extra, MediaWiki-maintained information such as these original Q&As that add a wealth of perspective to the show's development. Perhaps readers will enjoy the extra information there. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 07:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I asked WP:VG, and it seems that the convention now is to cite the original Japanese interview in those cases, but with a link to the fan site translation page embedded in the reference. This might reinforce some of my usage of QuestFan here. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 02:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have a problem with QuestFan.com acting as a hosting service for the sake of convenience, but such cases I don't think QuestFan should be listed as the publisher (eg. QuestFan isn't the publisher of the writer's bible are they?). --maclean 02:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 03:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For some of those references, this template may help: Template:Cite usenet (instead of Cite web). maclean 04:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tested it out with one reference and it worked fine, but there's only one hitch: AOL's "newsgroup" was more like a proprietary newsgroup operated in the show's space (which you'd find using keywords, etc.) and so I'm not sure what to put for the "| newsgroup =" designation. (Anything in that field is automatically Wikilinked, so I can't just put "AOL", and neither do I really have a URL for that newsgroup space, since it was totally proprietary...I'm trying to think back, and I can't even remember if stuff located through AOL's keywords, etc. even had viewable URLs). Should I leave it blank, or stick "on AOL" after the author field or somewhere else in the text? ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 04:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. Maybe that wasn't such a good suggestion. maclean 05:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess the biggest question is regarding the reliability of the newsgroup posts and the commentary provided through Questfan.com. As far as I'm aware, the usenet posts are susceptible to error (impersonation - how to verify x actually wrote that, lack of fact-checking, etc.). If Lance Falk is available, would a Open-source Ticket Request regarding the veracity of the posts be sufficient to make such usenet posts reliable? (or am I way out of my league?) maclean 02:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments -
What makes the following reliable sources?
Two deadlinks in the link checker tool that need to be fixed.
Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using ((cite news)), use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
Current ref 6 (the AOL thing). If it was sent through AOL's newsgroup's, it's not AOL that published the information, which is what the implication of how you've got it referenced it was. It's really self-published.
http://kishikat.com/zone/lanceint.html is a reprint of a magazine article. First, do they have premission to reprint the copyrighted article?
Likewise... http://www.toonamiarsenal.com/download/jquest.php do they have permission to host the videos? And the way you've got it referenced, it implies that Toonami Digital arsenal is the publisher of the videos, i.e. they created them, is that the case?
Current ref 35 (Winnie Lim's ...) is lackign a publisher
Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using ((cite news)), use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
Current ref 70 (Vehicles) is lacking a publisher
Likewise current ref 87 (Johnny Quest digital style guide..)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. As far as the suggestion above about OTRS validating the information, I'm not convinced that's a good solution. As a general rule, self-published information isn't a great idea, and we should ideally be looking for other sources of the information, that's verifiable. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break

Sorry, things have gotten a little busy again. I'm going to re-list the outstanding comments here under one list to help me focus. I'll then try to address the criticisms and re-list the remaining questionable references for further review.

maclean

► Reduce use of newsgroup and other third-party references.
- Addressed under next section break.

Ealdgyth

✔ ~~Check with deadlink checker.~~ One link fixed, one unnecessary magazine search link removed.
► Review http://questfan.com/Page/Main_Page.html, ~~http://www.incentivecentral.org/consumers/casestudies/Jonny_Quest_Ratings_Soar_with_RealLife_Adventure_Contest.844.html~~, and ~~http://www.mindspring.com/~questworld-online/unreleased.html~~.
- 1) For QuestFan, I'd rather deal with specific citations than debate the general use, since I feel it can have value as a mirror for certain important information (this has passed in a few of my other FAs, and my usage still has provisional support at WP:VG. 2) Incentive Central seems to be a legitimate non-profit organization, even if self-published. I've tried to find something in the Wiki rules about using corporate press releases or financial statements that would get close to this, but I've come up empty-handed. Anyone have a test or something I can run this through? 3) This website has pictures of the Galoob toy catalogue from 1996 showing the unproduced figures. I wasn't sure how to cite a catalogue, and I ventured that perhaps the images might speak for themselves. I can easily replace it with a catalogue cite (since the images aren't that hard to find independently and aren't even really emphasized in the article), but I'll need a proper cite template. Would cite journal cover this?
  - The QuestFan site gives me several concerns. One is reprinting copyrighted material. (Everything in the US is copyrighted at creation, so to reprint anything past 1976 that isn't US government, you need permission). Also, not to be insulting, but the whole site is a fan site and that is another concern. Third, it publishes information from newsgroups, etc. that are a concern. I realise that the site has a lot of information that probably isn't available elsewhere, but I do not think it can pass WP:RS, quite honestly. It's going to be an issue, especially given it's heavy use in this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - I'll tackle maclean's ideas on my talk page first, then return to this. A lot of the assertions it's used to cite probably don't need citations anyhow. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 05:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - The catalog, try cite journal, that'd probably be closest. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Continued under next section break.
✔ Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using ((cite news)), use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
✔ ~~Current ref 70 (Vehicles) is lacking a publisher~~ Removed unnecessary vehicles reference.
✔ ~~Likewise current ref 87 (Johnny Quest digital style guide..)~~
✔ ~~http://kishikat.com/zone/lanceint.html is a reprint of a magazine article. First, do they have premission to reprint the copyrighted article?~~
- To confirm the magazine is real: #2 Cover. Should we just drop the URL to avoid linking to copyright violation?
  - Yes, that would be good, if you can't confirm that they have the right to reprint. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✔ Likewise... http://www.toonamiarsenal.com/download/jquest.php do they have permission to host the videos? And the way you've got it referenced, it implies that Toonami Digital arsenal is the publisher of the videos, i.e. they created them, is that the case? Removed the reference, since the statement (TRAJQ aired on Toonami) doesn't need a citation anyway.
✔ ~~Current ref 35 (Winnie Lim's ...) is lackign a publisher~~

Okay, it'll be easier for me to mentally track now. I'll get started on these. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 20:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another break for references

Here are the remaining QuestFan references:

4 - Writer's bible. If the website's the only issue, it could be removed from the citation, with the publisher being Hanna-Barbera. If the authenticity in question, Lance Falk can vouch, and I even sent the link to Peter Lawrence, who hadn't kept the original draft after leaving Turner. It was "leaked" in the form of photocopies on Ebay, and sometimes still pops up as an auction. A lot of quotes and the creative sections hinge on it, so I'll take pains to prove its authenticity if needed.
~~Winnie Lim's FAQ~~ - I've removed it from the article, but I've left the statement it affirmed; "Time Warner's acquisition of Turner negated the separate series idea, leading to the episodes' release as the second season of Real Adventures." This was verified by Larry Houston in that FAQ and Lance Falk in his own writings, and the revised writer's bible is entitled The New Jonny Quest, so I'm hoping we can get away without a fact tag for this statement.
38 - Francois Lord's comments on QuestWorld, mostly covering the process at Buzz F/X. These offer an interesting look into the history of the project and why QuestWorld was panned (and also why Buzz F/X went into bankruptcy), but if they absolutely had to go, the article could still stand without his notes. He is able to be reached through his personal website and Gmail in case it's relevant. Sadly, it probably would fail the self-publishing self test since he's making claims about third parties (Buzz F/X).
71 - Lance Falk's Semi-FAQ. I was able to cut it down to two uses: "Falk defended his portrayal as giving her realistic, human fears, such as claustrophobia." "Falk felt that virtual reality paradoxically undermined the show's "strong connection to reality", and suggested that after so many dangerous incidents Dr. Quest would have simply turned the system off." This is self-published material on the self, and so it may pass the five stipulations at WP:V.
128 - Peter Lawrence e-mail defending Race Bannon's accent. Based on WP:V, this may pass the five self-published stipulations, assuming #2 doesn't cover fictional characters and that the authenticity is not in doubt. If you whois PL's old site http://gealepeterlawrence.com/ at Godaddy, you can find his e-mail, which is how I did it when I originally contacted him about the show in 2007. I can also provide an image of the e-mail and its header information; they're still in my e-mail's inbox. This cite also now doubles as helping to prove that there was fan criticism over the accents; that assertion's cite was lost with Lance Falk's semi-FAQ.

Notifying maclean25 and Ealdgyth now. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 04:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am supporting this article as an FA because it is exhaustively researched that certainly neglects no major facts (it goes much further than FAs on similar topics). Except File:Trajq-jessiebentondarkestfathoms.png (why is this required?) the images are excellent uses of Fair Use to illustrate different aspects (e.g. QuestWorld graphics, graphic effects, character changes between seasons). Regarding the remaining QuestFan references, 1. I'm ok with the Writer's bible though I'd prefer listing H-B as the publisher and using the QuestFan link as a convenience link. 2. I'd prefer losing Francois Lord's & Lance Falk's commentary from this article (The Lance Falk pieces are nice little extras, but are unnecessary for the scope of this article; The Francois Lord comments do add more but the article can stand without them). 3. On the Peter Lawrence interview, I'm unsure...though the QuestFan page doesn't do much to verify it is an interview between Lawrence and yourself(?), if it is a real interview, then I don't see how it is any less reliable than a professional TV/radio interview with Lawrence. But, of course, I defer to Ealdgyth's experience with references. --maclean 02:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Okay, standing by for further revision. Thanks. This is finally my first FAC without a copyedit shakedown or objection; viewing in print mode and copyediting from the bottom to the top really is a fantastic technique. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 03:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 06:57, 6 July 2009 [74].

Howie Morenz[edit]

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The third article of an NHL player who died during their career, and second Montreal Canadien, I followed the style that I previously used for Georges Vézina. All concerns will be addressed as soon as I can resolve them. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Provisional oppose
- "a Canadian professional ice hockey player in the National Hockey League." this seems a bit repetitious. Doesn't National Hockey League imply that he was professional? Also, although I'm unfamiliar with hockey articles, I believe it's conventional in other articles on sports figures to include the position played in the opening sentence. Finally, I think it's clumsy to mention the NHL first and then just a few sentences later the Ontario Hockey Association; I tend to think both of these should go together.
  - Reworded the opening. However, I would say it is better to keep the OHA seperate, as it is a junior, amateur league. I've reworded that part to help clarify.
- You have Morenz dying at the end of the first paragraph, then you talk more about his life in the beginning of the second. While there's no rule against doing so, I tend to think it would be better if the lead went in something more like a chronological fashion.
  - Combined the two paragraphs into one, and sorted chronologically. However, I think it can be improved, so some comments on that would be appreciated.
- "in both goals scored and points." Sorry, I'm totally ignorant about hockey. Is there a difference between these two?
- "Morenz died from complications of a broken leg, an injury he suffered in a game." As a non-specialist reader, this is by far the most interesting point the whole lead to me. Broken legs aren't generally fatal. I think another sentence or so on the nature of the complications might be in order.
- "Howie Morenz was the son of William Morenz," Any biographical data on the father? Any idea who the mother was?
  - There is, so I've linked both goal and point in the lead.
- "playing shinny on the Thames River" I'd suggest linking this to Shinny; I had no idea what shinny was before looking it up.
  - Done
- "After that game, a coach switching Morenz to rover, a defensive position." Should be switched.
  - Fixed
- "Morenz became a forward after it became apparent his speed was much more suitable for an offensive role.[3] After starting in goal for the 1916–17 season, Howie helped the Mitchell ice hockey team reach the Western Ontario juvenille championship.[3]" The chronology here is confusing. When exactly did he become a forward? Before or after 1916-1917?
  - Reworded so it should be clearer
- "Howie tried enlisting in the Canadian military, but was refused when it was learned he was only fifteen years old." I think the passive voice here is unnecessary and a little tortured. I'd suggest making this "when recruiters learned" or something like that.
  - Done
- "He joined the Stratford Midgets junior team" When? Was it for the 1920-1921 season?\
  - Added a date
- "leading the OHA in assists and points during the regular season" I'd make the fact that this was the Ontario Hockey League more obvious, so as to go better with the lead.
  - Done
- "After reaching the Memorial Cup, Morenz was asked to play for the Stratford Indians, a senior league team." Does this mean for the next season? Immediately? Also, was it because he had reached the Cup or just because of his general level of play that he was asked to do so?
  - Clarified
- " During the playoffs, he led both leagues in goals, assists, points, and led the senior league in penalty minutes." Unless I'm mistaken, leading in penalty minutes is a bad thing, right? As such, I think some distinction should be made between leading in the good areas and the bad one.
  - I tried to make some disctinction, but it may not have been enough
- "he led it for regular season assists" For? Shouldn't this be in?
  - Fixed
- "At the age of eighteen, Howie got an apprenticeship with the CN railway factory in Stratford." Is there a reason you say Howie here instead of Morenz?
  - Changed to Morenz
- "CN railway factory" What is CN? Anywhere to link it?
  - Added link
- "Howie, Jr. was born in 1927, Donald in 1933 and Marlene in 934." Surely this should be 1934?
  - Fixed date
- " friend of Léo Dandurand, the owner of the Montreal Canadiens of the National Hockey League, refereed the game, and told Dandurand how good Morenz was." Is this meant to be "A friend"?
  - Fixed
- "However in July," should be "However, in July,"
  - Fixed
- " Howie Morenz signed a contract with the Canadiens for three years, with a salary of $3,500 per year and a $1,000 signing bonus." Intuitively I get no sense of what this amounts means. Was it a lot?
  - Added context
- "Immediately after signing the contract with the Canadiens, Morenz began to reconsider joining the Canadiens." This is a bit repetitious perhaps replace the second instance of "Canadiens" with "them"?
  - Fixed
- "Dandurand, but began crying." The comma here is unnecessary.
  - Fixed
- "Dandurand told him that if Morenz did not join the Canadiens, his professional hockey career would be over." Was this just a threat or the result of a contractual obligation (i.e., would he not legally have been permitted to play?)
  - Clarified
- "He made his NHL debut on December 26, 1923 in Ottawa against the Ottawa Senators, scoring a goal against the home team." I think "against the home team" is unneeded.
  - Fixed
- "in the frist game of the two game, total goals series" I believe this should be "first"
  - Fixed
- "reached the NHL playofs" should be playoffs
  - Fixed
- " Howie tied with linemate Aurèle Joliat in leading the Canadiens in scoring in 1925–26 with twenty-six points, finishing fifth in the league. He finished third in the league in goals, with twenty-five, and points, with thirty-two, in 1926–27, to again lead the Canadiens." This is rather confusing. The first three times I read it, I thought I was getting different figures for the same season. I'd recommend placing "1926-1927" before the numbers.
  - Clarified
- "The one goal he scored in four playoff games eliminated the Montreal Maroons from playoff contention." How so?
  - Clarified
- "During the 1929–30 season, Morenz finished seventh in the league for scoring with fifty points, including scoring forty goals for the first time" Maybe it's not really relevant to the article, but this seems pretty amazing. In 1928 he was the first player ever to score 50 points, but in 1929-1930 50 points was only seventh in the league? Was there some sort of change to the rules that led to higher scoring?
  - Indeed there was; note added
- "playoff games, the final goal of the playoffs as he won" you need another comma on the other side of playoffs.
  - Done
- "also being named to the First All-Star Team again." How was this the first All-Star Team? Wasn't the first one in 1930-1931?
  - I tried to add some clarity to the previous mention of the All-Star Team
- "passing Cy Denneny for the NHL record holder for career points" I'd say "as" instead of "for".
  - Done
- "Minor injuries led to his point totals going down the following season" I think it would be much more elegant to say "minor injuries led his point totals to go down". Also, any idea what kind of minor injuries they were?
  - Changed, and no, there is nothing specified. They didn't specify injuries back then, and its amazing enough that it was even recorded he was hurt.
- "The 1933–34 season also saw Morenz's point total fall" Fall to what level (i.e., how many points)?
  - It was later in the paragraph, but moved up
- "once again passing Cy Denneny to become the NHL leader for career goals" I take it from this that Denneny was active and had passed Morenz earlier. I think it would be good to say when.
  - Denneny was retired, but held several career scoring records. I've moved the mention of him to clarify
- "The trade rumours ended on October 3, 1934, when Morenz was traded to the Chicago Black Hawks." So what happened to "when I can't play for them, I'll never put on a skate again."?
  - Added some clarity
- " The trade rumours ended on October 3, 1934, when Morenz was traded to the Chicago Black Hawks. Along with goaltender Lorne Chabot and defenceman Marty Burke, he was traded for forwads Leroy Goldsworthy and Lionel Conacher, and defenceman Roger Jenkins." I'd merge this all into one sentence
  - done
- " Morenz was traded for the second time in his career, being sent to the New York Rangers on January 26, 1936, traded for forward Glen Brydson." I'd remove the second instance of traded for better flow.
  - Done
- "giving him twenty-one poitns" This should be points.
  - Done
- " landed with full force into Morenz" I've never heard "landed ...into" before. I'd suggest "on".
  - Done
- "recovering from the injry" should be injury
  - Fixed
- "His Canadiens teammateswould" should be two words.
  - Fixed
- "a teammate of his remakred that" should be remarked.
  - Fixed
- The doctors didn't try to do anything about the heart attack?
  - There is nothing specific in the reference, though I believe it was implied that by the time they realised what happened to him, it was to late to do anything, thus the phonecalls.
- "The next day, March 9, the Montreal newspapers announced his death." So did the other newspapers, I can find a New York TImes story on that day about it.
  - True enough; removed that sentence
- "two minutes silence was observed" I think this would read much better as "two minutes of silence were observed"
  - Done
- "A funeral was held on March 10, 1937 at Montreal Forum" Is there a reason this isn't "the Montreal Forum"?
  - Done
- " A team composed of player" should be players.
  - Fixed
- "Morenz also had a profound impact on growing the NHL, his exciting play helping bring professional hockey to the United States." Comma splice. Either split into two sentence or replace the comma with a semicolon.
  - Modified slightly, it should work now
- "During the 1924 Stanley Cup Final between Montreal and Calgary, Morenz's first season in the NHL, Charles Adams, the owner of a chain of grocery stores, went back to Boston wanting a hockey team based in the city. That summer, the NHL granted Adams a franchise for the following season, the Boston Bruins." Was this is any way directly connected to Morenz?
  - Added why it was worth while
- In the "Career statistics", it's driving me nuts that the second two columns are taller than the first. Is there something meaningful you could put there other than whitespace?
  - Don't quite understand what you mean here. If you're referring to the space between the table, then no, there isn't really anything that can be put there. The table has been used for every other ice hockey article, both FA and not, and this is the first time anything has been said about it.
A great article, I look forward to supporting in the future, but there are frequent spelling and grammar problems throughout. I'd recommend running the article through a spellchecker and reading it through a few times in segments to spot the grammar and spelling problems that I didnt' catch. Cool3 (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- - Thanks for the thorough review. I'm terrible at reviewing articles myself, particularily ones I've put considerable amounts of work into, so it's nice to have someone, especially someone clueless about hockey (which is nearly everyone), to do so. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources: What makes this a reliable source (not saying it isn't, but can't find anything to suggest it is)? Otherwise, sources look OK. Majorly talk 15:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The publisher's the Hockey Hall of Fame, so it's very reliable (except for their knowledge on copyright, but that's another story). Maxim_(talk) 17:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like Maxim said, the site is the Hockey Hall of Fame's website, and has been through probably every hockey article to come through the FA nomination process. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments – Still needs work on the prose. All but one of these are from the lead and first section of the body.

~~"Morenz consistently finished in near the top of league scoring". Remove "in".~~
- Done
"Three times in his career Morenz was named the most valuable player of the league and led the league in goals scored once and total points scored twice." → "Three times in his career Morenz was named the most valuable player of the league, and he led the league in goals scored once and points scored twice."
- Done
Early life: "After starting in goal for the 1916–17 season, Howie tried enlisting in the Canadian military". Why is his first name being used here? It's informal when used in this fashion. There's no risk of confusing him with family members of the same name, like in a couple of instances later in the section.
- Changed name to Morenz
~~Is "juvenille" British English?~~
- Possibly. It was part of an ill-fated attempt to use Microsoft Word for spelling corrections. It was a bad idea.
~~Remove comma from "in May, 1917."?~~
- Done
~~A period is missing from the middle of the second paragraph of the section (Morenz joining the Stratford Indians).~~
- Fixed
~~I'm pretty sure 1970's should be 1970s.~~
- Done
~~Multiple links for the Canadian National Railway company are unnecessary this close together.~~
- Removed second second link
Saw this on a glance at the later part of the article: "though the Canadiens' management knew he was to passionate about hockey to quit."
- Don't quite know what your trying to say here.
  - Read it again: "he was to passionate". Notice anything? :-)

Giants2008 (17-14) 00:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Addressed all your concerns. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - "held December, 1922 in Montreal". → "held in December 1922 in Montreal"? Basically, anytime there's a comma between a month and year like this, check to see whether it should be in there or not. Note that any like "July 7, 1923" are fine.
    - Fixed
  - ~~"Howie Morenz signed a contract with the Canadiens...". Another unneeded first name.~~
    - Removed
  - Montreal Canadiens: "They defeated the Vancouver Maroons of the Pacific Coast Hockey Association in two games of a best of five games series". Huh? According to 1923–24 NHL season, it was a best-of-three series.
    - Fixed
      - Saw "threegames" in there. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Fixed
  - ~~"with Morenz scoring a hat trick." This is a type of awkward sentence I see often, using "with" as a connector. Try "as Morenz scored a hat trick."~~
    - Changed the sentence around, so Morenz scoring is before the score.
  - ~~"Minor injuries led his point totals going down the following season". I believe this is meant to say "led to his point totals going down the following season".~~
    - Fixed
  - ~~"With Morenz not playing to his previous level". This is similar to one of the earlier comments, as this uses a with + -ing structure.~~
    - Fixed
  - ~~"I'll never put on a skate again.," Picky, but I think there is too much punctuation here.~~
    - Fixed
  - ~~Chicago, New York and Montreal: "with Morenz contributing regularly" is another sentence that needs a structural fix.~~
    - Changed
  - ~~"in which hs scored fifteen points". Typo. Might as well mention it while I'm here.~~
    - Changed
  - ~~"occasionally showing the speed that had made notable at the start of his career." "him" is~~

~~missing.~~

- - - Fixed

Giants2008 (17-14) 01:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- - - Addressed more of your concerns. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - ~~"By mid-January, Morenz had four goals and twenty-points". Remove second hyphen.~~
        Fixed
      - ~~"with his left skate being caught in the wooden siding" is another awkward sentence structure.~~
        Fixed
      - "with the New York Rangers and New York Americans observing a moment of silence" is one more.
        Fixed
        Now reads "where the New York Rangers and New York Americans having a moment of silence prior to the start of their game." "having" → "had". Giants2008 (17-14) 00:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Fixed
      - ~~"with his exciting play helping bring professional hockey to the United States." And one more.~~
        Fixed
      - ~~"Bernie Geoffrion, who also played for the Canadiens and Rangers, and later inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame." Needs "was" before "inducted".~~
        Fixed

Giants2008 (17-14) 00:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- - - - Addressed comments. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        I think I got all your final comments. If not, let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 06:57, 6 July 2009 [75].

The Girl Is Mine[edit]

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 18:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... despite not being the longest of articles, I believe it meets the FA criteria. Pyrrhus16 18:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Is there any music sheet available? Needs more info on structural composition. brandt 18:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I couldn't find any non-watermarked images of the sheet music on the web. I've added a bit on the musical structuring of the song, underneath the recording paragraph. Pyrrhus16 19:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. :) Pyrrhus16 13:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vague support Not strongly supporting this, as I know nothing about WP:MOSMUSIC and there may be guidelines you've failed to follow of which I'm not aware, but this seems to cover everything that could be said without slipping over the line into fancruft and with no obvious room for improvement that I can see. I think that 'The "irrepressibly silly Paul McCartney"'s breakdown' needs rewording to avoid that awkward double punctuation, though. And this prompted me to listen to TGIM for the first time in months, and I'd forgotten just how creepily weird it is. Just saying. – iride scent 00:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that, I've fixed it now. I agree; it is a pretty strange song. :) Pyrrhus16 11:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose, 1a, 1b, and MoS issues. Quite a bit more work is needed to get this up to FA quality for a song. There are plenty of general prose and MoS problems, but the explanations of the composition and examination of the music are confusing and incomplete. Example issues:
- MoS issues spotted. Please check punctuation in quotations per WP:LQ. There are also problems with quotations with quotations.
  Think I've got all the occurences.
- General problem with overlinking. Don't link common terms such as "plagiarism", "record label", "remix", "cartoons", and many more.
  Done.
- "The track was written by Jackson as he watched cartoons" This seems highly unnecessary detail for the lead. Later, more confusion ensues as you expound that he was watching cartoons with McCartney, but also that he woke up in the night and sang into a tape recorder? The cartoon bit is unclear and of questionable importance to the article. On the whole, the half-paragraph discussion of the composition process is confusing and incomplete.
  Fixed, I think. It was completed as he watched cartoons, following him recording a rough demo into a recorder.
- "Despite the public feeling" What does this mean? What public feeling? We shouldn't be forced to read the entire article to discover the meaning of something in the lead. Details, yes—meaning, no.
  Fixed in the above paragraph.
- Your explanation of how the song uses AABA is... incorrect. "When used to the maximum"? No one is going to follow this. I get the impression you've paraphrased some explanation from the source without fully understanding what the author was discussing. AABA has nothing to do with lyrics.
  Indeed. I reworded the info in this, as I only just found it during the FAC. Any help on this part would be appreciated.
- I was hoping to see more musical analysis of the song, since at least one of your sources seems to touch on it. This is a concern for comprehensiveness.
  Added info on the musical chords. Pyrrhus16 16:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And much more. --Laser brain (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments

"Listeners were not impressed by 'The Girl Is Mine'": I'm curious as to who exactly "listeners" refers to here; the public? How does one gauge public opinion of a single so soon after it is released?

The general public, yes. I'm not too sure how the public's opinion was gauged. Perhaps they wrote to the press and complained, or the press took to the streets and asked the public their thoughts.

"Despite some of the public's concerns, 'The Girl Is Mine' achieved success in the music charts." I don't see the connection between the 2 clauses of the sentence.

Removed first part.

Most of those publications seem to slag off the single, I think branding the reviews as "mixed" might be a little too soft. Further, are any of those quotes from actual contemporary single reviews? If they are from album reviews, or just general descriptions of the song in pieces written years after, make sure you classify them as such. (it is important to give a contrast between contemporary reaction vs. retrospective opinion)

Added an explanation in the text.

Move the charts to the bottom of the article. (looking rather unsightly where it is right now, in between large paragraphs of text)

Done.

What is Thriller 25? Shouldn't that section header be in quotes?

Done both.

Who is Aidin Vaziri?

Done.

I don't think its necessary to have each line of the remix credits begin with "Remix". Also, since personnel credits are self-referential, those cites (#40 and #41) can go as well.—indopug (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done.
And there's a dab. indopug (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Thanks for your helpful comments. Pyrrhus16 17:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Steve 14:17, 3 July 2009 [76].

The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie[edit]

Nominator(s): ATC^{. Talk} 19:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been through many copyedits, and has received a WP:GAN. Now I think it fits the criteria as a featured article. ATC^{. Talk} 19:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick comment I was just skimming the article, when I noticed this: "before their musical career went down the drain." This doesn't seem very encyclopedic wording. Artichoker^[talk] 19:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reply: I fixed it to "...before their musical career became unsuccessful." Minor mistake. ATC^{. Talk} 22:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments -
What makes the following reliable sources?
Current ref 13 (Walsh-Boyle...) is lacking a last access date.
Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply:
- I will fix MOS, but those sources are the only one available for the information. What do you do if their is no reliable sources, and non-reliable sources are present? Is it an exception?
- I will spell out the notes that are abbreviated.
- I'll check out the reference and see what I could do.
- Is there any other corrections that need to be done before it could be a featured article?
- Thanx!
- ATC^{. Talk} 15:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no exception for unreliable sources, even if there are no reliable sources. Have you investigated print sources, such as magazines, newspapers? As far as your question about other corrections, I only review for sources and such like. Others will need to investigate the prose, images, etc, and it may take a bit of time. FAC can take up to a couple of weeks to run its course. (I just had one of my nominations promoted after two weeks at FAC, and there are others on the list right now that have been at FAC almost a month.) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it okay for nominators who are away for a month? Because I will be away for eight weeks, starting July 6h through August, and I might not be on Wiki if and when it is accepted as a featured article. I'll leave a note on my user page, when I will be away so people know not to contact me, as I will not be available. ATC^{. Talk} 18:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, could you tell me where I abbreviated links (you are probably referring to abbreviation in the news sources/website ("publisher"))? I don't see anything, they all look like they are spelled out fully. Also, do you check if everything in the text of the article is sourced in the reference tag? Thanx! ATC^{. Talk} 18:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're going to be away for 8 weeks in about a week, I would suggest withdrawing and nominating again when you return. The abbreviation is YTV, which actually links to a disambiguation page. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I'll fix that minor mistake and withdraw until I get back in August. ATC^{. Talk} 11:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand YTV redirects to YTV (TV channel)—not the disambiguation page. ATC^{. Talk} 11:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does now, it did not when I checked yesterday, but all that matters is its fixed. It's still a good idea to not use abbreviations that aren't well known. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments: Not much wrong, though I do have some issues; first off, there are several red links in "Filming." Unless you plan to make those articles, then they should be removed. Second, I know this isn't much an issues, but the cast is much a list. Some info on casting would be nice, as well as a larger expansion of the characters if they're going to be listed. Third, the releases section might need a bit expansion and minor clean up; it's still generally fine. Oh, and also, it'd be good to crop out the watermark in the plot images. On the topic of images, you might want to find some free use images for representative purposes. They help better understanding the area of topic. Other than those things, very nice job and if these are fixed I'd be happy to see this as an FA. The Flash ^{talk} 02:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 16:10, 2 July 2009 [77].

4 Minutes (Madonna song)[edit]

Nominator(s): --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it has all the qualities to be a Featured article for Wikipedia. I have worked on this article for quite long and ensured that all relevant references and prose have been perfected. This is my first FA nomination. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose—1a and 2. I hate to start your first FA nomination like this, but I ran into problems as soon as I started reading the lead. I suggest finding an uninvolved copy-editor to run through.

"and features American singer-songwriter Justin Timberlake and Timbaland who also co-wrote and produced the song." There should be a comma after "Timbaland". This statement is contradictory to the next sentence, which states "...the song was written by Madonna and Timberlake" but makes no mention of Timbaland.
"The main idea behind the song was a sense of urgency" Very labored; could be "The primary/main [your pick] theme of the song was..." And I'm not sure that "a sense of urgency" is a theme or main idea, anyway; sounds like a feeling.
"The song also presents Timbaland's characteristic bhangra beats" The sentence would do better if it were connected to the previous like so: "Musically, "4 Minutes" is an uptempo dance song with an urban, hip-hop beat featuring instrumentation from a brass, fog horns and cow bells; the song also presents Timbaland's characteristic bhangra beats." Is brass a specific instrument? I always thought it was a family of wind instruments. If so, "a brass" doesn't make sense.
"Lyrically the song has a message of social awareness in it and was inspired by Madonna's visit to Africa and witnessing the suffering of the people there." More wordiness, and I don't think it's saying what you mean it to say. Are you saying that the song was inspired by Madonna's visit to Africa, or the lyrics? More imprecise writing: I doubt the fact that Madonna visited Africa inspired her; you probably meant to say "and was inspired by Madonna's witnessing the suffering of the people of Africa." ("visit to" is unnecessary).
Newspapers should be italicized (I see The New York Times italicized in one instance, and in regular formatting in another).
"Track listings and formats" should be using spaced en dashes (–), not spaced em dashes (—)
"a loud, busy, energetic track." Please see WP:LQ on logical quotation. The period should go inside the quote marks.

And much more. My prose examples were from the first paragraph of the lead. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

non free content a stunning excess Fasach Nua (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. The prose can be improved or tweaked as Dabomb87 has pointed out, however as Fasach Nua says about non-free content, I must point out that other Featured song articles like Irreplaceable also has the same number of non-free content which each of them are added to enhance the visibility of the points being discussed. I hope more reviews come up. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Im withdrawing teh nomination since I believe now as pointed above that a thorough copyedit is required before re-submitting it for FA. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

^ Smith 2007, p. 1.