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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:23, 31 December 2008 [1].

---

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk)

This is an article about one of the earliest science fiction magazines. Amazing Stories was recently featured and would be a good comparison. Another point that may be of interest is that as result of some recent discussion at the FAC talk page and elsewhere about short articles, I decided to include a couple of other magazines in this article. The details are given in the article so I won't repeat them, but essentially the article covers between two and five magazines, depending on which bibliographer is counting. If I didn't include Science Wonder Quarterly, I'd end up with a very short article on that magazine that would need a good deal of material copied verbatim from this article. Anyway, I look forward to comments; thanks for all input. Mike Christie (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

• What makes http://news.ansible.co.uk/a239.html a reliable source?

  It's the online version of the science fiction news and gossip fanzine Ansible (magazine). David Langford, who publishes it, has won multiple Hugo Awards for the magazine, and it is widely respected. Langford controls the content, so there is editorial control. If you don't think it passes I can cut it; I might be able to replace it, but I might also just cut the whole paragraph -- the 2007 reissue is not the same magazine, it just uses the same name, and I don't think it has to be mentioned. Mike Christie (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might be related to the fanzine, but wasn't sure. I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable for non-controversial information. It wouldn't be safe for a BLP, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

• Image:Science Wonder Quarterly Fall 1929.jpg, Image:Air wonder stories 192907.jpg and Image:Science Wonder Stories 1929 June.jpg all need description info; source, author, date, et al. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. I haven't used the ((information)) tag before so let me know if there's anything I missed. Mike Christie (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The tagging looks pretty good (thanks for using the template; it's hell to review images without them, and I usually go all OCD on them and format them out anyhow.) We're missing two things now; first, the original copyright holder (usually put in the description or other information parameter of the template), and how we know that the copyright wasn't renewed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. I thought it would be useful to explain the Gutenberg file I searched, so I included a link to User:Quadell/copyright, which is very helpful. Is there a project-space page that's equivalent to that which could be used instead? Mike Christie (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not aware of something in projectspace that explicit. One last nitpick; can you explain in the descriptions what Project Gutenberg is to newbs? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I changed the note; see what you think. I'm guessing that it's really the nature of the file I searched that needs to be explained, not the website I searched it at, so my explanation is tilted that way. Do you think I also need to explain Project Gutenberg itself? Mike Christie (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A little mention would be nice, as I can see what you did, but I would be left with "wait... what makes this web site the place to search for it?" Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair enough. How does it look now? Mike Christie (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Much better, thanks! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, I'm not really sure how much the charts aid the reader; it just kind of confused me on first glance. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The intention is for them to convey a lot of information that would be very tedious to put into text. The volume numbering, for example, which is of interest to collectors, doesn't have to be mentioned at all in the text if I have those charts. The transition dates for the editors, the exact months when publication was skipped, just when the magazine was monthly and when it was bimonthly -- all those things are easy to read from the chart. I have done this in a single chart, e.g. in If (magazine); but for Amazing Stories I split them up per a PR comment, and I think that looks better. Do you think the information is unnecessary, or is it that the presentation could be improved? Mike Christie (talk) 12:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally don't see the use of such information, at least in it's split-up form, and would advocate a single list. Also, to improve accessibility, it should really say on the image pages and in the caption what the numbers mean; it took me a while to figure out that it was 12 issues in a volume and unlike many publications it didn't correlate to year. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added more information to the image descriptions. For the article itself, the first caption does say that the numbers mean the volume and issue number; I felt it would be annoying to the reader to repeat it on every caption. Long captions are ugly, too. I can do it if necessary, but my instinct is not to do so. Mike Christie (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Just realized I didn't respond to the comment about usefulness: I do think this is useful information to some readers; I'm aware it won't be to many readers, but I don't think that's a big problem. I did originally have it as a single list, but was strongly advised at PR to break it up, so I'll wait and see what other reviewers feel about it. It's very easy to rejoin the images if that's preferred. Mike Christie (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My rationale is that since it's a more niche item of interest it makes more sense to keep it together rather than sprinkled through, otherwise readers are going to think it's more important than it is... I leave it up to others. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content

• Lead:
  • "Startling itself only lasted to the end of 1955 before falling victim to the general decline of the pulp magazine industry." - the way this is phrased, it makes it sound like Starling was suddenly and violently affected by the decline of the industry; I'm sure this was much more of a long-term trend. Can that be made more clear?
  • I'm concerned about a bit of overuse of weasel words, in particular "some". "Some well-received fiction", "in the opinion of some science fiction historians"...
  • "Some well-received fiction was published by both Lasser and Hornig, but Hornig's efforts in particular were overshadowed by the success of Astounding Stories that had become the leading magazine in the new field of science fiction"
  • "and for a period in the early 1940s was especially juvenile in presentation" - juvenile in presentation, to me, implies garish graphics and lots of whiz-bang covers attempting to attract young boys. Do you mean it's design and aesthetic or the quality of it's stories, or both? If so, it might be better to explicitly make it clear.

It's easier for me to keep track of comments if you keep them separated from mine below. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "falling victim": I added "finally", hoping that this indicates that the process was drawn out and not sudden. Does that work?
• Weasel words: you mention two items in the lead. In both cases I think these are supported by specific citations when the topics are dealt with in the body -- Ashley is named in the text for the "historian" comment, and the other is supported by reference to specific stories. Hence these don't seem to me like weasel words -- I think of weasel words as ones that are not supported but which try to insinuate a point. I could make the lead more specific, by citing specific stories, and mentioning Ashley by name, but that didn't seem suitable for the lead, which is just a summary after all. Would extra specificity fix this for you?
• "which vs. that": this is a non-restrictive clause, so it does need to be "which", not "that"; I think the problem was that I left out a comma. See [2], which is my favourite page on this grammatical topic.
• The answer is "both": the section on Weisinger and Friend gives more details. Again I think of the lead as merely summarizing here, but I could expand it to something like "was especially juvenile in both editorial style and artistic presentation". Would that be better?

-- Mike Christie (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I leave it up to your knowledge about which/that; the 'finally' clarifies things. My only concern is still with the weasel words. I understand what you mean, but I'd just like a little more specificity rather than 'some'. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the lead to have a specific well-known story cited to support the "some well-received fiction" comment, and I attributed the second phrase that concerned you specifically to Mike Ashley. Now I make the change, I think you're definitely right on that latter one; that opinion is not universal among critics so it does need to be attributed. And the former change is helpful too, so I think you were right. Mike Christie (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that takes care of my comments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean Support. Comment - Image in "Contents and reception" causes a heading disruption. This could be remedied by removing the heading "Air Wonder and Science Wonder". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Mike Christie (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm leaning support on what I see now. "Contents and reception" the second paragraph could use a sentence or two to flush it out. Is there a second example of this? A sentence or two would help. Since this would be my only exposure to it, multiple examples would improve my understanding. Also, I can easily fully support this once all of the above users' comments are dealt with (or, many of them :) ). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added another example -- let me know if that's enough. I left a message for Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs at his talk page; he is not much on-wiki at the moment, I gather, which is probably why he hasn't responded to my notes above. Mike Christie (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I made a little copyedit for clarity. I'll wait to see what others say, but I see no problems with the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeTony (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)—1a. I've read only the first para, and there are things wrong in every sentence. Can you find someone fresh to the text to copy-edit the whole article carefully? Know where to find someone?[reply]

• Awkward opening: "Wonder Stories was an early science fiction magazine which, under several titles, was published from 1929 to 1955." Why not just: "Wonder Stories was an early science fiction magazine that was published under several titles from 1929 to 1955.
• "It was founded by Hugo Gernsback in 1929 in the aftermath of the Experimenter Publishing bankruptcy, in which he lost control of his first science fiction magazine"—Is the tense right? ("had lost"?). And "in ... in ... in"; what about "in the aftermath of the 1929 Exp...", if that's correct?
• "Within a few months of the bankruptcy, Gernsback launched two separate monthly magazines: Air Wonder Stories and Science Wonder Stories, along with a companion magazine, Science Wonder Quarterly." You prepare us for two items after the colon, but give us three. Then "monthly magazines" confuses us as to what is what.
• "The magazines were not financially successful, and in 1936 Gernsback sold Wonder Stories to Ned Pines at Beacon Publications, where, retitled Thrilling Wonder Stories, it continued for nearly twenty more years." Third time "magazine" in a few lines, so just "These were ...". You don't want both "continued" and "more". "20"?
• "The last issue was dated Winter 1955; after that date Thrilling Wonder was merged with Startling Stories, another of Pines' science fiction magazines. Startling itself only lasted to the end of 1955 before finally succumbing to the general decline of the pulp magazine industry." Is "Winter" a date? Change that and you avoid the close repetition of the word, too. Comma after the second "date". I think you need quotes and around your nickname of "Startling" (as well as italic face), rather than the plain italic face used for the formal title that precedes it. Do we need "general"? I'd place "only" after "lasted"—put it as late as possible in a clause. Tony (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  All done, I hope, except for a couple of items as follows. The rewording of the sentence about the bankruptcy isn't quite what you suggested as that would not have made it clear that the magazines were launched in 1929. Yes, Winter is a date; quarterly magazines were then and are still dated that way. I think "Startling" doesn't look right and it should be Startling, given that it's an abbreviation of a form that would be italicized. Changing from italics would be distracting to the reader. Other than that I hope everything is addressed. I will try to find a new copyeditor. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Status? Has Tony been asked to revisit ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Mike Christie (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have copyedited the article and made numerous adjustments to the prose which I now think is sufficiently tight. This is now a very readable, comprehensive piece of magazine publishing history, a worthy companion piece to Amazing Stories.

I have one quibble, about linking. Oscar Friend is bluelinked in the text, redlinked in the list towards the end of the article. Also, do Lasser, Weisinger and Meran need to be linked in the table, as they are already linked earlier in the article? Likewise, do Hornig and Miles really need second redlinks?

Brianboulton (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedit and the support. You're right on the overlinking and I've removed those links. Mike Christie (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: There were a couple of minor problems which I took the liberty of fixing. I changed two words to US spelling, (rivaled and judgment), and I hope this was the right thing to do. I didn't like the "with regard to" but I cannot think of a better way of writing the sentence. I really don't like all those ugly little tables scattered throughout the article. I know they carry a lot of information important to some enthusiasts, but they spoil the look of the article. Could they be but together at the bottom of the article, just a thought. OK that's the nit-picking over, now for the praise. This is a superbly researched article, it is well-sourced and well written. I loved the little treats like the Asimov and John Wyndham anecdotes; a damn good read, well done. Graham Colm ^Talk 15:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Yes, the article should be in US spelling; I've lived on both sides of the Atlantic and my spelling is corrupted from either perspective, so thanks for the fixes. The tables are difficult to know what to do with; I do firmly believe the information belongs in the article, but perhaps it could be presented another way. Take a look at If (magazine), which has the equivalent table at the end; it's unreadable as a result, but does not clutter the upper half of the article. For the moment I'll stick with the divided tables as they are readable (and a peer review on Amazing Stories strongly recommended this change) but I'm open to either approach if I can get enough interested people to form a consensus. Maybe I'll start tracking the comments I've seen on this (pro and con) and see if they accumulate on one side or the other. I changed "With regard to the title change, Gernsback commented" to "In an editorial just before the title change, Gernsback commented" -- how's that? Mike Christie (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I can live with the tables. And, with regard to the "with regard to", I wished I'd thought of that :-) Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 15:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose Neutral, all those images of tables of issues rely should be re-done as real inline tables per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images as text. Also per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Color coding they reply should not rely purely on color to show what editor was responsible for what issue (use initials under the date or simmilar notations). --Sherool (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I tried making a table for one of the images: take a look at this version to see it. I think it's less satisfactory; the size is harder to manage, for one thing, and it doesn't respond to pagesize instructions. I reverted to the image but added alt text: see this version, which has the alt text in. I think the alt text might actually be more useful than the table, because in the alt text I can summarize for an unsighted reader, rather than make them listen to a long list of individual "two slash one, two slash two" cells being read out. For the colour, I took a look at Vischeck per the MOS recommendation and it looks as if the colours I've chosen are distinguishable for someone with red-green blindness, so I think I'm OK there. Please take a look at both versions and let me know which you think is best. My own feeling is that with the alt text the image is slightly the better choice. Mike Christie (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It might be harder to manage the size, but not that hard. You can tweak font size, width and line height to your hearts content using CSS, see my example version. That said it might work better to have the tables in full size somewhere else since "exessive" styling might cause issues with older browsers/mobile devices and what not. I'm rely not sure. I still think tabular data with color coding in image form is less than ideal, but if you throw in alt text to accomodate screenreaders and rewrite the captions slightly so they don't rely entierly on colors (think for example black & white printouts) I guess enough of my concerns have been adressed to change my stance to newtral. -Sherool (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm impressed by what can be accomplished with the styles; the table as you had it looked quite acceptable to me. After thinking about it some more, though, I think the images with alt text are really a better choice, because I can make the alt text much more comprehensible to someone than the table cells are. The value of the image to a sighted person is that at a glance one can see that Lasser edited for several years, and was followed by Hornig who edited for several more years. The individual table cells would not convey that very well, but the alt text can summarize in just that way. So I've reverted, and added alt text to all the images. I've also modified the captions to associate date ranges with the colours, which I think addresses your concern about a black and white printout. Let me know if that addresses your concerns. Mike Christie (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah I guess that pretty much covers it (good point about the raw table listing issue numbers probably not beeing of much use to a blind reader using a screenreader). I still feel it might have been better to present this in some other way (the scattered tables feel a tad "messy" to me), but I can't quite think of how to do it better so I won't make that a point of opposition since It's mostly a matter of taste. So consider me neutral. --Sherool (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support In general, this article is very good, but there are still a few elements that need polishing:

• I think this article needs a small paragraph that puts the subject in context. Many readers won't know about the publication history of SF magazines, so a small introduction on the rise of the pulps and the Golden Age of SF would be helpful. It would help the reader place this magazine in the larger firmament of SF magazines.

  I stole a context paragraph from Amazing Stories and put it at the top of the "Publication History" section, and tweaked the following paragraph to suit. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I wonder if you could expand it to include information on the Golden Age of the 40s and 50s, since Wonder was published during that time? You could write the paragraph from the point of view of Wonder: it spanned the birth and golden age of SF magazines (or something like that). Awadewit (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I certainly can add something but I'm not sure where it would go -- I think the publication history section needs to be reasonably chronological, and it would be a bit dislocating to talk about the 40s in that first paragraph. I was hoping that the context of the Golden Age and the other magazines would be sufficiently covered by references in the body of the article. For example, the "Influence on the field" section talks about the Golden Age, and Astounding is mentioned as a point of comparison several times -- under the sections on Horning and on Merwin and Mines, for example. Where were you thinking I should put this additional material? Mike Christie (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I was thinking that a little overview paragraph at the beginning that covered both the pulps and the Golden Age would be a good idea. While the chronology is a good idea for the detailed sections of the article, I think it is helpful to let the reader know where the article is going at the beginning. So, for example, when I teach the history of the French Revolution in my introductory lecture on Frankenstein, I don't just go through the chronology of the Revolution. I start by giving a little overarching narrative: Bastille, Constitution, Deposition of the King, Terror, Napoleon, Napoleonic Wars, Waterloo - my two-minute French Revolution. Then I go back and spend more time explaining what really happened and the particular issues that are relevant for Frankenstein. But without this little timeline, the students won't know what is "coming next" and they can't orient themselves properly. (Do you watch documentaries? They often do this, too.) I think articles have to do this kind of "forecasting": we have to situate readers historically and show them how individual people and things fit within a larger timeline. So, for example, I have to show my students how Frankenstein is reacting to the debates surrounding the French Revolution - a history with which they are totally unfamiliar. This article needs to show readers how Wonder Stories was part of the great era of pulps and SF magazines. Telling a little bit of that story at the beginning gives readers who are less knowledgeable about the subject a larger narrative to grab onto - it anchors their comprehension around a few key points, if you see what I mean. Awadewit (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I've done a little more; let me know if that's what you're looking for. Mike Christie (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this well help the uninitiated a lot. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the writing in the second half of the article is much better than in the first half. I would like to see another copyedit of "Publication history". There are wordy sentences and awkward phrases. If you like, I can do this later today.

  Yes, please! Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Will do. Awadewit (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done - please check the changes I made to see if I introduced any mistakes. I did change the meaning in a few places, guessing what was meant. Awadewit (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  All looks good, except for one word change: "stealing" should really be "using" since the illegality was the use of the list, not the possession of the list. Mike Christie (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The covers, often by Earle K. Bergey, typically depicted bizarre aliens and threatened women - I'm not totally sure what the phrase "threatened women" is supposed to mean - is it supposed to mean "threatening women" or what?

  Per BuddingJournalist's note below, it means damsels in distress. See the next note and links. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, that makes much more sense. Awadewit (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Under Friend's direction, Earle Bergey began to paint more cover art featuring women in ludicrously revealing spacesuits, or wearing his trademark "brass brassières" - I know exactly what you mean by "ludicrously revealing spacesuits", but I think perhaps we should come up with a better description. It is my understanding that a very specific part of these women was revealed. :)

  Ah, well, you obviously haven't looked at as many of them as I have! Breasts are certainly a big focus, if you'll pardon my phrasing, but see this, this, or this, for example. I didn't want to be specific about body parts; a spacesuit that reveals expanses of belly and thigh in addition to barely covering the breasts is ludicrous on multiple grounds. If you can improve on what I've written, please do, but I wanted to be sure you had a good understanding of the inane spacesuit designs before you got out the blue pencil! Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  What about something along the lines of "provocative", "alluring", "erotic", or "sensuous"? That was the point of them, was it not? Awadewit (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I added "beautiful"; is that enough? The source makes the point that they were intended to be alluring, so you're right that should have been there. It also says they were ridiculous, so I'd like to leave that in. Here are the relevant sentences from the source: "[Bergey] responded to editorial requirements under Friend to paint covers featuring monsters and voluptuous women in danger. The women were invariably wearing ridiculous spacesuits that left them half-naked, or were wearing brass-brassières". Mike Christie (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Hm. I'm wondering if the emphasis here is wrong. The "ridiculous spacesuits" sentence is a bit vague. Are these spacesuits "ridiculous" because they were alluring or because they were unrealistic? Looking at this image, for example, it is only the man who could reasonably survive in space. Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. I made it "implausibly revealing" to try to tilt the sense in that direction; does that work? Mike Christie (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Excellent. Awadewit (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• He argued against restrictions in science fiction themes, and in 1952 published Philip José Farmer's "The Lovers", a ground-breaking story about sex, in Startling. - Could you be a bit more specific about the story's ground-breaking nature? Sex is a big topic, after all.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Too funny! Interspecies sex! Awadewit (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• He followed this in 1953 with another taboo-breaking story from Farmer, "Mother", in Thrilling Wonder. - Why was it taboo-breaking?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In the "Notes" "p" and "pp" are not used consistently - "pp" is missing from some multi-page references.

  Fixed, I think. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In the "Notes", the Nicholls & Clute Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is not referred to by a consistent nomenclature.

  Fixed. Two things to note; one is that there are two editions, and because the 1993 one is in New York, and I won't be back in NY till January 4th, I am quoting one article from the 1981 edition. The second point is that some articles are missing page numbers; that's because they were cited from the CD version. I'll add the page numbers when I get back to NY -- I hope that won't hold up your support. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Tsk, tsk. Submitting an FAC before it's ready. :) Awadewit (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I was a bit embarrassed when I went to fix the citation problems you pointed out and realized how poorly formatted they all were. Somehow I thought I'd done the clean up on these, including the page numbers, but they were messy. I promise to be better behaved in future. Mike Christie (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In the "References", some bibliographic entries are missing publication locations.

  I believe the only one that is now missing is for Davin; as above my copy is in NY. It's almost certainly Ann Arbor, as the book was published by the University of Michigan, but I will add it when I get back up there. The Amazing Stories entry is not in citation format as I am not sure how to use that template for a magazine; if you happen to know how, could you convert it? Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Davin and Asimov. I don't know templates, sorry. I find them to be far too much trouble. Awadewit (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Asimov is done; Davin will be done in a few days. Mike Christie (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In the "References", the Perry entry has a strange "ref" tag at the end of it.

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the issue charts need to indicate on the image description page who made the chart and that the chart is "self-made" so that the license makes sense. :)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As I'm rereading the lead, it seems to be skewed more towards "publication" than "content and reception". I think a bit of tweaking needs to be done here. As many readers will only read the lead, I think it needs to say more about what kinds of stories were published in the magazines, for example. Awadewit (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I added a bit more; see what you think. Thanks for the time you're taking on this; it's appreciated. Mike Christie (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I changed “threatened women” to “damsels in distress”. I think this is what was meant here, right Mike? BuddingJournalist 21:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes; noted above. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm happy to say that I've changed to "support" above. Awadewit (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:23, 31 December 2008 [3].

---

Nominator(s): –thedemonhog talk • edits

This feaured topic good article from the Lost WikiProject is about a television episode of the fourth season of Lost. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded 02:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Co-editor of the article. Transcluded because tdh forgot to. A few notes before I get to bed: length is fine (40KB; are you trying to break my record of 74KB? ;) ). Split into sub-sections nicely. Think you could spice up the reception paragraph? They're often boring. I tried to do mine with The Stolen Earth by using blockquotes and images to give readers pauses. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not that it matters, but just after creating it, I thought of a couple more sentences and pictures that I could add to the article so I hesitated from transcluding it to WP:FAC, but thought that if someone found it, they could transclude it. It is not standard practice and my motives are strange, but whatever. What I did completely forget when writing up the nomination was to give credit to Sceptre for providing the foundations for the plot, reception and lead sections, when I had left my first message in months on his talk page just a couple hours earlier! –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, I will review this article before the FAC closes, but not right now. I'll come in around the midgame and offer some suggestions. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Images:
  • Image:Meet Kevin Johnson.png is low resolution, has appropriate components and a decent FUR; I leave it up to other editors to decide if it's strong enough for WP:NFCC's requirements.
  • Image:Blake Bashoff.png looks good as well.
• First impressions:
  • Per POV concerns, Critical response should encompass all reviews; the positive and negative actions should not be segregated out.
  • " American Broadcasting Company's" in the lead; can we shorten this to ABC? Otherwise it makes the intro a bit of a mouthful.
  • "The episode's broadcast date was heavily influenced by the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike " suggests that the content of the episode was influenced by the strike, but the rest of the sentence implies it caused scheduling issues; was it both or the latter? Make clearer.
  • While I'm not going to go oppose until I've given a thorough look at the prose, I'm concerned about 1a issues such as convoluted sentences. (" Watros was given star billing in the second season;[6] however, she became the first main cast member to not receive an episode with flashbacks from her character's perspective; she did appear in flashbacks of other characters' episodes.[7]")

Please reply to all comments in a block below, so that I can easily keep track of responses. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some changes. I used to simply use "ABC", but then Tony pointed out that there could be confusion with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I suppose that's a valid reason for keeping ABC spelled out then. The changes look good, but I would recommend getting an experienced copyeditor to run through and massage the prose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request made to Casliber. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

…and rejected. I have asked sgeureka. See also Sceptre's edit. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to copyedit. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to add some more information and look over the prose around the end of today (UTC) and then asks commenters to return to this FAC. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Image:Meet Kevin Johnson.png - The fair use rationale needs to include the name of the copyright holder. The "purpose of use" looks strong enough to me. Awadewit (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• I've said it before and I'll say it again, I find the pictures too small. I know you prefer it like this; I'm just pointing it out. And is the Emmy picture really needed? Now that we have the others, I find it to be just filler. Thoughts? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a problem with filler pictures. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the description of the Emmy actually says it is presumably fake, I don't really see the purpose of including it (the caption doesn't make this clear, either). Awadewit (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Adwadewit here; the caption is inane in any case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have desized the images per WP:MOS#Images. Awadewit (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.syfyportal.com/news424446.html
  • http://geekmonthly.com/blog/?p=74

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SyFy Portal says that "News [on the website] that has been [previously] released through official channels about a certain topic"[4]. The BBC,[5] Digital Spy,[6], SCI FI,[7][8] and Comic Book Resources[9] have cited them. The second site is the web version of the print magazine Geek Monthly.[10] Here's an article from a reliable source on them/it.[11] –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To determine the reliablity 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 reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. I'll note that the BBC link you provided just shows that they are saying that SyFy portal is reporting some information, not necessarily showing that BBC trusts the information. The first SciFi link just shows that they state that SyFy portal reported on the fan reaction. I'd like to see a bit more usage from mainstream media, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source changed to more reliable one. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Some comments (hopefully useful ones)
  • A bracketed "M.C. Gainey" seems to be missing upon Tom's first mention.
  • The eighth of sixteen ordered scripts—"Meet Kevin Johnson"—was completed - not very easy to read becuase of the dashes. How about "The eighth of sixteen ordered scripts, 'MKJ' was completed..." or "'MKJ', the eighth of sixteen ordered scripts, was completed..."?
  • Sayid, appalled of his employment - could just be me, but I've never heard "appalled of" as part of regular speech... usually "appalled by/at".
  • it doesn't close out the way our previous ones have ended - "our previous [whats]" - seasons?
  • the nonexistence of a script for the next episode courtesy of the strike - the use of the word "courtesy" here is somewhat sarcastic... I'm not sure if it's the best word to use.
  • Only the first three sentences under the Filming section seem to fit under that heading... and perhaps Harold Perrineau's "butt-busting" comment. ;)
  • with the broadcast of "Something Nice Back Home".[54] 1.421 million Canadians watched it - the use of "it" instead of the title or "the episode" here seems as if SNBH is the "it".
• Good work, as usual. —97198 (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Thanks for the review, –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Guess I'll be the first, then. :) —97198 (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs for now.

• The plot section begins very in universe.
• I'm one of those rare individuals who has never seen an episode of Lost and I am left in the dark with this plot summary. Can a small bit of background be added so that those of who who don't normally follow the show can figure out what is going on?
  • To me, this just feels like a mix of too much detail (why do we care how he paid for the gun?) and not enough background. Karanacs (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The information about when to tell Libby's story seemed a bit detailed to me. Do we need to know all of that information in this article?
  • I think most of this information would belong better in the article about Libby (if it is not already there). It just doesn't add much to our understanding of this article. Karanacs (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• All sentences that contain a quotation should have a citation at the end. This may mean that citations are repeated in subsequent sentences. This occurs multiple times throughout the article
• I'm not familiar with this phrase "The show runners "
• This is an opinion presented as fact - "The flashback portion of "Meet Kevin Johnson" is the greatest in Lost history"; the article needs to attribute (in text) who thinks this was the greatest
• The writing section seemed to me to be a bit of a mismash. It has both information about the physical writing and scheduling and then a lot of information explaining the various plot points. To me (unfamiliar with most other tv episode articles), these two types of info don't go together. Also, much of the explanation of the plot points seems meandering. I am not sure whether there is too much unnecessary detail or if there is just not enough transition between the different points. (Some of it might be able to be moved to plot summary)
  • This is better...but it still feels a bit repetitive to me, as some of the info is already in the plot summary. Karanacs (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The three paragraphs of the Editing section do not flow well together at all. These are three very different ideas kind of jammed together with no transitions.
• The ratings section tone is a bit off. At first, it makes it seem like this would be a very highly watched episode, and the numbers given seem high (but are relatively meaningless without a comparison). Then after all that we find out that this was the lowest rated episode. Perhaps the first half of the first sentence should be combined with the news that it was nevertheless the lowest-rated episode. Then go on to discuss the numbers of viewers.
• "A common complaint was made " - passive voice, needs attribution. Made by whom?

Karanacs (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"…the greatest in Lost history". Ha ha, I meant greatest in size. Lost is heavily serialized and while it would be possible to give some more background in the plot, it would likely be longer than intended, not to mention that readers are probably familiar with Lost and are able to refresh their memories via other articles. Libby's story is detailed and it could be cut down, but I would rather that it stay in this article until she makes her next appearance—if she returns—at which point, it could be moved. As far as I know, the only episode article longer than this is The Stolen Earth, so there is not much precedent for how writing and editing sub-sections should structured. (Perhaps we should look to film articles.) I believe that I have addressed all other points. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you have moved the awards info, the Emmy picture is out of place. It should be moved to the awards section, or (hopefully) removed. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the structure of the ratings section not better? –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ratings section has been changed a little, the Libby paragraph has been condensed, background has been added to the plot and the editing section might be getting the axe. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Through the Looking Glass (Lost) (one you wrote!) and Trapped in the Closet (South Park) are about 4KB longer. Anyway, my suggestions are coming, probably tommorow. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going by readable prose. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, my comments:
  • "The episode begins on December 26, 2004, over three months after the crash of Oceanic Airlines 815, on a freighter offshore of the island where 815 crashed." -> "The episode begins on December 26, 2004, over three months after the crash of Oceanic Airlines 815. The majority of the episode takes place on the Kahana, a freighter moored offshore of the island where the plane crashed." could be better, but is still worded a bit awkwardly (sorry).
  • I have to join the opposition to the Emmy statuette, because the image description does say it's probably a fake...
• That's pretty much all I can think about right now. Sorry for hyping this up and disappointing you with a crappy review. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Diff: that sentence has been changed and the picture has been removed. What do you think of the section structuring? Finally, phew, we survived another. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Structuring is fine :) Sceptre ^(talk) 21:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. With the removal of that horrid picture, I am willing to support (and had been meaning to for a while now). Just a closing comment; I would remake the awards section under reception, and move the editing awards there. The awards are not really part of the production of the episode, they are a sign of how the episode was received. While I understand why you placed that info there, I would recommend moving it back. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support. As I said before, remake the awards section under reception, and move the editing awards there. The awards are not really part of the production of the episode, they are a sign of how the episode was received. While I understand why you placed that info there, I would recommend moving it back. Please reply so I can change back to support. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to Support now. :D Very nice work. (Hehe, being bold was fun.) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 06:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean support. There is something off, but I can't just place it. Maybe its the lack of an external links section that just throws me off? I don't know. Second paragraph of Plot, first of Casting, and second of Writing could be split. Some wording seems just a tad off (but no suggestion on how to fix). Example: "after the second season finale, primarily his recruitment aboard the freighter Kahana as a spy for Ben Linus (Michael Emerson)." Ottava Rima (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Very minor things

• "During production of the fourth season finale, the writers asserted that while they had failed to shed light on the character's past in the past season" is a bit bleugh, with "past" being used twice. Does "past season" refer to the fourth, in which case would something like "current" be better, or the third season?
• "(Lost would have begun broadcasting a week earlier with its extra episode)" -- "would have" makes it sound like there should be an "except blah blah blah..." tacked onto the end of this sentence

Otherwise I enjoyed reading it. :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, the "past" sentence is better. As for the second issue: I thought about rewording it and then decided that it was redundant enough to get rid of it altogether.  :) –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Status update: There are three support votes from 97198, Cornucopia and Ottava Rima, although Ottava Rima thinks that something is off. Karanacs is opposing; he would like some section restructing and removal and thinks that the plot section should be written more for the reader who has not seen Lost but does notice the "random article" button or the article link in some Wikipedia directory, e.g. WP:FA. I understand her concerns, but I ultimately disagree with her proposals. User:Sceptre also supports the current structure. Awadewit and Ealdgyth respectively had problems with images and sourcing, but these have since been resolved. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs left some comments, but is sick and busy in real life and unable to give an update on whether his comment that has not been striked is still valid (that the article needs a copyedit). The article has been copyedited: compare the article at the start of the FAC to its present state. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: Generally well-written (begs the question as to why the writing skills aren't put to a deeper topic—how rude I am). I've made a few trivial edits at the top (revert any you don't like). The strike link is a little awkward—I played with it to avoid the blue–black grammatical bump and to minimise the blue via piping, but ended up not doing so. Past-tense inconsistencies in the plot? "the gun jams and does not kill him" need rewording, since it couldn't have killed him after jamming. ", but this, too, is unsuccessful, because the gun jams".? ""Meet Kevin Johnson" contains the first appearance of ..."—oh dear ("features", perhaps?). "Killed off"—does that mean murdered on-screen or just written out of the story? (I'm unsure.) "tell her tale" ("tale" is old-fashioned). "Also" is a very strong back-connector, but has to leap over a para break. I haven't read beyond this; it could still do with a little smartening up by a new editor, and I presume you'll do this before and/or after its promotion. (No need to ping me.) Tony (talk) 10:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each of those has been reworded. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Neutral Oppose. [Switched to neutral; still reviewing but everything significant I have found has now been fixed.] [Now switched to weak support; I think the prose could still be improved, but that's true of almost every article.] I found the article quite confusing, to the point that I did not finish reading it. I've never seen the show and know almost nothing about it; all I knew was that the plot revolves around some people who are marooned somewhere. I have concerns about context and prose. Some points that concerned or confused me as I read:

• The lead doesn't give even the most basic information about the overall plot of the series as context for the reader. Even a half-sentence mentioning that the characters are marooned would be useful.
• The mention of the second-season finale in the lead is baffling and requires a click-through before an uninformed reader can go on.
• The "flashback" appears to be after Michael leaves the island and returns to New York. Isn't that a flash-forward?
• The "Other who abducted Walt": what is an "Other"? Not even a link this time, though I think some kind of inline explanation is necessary.
• The Island won't "allow" Michael to kill himself? The Island is sentient? By now I'm completely baffled.
• I was unaware that there are factions of some kind among the protagonists until I got to the word "infiltrate". I think a little more explanation is needed there.
• A couple of prose points: "his position to not kill innocents" is a clumsy phrase; is "position" the right word? "season and a half-long absence": might want to hyphenate that all the way through, or rephrase; "appalled by his employment by Ben": do you mean "exploitation"?
• The casting section spends a great deal of time on the delays to Libby's planned story. Is this really the right article for that? I'm afraid I stopped reading partway through this section so I apologize if I am missing a connection you make later, but it did seem rather a lot of detail for this particular episode.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All but a couple of those have been dealt with. There is a link to the article and an explanation on the Others earlier in the article now. The island's powers are not further explained. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The extra material in the lead is very useful; thank you. There's now a little confusion in the lead over just when the episode starts -- should it be "The episode starts one month later, when Michael reappears..."? I've struck some points above. I will read the rest of the article and comment again, tonight if possible. Mike Christie (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More changes. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck most of the remaining points above, though if you can find a better way to tell a new reader that yes, the island really does have some kind of consciousness, that would be good. Reading the rest of the article I was happy to find it much easier to negotiate. I have some more comments; I'll outdent for them. Feel free to intersperse your responses if you prefer.

• How about starting the second paragraph of the plot section with "The flashback begins with Michael and his son..."? It took me so much effort to figure out the timeline that I think it would be good to help the reader along at the key transition points.

-- More later this evening; family responsibilities call. Mike Christie (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I am not doing that is because when the flashback starts, Michael is driving into a car crash, i.e. the flashback begins after he and Walt get back to the real world and then back to New York and after he tells Walt what happened and after Walt goes to live with his grandmother (and after Michael gets a haircut). All of that is filled in through dialogue later in the episode (and the season). –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. This sounds more complicated the more I learn about it. More below; I can see that with a long-running complex plot it's simply impossible to recap all relevant plot history for each episode, but the plot related points below are things I felt were a problem even so. Mike Christie (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 'reminding them of George Minkowski's death (Fisher Stevens) in "The Constant"': a couple of things here. First, it would be better to recast this to have "(Fisher Stevens)" directly follow the character name; perhaps "reminding them of the death of George Minkowski (Fisher Stevens)"? Second, it's not clear what the relevance of those deaths is -- if they also died after deserting the parallel should be drawn for the reader. (Even some Lost fans may not have seen that particular episode.) Third, I think that using the episode name as you do is a viewpoint flicker; we are more or less "in universe" for the plot description, but episode names are not in-universe. I would think it would be better to have the description use in-universe time, and separate it (e.g. parenthetically) from any episode reference: maybe "reminding them of the recent death of Minkowski (in the episode "The Constant")"? However you solve it, it seems jarring to me as it stands.
• I'm confused about who owns/captains the freighter. Is it Gault or Widmore? Is Widmore on the freighter? From the later mention in the plot section of a war it seems Widmore is the owner and is Gault's superior. If so, could the conflict between the Others and Widmore be mentioned at the first mention of the Kahana, in the first Plot para? E.g. "on the Kahana, a freighter moored offshore of the island where the plane crashed; the Kahana is owned by Widmore, who is at war with the Others".
• "appalled by his association with Ben": by Michael's association? I didn't follow that first time through; I thought Sayid had been associated with Ben and was now regretting it. I see the internal logic now I understand the plot better but I still think the sentence could do with some disambiguation.
• Why is "Barracks" capitalized?
• "John Locke ... meets with his faction": I can't tell if Locke is a survivor or an Other from this, since Ben is apparently an Other and is there. Hence I don't know if this is a faction of the survivors or of the Others. I also don't know what "confirms the identity of his spy" means; there's been no mention of a spy and I've no idea who he's referring to.
• I would suggesting changing the caption of the picture of Watros to make it clear that this is Watros as herself, not in character. Maybe "Cynthia Watros, who left in the second season finale'; or even mention caption that she is the actress who plays Libby. Picture captions are one of the things that casual readers will glance at, so it's good to avoid any risk of misdirection.
• I think "show runner/co-creator/executive producer/head writer" and the similar string of nouns a few lines below it are not easily digested. Since Lindelof and Cuse aren't the focus here, wouldn't it be possible to simplify this slightly, perhaps referring only to the roles relevant to the comments you quote?
• "Having decided for some time that Karl would eventually die, they pinpointed the episode": "for some time" works better with continuing actions, whereas "having decided" is a completed action. Either "The writers had been considering for some time" or "Having decided some time ago" would work grammatically, though I'm not sure if they're precisely what you want to say.

-- That's all I have time for this evening. I'm going to have to let my oppose stand as I do keep finding more concerns. I will do my best to get through the rest of the article tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most issues have been addressed. The Barracks is treated as a proper noun/place name within the show. I reworded the bit on Minkowski so that it seems more conclusive, but I would rather not elaborate on Minkowski's story, which is: a week before "Meet Kevin Johnson", Minkowski and his friend Brandon went out from the freighter in a raft in an attempt to explore the island, but because they did not travel on a specific bearing, Brandon went crazy and they had to return to the freighter, where Brandon died. Minkowski's consciousness became "unstuck in time" (as Brandon's had, but slower) and he began to experience past parts of his life with his present-day consciousness, while blacking out in the present-day. Minkowski was unable to find something that was familiar in both times and eventually suffered a brain aneurysm. And a lot of that occurred off-screen. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments, through the end of the Production section:

• Is there a special reason for including "Liz" in 'Elizabeth "Liz" Sarnoff'? That form of her name is not used elsewhere in the article; you just call her "Elizabeth".
• "so stifling hot … [at] about 105 °(F [40 °C])": I think this is technically correctly quoted but quite distracting to read; it would be better to take this out of quotes so that you can more easily give the units. Similarly with ""twin twenty four foot [seven meter]".
• Why is it worth including the use of "It's Getting Better"? The internal reference, or echo, between scenes that the reuse of the song provides seems a fairly thin thread to hang a lit-crit term like "diegesis" on. It seems a bit of trivia as it stands; does the source you're using make any specific comment about this that makes it more interesting?
• "achieved a fifth-place 4.6/12 in the coveted adults aged eighteen to forty-nine demographic": what does the "12" indicate? The linked source doesn't seem to explain it, unless I missed something.
• Can you tell me if there are any guidelines covering what sources are worth quoting in reviews? The Star-Ledger and Huffington Post seems to me to be in a different category from the San Francisco Chronicle and Entertainment Weekly, for example. I think you've avoided quoting from any truly minor media outlets, but I was wondering if there is a guideline for WP:TV or a similar project that covers this. Mike Christie (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Changes were made for the first two comments. I think that the 4.6/12 does not mean too much to the average reader and if it does, then the reader already knows what it means. The significance of the music is that another song by the same artist was heavily featured in the second season, so it is kind of trivial. Should it be removed (along with the section)? The Star-Ledger is actually completely in the same league as the SF Chronicle and EW.[12] The closest thing that we have for a guideline for those is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Reception. My rule is to only include reviews by those who have an article about them on Wikipedia. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - There shouldn't be spelling errors this late into the FAC, [13] and some parts are really difficult to understand. See these for example:

When Michael tries to detonate a provided bomb and discovers that it is a fake, Ben contacts Michael by radio and explains that the trick illustrated his position to not kill innocents in his war against Widmore, referring to the death of Ana Lucia and Libby.

Instead of being intercut with scenes from the main ongoing plot, the flashbacks of "Meet Kevin Johnson" are presented continuously and are only bookended by present-day scenes.

And, there are others. I don't think I should have to read sentences two or three times in an article about a TV series. This is not Quark. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no more spelling errors and the sentences that you have pointed to have been rewritten. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Status ??? - It might be a good idea to contact Karanacs (talk and request another look. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left two messages on her talk page—one days before her last edit on December 19. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status update: We have four supports and one oppose. I think that at least some of the concerns from the oppose ("for now") have been addressed, but karanacs is not responding to my two messages, although she has returned from her break in editing. One of the supports is attached to a few proposals for change, but I disagree with them and they are apparently not enough to warrant an oppose (or even a neutral) vote. It would be really nice if this was promoted in 2008 (UTC), but I much prefer letting it go into 2009 if my alternatives are restarting and/or archiving. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [14].

---

Nominator(s): JonCatalán^(Talk)

This is the shortest article I've nominated for feature article candidacy, and will probably be the shortest I will ever nominate. However, I feel that it meets all featured article requirements, including comprehensiveness (this article covers all thedetails and neglects none), accuracy (all referenced) and follows the style guidelines. The only length requirement is that the article stays on topic, without going into unnecessary detail, which this article does. As a result, I don't think it's short length should be grounds for not nominating this article. To save some people the trouble, all the sources are published and I gave the image of the BMP a proper summary table. Thank you! JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - controversial opinion. Strong Oppose - Too small to be comprehensive. The lead is also almost one third of the whole page. Drozd, Shtora, and other systems are easily able to be topics for expansion of this page. Also, the "active protection system" needs to be discussed more thoroughly. There are only a few sources besids Armour magazine used. This suggests that there is probably other information out there not examined. FA require a variety of sources, especially for NPOV. This seems to be one sided and limited on the topic. There seems to be no Soviet based sources (then) or Russian based retrospective discussions now (or, those with such point of views. Note thirteen discussions what "Russians" say, but doesn't give a source. This shows that there is other information that is neglected. This page needs a lot of work and other information before it can be an FA. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to your argument point by point. Drozd and Shtora (there are no other systems) have their own topics; the topic is not on Drozd and Shtora. One of the requirements for featured article candidates is that the article cover the topic, and not go into detail with subjects out of scope. As a result, your suggestion would only make this article less of a candidate for featured article status, not more. I, honestly, don't believe that you know the requirements for FAC very well, or you choose to ignore them just to push a point which is wrong and irrelevant. Active protection system also has its own article, which is wikilinked in this article.

There is actually a Russian source being used; that being Baryatinsky's book (which is translated and re-published). Furthermore, if you took the time to look at the other sources, you'd find that most of their information is from Russian sources (which I don't have access to). I don't think you know the topic very well, and obviously your oppose is based on this presumptions that you haven't really cared about checking for accuracy.

What information have I neglected to add? Why make these assumptions? Why not research the topic yourself, and see if I'm really missing information? The oppose is ridiculous; just as ridiculous as your arguments on IRC, no offense. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A single source does not meet NPOV. Here are some other sources you missed from a quick scan of Google books. 1. "

Learning from Their Mistakes: Russia's Arena Active Protection System", 2. " Jane's International Defense Review: IDR", 3. " Future Security‎ - Page 142", 4. " Targets and Backgrounds VIII: Characterization and Representation : 1-3 ...‎ - Page 416" etc. Thats just from a quick scan of one database. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article, you'd find that one of the sources were used (Learning from Their Mistakes, by Geibel). If you wanted to open the Janes article and see that it has the same exact information, it would also enlighten you a bit. But, I will add it as a source and just double cover the information. Maybe if I get 8kb in sources it will meet your "comprehensiveness requirements".. since obviously it now has more information. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To respond on your request on IRC, this is exact quote from the page: In the late 1980s, the Russian Army began development of the Shtora–1 electro-optical jammer. Shtora-1 is designed to jam incoming anti-tank missiles using a one-kilowatt infra–red radiator. Please, read the article before commenting. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, it also has its own wiki article, which is wikilinked... which is why wikilinking exists. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I read through the article three times. Insulting a reviewer about not understanding an article shows that the article is not comprehensive enough or discusses the topic in depth. Further problems: "As a result, the Kolomenskoye machine-building design bureau developed the Arena active protection system". This is the first and only time "Arena" is mentioned in the background. No origins of the project. No financing information. No anything on why it transitions into this or how it transitions. That line is also disconnected from the previous paragraph, which shows a large transition gap. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't insult you; I just said that you obviously have not taken the time to really research in order to back up your argument. You are just making false assumptions, in an attempt to debase the article. There is simply no information available on "financing", otherwise I would have included it; the origins of the project are included to the extent that there is information - that is, the reasons why it was included. The system is fairly new, and there is no information on its testing, et cetera (even for systems that are 60 years old, this information oftentimes just doesn't exist). JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False assumptions? So, this was approved by no one? There was no government body that decided they needed it? The Russian military is one mindless entity without parts, groups, etc, that would determine a need? I know Russian weaponry, and I know they go through extensive testing and have an elaborate system of approval that isn't even hinted at. According to the page, this item appeared out of no where without any transition, determination, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Insulting a reviewer about not understanding an article shows that the article is not comprehensive enough or discusses the topic in depth"? I'm at a complete loss. Perhaps you can explain your reasoning for this assumption? –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 20:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is in response to "To respond on your request on IRC". The article does not set up why there are two predacessors. It does not set up how they are connected. It just simply lists them, says some sort information on them, then abruptly declares that there was a new system. This is not enough background to even discuss the history of the item in question. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if I could request that you stay on topic and reply to my points, instead of introducing irrelevant conclusions and straw men. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed over 6 of your military articles so far. If you are going to question my ability to review these articles, then I suggest that it is grounds for looking back at the old ones and disqualifying any past opinion. My qualifications do not suddenly change because you decide that you don't like my response. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(od) I'm sorry, but your pasts reviews are irrelevant to this one; they were on different subjects, and the grounds of your supports were different. Your ability to review is not collective. Please, answer my responses with relevant comments, instead of changing the subject. There is a link the background section; the background is explaining Russia's past experience with active protection systems. One system didn't lead to the other, but it offers an example of Russia's experience with these systems. I will add a sentence on how Arena is different, but it won't get the required 7kB of length to reach 20kB... your arbitrary length requirements. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above user is unwilling to listen to areas that need to be expanded, discussed more thorougly, or necessary information to allow for context that a broader audience would require. The above user has also thrown around many accusations on the matter and the rest. My oppose will stand until the issues are addressed, and I will no longer respond here because the user has made it impossible to continue to discuss the review. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please address my responses? By refusing to argue, and going in circles, it doesn't prove your point. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A couple of issues - firstly, is there a Russian name? Drozd & Shtora are both under the original names, but "Arena" sounds English - if there is an original name, we should probably discuss it somewhere. Secondly, a section comparing Arena to other APSes (other than its "ancestors") would be useful, I think; does it do anything exotic or unusual? Our article notes two Israeli systems and one American one, so there might be something there. Shimgray | talk | 20:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arena is the Russian name. I could add a section comparing it to other active protection systems, I guess. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second though, I don't think it's proper. It would be tantamount to original research. There are no sources which really compare the systems, and adding details about other systems would be beyond the scope of this article and should be better left for their own articles (which exist). I would add a table with information on other systems, so readers can make their own conclusions, but other system's details are even more secretive (like Trophy, for example). Besides, the only other active protection system (hard kill) which has really been "deployed" is Trophy. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. On the other hand, namewise, we have the oddity of Drozd & Shtora, but not Arena, being italicised... Shimgray | talk | 20:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen Arena italicized. I guess it should be; I'm not sure. It might be confused for an English word; I'm not sure what it's named after. There is a website, which would be deemed unreliable here, that mentions something interesting: rena's direct predecessor was Shatjor APS that was installed on the experimental Obiekt 478M MBT. Both systems have been designed by the Kolomna-based Engineering Design Bureau (KBP) together with other allied enterprises. I know the author and I will ask him if he could offer me some sources so that I could add this to the Wikipedia article. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would advise Ottava to read Hurricane Irene (2005) before claiming the article's short length affects its suitability for FA status. Length is no indicator of quality.--Patton123 20:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As would I. And Tropical Storm Erick (2007) (promoted last week). And 2005 Azores subtropical storm. And New York State Route 373. And New York State Route 28N. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 20:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated before, I would oppose these articles if I saw them or had time to review them. They do not meet the definition of encyclopedia and, after reviewing them, there are many problems within them. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the day, people !voted on an FAC based on the featured article criteria. I suppose this is no more, but to go around opposing articles because of your 20 kb length limit is WP:POINT. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 20:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julian, short articles were never accepted in FAC before and this is lowering the standard. Short articles are impossible to truly be comprehensive and would require a complete redefining of said definition. Stop with the accusations. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no accusations. Also, may I ask what your interpretation of the "definition of encyclopedia" is? To me, it means we should be aiming to acheive "the sum of all human knowledge", not "the sum of all human knowledge worthy of an article that is longer than 20 kb". –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 21:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) What's this rot about a 20kb length? I intend to get M22 Locust to FA-Class, but that's only 29kb, and my other project, Light Tank Mk VIII is only 11.5kb - will you oppose that because it doesn't meet this arbitrary 20kb len gth despiute the fact the article is comprehensive, sourced to the best of my abilities and is well illustrated? Skinny87 (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC) If an article has been sourced to all relevant sources (as this seems to have been, avoiding mere repetition of information), then I fail to see why it cannot a) be encyclopedic and b) be a Featured Article. Skinny87 (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what about 13th Airborne Division (United States) which I just got to FA-Class a few weeks ago. Barely 21kb, yet I'd defy anyone to find anymore info about the division, or a more comprehensive article, in print or on the web - It's not that much longer than this article, and yet it's comprehensive and detailed with good sourcing, and now it's an FA. Yet it would have been opposed?!? Skinny87 (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to all: Stay on topic from this point forward, or all commentary will be moved to talk. There is no KB limit at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with Comments - Can't see anything wrong with the article; it appears to give all the detail it can given the limited English-language sources available, and it is quite a specific subject. Length doesn't seem to be a problem. Just one question; the illustration in the infobox. How do we know it's accurate with how the system works, the ranges and all that technical whizz-bang? What's it based off of, exactly? Official info? Skinny87 (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; the image is based on another image. I'll add a source to the image's description. JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Weak oppose for now. This is an interesting article and I enjoyed reading it. However, it needs copy-editing. I have made some suggestions [15]. Is the article in US or UK English? There is a mixture I think. On a minor point "Drozd" is Russian for "thrush" as in the bird. Graham Colm ^Talk 19:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is written in American English. JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny87 has done a slight copy edit to the article (thank you Skinny!). JonCatalán^(Talk) 01:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the FA criteria about minimum length. This is a very interesting, and well-written article. The sources seem reliable and are cited appropriately. I see there was some discussion on comprehensiveness. This is not something I am qualified to judge — but there is more than enough information in the article to satsify my curiousity. Dare I say it; it was good not to have been bogged down by too much detail. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - When I first saw the title, I thought it was an article on a stadium security system. Oh well. It's always good to review different types of articles, so I'm coming out of my sports shell and giving this a once-over.

• "The system increased the vehicle's survivability up to 80%." Is 80% a general survival rate, or should it be "by up to 80%."? Also, I'd replace "survivability" with the aforementioned "survival rate".
• "prompted the Kolomenskoye machine-building design bureau to design..." Redundancy with two "design" uses in such short order. Please change one of them to introduce more variety.
• Background: "named Drozd. Drozd...", Again, another situation where more variety would be nice.
• Perhaps change semi-colon after "It was composed of three main parts" to a colon?
• Change en dash in "cone–shaped" to a hyphen. And do the same for "lock–on" and "infra–red", and audit for similar items elsewhere.
• "between the elevations of -6–20 degrees..." Is what comes before the 6 supposed to be a minus sign? If so, there's a special code to create a minus sign, which is different than a hyphen. Make sure you use that. Also see a "-5–25" later.
• "and between 40–60 degrees along the horizontal plane.[6][1]" References should usually be placed in numerical order.

Hopefully these will help reduce the amount of copy-editing that is needed. I'll come back at some point to review the rest, but I'm overloaded with reviews right now, meaning I may not be back for a while. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most should be changed. In regards to the last comment, they are "ref name" footnotes, but I will change the order. Apart from that, I didn't change it to survival rate, since the "official" word is survivability (in regards to tanks). But, everything else should be fixed. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 01:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before I continue, I should note that I did some work on this myself, mostly dash-fixing. Here is my second, and final, round of comments here.

• Remove comma after "a number of forward-firing grenade discharges" (Shtora-1).
• The quote "lack of time and funds" is covered by the reference at the end of the sentence, correct? Just want to make sure.
• "One of the most dangerous threats to Russian armor were was rocket propelled grenades fired from buildings in Grozny." This change will provide correct tenses ("One of the" and "were" now conflict).
• "with the goal of providing Russian armor with more reliable protection against these threats." Don't like the two "withs" here. Can this be changed to get rid of one?
• Typo: "including information such a flight parameters and velocity."
• "Arena increase's a tank's probability of surviving a rocket-propelled grenade by between 1.5[12]–2 times.[25]]." The positioning of reference 12 is odd here. Why not just move it to the end of the sentence?
• Third paragraph of System details has Drozd without italics. I noticed the system names now include italics; therefore, this one should have them too.
• Reference 28 needs a publisher.

These are it from me, but I need to consider whether or not to support. I'm not a huge fan of short articles, but it does seem comprehensive for the topic, and it is interesting.

Alright, everything changed except for a couple of things. In regards to reference 12, after the number, I wanted to leave it there because it references that specific figure, as opposed to the sentence as a whole. The reference at the end of the sentence with the quote "lack of time and funds" does cover that quote, yes. Finally, instead of changing to singular in that sentence about the RPGs, I instead turned the entire sentence into plural (some of the most dangerous threats...etc). Hope that this is OK. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - After further review, I think the article's components are FA-quality, and that's what matters most to me. It is short, but that doesn't stop me from supporting. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry: Since the article subject is foreign in nature why don't we get see the native country spelling of its name like almost all other such articles? 75.119.246.54 (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been brought up; Arena is the Russian name. JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has a point. Perhaps, like me, they can read Russian. Дрозд (thrush), Арена (arena). Why not just paste whichever is the right one into the article? Graham Colm ^Talk 18:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this be original research? JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hope not - if it does it'd be a rather daft breach, to be honest, it's only providing a translation of a single word. Skinny87 (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I added them. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I don't like that there is no article on the Russian wikipedia on this. The translation suggested above (arena -> arena with cyrillic characters) should really be the translation of the entire title - "Arena Active Protection System" -> name in Russian. After all, the name of the article is not Arena, it is Arena Active Protection system, right? Furthermore does Arena have no equivalent in any other countries' weaponry? I was looking at Countermeasure and I did not see any comparable system.--Kiyarrlls-talk 17:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do you have the translation? There are comparable systems, but I couldn't compare them in the article; it would be original research. Israel has introduced into limited service Trophy active protection system and are developing the Iron Fist active protection system. The United States is developing Quick Kill active protection system according to Wikipedia (from my sources, I believe Quick Kill was canceled and it's now called something else, but I'm not sure). The Italians are also developing an active protection system, as well as other European countries. I was thinking of starting a navigation box between them. What do you think? JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In Russia it is referred to as "Арена-Э" [16] and you can see some film footage of it here [17]. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's Arena-E, the export version. What's the translation for active protection system? The problem is that I'm sure that the Russians have another terminology for these types of systems. For example, the translation from English to Spanish isn't direct. JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will find out. Meanwhile, I have pasted a rough translation of the article on the this FACs Discussion Page. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's "активная система защиты" (pronounced "aktivnaya sistyema zashchity" —active protection system). Graham Colm ^Talk 17:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added! Btw, I'd like to address your weak oppose as best as possible. So, any further commentary in regards to that would be great. Thanks. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I have just corrected myself.Graham Colm ^Talk 18:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very satisfied with the way my comments were dealt with. Thank you very much.--Kiyarrlls-talk 18:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - The article conveys the pertinent information clearly. I am satisfied that you have presented the available information and it is enough to warrant FA status, in my opinion. I was able to gain an insight into something I knew nothing about. A personal suggestion: I think Arena should be italicized both because its predecessors are italicized in the article, and because "Arena" is a common English word so italics would help the Arena stand out as a name in the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review File:Arena system.svg - Can you tell me what makes this site a reputable source for the image? I was amused but unconvinced by the statement "Sauron's Creations is a thing from an alternative reality, in which I happen to be a head of a programming company that bears this name. In this unjust and cruel world, however, it is simply my alias. It is, of course, strongly related to the world of J.R.R. Tolkien" but perhaps I am missing something? If this source is indeed unreliable, as I suspect it is, we will need to provide a reliable source for the information in this diagram. Awadewit (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That website has been used by Janes as a source before, on Soviet and Russian armor piercing discarding sabots. JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, why does this make the site reliable? Awadewit (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a very simplified diagram of a defensive system that is described in the body of the article which is reliably sourced. There have been discussions about this on Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive35#Original_research_and_images. But no consensus was reached on the requirement for sources of simple diagrams that only serve to illustrate and supplement sourced text. There is no original research in the diagram, it does not contain data, it is not a technical drawing from which anything can be made and it is unlikely to be challenged. I don't think a source is needed. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a source is necessary, particularly since this image is hosted on Commons. It is a courtesy to other users who may want to use this image on other articles on the English Wikipedia or on other language Wikipedias. This image is not "attached" to this article - it is independent. The more information that an image description contains, the easier it is for other people across the world to reuse that image. Let's share. Awadewit (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source is given as [[18]] own work, the artist courteously gives a link to a similar drawing. That the linked article has questionable reliability is not a problem in my book. It is not fair to place the onus on the nominator of this FAC to prove that a courtesy link on the Commons is reliable. The link is not relevant to this FAC. It is not about sharing; it's about whether this nomination meets the FA criteria. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the author of the website said that the Janes articles that do quote him do not actually state him as a source. Nevertheless, Janes is a very widely respected defense magazine; I think that it suggests the reliability of russianarmor.info. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Evstafiev-Chechnya-BURNED.jpg - It has just been brought to my attention that there is a slight problem with this image. Although the image says it was "self-made" by User:Evstafiev, the image can be found here, along with other professional photographs. Awadewit (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the image has been changed with two new images. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Query, this is a confusing constuct, can it be reworded to avoid the minuses and dashes run together?

• Shtora offers 360 degree all-around protection, between the elevations of ‒5–25 degrees.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to -5 and 25 degrees, instead of using an endash. JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a dedicated minus symbol, compare to the en dash: −– (minus, en dash). In addition, can you clarify "−6–20", as I don't know if both quantities are negative or not. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [19].

---

Nominator(s): Redtigerxyz ^Talk

Vithoba was here in October, but failed, as I understand it, due to concerns about some references and the prose quality. The article had a copyedit. The disputed references were removed, new ones added. In the process, the improvement of the article was aided by the reviews of wiki-users, which can be read on the article talk. So since the concerns in the earlier FAC are addressed IMO and the talk reviews - weighting the article against FA criteria - taken into consideration, Vithoba is ready to face a FAC again. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig have been checked: Birla Mandir is the only disambig (list) remaining as there is no article on the specific Birla Mandir yet. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the link to the disambiguation page with a redlink. That way, when Birla Mandir, Shahad is created, the link will point to the correct article. Wronkiew (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I support the nomination for FA. Its a well written and well sourced article worthy of FAC. Kudos to Redtiger and Alastair.--Anish (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Disclosure: Anish had left comments on the Talk:Vithoba which helped the article improve. For reference: Talk:Vithoba#Suggested_improvements. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I also reviewed this in great detail on its talk page and my concerns were addressed there, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. For reference: Talk:Vithoba#Ruhrfisch_comments --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I had supported in the earlier nomination as well and was involved to some extent in copy edits and general suggestions at that time. I have read it again and see significant improvement in prose, citations etc.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having faith in the article, this time and last time too. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support A very thorough and well-written article—it meets the highest standard for Wikipedia articles. Priyanath ^talk 02:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, and the review on the talk. For reference: Talk:Vithoba#More_nit-picking (after User:Michael Devore's comments) --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support well done. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Great work.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: Why are there some internal pointing between sections. I found 2 such instances - As discussed in the devotional works section above, and (see Legend below). Nothing wrong but unusual on WP. --GPPande 12:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sand concludes, from a version of Pundalik's legend in the Skanda Purana (see Legend below)" When i first read the line, i felt that readers would ask: which legend? So the link. "As discussed in the devotional works section above," The Devotional Works section describes the background of the texts, mentioned in Legends section. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I understood the background behind why it was written so. See if you can remove them by putting a short note/jump link or shortly describing the background in sentence itself (not more than few words). I found one more such link in Legends section. What do you say? Anyways, I support FA status. Really a great work with in depth research gone into this. --GPPande 18:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Certainly an FA standard article.Pectore^talk 03:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - meets all FA criteria Taprobanus (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Image licenses look fine. The selective color manipulation in File:Palkhi 2008.jpg lowers its encyclopedic value. I recommend converting it to monochrome. The captions in the article for File:Palkhi 2008.jpg and File:Alandi Palki 08.jpg are unverifiable. Wronkiew (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree about the color manipulation. It is artistic but not encyclopedic. Awadewit (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. For Alandi Palkhi, see Sane, Prajkta (March 2007). "The 'Palkhi' of Alandi to Pandharpur" (PDF). University of New South Wales.. A similar image of the Palkhi is available. As i wrote in the last FAC " Varkaris are known to wear saffron clothes, carry saffron banners and have a saffron Tilak (mark on forehead). The saffron colour is closely related to Hinduism, as a whole. So the picture is not a misrepresentation, in my humble opinion. Notice a varkari is wearing saffron clothes, the saffron banners here. [20] and saffron tilak here [21]." --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thus IMO, the orange colour should be left as it is. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review All images have verifiable licenses, but several need expanded descriptions to allow users to understand what they are.

• File:Vithoba Gutenberg.jpg - Is there any more information that can be added to the image description, such as the century the statue was made or the type of art it represents?

I can not add itself about this one as the source (gutenberg) does not say itself. Though the image seems to be of stone.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Vithoba-dasavatar.jpg - The description on the image page is insufficient to really determine what the image is.

• File:Palkhi 2008.jpg - The description on the image page is insufficient (at least for me).

• File:Alandi Palki 08.jpg - The description on the image page is insufficient (at least for me).

Adding these descriptions will be very helpful to readers - thanks! Awadewit (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix it. I am just back from Pandharpur, where Vithoba's chief temple stands. Got some fne photos. But I will need some help to digitally improve some images. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captions added. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [22].

---

Nominator(s): Apterygial

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. It has undergone a PR here, where members of WP:F1 ensured that the article was comprehensive. It has been copyedited by about six editors, not including myself, and passed its GAN yesterday. So, I put this amazing Formula One race before FAC. I'm here to answer any questions or make any adjustments. Apterygial 03:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hell of a race, one for the ages. Question, though: In the final standings, Coulthard is listed as being out with a 'collision', but Piquet is listed as 'accident'? Were these the official designations, or did Coulthard collide with something other than a car? --Golbez (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The FIA (the link is in external links) doesn't provide official designations. The difference here is Piquet simply spun off (hence, accident), while Coulthard was shunted off by the Williams cars (hence, collision). Apterygial 09:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - One of the intriguing things about being an FAC reviewer is discovering the wide range of articles that come here, including many on topics that I've never heard of. Even more intriguing for me is finding a page on a sports event from my time, and this fits in that category. I watched most of the race live in the US, including the dramatic final laps (thank you, Speed channel). Keeping in mind that I'm familiar with the topic, and that I already have many active reviews (which limits the time I can spend with any one review), here are my opening thoughts:

• Two Toyota links in the lead. The second can safely be removed.
• "The Grand Prix was David Coulthard's final race, retiring after 246 race starts." This sentence needs re-working; if you read it out loud, the problem becomes clear.
• Question: Lewis Hamilton certainly deserves praise for his season, but was there any thought in the racing world that he lucked out on this day? In the article, the post-race praise contrasts sharply with the section on the background, where the one quote shows there were concerns that he might blow it. I have a hard time believing that the media was completely silenced when Hamilton was one corner from failing to hold his lead.
• Speaking of the ending, are there any interesting quotes from the media on how dramatic the ending was? I don't follow auto racing that closely, and I'm fairly young, but I can't remember a season title ever being decided on the last corner of the last race before this event. I know it's hard to express this in a neutral way, but a quote or two from racing people would serve to illustrate the rarity of what happened in this race, and I think that it would elevate the article.
• Report: "and Massa's team-mate Kimi Raikkonen fourth on 69 points." Perhaps add "was" after Raikkonen?
• Italics for The Times in the text.
• "the rights now go to the BBC and La Sexta, respectively." Be careful with time-specific elements like "now". It would be better to state when the rights tranfer (2009).

I read partway through Practice and qualifying, and will return to review the rest at a later time. What I'm seeing so far looks good, and I'm impressed by the quality of the sources used; I don't see any questionable ones in there. Best of luck. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the minor adjustments, and I'll chase up the possible content additions. One of the great things about F1 being so popular now is that there is no lack of quality sources; the media love F1 and the amount written on it is beyond staggering. I vaguely remember Eddie Jordan saying Hamilton was "lucky", which could contrast well with his other quote. I'll chase some stuff up. Apterygial 03:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And added. Apterygial 04:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a while, but I'm back to finish my review.

• "Raikkonen qualified third, though was happy with beginning the race on the racing line behind his team-mate." Try "though he was happy...".

• Changed. Apterygial 07:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Long, winding sentence here: "Hamilton finished the race in fifth position, enough to become Formula One's youngest Championship winner, clinching the Championship by a single point." Here's an example of a tighter version: "Hamilton finished the race in fifth position to clinch the Championship by a single point, making him Formula One's youngest Championship winner."

• That makes it look like the fact he won by a single point makes him Formula One's youngest Championship winner. I'll see if I can think of better one. Apterygial 07:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to keep what we already have. It seems clearer that any alternatives I tossed and turned over all night (sort of). Apterygial 23:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. It won't impact my support, but here's another idea: "Hamliton finished the race in fifth position, clinching the Championship by a single point and becoming Formula One's youngest Championship winner." Still don't think the present structure works, but I won't force the issue. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like that, and added your suggestion (fixing the typo). Apterygial 23:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-race: A common word like television doesn't need to be linked.

• De-linked. Apterygial 07:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Eddie Jordan quote uses a spaced hyphen, where we would normally use a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash. However, I don't know if the same rules apply for quoted material. Might be a good idea to ask a Manual of Style expert about that.

• WP:MOSQUOTE says: "Allowable changes: ... Styling of dashes (use the style chosen for the article: unspaced em dash or spaced en dash"). So I changed it. Apterygial 07:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• For reference 1 (Autocourse 2008–09), use en dashes in the title and page number.

• Changed. Apterygial 07:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. It's really quite good and leaves me wanting to read more. The only other thing that bothers me is the part about Hamilton battling Vettel at the end. From my memories of watching the race, Vettel was pulling away from Hamilton toward the end because his car was cornering better. "Battling" sounds like they were wire-to-wire. Oh, and add periods at the end of the Massa and Hamilton photo captions. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I watched the final laps just then to see if it was as close as I remembered. It wasn't that close, in terms of distance, but I think in the conditions it was a mental battle, who was going to crack, to slide off the track. He wasn't really pulling away; there was very little in it. Anyway, apart from that, I fixed everything else, apart from that one sentence, which I'll keep thinking about. Thanks for taking the time to review the article, happy holidays! Apterygial 07:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)I left one note above, but other than that I'm ready to support. Surprising that this reached such a high level of quality so soon after the event. Nice work. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment In the final para of the race section it says "Rain began to fall heavily on lap 69, as Hamilton ran wide, which allowed Vettel to take fifth position." I can't quite remember now, but you would expect that Hamilton ran wide after the rain intensified: can we nail down the relative timing? Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 07:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources I have looked at suggest it happened about the same time. The track was already slippery because "Light rain began to fall on lap 63", and it is feasible that Hamilton may have made a mistake. The phrase "Rain began to fall heavily on lap 69" is really there to signal a gradually wetter rain (as it were), rather than any <SNAP!> and it's heavier. Sorry for shouting. Apterygial 08:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think the only non-English source is from El Mundo, which as our own entry says "is the second largest daily newspaper in Spain and one of the newspapers of record in this country, with a circulation topping 330,000." Apterygial 04:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always point out that since I'm monolingual (well, I used to be able to read Latin, but it's been a while) that I can't evaluate the non-English sources, just for honesty's sake. I could see that the one non-English source was to a newspaper, but whether it was a tabloid scandal sheet or a serious one, I couldn't tell. Better to be safe than sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I wouldn't know unless I looked at the entry! ;) Apterygial 22:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support - Looks good to me, though it gets a bit quote-heavy towards the ends, do we really need to know so obviously what every F1 website said or could it be put into prose and appropiatly cited (Though I accept there are peacock risks here). A few of the sentences can be a bit convoluted, for example 'Timo Glock remained certain the decision to stay on dry-weather tyres when other teams were pitting for wet-weather tyres was a correct one' could do with...something, commas or what have you, to make it more readable (Especially as it is just a tie in for a quote). All in all though, it is a solid article. There is the temptation to do too much of a bridge from this article to the 2009 season, and I think the article does well to avoid it. PS: Is 'Part 1, Part 2, Part 3' the standard in F1 articles these days for qualifying? Looks kind of hideous and clumsy. But if it is a standard keep it, very minor nitpick from me) --Narson ~ Talk • 12:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's useful to have those quotes there. The real intention is to display an accurate cross-section of what was said about the race from the huge volume of material that comes out about an F1 race. And yes, the risk of a peacock paragraph (as it were) would be hard to get around. I added commas to Glock's sentence, I think it really needed it! Finally, I'm assuming you're talking about the qualifying classification table. It doesn't look great, but I think the FIA wants points for the quickest in Q2 so in future race reports that could be useful (and yes, it is standard). Thanks, Apterygial 22:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was referring to qualifying. Was just making sure there was a reason we didn't use Q1, Q2 or Qualy 1 or something. If it is a standardisation issue, I can live with it. As I said, I had to nitpick to find the faults, it is a great article over all. Kudos. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The jargon issue prevents us from including in Formula One articles a lot of F1 terms (like Q1, P1 (for position), flying lap, etc.) Apterygial 01:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to support, obviously. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Apterygial 22:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Very minor thing that I just thought of, in the Background section it says "McLaren were second on 145 points". Technically, the entry competing for the WCC is "McLaren Mercedes". If McLaren had run a different make of engine in the car, it would be classed as a different constructor. AlexJ (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Anyone supporting? Apterygial 23:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Informative and well written. It captures the background, the event itself and outcome of the race well. Works for me. Chasingsol (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Well written, well sourced with reliable sources, a readthrough of the article doesn't give me any reason to believe that anything is wrong, and the layout is aesthetically pleasing and satisfies the MOS. — neuro^(talk) 14:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks guys. Apterygial 22:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per the above. igordebraga ≠ 00:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I think we are still looking for an image review. Apterygial 01:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm posting my comments at Apterygial's request on reviewing the images. File:Interlagos 2006 aerial.jpg and File:Felipe Massa 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix.jpg are uploaded from Flickr under licenses Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 and Attribution Share-Alike 2.0, acceptable under Commons Flickr policy and approved. File:Lewis-Hamilton-stasr-and-cars-2007.jpg is an own work of the uploader released under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 02:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. And File:Circuit Interlagos.svg? Apterygial 02:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Own work by the uploader released in public domain. The image is also in the desired SVG format. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 02:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• I think that there should be a mention of the Ferrari team celebrating prematurely.

• It already does: "However, premature joy in the Ferrari garage soon turned to disappointment as both Vettel and Hamilton passed Glock in the final corners..." Apterygial 23:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not really, they celebrated at the end of the race long after he passed Glock. BUC (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, I don't believe there is a discrepancy in that sentence which suggests that your interpretation was not the case. Secondly, a further expansion hardly strikes me as being notable. They celebrated, they were happy, and then they were crushed. Sad viewing, but certainly nothing that should be given undue weight in a Wikipedia article. Apterygial 11:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "The rain began to fall heavily on lap 69, as Hamilton ran wide" Sound like the rain started just as Hamalton was being overtaken, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that was the case. BUC (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See my response to 4u1e above. Apterygial 23:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review All images have verifiable licenses and descriptions. I would ask the editors to add a source for File:Circuit Interlagos.svg. Since Wikipedia cannot rely on its editors' reliability for legitimacy, particularly in the area of self-made content, it is always best to include a source that users can check the diagram against. Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the review. Apterygial 23:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Query, why are some of the entries in the "Race" table bolded? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Pointscoring positions. Only the top 8 drivers get points, and that helps indicate those drivers (the points are given in the far right column). Apterygial 03:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that stated somewhere that I may have missed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think so. It's the accepted manner to table F1 results on Wikipedia, and is shown in WP:F1's example race report. It's not hugely important, but does help if you want to know that. Apterygial 04:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Unless you mean a mention of pointscoring positions, which is given in the piped link marked "points" in the lead and background. Apterygial 04:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [23].

---

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk)

Article about an ice hockey goaltender who's most notable for playing 15 years without taking a rest, dying of tuberculosis, and having a trophy for best goaltender named after him. Not a lot is written about Vézina other than that, so it was a quite the challenge to turn this article from a stub a month ago to this. All concerns will be addressed as soon as possible. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is a good, informative article with reliable sources, though there are some issues to address before I can support.

• Where was Vézina born? in Chicoutimi? that should be mentioned in the first sentence of the "Personal life", it should be linked to the Chicoutimi article, and specify the province (for readers not familiar with Canadian geography).
• "Vézina operated a tannery in Chicoutimi, living a quiet, clean life" - what do you mean by "clean life"? I think this can be worded better.
• "In 1918–19 Vézina won ten games..." - this paragraph needs references.
• "After winning thirteen games in 1922–23, ..." - additional references are needed in this paragraph, especially where the article gives numbers such as his goals against average.

--Aude (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed all the concerns. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The changes look good, though before supporting, I need to re-read and see if I notice anything else. --Aude (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - With the changes, I think the article now meets the FAC criteria. --Aude (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

• "Vezina allowed the fewest goals against in the league seven times in his four, four times in the NHA and three times in the NHL." Change the first comma to a colon, as it now could be interpreted that the four and three are in addition to the seven.
• Personal life: "This rumour was started when the Canadiens manager, Leo Dandurand". Apostrophe could be added to Canadiens.
• "In actuality, the Vezina's only had two children and Georges spoken broken English." Remove apostrophe and change spoken to spoke.
• "A second son was born the night of the Montreal Canadiens first Stanley Cup win in 1916." Apostrophe for Canadiens again?
• Playing career: "This time, they convinced Georges, along with his brother Pierre, to come to Montreal, arriving on December 22, 1910." The sentence is awkward when read in its entirety. The last part is what needs an adjustment.
• "but due to a tie for first, the Canadiens had to play a two game, total goals series against Toronto." Hyphen for two game?
• "The following season Vezina, who led the NHA in goals against for the fourth time in seven years, as the Canadiens again reached the Stanley Cup Finals, though they lost to the Seattle Metropolitans." Another sentence that seems off.
• "The championship was the Canadiens first as a member of the NHL and second title as a club." Another apostrophe for Canadiens.
• Legacy: Move ref 28 after the comma.
• "instead giving it to the goaltender deemed best in the league based on a poll by NHL general managers." I think it could be "a poll of NHL general managers."
• The Centre Georges-Vezina and Vezina Trophy links can be removed from the See also section, because they are included in the body.

That's it from me. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All concerns addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think this is quite good. It's less stat-heavy than Tiny Thompson, which is also at FAC now, and covers his career quite well. That being said, the one thing I'd change is "with Vezina recording a shutout in the deciding game" in 1923–24. This is a noun-plus-ing structure, and should be fixed. This will also get rid of some passive voice, which helps. If I have time, I'll see if there's more passive voice and make any needed fixes myself. Overall, though, I think it meets FA standards. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording, it should be better now. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted it further myself. While I was doing that, I looked for more passive voice, but nothing jumped out at me. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[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.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an example of what you mean with the mixing of citation templates? I'm quite confused in regards to this. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're using the harvdb thingie in the short notes along with cite web. Harvdb uses citation. Best to switch your web refs to citation instead of cite web. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think I did this right now. All the references now use the citation template. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All images appear to be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, WP:MOS#Captions, sentence fragments in captions do not get a full stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Nurmsook (talk · contribs)

• I could be way off here, but should the Canadian flag in the infobox be File:Flag of Canada 1921.svg as he died when it was in use? Or do we just keep with whatever the flag is now?
• I went ahead and fixed a few things I noticed. Two dabs (Canadian -> Canada, Spanish influenza -> Spanish flu) and added Category:Ice hockey personnel from Quebec.

The flag thing isn't really a glarring issue, so it doesn't hinder my support for this article, but I would like to know what the situation is regarding that for personal reference ;-) Great job! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 06:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried changing the flag in the infobox to match the Canadian flag of the 1920's, but have no idea how to do it. If you can figure it out, I'll be all for it. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have to change the code in the template for the infobox, it is possible with the country template used but the code in the infobox needs to be changed. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 14:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of how to change the coding for templates, but regardless, I don't think it makes that big of a difference. It still lists Vézina as being Canadian, which he was. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [24].

---

Nominator(s): mav (talk), WikiProject Elements

This article was pretty good (A-class but failed GA due to poor citing) before I started working on it a couple months ago. I've since expanded, cited, reorganized, trimmed and checked images as needed per FA standards. Article was previously brought to WikiProject Elements format by Bth (now inactive) in March 2004 and has since been expanded in true wiki-style by many people. I'm now pretty happy with the article and think it now meets all the FA criteria. If not, please tell me what else needs to be fixed and I'll fix it. I of course, support as nominator. mav (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

• Current ref 25 (Room 405) needs a last access date.
• Same for current ref 26 (Plutonium: The first 50 years...)
• Current ref 31 (Martin, James E. ..) is lacking a publisher
• Current ref 33 (Theodore Gary's...) is lacking a publisher and last access date. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
• http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=nd99longworthf deadlinks
• "End of the Plutonium Age" link also deadlinks.
• I think current ref 36 (Cohen... ) is lacking the book title?
• Current ref 39 (Radiological control...) is lacking a last access date

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I'll make sure to fix all that later today. --mav (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above should be fixed now. Thanks again for noticing that stuff! --mav (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What did you do about the Theodore Gary site? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced that ref. --mav (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The fact that nearly all us nuclear weapon plutonium contains 1% of gallum should be mentioned somewhere more prominent than in the Allotropes section, because it makes using it in nuclear reactors difficult. See Besmann reference in the gallium article)
• France and the United Kingdom operate PUREX Nuclear reprocessing facilities and use the MOX as regular fuel in their reactors. Germany Belgium and Germany are customers of the facilities and also use MOX. The [World Nuclear Association] states that:2% of the new fuel used today The section Use of plutonium waste is the only place where the MOX is mentioned although it is a significant application only in Europe, but it has to go to the applications section. The fuel is used in normal light water reactors and not in breaders. The section Use of plutonium waste reads like the MOX is something new, this should also be changed to a statement that Plutonium is used for energy production in Europe for decades. --Stone (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments! I think I have addressed all of them. Please take a look and edit/comment as needed. --mav (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The light reactor vs breeder reactor bit should be fixed now. --mav (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments:

• The element normally exhibits six allotropes and four oxidation states but can form one more of each under certain conditions seems awkward
• I would put the allotropes right after the physical properties.
• Also, it might help to say exactly which allotrope is referred to in the physical section - since most of the stuff said there is allotrope-dependent.
• Wasn't there a recent ex-KGB spy supposedly killed in Great Britain with plutonium?

Otherwise it looks really well for a FA. Nergaal (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With polonium!--Stone (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment and support - suggested fixes (minus the KGB part) done. --mav (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Forgot one thing: the electrical behavior suggests a metalloid character. Has anybody said anything in this sense? Nergaal (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• None of my references come out and say that so I don't think we should try to interpret and fill in the blanks. --mav (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything should be addressed now. Please take a look and consider striking, editing or commenting as needed. --mav (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section is fine. I checked the layout of the remainder of the article. The number and quality of sections, images and references is commensurate with existing featured articles on chemical elements. Crystal whacker (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I finished reading the article just now. Pending resolution of some minor outstanding issues, I support this nomination. Crystal whacker (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments:

• In the physical characteristics section, it starts out saying "The metal has a bright...", but think you should say "Plutonium is a metal, which has a bright" or something like that to make it clear to the layreader that Plutonium is a metal (and not assume the layreader knows that).
• In the discovery section, change "didn't" to "did not".
• The Cohen, Bernard L. reference (#39) is misformatted.

The article is written in a way that is accessible to and informative for a layreader, such as myself. Though, obviously I don't have subject matter knowledge to judge if the article is comprehensive. --Aude (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and suggestions - which should now be addressed. --mav (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks pretty good. Some attention to the authors in the references could be given tho. There still are some maintenace tags so those should be addressed. Some refs are in "Baker, Jim" fashion, others in "Jim Baker" and yet other in "J. Baker". Not a huge thing, but it's nice to have around, plus facilitates longterm maintenance. I'll read it in detail to give comments on content.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 11:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Format for all authors with easy to distinguish first vs last names fixed. Not sure what to do with Venkateswara Sarma Mallela; V. Ilankumaran; and N.Srinivasa Rao... --mav (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: I'm checking for licensing information only. I am unable to comment on the accuracy of self-made images.

• I entered an ((Information)) template in File:Pu,94.jpg because it neatens the information. Although the images basically have all the information required in the template, please consider organizing it with a template for image summaries that do not have one right now.

  Each image should now have that template. --mav (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My browser on this particular computer is fairly wide. File:Plutonium ring.jpg and File:Pu-phases.png appear directly opposite of each other, one left and one right, and text runs over Plutonium ring.jpg, making it appear jumbled. You have to make this decision, but is it possible to move one of the images to another section? I don't want to play with the layout since I can't say what section is appropriate for the a particular image. However, I need to point out that this passage in particular on some browsers looks quite bad.

  My monitor is running at 1900x1200 via Firefox on Ubuntu Linux and I'm not able to reproduce that when maximized... However, I don't think anybody should ever read Wikipedia in a maximized browser session on a high resolution monitor - it is much better to unmaximize your browser or set-up split browsing. --mav (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I completely believe File:Hanford N Reactor adjusted.jpg was at the source link, now it says "We are sorry, the document you requested is currently unavailable via this website". Perhaps a backup link?

  Odd. Then this become no different than if the uploader scanned the image from a book. --mav (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• All other images appear to be fine.
• Let me know if you have questions. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Headbomb

Oppose per (take deep breath):

• Physical

• Some instances of WP:Jargon are there, nothing too bad but things like α form should a least be wikilinked to something.

• I think I caught the jargon and explained it a bit better. --mav (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question, are allotropes and phases the same thing here?Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Isotopes and synthesis

• This remark applies to the whole article, but is particularly relevant here IMO. Have you considered using forms such as "Pu-238" and "Pu-239" for the main text, reserving form such as ²³⁸Pu for formulas and tables? It would improve readability a lot IMO.
  • I really like that suggestion and implemented it. As a matter of fact, I will propose that as a rule for WikiProject Elements to follow. --mav (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are authors in journals using this formalism though???? Nergaal (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does that even matter? We aim to be a fair bit more accessible and readable than journals. --mav (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Medical experimentation

• Details on the animal experiments would add a lot to this section

• Nuclear weapons

• "explosive yield" needs to be wikilinked to something.
  • Now linked to nuclear weapon yield. --mav (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Power source

• For each type of use, you should mentioned if it is still used in this way. For example, if it was used for scuba suit heating, is it still used now?

Tone down to "Is is still used to hear scuba suits?

• General remark

Sometimes notes are placed before refs, other times they are after. I would consider place them all before.

Phew. That was long. I hope no one is put off by that list. Very few of these issues are deal breakers on their own, but taken collectively, does not lead me to think this deserved the FA star yet. Many of those are style issue that reflect personal preference, and I only mentioned them to have them considered by the collectivity. But there's of items on that list that do not require a lot of work to strike, and the article would be better off if someone did this work. I'll do some of them myself, but I'm not very knowledgeable about plutonium so someone else will have to work on this as well. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for such a thorough review! Fixing 90% of that shouldn't be a problem. --mav (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I see you have beat me to addressing your concerns. Thank you and great work! :) I'll start work on addressing other issues now. --mav (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status? What is the status on Headbomb's Oppose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly addressed. Still some points to work on. I've been busy with some end of year stuff but should be able to give this a real big push on the 1st. --mav (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say I'd essentially support it as an FA, but I would like some clarification about phases and allotropes being the same thing or not. Maybe it's been addressed in the article already. The expanding on the animal experiments would be nice, but is not a deal-breaker IMO. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 12:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. And the cleanup template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The clean-up template was added by somebody after I submitted this to FAC. A modest expansion and better transitions should satisfy the person who placed it. I'll be working on this article more later today. --mav (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Start of restructure and modest expansion of history section. Hopefully will be done by end of this weekend. --mav (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Section restructured and clean-up template was removed by the person who placed it. --mav (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the dabs a while ago early on, and I've again ensured that the only links to disambiguation pages are those made by the hatnotes. ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 18:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as I think that the article is overall of FA quality—but here are some places where I think that the writing should be improved ;)

• "These and other properties make the handling of plutonium dangerous and have led to a number of criticality accidents." This sentence needs to be revised: logical analysis reveals that the sentence could be construed as saying that "other properties […] have led to a number of criticality accidents", which is not exactly true. Specifying that it is the radioactivity that leads to criticality accidents would be better.
• "Fuel grade plutonium contains from 7 to less than 19% percent, and power reactor grade contains from 19% and greater Pu-240" Percent is doubled.
• "²³⁸U + n → ²³⁹U (half-life 23.5 min; β⁻) → ²³⁹Np (2.36 ;days; β⁻) → ²³⁹Pu (24,100 years)" I could be mistaken, but something looks fishy about ";days;".
• "During World War II the U.S. government set-up the Manhattan Project, which was tasked with developing an atomic bomb." The phrase "set-up" up-sets me. :) Surely there's a more descriptive word that can be used here. It's also inconsistent with the nearby "Later, large 200 MW reactors were set up at the Hanford Site […]"…
• "This critical mass is about a third of U-235." This sentence makes little sense. I'm guessing that it means that a third of the mass mentioned is U-235 rather than plutonium, but the fact that I have to guess is bad. (Edit: It probably actually refers to the fact that plutonium's critical mass is about a third of that of ²³⁵U—the lack of a possessive in the sentence throws the meaning off, even, for people who aren't thinking clearly enough. :p )
• "Mox fuel is used in […]" and "MOX fuel has been in use since […]": please make the capitalization consistent.
• "[…] plutonium's critical mass is only a third of that of uranium-235's." Either "that of" or "'s" should be removed.
• The last three sentences in the Flammability subsection of the Precautions section feel very choppy: in particular, the mention of the Rocky Flats fire seems to stick out. Rearranging this section for better flow would be advisable.
• In notes 7 and 8, there is no space before the parenthetical reference to Emsley, but there is in note 9. If spaces are added (edit: removed), please remember note 2 as well.

I think that the writing is overall pretty decent: let's fix up these little stumbles. :) ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 04:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the support and suggestions for improvement. I'll make sure to address each point by the end of this coming weekend. --mav (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• While I'll probably be away for the next week or so, you have my continued support. I've struck some of the issues which I consider obviously resolved: please don't strike the others yourself after responding to them—that way I can, once back, check what's been fixed during my absence more easily. ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 22:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something to fix:

"Partial exceptions include the refractory metals chromium, molybdenum, niobium, tantalum and tungsten, which, while soluble in liquid plutonium and insoluble or only slightly so in solid plutonium."

I'm not sure what this intends to say, but it's not a complete sentence. Please rewrite for clarity. Crystal whacker (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the writer(s) meant to say "are" instead of "and" on the second instance of the latter. Correcting that would make the sentence more clear, but the "or only slightly so" seems to be saying more "slightly soluble" than "slightly insoluble": this still needs work. If someone can confirm the facts (please), a suggestion for correction, based on my assumptions, would be "Partial exceptions include the refractory metals chromium, molybdenum, niobium, tantalum, and tungsten, which, while soluble in liquid plutonium, are insoluble or only slightly soluble in solid plutonium." ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 23:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead section, paragraph 1: "When exposed to moist air, it expands up to 70% in volume and forms a powder that can spontaneously ignite." [Emphasis mine.] Is this really the elemental plutonium? Or is there a chemical reaction involved? From the "Flammability" section, it looks like this represents oxidation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From "Characteristics", "Nuclear": "Plutonium is a radioactive actinide metal that, with uranium, is one of the few elements with one or more fissile isotopes." Why is uranium singled out as one of the few similar elements? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't "Characteristics", "Nuclear" section describe the alpha decay of Pu-238? I added a brief comment right at the end of the section. From "Applications", "Power source", this property looks quite important. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From "Characteristics", "Isotopes and synthesis", paragraph 1: "Because of its comparatively large half-life, minute amounts of Pu-244 can be found in nature." I think I know what the author means, but the sentence appears counter-intuitive. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From "Characteristics", "Isotopes and synthesis", paragraph 1: "The primary decay modes before the most stable isotope, Pu-244, are spontaneous fission and α emission; the primary mode after is β emission. The primary decay products before Pu-244 are uranium and neptunium isotopes (neglecting the wide range of daughter nuclei created by fission processes), and the primary products after are americium isotopes." Does this mean that uranium and neptunium undergo spontaneous fission and alpha emission to form Pu-244? Pu-244 undergoes beta emission to form americium? This section could be clearer. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From "Characteristics", "Isotopes and synthesis", this equation does not appear to be correctly formatted:-

²³⁸U(d,2n)²³⁸Np → ²³⁸Pu + β⁻

Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From "History", "Production during the Manhattan Project", paragraph 4: "B, D and F were the initial reactors built at Hanford". I'm surprised that A, B and C weren't the initial reactors built. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From "History", "Cold War use and waste": "The U.S. reactors at Hanford and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina produced 103,000 kg, and an estimated 170,000 kg of military-grade plutonium was produced in Russia. Each year about 20,000 kg of the element is still produced as a by-product of the nuclear power industry. As much as 1000 tonnes of plutonium may be in storage with more than 200 tonnes of that either inside or extracted from nuclear weapons." Why not use "tonnes" consistently throughout? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From "History", "Cold War use and waste": "The glass consists of borosilicates mixed with as cadmium and gadolinium". The grammar is incorrect and I don't know what it should be. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From "History", "Cold War use and waste", is there a reference for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture caption in "Applications", "Power source" reads "A pellet of plutonium-238, glowing due to blackbody radiation." However the article indicates that plutonium is silvery-white in colour. Is the pellet of Pu-238 really a black body? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From "Precautions", "Toxicity": "The U.S. Department of Energy estimates the increase in lifetime cancer risk for inhaled plutonium as 3 × 10⁻⁸ pCi⁻¹.^[48]" Unfortunately I can't seem to view the Argonne National Laboratory's fact sheet. Can someone confirm that the fact sheet is still available? Wouldn't "sieverts" be more helpful than "curies"? I would like to review the validity of the cancer risk information. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From "Precautions", "Criticality potential": "Plutonium in solution is more likely to form a critical mass than the solid form due to moderation by the hydrogen in water." [Emphasis mine.] Is "moderation" a technical term? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits and comments. I'll make sure to address each comment after I address some earlier issues. --mav (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively major referencing issue ((inotes)) is not used like it should be. It doesn't produce anything the reader can see. This needs to be fixed (or worked around).Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inote is being used here for extreme referencing (an allowed use) and for adding page numbers to references that really don't need them b/c their plutonium chapters are only a few pages long. Converting the inotes to inline cites would overwhelm the adjacent text with repetitive inline cites. --mav (talk)

Support and comment by jimfbleak Because of its comparatively large half-life, minute amounts of Pu-244 can be found in nature. Is this true, given the age of the earth? Isn't it more likely that Pu-244 is formed from U-238, and its long half-life allows detectable amounts to build up? jimfbleak (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—Looks excellent. < and > take a space after. Tony (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [25].

---

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)}

Article has passed a GA review. It is well-sourced and, I believe, comprehensive. I hope to be able to address any concerns quickly and see this article promoted to FA. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 02:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ky/county/franklin/index/madisonst.html

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Full disclosure, I passed the article for GA. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article lists sources on which it is based at the bottom. One is The Kentucky Encyclopedia, which I have already cited. The other is History of Franklin County, Kentucky, which unfortunately, I don't currently have access to. As best I can tell, the article in question only serves as a source for one claim (that of the Frankfort trustees offering a $1000 reward for the capture of Sharp's assassin.) I'm fairly sure I can find that in another source if necessary. Does this qualify as "material that is likely to be challenged"? If so, I'll try and dig up another source. If not, I'll just omit the cite and the reference altogether. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind; I found a more reliable source. Everything look OK now? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: I attempted to add the appropriate information to the information template in Image:Beauchamp kills Sharp.jpg, but I was unable to find the page number of the woodcut in the Criminal Calendar. I found the 1835 Calendar at the Lehigh University Digital Library. I looked through the chapter on Beauchamp, but no illustration was readily apparent. The book, though quite fascinating, appears to be over 300 pages and I don't have the time to find the image. If you could, please, link the image summary to the source. If you can't link to the exact page number, please include it in the summary. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I grabbed the image from the Google Books preview of Bruce's The Kentucky Tragedy, and just referenced the source he provided. I have a hard time believing he could get it published with a false attribution (not that I think you're saying that.) What I'm getting at is that I don't have access to the calendar, so I can't provide a page number. If it needs that to pass FA, I'll try to get a copy on interlibrary loan. Let me know. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind again. I now see that the Lehigh Collection is free for public viewing. The image in question is on page 298. http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/cdm4/crime_viewer.php?ptr=13817&DMTHUMB=1&DMTEXT=criminal+calendar&searchworks=searchcriminal+calendar_0_0&CISOPTR=13757 Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Karanacs (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Comments. I enjoed this article, but I feel like the last section is missing a little bit. The linked article on the tragedy provides more detail on the aftermath. At the very least, I think it worth mentioning in this article that Sharp's brother wrote a book about him and what happened with that. Karanacs (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about how much detail to go into there. I tried to apply the logic that "This article is about Solomon Sharp, so it should probably end where his life ends." But you are probably right about Dr. Sharp's book. Let me work on it a bit. Any other suggestions for what ought to fill out that section vs. what strays off-topic are appreciated. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done some expansion on that section. How does it work for you? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 00:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good, but Darby is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, so you might want to provide a few words of context (or at least full name). Karanacs (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS! That's what happens when you write two articles on related subjects, then wait several months before nominating them for FA! You forget what is in which one. Thanks for the catch; let me know if my latest edit is not sufficient to clarify Darby's identity. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent :) Karanacs (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for incorrect spelling of Edgar Allan Poe. Heh heh... Comment Great work on this article! There are a couple very short paragraphs, notably the second one under "Political career" and the very last paragraph of the whole article. I'd suggest either bulking them up or merging into another paragraph. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I can eventually absolve myself for the sin of misspelling Poe's name. Judging from your user name, I gather that is of great importance to you. :)

I've merged the short paragraphs into larger paragraphs. Please feel free to leave any additional comments. I hope you will eventually be able to support the article's promotion. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks quite good.
  • "(Whether Sharp..." Is there a reason this is in a parenthetical? It seems perfectly fine as a regular, old sentence. :)
    • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The family briefly moved..." Do we know the approximate date for this move?
    • Unfortunately, no. The only source where I have found mention of it is Allen's A History of Kentucky, which says: "When the war was over, he moved from Washington County, Virginia, first to the neighborhood of Nashville, Tennessee, and a short time afterward to the vicinity of Russellville, Kentucky." I'm big on including dates for continuity, but I just don't have this one. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He supported the election of..." Is this during the campaign or after he was elected?
    • After; clarified. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he worked with Ben Hardin" Who's that?
    • He eventually served as a U.S. Representative from Kentucky. He comes up a lot during the politics of Sharp's era and beyond. I was looking for his wiki-article under "Ben Hardin" at the time I wrote this and couldn't find it. Later, I discovered it's under "Benjamin Hardin", but I forgot to come back and wiki-link this. I've remedied that now. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "harsh measure dealing with the welfare of slaves" Rather vague. What does this mean? Did this measure help/hurt slaves?
    • If I remember correctly, the measure was harsh against slaves, and Sharp opposed it. Unfortunately, I've already returned that source to the college library, which will be closed until January 5. I won't have access to the source again until then, but I don't think it was very specific about what the measure entailed. I've clarified the sentence based on my remembrance of what the source says. I can double-check it after the first of the year, or I can just eliminate the sentence since it isn't really critical to the overall story of Sharp's life. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nevertheless, Sharp recognized..." "nevertheless" doesn't really work as a connector here. Sharp could have certainly recognized the political value of service no matter what the length.
    • I see your point. Really, the "nevertheless" was intended to convey that, even though his service was brief, he managed to get promoted to colonel because he recognized the value of military service in state politics. I really wish the sources were specific on how this happened, but they aren't. Still, I felt it was worth mentioning, since many sources refer to him as "Colonel Sharp." I've hopefully clarified the sentence now. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his ill-fated expedition " Is there a link for this? Or perhaps just give when this happened to establish some more context for readers.
    • This is also in the source I've returned to the library. Best I recall, the expedition wandered around for forty-two days and never did find or attack the enemy. I've revised this section based on that recollection. Again, it'll be after the first of the year before I can fact-check it, but I'm reasonably sure this is correct. If so, I believe my edit addresses your concern for clarity. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His opponent, John Upshaw Waring, was a notably violent and malicious man." This is one of those sentences that probably requires a citation on its own.
    • This entire paragraph is meant to be cited to the footnote at the end. I can repeat the cite at the end of that particular sentence if you think it necessary. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during a remodel many years later" Do we know a more specific date?
    • Unfortunately, no. Again, only one source that I have run across mentions this. In Johnson's "New Light on Beauchamp's Confession", he states: "Although printed in 1827, Vindication was never sold to the public, because Darby threatened to sue if it was and, perhaps more persuasively, John U. Waring said he would kill L. J. Sharp if it was. All copies were walled up in the Sharp home in Frankfort, not to be discovered until many years late during its remodeling." Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd separate the footnotes and the references into two sections (==Notes== ... ==References==), but that's just personal preference. BuddingJournalist 15:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Sometimes, I include a ==Footnotes== section which includes explanatory notes (such as in today's main page article, Richard Hawes), so I combine References and Notes so I don't end up with so many sections. I don't have that here, so I'm happy to conform with your preference. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I hope you will find my responses sufficient to support the article's promotion. If the two issues related to the source at the college are still a problem, I'll see if I can find it at the local public library (doubtful, since it's a much smaller library) or if I can get it sooner on interlibrary loan. Otherwise, I'll be happy to pick it up when the college library re-opens January 5 if you're willing to wait that long. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm happy to support. BuddingJournalist 16:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed both links. I don't know what branch of service Sharp's father was in, and I don't think "interim" necessarily needs to be linked in the first place. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 04:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Johnson article in the bibliography points out that the murderer Beauchamp was a vehement Old Court partisan, and that Sharp's brother was trying to portray this as a solely political murder. We should include this POV; which doesn't mean we should endorse it.
  • Yes, I seem to have omitted this fact in my haste to introduce the epilogue per Karanacs' suggestion above. I have added a passing mention of it now, which is probably all it deserves given that Dr. Sharp had a vested interest in how the murder was perceived. This addition also had the beneficial side-effect of making the introduction of Darby much cleaner. Thanks for the suggestion. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 05:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevertheless "tried to frame" begs the question; "portrayed"? (And if I read your source correctly, Beauchamp's partisanship was not in dispute, but whether it was the motive for the murder. If so, we should state that he was.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll take "portrayed", but I'm not sure why the text as-is calls Beauchamp's partisanship into question. It questions Beauchamp's motive, but the next statement, the one about partisanship, states definitely that both Darby and Beauchamp were Anti-Relief partisans. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 22:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• At least after 1820, Old Court and New Court Party seems to be the standard nomwnclature. We should probably adopt it; if not, we should capitalize Anri-Relief. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I concede that after Old Court and New Court came into use, they constituted the preferred nomenclature, I prefer Relief and Anti-Relief in this case for precisely the reasons you mention. The factions identified by these more general titles first, and only became Old Court and New Court following the legislature's attempt to abolish the Old Court in 1824. Before this, those monikers would have no real meaning, since there was no New Court until then. By continuing to use "Relief" and "Anti-Relief", we avoid straying too far off-topic into the details of the Old Court-New Court affair. I have capitalized "Anti-Relief", per your suggestion. Hope that is satisfactory. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 05:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your review. I've implemented all the changes suggested above. The only one I'm not sure about is replacing "a number of" with "several". That's probably just as vague, but I can't say for certain how many works, exactly, were based on the story of Sharp's murder. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What about "Sharp's murder became the inspiration for fictional works"? –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 04:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made this change. It sounds a little awkward to me for some reason, but I always have trouble editing my own prose. Any other suggestions for the rest of the article? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good. I'll be back with some more comments later. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 04:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A couple more comments:
• The measure, which paid Congressmen a flat salary instead of paying them only for the days when they were in session, was extremely unpopular with the voters of his district. - No need for "extremely".
• Sharp had clearly identified himself with the Relief Party, as had Governor Adair. - Remove "clearly". –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 15:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Any others? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 00:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Full support - with a few comments. Since the article is written in US English, shouldn't "duelling" and "remodelling" have a single "l". I might be wrong of course ;-). And, since the murder was not really politically motivated, I think "assassin" is not the best word to describe the murderer. Great article, thanks. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to have to ask for another opinion on the spellings, because I'm honestly not sure. You'd think someone who minored in technical writing would know that! As for "assassin", I think it still falls within the bounds of this definition from Princeton and this one from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. Still, it's easy enough to substitute "murderer" if consensus dictates. Thanks for the comments and the support. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 04:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [26].

---

Nominator(s): Gary King (talk), S@bre

This is a video game level that was released online. It was created as a technology demonstration to showcase new features implemented into the video game engine used by the level, which include improved graphics and a new commentary system. This article is fairly different from a typical video game article, in that the primary focus is on its development. Gameplay is essentially the same as the game that this level uses, Half-Life 2, so the basics are outlined here. Also, the level's plot only exists to serve the technology demonstration purpose, so only the important details are mentioned in the Plot section—it is a fairly short level. Regarding Reception, there isn't as much available as there is for a typical game, but we used what we could find. Gary King (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two images in this article; both are fair use:

• Image:Lostcoastlogo.PNG
• Image:Lost Coast HDR comparison.png

Gary King (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Sabre was going to create a better image than the craptastic HDR comparison? (limey slacker :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's been busy lately I believe. Gary King (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you've jumped on ahead, eh? Well, Image:Lostcoastlogo.PNG needs downsizing to 256px horizontal, and if I crisper picture was found to replace the HDR comparison shot, that would be nice (we could have the image be lower res too). As it stands, images have proper licenses and detailed rationales, so aside from the above images should meet criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done. And, well, he knows this FAC is open. I'm assuming he's just unable to get to the game any time soon. Gary King (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Limey I may be sir, but I am no slacker! Well, not much. I've uploaded the new version, and included a few pointers in the summary of exactly what is different. I've reduced it to 500px, any lower and the fine details (which basically sums up HDR) would start to become less noticable. -- Sabre (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a tad cleaner, but I suggest reuploading it as PNG, so there aren't any scaling artifacts in the thumbed version. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Sabre (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←My god that looks much better, no? And to think all I had to do to get results was call Sabre a limey :P Images look good, I'll get around to giving a full review sometime or another (I've got three days to kill and no finals, so it'll be sooner rather than later :P) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mildly insulting my British heritage always gets response. You're lucky I can't call you out for pistols at 20 paces any more. :S -- Sabre (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support More comments - it looks pretty good, but there are some issues (might as well start this review because otherwise I'm just going to play DotA and RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 :P): changed to support

• Lead
  • There's lots of repetitious "the level" sprinkled throughout. Change it up.
  • "In addition, Lost Coast was the first video game developed by Valve to use audio commentary," - feels a bit clunky, why not reword to talk about how players can listen to blah blah blah?
• Body
  • "A nearby man, identified in the commentary as the "fisherman"" - why not just call him the fisherman from the get-go?
  • "They tested three different methods before finally settling on a fourth method that was deemed workable. " This gets stated after, so why not just axe this bit?
  • You've got some conflicting sentences: the first part of development talks about how it was supposed to be a tech demo, and then you say "Lost Coast was originally conceived as a level in Half-Life 2, but was later discarded during development. " - I understand what you're trying to say, but perhaps level design should go first and then you talk about how it was turned into a tech demo afterwards.
  • "As a technology showcase, Valve considers Lost Coast to have system requirements that are very high.[12] The game runs on computers with specifications lower than what is recommended, albeit without some key features such as HDR. If a non-HDR capable card is used, the developer commentary is changed slightly to reflect this. For example, Gabe Newell would describe the effects that are seen in a different manner.[13]" The first part of this seems disjointed, as suddenly we went from commentary to system requirements. Put the first part into another section and smooth the transition?
  • "People who received Half-Life 2 as a gift were not eligible to download the level. " - what does this mean? How did Valve make the distinction?

I sniffed about on LexisNexis and elsewhere to find more reviews, but there wasn't much else, so I think it uses the sources available. To me, the graphics-speak works fine and is accessible, but I suppose a technophobe should check it out. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done Gary King (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you move your "Support" to someone more visible? Right now it's at the end of a line that's crossed out and in italics; not that easy to spot at first glance. Thanks! :) Gary King (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: For a tech demo, you've done a fine job of gathering well-referenced information. In conclusion, [27].--_ZXCVBNM 23:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A few quibbles: This thread was mistakenly put into the Over the Edge FAC below. I have verified that these comments go with this FAC and accordingly moved them here. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

• "implemented into future games"—"integrated into" or "implemented in".
• "a significant amount of lighting effects"—"number of".
• "were also added"—removed "also".
• "considered Lost Coast to have system requirements that were very high." Why not "considered Lost Coast to have very demanding system requirements." Tony (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done Gary King (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [28].

---

Nominator(s): SRX''

I'm nominating this article for featured article because after extensive work to get the article to comply with WP:PLOT, WP:FICTION, and WP:IN-U, and after a lengthy peer review, I believe this article now meets the FA criteria. In addition, unlike other pro wrestling articles, this is unique because it involves a death of a wrestler at the event. Any comments, however, will be addressed. SRX 22:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note to source checker - http://www.hoffco-inc.com/wwe/ppv/ppv/ote99.html is not reliable as a whole, but in this case, the source is verifying the on-screen talent, which they credit to videos of the event on the internet, in which the talent is visible and announced at the event.--SRX 22:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review: Please complete an ((Information)) template for Image:Bradshaw.jpg. All other images appear to be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added that the ((information)) template to the mentioned image. Thanks.--SRX 01:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments - A wrestling PPV article from when I actually watched wrestling! That was a long time ago. For those who don't know, Owen Hart's death become a national story and led to widespread criticism of the then-WWF. Therefore, this has more going on than most articles of this type. I did offer two rounds of comments at a peer review, so I don't know how much more I can find in this review, but that's never stopped me before.

• "From the six scheduled bouts on the undercard, two received more promotion." One of the other active wrestling FACs puts this as "### received more promotion than the others", which I think is an improvement.
  • I improved it.--SRX 23:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Background: second sentence of the section is huge, and runs on quite noticeably: "For three months before the event, several WWF professional wrestling matches and background stories were played out on WWF programming, Raw is War, Smackdown (no exclamation point?), and Sunday Night Heat, to create feuds between various wrestlers, casting them as villians and heroes."
  • I split them.--SRX 23:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comma after "WWE's previous pay-per-view event".
  • Comma added.--SRX 23:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• "the daughter of the WWF Chairman Vince McMahon." Remove second the.
  • Removed.--SRX 23:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• "The Undertaker's price for Stephanie's return was the control of the wrestling organization." I don't like the first "the". Can another word be substituted?
  • I removed it and replaced "of" with "over."--SRX 23:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Real names needed for the Road Dogg and Val Venis.
  • Names added.--SRX 23:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Event: "In the final contest, Vince McMahon (second time linked) defeated Mildeon (Dennis Knight) in a singles match that ended in "No Contest". If it was a No Contest, how did McMahon win?
  • Removed link, fixed statement.--SRX 23:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That's it from me for now. I'll come back for further reviewing at a later time. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks.--SRX 23:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Kane then pinned Henry in order to retain the WWE Tag Team Title.

• • Removed suggested part.--SRX 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Holly and Snow began their bout in the ring but were scripted..." This sentence goes on for a while. Can it be chopped it two?

• • I cut it.--SRX 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Main matches: "and as a result, were counted out." → "and were counted out as a result."

• • Reworded.--SRX 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Real name needed for Chyna.

• • No because she was best known as Chyna per WP:COMMONNAME and she legally changed it to Chyna recently.--SRX 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Change comma after "The referee disqualified Triple H for this action" to a semi-colon?

• • Done.--SRX 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Owen Hart accident: Spell out WCW, and perhaps give the real name of Sting.

• • Done.--SRX 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Aftermath: "which led to a match at SummerSlam (1999)...". I recommend piping the link here to remove the 1999 in parenthesis.

• • Done.--SRX 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• The printed references have page numbers in pp. for plural, when they should be p. for singular in most cases. For the one that isn't, the page range needs an en dash. Also place the Calgary Sun in italics in each of the references.

• • Done.--SRX 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That's all from me. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thanks.--SRX 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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.
• http://www.wwe.com/shows/summerslam07/history/1999/ deadlinks

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I converted the citation templates to the cite news templates. In addition, I updated the deadlink.--SRX 16:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - I think this meets the standards, and is unique to boot. One more thing from this image novice: the poster needs to state the copyright holder (WWF). Placing it next to the source should be sufficient. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Copyright was added.--SRX 17:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I made a few changes to the prose; hopefully I didn't change the meaning of anything. After a full review, I feel the article meets the criteria. Although I am usually a tad bored with sports article, this was a rather interesting (albeit unfortunate) read. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 03:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, and no your changes didn't change the meaning of anything :)--SRX 00:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Why is it necessary to tag 12 of the 13 statements in the infobox with a ref. 1? Consider providing a broad source for this type of info in the main text, just once if possible.Tony (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A few quibbles:
• "implemented into future games"—"integrated into" or "implemented in".
• "a significant amount of lighting effects"—"number of".
• "were also added"—removed "also".
• "considered Lost Coast to have system requirements that were very high." Why not "considered Lost Coast to have very demanding system requirements." Tony (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are these comments referring to this article because what you are stating does not match the current revision, could these comments may have been added to this FAC by accident?--SRX 18:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

SRX, I think (actually, I know) that these comments are intended for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Half-Life 2: Lost Coast above. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the comments into the correct FAC. I think that you can delete them without breaching etiquette guidelines, although you might ask Sandy or Tony first. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving the comments, Dabomb. SRX is trying to steal our Supports :P Gary King (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=D I don't need your supports =p But thanks for making that clear, I will ask Sandy.--SRX 19:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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