January 2007[edit]

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

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Chelsea F.C.[edit]

Already a GA. Has just had a peer review which has added references and resloved issues with some images. Buc 09:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stamford Bridge: paragraph 4
  • History: Paragraph 3
  • Crest section as mentioned above, the entire section has only one ref.
  • In Popular culture: Paragraphs 3 and 4
  • I also noticed some prose problems. Perhaps you want to copyedit for prose. Here is one example: which particularly came into its own during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. That just sounds rather unencyclopedic, to my ears. I don't mean to be a grouch, and I did enjoy the article. I just feel it could use a few improvements. Jeffpw 13:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to add Jeffpw's requested refs. SteveO 14:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Struck areas have now been cited. SteveO 21:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If a book is cited multiple times then only the first citation need be in full, all subsequent citations can be abbreviated to avoid clutter and reduce article size. It's just a case of looking up through the preceding footnotes until you find the matching full citation. Plenty of FAs employ this system, and I have reabbreviated many of the references accordingly. Qwghlm 10:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm on the verge of supporting, could you just tidy up a few things:
  • The club began with... - this is a jarring sentence, which essentially says that Chelsea got promoted (good) but achieved little early success (bad) except for an FA cup final (good) which they lost (bad). It could be rephrased (perhaps into two sentences) to say their success was limited: certain things were good, certain things were bad.
  • Chelsea were, at the nadir of their fortune - is the wiktionary link necessary? Could we just assume people know what it means? Or use a simpler word?
  • Bates finally reunited - can we have a more specific date than "finally"?
  • The north, west and southern parts of the ground were converted into all-seater stands and moved closer to the pitch, and the current legal capacity of Stamford Bridge is 42,055 - abrupt switch from history to current detail, which could be improved.
  • Chelsea are generally a well-supported club - are they sometimes not then? I don't think "generally" adds anything new.
Thanks. Trebor 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very good article. Trebor 17:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

***** I'm a bit concerned about this new English football champions template that's just appeared. Is it really nessercery? Buc 22:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I'm leaning support, but I don't think the rivalries are sufficiently important to be part of the lead (I think Leeds fans would be surprised to see themselves mentioned in the lead) - a better choice from the Supporters section would be something like "Chelsea are one of the best supported clubs in the United Kingdom, with an estimated UK fanbase of four million". Oldelpaso 10:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of Trebor Rowntree and Oldelpaso's suggested improvements have been added. How is it now? SteveO 11:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking good. Oldelpaso 11:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about my suggestion?82.6.170.90 15:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which kit are you referring to? Several are described in the second paragraph. SteveO 15:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either "The mint green strip in the 1980s" or "the red and white checked one" 82.6.170.90 21:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what merit there would be in adding an away kit which only lasted 1-2 years. What do others think? SteveO 23:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentNotable managers trophies has just been added. Not sure if the Full Members Cup should be in there. Buc 10:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added it in, and thought it best for completeness, but have no strong feelings on the matter, and will go with what others think. Qwghlm 10:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SteveO are you sure the second division title is really notable enough? Buc 16:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Second Division is listed in the club honours section. Imo it does no harm in being there. SteveO 23:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Vijayanagara Empire[edit]

This article has seen a peer review and closely follows the same format as other recent India History related articles. While minor works like fixing the Box, map, choosing right images for each section is still in progress (and will conclude in a few days), the article has seen significant copy edting for content, grammar, balance and has been well cited from well known sources. Please provide positive feed back to enable successful FA review.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 22:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply::Thanks. I will do what I can to cut down on the details in the notes, to reduce clutter. In a previous FA review I was asked to give full details of the citation, its publisher, year, author, etc. So I just followed the same strategy. I understand there may be too many details in many of the notes and I shall cut that down.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 23:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply::I have reduced inline note details to a significant degree, maintaining details only where necessary.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I have taken care of web reference format.thanks.Dineshkannambadi
Reply Yes. I guess this would be the same Infobox we used for Hoysala. We surely need that box. I am waiting for a new user who showed interest in creating a Hoysala style map to complete the map assignment.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 14:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have a small problem of alignment of preceeding and succeeding states. I have asked for help on this.Dineshkannambadi 02:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In progressDineshkannambadi 03:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DoneDineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply main foe was Deccan Sultanates.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done added many more nouns to wikilink list.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done wrote several stubsDineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DoneDineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DoneDineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
removed last few unnecessary sections.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CorrectedDineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done moved it where it should be.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks to a new user user:mlpkr.Dineshkannambadi 02:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

corrected.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC) =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I will attend to these issues tonight. Thanks for the guidance.Dineshkannambadi 17:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the first two decades after the founding of the empire, Harihara I gained control over most of the area south of the Tungabhadra River -- not very useful. How did the empire originate? Start with the origins. Who founded it? begin with such text.Spelling errors still found: adminsitrative, Hereditery Please run it through a spell check. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I have addressed this.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 21:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been trying to trace the origins of Kammas living in Coimbatore City - south India. After reading thru your artilce on VijayaNagar empire and the Nayak system introducted by them, I firmly believe that this could have been the beginning of the migration of Kammas into Tamilnady and also Coimbatore. But a close read of the Nayak system of the empire shows more information of the system prevalent in Madurai with litte or no mention of such a system in Coimbatore. But even today we could see plenty of places with name tags ending with Paalayams. So there is a definite relation. But no clear records as to when it all began and how it progressed over the centuries. Can you throw any light on this subject?

A large migration of Telugu and Kannada people into Tamil Nadu happened during the rule of Vijayanagara Empire (the migration of Kannadaigas started with the Hoysala Empire itself), according to Prof. K.A. Nilakanta Sastri. Thats about all the info I can give from my sources. For more details, you may have to read a book more pertinent to the Nayakas of Tamil Nadu. hope this helps.Dineshkannambadi 02:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient and indigenous sounds awkward too. Maybe drop ancient - it does not really fit.--Blacksun 09:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dineshkannambadi 11:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, thanks. I will have a more thorough look at it tomorrow and will make my decision then. Right now I am leaning towards support. Arjun 14:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Reply-->will be taken care of.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 20:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dineshkannambadi 16:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to do more copyediting to change language/prose if you could point out generally where the problems are.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 16:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to edit them out at the page itself because trying to list them would be an unnecessary duplication of effort. Primarily I wish that the style of prose be made better. The content and relavent citations are all there. Shushruth \talk page \ contribs 17:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Go ahead. One request. A recently blocked disruptive user has been making unexplained reverts. Make sure you look at the history of edits before you start your copy edits each time to make sure your well intended edits dont get tangled up with those of the disruptive user.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The prose has improved to my satisfaction. Good job. :-) Shushruth \talk page \ contribs 06:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Lose gap in text between the 2 templates
- sections would be better broken up with sub-headings

Reply I am only following the same format as other recent India history related FA that has been accepted by most reviewers. If you can specify how to better break up the format here on the discussion page, it would be easier.thanksDineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I admit I don't know too much about FA style in particular, but I would add sub-heads as follows:
- "republican guard" sounds odd here. Is that what historians call them?

Reply The book says kings "personal army" excluding feudal armies (contributed by feudatories, hereditery clans supporting the empire). So republican guard seemed a close match.Dineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC) changed to King's personal army.Dineshkannambadi 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I seem to remember that Hampi was evacuated/abandoned after the 1565 defeat, so the Moslems just walked in rather than "attacked". "Tirumala Raya, the sole survivor" - of what? the royal family? the commanders? - should say.

Reply My sources--> dont say "walked in" and Vijayanagara was not evacuated. Some resistance did exist. Tirumala Raya was the sole surviver of the three commanders.will explain on article after another study.Dineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Changed to "plundered" instead of "attacked and plundered" to keep it simple.Dineshkannambadi 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- there was a word half "critical" half "crucial" near end para 1 - I went with crucial, but up to you.

reply either way is fine.Dineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" On the battlefield the king usually entrusted his most capable commanders to lead the troops" - no surprise there then! Must be a better way of putting it.

Reply ok, will look into this.Dineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trade: I changed Judea to Palestine (Judea not really used after 400AD or earlier), but Syria or "the Levant" might be better. what is a "camlet", a baby camel?

Reply Palestine is fine.Dineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Reply camlet is a fabric. wikilink in place.Dineshkannambadi 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...a focus on decoration rather than sculpture that surpasses that previously in India.." - hmmm - should be painting not decoration I think, but a rather dubious statement anyway imho, given how little evidence of earlier painting has survived.

corrected sentence by user:Mattisse.Dineshkannambadi 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I dont believe the author meant paintings. Because Vijayanagara sculptors used granite, the sculptural work did not finish well. So they used special materials such as pilasters to cover up flaking on granite for decoration and smooth finish. Also the use of animals, both mythical and real in the pillars and columns was for decorative purposes. But will recheck.Dineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected sentence by user:Mattisse.Dineshkannambadi 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the copyedit - I think no major change of meaning; mostly for style. Johnbod 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply--> I own the book and it says "edited by Fritz and Michell". There are a few chapters in that book that are credited to different historians such Anna Dallapiccola. There are some chapters which are not credited to other historians, so i suppose the credits there go to Fritz and Michell themselves. The book itself was not written by Anna Dallapiccola. In fact it may be said the book is a compilation by Fritz and Michell mostly containing research info by various researchers.Dineshkannambadi 06:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Reference URL points directly to page in web reference.Dineshkannambadi 07:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may look at Chalukya dynasty article for instance.Dineshkannambadi 06:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply-->I can replace this with acceptable images. DoneDineshkannambadi 03:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply All citations are written in the format expected and accepted by reviewers in recent previous India History related articles. I was asked to give full details of publication, year etc in each citation. If you dont like the format, please discuss before making major changes. I have answered your points above.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I would like to thank Circeus for showing us a neater way to write citations.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 01:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Hurricane Ismael[edit]

Another hurricane GA, part of the series on retired Pacific hurricanes, a featured topic candidate. It's quite comprehensive, and appears to meet the various featured article criteria. This is not a self-nomination - Hurricanehink and others have done a great deal of work with this article. --Coredesat 01:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra railway line, Sydney[edit]

Self-nomination: I've done a fair bit of work on this article in recent weeks; it has gone through a peer review (see here and I've received some helpful feedback. Since this is one of the first times an individual railway line has been up for FAC it's a bit hard to know what to expect, but comparing it to other FA articles I feel that it should be up to standard. This is my first FAC, so please feel free to comment if there's something I can improve on. Thanks. JROBBO 11:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason for the change in "km" to "kilometres" - I did attempt to change it earlier but the database got locked while I was in the middle of an edit. I'll change them all to the full wording, which is the preferred style. JROBBO 20:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that the full wording is the preferred style (I'm not doubting you, I'm just surprised)? Trebor 20:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was a suggestion on the automated thing in the peer review... even if it's not the preferred style, consistency is good, so I'll go and change them all. JROBBO 08:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me where it says dates in refs need to be wikilinked? I understand your concern, but they don't really add anything to the article. JROBBO 07:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with you, it's a superfluous pain in the ass...BUT...Criteria 2, responding to the Manual of Style under its policy regarding the use of dates and numbers, and a few other places mandate it. It is not an explicit exemption to the rule (there are a couple), so it's required solely to make sure that 22 January shows up as January 22 for those who like it that way and set their user preferences. I quote: If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. —ExplorerCDT 08:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone through the article and wikilinked most of the dates in the references. Harryboyles 05:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. Wikilink dates also link to the calendar articles, but you're not supposed to link solo years. ExplorerCDT is just being a pain himself on this whole FAC.Rlevse 03:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Care to explain further? --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same question as Arnzy - objections need to be actionable. Trebor 22:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The FA criteria demands that it be well-written with the prose being brilliant and compelling. The writing is bland, and uninteresting. Nothing in the writing captivates a reader. I think my above comment was sufficient, but if you can't get the drift, the article's prose is horribly boring. —ExplorerCDT 03:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decorum suggests something more respectful, and more specific, than "horribly boring". ExplorerCDT, your comments are horribly boring. See? –Outriggr § 04:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could have said the prose plain "sucks" but I think saying that this is far from brilliant and compelling was enough. You asked for more, and I did everything but say that it sucks. Why ask for more if you can't take it? —ExplorerCDT 07:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you at least make some suggestions on what I could do? This is my first FAC, so I would find it helpful for the future if you could say something a bit more than "it is far from brilliant and compelling" - where is it bad? What sections/sentences in particular? JROBBO 07:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Innumerable grammar problems. This article needs a heavy dose of copyediting. The use of too many pronouns (especially "it") without specific connections. The prose is just wholly uninteresting, and bland. I can't see giving examples, because the entire thing is so dry. Good writing has a spark that makes a reader want to finish this article. This article I had to struggle to finish. You have sentences like this: The line is four tracks between Wolli Creek Junction and Hurstville, then tracks between Hurstville and Waterfall. Sutherland has a third platform for the Cronulla Line. that make me cringe and then ask: SO WHAT? That is what makes this article "horribly boring". Other considerations. You wikilink many things in the references section. Bad. It confuses me (and likely others) into thinking you're referencing external links. Wikilink the article body as much as you want, but not the references. Many of the references are incomplete, lacking publishing information, ISBNs, and author information. Also, remove the size/pixel parameters from thumbnail images to accomodate user preferences, and to comply with WP:IUP. —ExplorerCDT 08:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point about the writing - however, like other criticisms, it mainly concentrates on the first section (the "Alignment" section), which needs fixing - I think this makes it the problem - once you've read that, you don't want to read any more. Secondly, the references are as complete as the information is provided - most of my sources are published by a government or other related corporation and don't have authors explicitly mentioned,; when the publisher or author is not mentioned, or they are the same, there's no point in listing the superfluous information; the websites listed don't have any more information than I can get either. Furthermore, as they are privately published documents, there's no ISBN listed either. Thirdly, on many other pages that I have looked at the authors or publishers, where there is an appropriate wikilink, are linked to that page (take a look at MTR or Singapore MRT, both Featured Articles). I really can't do anything about this. I spent a long time looking for sources, and there isn't anything else on this sort of thing. But I will fix up the writing. JROBBO 08:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparing this article to other FAs can be problematic, because many older FAs (especially those from 2004-2005) haven't been reviewed since then, often have had many edits since being named an FA that could have diminished the quality of the article, and certainly would not pass when tested in the crucible of the present criteria. For instance, MTR would probably fail an FAC today or receive several objections requiring repairs because it is not adequately referenced and far too many facts go uncited. FA is determined about how well this article meets the criteria, not how it matches up to another article. The references need to be fixed. No question or excuses about it. If you can't find an ISBNs (which I doubt you even searched hard for ISBNs...try searching through amazon.com), state "NO ISBN" and a reason why (like saying "NO ISBN (Pre-1964)" for things published before ISBNs were started, or "NO ISBN (privately published)" if that were the case) If you can't find an author, complete the reference by stating No further authorship information available.. Don't just leave it unquantified. Many of these references don't even state basic publishing information and that is just unacceptable. Providing full references allows others to check your work. As to your protest about my criticism to get rid of the wikilinking references. References should be linking to those things outside wikipedia that you are using to support the article's statements. You do not support an article's statements by referencing other articles within Wikipedia. Please remove the superfluous wikilinking in the referencing. Making excuses, and refusing to make these actionable (and by the MOS, guidelines and policies) necessary fixes will likely result in this article getting failed as an FA in spite of your protestations, and I will likely move from just objecting to strenuously objecting to this article's candidacy. Lastly, the problem with the writing isn't just the first section. My criticism about its dryness is regarding the entire article, not just the first section. Another note, the failure to put in a grid or something to delineate the cells in the table for much of the dotted sections in the middle of the table makes it difficult to read and use. —ExplorerCDT 09:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"You do not support an article's statements by referencing other articles within Wikipedia" - can you please tell me where I'm doing that? All I'm saying is that the articles in question are written or published by that organisation or source.JROBBO 10:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care. What part of don't wikilink other articles in the references and thereby confuse people into thinking it's an external link to an external source don't you understand? There's no reason the note that reads: Sydney Tramway Museum, "Our Vintage Tram Routes", Railpage Australia. Accessed 11 January 2007. should link to Wikipedia's article on Sydney Tramway Museum. It should only direct a reader to the external source, not to an article on wikipedia. When the article does that it confuses readers into thinking they're clicking on a link to an external resource. Stop trying explaining yourself and just fix it. I'm not here to hold your hand through it. —ExplorerCDT 11:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does Template:Harvard reference have a parameter for "authorlink" to allow linking to the author's name? If this sort of thing is prohibited as you say, that sort of thing shouldn't be allowed. The fact is that this kind of thing is allowed. I'll change it, but I think you're being overly picky. JROBBO 11:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ExplorerCDT, I think the links to other Wikipedia articles are fine. You may notice that external links have an arrow clearly denoting themselves as such, if that helps prevent confusion. There is to include a wikilink (and as JROBBO says, there's even a field for it on some templates) because it allows you to find out about the author and publisher of the information. The style guidelines on WP:FOOTNOTE say "Internal links should still be used as normal". Is there any guideline that supports your view? If not, then your bluntness is unmerited. Trebor 16:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out "Stations and tracks / compiled by J.H. Forsyth" at State Library of New South Wales catalogue. It is spiral bound and doesn't have an ISBN. That doesn't mean it can't be used as a reference in Wilkipedia, as appears to be asserted by ExplorerCDT. Nevertheless, I'm not sure if the Note citations need to repeat everything in the References, it would probably just be better to say "Forsyth (1988–93), p216"--Grahamec 01:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not say at any time that a source without an ISBN was unuseable. I said a cited source ought to have an ISBN (or ISSN) to be a complete citation or reference. If it's privately published I would like to see NO ISBN (privately published) (as the specific source you mention above now does) next to the source for the sake of completeness. If you're going to critique my points, at least get them right. —ExplorerCDT 01:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other works by Forsyth also published by the State Rail Authority of New South Wales have ISBN numbers, I find it highly unlikely and would be surprised if the work cited here by Forsyth, with the same publisher, would be lacking them. —ExplorerCDT 01:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Australia, by law under the Copyright Act 1968 all books which have ISBNs in them are obliged to have them on one of the first few pages, or on the back cover (much like the Library of Congress rules which require a succinct summary in them at the front). If they don't have one written on it you can be pretty sure it's privately published. I have the book here with me and I've had a thorough look through it - there is no ISBN there. JROBBO 07:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting mixed up with book deposit. Forget the above. JROBBO 08:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Library of Congress does not "require" anything. A book catalogued by the LOC can (at the publisher's sole discretion) include a full bibliographic summary, write the line "Cataloguing data available from the the Library of Congress" or just put the Library of Congress Control Number or its classification number. Nothing is "required". The British Library, likewise, does not have any such "requirement." I just find it highly unlikely that if this organization has published (even privately) previous books of Forsyths with ISBNs, that his subsequent works would be ISBNless. Also, I would advise you to stop bullshitting. The Copyright Act 1968 does not have the words "International Source Book Number" or "ISBN" in the entire corpus of its text (See here [2], [3], and [4]). If you're going to find an excuse to avoid doing work (especially searching for information), at least find an excuse that isn't so easily debunkable. Half-assed shortcuts is what makes this article not worthy of inclusion amongst Featured Articles. If you're going to try to bullshit me, at least do it in a subject I don't know anything about. Unfortunate for you, it just happens to be that I've done a lot of work in publishing and have a lot of connections in publishing...and if you would have just not made any excuses or asked nicely, I might have taken a look for ISBNs on your behalf. Not a chance now. —ExplorerCDT 07:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind of the WP:CIVIL guidelines when presenting your thoughts. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still looking for an answer as to where in the style guidelines it says "don't use wikilinks in references". I, for one, would much prefer them to be included so I can get a basic précis of the author and publisher of the source. Trebor 12:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The pattern stops are just showing how the line operates and how trains run on it. Some of the London Underground line pages have them, and quite a few in Australia too - and no one has ever objected to these. I'm happy to get rid of the duplication by removing the dots and adding historical information on the stations, but I think it's ok if we leave them in there. JROBBO 07:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm objecting now - as much as I love "railcruft", I think showing exactly which trains stop where goes a bit far, especially if you don't know how often those patterns change. On a rapid transit system, where these patterns may be long-established, it may be different (for instance the 1/9 skip-stop patterns on the New York City Subway), and this may be the case here, but Wikipedia is supposed to be "timeless" and cover both the past and the present, and if you don't know how often these patterns change it's probably best to leave them out. --NE2 08:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although a couple of trains might change every timetable (given that CityRail isn't a metro line), these are usually the exceptions - on here at least, the stopping patterns don't change all that much except when there's major changes to the timetable. This line is very unlikely to have any major changes to it, since there's no lines planned to connect to it or any major capacity changes apart from the Cronulla Branch, but it's probable that all trains on the branch will continue to use all stations there. Having said that, it's probably possible to condense the information into a sentence or two about how it currently operates rather than a whole section. JROBBO 08:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How's this for a general idea: "All trains run from the Bondi Junction end and serve all stops to Sydenham. Trains that continue as locals, stopping at most or all stations, terminate at Hurstville, Mortdale, Sutherland, or Waterfall, while all Cronulla trains skip a number of intermediate stations on their way to the split at Sutherland." Do all the stations on the four-track section have only two side plaforms, or are there islands to serve the express tracks? --NE2 09:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find the stopping pattern diagrams colourful and somewhat interesting. I wouldn't expect them to appeal to all tastes, but I don't expect every part of every article to appeal to all tastes.--Grahamec 01:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (and I admit I have been collecting Sydney railway timetables for 45 years--Grahamec 02:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I find it to be trivial, and I'm a fan of transit operations. But it might be useful to keep it in a toned-down style, like by showing which stations are served by almost all trains (a local-express style setup?), especially if these general patterns have been historically stable. --NE2 16:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has gone now, so there's no need to keep addressing this point. JROBBO 02:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just about all of them are removed now, except the ones in the lead and other ones which I thought were important. What "is relevant to the context" will be, after all, a subjective judgement in the end, but you're welcome to pick me up on any others you feel should be removed. JROBBO 10:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replies[edit]

You probably looked at the early morning, which is always weird because there are usually revenue (ie. passenger-carrying) services coming from the Maintenance Centres or stabling yards which have bizarre stopping patterns. A good idea is to look at the middle of the day, which will give you a better idea of what the actual patterns are. JROBBO 09:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Hollaback Girl[edit]

The article was nominated for featured article three times in under a month back in 2005 (most recent). I believe I've addressed all of the concerns from those candidacies, and the article recently had a peer review. The only thing that I've heard could use improvement is an expansion of the "Music and structure" section; I asked at WikiProject Hip Hop and at the peer review, but so far nobody's been able to suggest anything that could be added (I personally think the length is appropriate since the song has few instrumentals to discuss). If appropriate, the section can be merged with another. ShadowHalo 04:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it'd probably be better in the "Reception" section, although it's not exactly the perfect section for it either. RE:cameo: Meh, it's not that big of a deal. I feel that "cameo appearance" is redundant because cameo is a noun, and the "appearance" is already implied. But again, not that big of a deal. Gzkn 08:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it to the reception section and added the reference to it on Family Guy; that it was mocked on Family Guy makes a much better lead-in next to some of the negative reviews that it received. Should "Reception" be split into "Critical response" and "Appearances in pop culture" (or something of the sort)? ShadowHalo 08:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure on that one...kind of torn. It might make sense, but "Appearances in pop culture" is quite trivia-ish, of which I'm no fan...I guess it's fine as is. Gzkn 01:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "reached a peak chart position of number one" - how about "reached number one" or "peaked at number one"?
  2. "went on to become" - how about "became"?
  3. "Upon returning to the studio, Williams began to play Stefani his first solo album" - this implies Williams returned to the studio, but the previous sentence says it was Stefani who was leaving.
  4. "Stefani understood that some of the fans of No Doubt would be upset with her solo effort" - I'm not comfortable with "understood" here as it implies it is a certainty that some of the fans would be disappointed. How about "believed"?
  5. "The track ranked higher [on the Maxim list] than several other chart-topping singles such as Céline Dion's "My Heart Will Go On" (number three) and the Spice Girls' "Wannabe" (number five)." - why list these two out of the whole twenty? I think this implies a POV that these other songs were equally worthy candidates for the number-one spot.
  6. "topped its component chart, the Billboard Pop 100 Airplay, for four weeks" - aaahh, component charts :). It's already established before this sentence that the single received huge amounts of airplay, so I don't feel this info is relevant.
  7. Given that Canada isn't a major world music market, I think having an entire paragraph describing the single's chart performance there is a bit much.
  8. "Although its UK success was limited, widespread airplay kept it in the top forty for an additional eleven weeks." - the MusicSquare reference doesn't support the airplay part.
  9. "[Pharrell Williams] is present in the video, making a cameo appearance" - how about simply "makes a cameo in the video"?
  10. There doesn't appear to be sources for the VH1 and MuchMusic statistics, although this isn't an important point.
  11. The titles of all the non-U.S. charts end in "Singles Chart". Are you sure this is the official title for all of them? I'm concerned about misleading readers and possibly introducing inaccuracies; we wouldn't list the Billboard Hot 100 as "U.S. Singles Chart", for example, because there's more than one.
  12. Is it necessary to include the Top 40 Adult Recurrents chart? If its position on that chart was significantly higher than the position on the Adult Top 40, I'd say it should be included, but that isn't the case here (the positions are the same).
Again, I think this is a very good article that is close to FA standard. Extraordinary Machine 22:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the changes with a few exceptions. I removed some of the unimportant info about its performance in Canada, but given that its relative popularity in the U.S. caused issues about Canadian copyright law, it seems appropriate to have a separate paragraph that has that information. I'm leaving the VH1/MuchMusic info in there just until I can find references; if I can't (very possible since they're less publicized), I'll remove them. I just want to check the formatting for the non-U.S. charts; would "<country> Top X Singles" be appropriate (with the occasional exception of, for example, Dutch Top 40)? I just don't want to have to go through all of those charts more than once. ShadowHalo 22:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found a reference for MuchMusic, but I removed the Yahoo! Music (I didn't even bother looking for a reference; I don't think anyone cares about it) along with the VH1 countdown, replacing it with VH1's year-end countdown. ShadowHalo 05:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits and response. I meant whether the titles of the charts listed were the actual names of those charts; for example, as you said, the official title for the singles chart in the Netherlands is the Dutch Top 40, not the Dutch Singles Chart. Please make sure that they are all accurate. If there is no official title, I think leaving it as [Country] Singles Chart is fine. Thanks again! Extraordinary Machine 19:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I compared all the charts to the references as well as the Wikipedia pages about them, when applicable, and it looks like Dutch Top 40 was the only one that needed to be changed so far as I can tell. ShadowHalo 22:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for checking. I think I need to give the article another close look before I consider supporting, but for now I'm withdrawing my object. Thanks again. Extraordinary Machine 18:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Same-sex marriage in Spain[edit]

This article has experimented great changes in the last couple of months. It's already a GA, it has received much attention from the LGBT wiki project (meriting an A-class rating), it has undergone peer review and two thorough copyeditings by different editors, including a final proofread. With almost 40 inline citations, I believe it is ready for FA now. Self-nomination. Raystorm 20:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you have issues with 1a (even though the article has been copyedited twice and proofread by members of the League of Copyeditors. I'll send it again and tell them their efforts were not appreciated here), 1c (which I find really hard to believe -could you please give specific examples of the 'many statements' that are unreferenced?), 2a (which can be easily fixed) and 2b ('sloppy' is really vague, but I'll see how this can be addressed. Be aware also that those 2 stub-like sections you mentioned will increase their lenght when the Costitutional challenge results are known. They will not remain stub-like for long). The rest can be easily addressed.
About the images...I'll try to find someone with more experience dealing with the issues you've raised, but frankly, I think there's a strong subjective element in the objections you raised. What is not captivating for you may be captivating for someone else. However, as I said I'll find someone to deal with this issue.
This article might become a FA or not. However, I'd like to ask for some minimal courtesy/respect when reviewing it. It definitely wouldn't have made it this far if written by editors whose grasp of English is minimally proficient. You just took the easy way -this article is about a Spanish law, it must have been solely written by Spaniards who barely speak English. That's neither true nor fair.
I'll address the changes asap. Cheers Raystorm 22:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REPLY: 1(a): I don't think it was adequately copyedited, as there are still glaring grammatical and orthographic problems throughout the entire text. 1(c). Look through the article and you'll find several paragraphs without a single citation, and several asserted facts which may be controversial or challenged. Would you prefer I tag each with a ((citation needed))? 2(b). I don't think i'm being vague at all. images: neither do I think I'm being subjective, much less strongly so. the criteria says the prose must be brilliant and compelling. I established why I don't feel it is, and that captions should adequately summarize the image per the criteria I pointed you to, Wikipedia:Captions, which I also, sufficently established. I've provided you and this article all the due respect, and stated my critique of the article objectively. First, accusations of my being "subjective" and baseless attempts to ascribe that I acted with racist "motives" are uncalled for, and second, if you can't/won't/don't accept the criticism, then you ought not to have exposed yourself to it in the first place by nominating an article for FAC. We aren't a rubber stamp or a means of boosting an editor's self-esteem, nor should you expect a free pass. —ExplorerCDT 22:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REPLY #2: I added about a dozen ((citation needed)) tags to the article, per above. —ExplorerCDT 22:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In looking through the verifiability page, I see no requirement that the sources must be in English. In fact, it says clearly: Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation. This, to me, indicates that foreign citations are acceptable if English language citations are not available, or not of the same quality as the original language reference. Jeffpw 23:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • that's why i asked for them to "try to find some comparable sources" and only commented in this regard....not as a reason for my objection. —ExplorerCDT 23:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa whoa! Who said anything about racist comments or accusations? I merely commented your review, I thought I was allowed to address it. I've already undergone a peer review, accepting criticism and acting upon it is not an issue. The manner in which the criticsm is stated may be. I'm not editing an article to boost my self-esteem nor expect a free pass here. Can we concentrate on the article now instead of the editors? I said I'd address the issues pointed above. Cheers Raystorm 23:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: You wrote: You just took the easy way -this article is about a Spanish law, it must have been solely written by Spaniards who barely speak English. That's neither true nor fair. This is a light accusation of racism and a false attribution of motive, and such an ad hominem is wholly "uncalled for." I was focusing on the article, but you compelled me to respond when you loosely threw around seemingly racist accusations and proceeded to dismiss my constructive, criteria-based criticisms as "subjective"—implying that it justified your ignoring them (or passing them off to someone else). —ExplorerCDT 23:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I'm not discussing that anymore. If you believe I've offended you, I apologize. It certainly was not my intention. I made an assumption (not a racist accussation, I did not expect you to take it as such because I did not intend it as such), and so did you. Sorry. Let's move on. I've added all the references you asked for. Tried to find as many as possible in English, but some were just better in Spanish, or there simply were no English citations available. I'll tackle the sections next. Will merge the Flaw section, but I believe the Court one should remain as it is for now, until the additional info I mentioned before can be added. Does this make sense? Cheers Raystorm 00:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it hard to believe that there are not any comparable English-language source materials available when this issue was well covered by the Associated Press, Reuters and UPI and major UK and US news outfits. —ExplorerCDT 07:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, it was covered by English sources. That's why, out of 49 refs, 25 are in English. However, the level of detail of some potential English sources was in quite a few cases very poor compared to Spanish ones. It was very hard to find English sources that commented the ratification process, for example, but there were more than enough about the approval of the law and even Vatican opposition. English sources are always the priority, but they're not always the best. Cheers and thanks for the feedback Raystorm 15:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Citation issues seem to have been addressed. And I think the prose is not objectionable. Jeffpw 00:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So that's one editor saying there are prose issues and another that the prose is not objectionable and has been adequately addressed. What now? Wait for a third opinion? Raystorm 00:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for consensus to develop. FAC can sometimes take a few weeks, It's a lot different than GA. Jeffpw 00:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate answer: per WP:FAC instructions, you make a good faith effort to address all objections. Just because one reviewer didn't see an issue, doesn't mean it's not there. You can "wait for consensus to develop", but if you aren't addressing objections in the meantime, consensus is more likely to go against your article's candidacy. Arguing with good-faith reviewers doesn't often yield good results - it takes a lot of effort to help some articles get to FA status, and responding with good faith to reviewer's efforts to help you is the fastest way to get there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~You can see I'm trying to address all comments asap, so I'm not sure what you mean. If you have more comments about the article I'll be happy to hear them. I'm already fixing the refs per your request (see below). Cheers Raystorm 15:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only meant not to sit around and wait for consensus, since that could result in a negative outcome - I didn't agree with the advice Jeffpw was giving you, and wanted to make sure you knew to actively work on addressing valid objections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sentences that could do with citations:

The lead is also inadequate: it should sum up the entire article, but does not mention the legal flaw or marriage statistics. A little more history could be included as well.

I am not much of a prose writer, but I do feel there may be slight prose issues on reading the text. You may want to get one more copyeditor in just in case. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references you asked for have been provided. I've already asked at the League of Copyeditors for more help with the article, and one member is already going over the article. Included a sentence about marriage statistics in the lead. Flaw section has been merged into history section. I've also reorganised the order of the sections. Cheers Raystorm 02:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied that this article is fully referenced, so good job there. Fix the lead to reflect the article's contents, and change this sentence "With the final approval of the law on 2 July — including royal assent and publication in the Boletín Oficial del Estado — Spain became the third country in the world to formally legalise same-sex marriages nationwide, after the Netherlands and Belgium." into something that you could read aloud without problems, and I'll support. For future articles, what you may find helpful is to print off a hard copy of the article and read it aloud to yourself, correcting it wherever you find it difficult to read smoothly. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on the lead. I'll change that sentence right now. And I appreciate your advice, but I haven't got access to a printer. :-) Cheers Raystorm 19:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it look better now? Raystorm 20:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is OK. As you add more to the article, don't forget to update the lead though! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Raystorm 03:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of your concerns have been addressed now. The refs I fixed while you finished copyediting the article, I even had a conflic edit with you. :)
I'll address your concerns asap. The dead link only had a bug, it's fixed now. The marriage statistics sentence makes mention to its corresponing section. Another editor requested that some mention of it be made at the lead. Raystorm 04:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed. Raystorm 04:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by addressed - the marriage statistics sentence still has no context in the lead, autonomous communities is sometimes capitalized, sometimes not, haven't checked everything else. By the way, quotes are not italicized (see WP:MOS) - pls fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the specific comment under which I had signed. I need time to address everything. Raystorm 04:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, started through your refs as you said they were addressed: authors are still not added on news sources, which are not correctly formatted. (Please see WP:CITE or WP:CITET for samples.) Your second reference listed is incorrect - it's the St. Petersburg Times. I'll check back in a few days to see if refs are cleaned up, and then read the article and verify sources. Please pick a consistent date format on your references and stick with it, add authors on all news sources, and use a correct and consistent style for biblio sources - if your links go dead, we need to be able to find your sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Raystorm 04:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I failed to mention that the reason your news sources are incorrectly formatted is that, while cite web formats websources correctly, cite news should be used for news sources like El Mundo, El Pais, BBC, etc. Converting them (and adding author when available) will solve the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already began addressing that problem. Might take me a few days to go through all the refs checking them though. Please be patient. Cheers Raystorm 14:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back for a second look

  • In March 2006, Pedro Zerolo, a senior government official, announced that more than 1,000 same-sex couples had married. Eight hundred marriages were recorded in the fully computerized areas (about half the country) and at least 200 were estimated in the rest of the country. Zerolo also said that 10% of all marriages in Spain were between same-sex couples.
  • The time frame on the marriages he's discussing isn't at all clear in the source. Did he announce that in March, or did he mean that there were 1,000 marriages during the month of March? If so, that seems incredibly low - which portion of the country is he discussing? Without some context, the statement may be biased. Ten % of all marriages during what time frame and in what part of the country? Right after the law passed, or on an ongoing basis?
Hi there. I've asked for help changing the infoboxes' templates (I don't know how to do that). Curiously, I did what you said (put the legislation infobox at the top and the LGBT one more at the bottom), but I was asked at peer review to change it back, because it was visually more pleasing.
Yikes, since someone actually asked for it, I'm un-striking my comment above, so the reasoning for not including a large See also list in the infobox-lead is legible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the date formats so they were consistent. Were they not? I'll add manually the es icon. I still have refs to go through, I gave priority to newspaper ones. And yeah, yahoo is kind of a bother, but I don't mind checking periodically those links. I'll try to find alternate sources though.
  • I've italicized foreign phrases. They escaped my notice because they were wiki linked. :)
  • Now, the Zerolo source. I'm not too sure about what you mean. The source is dated 2 March 2006. So it cannot mean only the month of March. In fact, the first line of the article is: Since same-sex marriage became legal in Spain last year more than 1,000 gay and lesbian couples have wed a high-ranking government official said Thursday. Which means exactly that, since the law was passed until the last day they had figures for (probably, some day in the end of February). Now, the law became effective in July 3 2005. 1,000 marriages may not seem like a high number (from July to March, not included), but you gotta take into account that getting the paperwork ready a marriage (any marriage) takes about 3 months (I'll never find a source for this statement, but it's generally true). There were several marriages that were performed really soon after the law was passed, true. We had a really interesting debate about this topic in the articles' talk page. Why should there be high figures shortly after the law was passed? People like to plan their weddings, get everything ready, etc. There's no reason to believe this won't be true for homosexuals. In fact, I expected there'd be a significant increase beginning June 2006 -simply because people like to get married in Summer. These are social conditions that aren't easily (or accurately) predicted.
Err, I digress. :) Sorry. Let's see, you ask if he means all of Spain or only some parts. Well, he means 800 in the areas that are computerized, and 200 estimated marriages in the areas that are not. In the previous sentence there's a source which includes a list of places that are computerized. We're talking about half of the country, and this is mentioned in the article. 10% in those areas since the law was passed until the last day in February they had data for, and what they estimate (based in their data) from the areas that are not computerized. To be honest, I think it's pretty clear (in the article, not here!), but I'll add an extra line just in case.
Cheers and thanks for your feedback. Raystorm 22:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Rereading the paragraph, I think I can understand why the 10% sentence might be a bit confusing. I'll change it for something more clear. The infoboxes have been changed, btw. Cheers Raystorm 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS2: I can't believe this. I changed the date formats in the refs, and now they've changed back? Sigh. I'll change them again. Raystorm 22:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I get it. I know what happened. It's the difference between adding [[ ]] to the dates or not. Okay. I can fix it quick enough. Raystorm 22:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better on the infobox and template - kudos for getting it done so fast - I worry about the precedents set with some of the gynormous new confangled infoboxes, and the new version looks quite good and conforms better with guidelines. Ack - on the 1,000 issue, I completely misread the sentence as saying 1,000 total marriages, which I thought was very strange (low). Glad you understand the dates now - the cite templates are inconsistent and can be very frustrating. I printed the article to read, but I think I'll wait until you've finished your changes and reprint. I'm giving up on the Spanish language icon - sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, it's Greek to me, not worth worrying about <grrrr ...> Dates now look consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some copyediting, and will now be prepared to support the article if the third paragraph of the lead is expanded a bit more (one or two sentences - not crazy about a two-sentence para in the lead, and there is more that can be said), and if Opabinia's concerns have been met. It's looking good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded a bit the third paragraph of the lead. Better now? I believe Opabinia's concers have been met, but I'm still waiting for his/her comments regarding the changes (and I don't feel too confortable knocking on his/her talkpage to prod him/her to check it out). Aside from that, a tiny curious question: I saw you struck out the infoboxes concern the other day, but now it's been unstruck again. Is this an oversight, or you want me to fiddle with the infoboxes further? :) Thanks for the copyediting, btw! Cheers Raystorm 12:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Ahh, I've read why you unstruck that comment. Okay then (sorry, I failed to see it among the discussion). :) Raystorm 12:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Opabinia would be fine with you leaving her a note - it's common to ask Objectors to re-visit after you've addressed concerns, and it's hard for active reviewers to remember everything they need to re-visit. After reading the Spanish wiki article, I left a 1b (comprehensive) list of questions on your talk page - after you review those issues, and Opabinia's, I'll be a Support: IMO, the article now meets 1a and 1c. You might even ask Explorer to have another look now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I investigated further and found there is no specific policy against using navigational templates at the top of the article. I still believe the way the article is currently structured is better (infobox at top, navigation of See also article links horizontally at bottom), but it would not be the basis for an object. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few changes as per your suggestions, you can check them at the article's history. Raystorm 17:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has just been copyedited, the user that did so even made some comments above. I'm not sure what you mean about there not being religious objections: it is mentioned in the reactions section the Church opposed the measure, but I'll see if I can expand that a bit. There were not that many arguments made by the opposition as you may think: mainly two -the weakening of the term marriage and concern for children adopted by gays, which are mentioned. Nonetheless, I'll see if I can expand that a bit more too. The sources that are in Spanish have a language tag attached. Thanks for your feedback, I'll address everything asap. Cheers Raystorm 14:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the edit history, my typo fix came after the copyeditor's changes, so the examples I pointed out were still problematic. (On looking again, I also note: "The veto override supposed its definite approval as law" - supposed? I don't think that's what you mean here.) I should've been more specific in the religious objections comment - if this were in the US, I would expect more than a short paragraph on what the Pope said. (Maybe dioceses have more independence in the US, but it seems like local bishops are always sounding off about something.) I would also expect local/grassroots type organizations to have formed in support or opposition, and I don't see that - were there any? Were they notable? What I'm not getting a sense of is how, in a country that is (perceived as) heavily Catholic, a measure strongly opposed by Catholic authorities would be supported by 60ish% of the population. Did any of these polls include reasons offered by respondents? Opabinia regalis 02:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a new paragraph that offers an explanation given by sociologists. I'll research a bit more to see if I can expand it further, because it seems a bit simple, but maybe there really isn't much more to the issue than unstoppable modernisation :-) I'll keep looking. I'm going to add per your request some info about a notable local org that opposed the law and seemed to congregate (along the Church) the opposition. Cheers Raystorm 14:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does it look now? Raystorm 15:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll see what I can do about the 'devoid of conflict' phrase, and I'll struck out the mass sentence. Thanks for your feedback and support :-)

Still working on 1b, here are some possibilities that might be mentioned (and some sources that may help replace some of the Spanish-language sources):

Since there are numerous English-language sources available (which largely say the same thing the Spanish sources say), it may be possible to replace some, per WP:V policy which states preference for English-language sources when available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there:
  • I've added the BBC explanation about Franco and the church. It's very good. I don't think the one from Adler should be added though: it seems like an opinion from the reporter. A bill isn't approved for the sake of unity, and in fact this law generated quite the stir as can be seen from the demonstrations it provoked. Frankly, I think the March 11 explanation is extremely weak. Spaniards have always had the problem of unity (Catalonia, Basque Country) and have always wanted unity. It's not something new as the article seems to suggest.
  • I don't get the 'most liberal' thing. The idea is that the law makes gay and straight civil marriage the same. If other countries have approved gay civil marriage it should be the same as the straight one, right? Unless Spaniards have more rights in civil marriages than other countries, this law isn't most liberal than the others. If 'most liberal' refers to a comparison with countries that have not approved gay marriage, well, then yes it's pretty liberal, but that's obvious right? And the main difference is the possibility of adoption by same-sex couples, which is mentioned in the article.
  • I changed the Spanish source for the first gay wedding for the English one. Added more on Vatican's position using an English source that was already in the article. Added the PP denied reply sentence to ratification so it goes with the flow of the article, like the result?
Thank you very much for providing these references. I really appreciate it. :-) Tell me how you think the article looks now ok? Cheers Raystorm 10:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ratification of this law has not been devoid of conflict, despite strong support from Spaniards - suggests to me that all Spaniards strongly support it. Perhaps a qualifier would help here.
The whole paragraph about adoption seems to have the wrong subject: ...non-biological mother to recognize children born within a lesbian marriage. Shouldn't it be ...non-biological mother to be recognized as the parent of children born within a lesbian marriage or something similar? I would assume the law recognizes the parent rather than the parent recognizing the child.
Gay rights supporters argued that while the Catholic Church also formally opposed opposite-sex, non-religious marriage, its opposition was not as vocal; for example, the Church did not object to the marriage of Felipe, Prince of Asturias to Letizia Ortiz, who had divorced from a previous civil marriage. - no reference, the example given is not an example of the preceding statement (it is an example of remarriage of a divorcee not of opposing non-religious marriage), and "had divorced from a previous civil marriage" sounds clunky.
Two non-resident foreigners cannot marry in Spain, as at least one of the partners must be a Spanish citizen; two resident foreigners can do so. One sentence paragraph, and yuck. Yomanganitalk 15:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a qualifier to the support sentence, the adoption sentence is actually right (in Spanish law the non-biological parent has to recognize the child as his/her own, and no further adoption paperwork is required), and I eliminated the one sentence paragraph. I'll see what I can do with the church sentence. Thanks for your feedback and support :-) Raystorm 10:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria (3)[edit]

All right, you've got me, I'm totally desperate to get this one featured, and this time I really, really think it has to pass :)) I say every time that I believe it covers all requirements, and then I develop it even further, so it seems nothing can ever be absolutely complete and perfect, but I hope it's pretty close to perfect this time.

What has been improved from one month ago? (see the article then)

Is that enough? :) Todor→Bozhinov 13:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, an excellent and very informative article. I can no longer see any areas for improvement, and the map is brilliant. A few references appear to be missing (in Bulgarian) tags, but other than that, I can't see any formating issues either. Laïka 17:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good, --Vanka5 17:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the article looks very good, with important and interesting information, nice pictures and map of the Empire. Great work : ) : ) : ) --Gligan 18:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good job, well done!:) and very informative article, by the way Hectorian 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot for the detailed comment! I've addressed the one-paragraph sections issue and removed the parentheses in these two occasions, tried to reword the "called his bluff" thing and substituted "here" with "there". In addition, I've expanded the lead section somewhat (but enough to divide it into three paragraphs).
  • We don't have particularly much information about medieval Bulgarian rulers as to know if his accession really was so sudden. It may well not have been unexpected, because we know he was of royal descent, but we can only presume that. No contemporary source mentions a date or place of birth, although we can guess it was around the turn of the century — he ruled until 1371. This means he must have been crowned when he was still relatively young, but again, this is not backed by any sources from the period.
  • As for "probably", this is according to the source. Would it really be necessary to reword as: "probably as a supporter of the claims of his deposed nephew Ivan Stefan, according to John Fine"?, or perhaps add a footnote after "probably" with "According to Fine, Late Medieval Balkans, 274"? :* A copyedit... I've checked the article several times myself and I've used both Microsoft Word's and an online spellchecker, and it all seems fine. Where can I request a manual copyedit by another user? Todor→Bozhinov 19:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I merged the first two paragraphs in the lede again. Looking at it again in relation to the article, its length is good. Given the time period, the article looks good, enough for me to Support. Not sure who could copyedit, but I suppose those things are fairly minor. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking about that too, whether the section was actually of use. I incorporated some of the links using ((see also)) in the other sections, and removed the others (which have already been linked from the text). Todor→Bozhinov 21:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circeus 17:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the detailed post! Please note I'm not a native speaker of English, and it's understandable I would sometimes mess things up without intending to :) I tried to correct most of the awkward-sounding sentences you mentioned, but I can't be sure I haven't further messed them up, so I'd ask you to check what I've done and help fix bad phrasing.
  • Some other things:
  • Indeed, there are different transliteration systems of Bulgarian. Would a <ref> note explaining things be OK? Such as "This article uses the United Nations system to transliterate Bulgarian Cyrillic. For details, see Romanization of Bulgarian."?
  • "The threat from Serbia was neutralized by the deposition of Stefan Uroš III Dečanski by his son Stefan Uroš IV Dušan in 1331." Ivan Alexander had no hand in this, but it explains how the "external threats" mentioned in the lead were dealt with — the accession of Dušan is very important for the change in relations between Bulgaria and Serbia.
  • the Battle of Velbužd is linked.
  • "Stability problems and external conflicts"... any suggestions as to how to reword this to make it clear it continues from the previous' sections
  • The first paragraph under "Rise of Serbia and the Ottoman threat"... to me it looks OK chronologically, would you clarify?
  • Theodora of Wallachia and Sarah-Theodora have been linked now, but I'm not sure how to mention the former one is Basarab's daughter in the first paragraph of Early rule, and I'm not convinced it's necessary. "Together with his father and his father-in-law Basarab of Wallachia (whose daughter Theodora of Wallachia he would later marry)..."?
  • Not sure how to deal with the last paragraph of "Culture and religion"... I was aware it doesn't fit perfectly there, but there's nowhere else to put it, and it's too important to just drop out.
  • "In the meantime Bulgarians and Byzantines had clashed again in 1364, and when Emperor John V Palaiologos was returning from his trip through the west, the irate Bulgarians refused to let him pass through Bulgaria in 1366." What's wrong with "pass"?
  • "such as the Middle Bulgarian translation of the Manasses Chronicle (1344–1345), nowadays preserved in the Vatican Secret Archives in Rome"... I moved the years just after "translation", but I have no idea how to specify the translation is in Rome, not the original, without totally destroying the whole sentence. Todor→Bozhinov 18:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, and about the "contested cities" in Thrace: at the time control over most of the cities in Thrace changed rapidly between Bulgaria and Byzantium, and instead of suffering from prolonged sieges and destruction, the population would surrender to whoever of the two emperors came and claimed control. Todor→Bozhinov 18:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed by your responsiveness!
  • Transliteration: A footnote sounds okay. You might want to include a link to Romanization of Bulgarian, while at it.
  • Serbian threat: On closer exmination, I realize it's the combination of that sentence with the previous sentence ("The new ruler set about solidifying his position by regaining territories recently lost to the Byzantine Empire.") that implies that this is a consequence. Maybe something along the lines of "The deposition of Serbian king Stefan Uroš III Dečanski by his son Stefan Uroš IV Dušan in 1331 helped normalize the relations between Serbia and Bulgaria, previously antagonists over [...]."?
  • Battle of Velbužd My bad. The link is discreet and I couldn't find it via text search. Battle of Velbužd, without intervening words, is more usual. Maybe "Ivan fought against the Serbs at the Battle of Velbužd"?
  • "Stability problems and external conflicts" How about simply "End of reign" or something like that? It's what the section covers within the article, after all.
  • Chronological sequence you first say that a "newly created Patriarch of Serbia" crowned theSerbian king, then that "Patriarch of Bulgaria Simeon participated in both the creation of a Serbian patriarchate and the imperial coronation of Stefan Uroš IV Dušan." (of course, writing "an independant Serbian Orthodox Church" would already help)
  • the Theodoras Now that I think of it how about simply writing in his marriage with Theodora of Wallachia whenever it happens in the chronological sequence? I was only assuming it happened earlier, possibly before he became king. I also observe there is no year for his first marriage.
  • "Culture and religion" paragraph Maybe a small historiography/legacy section? Other similar appearances can be included.
  • "In the meantime Bulgarians and Byzantines had clashed again in 1364, and when Emperor John V Palaiologos was returning from his trip through the west, the irate Bulgarians refused to let him pass through Bulgaria in 1366." What's wrong with "pass"?
    • Oups! I meant "return." It would be better with "returned", in my opinion.
  • Translation in the vatican Maybe these notes could be inserted inside the parentheses instead of within the enumeration?
  • "contested cities" It's still strange, because in one case, you talk about a general area, and in the other, about specific cities. Your explanation, however, is hilarious—in a good way.
I'll work through my list and see what I can strike.Circeus 19:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added the transliteration footnote, reworded the battle of Velbǎžd part to be more prominent, I changed to past perfect so that it's a little bit better chronologically in the beginning of "Rise of Serbia and the Ottoman threat", I tried to include info about current location of the manuscripts in the parentheses (but I'm not quite satisfied by the way it looks and sounds when read), and I've reworded the Ottoman danger bit so that it doesn't require further clarification. It is not known when Ivan Alexander married the first Theodora, and we can only approximately state when he divorced her to marry Sarah-Theodora, so we can't possibly include this info in any chronological order. I'm a bit reluctant to create a new "Legacy" or "Portrayal in fiction" section because I have no other data about it but that one sentence. That means a tiny one-sentence paragraph, which is ugly and not advisable, particularly for an FA. Todor→Bozhinov 20:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Translit: The article actually uses official Bulgarian transliteration and gives the UN variants between parentheses...
  • Manuscripts: My suspicion is that someone, somewhere will always be unhappy with how it looks anyway...
  • Theodoras: Oh... Okay, I guess that makes sense. Maybe stating that the date of hois first is unknown in the article will make it clear why the information wasn't given earlier?
  • Legacy: Oh well... I not so hung on it as to oppose over it, though. Just, maybe, drop the "in modern time" mention for dates of publications?
  • Conditional support after the minor transliteration and legacy fixes.Circeus 18:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel the article lacks a defining shape. Even now, after three readings, I have no overall picture of Ivan Alexander's reign imprinted on my mental retina. I would like to see this article tell a story. One premise might be to present Ivan's reign as a watershed in the evolution of a three-way struggle between forces that were to shape the future of the region: Christian Europe, the Byzantine Empire, and the Ottoman Turks.
However, you seem to be doing well with the comments above, so my curmudgeonly view may prove superfluous. qp10qp 00:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, in practice the person who actually wrote most of the article is a University of Michigan Byzantinist, Ian Mladjov, but he has now left Wikipedia. I did a lot of work by adding references, notes, pictures, improving the formatting, checking the spelling, etc., but I find it very hard to improve the article the way suggested, although I'm absolutely willing to. As I said, I would appreciate a thorough copy-edit by a native speaker, be it you or someone else, it's just that if I try to do that it would have little actual result. I would deeply appreciate some help here :) Todor→Bozhinov 10:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see if it passes first. My type of "deep" copyediting (basically a rewrite that keeps to the same facts) would take me a good week, and I'm heavily occupied somewhere else at the moment.

The copyediting advice above is relatively easy to accomplish, though time-consuming: here's an example, intended to sharpen up the following passage, which in my opinion is sapped by subordinate clauses.

The war ended with a meeting between Ivan Alexander and Andronikos III which established peace on the basis of the status quo. A marriage between Ivan Alexander's eldest son Michael Asen IV, who had been crowned co-emperor in about 1332, perhaps to safeguard possession of the throne by his own family, and Maria (Eirene), daughter of Andronikos III, was planned to formalize the alliance, and finally took place in 1339.

I'd change that to something like:

Ivan Alexander met Andronikos after the war and agreed a peace based on the status quo. To seal the alliance, he betrothed his eldest son, Michael Asen IV, to Andronikos's daughter Maria (Eirenne), the marriage eventually taking place in 1339.

(Some imprecision remains: a peace is not literally an alliance. To clarify that, I would need to know the terms of the treaty. And I would like "Ivan and Andronikos ended the war by signing a treaty...", but I don't know if it happened like that.)

I've reduced passives ("a marriage...was planned); I've moved a main verb from a delayed arrival in a sentence to the beginning ("was planned" moved forward as "he betrothed") and also removed a word bundle ("Ivan Alexander met Andronikos after the war ended and agreed a peace based on...") which suspends the point; I've denominalised "a marriage was planned" into the verb "betrothed"; and I've removed the material about Michael being crowned co-emperor because that introduces a different idea and interrupts the flow of the matter at hand. I'd probably relocate that information to the passage about the crowning of the younger sons, or get it out of the way before mentioning the peace and the betrothal. Changes like these can be made without being a native speaker, I think. The idea is to move the reader more quickly from one piece of information to the next, which is what I take "compelling" to mean in the context of an encyclopedia article. qp10qp 16:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an improvement? :) Todor→Bozhinov 18:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say very much so. I would have understood it if you'd dismissed my comments as fusspotting, but I'm impressed. You've lifted those sentences considerably, in my opinion.qp10qp 20:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, looks like a great article. Kyriakos 22:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, nice, informative, concise. NikoSilver 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

The Well of Loneliness[edit]

Self-nomination. This book is no longer as well known as it once was, but it sparked a major controversy in its time and played an important role in lesbian history. I've rewritten the article from a near-stub, and it is currently a GA. It's been through a peer review (though with only one person responding), and SandyGeorgia was kind enough to look over the referencing. —Celithemis 13:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sexual inversion" goes to a disambiguation page. This seems an important point to understanding the book so I think the link should go to the proper place and perhpas a short explanation of the term should be in the body of the article.
The article has a great number of references, but only one in the lead. I suggest that the lead be citated as well as it makes it much easier on the reader to substantiate main themes in the article. Johntex\talk 17:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I've seen people oppose FACs because there are cites in the lead, which implies the lead introduces a new idea. I don't mind an unreferenced lead; often it's difficult to find precise references as well. Trebor 15:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that people have posed such objections. I consider it unfortunate, however. From the perspective of the reader, the lead is introducing new material because they are presumably reading the lead first. Therefore, it is helpful to the reader to cite the sources at that point, instead of forcing them to find the appropriate place in the article. My advice to cite the sources in the lead does not take away from other criteria, including the fact that the lead should not discuss any topics which are not covered in the main article body. Johntex\talk 20:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that others might oppose if references were put in the lead. I don't think there's a hard-and-fast guideline though. Trebor 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've created a stub for sexual inversion (sexology) and revised and cited the lead. I was a little reluctant at first to sprinkle the lead with hundreds and thousands, but I tried to use it as an opportunity to make a sort of study guide, pointing out the most comprehensive and up-to-date sources on each subtopic, which might not be easy to pick out from the dense referencing in the main body of the article. —Celithemis 08:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better. I now Support its promotion to FA. Well done. Johntex\talk
Merging them would mean putting those nasty cite book and cite journal templates in the body of the article, which I think is an obstacle to editing, especially for less experienced users. It would also make it harder to use the References section as a bibliography for research, and the reduction in file size would be less than 1K by my estimate. So I don't think the tradeoff is worth it. —Celithemis 08:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Harry McNish[edit]

Self nomination The carpenter on Ernest Shackleton's Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition. One of the more interesting characters, he fell out with Shackleton and was controversially denied the Polar Medal. It's taken a lot of digging to put together a coherent article, but I think it is up to FA standard now. Yomanganitalk 10:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you find boring about it? Trebor 16:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is about a carpenter on Shackeletons ship. Shackeleton is worth making a featured article but this isn'tCylonhunter 17:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid or actionable reason to oppose; being featured is about meeting certain criteria, not about having an interesting subject. Trebor 17:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one wants to read an article that is not interestingCylonhunter 14:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still no actionable complaints. Trebor 17:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(a) "Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant. I do not find it compellingCylonhunter 03:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of where it is not well written. Compelling in this case means the writing is inherently good, regardless of the subject matter. It does not mean everyone who reads this article will be interested in the subject. Jay32183 05:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan[edit]

Self-nomination: I put this article through a significant rewrite a couple of months ago. Since then, the article has been further refined through valuable feedback from two peer reviews (see the recent general peer review and the older WikiProject Biography review). Based on encouraging feedback from some accomplished reviewers, I have decided to nominate this article as an FA candidate. Regardless of the outcome, I will be pleased to work with any additional feedback. Cimm[talk] 23:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Triceratops[edit]

Triceratops has undergone two wikiproject dinosaur collaborations in the past year and I feel it is now ready for FA status. I have read it and adjusted the sentence flow so I feel it is easy to read (i.e. well written), comprehensive, and has a reference section comparable to other dinosaur FAs. It has never been part of an edit war and has been fairly stable and conforms in format (headings and subheadings) to other dino FA pages. It is of comparable length (30.8 kB (4439 words)) to other dino FAs - Stegosaurus (36.5 kB (5328 words)) and Diplodocus (30.5 kB (4474 words)). nominated by Cas Liber 05:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Units are not separated from their respective values by a non-breaking space (&nbsp;) as recommended in the MoS units of measurement. So the unite can get wrapped around to the following line. (thanks. done. picked up the last 2 (I think))
  • The following technical terms may be unfamiliar to some readers and could be linked: thorax, ichnological, cladistic, and Jurassic. (done)
  • centrosaurines and chasmosaurines might have been linked, although I see they are linked a sentence or two later. (they don't refer to the dinosaurs but subfamilies. will address this as it is a bit confusing)
  • "RFTRA analysis" is used but not defined. The reader is left wondering what is meant.
  • What is the "Hatcher-Marsh-Lull monograph"? Could this be clarified? (I've just added a couple of adjectives to clarify it a bit - best to link to a stub as it covers all horned dinosaurs and is a tale in itself)
  • In the sentence "amplify and\or receive low-frequency sounds," could the "and\or" be replaced by something a little more polished? (done)
  • In the last paragraph of "Functions of the horns and frill", please replace the hyphen with an &mdash; (done. commas probably better anyway)
Thank you. — RJH (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the entire article to fix the issue that the genus is frequently used in the singular, even though it contains more than one species. Even though 90% of dinosaurs are identified for the public only by their genus name, both singular and plural were used in the article.
I fixed a couple of phrasings in the process, but this closer reading brought forth a few extra sentences that could use improvement:

Circeus 20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think taking it as singular in the lead is the best bet as we're talking about a singular/group entity, the genus (there's more than one stegosaurus, diplodocus and psittacosaurus too - I think it is the -ops ending that somehow throws people.Cas Liber 20:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay.I just hope we won't feature an article that says " Although Triceratops is commonly portrayed as a herding animal [...]" or " Triceratops has long been thought to have possibly used its horns and frill in combat with predators such as Tyrannosaurus"... These are the cases that really irked me.Circeus 21:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Remove external links from the main article (don't mix citation style).
  2. Please add links in the citations for easy source verification. For articles in journals, they have DOI number that you can use.
  3. I found several links to mailing list and one is used as reference. Per WP:RS, mailing list is not a reliable source.
  4. "How many species?" heading fails WP:MSH.
— Indon (reply) — 21:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re 2: they don't always have DOIs, but I agree links should be provided whenever possible.
Re 4: It's used to show that "trike" is used as a nickname for the genus. The link should be to specific posts, though).
Circeus 21:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Circeus, I edited your posts (moved down) to avoid confusion. Please do not mix other comments with yours as people might confuse who said which.
Re. mailing list. The reason is not to link the mailing list or to a specific post, but source to an e-mail is not reliable. — Indon (reply) — 22:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that this was probably the only reasonable way to source that statement. Of course, considering it seems to be in common use only within the dinosaur enthusiasts community, maybe it isn't worth of mention. The "three-horn" nick probably calls for a mention of The Land Before Time.Circeus 22:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it's an informal name, how else are we supposed to reference it other than by using a informal source? Also, the overwhelming majority of the articles lack DOIs, as they either predate PDFs or come from journals that don't use them (Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology) J. Spencer 22:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shoot, I'm getting snippy. It's not a big part of the article, and I always hated that nickname, too. J. Spencer 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point is, if there are links/DOIs/things that can be provided, they should be. If there are none, there's no reason to gripe, but maybe JSTOR has some of these, for example?Circeus 22:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm looking (have found a free PDF to one of the citation, though). Honestly, I'd never even heard of a DOI until this afternoon. J. Spencer 23:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a snap comment while seeing links added here. Perhaps it's better to make a link only to its title, not the whole citation. You may want to look examples at WP:CITET. — Indon (reply) — 23:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had a bash at the links and the pop culture suggestions, and although I come bearing no DOIs, I have added several missing ISBNs. J. Spencer 05:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:RS is a guideline for determining whether a particular source can be relied upon to be accurate. In the case of the use of the word "Trike" to refer informally to Triceratops (similar to "T-rex"=Tyrannosaurus), the link to the Dinosaur Mailing List archives, which is hosted by the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, was used only to show that it is used informally by some; I'm not sure why any link (or cite) was truly necessary, and I see it has been removed. At the same time, I don't think a formal "Reliable source" is required for a statement which clearly states the usage is quite informal; it would be akin to requiring a citation from Webster's in discussing a specific slang term definitely not found in Webster's. If including the mention of the usage of this word is a true barrier to this article's FAC candidacy, by all means, remove it, but then the article will be (slightly) less comprehensive than it was before it was removed. As for the DOIs, J.Spencer isn't the only one who has never heard of them; I hadn't, either. None of the eight earlier Dinosaur Featured Articles required them, so this appears to be something new. C'est la vie, I suppose. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 05:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My questions, as a layman reader looking to the source that goes to an email, are: is the informal name really used in the dinosaurus research community or just a slang by some teenagers in a forum? Is it only a trivia? If the name is used informally by the community, why is an email used as a source? Why not newspapers? popular magazines? or a website? And regarding DOI, now you know. :-) — Indon (reply) — 09:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dinosaur mailing list is no ordinary email list , but in answer to the last sentence, newspapers, magazines and websites are all cited as sources all over wikipedia. Anyway, it leaves us with an interesting dilemma - leave in a theory posted on a mailing list populated with actual paleontologists or remove an interesting point from the Triceratops page? Cas Liber 09:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it is a special mailing list, so is morph-net, or ica-net, etc., but I wouldn't put a citation to a post there, even if the email came from a professor. I'm sure there are other sources and if there is a theory being developed and discussed over the expert-mailing list, I would wait for a publication for that. So, about your dilemma. If there is a website, even not a famous one, mentioning the fact in question, then it is preferrable. Here is the fact that we are discussing at: The large frill also may have helped to amplify and possibly receive low-frequency sounds,[40]..., and the [40]th citation states: ^ Anton, in prep. Acoustic amplification by the crest of Triceratops; as referenced in this Dinosaur Mailing List post with ext. link to [9]. Now, wouldn't you wait for the real publicatioin form Mr. Anton first? I'm sure he is an expert, but before a publication came, in preparation or unpublished source is still not reliable, simply because it is still subjected to change. — Indon (reply) — 10:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah when you put it like that...given it is a pretty minor point in the scheme of things I have removed it. My head is starting to swim in all this text - as at least three of us are trying to address these points. Can you update by striking out which ones you've felt we've dealt with? cheers (gettin' there) Cas Liber 11:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strike my oppose vote, but not yet supporting it, and also my comments. I still want to see more DOI/http links in the references section to help verifiability, but don't worry about this. I'm going to help you later directly. Let's close this specific discussion first. No need to read this large chunk text again. ;-) — Indon (reply) — 11:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that (gasp, more text!) :) Cas Liber 11:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to all the information given above. Chickyfuzz123(user talk) 02:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't follow - much of the above is ongoing dialogue and much of it has been addressed. Can you let us know which parts you feel are a barrier currently? cheers Cas Liber 05:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ended up just striking that line, since it applied to the wider group. By the way, thank you both for your work here, Circeus and Indon! J. Spencer 16:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mild oppose for now. I must quibble with the prose in the LEAD.

(Dang, was gettin' a bit flowery when I wrote it - you're right about the adjective reminiscent - modern rhino/ancient dinosaur - thus tried " conjuring similarities with the modern rhinoceros", to change it up a little from 'suggestive of' which I must have stuck in a few articles and somewhat understates the resonance these two critters have with each other in alot of folks' minds)Cas Liber 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Conjuring similarities" now makes it a little ornate, but it's logically OK .
(nice one. done.)Cas Liber 20:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better.
(added - adornments of - , simplest word I could think of rather than horns/antlers/sicky-outy things....., so subjects conform)Cas Liber 20:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about the logic more than the prose, I'm not not quite ready to strike. It will mean more words, but you might consider unpacking it completely: "...much like the antlers of reindeer or the horns of rhinoceros beetles." But then I get thinkin' that maybe you shouldn't use the comparison at all: are you sure that, in comparison, you can call the T'tops horns an "adornment," given that the males of both compared-to species use their respective antlers and horns in mating battles? I don't mean to be pedantic, but the LEAD speaks to the body; you need to be pretty clear about what the consensus is on the horns or, with citations, point to a lack of scientific consensus. Intuitively, I'm thinking they must've used those things on each other as more than an "adornment"...
(I see what you mean - I would be happy to use the term adornment for me in bioogical terms but it may mean something a bit different)Cas Liber 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to see if I can find more prose concerns in the body. Marskell 18:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adornment to me suggests a lack of real utility. Anyhow, fine now.
One last thing on the LEAD: "it is unclear whether the two battled the way they are commonly depicted in movies and children's dinosaur books." I won't ask for a cite that specifcally says the T'tops and T Rex have battled in film or kids' books, but this sort of begs a "See for instance" note. Note two or three places you can think of such an exaggerated battle; if you can't, alter or remove the line. Marskell 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I mulled over refs in the lead but slotted some exmaples in a para in pop culture. I had the 2 kids' books but lost them many years ago...)Cas Liber 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One Million Years B.C. showed a Triceratops and a theropod in battle, but it was a Ceratosaurus, not a Tyrannosaurus. Like Cas, I had several books when I was a kid which depicted the two fighting to the death (both with nearly identical storylines: T. rex goes after Ankylosaurus first, but gets a face full of club and can't pierce the ankylosaurian armor, then goes after Triceratops). I don't think I have either of these books anymore, but I'll check when I get home. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The one with the Ankylosaurus and Triceratops is the How and Why Book of Dinosaurs (with ref; I had it too), and the Giant Golden book had a battle tooCas Liber 01:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember a giant golden book, but The How and Why Book of Dinosaurs sounds familiar. Ah, yes. This is it. I can't believe we had the same book! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 01:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(cont'd)
  • "Individual Triceratops have been estimated to reach about..." --> "to have reached about..."
  • "However, he was largely ignored with Ostrom,[12] and later David Norman, placing Triceratops within Centrosaurinae.[13]" Who is doing the placing in the last phrase, Ostrom or Norman? Also you need to give Ostrom's full name, or stick with last names only for everyone.
(I was debating about whether to put Ostrom's first name when I originally wrote it in anyway, so easily done. Both were the culprits so I stuck a 'both' in )Cas Liber 10:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the next sentence the species is "diagnosed". This is usual in a taxonomic context? (yes - moreso in cladistics, it is how one systematically diagnoses that something is X and not Y on he basis of a certain number of criteria. It stumped me the first time I saw it too)Cas Liber 10:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and that the bones belonged to a particularly large and unusual bison, which he named Bison alticornis.[19][18] He had realized that there were horned dinosaurs by the next year..." The pluperfect isn't wrong, but it jars because the narrative is jumping ahead not back; "there were" might also confuse (I thought it was a typo for "these were"). Use simple past: "By the next year he realized that horned dinosaur fossils existed..."
Still a bit more left to read. Marskell 06:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One last kick at the can:
  • "Although it was one of the last ceratopsians to appear before the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event, Triceratops was not the only one present at the end of the Cretaceous." Drop "Although" and lop off the redundancy at the end; "one of the last" already tells the reader a few others were about.
  • "To appear in the last ten years". Avoid this sort of wording—when the ten years are up it will be incorrect. --> "to appear since 1995" or something.
Not much left to pick at! This is a great article and I will now support. Marskell 12:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at those two. The year reference ended up awkward, and I don't think it was too pertinant, so I cut it. J. Spencer 16:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The pop culture section currently states: Factual children's books about dinosaurs generally contain material on Triceratops, with at least two featuring it in combat with Tyrannosaurus, generally as a climactic episode toward the end of the book.[47][48] A memorable but anachronistic battle with Ceratosaurus substituting for T. rex is featured in the 1966 movie One Million Years B.C.. Due to all the editing, I'm not sure if this was all here before your objection or was added in response to your objection. Is this enough, or do you think more weight should be given to these (admittedly anachronistic) battles? :) Firsfron of Ronchester 16:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


--RebSkii 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I note you've struck out all your objections bar one. thanks for that. Regarding "horns more erect" I'm not sure what you mean. I thought, as erect is a fairly common English word not restricted to science, that it was self-explanatory, especially as the next clause describes "horns more forward-facing". A link to erect is, erm, probably not the most appropriate one and I feel that writing "straight up" sounds too colloquial and "more vertical", though accurate in a way is cumbersome in others. Do you have a suggestion here? cheers Cas Liber 03:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
"Wit" is a common representation of "with" (used in Philly amongst other places); this and "only one" are fixed. Marskell 19:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, are you objecting to the singular use of the word "species"? According to Dictionary.com, "Specie" is a "nonstandard form"; "one species" is correct. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(CG, I've added a short note on Triceratops position in phylogenetics in the classification section - tricky as it more pertains to classification as a whole rather than much to do with Triceratops per se. Cas Liber 10:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I had thought on expanding the information on posture, as really the only point to point out is that the bony structure of the joints shows it must have had a sprawling gait but the tracks disagree - however hiving this off into a separate section under Paleobiology causes problems with style and we got some criticism in Stegosaurus for too many small subheadings, which we then consolidated into Description. Thus I am in two minds what to do here. As far as your other points, the article stands at 34.4 kB (5005 words), which is larger than Diplodocus and close to Stegosaurus in size. I myself have made more edits on this one than on Diplodocus and only 12 less than Stegosaurus. I will go and have a look at some posture material to see if/how it can be incorporated into the article, and wait to see waht others think. This aside, general comments like ..."falls short"...I can't see this as particularly helpful. If you have some other specific elements you feel have been left out then please list them. cheers. Cas Liber 09:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: None of the books I have give particular attention to the stance/gait of Triceratops (two don't even mention it), and I feel like adding an entire section on gait just for the sake of making the article longer somehow rings hollow. It is not recommended to "pad out" an article just to make it longer; this article is of comparable length to the other dinosaur articles, and there's nothing at the FAC criteria page which indicates each Featured Article must be longer than the one before it. I think you have some points, Spawn Man, but I don't feel any of your comments are actually objectionable per the FAC criteria. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the above two comments, It looks as if you want to expand on it because it is an area where there are interrogations/investigations, not because there is material that can be included. That is unfortunately outside the scope of Wikipedia.
And I think Firsfron actually means that your comment are not "actionable."Circeus 19:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I meant. :) Gah! Firsfron of Ronchester 03:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said make a new section about the gait, but instead move the information to the opening section of Paleobiology as it isn't broad enough to be included in Description. Therefore, it would better suit being moved to paleobiology.
I know this whole gang up thing. I think my objections are extremely actionable. By no means am I suggestion adding drivel to the article, but saying that "There's no problem here & I've done lots of edits here" is only being defensive. Being defensive & shielding out the easiest request of all (expand), is only going to get the article no where. I'm not a paleontologist, but I know that there's more that can be palced on this subject... Will make a more "objectional" respinse soon... Spawn Man 03:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through briefly & picked out this phrase also. "Factual children's books about dinosaurs generally contain material on Triceratops, with at least two featuring it in combat with Tyrannosaurus, generally as a climactic episode toward the end of the book." Although it is referenced, you have to admit, it is a bit generalistic. So all T. rex books have at least 2 triceratops battling at the end of it? Replace it with something like, Triceratops is a common enemy of T. rex in children's books - & even then it seems unencyclopedic... Plus the refs are 2 children's books, not the many hundreds with these 2 dinosaurs in them & hardly the number needed to make such a generalistic comment such as this... Spawn Man 03:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just checked in and gotta rush out. I know of a few other books too and will put them in if it makes the case more compelling. It is generalistic because it is true. Will also have a go at tweaking sentence later.Cas Liber 04:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Battle of Svolder[edit]

Self-nomination (not to play down some excellent contributions by other editors, including images). I've been working on this article on and off for more than half a year now and I think it's ready for a FAC discussion. Along the way it got translated into Norwegian bokmål and expanded a bit, becoming a FA over there. In turn, I've used the Norwegian article to improve this one a bit. Peer review was fairly quiet and I think the article could probably still use a thorough read by someone whose English is better than mine. Haukur 23:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If somebody works on improving the minor deficiencies of an already high quality article, Raul always demonstrates the necessary understanding.--Yannismarou 08:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Baby Gender Mentor[edit]

Self-nomination This is an article about a blood test for early determination of an unborn baby's gender. I originally started this article in September 2005 as a stub under the title Acu-Gen Biolab (the maker of the test). As a result of the first peer review the article improved greatly, including a move to its current name. As the article evolved, it successfull became a good article in July 2006 and has been selected by the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine. After additional improvements and a second peer review I am now confident the article meets FA standards. It is comprehensive and well-sourced, and I believe it is well written as well. It is stable and not prone to vandalism or edit warring. My one regret is I have not been able to produce a free image; but the article does make appropriate limited use of fair use images. Thanks in advance for your input. Johntex\talk 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This sentence is a bit absurd: "If the twin is reabsorbed with no evidence it existed, then there is no evidence to support whether the twin existed or not." You may want to fix that. Kaldari 05:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right, thanks. That sentence was clumsy. I have now replaced it with a more complete explanation. Please let me know if the new version is clear. Johntex\talk 06:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I changed the tag to {Promotional)). Best, Johntex\talk 05:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, and with that being addressed, I give my support to this article's inclusion as an FA. —ExplorerCDT 22:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK - thank you - the article is better because of it and that is great. Johntex\talk 03:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:*In the "Test methodology" section, the statements of the company are treated as factual, ie "After eight weeks, accuracy is consistent through-out the pregnancy..." and "The test works by detecting fetal cells..." These are claims with no independent substantiation and should be qualified as such. :*The section entitled "Acclaim for the test" does not only contain acclaim, this section should be reworded to be more neutral, such as "Public discussion" :*Reference 31 for "with other studies reporting as little as 3%" needs to cite the PubMed abstracts of the papers themselves, not a list of paper titles on a third-party website. :*"In India, a recent report found that for every 1,000 boys born in 2004..." This reference need to cite the original report.

Overall well-written and comprehensive. TimVickers 18:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim, thank you very much for reviwing the article.
  • I re-phrased those sentences to make clear these are claims coming from the company.
  • I retitled that section to "Initial media attention" to be more neutral.
  • I updated Ref 31 with the PMID feature as well as the ((cite journal)) template.
  • Unfortunately, the Boston Globe does not cite their primary source for the study on births in India, so I have to stick with just citing the secondary source. Fortunately, it is a reputable source, so I don't think it is ia problem.
Thanks again, Johntex\talk 19:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could try George SM. "Millions of missing girls: from fetal sexing to high technology sex selection in India." Prenat Diagn. 2006 Jul;26(7):604-9. PMID 16856224 If you want the Pdf, e-mail me through my user page. TimVickers 19:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for e-mailing me the PDF. That is a very interesting paper. It does not contain the exact same fact reported by the Boston Globe. Therefore, I re-worked that little section to use the over-all figures for India based upon the Prenat Diagn paper and provided the citation. Then, I still cite the fact reported by the Boston Globe as a secondary fact. The advantage to the Boston Globe article is that the full text is available on-line to check, while the Prenat Diagn paper is not. The abstract is available at PubMed, but the abstract does not mention the specific fact. Look OK? Johntex\talk 21:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my comments have been addressed. TimVickers 21:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Polar coordinate system[edit]

In my opinion, this article meets the criteria outlined at the featured article criteria.It has been given good article status and has gone through a peer review, where the concerns have been addressed, and has been reviewed by several editors from WikiProject Mathematics.I don't believe in claiming an article as your own, so I won't call this a self-nomination, but I am the creator and largest contributor to the article. —Mets501 (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point here. In practice, the representation of a point is frequently switched back and forward between polar and cartesian cordinated, as suits the particular need at that time, so . Perhaphs the most important feature is which set of coordinates is used to store or record the positions, and how the positions are communicated. By this criteria the aviation, (actually much of navigation) example is important, as a variation of polar coordinates giving angle and distance is used to comunicate positions of objects. Then we have modelling situations where a simpler model of a system can be expressed in polar coordinates, if something exhibits a radial symmetry then polar coordinates will be useful, for examples the Groundwater flow equation when applied to radial symetric wells. The other situation where polar cordinates will be useful for modelling is when there is a radial force or a point source, so Orbit (celestial mechanics), electro-statics, various forms of difusions (say ripples produced fropping a stone in water). Finally theres calculations where poloar coordinates make calculation easier. There a host of electronic applications where its more convienient to use the polar form of complex numbers to represent phase and such like. --Salix alba (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. What I'm saying is that the section should be rewritten to look like an expanded version of your comment. Then examples don't look like completely arbitrarily chosen but rather like illustrations of the simple principles that make polar coordinates useful. If you look at the current set of examples, you almost begin to wonder why Newton would even have felt the need for polar coordinates. Pascal.Tesson 23:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Salix alba has created and I have edited a replacement for the current applications section at Polar coordinate system/draft.I think it addresses the concerns you have above and I will add it to the article if you agree. —Mets501 (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better I think. I've made a change and left a comment. More later. Pascal.Tesson 23:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the new section into the article.It's definitely much much better than before. —Mets501 (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. As a (mostly) layman, there are a number of quibbles I'd like to see adressed:

Writing
Referencing
Ambiguities and stating the obvious

. No obvious ungrammaticalities there, though.

Overall, though, the article is very well written, and I'll be more than happy to support it.Circeus 16:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome!Thanks for the comments.I'm getting at fixing them now :-) —Mets501 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Adolfo Farsari[edit]

An informative, very readable, and excellently illustrated survey of a nineteenth-century photographer that I believe meets all the FAC criteria with panache.

The huge majority (ninety-eight percent?) of the work on this article was done, and I think all the content was inserted, by a single editor, and I'm not that editor. However, I did goad him along to some extent; I'm not unrelated to the editing process.

(The article was nominated for FA on 9 February 06. Here is the debate; in my opinion, some objections were valid at the time but are valid no longer, at least one was not valid even then. The latest draft of the article before it was first nominated is here; the latest before its failure was announced is here.)

-- Hoary 07:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for the dates of birth and death? Proto::► 09:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraphs dealing with his origins and his death cite "Dobson, 27". Pinkville 13:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you can guess, I'd prefer the second style, but I can't hold that against you for using HR. Now, to pre-empt one response, MLA and Chicago formats require a full citation before you can start using ibid. and op. cit. For the section entitled Selected photographs and other works, I'd much rather see a gallery (implying uploading them to wikipedia, as they all seem to be public domain because of age) within this section of the article than a list of external jumps. 6 months from now, it would look bad if they were all dead links. Also, the lead needs to be expanded to summaries each section just a little bit more, per WP:LEAD. The article is well-written on the other hand, and I'll gladly support this article once the above are remedied. —ExplorerCDT 02:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've seen this format used quite often for Featured Articles that rely heavily on books. It's cumbersome to cite the full book each time it's used. Since the full citations are given in the References, I think it's perfectly fine to just list last name, page # in the notes. Gzkn 03:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO, it's not. Right now they're using a hybrid of different citation methods and must choose one or the other, because they're using one method quite heavily, but incorrectly (see WP:CITE n.b. the section on Harvard Referencing) Also considering that several older FAs don't meet today's criteria (and as such deserve to be subjected to FA review), comparisons to other FAs are not often valid. Your comment doesn't take into account WP:CITE's policy, and will mislead the article nominator. They'll hit themselves later if it's my objection that fails this candidacy, only because they listened to you instead of doing the revisions demanded.—ExplorerCDT 04:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, yes, it is. See Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style recommendations: "Avoid using Ibid in footnotes. Other editors who add new references to the article may not take the time to correct Ibid references broken by their addition. Furthermore, not all readers are familiar with the meaning of the term. If a reference is reused in more than one footnote, it is preferable to use the format "Smith, 182" rather than "Ibid, 182", so as to avoid these problems." (Emphasis added.) A fuller citation is required the first time a particular work is cited, though, and that hasn't been done in this article at present. Shimeru 05:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mean ibid in that context. I should have marked my words more carefully. I was equating their last name, page number style with ibid. and that was just wrong of me. But that doesn't negate my above comments regarding citations, and thank you for agreeing with me on that point. —ExplorerCDT 05:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fully understand the objection here. After markup stripping: the references need to use one format or another. Can't use Harvard referencing in a "footnotes" format. Either put the references in the body to comply with the requirements of Harvard Referencing, or make the footnotes full citations, per WP:CITE and something like MLA or Chicago. I have in front of me the 13th edition (1982) of The Chicago Manual of Style. Chapter 17 is devoted to "note forms", i.e. the forms that foot/endnotes should take. Section 17.2 (p.486) is within this context (it's most certainly about the use of notes), and it starts: A source should be given a full reference the first time it is cited in a book or article, unless it appears in an alphabetical bibliography at the end of the work (see 15.82). Section 15.82, in turn, is very simple; though taking up slightly more than two pages (pp.423–5), the great majority of it is taken up by a lengthy example of each of two layouts of alphabetically ordered bibliographies; it says The bibliography arranged in a single alphabetical list is the most common and usually the best form for a work with, or without, notes to the text (p.423). Thus although "Chicago" certainly does allow for a system of full bibliographical (etc.) details in a note the first time the given source is referenced, it (or anyway its rather old 13th edition) asks for an alphabetically ordered list for this, and it does not require full details in the footnotes if they are in an alphabetically ordered list. ¶ What we have in this article is the alphabetical list but not the first full citation in the footnote, a system that appealed to the creator of the article, appealed to me as editor, avoids a lot of clutter, seems to do little or nothing to make the sources harder to identify, and was fully approved of by "Chicago" in 1982, even if it's not approved of by the latest (2003) "Chicago". (I really don't know about the 2003 edition. I'm not buying a copy because I see nothing wrong with the old copy that I already possess, because the new one includes a stupid new section, because it's rather expensive, and, well, because every day is Buy Nothing Day.) ¶ I now turn from Chicago to what WP says. WP:FOOT tells us: Consider maintaining a separate bibliography/references section, then just the page number and book name can be given in each note, following Wikipedia:Citing sources (tsk tsk, comma splice). That seems to allow for the sourcing system used in this article, though admittedly it's not entirely clear. As for WP:SOURCE, [cough], no offense intended to the good people who have no doubt labored over it, but it strikes me as an awful mess. A footnote dump (via <references />) gives us:
footnote examples
1. Miller, E: "The Sun.", page 23. Academic Press, 2005
2. Smith, R: "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 46(78):46
3. example footnote abc
4. example footnote xyz
The very first of these strikes me as grotesque. (Something like
1. E. Miller, The Sun (New York: Academic Press, 2005), 23.
would be okay; let's put aside quibbles about whether the page number should be preceded by "p." and suchlike stylemanualcruft.) I'm willing to follow the main thrust of what this "guideline" says, but the details are so shoddy that I have difficulty summoning the enthusiasm needed to follow its every minor pronouncement. Still, I'm open to persuasion. -- Hoary 07:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When in doubt, go the extra mile. I think the policy is clear. But if you want to doubt, so be it. —ExplorerCDT 07:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to go the extra mile, or two, or three, if I thought that doing so would either add to the article or result in the article adhering to a coherent guideline. But I don't see how fleshing out notes in this way would add to the article (other than in simple bulk), and WP:FOOT appears to approve of and Chicago (13th ed.) definitely does approve of the system now used. Again, I'm open to reasoning -- and the reason can be pretty weak. Yes, given even a weak reason, I'll certainly make the changes, and with good grace. -- Hoary 07:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning: What if someone comes by and divorces the reference section from the article and no one notices it for several weeks, months, years? Heck, the false accusation that John Seigenthaler, Sr. was involved in the JFK and RFK assassinations was around for several months before someone noticed it and complained. —ExplorerCDT 08:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wanted biblio stuff in the notes, you got it! -- Hoary 09:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per above, this article has my support. Though, I'd still like to see the "Selected photographs" section in the form of a Gallery, I won't hold it against ya. —ExplorerCDT 09:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, but unfortunately all six images are hosted elsewhere. -- Hoary 09:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are public domain by now> Open page with picture. Right click. Save as. Open wikipedia. Log in. Click upload file, etc. Hint, hint... —ExplorerCDT 10:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The images whose rephotographs (or perhaps scans) we're looking at are indeed in the public domain. Offhand I'm not at all sure about those rephotographs (scans). I suspect that a scan or recent rephotograph of a public-domain image is itself copyright; I had a quick look for this issue in vaguely relevant-looking WP pages but didn't turn up anything. (I suggest that we continue this discussion on Talk:Adolfo Farsari in order not to clutter up this FAC page.) -- Hoary 10:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those photograph scans are covered under ((PD-art)) and the relevant case law attached to that tag. —ExplorerCDT 22:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do with the lead a bit later today. I'll also look constructing an image gallery, if indeed the consensus is to go ahead with that idea. Pinkville 18:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a gallery using the photographs and other items formerly listed in the "selected photographs" section. I'll deal with expanding the lead tomorrow. Pinkville 04:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'll have a look again at that studio's high reputation sentence. And I'll see about mentioning something about recent exhibitions - the source I mainly used is actually an exhibition catalogue from 2004. Pinkville 04:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I've resolved these two issues now. Pinkville 04:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Thanks. As I said, I know too little about photography or Japan for that matter so I don't think I can be a good judge of the article's overall value. Best of luck Pinkville. Pascal.Tesson 04:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, improvements, and good wishes. Pinkville 05:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the intro somewhat to more comprehensively summarise the sections of the article. Pinkville 04:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all of the questions/issues raised here (and in the previous bid for FA status) have been answered. Any further comments, requests, etc.? Pinkville 02:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone help with the gallery resizing request from SandyGeorgia? Thanks. Pinkville 16:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Frank Black[edit]

An article about the frontman of the Pixies - I feel the article is comprehensive on the subject, with a detailed lead section, biography and musical style section. I've been working on this for a few weeks, and I feel it meets the criteria. CloudNine 14:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 'Vocals' sub-section in 'Musical style' section is too short. Consider merging with the introduction of 'Musical style' section. I don't think the subsection '"Los Angeles" video'.Otherwise looks very good. — Wackymacs 14:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment addressed - made suggested changes. CloudNine 14:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - fits the criteria. Good work! — Wackymacs 14:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't read, but will say that the "samples" section is clearly unwarranted on it's own. It should be integrated in the rest of the article.Circeus 18:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samples are already included throughout the article. I see the samples section as a way for the reader to see Black's career easily, rather than have to go through the whole text to find samples of his music. CloudNine 19:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't specifically justify every single of these samples via related text, they represent as many violations of the Fair use policy, and an even greater reason to strongly oppose the accession of this article to featured status.Circeus 19:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The use of them is already justified in the text - "Velvety" and "Headache" are given criticism in the text, along with "Debaser" and "U-Mass". CloudNine 19:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am concerned, you have denied my argument, instead of even trying to adress it.Circeus 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is that I haven't justified the use of these samples via related text. I have, in the article's main prose - see the Biography section. Along with other band FAs, including Pixies, it's fine to gather already-criticised samples into a samples section at the bottom of the text. If that doesn't address your argument, I'm struggling to understand what I'm failing to do here. CloudNine 21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch all that. I've just made a complete asshole and idiot of myself. It's likely a careful reading could reveal plenty stuff that needs tweaking (I have an habit of it), but this is definitely not one, and I don't think it's a good idea for me to comment further on this nom.Circeus 23:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You probably don't need the citations for basic facts in the first paragraph, such as his birthdate and that he's performed under the name Black Francis. The lead section covers stuff that should already be addressed and cited in the body of the article, and plus the referece material provided would be sufficiently consistent (like crediting him as "Black Francis" on every single set of Pixies liner notes) that you wouldn't need an inline cite anyways. WesleyDodds 03:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Early years and college could be one section since both sections cover the period of his life before he became a notable subject without any real need to distinguish them into two separate parts. I feel the influences section could detail a bit more, and emphasize the bigger influences on his music as opposed to the breadth of them. For one, I've skimmed that Oral History of the Pixies book and it seems like Husker Du is one of his biggest influences, but they don't receive a mention here aside from the flyer he posted that got Kim Deal in the band. The last sentence in the biography seems a bit weak; as opposed to saying he's married now and lives in a particular place, note when he was married and when he moved to his current home where appropriate in the article. And one last little bit of possible relevance: was the main character in the TV show Millenium named after Frank Black? WesleyDodds
Thanks for the comments. I've merged early years and college together. I'll get to work on the influences section - I'm not sure Husker Du is that large an influence on him - I wasn't able to find much in Fool the World. In terms of Black's location, I found that he moved to Portland after Show Me Your Tears, but that isn't Eugene. Same trouble with his wife - I'll keep looking however. I did note that the TV series character is named after Black in the disambig though. CloudNine 19:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments addressed - I believe I've addressed the comments as far as I can. I can't find much on Husker Du in terms of Black's influences, and I've got no chronological info to the move to Eugene or his wife. CloudNine 18:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have any objects now, so I'm voting Support. WesleyDodds 10:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments addressed - The sound samples are integrated into the text. Please read the striked-out conversation above between myself and Circeus. CloudNine 07:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm that. The list at the bottom is of samples already implemented earlier. Make a text search for "sample"Circeus 18:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it can help, compare Pixies, which has the same structure, and the following, all of which have "samples" section that have not been worked in the text: Marilyn Manson (band), Nirvana (band), Pink Floyd, The Supremes and The Temptations. All of these are featured articles, so this case here is a pretty good compromise between "easy to locate list of the samples used" (which you did in Salsa music and Music of the lesser Antilles via sample boxes instead, and I'll be the devil's advocate in observing that these samples are not integrated within the article) and "samples integrated within the article."Circeus 05:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By "integrated into the article", I only mean "in a section not specifically devoted to sound samples". Thus, music of the Lesser Antilles and salsa music are both "integrated into the article". I don't mean using the little icons within the actual text, which I think is disruptive and unwieldy, I just mean putting them in a box within the relevant section, rather than a section just for sound samples. Tuf-Kat 17:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

The Scout Association of Hong Kong[edit]

The article, supported by several wikiprojects (Scouting, Hong Kong, China) has had several peer reviews, and many contributors, including myself. The linking to Chinese naming has been a challenge, as well as hard to find historic data. Now, it is my humble opinion that the article has achieved a certain quality, therefore I propose it here. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are some of the problems in the lead. Every sentence requires major surgery. Tony 09:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony: "Is that a joke?" there is no need to be sarcastic when providing constructive feedback.Rlevse 12:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)[edit]

Self-nomination. I helped make this article what it is today. Back in August, there wasn't a whole lot in the article, and the article contained some very inaccurate facts about the movie. I would love to see the article for this classic animated movie get the featured article treatment. I feel that it definitely deserves it. (Ibaranoff24 08:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I feel comparison with the book should always be seperate, and the cast section should supplement the plot. Wiki-newbie 16:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First paragraph: "J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is the title of an animated fantasy film produced and directed by Ralph Bakshi, and released to theaters in 1978. It is an adaptation of the first half of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings."
  • Saying that "LOTR is the title of a film" is redundant. Just say "LOTR is a film..."
  • Unless there was a significant delay between production of the film and its release, it's easier to just say "LOTR is a 1978 film" rather than that little add-on at the end.
  • The next paragraph supposedly describes the plot, but there's not enough detail. Who does the Fellowship consist of? What's the One Ring? Why is it so important to this "Sauron" guy?
  • The third paragraph can probably just go. The "ambitious" adjective sounds POV, even if it was cited. There's no need to mention the producers and distributors in the lead: they're in the infobox and hopefully talked about in the Production section.
  • Fourth could be expanded. Give a quick summary of why critics were mixed, what is meant by "sparked new interest in Tolkien's writing", and why a sequel was unproduced ("to this day" is unreliable, should be changed into a specific month and year). Also, you could mention that the film diverges from the book in several ways, and how those changes were reacted to.

Also, as others mentioned, the plot synopsis could be reduced.--Dark Kubrick 18:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but paragraphs are supposed to contain something like 3-6 sentences each, not 1, and there should probably be at the most three paragraphs for this article's lead. Please organize the information into tight, coherent paragraphs.--Dark Kubrick 00:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still feels somewhat skeletal, but I guess it's okay.--Dark Kubrick 01:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking further down, the synopsis section sounds like a trailer for the film, not an encyclopedia entry. Sentences like "Long ago, in the early years of the Second Age of Middle-earth, the great Elven-smiths forged Rings of Power — Nine for mortal Men, Seven for the Dwarf-lords, and three for the tall Elf-kings" don't have the formal tone required.--Dark Kubrick 01:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sentence is taken care of, but what about the rest of the synopsis? I still see fanboyish sentences there.--Dark Kubrick 01:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better. But I suggest you find a person or two to copyedit the text of the entire article, as I'm picking sentences at random that don't sound too good. Some examples:

I appreciate your efforts to address my concerns so far, but more work has to be done. Good luck!--Dark Kubrick 18:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. I pointed out examples in the text to show that, if problems like these can be found at random, then the whole article requires careful scrutiny to correct any more possible mistakes.--Dark Kubrick 20:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those weren't the only problems. I still spot more, but I'm not going to list all of the problems here on this page. It's your job to find them and weed them out, and get the help of other users if necessary. Note that I haven't struck all my objections out; some still remain and need to be addressed, such as the long plot synopsis and writing.--Dark Kubrick 21:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then at the very least get rid of all those stubby paragraphs in there.--Dark Kubrick 23:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- my concerns, as raised above, about the articles amount of red links have been largely taken care of. Anthonycfc [T • C] 12:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Re-reject as per comment lower down page. Anthonycfc [T • C] 20:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the red links are gone, the blue links now there are just as useless. Most of them just link directly back to this article! These actors need to have articles created for them, not just a circular link made to make them look pretty.--Dark Kubrick 13:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is currently there? I'm not saying that there have to be huge, 30KB worth of text about these actors, but if you're going to properly fix the red links, then they have to have stubs that list the most basic information. The blue links now are almost worse than the red links, since they're completely useless and deceptive.--Dark Kubrick 05:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please scan for more problems like this as well.--Dark Kubrick 22:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having a consistent reference style is important for the article. And only my second bulleted concern has been fully addressed. Can you provide a counter-argument for the Pre-/Production sections?--Dark Kubrick 23:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)[edit]

Self-nomination. The article is well-written (and has been copyedited once), neutral, stable, and very accurate (much more references that a lot of gaming Featured Articles). Although the length is not as much as other gaming Featured Articles, the article is still comprehensive and covers all key details well. As far as I can tell, it passes the Manual of Style (although a few changes have been made since checking this) and the images are used correctly. --TheEmulatorGuy 00:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After this nippicks are dealt with, I'll be glad to give my support. The article has gone far since I commented on it's peer review. Great job on a notable game. — Tutmosis 02:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'm hoping the to-do list on the talk page is redundant otherwise maybe hold-off the FAC to finish off any expansion work you had in mind. — Tutmosis 03:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had no expansion work in mind. Available references have been exhausted, so I can't live up to the to-do list I wrote a while ago. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is there a problem with this? Specifically, manual of style violations?
  2. It is cited in 35, which you'll see further along the paragraph.
  3. See above
  4. See above. Fixed.
  5. Fixed.
  6. Sadly, I do not have the magazine and cannot find an internet source for this. It will have to be removed.
  7. Fixed. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Featured articles of Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2 do; I don't see too much of a problem with it. Trebor 13:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment:This needs citation "A fourth console game, titled Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, is currently in development for the PlayStation 3."Buc 11:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has the sources separated again. Are there any other problems, or was this the only thing that changed your vote? --TheEmulatorGuy 21:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted back to the original system. The quotes are acting to support the material in the articles; what is the value of dividing them from the other references and introducing a second citation system? Christopher Parham (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that if you feel that the number of footnotes makes browsing the sources difficult, the best bet would be to do as the policy you link suggests and create a separate references section containing an alphabetical list of the sources. Personally, I don't think this would add much value, but it makes more sense than dividing the footnotes up into two blocks. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the matter of browser capability. Quotes are not sources. Each direct quotes requires inline citations. Why do you want to mix quotes with sources? Do you want to blow up the number of references??? — Indon (reply) — 09:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously quotes are not sources; the game is the source. Since there is no convenient way to identify a particular point in most video games, providing the relevant quote is a good way to give a more specific citation. It refines the citation in the same way a page number refines an ordinary citation. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if quotes are not sources, why would mix them together? Reading References sections intertwined with quotes is awful. Quotes are usually embedded in the main article. Otherwise link them to wikiquotes. I have proposed to separate quotes in the new Footnotes section, which is cleaner, prettier and easier to read. Alas, it was reverted based on argument that other games articles use that style. Honestly, this is the first time I read mixing sources and quotes style in one section. As far as I know, there is no guideline about it. — Indon (reply) — 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to back up Indon on the issue. Also what I'd like to know is why Indon changes were reverted. The main author, TheEmulatorGuy, seemed to have okay'd the issue [16], therefore the revert seems quite provocative. — Tutmosis 00:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted for the reason I stated above; the distinction between the two types of citation was not meaningful. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is meaningful to me, as FA is the best Wikipedia can give. Your argument is baseless. WP:WIAFA #2: It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style. Please tell me, where is a WP guideline that mixing quotes and sources is allowed? I know it is a very technical issue, that is why I corrected them. The reason you are so obstinate is unreasonable. We have to follow the same guidelines, not to some group of editors' taste only. — Indon (reply) — 08:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can point me to the relevant guideline, that would be helpful. The guideline you mentioned above relates to the creation of "References" section that lists the sources used in alphabetical order. It doesn't so far as I can tell have anything to do with the issue of whether to place all the citations together, or to split them up into quotes and page citations. I'm not sure why you feel I am being particularly obstinate; it's not as if I am the only one who has reverted you or suggested, on this page, that this is a bad idea. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my..., you put quotes in the References section, so WP:CITE (which tells how to write the References section) says: With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes also contain explanatory text. A References section, which contains only citations, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used. The quotes in this article are explanatory text given as footnotes, not citations, and there a lot of quotes in the References section. This guideline is softer than WP:QUOTE (WP:QUOTE is not a guideline), where quotes must be included within the body of the text, not to be separated to other section. — Indon (reply) — 09:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems fairly clear to me that, on the contrary, the quotes are citations -- why else would they be included? Christopher Parham (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, quotes are not citations. Each quote needs citation. Please read again WP:CITE, especially at the "When to cite sources" section. — Indon (reply) — 12:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link you have provided is regarding a completely different game. --- RockMFR 19:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As said above, the link you have provided is for a different game on a different system. As it stands, nearly all major reviewers have positively reviewed the game. Because of this, what you are asking would require original research. Of all of the reliable sources on MetaCritic, I actually chose GameSpot, the website that gave the game the WORST score, and I mentioned their qualms. If you truly believe there are major complains, I suggest you provide them, because I have not discovered any. --TheEmulatorGuy 21:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These problems have been corrected by Hyperspacey, and I believe he is carrying out more work towards them. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing my problems, but now there is another one-sentence paragraph in the lead. Plus, in the fourth paragraph, "to date" is vague.--Dark Kubrick 22:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I merged that one sentence with the fourth (now third) paragraph, and completely remove the "to date" statement. --TheEmulatorGuy 22:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, thanks, but I'm gonna have to declare Neutral for now, as Gzkn's superior eye for prose has made me withhold my support.--Dark Kubrick 02:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1: The references used in the lead are the same ones used throughout the article, so I don't see a problem with this.
2 to 9: Fixed.
10: Why have I had so many problems with this? It is cited later on, the same reference that cites the SWAT-team information.
11: Fixed, now there are only 2 links (both very far apart)
12: Fixed.
13: Fixed, I think. Not exactly sure what the problem is, but I tried.
14 to 18: Fixed. Thanks for your great suggestions. --TheEmulatorGuy 04:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clearer. By hyphen in 13, I meant "well-received" should be hyphenated. The structure of the sentence is still a bit weird with the two modifiers ("Reasonably well received by critics — scoring 83 on the Metacritic aggregate — it..."). I also see now that my last example (criticizing->criticized) wasn't the best advice ("calling"). :) Anyway, I'd suggest finding a copy-editor to run through it. I'd do it, but the article doesn't hold much interest for me. User:Deckiller's into video games, and his copy-editing skills are much better than mine. Consider asking him to look over the article if he's not too busy. Gzkn 03:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Took a really quick pass through first two sections; I'll continue later. Great article. — Deckiller 06:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still a little disappointed in the Metacritic comment in the opening paragraph. Quadzilla99 17:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind I tweaked it. Quadzilla99 19:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

Slayer[edit]

I've been working on this article for roughly two months. It's had three peer-reviews, GA review and is currently rated A-class. Along the way i asked for a number of users opinions and have dealt with all the issues raised. It previously looked like this and I believe it's ready for FAC. If you have any concerns i will fix them ASAP. Thanks M3tal H3ad 02:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all, except the reference needed for the imagery, I'll see what i can do regarding a new section. Thanks for the comments M3tal H3ad 00:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, took about 2 hours added a "fued" and influence" section adding 7,500 bytes to it. Thanks for the comments again. M3tal H3ad 02:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'm really impressed. Count me as a support if the last referencing issue is fixed. The recent additions, I think, really help this article rise up towards what featured status is for a band article. --W.marsh 15:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new sections need work. The "Influence" section reads like a bunch of labels and achievement while the latter needs should explain the period of the feud, rather than treating it like a "current" one. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added the years for the fueds, re-worded some influence and added a new section "style". I also removed the imagery sentence as i could'nt find a reference, i merged that paragraph and re-worded it. M3tal H3ad 01:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current history section sounds like it needs to be spun off into a daughter article.--Rmky87 19:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with the size. It's 51KB, 1 KB over and that's including references, so it's something like 44KB. I've never seen a band article with a separate article for history. M3tal H3ad 03:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

AC/DC

FAC nomination archives:

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

The article was promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

All Blacks[edit]

This is a self nomination. The All Blacks are one of the most successful team in international Rugby union, with a winning record against all major rugby nations. This article has been rated GA and has been submitted for a peer review. It's comprehensive, well sourced and notable. - Shudda talk 10:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that more of them should have articles. I was going to do a Fred Allen one once this review was finished. Don Clarke does have an article, I'll link it now. I'll add a note to WP:NZWNB. Thanks - Shudda talk 11:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* Yes it is sourced from the website, this is due to the detailed statistics they have avaliable. Many historians contribute to the allblacks.com website and to rugbymuseum.co.nz.
* Can you clarify your statement "How was it decided that these particular players should be included as being important to the history of the franchise except by being featured on the team's website or by original research?" The only players that are mentioned in detail are International Rugby Hall of Fame members and All Blacks record holders. Also (I hate to be picky) the team is not a franchise! It's a representative team.
* "By this measure the All Blacks are the most successful international rugby union team in history." That statement in the lead as it's summarises the record, overall section. The statement is correct and it's not original research. It implies nothing about being the best ever, who is the best ever is highly debatable. - Shudda talk 11:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, the statement is not in the lead. The statement is correct however. - Shudda talk 11:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer Centrx's concerns as to whether they are the best international side ever, the statistics shown say a lot. In full internationals, they have played 417 for 308 wins and only 92 losses. Of their most recent 64 test matches, they have won 55. There is not one national side that had won more that they had lost against the ABs, the closes being South Africa's 29 wins to 38 losses. They have never lost a test by more than 20 points in the 103 years they have beeen playing. They are also the only national team never to have finished worse than semifinalists in a Rugby World Cup. All Blacks make up 12 members of the International Rugby Hall of Fame - no other country has more than nine. As for their recent history, try this and this (I hate having to quote the "enemy" :) Yes, they are the best team ever. Grutness...wha? 12:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in New-zealand and I may be wrong, but seen from Europe, a number of players had to make a choice between a career with the All Blacks or pursue a more lucrative career in Europe or Japan or in rugby league, especially just after 1995 when rugby became professional. With more money been put in Super 12/14 and the Tri-Nations (Sanzar) players now have a better possibility to make money while playing in NZ. The drawback is that they must play more high level games and this could have an effect on their performance with the All Blacks after a long season, the world cup is late this year fater Super 14 and the Tri-Nations that has now more games than two years ago. That's the message, it is true that some references are made to Super 14 and to Tri-Nations (extended with more games) but the main players are the same and what is going on there affect them also as All Blacks players. Dingy 05:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah the impact in NZ has been quite difference to Europe. All Super 14, All Blacks and Air New Zealand Cup players are contracted to the NZRU. As a result the All Blacks have always been given the highest priority, hence there is not the choice for an All Black between club and country that you have in Europe. The impact of professionalism on the Air New Zealand Cup has been big, with the All Blacks playing fewer games, however this is something that should be included in the Air New Zealand Cup article rather then the All Blacks one. The only other impact is that many Ex-All Blacks play overseas rather then in the Super 14 or Air New Zealand Cup, but this is something for those competitions' articles rather then the All Blacks one. Others may disagree of course. - Shudda talk 19:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed these issues. - Shudda talk 22:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks considerably better, thank you for your work. Support, with reservations about the prose (some more examples to help:)
  • The All Blacks' main annual competition is the Tri Nations Series played against Australia and South Africa where their record of seven series wins (the most recent in 2006) and 30 match wins is well ahead of the other two teams. Two mistakes: the "main annual competition" is not the Tri Nations Series (btw, hyphen?), and "their record of …" is not ahead of the "other two teams" (but the records of the teams).
  • The food poisoning sentence, comment above.
  • All Blacks first ever Test match apostrophe?
  • He moved onto coaching after his playing career, eventually coaching the All Blacks between 1966 and 1968. Half of the sentence is redundant.
  • 1960's No apostrophe (MOS:DATE)! AZ t 01:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will address these issues. I requested a copy-edit from WikiProject League of Copyeditors a couple of days ago. If you have any other comments regarding prose please mention them, as I'd hate this to be a failed FAC due to prose alone. Thanks. - Shudda talk 01:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed these issues. - Shudda talk 03:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Better than any other national sports team article on WP, and certainly on a par with existing sports team FAs. One minor point, I'm not sure its necessary to state "They also compete in the Rugby World Cup every four years" in the lead when the Rugby World Cup is already mentioned a sentence or two earlier. Oldelpaso 19:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, I have removed the World Cup statement. - Shudda talk 22:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Oldelpaso and Shudda.nz addressing the issues. This article is of high standard, has good images and is a fine example of very good wikipedia article on a sporting teams. This may be a little bias though, as I am sitting here in my All Blacks shirt!!--HamedogTalk|@ 23:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Prose:

Odd transition—a definition juxtaposed with history in media res. The sentences which follow have little action; they just read like statistics—"The All Blacks first series win over South Africa occurred in New Zealand in 1956". They also need rearrangement into a better sequence.

Weak use of passive voice.

The introduction summarises the history more than the article.

"over" would serve the sentence better than "due to", which makes it come off as rather stale.

Similar problem. "due to the fact that" withers the power of "because".

"was prevented when Scotland refused to play them in an argument over expenses" expresses the historical event weakly. Try to write it more like story than a lifeless newspaper article.

That's all I have time for now! I have an appoinment to attend. Good luck! Rintrah 04:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to address these issues although I also think the introduction still needs some work done on it. GringoInChile 19:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GringoInChile, the lead looks much better. I have also checked over the section headings as per WP:MSH. The headings look fine at the moment, my only question is whether World Cups, and World Cup should have their first letters capitalised, I think they would? Is this correct? - Shudda talk 02:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that it should be capitalized because it's a proper noun; we're refering to the name of a specific item . When it wouldn't be capitalized is when we refer to world cups in general, e.g. Many different sports hold world cup tournaments. GringoInChile 16:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for your work:
  • "losing only four games (however, two of these were Tests)" Yeah this does make sense. The All Blacks used to (they don't really anymore) play matches against clubs, provincial teams, or invitational sides, as well as National teams. However a Test match is only between National Teams (with a couple of exceptions such as British and Irish Lions). - I'll wiki-link the first mention of Test in the article.
  • "...described as the best team to ever leave New Zealand" - Leave is used literally in that sentence, so when they left New Zealand to return to South Africa. The description implies they are better then any All Black side to Tour overseas.
  • "matches of the tournament against Wales " It's meant to mean top matches. I'll rewrite it.
  • "The 1995 team reached the final, despite the team suffering a food poisoning outbreak..." - Yes, this is repetitive, I'll fix it.
I'll fix the "Kapa O Pango" controversy section. The lead's prose does need work, I'll ask someone to have a look at it for me. Thanks for your help and I've checked your copy-edit. There are a couple of minor mistakes, but I really appreciate the help. - Shudda talk 09:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the lead not chronological? - Shudda talk 21:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

Charles Edward Magoon[edit]

I expanded this article from a stub and am quite happy with it. I hope it is enough for FA, but if not I will work with your comments to improve it in the future. Has passed WP:GA, is currently rated as 'A', and went through one peer review. JRP 17:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

The Cat and the Canary (1927 film)[edit]

Self-nomination This is an article about a 1927 silent film. I started this article as a stub in June 2006 and finally completed the first draft after a wikibreak. This article was at peer review recently and was copy-edited to tighten the prose and clarify various points. It is comprehensive and well-sourced. I'm sure there are still some wrinkles that need ironing; thanks in advance for your input. Dmoon1 23:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

Mary Wollstonecraft[edit]

This article has been rewritten from scratch (mostly by Awadewit). The article is comprehensive, stable, and well-written. The referencing is thorough. I believe it represents the best of what Wikipedia has to offer. It has already received Good Article status and gone through a Peer Review. It is listed as a Core Biography and has received an "A" rating from the Biography project (I performed the rating). Kaldari 19:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

B-17 Flying Fortress[edit]

I've spent the last month fixing up and adding to this article. I've referenced practically every fact and It has gone through a peer review, a Militay history WikiProject A-class assessment review, and I think its up to the challenge here. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This went through regular peer review, not military history peer review, incidentally; that may explain the difference. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ah, I see that now. Trevor, I'm concerned that your introduction to this article mentions "Militay history WikiProject review". I thought that meant a peer review (I now see that's not what is stated). To me, a MilHist peer review confers a level of thoroughness and preparedness for FAC such that I usually barely glance at their FA candidates - they're almost always ready. You might want to reword. I'm confident you can bring the article to FA status, but reviewers should be aware it hasn't yet been thoroughly vetted in a MilHist peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. The A-Class review is a somewhat different process, and doesn't necessarily go into nitpicky details as well as the full peer review. Kirill Lokshin 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'k I've clarified it was an A-class assessment review in the intro. I was unaware of a peer review I could use before coming here, that certainly would have helped things.*} - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Working on cleaning up the refs, but for now I'd just like to point out that the Related content section is the see also section, that is to say, what the see also section is on aircraft pages. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Related_content. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear why, then, See also is being renamed - is that standard on MilHist articles, is there a guideline, and why go against WP:GTL? Perhaps Kirill can comment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a WP:AIRCRAFT guideline, actually. (It's certainly not one of ours! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's a WP:Air guideline. It predates the current GTL and the changeover was not made because the Related content is an extensive section with multiple subheadings and not a simple "see also" (which is one of the subheadings). - Emt147 Burninate! 02:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, I'm just wondering, is the Related content/See also issue a problem? If so I'll make sure the WP:AIR page is re-written. Also, I'm unsure what you mean about the punctuation. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the word epic. About the second part: The whole paragraph summarizes how the B-17 was part of a USAAF daylight bombing campaign, The RAF has a nighttime bombing campaign, and together they had the Pointblank directive, which had each complementing the others desired results. Confusing? Yes. I can't quite get the wording right. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new version seems to make more sense :) Will read through the whole article and make a decision. Trebor 00:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent article. Trebor 01:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ops service and operators do overlap, but only when they mention how the USAAF and RAF used them in WW2, most of the section is devoted to other operators. Should the USAAF and RAF part be reduced even more? I'll swap the sections now. --Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on standardizing the ref, and so far I've been leaning toward the Harvard format. Your comments seem to indicate that Harvard referencing is to be avoided. Is that always true? Also, I'll make sure that if the info is restated in the body (as of course it should be) the ref is removed from the intro. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) Ok, I've reduced it down to 9 in the intro (1,2,3 are actually in the infobox), and 3 more (7,8,9) are actually just different examples of its durability. Is it still too much? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I work through the article, putting cite webs up etc, I'm seeing that perhaps avoiding Harvard and using citation templates exclusively may be the way to go. How do you deal with items such as the notes that have text along with them. Example: [19] ^ Schamel 2006. On board the plane were... - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like Harvard refs myself, I use cite templates myself. Anyway, for notes, you can just type stuff in btwn the ref tags or separate them from citation footnotes, see Scouting for a sample of how to do this.Rlevse 11:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished converting all reference to the ((cite format. There are a few minor access date format issues to clean up, but basically the bulk of the work is done. Comments? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much better.Rlevse 12:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's the same issue with the third paragraph: if I want to learn more about the promotional campaign, it's missing in the article. I recommend taking every statement in the lead section that requires a citation and expanding on it in the body. Melchoir 02:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've started a revamp of the operational service section, including Pointblank and its air superiority aims. The third paragraph isn't supposed to indicate a promotional campaign per se, but just indicate that the B-17 was an imagination stimulator (more so than other, "better", aircraft). I realize that not much of this is made of in the article, should a section be created about the B-17 in popular culture? This has been suggested on the talk page but I'm not sure how to go about it, usually those sections are to be avoided as "trivia". Maybe I'll try writting a section called "Legacy", just after the operators section. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, great additions! Yes, I'd love to see a section in the article about the… okay, imagination stimulation. I wouldn't call it "popular culture", though, or someone will try to add a list of video games in which a B-17 appears. "Legacy" doesn't really seem to fit; maybe "Public relations?" Melchoir 04:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've created the section "The Fortress as a Symbol", and moved some of the fluff in the intro there. Sill needs a bit of fleshing out though. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

Flag of Armenia[edit]

This is a self-nomination. I have worked on this article with several members of WP:Armenia and Zscout370. Recently, this article had a peer review (here). --Crzycheetah 20:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how often articles are rated for WP:HV, but given the information that anyone could find about the Armenia flag, I believe it should be FA. I am going to make the 1936-1952 flag right now. According to the Russian website cited in the article Stepan Malhasjana designed the flag in 1919, and readopted his flag once Armenia left the USSR. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Flag of Armenia SSR (1940-1952).svg created and put into the list of Armenia flags. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Brand спойт 19:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:57, 14 January 2007.

Avatar: The Last Airbender[edit]

The article has changed significantly since it was first nominated, so many of the comments in the old nom are no longer applicable. Nomination restarted. Raul654 15:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for the support, but your opinion on the subject matter itself doesn't help here, we need information on the articles flaws or reasons why it's ready for FA status. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 14:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you care to explain? The article is stable right now when the show isn't aired and we do a good job of keeping it neutral. The Placebo Effect 13:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Name me an article that isn't subject to warring and POV and I'll show you an article that isn't edited. Why don't you come back at the start of season 3 and see how the Wikiproject takes care of these articles stability. It's stressful. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 14:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:57, 14 January 2007.

Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers)[edit]

{First FAC here} Thanks Gzkn and Gimmethrow

  • Comment (response) - I put an author for every source that had an author. Also, I put the website name within each reference. Thanks for pointing this out to me, and tell me if I need to do anything else. Otherwise, I want that oppose to be changed to a support. :) Noahdabomb3 22:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (response) "Too much blog/webpage/listy content...Wikipedia is not a blog". Could you kindly explain that objection in a bit more detail? Nobody is trying to start a blog here. We're trying to write a quality encyclopedia article. Help us improve it. Thanks! Venicemenace 14:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, that entire table was taken from another source - how about copyvio? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; and reference to music/lyrics in the text would lift the educational value of the one or two examples, raising the quality of the article and further justifying limited fair use. Is each, for example, representative of a certain style/period of the group? Do they contain musical textures/instrumental or vocal forces/lyrics that are characteristic of the group? Just a few sentences for each would do. This is what, I think, we expect of musical articles. In the end, the article needs to be freely copiable by anyone on the planet, without feeling that copyright is an issue. Tony 00:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message at the original uploader's talk page to provide a source [20]. Other than that the image fair use rationale is pretty much self-explanatory. Also to note I did revert the image to a previous low resolution version (no offense Ibaranoff24) to better suit fair-use. I hope we are on the same page when you refer to "image in the lead" since I assume it's Image:Wu-TangClanEntertheWu-Tangalbumcover.jpg. Thanks. — Tutmosis 03:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the question. The source for an album cover is, of course, the album itself. Are you asking if I personally scanned it or downloaded it from elsewhere? Does that make a difference for copyright purposes? (I have no idea where I downloaded it from - I definitely did not scan it myself). Tuf-Kat 12:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was asking if you scanned or downloaded it. I was under the impression that is proper protocol if you get an image from the web you should link to where you got it from. But it's all good since a fair-use rationale was provided, I guess since this is a album cover the source isn't much of a difference. — Tutmosis 16:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's no expressive content to scanning it, so I've given more info on the cover on the image page. It now gives the record label and artist. I don't think anyone else could be considered to have a valid interest in it. Tuf-Kat 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:57, 14 January 2007.

Oriel College[edit]

Self nomination, I now feel that the topic is covered fully and meets the requirements for FA.--Alf melmac 13:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This embarrasses the many great minds that have emerged from the institution. Tony 14:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the two previous copy-edits didn't pick those up, I have fixed all those except "curling snake", which was a result of fixing the black-out effect of having four names too close to each other. I'll look at that again. I assume that the 18th century link comment is sarcasm and have removed it accordingly. --Alf melmac 14:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done something about the first example. All the above examples except the last, appear in the intro, which was expanded during this article's peer review, the last appeared in the latest section, which I didn't wish to create until I had a book to reference the Inspector Morse episodes, as a bonus, the book has four other films listed as using Oriel as a location and I've added that data. I had already promised myself to nominate the article after I'd added that section, I should have checked it all over once more I guess.--Alf melmac 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quick metacomment: I appreciate the effort put in to reviewing articles, and we should certainly be exacting, but it's not necessary or helpful to make comments like "this embarrasses the many great minds that have emerged from the institution". FAC should be rigorous yet not belittling. — Matt Crypto 14:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; I was a little harsh in that comment, but stand by my view that the prose isn't good enough. Tony 16:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "poor prose" "Like other..." was the same as for ChristChurch college article, and that sentence has now been removed. There was a cite in the section for the Professorial Fellowships, I felt it uneccessary to cite obviously verfiable figures like the two nobel laureates, I've added one for Walter Raleigh's being a member, the info about him not taking up residence is in his article, I am unable to reference it myself so I have removed it. I'm not sure what you mean by the 'uses Summary style templates incorrectly" — the full list of people got too long for the article and was moved to it's own page, should I move it back instead? --Alf melmac 16:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Templates belong at the top of the section. Sandy (Talk) 16:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the only template used in that section is already at the top of the section, the two links at the bottom link to categories and were added in the Oxford college articles across the board, is there a better way of handling those?--Alf melmac 17:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I recently made the pictures larger, trying the page out in the default settings for IE6/7 and Firefox and how it appeared on the print out. I have the luxury of larger screens and I didn't think of looking at it in 800x600 they do look bad. I've reset those to default thumb size.--Alf melmac 08:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks again Fred.--Alf melmac 11:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before I add more comment, I would like to clarify what I ment when I complained about the reference to VCH. I realize it must be hard to understand... I know that you are trying to say that the VCH states the beaker is from 1460-70, but since it isn't a reference, you might as well join that footnote with the footnote following it. Then you could formulate that footnote as such: "The older date is for example given in the Victoria County History of the Counties of England ([year]). In a modern work, such as the "Oriel College Oxford, A short guide (2006)", the year is given as 1350.". I think this would be more coherent, but I could be wrong -- you decide (I won't object if you just leave it as it is)...
Fred-Chess 12:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the penny drops :) That's an admirable solution to the bumpiness of the refs, thanks, I'll rework the sentence when I can find a better way of expressing it. I've done the amendment to the ref, I'll have to wait to get back home to add the reference about the name, I don't have books here at work. --Alf melmac 12:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:34, 10 January 2007.

Scottish Parliament Building[edit]

Self nomination, well cited article, combining all the different elements of design, project history and controversy.Globaltraveller 14:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much better - striking my object. However, pls add the author on all of the hollyroodinquiry.com refs - I don't know how to properly deal with his titles. I do wish other reviewers would check refs more often - it seems that everything I looked at yesterday had faulty refs. Sandy (Talk) 18:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK I have done that. The author of the report was the individual who chaired the inquiry, so this is who I have included as the author in the references. I hope that is satisfactory. The Holyrood Inquiry/Fraser Inquiry are the same thing (and I had swapped between the terms, in the references) but I've now standardised this. The report was published on Sept 15, 2004, and that is the date I've used throughout. Thanks Globaltraveller 19:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice referencing now - I'll try to read the article when I get a larger block of free time. Sandy (Talk) 19:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please find someone fresh to go through the whole text. Tony 13:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've amended the specific areas you've raised. You'll also see that a "fresh pair of eyes" went through the article circa 2 days ago as a copyedit, and I have done several myself. I will nevertheless try and audit any commas that are out of place. Globaltraveller 18:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I suggest a few tweaks.

Project History: Following the "Yes" vote on establishing a Scottish Parliament after a referendum in 1997, the Scottish Office,.. Do you mean ‘in a referendum’ or was the ‘Aye’ vote one in Westminster?
I am afraid I have to agree with Margo and I think a sentence or two about the reasons why it is not universally popular would be useful.
There is a space missing after citation 34 and before ‘The Roof’
You refer to the ‘pre-1707 parliament building’ but don't say anywhere why there wasn’t one in the interim c. 300 years. This could do with a sentence and might even be worth adding to the lead.
Other buildings: ‘and 18m of the building suspended’. I loathe the endless mix of imperial and metric but feel obliged to point out the absence.
‘first, First Minister of Scotland’ is a bit awkward - might ‘founding First’ be better?
‘The project was also complicated by the death, in July 2000, of Miralles and of Dewar the following October, and existence of a multi-headed client’. I don’t have a degree in comma usage, but perhaps ‘The project was also complicated by the death in July 2000 of Miralles, of Dewar the following October, and the existence of a multi-headed client’. Happy Hogmanay! Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou very much for going through the whole article and giving these suggestions. I've addressed the minor points (1, 3, 5, 6 and 7). I don't have time to address the bigger points (2 and 4) just at the moment, but when I get time soon, I'll definitely act upon them and see what can be done. Globaltraveller 20:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a part on the Project history section detailing the Parliament of Scotland and I have added a sentence on the criticism of the building. Again, please tweak away at the article to improve it as you see fit. Thanks Globaltraveller 19:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support but (now dealt with -see below) you should at least mention the widely-held, though unprovable (currently anyway), view that Dewar knew perfectly well the early estimates were nonsense, but was determined to press ahead anyway. Johnbod 23:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I'm really not sure. Would including that not stray deep into the territory of WP:V and WP:POV - especially if there are no sources proving that? Globaltraveller 09:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you would include that the view is widely-held, which is fairly easily verifiable from sources you have to hand (I would imagine), & not that it is true, which of course won't be verifiable. Obviously needs to be carefully worded, but it is an essential part of the jigsaw. Johnbod 13:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have included a section on this - [21], with sources. Please feel free to edit it, if you don't think it says what it should. Thanks again Globaltraveller 19:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, thanks. I've amended my first comment (can't remember how to strike-through) Johnbod 12:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to do so, but as I said at Peer Review I am rather reluctant to include opinions from architectural critics. Bear in mind the article is becoming extremely long. With regards to your objection please feel free to dig out the relevant quotes, and add them if you think it would help. I am not sure it will, sorry. I am afraid, I don't think I can do anything to address your objection. Globaltraveller 15:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article will then remain deficient in it's treatment of the buildings architecture and neglects a major facet of it's subject, Jencks isn't any old architecture critic, along with Banham, Venturi, Frampton etc he's one of the big global writers and has written quite a bit on this building - That's a shame - I'll see if I can find the article.........--Mcginnly | Natter 16:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He may well be, but he is just a critic - and that in no way detracts from the facts of the building - at least, I don't think so (and that is what I take from you assertion that it "neglects a major facet of it's subject"). Unfortunately I am not anywhere I can find such print references, at the current time, thus, personally I am powerless to address your objection, even though I am not sure about its merit. But if you can find it, that would be good. But again, bear in mind this article is already extremely long, any additions would have to be limited or measured, otherwise the article will go awry in another area. Globaltraveller 16:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the case for inclusion is pretty strong, Miralles's last building, the first parliament to be built in the UK since the palace of westminster, the building, like perhaps the Fagus Factory or Notre Dame du Haut has a place in the narrative thread of architectural discourse, It is a major attempt to reconcile a modern building with it's landscape, people and culture in a way that picks it's way between modernism, postmodernism, deconstructivism, critical regionalism and other schools of thought of our time. I'll see if I've got a copy of the article at home, but I'm pretty sure there's a book on the subject by Jencks too. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And here's some evidence - Jencks quoted from the Sunday Herald describing the building as "a tour de force of arts and crafts and quality without parallel in the last 100 years of British architecture" and "It is an arts and crafts building, designed with high-tech flair. You really have to go back to the Houses of Parliament in London to get interior design of such a high creative level - in fact, it is more creative" Holyrood is 'without parallel' in 100 years of architecture Leading --Mcginnly | Natter 16:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've found the AR review anyway [24]. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, I've found the AT review [25] --Mcginnly | Natter 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now what? I see from glancing at the AR review, most of its subject matter is already in this article. Globaltraveller 17:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll review all this later but off the top of my head 1. Jencks puts forwards the architectural case for the buildings greatness in an attempt to dampen criticism of the overspend by comparison to other parliaments 2. The AR discusses the 'heady architectural' cocktail approach to dealing with the complexities of the site and programme. 3. Jencks deals with the unusually 'pistol' forms on the facade. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll sort a floor plan out too. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, that would be excellent, thanks. I will try an incorporate the AR review into the text references. A lot of it is already there. Globaltraveller 17:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:34, 10 January 2007.

Paulins Kill[edit]

This article's candidacy for FA status is a self-nomination as I've done about 90% of the work on bring it from a stub to where it is now. It has been noted as a Good Article and has undergone an extensive Peer Review from which all of the issues I believe were taken care of. I think this article meets all the FA criteria, (if I may say modestly), as it is well written, comprehensive given the subject, factually accurate and supported by citations and other resources, it's neutral and stable, meets MOS issues, nice images (especially an awesome map), and it's reasonably sized at a slender 42Kb. I've run this article by User:Ruhrfisch who has two river-related FA's to his credit, Larrys Creek and White Deer Hole Creek and he has helped me improve it with his very exacting and scrutinizing eye (which I thank him for immensely). I thank you in advance for your suggestions and your support. ExplorerCDT 03:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I think all the issues have been addressed with the sole exception of the listy Flora and fauna section. Now there are two ideas on how to tackle that, and there are possibly others. If you could weigh in on what the preferrable method to tackle this in the next day or two, I'll be able to fix it before Christmas. Also, in addition, if you could take a second look at the article and its candidacy and examine whether the edits made in response to the FAC page comments address your concerns adequeately, I'd be much obliged. —ExplorerCDT 01:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to replies Dates containing a month and a day are probably an exception to the general guideline of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Because, "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format."

However, I am not very efficient in discussing MoS policies. May be some more experienced Wikipedian can throw some light on it. What I remember is that there had been FACs in the past where wikilinking dates containing a month and a day was an issue, and such dates were wikilinked. The rationale is nicely described in the openning sentences of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers): "Manual of Style, like all style guides, attempts to encourage consistency and ease of reading. The guidelines here are just that: guidelines are not inflexible rules; one way is often as good as another, but if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read, write and edit.".

Let's see what comes out of the discussions started by ExplorerCDT. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional object The reason is: Dates containing both a month and a day should be wikilinked. But the article does not. Please see the discussion above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC) This argument has been identified by one or more editors as constituting an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery. Please resolve this by clarifying the basis for the objection in canonical policy. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING may be met with additional mockery and scorn.[reply]

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

The article was promoted 22:34, 10 January 2007.

Hurricane Juan[edit]

Self-nomination. I used the peer review advice to get extensive details on this storm. I think it meets FA criteria now. Feel free to leave comments. CrazyC83 01:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 22:34, 10 January 2007.

Christopher C. Kraft, Jr.[edit]

Self-nomination. This article reached GA status at the beginning of December. Since then it has been improved further and has received some positive comments in both a Biography peer review and a general peer review. Thus I believe that it is ready to be nominated as a FAC. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. MLilburne 17:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will add the last access dates, but I was hoping to keep the references in the slightly shorter form because there are so many of them, and because further information is available in the bibliography right below. However, I'll fill them out if people feel that's the right approach. MLilburne 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, corrected, I just noticed that you also listed the websources in the References section, including last access dates - that works for me. (Some editors only list books below, and I failed to check.) You may revert my addition, or I can do it if you wish? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, glad that's cleared up. I'll revert the changes--I started doing a couple of my own. MLilburne 22:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks structurally very sound: I'll print it out to read thoroughly as soon as I have a large block of free time, but it's looking like a Support candidate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem to be a stylistic thing. My own style has always been comma-heavy, but I think quite a few were taken out of the article at the peer review stage. I'm neutral on the issue at this point.
I take your point, but the second phrasing strikes me as a bit awkward. Will see if I can come up with a better way to phrase it.
Fair points. Will think about them a little bit and try to address them.
Done.
My intention was to highlight the practice as opposed to, say, the engineering work, but I agree that it is awkward and will take it out.
Fixed.
I'll change it to 'earlier'.
That's the one fact that I didn't put into the article. I'll see if I can find a citation.
Couldn't quite fit the full version of "NASA" into the first sentence, but I have spelled out both in the second sentence. Hope that's all right. MLilburne 13:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'll clarify that. Thank you for all your kind comments and for your work on the article. MLilburne 16:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:34, 10 January 2007.

Hippocrates[edit]

I'm resetting this nomination (old nom). Much of the old nom pertained to the now totally rewritten formating at the end of the article (it was bad before, it's very good now). Raul654 17:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC) ghjhygjghjghjghj56?--Yannismarou 09:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Identification of disease — I've changed the sentence. Also have done some merging in the section "Direct contributions to medicine" in order to decrease choppiness, and establish proper sequence of sentences. Please check out. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice improvements, Dwaipayanc. I'm striking my oppose. Sandy (Talk) 23:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, this statement is too weak: the Hippocratic school practically revolutionized all of Western medicine, in addition to that of ancient Greece...

Not good. Tony 13:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on your talkpage, I am too close to this article to significantly improve the prose myself (I've copyedited it many times over). All I can really do is fix anything someone highlights. -- Rmrfstar 19:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have copyedited the article. --RobthTalk 09:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A request for reconsideration has been made. -- Rmrfstar 16:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note The aforementioned changes were followed by this change, whereby unintentional modification of Robth's copyediting were reverted. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think these two sections ("oath" and "corpus") could be lengthened, or reworked enough to contain more than a paragraph. Maybe add in a "buffer" paragraph between "works" and corpus". Having two headers that follow each others is poor layout. And the "namesakes" needs to be prose, not lists, someting I should have noticed earlier.Circeus 16:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at this version. Namesakes has been transformed into prose format. A section named "Hippocratic Corpus" has been created, including a subsection on "Hippocratic Oath". The information on the Corpus has been enhanced. Please comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do like Dwaipayanc's working of "Hippocratic therapy" and "Hippocratic Corpus", but I do not think that "theory" has been thus improved. Should not "notable concepts" still fall under the "Hippocratic theory" header: concepts are part of theories, no? By my estimation, "Notable concepts" does not warrant its own top level subheading; the current organization there seems contrived. And what's the point of sticking together "crisis" and "humourism" into this new section without differentiating between the two? How does it fundamentally help the article? Indeed, it only makes it harder to read. Sure there are now no "one paragraph sections", but that in and of itself is not sufficient cause to merge these sections. Such action should only be taken when it actually improves the readability of the article, and right now does not do so. -- Rmrfstar 00:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's have a look at this version. Please comment.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A request for reconsideration has been made. -- Rmrfstar 16:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC
I'm opposing on minor stuff now: the references are very confusing right now. You have a few unique references used in the footnotes, while others ("Internet Classics Archive 2006") are duplicated to the references section. Personally, I believe that non-book references (i.e. when you don't need to reference distinct places in a physical item) do not warrant the duplicated Harvard ref at all (it just add an extra step that is meaningless), but the referencing is still inconsistent, and that is bad. See recently featured articles Only Fools and Horses, El Greco and Tiridates I of Armenia. They all use Harvard refs, but single and web references are not moved into the separate section.
Also, none of the access-date variable has been entered correctly, as demonstrated by the extraneous brackets. These dates should be in ISO 8601 date format: YYYY-MM-DD.Circeus 18:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've standardized the references and made them all Harvard style. They are all Harvard style... and Harvard style, according to Wikipedia:Harvard referencing, puts the date in the format I've used. -- Rmrfstar 21:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: dates. Okay, so It's Harvard style that requires brackets around consultation dates? Amazing that is the *most confusing thing* that could happen, since a wrongly inputted date in ((cite web)) results in the same appearance... I still find that puttingal those references away is unnecessary and confusing, though. (moving the refs away didnot actually help)Circeus 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Making all of the refs with access-dates to be in the ((cite web)) format would not work very well, if that's what you mean... -- Rmrfstar 00:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite Rmrfstar's convincing reply, I've softened the words. See has been made see. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're talking about; we went over this before: the article uses both cite.php and the Harvnb template in every reference (that I know of). This is quite standard practice. And in the cases above, the names are simply inserted there to make the author of the quote a little more visible, because the claims are a bit steep. I see no problem with the references... they all work, and they all are the same. -- Rmrfstar 01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised: example above: you cite the quote to (Garrison), followed immediately by [51] which is ^ a b Garrison 1966, p. 94 - Garrison again - that is, you cite it twice, with two different styles. Later you cite (Singer and Underwood) with no footnote in cite.php. Pick one style, stick to it. Since the rest of the article uses cite.php, why does it have these references in parentheses? After a month, this FA should be steadily improving by now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I have "prosified" the two citations for these quotes. -- Rmrfstar 03:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's better; I wish this article would stabilize, so I could quit striking objects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not actually "mix[ing] reference styles". Just look at the two articles i link to above. They use a very similar style, except without the links. It would only be doing so if the Harvard referencing was used inside the article text itself. The way these two particular quotes are cited, though do happen to be the only 2 cases of such references, and these parentheses must go.Circeus 03:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like Circeus, I believe that non-book references (i.e. when you don't need to reference distinct places in a physical item) do not warrant the duplicated Harvard ref at all (it just add an extra step that is meaningless). However, in this article all notes have been done in Harvnb format. I just fixed two errors. Request Rmrfstar to please address the concerns of Circeus. (I could not do it as I am not comfortable using harvnb stuffs!). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's one more click which makes the whole system consistent, uniform and almost painfully simple. This is a good thing. Also, in the future, even the web references might be used twice in the article, something that would be very easy to implement in the current system. -- Rmrfstar 15:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and have shifted around some of the images. Please review. -- Rmrfstar 15:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why's the reference there? What statement does it verify? Is that website the source of the image? Concerning other images, I'll soon include Image:GreekReduction.jpg and Image:HippocraticOath.jpg. I just need some information from the book where I found them. They should help, though. -- Rmrfstar 20:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is intended to verify the location and year. That information wasn't included on the image description page. / Fred-Chess 21:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted.

Germany[edit]

I believe that the article is of sufficient quality to deserve FA status. It is well-sourced and very informative in addition to being well-organized. TSO1D 04:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suppose that if the nominator objects to the nomination, this should just be withdrawn. It's great to see TSO1D thanking his fellow editors but I think TSO1D also deserves to be thanked for calmly addressing the various issues that have come up in this process and for helping improve the article tremendously. Whatever happens next, the quality of the article has increased dramatically in the past month. It may still be sub-FA quality but it sure is something Wikipedia can be proud of. Pascal.Tesson 04:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, there is really no point in doing that. I still believe that this FAC will probably fail this time, however there's no reason I should try to close it faster. There is no better channel for suggestions than the continuing advice that flows into this page and helps propel the article's improvement. I was just a bit frustrated and tired yesterday, and acted impulsively. I'll do my best to address all new concerns, regardless of the future of the FAC process. So again, sorry, and it won't happen again. TSO1D 22:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The lead section does not summarize the article. In particular,
    • This sentence from the lead: Historically consisting of several sovereign states with their own history, distinct German tribe dialects, culture and religious beliefs, Germany was unified as a nation state amidst the Franco-Prussian War in 1871 is confusing, too many things to describes in one sentence.
    • Also this sentence: It is the European Union's most populous and most economically powerful member state uses WP:PEACOCK words, uncited and I cannot find it anywhere in the main article.
    • I mistakenly placed the source for population a little to the right. As for economic prowess, Germany has the third highest nominal GDP per capita and the highest in Europe. Perpahs it could say "one of the most powerful countries", would that be better? TSO1D 20:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • GDP per capita doesn't translate into a powerful country neccesarily, in that case we should all bow to luxemborg. Those words should probably be removed anyway, they smell of PoV. 212.10.217.122 17:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I meant GDP, not per cap. TSO1D 22:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Please replace the source of this sentence: There are 2.3 million guest workers of Turkish origin in Germany, making them the largest group of foreign workers. The accurate source should be from the official statistic reports, rather than a letter article in New York Times. The sentence itself is an orphan paragraph.
    May I help? In this source [29], exactly here: [30] the Federal Statistical Office of Germany is quoted: "Nach den am 20. Juli 2005 durch das Statistische Bundesamt bekannt gegebenen Einbürgerungszahlen für das Jahr 2004 hat sich die Zahl der Türkinnen und Türken in der Bundesrepublik mit deutschem Pass auf insgesamt 840.000 erhöht. Damit ist fast jeder dritte der 2,6 Mio. türkischstämmigen Menschen zwischen Alpen und Nordsee eingebürgert." In 2004 there were 2.6 Million people of Turkish origin in Germany, 840.000 of them had the German Citizenship. -- Cornelia -etc. 01:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Why does the Demographics section only describe about foreign workers and asylum seekers? Where is the demographics information of the Germans themselves?
    • I believe that the problem is that the information about the native population is scattered across other parts of the article, for instance Relgion and Social Issues. TSO1D 04:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This sentence: The third largest religious identity in Germany, after the two Christian groups, is that of non-religious people... is quite strange. Does the non-religious people is officially one religious identity?
    • Well in the poll they had religion: Protestant, Catholic, and then non-relgious/atheist. That's why it was presented in this way, but I see your point. TSO1D 20:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This sentence: Germany has been and continues to be the home of some of the most important researchers of various scientific fields is uncited; thus looks opinion to me. The Science and Technology section still has orphaned paragraphs. The last paragraph of the section is awkward to specifically write in detail about psychology. The flow is abrupt and the last paragraph does not belong to the whole section.
    • The first sentence is common knowledge in my view and too vague to need to be sourced. I mean there have been numerous German scientists as demonstrated by the subsequent information. Well I put in a source just in case. TSO1D 03:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This sentences: Unsubsidised long-range service operators can compete freely all over the country, at least in theory. Actually, Deutsche Bahn holds a de facto monopoly on long-range services. It is not a fact, but rather speculation. Not an encyclopaedic statement.
    • I agree, I will try to modify it. TSO1D 03:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Please standardize numbers. Use comma for thousands and use non-breaking space between the number and its metric.
  8. Please standardize reference items. Some of them are not informative enough.
    I changed two refs; do you believe there are other ones that need to be fixed? TSO1D 15:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Trim the See Also list. Articles that have been wikilinked in the body do not need to be listed again in the See Also section.
    I removed two entries that appeared in other parts of the text. TSO1D 15:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above was reviewed based on [31] — Indon (reply) — 15:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The B classification is from a much older version of the article. TSO1D 20:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the sources are from print sources that are found in online databases. For example, most newspaper links are the digital format of formerly printed articles and all the material from encyclopedias comes from sources that are available in print format. The same goes for the CIA and Library of Congress Reports. I mean I can cite the paper version but I thought it would be useful to have a link to the text that has been made available online. TSO1D 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By print sources I meant books, besides encyclopedias (WP:RS: "Secondary sources should be given priority over tertiary ones.") Punctured Bicycle 21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But compare this article to the FA Belgium that only has about five print sources that are not linked to a specific part of the text. I think overall the German article is much better sourced. It wouldn't really be a problem to find some books about Germany on Amazon and list them here, but since they weren't used for conducting research that wouldn't truly be useful in my view. Furthermore, I believe that all important information that is not common knowledge has been supported by a credible source even if that source is available in digital format online. TSO1D 13:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What sources did you use when conducting research, anyways? Huge sections of text give no indication of where the information came from (in the form of inline citations). 10 citations—comprising magazine, news, and encyclopedia articles—is not adequate for 2000 years of history, for example. Other FAs, which may end up on FARC at any time, aren't an excuse—why not strive to be better than them? Punctured Bicycle 03:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't I that wrote the article, I just tried to reformat much of the text and provide as many sources as I could find for the content. As a model for my edits, I used the Belgium and Canada articles as they had already received FA status and I believed that they had already come under close scrutiny so they must have reflected adequate Wikipedia standards. Online sources where the only ones I had to my disposal and I selected the most credible ones to support the information of the article. I cannot deny that it would be better to have more sources, that is always the case, however I believe that in its current form possesses a quality of a sufficient degree to warrant the promotion of the article to FA status. Others of course disagree and constructive criticism has been put forward by many. I have tried to do my best to fulfill these requests, however under the circumstances I do not see how I can do more than change the language and add some more sources of the same type I previously included. TSO1D 03:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose still This article is not properly researched/referenced. The nominator added tons of print references shortly after saying "online sources where the only ones I had to my disposal" and "it wouldn't really be a problem to find some books about Germany on Amazon and list them here, but since they weren't used for conducting research ..." This suggests to me that the sources listed are being used more for show than actual referencing. As far as I can see, the article did not change significantly to reflect the new sources. For example, where are the inline citations that indicate the page numbers that were used to support specific statements? (See Crawford expedition for an example of this.) Even if we assume the sources listed were used to conduct research, the corresponding inline citations required for verification purposes are missing. Punctured Bicycle 14:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are accusing me of adding the references for show you are greatly mistaken. I admit that I didn't use the sources listed to conduct research, but I didn't write the history section either. Rather it was summarized by other users from other fuller articles on various historical periods. I took the sources from those articles and added them to the main article with the summary. TSO1D 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please read again WP:MOS carefully, especially about WP:CITE. All books/articles/publications that are not used in the article can be listed in Further readings section. Items in the References section are used directly in the article and they have to be supported by inline citations. By listing all available books about Germany from website of a bookstore in the References section is not appropriate. — Indon (reply) — 09:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my above comment, I did not get the sources from Amazon, but from the main History of Germany article and its subarticles such as German Empire. That's were the text came from and I assumed that the references listed there were used for conducting research so I added them to this article as well. But I agree with you, as long as those sources are not directly cited the list should be dropped. TSO1D 12:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could lose the References section totally. Nobody remembers which book was used to prove which assertion, and I think nobody can be bothered to find out (Germany is one of the most-edited articles, with thousands of edits). Better drop this section and inline reference everything from history books or similar (which is very easy, since all the statements are undisputed). Kusma (討論) 09:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I agree the reference list can be removed. TSO1D 23:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

I believe that the parts of the text that do not include citations include content that can be considered common knowledge thus not requiring the support of sources. Most of these parts are in the history, law, and government sections that are not cited in other featured articles such as Belgium or Canada for the same reason that I have mentioned. TSO1D 13:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but how "it is bordered to the north by" undiomatic? That is one of the most common ways of presenting this information in the English language. For instance see Britannica that uses the same structure: http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9370838/Macedonia. TSO1D
I agree and will remove it. Actually I see that someone already beat me to it. Is it ok now? TSO1D 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree again. TSO1D 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't agree that it's undiomatic, though perhaps a bit awkward, I will try to change it. TSO1D 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This needs serious copy-editing throughout. Tony 01:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article went through many changes and was copyedited many times. Most of the concerns seem to be addressed. How does the article look now?Baristarim 05:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm a little late getting back to this. Changed to Weak Support per improvements made.--Danaman5 23:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree (about the vote). Although I see that "on the globe" has already been changed and I agree that it sounds a bit awkward I still say that it's not unidiomatic. For instance look at the phrase "country on the globe" on Google. As you can see some more reputable sources also use it in the same context it appeared in the article. I know this doesn't really matter now that the text has been altered anyway, but I just wanted to defend the idiom :). TSO1D 05:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "irregular" government employment such as "one euro" jobs, What's a one euro job? or an irregular employee?
Irregular refers to the fact that the employment is not stable but meant for short periods of time as explained by the examples given. I gave a brief definition of "one-euro" jobs in parentheses. TSO1D 15:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the tense situation in eastern Germany, total government employment in Germany remains lower than in other states such as the United Kingdom or Canada. Not sure what that means. What is the comparison to Canada and the UK supposed to prove?
  • Get your hands on a better university picture than that of Würzburg. It's not a well-known university across the world.
    What about Heidelberg? It's the oldest University in today's Germany and I think it is well-known, isn't it? Perhaps the picture of the aula there may be okay? -- Cornelia -etc. 02:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The picture of Angela Merkel next to the social issues section should probably have a social issues caption.
Ok, I changed the caption. TSO1D 15:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For centuries, women's role in German society was summed up by the three words: Kinder (children), Küche (kitchen), and Kirche (church). Throughout the twentieth century, women have gradually won victories in their quest for equal rights, although women are noticeably absent in the top tiers of German business, holding only hold 9.2% of jobs in Germany's upper and middle management positions. While I'm not denying that women's social position in Germany is an important issue, this group of sentences makes it sound like a German-specific issue which, for all I know, it is not. Do French women hold 25% of top tier business positions? I don't think so.
I don't believe the article is suggesting that this is a German peculiarity, it just lists the "ongoing quest for gender equality" in Germany. This isn't one of my favorite sections, but it's still factually correct and I didn't want to remove it altogether nor did I know how else to change it. TSO1D 15:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • many historical figures, though not citizens of Germany in the modern sense, were influential in the German cultural sphere, including Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Franz Kafka and Stefan Zweig. Don't get me wrong, I like Stefan Zweig but he's not really in the same league as Mozart and Kafka. If you want to have three examples (which is always nice) how about Sigmund Freud instead?
Good idea, I actually though about doing that and will do it now. TSO1D 15:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm no expert but one sentence for German philosophers seems like an understatement. German idealism is of major importance in the history of philosophy. Why not link to German philosophy? (even if that's a low-quality article)
  • For some reason, the culture section suddenly switches to a surname-only format for name-dropping.
  • Cleanup the selection of names. Kraftwerk is influential, Blind Guardian not so much. Only names that have a significant (and third-party established) impact should be in there.

Pascal.Tesson 07:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's put it this way: should we have room for Adenauer if we have room for Dieter Bohlen? Although I have developed it quite a bit, the section on culture could be refactored and dramatically shortened so that it relies on other existing articles (some of which are quite good). The impact of Adenauer, Brandt, Kohl and even Schröder not only on Germany but on Europe as we know it today is too important for us to ignore them here. Pascal.Tesson 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Adenauer and Brandt to the post-45 history section. I couldn't find a good way to describe Kohl's role there yet. Kusma (討論) 16:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note: I think the section on German culture is slowly reaching higher quality than the article Culture of Germany and so it does not make much sense to link to it unless we move some of that content. I would favor rewriting the Culture of Germany article by merging the Germany content in there. Then we could rewrite a much more succinct section and add a note in the source that this section should not be expanded too much. We could limit ourselves to a general discussion on the Culture of Germany versus German culture and mention fields in which Germany has been particularly influential. Pascal.Tesson 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not good enough.

In the field of music, Germany claims some of the most renowned classic composers of the world including Bach and the Bonn-born Beethoven, who marked the transition between the Classical and Romantic eras in Western classical music. Other composers of international fame include Handel, Telemann, Mendelssohn Bartholdy, Brahms, Schumann, Wagner, Strauss, Orff, and Pachelbel. The film score composer Hans Zimmer is from Germany as well.
Ok, I reduced the size of the culture section and removed all subtitles. Perhaps more could be taken out, however I believe that the amount of space dedicated to the section is proportional to its importance to the topic. TSO1D 00:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonn-born Beethoven ...

Sorry, that's my awkward translation from German. I completely removed it now. TSO1D 22:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

of the world

Ok I said "some of the world's most renowned...", it was at least repetitive. TSO1D 22:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC) TSO1D 22:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did Bach also mark the transition? That's what it says.

Ok, I put Beethoven first so that the statement would be restricted to him. TSO1D 22:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really folks, this does not compare to the other nation FAs. Tony 14:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I tried to use the framework of the Canadian article, however there are several significant obstacles. What the Canadian or Indian articles call demographics is supplemented here by a society section with three other subsections that sometimes overlap with that subject, but at other times would be impossible to integrate there. I am talking about religion (which should easily be merged with dem), social issues (which might be merged in part), and education (which I really don't see a way of merging). I guess I will deal with the society section by merging what's possible with demographics and making education a new section. The history section presents another important obstacle. I see that many users have expressed complaints about its length, however I never fully realized the magnitude of the reductions that should take place. I have tried to trim the section over time, however it is still much too long. I guess I will have to remove all subtitles and slowly reduce it. Do you believe that other sections such as transport, which do not appear on other FA national articles. They seem too informative to remove. By the way, there was a peer review for the article, but it attracted only limited attention. TSO1D 14:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and minor objections The structure looks better. I know that writing country articles can be hard :) Well, I think that there are some improvements that can be made, not neccessarily because the article is bad, but simply because it will make the article better.. However some of them are pretty important: The culture and science and technology sections might be better combined. The thing is, there are too many names listed that it is somewhat confusing. More analytical sentences about the German culture and its place in the global context might be better than simply listing names. I know that some of those people have been very important in global culture, but a greater focus on Germany would be better, since the article is about the country. Also culture sections should include something about the sports in the country as well. What kind of sports are popular (I know that it is football, but for the uninformed reader :)), olympics etc? It shouldn't be simply a list of the country's achievements either (i ran into this problem in France :)), it should be about how the sports relate to the country and the people as a whole. I don't know, is there a traditional German sport for example? No need to mention it if there isn't one, but might be interesting if there actually is/has been one. I also think that the social issues should be combined with other sections, with the paragraphs combined into their relevant sections. As I said, the only problem I can see is the overlisting done in some places. As for the transport section.. There was a similar thing in France.. Someone is insisting that the transport section should be included at all costs :) However, I think that it would be more appropriate in a sub-article. I just cannot see the transport being as important then a country's culture or politics or etc. The things is, transport sections generally seem to make the articles something like a travel guide. In fact, what you might need is a "Topics in X" template to put in the see also section, that way you can list all topics about Germany easily and give the reader the opportunity to select what want to know about Germany directly in that list. I will try to drop by later. Baristarim 19:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the culture and science sections, I agree with you that too much of the text is composed of a list of names. I tried to reduce this (it was even worse in the past), however it's very hard to decide what names to remove (Mozart, Einstein, Mann?). You are right, however, more comprehensive sentences should replace much of the current format. As for including sports and other elements in the culture section, I hadn't even thought of that. When I thought of culture, I immediately assumed it was high culture. However, the other elements you mentioned are also very important and should be included in that section. As for transport, I am not that big a fan of the section personally, I even tried removing it in the past. I tend to agree with you that it might be better just to link to the subsection. TSO1D 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the topics in... template is much better, thanks for pointing that out. TSO1D 21:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lool. I know, when I first came to Wikipedia it kinda surprised me to see sports in the culture section, however it made sense after a while. The "topics in .." template will really help out the article, you will see. Not only will it look nicer, but all the see alsos will take less space while grouping everything related to Germany in a very concise section easily accessible to the reader. Just use one of the layouts of the other topics templates and replace the wikilinks with relevant Germany articles. For the moment I don't have a lot of time but I will check in soon. Cheers! Baristarim 02:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've already used that template since you first made the suggestion and it looks great. TSO1D 03:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have added a sports section. Do you think that's sufficient in that area? TSO1D 16:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sports section looks just fine :) Baristarim 05:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, why not try out our new League of copy-editors? Specify precision of expression, commas, and redundancies. Perhaps the Director is willing to wait another few days ....? Tony 09:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I introduced the changes you proposed above. I guess I never took the time to carefully copy-edit the entire article. I will do that, and also I have taken your advice and asked the League for help. TSO1D 14:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the entire article and did a general copyedit. I'm sure I missed some things, however. I've become so used to the text in its current form that I'm liable to overlook certain errors. Nevertheless, I have to say that I'm satisfied with the general quality of the text. Hopefully others will catch any residual mistakes, but at this point I don't see what else I can do to improve the article's quality. TSO1D 23:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I have addressed all the major concerns that you presented. I checked all sources and tried to make them conform to Wikipedia standards. I added language tags for the sources that were written in German. I also filled your citation requests and added new sources elsewhere and removed the problematic bits of text you identified. TSO1D 23:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The references are looking better now, although every time I've come back to the article, I've found more referencing problems that needed to be fixed. External links could use pruning per WP:EL and WP:NOT - they should be kept to a minimum. The CIA factbook is already used as a reference, hence shouldn't be be in External links. This doesn't look "encyclopedically" useful - [32]; this says it's "official" or "government", but the website doens't seem to indicate that, and it seems commercial [33]. Can the Wikitravel link be included in the sister projects box? Science and technology is unreferenced. Main templates are used incorrectly: they should indicate when a main article is summarized back to this article via summary style, yet many of the articles listed as Main are barely stubs, aren't cited, and don't support the text given in this article, meaning for example, that the Culture section should be better cited, as it can't rely on the daughter articles. (The main templates should be switched to See also on the articles which are barely stubs.) For example, Education in Germany is an uncited diseaster needing cleanup - it can't be the main article upon which an FA depends, nor can Germanic culture. Demographics of Germany, Geography of Germany, Judiciary of Germany and Economy of Germany are also uncited rambling unorganized articles - I suggest that none of these are appropriate uses of the Main template, and might be listed as See also. Those are the ones I checked working from the bottom up - I stopped there, since I'm finding that the daughter articles don't support the text in the main article. I'm not convinced this article yet rises to the level expected of an FA on the English wikipedia: I don't speak German, so I don't know about the German Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I reduced the external links per your suggestion and removed some quasi-trivia. As goes for the main templates, I removed it for education and German culture, but Geography of Germany has useful information on other geographic landmarks of the country, Economy of Germany includes much relevant data, and demographics of Germany and Geography of Germany also supply further info. Thus I see no reason to remove them. Whereas I agree that they could be improved, I don't agree that it's necessary to remove them altogether. And I know you don't like this argument, but all other national FA's are the same way. Look at Canada, for instance, where many of the subarticles linked with the main template are in a much poorer condition than Germany's articles. As for science and technology, what exactly could sources be provided for. I found one for physics, but most of the text is purely Common Knowledge. TSO1D 21:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added some references to that section after all. But I don't think it needs to go any further. I mean is it really necessary to provide a source for the fact that Gutenberg invented the printing press in Europe or that Geiger was the inventor of the Geiger counter? TSO1D 21:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) Even if the subsections inflate the TOC, they are useful in sectioning that part of the article. I tried it without them and it didn't work too well. Of course, there will always be the matter of bias, but the social issues section reflects what the media covers to the greatest extent, not the views of the authors. If you believe that any element is given undue weight, please explain which one. 3)How can education possibly be merged with demographics??? 4)Ok, I merged sport and culture. 5)I really don't think a brief mention of German innovation in the history section would be enough considering the long history of science and technology in Germany. Besides, to what period should it be added? 6)No one said that Germany's large market makes it influential, that sentence just describes the actual situation; Kraftwerk is only given as an example, there are many more, but I don't believe that section should be expanded further. Oh, and Rubens was born in Germany, but his family fled to the Netherlands because they were Protestants. TSO1D 21:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I decided to merge social issues and demographics after all, and seems to work fine. As for education, I scratched my head for a long time over this, but I just don't see a way of merging it anywhere else. However, given the peculiarities of German education and its importance to the state, I don't think it should be too big a deal to just keep a small section for it.TSO1D 01:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about merging tech into the economy section? It really is predominately a list of names just taking up space.--Peta 02:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I merged science with culture. I just didn't know where else to put it, but the information there is too important to Germany to be removed entirely in my view. In any case, scientific pursuits have been a deeply intertwined with German culture and some of the philosophers mentioned elsewhere in that section also were important scientists and mathematicians. Do you think this works?TSO1D 03:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe, however, that most of Peta's stated concerns have already been addressed. Could you please specify what major problems you believe persist. TSO1D 20:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, the article went through a lot of changes since the start of the FAC, and unless further specific objections are raised per FA criteria, I don't know what can be made of this objection.Baristarim 05:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional sSupport This is a very good article. I hope you approve of my edits. The article has clearly benefited from the past few weeks of hard labour by its proposer and by the constructive commentators. Consequently the problems that I have with it are relatively small and if they can be addressed, I would give it my strong support.

Looking at the edit history, I see no tampering. It seems like it was simply a lapse on your part. Pascal.Tesson 09:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted.

Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector[edit]

Self-nomination. The LRL vector is important in celestial mechanics as a convenient method for describing the shape of an orbit, and was historically important in the first derivation of the hydrogen-atom spectrum using modern quantum mechanics. It also reveals a subtle but beautiful symmetry of the Kepler problem, which is the problem of calculating the motion of two particles interacting by gravity or electrostatics. This article is stable, thoroughly referenced and has undergone scientific and non-scientific peer reviews. A translation of this article was voted recently to Good Article status without opposition on the Russian Wikipedia. Although technical, the article has been written as accessibly as possible for the lay-reader. Willow 10:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, none of my sisters are mathematicians or physicists, but they all understand roughly what a vector is and followed the gist of the lead. However, I'm willing to believe that the lead could be further re-worded for clarity, especially the first sentence. I could also imagine putting the Conservation and Parabolic coordinates sections into two appendices, but that would interrupt the flow slightly; also, that seems not to be customary at WP. Willow 14:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My friend with a BS in biology, who took a year of undergrad physics, read the introduction and came away with:
"I can tell that it's (1) a constant that (2) has something to do with gravity and other things that vary by the inverse square of the distance between them. But its actual effect is completely opaque, at least in the introduction. The bit about 'subtle symmetry of the Kepler problem' might as well be written in Greek. The correspondence principle sounds like sympathetic magic, and I don't know why the introduction to this thing is talking about some other, similar thing. If it's actually talking about the same thing, that's not at all clear. And the picture is frankly scary."
Given that the lead of featured articles will be read by people with no physics/math training at all, at least some part of this needs to be more accessible than this. Dragons flight 22:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose moving things into a separate "mathematical appendix". It would turn what is now a very nice article into Emmenthaler. The topic of the article is more technical than any present FA on a subject in mathematics or physics, and I feel the treatment (including the lead section) is entirely commensurate. At least the first sentence tells you that if you don't know what classical mechanics is, or a constant of motion, you'd better read up on those first. The reader who does know these concepts should also see the potential importance. I'm not saying no further improvement is possible, but I feel the assumed reader for who the lead is optimized should have at least some understanding of the most essential concepts of physics.  --LambiamTalk 17:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood what I meant about appendix. I didn't mean that every equation should be placed at the end, or anything like that, but rather that the sections that exist solely for the sake of proving things shouldn't be dumped in the middle when it is the conclusions (rather than the proof itself) that is important to understanding the rest of the article. I have now rearranged these to my liking to show what I intended. Dragons flight 22:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One shouldn't need to read up on classical mechanics or constant of motion in order to learn that the LRL vector is a constant that can be used to define the shape and orientation of an elliptical orbit. Dragons flight 22:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your re-arrangement seems good, Dragons flight! I only fear that such "ghettoization" of the math may tempt some people to delete those sections altogether, which I think would be a loss for the article. I also tinkered with the lead — does it read better now? Willow 19:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that lead is a considerably improvement, thank you. Dragons flight 01:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the references, which were cited in the lead for the same conclusions but did not get copied to the main body of the text — sorry! I've also alerted the astronomical and mathematical WikiProjects per your request. Is everything else OK? Willow 14:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The references are satisfactory. I do not see anything else that I want to comment on. The derivations do look sound (although they appear to skip a few algebraic steps in some places). However, I also do not feel like trying to validate all of the vector analysis at this time. Dr. Submillimeter 21:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the abbreviation "LRL vector" be used throughout the article after the first couple of occurrences of the full title? "Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector" is a bit of a mouthful. That is an abbreviation that has been used in the literature (see [34]).
I totally agree, and I like that abbreviation as well. Replaced throughout, except for a few instances where it seemed good to stress the full name.
  • We don't seem to have an article on "Kepler's problem" (the closest we have is a disambig link at Kepler's problem). It would probably be an idea to create that article, especially given the prominent mention of it at the top of this article. Or is this "Kepler's problem" that discussed at Keplerian problem?
Added fuller explanations of the various Kepler problems under the disambig page; do you think it merits its own page?
I'll give more detailed comments when I have more time. Mike Peel 14:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks muchly, Mike! :) Willow 19:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on this, but I don't have access to Xfig at the moment. :( Can you wait a few more days until I get back home? Thanks!
You're very right; "coincidences" was a cute and (from one perspective) valid wording, but could be misconstrued. Changed to "properties".
I'm honestly not sure which ones would be bothersome; could you make a list or ("Mike is nice! He'll do it.") fix them yourself?
I'll try to do that, but everyone seems to have a different idea of what should be emphasized. For example, for me, the Mercury-GR story is a nice illustrative example that people may have heard about; but it's not the main point of the section, which for me was "What happens to the LR vector when the interaction is not quite an inverse square force?"
If you would be so good as to identify the passages that aren't as clear as they should be, or where you would have to do outside reading, that'd be very helpful, so that we could work on improving them. Thanks, Mike! :) Willow 02:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My only comment, which is tangentially related to this article, is the disambig for Kepler's problem - there is also a separate article Keplerian problem which, grammatically at least, ought to refer to the same thing as Kepler's problem. I see that Keplerian problem has a proposed merge; maybe the merge ought to be performed and Keplerian problem redirected instead to the disambig at Kepler's problem. Considering the importance of the subject to the LRL vector explanation, it seems these should be sorted out somehow. (In particular, I'm very familiar with the general n-body problem but was unaware, when I first read the article, that any special case of it was called "Kepler's problem".) Opabinia regalis 01:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the support, both of you! I've written up a short summary of the Kepler problem that should suffice for readers to understand the context of the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector. The term "Kepler problem" is indeed an accepted term for the special case of the two-body problem, although perhaps only among physicists? The related Keplerian problem could be merged neatly with the new article as well, or perhaps summarized as a subsection within it; it should probably be discussed first on the Talk pages of the two articles. The BPS article is indeed cool and thought-provoking, but I agree that it seems somewhat peripheral here. Thanks for the careful reviews and thoughtful comments! :) Willow 01:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Kepler problem" is the usage in Caltech's The Mechanical Universe TV series, so I imagine it was widespread or standard usage in the early 1980s (and, AFAIK, today). Anville 14:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kepler's laws aren't really necessary to introduce here, are they? They're a consequence of the equations of motion for this potential, just as the LRL vector is. But the latter does not follow from the former. I'll try to fix the notation; thanks for catching that! :) Willow 01:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted.

Sasha (DJ)[edit]

Good language, which has now been copyedited by myself and two other editors (thanks Outriggr and Coil!), which was the reason for the objects from the previous nom. Previous noms: here and here. Also peer reviewed twice, including one since the last FA nom (here and here. NPOV, sourced, and all that good stuff as well. I think after all this, its finally up to FA standards. Support as nominator and primary contributor. Wickethewok 19:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Sasha (born Alexander Coe on 1969 September 4), is a Welsh DJ and record producer."
Is it a pseudonym, adopted name, performance name?
"Sasha began his career playing acid house in the late 1980s, and became a central figure in the development and popularisation of electronic dance music."
Playing acid house dance music, you mean? Talk to your neighbor's grandmother. What would she know if you said, "He plays acid house?" What about if you said, "He's plays acid house dance music." She knows what dance music is.
"He partnered with fellow DJ John Digweed in 1993, touring internationally and producing a series of mixess.[1]"
Is this some alternative spelling of mixes that I don't know about? It it means something special when spelled this way, it should have a remark explaining it. But I don't think so, and I really think fundamental spelling errors should be gone from an article before FAC.
"Through their track selection and mixing techniques, Sasha and Digweed were instrumental in the evolution of progressive trance and house.[2]
You really need the whole thing in the introduction, you're not talking electronic dance music genres in this sentence, and it's in the introduction, so you can't omit things and say, they were instrumental in the evolution of house. House what?
Sasha has produced multiple UK-charting singles[3] and has remixed tracks for Madonna and The Chemical Brothers. He earned a Grammy nomination for his 2004 remix of Felix Da Housecat's "Watching Cars Go By".
First sentence implies he remixed tracks for these two, but not others, or he's only known for these two, and second sentence contradicts tone and content of first.
"Sasha's remixing and production often combine electronic genres, making it difficult for critics to pinpoint his musical style.[4] His debut album Airdrawndagger surprised many critics with its unusual, cross-genre sound.[5]"
Combine electronic genres of what? Of music? Of computers? Don't like the second sentence.
"Sasha worked with younger DJs and producers such as Brian Transeau and James Zabiela, greatly influencing their musical styles and techniques."
When, from the beginning. You're not keeping your time frame straight in this article (hazzard of multiple editors, admitedly).
"His use of the Ableton Live music sequencer helped popularise technological innovations among DJs who formerly relied on records and turntables.[6] Despite the changing trends in electronic dance music, Sasha continues to attract crowds at dance clubs.[7] As of late 2006, he is on an intercontinental tour and is gathering material for future mix albums."
First sentence too technical, add details so your neighbor's grandmother knows what you mean. I'd like this clothing paragraph of the introduction to really nail his place, today, in his genre.

KP Botany 21:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Issue 1. Sasha is a common nickname for Alexander (derived from Russian I think). How should this be denoted?
  • Issue 3. This was a recent edit done by an editor trying to change some wikilinks, I have fixed the typo.
  • All others you mentioned I have attempted to fix. Could you please read the rest of the article? I would like to hear your opinion on it. Wickethewok 23:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have every intention of reading the entire article, whether it is up to FAC or not--I do think, however, that it would be helpful to really have a strong lead sectionthat compels me to keep reading. I'm not certain how to best say this in English, he uses his nickname as his stagename, possibly someone else can help out. I will look again. And, yes, I like to see popular culture articles right up there with articles on countries and leaders and mountain ranges and biology, on the main page. KP Botany 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For other FA reviewers, this article does have extensive references, mostly from in-house resources, as I would expect from popular culture. However, these same types of references, fanzines, professional magazines, charts, guide listings, are available for things like WWF/E also. KP Botany 23:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: before you commented, Bangor, Wales was in the first sentence of the first section. I think the reader can safely assume "moved to Bangor", later in that paragraph, indicates the same Bangor. –Outriggr § 01:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have forward the relevant emails to permissions. Wickethewok 03:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Text has been sufficently tweaked. The article has greatly improved since its last candidacy, my openion is that it now meets all four of the FA requirements, with a little bit left over for christmas. + Ceoil 01:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diff for perusal. I dunno if its enough changes (I doubt it is), but I'm not sure what other information to add without going into long sections not entirely related to the subject. Wickethewok 04:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious as to what others thought of the expanded explanations I added. Happy holidays, all. Wickethewok 04:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, the reason why you didn't see the page numbers was because I didn't realize I had to manually include the "pp.". I'm adding some archive links to for ones that have 'em. Let me know what you think. Thank you so much! Wickethewok 03:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs look better now - striking my object, but please include page no. on Snoman. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (edit conflict) - overall I'm impressed, but a few issues with the referencing
  • I will fix the links in question. Some of the links seem to have changed since I last checked. Wickethewok 04:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted.

B movie[edit]

DCGeist has written another featured article. See sound film for some of his other work. Compelling prose, proper citation, varied and appopriate images, what more do you want. Andman8 01:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Quite right. Passage edited, expanded, and cited.—DCGeist 00:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Whole paragraphs lack citations"? Are you referring to a new Wikipedia policy, guideline, or best practice not yet generally known? Here is the guideline I'm familiar with: "Attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." All direct quotes in the article as well as specific, substantive paraphrasings are cited. Is there material in the article that you challenge or that you believe is likely to be challenged that is not currently cited? Z-movie section now amplified, with citation.—DCGeist 00:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to be so hostile. I was just stating a general fact that paragraphs were uncited...I didn't even object to the article. Like Jayzel, I'm more concerned about large chunks of text being uncited than paragraphs; it's just that paragraphs are large chunks of text. Here's one example of something that could be cited: "The movies now generally recognized as the first classic film noir, Stranger on the Third Floor (1940), was produced at RKO, which would release many more such films during the decade." Stating something is the "first" anything usually necessitates a citation (also, why is it "movies" instead of movie?). Gzkn 03:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, didn't catch this comment until just now. There was no hostility--I just wanted to be clear whether there had been a revision in the citation requirements I was unaware of. As you suggest, large chunks of text without citation can be a concern, but--as I demonstrated to Jayzel--whether they call for citation or not ultimately has nothing to do with the length but rather with the nature of the content. In the example you give, for instance, (a) the description of Stranger on the Third Floor as the first classic film noir is an opinion widely held in the field, common knowledge to all professionals involved in film noir criticism and American film history in general (as common knowledge as, say, "The Jazz Singer was the first feature-length film with live-recorded dialogue"--does that necessitate a citation?), and (b) it has no strong intellectual status, as both (i) the definition of film noir and (ii) the line between "classic" noir and "pre-classic" or "proto-" noir are largely subjective. In both ways, therefore, the statement does not warrant a citation--not only is it material that is easily verifiable by any interested layman via simple reference to a wide range of published sources, it should not be given the imprimatur of a citation. It's an accurate and relevant observation about a generally held opinion in the field, no more or less. I've changed the wording of the sentence to make that a bit clearer. It was "movies" because...um...I can't type.—DCGeist 09:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up I've expanded the paragraph in question to cover more of the general relationship between the realms of film noir and the B movie. In the citation at the end of the graf, I've made sure to include an article that deals with Stranger on the Third Floor as well as the general issue of latter-day popularity.—DCGeist 12:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, that's fine. No worries. I'll try to look over the article again when I have some more time. Forgot to mention that when I first skimmed through, it seemed quite well written. Good job. Gzkn 02:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In many cases it would be, but B-movie is a term with two quite distinct, yet intimately related usages. The "Overview" section gives a level of description of the distinctions and relationships between the two different usages/time periods that is more detailed than seems appropriate for the lead, but still needs to be clarified in a conceptual way before the historical meat of the article. "Overview" is simply a more efficient substitute for a section title like "The meaning of B-movie, then and now: distinctions/connections." Do you think the information in "Overview" should all be brought into the lead, or, perhaps, can you think of a more helpful but not unwieldy title for the section?—DCGeist 00:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Information from former "Overview" section integrated into lead per comments of Sfahey and Jayzel.—DCGeist 03:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Point taken about the length of the lead. I'm still confused about this notion of judging that citations are needed on the basis of paragraph structure. You say this "hasn't officially beome Wiki policy yet." What leads you to think it will become Wiki policy? Where has the case been made that it would be a superior policy to requiring citations for all direct quotes and material likely to be challenged? (I'd also add data difficult to verify and/or peculiar to one author to those things that should be routinely cited.) Here's one of the few substantive paragraphs from the article that doesn't have a citation. What would you say needs to be cited?
On television, the parallels between the weekly series that became the mainstay of prime-time programming and the Hollywood series films of an earlier day had long been clear. In the 1970s, original feature-length programming increasingly began to echo the B-movie as well. While there had been dramatic feature presentations made especially for TV since the beginning of the medium's mass commercialization in the late 1940s, they had by and large not crossed over with the realm of the B-movie. In the 1950s, the live television drama—a unique amalgam of cinematic and theatrical elements exemplified by Playhouse 90 (1956–1961)—had predominated.no cite needed because you give an example Over the course of the 1960s, there was a transition to filmed features, most of which either aspired to the prestige of major motion pictures or were intended as pilots for projected series.[citation needed] As production of TV movies expanded with the introduction of the ABC Movie of the Week in 1969, soon followed by the dedication of other network slots to original feature presentations, time and financial factors shifted the medium progressively into B-picture territory.Needs an example or[citation needed] The production of TV films inspired by recent scandals or medical scares harkened all the way back to the 1920s and such films as Human Wreckage and When Love Grows Cold, FBO pictures made swiftly in the wake of celebrity misfortunes.no cite needed because you give an example
—DCGeist 03:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Information from former "Overview" section integrated into lead per comments of Sfahey and Jayzel.—DCGeist 03:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm not so much concerned about "paragraphs" as I am "large chunks of text" of not-commonly-known information. If you say "the sun sets in the West",you don't need to cite that because it is commonly known to the average high school student. However, if you say anything more technical about the sun, you should use cites. I guess the main concern I have is some of the info you give smacks of original research without giving citations. I've added comments or cite tags to things I think should be changed in your paragraph as an example.--Jayzel 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Examples now given throughout paragraph under discussion. Nothing at present seems citable in this graf. Not sure what is meant by "smacks of original research without giving citations." Specific info is cited. General info is based on synthesis of wide reading of criticism and history in the field--neither "original research" nor citable, just ordinary encyclopedic formulation, easily verifiable by reference to any mainstream consideration of the topic that covers the appropriate time period. (And this is why, I'm afraid, your analogy fails: "The sun is an average distance of 149.6×106 km (92.95×106 mi) from Earth" is hardly "commonly known" to either the average high-school student or even you and me, but it surely doesn't need a cite. The point is that it is commonly known to virtually all concerned professionals and easily verifiable by any interested layman. In the admirable Wikipedia sun article, in fact, there is a sequence of five uncited paragraphs in the "Atmosphere" section. You might be interested in reading them. If you do, I have two questions: [a] How much of the information there did you know before you read it? [b] Shall we challenge sun's status as a Featured Article on the basis of insufficient citations?) So...would adding a "Further reading" section to B movie help?—DCGeist 09:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've convinced me. I'm just used to working with more controversial topics involving politics where every period and comma gets cited. I Support. And, yeah, a further reading section would be good. --Jayzel 15:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great. Further reading section added. Also finding a few additional spots where references seem helpful.—DCGeist 18:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the new intro and it's fine -- though maybe a bit too long now -- never mind :). By the way, I'm not sure you should have drive-in movie, C-movie, Z-movie, and psychotronic movie in bold. Perhaps italics would be better. Bold is only used for alternate titles of the article and I am not sure they qualify. Midnight movie has its own page and drive-in movie redirect to Drive-In theater. Also, if you leave the info about the actors in the lead, you should probably add a section to the article about Actors of B-Films. Yikes, maybe directors too. Forget that last thought. --Jayzel 04:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've weighed this for a while: ultimately, within the context of the B movie article, all of these terms are synonyms of the article title (obviously, of greater or lesser exactitude) and thus boldable per Wikistyle (the Manual of Style standard is actually broader than "alternate title"; it's "synonyms of the article title"). As C movie, Z movie, and psychotronic movie all have sections dedicated to their definition, and thus really call for bolding, I think it's easier for the reader to also have the similarly associated drive-in movie and midnight movie also bolded, even though they have (or sort of have) their own articles. BTW, someone out there might want to write full-dress articles on C, Z, and psychotronic movie--that certainly wouldn't interfere with their existing coverage in the present article, which is intentionally of a nonexpansive nature.—DCGeist 23:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The lead should be a summary of the entire article, and should generally be free of citations. As long as everything stated in the lead that needs a citation is cited in the text of the article, there's no need citing stuff in the lead. Gzkn 05:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How curious. Almost all the topics you raise are covered in great detail: the making of B-movies, famous movies, studios, influences on and by. Many actors commonly associated with the B-movie are mentioned both in the lead and throughout the article: by the very nature of B "stardom," there's no way to quantify who the "greatest" B stars are. What more coverage on actors would you like to see? (Important directors and producers also happen to receive extensive coverage.) As for "studies," it's not clear what you mean. Every major historical, industrial, and cultural study in the field is specifically referenced and the historigraphical consensus on different matters integrated into the article. As I'm sure you realize, the topic area is so vast and various that coverage of aesthetic studies of B movies would constitute a large article of their own.
You appear, in sum, to actually be objecting to organization, rather than content. There are only so many ways to rationally organize an article. The article follows one of the most rational systems: chronology, which is the most appropriate to this topic given the transformations of the term, the changing nature of the multiple influences on B moviemaking in different periods, and the way B films and distribution and promotional practices in turn influenced higher levels of Hollywood production. One could have all the information in thematic sections, but then you lose the multi-layered process of transformation and back-and-forth influence. What's happening financially in the industry as a whole at a given time affects what sorts of movies certain studios choose to make at that time; which affects how they distribute and promote them at that time; which affects what other studios and exhibitors do at that time and so forth. To understand the B movie, you need to understand it through history. I see no intelligent way of separating by section the important studios of a given time from the "famous movies" they made at that time from the industrial practices they employed at that time, as you propose. Think about a specific example: the discussion of Kiss Me Deadly that currently resides in the 1950s section. According to what you suggest, the information in that discussion should be split up between say, six different sections, like this:
  • MAKING: At a cost of around $400,000, Victor Saville and his Parklane Pictures company independently produced Kiss Me Deadly
  • MOVIES: One of the 1955 movies most celebrated by later critics is the thriller Kiss Me Deadly
  • STUDIOS: United Artists, then concentrating on the distribution of "programmers," released Kiss Me Deadly
  • ACTORS: Ralph Meeker, who had appeared in only one major film previously, starred in Kiss Me Deadly
  • DIRECTORS: Robert Aldrich directed Kiss Me Deadly
  • INFLUENCES (GENERIC): Film noir and atomic bomb cinema cross generic lines in Kiss Me Deadly
That seems to be what you're calling for. Does that better serve the Wikipedia reader? So...the article is organized in a different way than you might have done it. But it's organized rationally and purposefully. Is your different taste in organization truly relevant to this process?
A few more questions: (1) Your choice of words--"I see no sections" and "what looks like"--suggests to me that you did not actually read the article. As you know, of course, there's a simple principle here: "Please read a nominated article fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination." Did you? (2) If you did, what, if any, crucial information do you believe is missing? (3) Whether you did or not, could you please make a case based on your understanding of B movies for the exact nature and the superiority of your proposed organizational scheme? (4) What do you mean by an "overblown 'see also' section"? The section of associated terms covers, just as it suggests, closely related terms that do not have their own articles, probably don't warrant them, and helpfully rounds out the definition of B movie. What's "overblown" or counterproductive there? Best, Dan—DCGeist 05:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, there are no wikilinks on terms like "indie" (2/3rds down); many of us are probably aware of what an independent film is, and there's really no need for an explanation in this (already very long) article, but a wikilink might be a good idea, because of international readers who may not be familiar with the term. It could possibly be wikilinked on the words 'independent productions' in the section titled "B's in the Golden Age of Hollywood (1): 1930s". Same for "quickies". I didn't make the modifications myself, as I thought it should be discussed here first.
Done for "independent film" (Wikilinked in lead) and "indie" (Wikilinked at first appearance). Done for "quickie"--nothing to Wikilink it to, so introduction of term rephrased in order to provide explanation of term in present text.—DCGeist 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence: "Republic aspired to major-league respectability while making lots and lots of cheap Westerns" doesn't seem quite encyclopedic in tone.
Right. Edited.—DCGeist 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Helping to popularize the notion of the C movie was the successful series Mystery Science Theater 3000 (1988–99)..." maybe insert the word "TV" in front of series? Otherwise it looks like it could be a series of films.
Done.—DCGeist 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't there be a wikilink to Vampira?
Yes. Done.—DCGeist 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this sentence needs modification: "The movie stars Maila Nurmi in her Vampira persona and Bela Lugosi, who was dead when the film was made—footage he shot for another project is intercut with the performance of a double with the fortunate habit of covering his face with a cape. " It needs another comma, or some attempt at clarity...
Done.—DCGeist 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of The Blob? Well, I guess with so much information, there really wasn't much room left over. Mystery Science Theater isn't the only series which has riffed on B movies; The Blob was parodied in a low-budget riff called Blobbermouth, and there are several others. Overall, the quality of this article is very good! More comments as I think of them... Firsfron of Ronchester 00:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply All those sound good. Will get to them late tonight or tmw. Let me know if any more. Right, sadly no room for The Blob. The Creature from the Black Lagoon has to suffice for mindless major studio horror on one side; the AIP pictures for teen horror on the other side. Sorry, Blob.—DCGeist 01:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up All comments taken up and addressed. And once again, sorry Blob. Please don't gobbl--........................................—DCGeist 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted.

South Australian legislative election, 2006[edit]

Round 1 failed

Round 2 failed

Round 3

Okie dokie, how's it looking now? The concensus is that it's looking good, feedback on this page has been acted upon AFAIK, if there is anything that is preventing this article from reaching FA status, please let me know, otherwise, if there is nothing preventing it, let's add another Featured Article to wikipedia! Timeshift 14:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - much of the article looks good. Here are some initial thoughts:
  1. In what sense is this the Liberal Party's worst election result? The source given suggests that this is for a statewide election - this needs to be stated.
  2. Do the tables of results list all the parties which stood? If there is a cut-off point, this should be noted; if not, it'd be interesting to know why no no-hope parties seem to have stood.
  3. The Legislative Council section needs more references. Some it expresses opinions (e.g. "he proved to be more than just a single issue MLC"), and this in particular needs to have the source clearly shown. Some other sections would also benefit from additional references, but are not so lacking.
  4. The maps are difficult to read as the ALP's colour is so deep. Could it be changed to a lighter colour, making the border lines easier to see? This deep colour is also a problem where it is used as a background for text.
  5. It'd be good to standardise on a colour for independents. White is used on the maps, but grey in the tables. Warofdreams talk 17:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It was the Liberal Party's worst election result, in terms of the percentage of lower house (the house that decides which party will be government) seats they won, as can be seen by the reference linked to (worst result before this was in 1906 but that was before the Liberal Party as well as the Liberal and Country League). However I do see where you're coming from, but i'm not sure how to describe how it was their worst result to a global audience. Any suggestions?
  2. I was actually thinking about expanding this like I had been doing with individual districts such as Adelaide. I will do this when I find some time (next couple of days).
  3. Mmm, I was unsure about this sentence, I never added it myself. I am thinking about rephrasing Xenophon's paragraph totally.
  4. Will see what I can do but I do not really wish to deviate from the colours used for Australia's other elections (see election links on Template:Politics_of_Australia). What are your thoughts after this?
  5. Good point. Will work on it. Cheers for your words of advice. Timeshift 06:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on this. I've tried rewording the sentence under point one, and changing the text colour where the Liberal Party colour is used as a background (just the first instance at present, to see whether this is popular). Good work on the maps; while the yellow borders may not be the prettiest solution, they certainly make the divisions clear and so solve the issue there; and also on standardising on a colour for independents. I'd now be prepared to support provided that more references are added to the "Legislative Council" section; although the most contentious sentence has been removed, this is still largely unsourced. While the "Results" section appears less contentious, it would still be very good to see more citations, as per Staxringold's request. Warofdreams talk 21:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. As far as Key seats, I didn't start off the article so I can only say from my perspective, is that the ABC who do TV and radio coverage of election nights chose them, based on their likelyhood of falling to Labor. Stuart and Unley were included as they were also feasible possibilities for Labor, but there is no way that I could ever forsee Heysen falling in to Labor hands any time soon. Timeshift 06:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ref, that looks better now. As for Key Seats, I know it'd be a bit of work, but any chance of changing it to Close seats, and setting some kind of a margin (I dunno what margin would get you a good number of seats, <1%? <3%? Staxringold talkcontribs 19:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They can't really be called close. Rory McEwen, an independent, held a margin of 26.6% - by no means marginal/close, but a seat to watch due to being an independent (and now a margin of 6.2%) which is why it's called a "key" seat, because it's a seat that psephologists believe has a feasible chance of changing hands. Timeshift 20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wanna take a go at chopping it? :P Timeshift 06:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it - I'm happy now. --Scott Davis Talk 10:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(to clarify, that's support from me now. --Scott Davis Talk 11:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
If you can, lighten the colours a tad, it shouldn't be too difficult. And move the reference from the title to after the boxes. michael talk 01:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The solution would be to show maps of districts throughout time, including in articles on abolished ones. Bragg and Davenport, for example, are in a completely different location from where they were when first created in '67. These qualms don't present a problem to the article's FA status, however. michael talk 01:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I cannot find a wiki page for invalid/informal/spoilt votes. Total enrolled is at the top, with informal votes, then down the bottom at the end of the votes it has a total tally for the amount of total valid votes. Add the informal votes to the formal votes and you get the votes cast figure. All verifiable through the provided citation and/or www.seo.sa.gov.au. It's relevant in terms of the fact that an election where an outcome was expected and/or people's apathy toward politics is rated in terms of if the informal vote has risen or lowered. I have fixed the number of candidates issue. Fixed primary vote to first preference. Parties that did not run should be included as suggested by previous comments throughout the FAC process, and is required anyway to show that CLIC (Peter Lewis) did not run in this election and subsequently lost a seat - the fact that areas are greyed out except for the minus percentage show that they did not run. Changed swing to change. Why id droop quota too technical for an election article? It's only a small link in the upper house results table and has no drawback to having it there as such... Timeshift 20:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further down, at random: "It has been Australia's main centre-left party since 1904 and its ideology has greatly varied over time." Two quite different ideas jammed into the same sentence with "and".

Tony, your comment is unclear - are you saying the subject is boring, or that the current article is a boring report on the subject?
Your criticisms of stating the obvious are either because you already know the obvious, or haven't thought of the less obvious:
  • I have encountered foreigners who assumed that Melbourne is in South Australia, as it is the southernmost mainland large city. A complaint at an earlier FAC was that the article did not define "South Australia" beyond a wikilink.
  • Some readers respond to quantitative and some to qualitative information - both the 1.1 and "majority" are valuable.
  • Both percentage and number matter - the total number of seats has varied over the time of the comparison.
I'll have a go at fixing the sentences you've identified. --Scott Davis Talk 10:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've chopped around your first suggested sentence, but in the light of Australian Labor Party, there appears to be nothing wrong with the second one. Do you disagree with either part, the juxtaposition of the two parts, or the conjunction between them? --Scott Davis Talk 10:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January - The first free public school west of the Mississippi River was established in Tipton, Iowa. 8 January - Borax is discovered (John Veatch). 24 January - U.S. President Franklin Pierce declares the new Free-State Topeka government in Bleeding Kansas to be in rebellion. 29 January - Queen Victoria institutes the Victoria Cross

Can you remove these useless links? They dilute the important ones and make the page speckled blue. Tony 13:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links removed. As for the sovereign/qoa stuff, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Australian_legislative_election%2C_2006&diff=94666313&oldid=94664717 - ScottDavis may want to comment on this so i'll let him as he's probably more familiar with it than I am. As for Cuivienen's contributions, what do you think of the current tables? I don't think they need changing and nobody else has raised the issue, and you seem to be the guy to ask. Is there an issue with the tables? Timeshift 13:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She is not styled "Queen of South Australia" in the same way as she is "Queen of Australia". The article Governor of South Australia says at the top "The Governor of South Australia is the representative in the Australian state of South Australia of Australia's head of state, Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia." The Governor's web site is not clear of the exact role relationship, except that it is not via either the UK government or the Governor-General of Australia. "The Governor's direct relationship to The Queen, which is independent of that of the Governor-General, reflects the sovereignty of South Australia within the Australian Federation." suggests (but does not explicitly state) it is to the Queen of Australia. South Australia is neither a Commonwealth Realm nor a member of the Commonwealth of Nations (independently of Australia). Commonwealth Realm says "She is also represented by a Governor in each state of Australia, by a Lieutenant-Governor in each province of Canada and by a Queen's Representative in the Cook Islands. In these cases, she is represented in her role as Queen in right of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand respectively." The AUSTRALIA ACTS (REQUEST) ACT 1985 is also unclear to me. --Scott Davis Talk 08:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, it appears that the Governor is the local representative of the Queen of Australia, at least since 1986, if not earlier. I think in this article, what's there is sufficient. I copied the text I used for that edit pretty much straight from Parliament of South Australia. I suggest that if you're not satisfied, add ((cite needed)) to the details in Queen of Australia or any of the articles it links to. The wikilink should be enough in this article, as the issue is incidental to the subject, which is the election. --Scott Davis Talk 11:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that she's Queen of SA. This was clarified in the late 70s, I think. Tony 03:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC) PS, but it's a minor point, so I won't hold to it. Tony 03:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how do we change your object to support? :-) Timeshift 05:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not sure if you saw the comments I made last week; as I wrote than, "I'd now be prepared to support provided that more references are added to the "Legislative Council" section; although the most contentious sentence has been removed, this is still largely unsourced." Warofdreams talk 02:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is everything ok now? I have added the reference/citation link for the 2006 results PDF to both the lower and upper house result tables as requested, which should cover whatever you might want a reference for. Anything specific, please let me know. Timeshift 12:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Timeshift 12:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've been told to include it for the international audience. A lot of criticism seems to contradict earlier criticism made by others. I cannot please everyone. How do you suggest I change it that keeps everyone happy? Or can't I please everyone? Who makes the final decision about whether this should be a Featured Article, and why can't they contribute a bit more to criticisms? I hope I don't offend anyone but i've found the whole FAC process quite confusing with everyone contradicting everyone else and thus not exactly knowing what is required. Timeshift 12:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is a large section, but like TS said, it's essential for an international audience. Newcomers to Australian politics need an introduction to our parties and that section does it reasonably well. Cutting it down, I fear, could result in a poor understanding of them. michael talk 13:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that we need to explain things, but I think this section is over-the-top, and takes up too much of the article: I think we could have a much smaller and more concise one with a link to some broader article giving more detail for those who want it. Rebecca 01:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you propose it's done? Have a go at the edit, we can always revert if need be - because I think that the section is already at it's bare minimum and wouldn't remove anything else. Timeshift 02:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not very happy with this section, but I don't want to stand in the way of the article getting featured, so I'm changing this to a comment. Rebecca 00:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, please provide some explanation of "informal votes" since I have no idea what that means. I'm also unclear why the party and district names are bolded; it seems contrary to WP:MOS. I personally think acronyms like IRV, STV, and TAFE should be spelled out, although mere wikilinking is tolerable.

Fixed.

Down in the legacy section:

Redundancy packages are available for the employees, nobody is sacked in voluntary redundancies, they are not forced upon employees, unlike the Liberal government in the 1990's who slashed the public service.
Removed. Timeshift 15:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kill the section. It's unimportant; most of the issues don't directly relate to the election. michael talk 02:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Killed the paragraph. The rest relates to directly to parliamentary people and issues and think the rest of it can stay imho. Timeshift 15:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. 'Any reproduction of this material must credit both NEWSPOLL and THE AUSTRALIAN."', which is what i've done :-) Timeshift 15:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment One thing I'm a little concerned about in these reviews is that it's been largely bottom-up - while such analysis is totally necessary to get to the best standard Wikipedia can offer, it ignores some big-picture issues and the so-called "birds eye view". Oddly enough, even a quick reading of the text reveals spelling and grammatical errors which are in need of repair, and some textual redundancy, but I'll ignore those for now in the interests of trying to get more of a perspective or focus on where this article needs to go from here.
  1. Well written, comprehensive, factually accurate and stable.
    1. Well written - generally yes, although needs a proof-read.
    2. Comprehensive (does not neglect major facts or details) - Yes.
    3. Factually accurate - Yes.
    4. Neutral - Some questions regarding this, but broadly yes.
    5. Stable - yes.
  2. Complies with MoS and Wikiproject guidelines
    1. Lead section - Contains information irrelevant to election that does not read consistently with lead or intention, also needs proof-read.
    2. Hierarchical headings - Yes.
    3. Table of contents (substantial, not overwhelming) - Yes.
  3. Images with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status - Maps of high quality (good work TS!) Pictures of leaders copyrighted and unlicensed but this should be OK in the circumstances.
  4. Appropriate length - Yes.
Neutrality of some points, lead section and writing style (standard of prose needs to be "compelling, even brilliant") need work, all other points seem OK to go IMO. Orderinchaos78 10:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Where are the spelling/grammar issues.... I and others have looked and fixed as appropriate many times, you must have an excellent eye (a compliment). Timeshift 12:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Legislative elections for the 51st Parliament of South Australia were held in the state of South Australia on 18 March 2006, and were conducted by the independent State Electoral Office of South Australia. The centre-left Australian Labor Party, in government since 2002 under Premier Mike Rann, gained a 7.7 percent statewide swing[2], resulting in the first Labor majority government since 1989 with 28 of the 47 House of Assembly (lower house) seats, a gain of six seats. The centre-right Liberal Party of Australia, led by Rob Kerin, achieved their worst result in any South Australian lower house elections, with 15 seats.[3] Following the outcome of the election, Iain Evans replaced Kerin as opposition leader.[4]
In addition to the major party results, all three sitting independents and a sitting Nationals SA member retained their seats. In the Legislative Council (upper house), both major parties each finished with a total of eight seats, with Labor winning four and the Liberals winning three. No Pokies independent (...as per current from here)
Hope this contribution is of some use or help. I'll have a quick look through the rest before bed but by and large the main body was in substantially better shape. Orderinchaos78 13:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the assistance :-) Btw, voting is not compulsory for citizens over 18 years. Enrollment forms are sent to citizens 17 years of age, all they need do is not send the forms back, which means they are not required to vote in any elections. Also, the South Australia info was added as per previous criticisms over people not knowing what South Australia was, as the article must be for a worldwide audience, and apparently wikilinking to South Australia wasn't enough... Timeshift 13:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! :) As a fellow politico, I'm keen to see the standard rise on political articles for Australia and IMO you've done a tremendous effort on this article - it's not far from FA at all in my opinion. AFAIK it's compulsory to enrol - it may be different in WA to SA though (I'm Perth-based). However, my understanding is that the roll is national, but used by State ECs/EOs - in which case it's been compulsory since 1911 [35] [36] Orderinchaos78 14:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45 Is State enrolment compulsory? Initial (first time) enrolment for State elections is not compulsory, however, after having enrolled you must maintain your enrolment details and vote. It is compulsory to enrol for Federal elections once you turn 18.[37] Timeshift 14:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have replaced the lead with yours, with a few slight changes. Timeshift 14:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would disregard the earlier objection and remove the third paragraph from the introduction. It is un-necessary – a description of South Australia would only be relevant if something in its make-up uniquely affected elections; this is not the case. See this article for a good election article lead.--cj | talk 15:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I happen to think the lead is pretty good, but if you can make any suggestions in particular they would be most welcome. Timeshift 15:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added ((fact)) tags to the remaining statements which appear to need a citation. If citations can be found, or if sections can be altered so that they can be cited, then I will support. Warofdreams talk 23:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Timeshift 03:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent (and speedy!) work. Warofdreams talk 11:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as my previous concerns have all been addressed. Good luck! :) Orderinchaos78 12:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so, with everyone having withdrawn their objection and/or providing support, anything else to do in getting it to FA status? :-) Timeshift 12:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just sit back and wait. If no new objections arise, Raul is likely to feature it next time he looks through. Warofdreams talk 15:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

If this is an issue, why hasn't it been raised by anyone else after all this time and why has everyone else supported the article becoming FA, even by some administrators? Timeshift 08:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a very good question. I ask it often, and I see that more reviewers are starting to check references now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, it would be very difficult (and would look unwieldy) to adopt such a tight standard for what are mostly government publications and transcripts of programs (TV and radio) by the national broadcaster. There are a few spots where referencing could be improved but I can clearly see the origins of most of the articles. Ones I would argue could be done better are:
No, it wouldn't - why do you suppose most other FAs are able to do it? And, why do you suppose the cite templates exist? (Maybe to help format news, web, and book sources correctly?) I will start a few to show you how to correctly format your references. I don't use the cite templates - I do them manually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With regard to the objection, I have now looked around and found three featured articles 1 2 3 which do not use the cite web/cite news template and in two cases don't even provide links to the information or a year of currency - the referencing in this article is actually of a considerably higher standard than those mentioned. I hope this is taken into account by whoever reviews this article for FA. Orderinchaos78 14:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you had to use the cite templates, and what other articles did/do is irrelevant - we are looking at this article, and many older articles no longer comply with current standards - for that, we have WP:FAR. I've done the final section for you as an example - it would take you less time to complete your references than it is taking you to object to completing them: as you can see, five of the thirteen references given are not verifiable - that's a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that the article has little to do with me - I entered as a reviewer only a few days ago (see script above), and once it passed my objections I changed my vote to support, and have since been looking to help wherever I can to get this through the process. In my own work I always use the cite templates, as can be seen from my contributions history. As for references - which five out of which 13? I see 83 in total. If you can point me to them, I'll look and see what I can find/do. Orderinchaos78 15:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh.. I see what you mean now (having looked at it more closely). This is a hazard of citing any News Ltd publication or The West Australian, and why I refuse to do so. I'll have a look for possible replacements for those, and failing that, can get the actual cites off a fulltext service I subscribe to. Thanks for pointing that out. I would note, however, that if you compare the last part to the first part, it looks jumbled and unreadable - the only way to sort it out would be to get rid of the two columns and have an overly long list (this was the problem I encountered when trying to do the first five) Orderinchaos78 15:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a problem with citing web news sources: it's a problem with citing any source without giving full and complete bibliographic information, which will allow a reader to find an alternate source for that information, or to relocate dead links. Also, last access date should always be given on any internet source. The aestetics look just fine on my screen, and WP:V policy overrides aesthetics. I also fixed the top section, to give more examples (authors and publication dates left out, and incorrect titles given on publications, which will make it harder to locate those sources should the links go dead.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding some of the missing sources, Orderinchaos78. I had to change the formatting, for consistency. I had already added many cites manually, and the article doesn't use the cite templates. You added sources with the cite templates, which resulted in inconsistent date formatting. I changed them back, to agree with the others. It doesn't matter which format is used, but results should show a consistent style: if you want to use the cite templates, all of the refs I did will need to be changed as well. I don't recommend that, since the original authors didn't use the cite templates, and it will be much more work to convert them all. All that needs to be done is to add on the missing information to what is already there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a weird one for sure. Not sure what's going on as I've been trying to submit the revised links for 15 minutes with no success. It's now 1am over here and I'm supposed to be somewhere at 10am, so I might leave it to others at this point Orderinchaos78 15:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's morning here, so if the other authors want my help in completing the refs, I can pitch in, but first a consistent style should be decided on, and someone has to locate missing sources. I started a talk page section on that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I managed finally to get the Legacy ones updated, so they're fine now (I manually altered them back to the format you had - still feels weird typing in the dates the wrong way round in an article about Australia, but oh well :)). The other sections, not sure. Anything from the Advertiser or Australian will need to be checked on a full text site as they delete their articles after about 3 months. Factiva has both on its file, and has page numbers for offline paper editions which is great. Anyway, bed for me. Orderinchaos78 16:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid that might be an issue: that's why I only did one section. If the other authors want me to switch those I already did, I can do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hope nobody minds - I have gone ahead and changed these two. Orderinchaos78 14:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. It's just references. I've referenced, and IMHO the page going for FA status has much better references than some other FA articles i've seen. Again, seriously, any controversial statements have been referenced and can clearly be read by the weblinks. Why must we split hairs? Timeshift 17:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to point out the fact how long i've spent on this project and the amount of hours i've put in to it, and to get various member's approval, yet at the last hurdle to find this glaring in my face. But I do see that many efforts have been made since i've last been online, and I do thank you for it. It would be nice if this stumbling block could just disappear (does that sound a bit selfish? :P) but if there's still stuff to be done, let me know so I can see how difficult it is and whether I have the time in the next few days to accomplish the tasks, whatever they may be. I know it might sound like a whinge, it's just that i've put so much time in to this and to find the references are bung, is a bit disappointing... (i'm also a lil bit drunk in another state of australia, sorry if this sounds like a big whinge :P) Timeshift 17:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool. I didn't even realise a few of the ext links were broken - that's a lesson for *me* for next time when reviewing. With all but two or three exceptions, they were News Ltd ones. There was a couple also which linked to a password-only site. About 2/3 of them seem to be fixed after our work tonight, the other 1/3 are easier as they really just involve converting the remaining ones to look like the ones we've done - which means clicking (and hence checking) the link, grabbing date, author if necessary, and noting today's date under "retrieved". Once they're all done, I think that clears that one up. (And yes, I know what it must be like - just when you think it's all done, something else comes up - but I can see in retrospect this was a more valid issue than I originally thought - apologies to Sandy!) Orderinchaos78 18:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - no apologies needed :-) As you can see, many important sources just weren't there. The notion that "it's just references" is something I'm trying to get more reveiwers to be aware of, so this doesn't happen at the last minute to others - but not to worry, it's still doable. As far I'm concerned, "brilliant, compelling prose" is not a pillar of Wikipedia, while WP:V is, and FAs must satisfy WP:V before we even bother to examine the prose. I fail to grasp why so few reviewers let articles get this far into FAC without verifying the sources. It's a pet peeve; I originally came to work in FAC/FAR by becoming aware of two glaringly inaccurate, poorly-referenced, biased and POV FAs, which passed because of brilliant prose combined with reviewer ignorance of the issues. With several more hours of work, we should be able to wrap this one up, but I can't substitute the internet archive sources, since I don't know if the archived versions are still accurate - I can help, but you all will have to do that. I can help you fix your refs, but I cant' really find/decide on the best references to use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed all the refs, except the dead links for the government sites - if you all can decide how to handle those (internet archive?), I can remove my Object. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one problem source left (source found, but doesn't verify the text cited to it), so I'm striking my Object, assuming that remaining issue will be dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dealt with (see article talk page) - replaced an unsourced claim that the leader "just sat back" with a reasonably factual claim that Labor's advertisement reminded voters of three actions, each of which is sourced. Orderinchaos78 03:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Five outright supports and no objections remaining :-) Timeshift 12:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted.

Pilot (House)[edit]

Self-nomination. I am restarting an old nomination that was stopped because of a sudden copyvio revelation that I had not been aware of before. It has since been corrected and is now ready for FAC. The article has had a peer review and has been named a good article. It has also received a number of copyedits from users, such as User:Judgesurreal777 and User:Hunterd. I now believe that the article fulfills the FA criteria. The Filmaker 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"House agrees to take the case still believing it to be a brain tumor, but open to other ideas. Soon thereafter, House is approached at the elevator by Dr. Lisa Cuddy —the administrator of the hospital—who attempts to persuade House to fulfill his duties at the hospital's walk-in clinic, a task he loathes because of the incomplexity of the cases brought to him;"

It has to fail 1a throughout; the lead fails 2a. Tony 14:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree with your comments. I think this definitely is not a featured quality article, as it's just not comprehensive or detailed enough - I'd expect a featured article of this sort to compare to something like a better The Simpsons Archive capsule in detail and overall quality. I also pointed out that the name wasn't something I was objecting to, it's just something I found unusual. I know for a fact that at least one of my comments is very "actionable" - for something like the accuracy you could cite [38]. It also doesn't even /mention/ the unaired pilot[39] which I feel is a massive oversight. I think, generally, this is a substandard article that certainly does not represent the best work on Wikipedia. It's just a generic, marginally above average, episode article, of which there are literally thousands on Wikipedia. -Halo 06:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

Turkey[edit]

I am nominating this article since it has gone through extensive work in the course of the last month. Nearly every section has been rewritten and a huge references and bibliography section added. The article has been restructured per other FA country articles. It has just made GA a week ago [40] with extremely high marks. Since then, more sources have been added, certain sections have been made more comprehensive all at the same time keeping it concise.

In my humble opinion, this article currently stands as one of the best country articles in Wikipedia on a par with Canada, for example, and will be a great addition to the Wikipedia's FA repertoire. A google search for "Turkey" lists the Wikipedia article at second first place for the moment, and I think that it will do Wikipedia proud :)

The article has been extremely stable since the rewrite has started, and the only thing that happens now and then is the good ol' vandalism and sandbox :) The main purpose of the article is to give a very general overview of the country without going into too many specifics, therefore that has also contributed to its stability. As a general trend, edit-wars always happen when articles are poorly written.

The references cited are generally direct sources, meaning that I have tried to find the exact reports and press releases about the subject matter (e.g. economy section figures are nearly all sourced by statistical press releases that pertain to only that subject and not just simple "factbooks"). Citations are used everywhere where need be, even for common knowledge data. They are all cited per WP:CITE as well.

I suppose that there might be a typo or two here and there, but the article has been proofread by many editors so there shouldn't be too many. So, how does it look? :)) Baristarim 06:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding former nom for archival purposes. Sandy (Talk) 21:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will replace them with cite news. Which section templates? Do you mean the see alsos? Baristarim 10:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see further comments below in the SkyTrain FAC - I was just looking up further info on the correct use of the templates, and the See also template is used when there is further info in another article that is not linked in the text, and it should be placed below the section heading (the kind of basic info not easy to find anywhere in Wikipedia :-) I will try to read your article later. Sandy (Talk) 10:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done. I corrected the see also situation, and changed the neccessary citations to cite news. See alsos generally crowd the place, and most of them were already linked in the sections. So I moved the neccessary ones to the Main and took out the others.Baristarim 10:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response: I'm still quite busy with holidays, but will try to read a lot of these FACs this weekend. Sandy (Talk) 14:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite there yet - for example, this is missing author - pls doublecheck all refs: "Headscarf row goes to Turkey's roots". British Broadcasting Corporation. 2003-10-29. Retrieved 2006-12-13.
Ok.. I will check them.. Thanks for the commentaries by the way, they are appreciated! Baristarim 23:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I double-checked all the references one more time, and made the neccessary fixes for correct citations. Feel free to let me know if I missed something. Cheers! Baristarim 01:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice work - I indicated support above. Sandy (Talk) 02:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Baristarim 03:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In notes printed sources should have specific pages. See, for instance, note 2,3 and 19, where there are no pages.
  • Are all the sources in "References and bibliography" used in "Notes". If not, you should make clear which are actually "References" and which "Further bibliography (or reading)".
  • Don't overwikify the text. I think I saw Greece linked more than once.
  • Negotiations with the EU have stalled not because Turkey does not officially recognize Republic of Cyprus, but because it has not yet implemented the provisions of the Customs Union with EU for Cyprus by not opening its harbors for (Greek-)Cypriot ships. The diplomatic recognition of Cyprus is not yet a problem.
  • You say that the Greeks, Armenians and Jews are the official minorities. What is then the legal status of the other minorities (Kurds etc.)? I think you should elaborate a bit more on that.--Yannismarou 13:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • References and further reading section splitted.
  • I modified the sentence about the EU-Cyprus-Turkey to correctly reflect the nature of the dispute.
  • I tried to cut down on unneccessary wikifications. Some words are still cited two or three times in the article, but they are in completely different sections. I kept them simply not to force the reader to try to find the wikified term on the top of the article or vice versa. However, I don't think that there are any redundant wikifications left.
  • For the references that you mentioned, I will shift through the history of the article to dig the page numbers that were lost when I was formatting the references per WP:CITE.
  • I added a phrase to clarify further the status of non-official minorities in Turkey. Cheers! Baristarim 01:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK! Full support - After all the notes still needing pages are very few.--Yannismarou 06:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Baristarim 08:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These issues were talked about extensively in the talk pages (we have 9 archives! :)). The article is simply trying to give an overview of the country, and with general, but informative, sections. A lot of stuff, controversial or not controversial, have been moved to subarticles, and are given as main articles under the section headings. I know that this article has the potential to confront some controversial issues, but the important thing was to simply strike the best NPOV possible and keep it general as the GA reviewer pointed out last week. Obviously there are always improvements that can be made, but for such changes it might be better to form a concensus in the talk pages. FA won't mean that the article will be static or locked down :) Cheers! Baristarim 19:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong? :) Sorry that you feel that way. I think that you are glossing over one of the key elements of Wikipedia: concensus. I didn't create the article, most of the ideological guidelines were hammered out in the talk pages. We have ten archives, and most of the contributors to the talk pages have been non-Turks, and we have had many heated discussions. Please keep that in mind and ask yourself if you are not looking at this from your own point of view of the country. I know what you are trying to say, but Turkey is not a conflict ridden country either :) Trust me, the concensus was reached by people who know the country from back to front, with many Greek, Turkish, Kurdish and European editors arguing for weeks on end sometimes. The facts are mentioned; the conflict, the casualties, the situation in northern Iraq, the Kurdish minority, its status, the situation of the language etc. As for the foreign relations.. Turkey doesn't have much relations with Africa, and hasn't had too much relations with Asia, and in the Middle East its main relations are with Israel. The balance of that section is carefully chosen to reflect the actual balance of the country's foreign relations. All the references are there, and the article has been proofread many times. In any case, improvements are always possible, and the actual phrases in certain sections can easily be modified as long as a concensus is reached in the talk pages. I do not share the view that the conflicts are being glossed over: the article has been extremely stable every since the rewrite has started one month ago, and if any major controversials had not been addressed, there would be edit wars all over the article. In fact, since one month, there haven't been even minor revert wars, let alone full-blown edit-wars. I just think that any modifications or reformulations of sentences should be raised in the talk page, if you have any suggestions, feel free to raise them in the talk page. I already tried to address Yannismarou's concerns on two points (and he is not Turkish btw :)). The article as it is reflects a great concensus, along with many efforts at comprehensiveness and conciseness. Every single info in the article is cited, nearly all of them by sources accessible on the Internet, even for books. Baristarim 15:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it has been discussed does not mean the right decision was reached. Lack of edit wars also does not mean the article is balanced. In fact, I shudder to think of that being used as a criterion. I have nearly no connection to the subject, and I feel comfortable saying I can be about as unbiased about it as it is possible to be. That said, it is easy to see the article glosses over conflicts. I'm not saying it is conflict ridden either. I'm saying the article shouldn't act like it is conflict ridden if it isn't, but it also shouldn't act as if there are and have been almost no conflicts as it currently does. The article mentions there are Kurds, but not that there is any tension. It mentions 99% of the population is Muslim, but not if there is any religious tension, whether between fundamentalists or other religions or not. The failure to mention anything relating to the Armenian Genocide is further evidence of a problem. I reallize it's in the past (not even the current Republic of Turkey), a touchy subject, etc. But acting as if that type of tension doesn't exist is extremely POV. I reallize ignoring that type of thing may help to avoid edit wars, but that's not the right solution. As to foreign relations, if the reliable references support the balance of the foreign relations section being the way it is, then I fully defer to you on that. I guess I'm surprised given the location, but facts are facts. - Taxman Talk 16:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing was removed to soothe the article, if that's what you are trying to say. You are mistaken, the article clealry mentions that 37000 people died in the Kurdish insurgency, how is that a glossing over? As I said, I am afraid that you are looking at the country without knowing the specific dynamics of it. I didn't say you were biased at all, in fact, I was trying to say the exact same thing as you said; that looking from a standpoint where we have no connection to the subject matter, we can be easily influenced by only the superficial and sensational information we have heard. Your example with the foreign relations is a great example: the current layout was well thought of, ironed out, and is fully supported by solid references. Cyprus and Greece get a paragraph because they are key to the biggest thing in TR foreign relations: EU. If Turkey was trying to enter the Arab Union, the foreign relations section would be about the Arab world, not about the EU. This article wasn't written in a day :) You have said that the article doesn't mention any conflict with the Kurds, but it does mention that 37000 people died. Believe me, the article is very well referenced, though of, comprehensive and concise, and it doesn't gloss over any conlicts. There is a whole paragraph about the Greek-Turkish dispute, how is that a glossing over? The demographics section clearly mentions the underlying conflict and causes of the illiteracy figures, with very solid sources. But any suggestions are welcome, it would be more useful to raise them in the article's talk page. I am sure that your objection was duly noted, and if you have any general suggestions pls share them in the talk page: we shouldn't be using this page too much for content disputes, at least not about the extent of the tensions about the subject matter. This article has potential to cover contentious issues, so it would surprise me if somebody didn't object. Every country article has the potential for strong POV disputes, nevertheless this article does a great job of summarizing them and keeping them concise in a way that will not cloud the rest of the subject matter. In fact, this article is very informative and concise to anyone that wants to learn about the country. However, please also remember that there are many daughter articles listed as main that talk about every single topic in more detail.Baristarim 16:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one said it would be easy. Sometimes only an outsider can see the imbalance. Now that I've pointed it out I think it will be fairly obvious to others that review the article, and I'll just let my comments stand on their own. I never said it was awful or that the whole article was bad. There are many very good aspects, but also one very important problem. It wouldn't take re-writing the entire article to fix it, and it seems you're taking this a little too personally. - Taxman Talk 17:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no problems. However, same exact comments were made before by User:Reyus. What I don't get is, even though he made harsher comments than you have, he still said "conditional support" and not "strong" object. The article has very strong 100 inline citations + 10 books, some from presses like Cambridge University Press + solid pictures + types of maps that are not found in any other country article + small guides like the CIA factbook are not even cited once + there is not even one typo, the structure of the article is more than adequate. I don't think you are being fair with a "strong object", that's all. That article is frequented regularly by users of many nationalities, and I am sure that any further improvements that can be made will be raised in the talk pages. I am not the sole creator of the article, I assumed the rewrite on behalf of WikiProject Turkey and keeping in line with general talk pages concensus that was established over a long period of time, so I find it a bit awkward. The thing is, I responded to your comments: first you said why Africa wasn't mentioned in foreign relations, then I pointed out to you why it was so. There is no imbalance: that is the correct academic balance, sources are there. Then you mentioned the disputes. As I said earlier, disputes/tensions are adequately, comprehensively and concisely covered as it can be seen on a closer look of the article. The talk pages are and will still be there, FA doesn't mean a "lock-down" of the article, the article will continue to improve no matter what. That's all I am saying. If you have any suggestions about reformulations of sentences, let's please discuss it in the talk pages. Baristarim 17:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I moved my object to strong to denote the importance of the problem, it has nothing to do with the rest of the article, which for the most part is impressively high quality. This last issue needs to be brought to the same level. I let the foreign relations part of my objection go because I take you on your word that enough sources have been consulted to support that balance. However I believe it is clear that various conflicts have not been given their due in the article that the proper balance of the facts would dictate. For example, I would take it as fairly self evident that if something that some large countries have stated is among the largest genocides ever is not even mentioned, then too little attention is given to conflicts. Again they don't need to dominate the article, but they need to be mentioned more than the current amount, which is nearly ignoring them. - Taxman Talk 18:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Taxman, you're saying "What about religious and ethnic conflict? Is there truly none in a country bridging east and west?". It would be perfectly reasonable if you've stated that "the article fails to mention this (specific conflict) and that (specific conflict), which are of major importance in this subject". Could you please be clear about what conflicts you are talking about, so that the article can be improved (like Fedayee did below)? Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Atilim. I would like Taxman to say specifically "this", "this" and "this" is missing in a "bullet style", so that Baris and the other editors can address his concerns, and so that the reviewers can more easily check what is done, what is not and what cannot be done.--Yannismarou 19:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Atilim and Yannismarou I would also like to see some bullets about the missing conflicts. I read the article over again and I see the TRNC controversy, political instability, coup d'etats, tensions with its neighbors, particularly Iran and Greece, financial difficulties, minorities being a sensitive topic, the Islamic headcover issue. Perhaps the only glaring missing conflict is that of the Armenian genocide. --Free smyrnan 23:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I would say that the article reflects, in terms of conflicts, pretty well what a visiting outsider would see. I have had people go to Turkey and express surprise that they did not find the entire country full of bombed-out cities with ethnic gangs shooting each other at every street corner. This is the view one can easily get reading about Turkey as a foreigner from most sources and this is incorrect. The conflicts and the problems are there and should not be ignored, but they are not the first and foremost thing that one notices about Turkey in "real life". --Free smyrnan 23:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware that's not the case. I've been very careful to say I don't think it should go overboard discussing conflicts and devoting a lot of space to it. But too little isn't right either. The Armenian issue is an improvement, probably enough, though if the facts support the next sentence from that article starting "However, most Armenian, Russian, Western, and an increasing number of Turkish scholars believe that it was indeed a genocide", then what has currently been added to Turkey is not enough. Perhaps changing the sentence to rejects the notion put forth by _____ or supported by. Or simply note they are in the minority in their position. A shorter overall mention of the issue would be fine if possible, but also needed is whether that tension is felt today or not. Perhaps eliminate the sentence starting "Poor conditions of the Armenians...". Perhaps with the fixes to the Armenian issue that will be enough. Once that's done I'll defer to other's view if it's been solved. Ask Sandy or other experienced reviewers. - Taxman Talk 04:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that last sentence was cut, and the sentence is still based on Jayzel's first addition. I am still looking into the foreign relations section. I see your point however. I will try to see if it can be shorter as you said, and comprehensive at the same time. If it can't be, it can stay as is. Cheers! Baristarim 05:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the situation in the foreign relations section, now it covers both the emotions surrounding the armenian genocide in tr-Armenia relations and TR-Azerbaijani relations with regards to the conflict in Nagarno-Karabakh. I think that the foreign relations section cover pretty much every area possible that there are :). Baristarim 07:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yannismarou, I did mention a specific problem. But sometimes the problem with pointing out specifics is that sometimes only that specific thing you mention is changed without fixing the overall issue. It also means you have to know exactly what the correct fix is. In this case I was very confident about a general problem but didn't know the exact fix. While specifics can be helpful, it's not required in order to point out a problem. Sometimes the best you can do is bring attention to an issue. - Taxman Talk 04:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, to cut short :) Some of the specific objections have been addressed. However, it is normal that people can have different views when they look at an article, especially an article about a country. All I am saying is, npov issues have been worked on, in every aspect of the article even in economy section, to the best possible standard. There is no way that we can have an article that will be considered as npov by everyone that reads it. However, this article has a very good academic balance as it covers issues, about the economy, culture, demographics, politics etc sections. Any subtleties should be developed in the daughter articles. Anyone reading the article from top to bottom will know what the issues are in a concise and comprehensive manner, and the structure of related daughter articles lets every issue to be explored in more detail.Baristarim 08:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a paragraph on the Armenian deaths to the Ottoman history section. I hope that is acceptable to all involved. Regards, --Jayzel 19:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I am still kind of annoyed at Taxman for not saying it sooner and instead looping the discussion to Africa and I don't know what. The current state is ok, however I will try to see if it might fit into the foreign relations section since it is more of a contemporary topic, more than it is a historical one in any case, sadly. If this was it, I could have made the addition myself and made a note on the talk page for more input from others instead of talking about TR-Africa relations :) It should be fine for now, I will try to raise the issue in the talk page to see if it might fit better into the FR section, or a bit higher up in the OE section. In any case, someone could have left a note on the article's talk page about this.. But anyways, c'est la vie. Baristarim 19:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the issue of Armenian Genocide clearly plays an important enough role in Turkey's foreign relations to be mentioned in this article. It would be better to have a mention of the issue and Turkey's stance regarding this. Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I will leave a note at the article's talk page to decide where it should be mentioned, in the history section or the FR since, as I said, it is much more of a contemporary issue, sadly. Or maybe move it in the history section? But no biggie, that's what the talk pages are for :) Baristarim 19:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make it a personal issue against people that oppose. Stick to the issues as I have done. It's not just about the Armenian Genocide, it's a general issue of the article making it look like there was little to no conflict ethnic or religious. The foreign relations issue was brought up because that issue looked like it could have needed a broader perspective too. Given that at least one big issue was not covered and you fought tooth and nail as if there wasn't a problem when there was, it's not unreasonable to be concerned about some of the research. - Taxman Talk 20:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For Fedayee, I do not think that public surveys need to be mentioned in an encyclopedic article. The problems in U.S Turkey relations are due to the fact that most people dislike the U.S foreign policy specifically the iraqi war. Otherwise I do not know any recent major problems between US and Turkey. For Turkish French relationships, we can include a paragraph in Denial of Armenian Genocide article. I do not agree that the main article is the place of it. Before making accusations, we must not forget that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so we must mention only encyclopedic details. And further dtails should be discussed in talk pages. Thanks Caglarkoca 22:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For Caglarkoca, the links I gave were to show how much of an impact the Armenian Genocide has on Turkish foreign relations. It affected French relations, it has affected relations with every country that has accepted the events of 1915 as genocide. I am not asking for an article on US, France etc. I am asking something simple that is very clear. The impact of the Armenian Genocide on Turkey is big. There are demonstrations by nationalists in Turkey against it, the film Ararat was banned in Turkey, the upcoming ban on Sylvester Stallone's 40 days of Musa Dagh film, Orhan Pamuk's arrest, the cancelled military contracts w/ France, the closed border w/ Armenia, some EU countries questioning of Turkey's place in the EU because of the Armenian Genocide...these are all the because of the Armenian Genocide issue. I think it deserves a simple mention. I am confused on why this is not encyclopedic. Besides on a side note, do you think Turkey would be pleased if the Democrats pass a bill recognizing the genocide? Anyway this is off topic, I have said my points. Thanks Fedayee 23:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So going back to the topic :) The history section was edited accordingly, however I will peruse one more time. As for the foreign relations, I will post back when I will have done so. Cheers! Baristarim 03:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the situation in the foreign relations section, now it covers both the emotions surrounding the armenian genocide in tr-Armenia relations and TR-Azerbaijani relations with regards to the conflict in Nagarno-Karabakh. I think that the foreign relations section cover pretty much every area possible that there are :) Baristarim 07:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The part about the Armenian Genocide was already edited in the history section, and the only thing that remains to be seen is in the foreign relations section. As for the other omissions that you mentioned, can you be more specific? Me and other users have asked Taxman to explain his reasoning, and his comments are general comments about the article. What specific omissions are there? I really cannot see any glaring omissions: nearly everything is covered. And what do you mean about a current events article? Do you mean a section? If it is a section, I have to disagree that we should have such a section: other FA art do not include such sections and, in any case, it is much more professional to include relevant bits into appropriate sections. I hope that I were able address your concerns. Cheers! Baristarim 03:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another article for current events in Turkey.. Yeah, why not? I will leave a post at WikiProject Turkey's talk page. Baristarim 06:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the situation in the foreign relations section, now it covers both the emotions surrounding the armenian genocide in tr-Armenia relations and TR-Azerbaijani relations with regards to the conflict in Nagarno-Karabakh. I think that the foreign relations section cover pretty much every area possible that there are :) Baristarim 11:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I made a (slight) mod to the sentence: "Although most scholars ... Rep of Turkey believes ... ". Hope everyone can agree on that. yandman 20:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not all country articles have the same type of map: see Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine etc. The new map style was introduced by Wikiproject Countries a few months ago, with many countries recently switching back to the old green maps, and there are still an ongoing discussion about this on the projects talk page. And with all due respect, the correct place for your question is Talk:Turkey, if you have anything of relation to the FA candidacy please share that with the rest of us. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) In fact, some other articles also use that map. As far as I know, the actual map was drawn later after the older maps, so that's why it looks different. The timeline is also common practice, it is there to simply give a background of the country and the main events that led to its establishment as a modern country. See Canada and India for example. I am not too sure if taking them out would be a good thing. But I will try to make some more research and look into other country articles. Baristarim 19:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Working to address the concerns on the FAC is excluded from the stability criteria. Otherwise how can the edits be done? Vandal sockpuppet attacks are also excluded from the stability criteria, a user vandalized the page using four sockpuppets, and all of them were banned. Any article can be subject to such attacks. It is not a question of good faith. I reverted the vandal's edits, then later did the merge under foreign relations section. In my latest revert, I said that I was going to take a look at it very soon, just like I had done here [45]. I do not have enough time on New Year's to deal with this! However, considering the urgency I took a look at it, the latest version cut down one sentence, and it looks better. That's my version. Let me know if it is removed. Baristarim 20:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I looked up the history I saw you were the most recent person to remove the paragraph and was surprised to say the least. I'll take back my comment you are acting in bad faith, but I think I will remain neutral on whether this should become an FA. I have a bad feeling it will remain a target for edit wars well into the future. Regards, --Jayzel 21:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, however I left an edit summary where I said that I was going to take a look at it soon. I know exactly what you mean about future vandalism. I also left a note at fedayee's talk page. As far as I am concerned, I have no more modifications to the article, I really would like to move on - I spent nearly one month on that article. I was going to do some work on the exec of Saddam, but not so fast apparently :) So if someone reverts, please let me know. I had removed the anon's delete and the addition of a lonely source [46] while work was in progress to address the FAC's concerns. Personally, I also thought the inclusion in the history section looked out of place. However I tried to revert edits that were not in line with talks at FAC or talk page [47]. I was not happy with the middle sentence in the foreign relations bit where it dwelled too much on details of what happened when, so I took it out as well. As far as I am concerned, people can follow the wikilinks and learn more about the subject there. If people want to work on those articles, that's where they should be working. I am aware that the article might be some attract-fly, but the latest version is the most concise and matter-of-fact way of putting it IMO. Any modifications that can be done are very minor wordings, however that also holds true for the rest of the article - any section or article can be reworded better as a general rule. As I said, keep the article on your watchlist, let me know if any wholesale deletes have taken place - now or in the future. Cheers Baristarim 22:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, it would surprise if the article wasn't subject to all sorts of edits in the future - and not just for a particular section. I had to wage a war against other sockpuppeteers who insisted on removing the literacy figures, those that tried to remove Orhan Pamuk's picture etc. You would be surprised actually :) However, the article is there to give an overview of the country, and it will be normal that many people will have different opinions about a country such as Turkey. As is, the article covers everything there is to know about the country + all conflicts there are, and they are all cited. I cannot see it getting any better. Baristarim 22:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns addressed. Will try to keep an eye on vandals and anons in the future.Baristarim 23:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all. A vandal had been attacking the page for the last 36 hours, I cannot do anything about that. Four IDs were banned for being the sockpuppets of one user. Only other changes are those that were done to address the concerns in the talk page. I also reverted that user's edits [48] and [49]. I fixed them both under foreign relations section last night [50]. The problem is, I cannot be everywhere at the same time on this holiday season! Baristarim 20:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You guys can keep an eye on the article as well you know. I didn't create the article, I just worked on it. Look at the actual version and let me know if someone tries to revert it. And also pls take a look at the article's history closely, there is no bad faith. cheers! Baristarim 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns addressed. Will try to keep an eye on vandals and anons in the future.Baristarim 23:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no problems. I raised some issues with many editors and some admins so that they keep an eye on the article as well. Hopefully as a country article it will be more stable, even though certain users, particularly newcomers, tend to expect a newscast about the country :) Until three months ago, nearly every major event concerning the country got included. Prime Minister said this, said that, an airplane was hijacked etc... Hopefully the "overview" rule will not be disturbed, but generally a wide range of editors keep an eye and contribute to the article, so that's always a plus. That's why most sources are impartial as a rule; only Turkish sources are for some economic figures as released by the Turkish government + geographical information and a couple of general references. And nearly all of the news sources are from the BBC, simply because it is very reliable and does a good job of keeping neutrality for a wide range of subjects. For the moment the article is only getting the usual anon sandbox/vandal occasionally. Thanks though! cheers Baristarim 05:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree on the BBC; in fact, it was long one of the big problems with Venezuela/Chávez reporting, so take care to diversify sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of good in this article, so let's complete the job ... Tony 12:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will do them in a couple of hours. These should be easy to fix, but I have to go out at the moment, so I will look at them in a couple of hours. Thanks for the comments! Baristarim 12:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

Battle of Edson's Ridge[edit]

Respectfully submit this article on a World War II battle for featured article consideration. Self-nomination with helpful assistance from other editors, particularly ERcheck and Looper5920. Cla68 06:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the constructive feedback. The article was extensively copyedited, but the intro may have been overlooked. I responded to each point below: Cla68 00:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

DNA[edit]

DNA is central to modern biology and is arguably the most famous chemical in biochemistry. This article deals with DNA as a molecule, particularly its structure and interactions. It also introduces some of the processes in which DNA is involved in the cell. Self-nomination. The article is 69 kb in total size with 39 kb total readable prose. It has recently been peer-reviewed and is currently a Good article. TimVickers 22:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that this is an FFA, so that it will be correctly archived at WP:FFA, and contain a complete record on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Typos fixed, bolding removed, links changed into references, external links tidied up, a period added to an image caption. The use of "Here" is to join two sentences together, not to refer to a caption. It is used when the first sentence names a topic and the second one provides details. Expanded DNA ligase section and added refs. TimVickers 23:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now, for the nit-picks :) In the "Topoisomerases and helicases" section, there are two sentences which seem redundant to me (not in meaning, but in style). The "Forensics" section is not quite up to the rest of the article; it could use some fleshing up. That's all I can think of now. Fvasconcellos 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did I change the sentence you thought redundant, or was it another? Forensics section re-arranged a little. TimVickers 00:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was it — thanks, that was quick! No objections now, sorry :) Fvasconcellos 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The history section used to take up half the article, all that content was moved to the History of molecular biology daughter article. TimVickers 16:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good work. TimVickers 19:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added. TimVickers 21:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added general textbook sources to the beginning of the section with these paragraphs as per Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines for uncontroversial knowledge. If there are any specific statements you feel need additional referencing, please add fact tags and I will find citations. TimVickers 19:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder that Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines is only a guideline established by some WikiProjects, whose members objected to the citation requirements asked of good articles. WP:V is policy; a cite should be provided when one is requested. The "guideline" might be useful for internal ranking of articles that don't intend to approach WP:GAC or WP:FAC, but featured articles should conform to WP:V policy. (Which, as I read Tim's response, he is saying he will do, so just clarifying this guideline for the record.)SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added additional references to everything I could think might need one. Now 114 unique references. TimVickers 04:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. A couple of more things. First, per manual of style, the article is supposed to start with a right-aligned image. The first image, which is located at the end of the lede, could fit that role. Next, references to images in prose should be avoided. Phrases in parenthesis should be avoided, as well. Everything else looks good, so I'll support, provided those issues are dealt with. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image moved. I can find no reference in the style guide on not referring to images, and parentheses are occasionally useful. If there are any sentences you find unclear due to parentheses, please list them here and I will see if they can be clarified. TimVickers 05:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have problems with parentheses because they don't seem to be terribly professional. Most of the time, they could easily be replaced with a comma. Phrases in parentheses act as if they aren't important, but if they aren't important then why are they in the article? For refering to images, IMO that fails criterion 1a (compelling or brilliant prose). Additionally, what about the percentage of users who have images turned off or blind people, and what about Wikipedia mirrors that don't include the images? Hurricanehink (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed five parenthetical statements, but others remain as I feel these are the best grammatical option in these sentences. As noted above, purely stylistic objections that are not defined in the manual of style are not actionable. As to images, if somebody is blind I don't think a reference to a image is going to confuse them at all, they know they can't see images. I feel that in this article, where the structure of a molecule is a primary topic, text references to figures that display this structure add considerably to the clarity of the text. If you feel this approach to discussing structures fails criterion 1A, then so be it. In my opinion it does not. TimVickers 17:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that's fine, then. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you use in a grammar duel? n-rules at twenty paces? :) Seriously, I understand your concern, but I happen not to agree. TimVickers 17:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok. It's just a fairly minor thing in a good article. I still support it. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a relief! Thanks. TimVickers 18:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was vandalism. Removed. TimVickers 04:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody. The article is now featured. Thank you all for your comments and suggestions. TimVickers 22:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

Diplodocus[edit]

I am nominating this article which has been worked on for some time now by a team of people, most of whom have worked on some other successful FA candidates like Stegosaurus. I feel it satisfies the criteria for FA status - it is impartial, comprehensive without being overly inclusive and has a good lead similar in format to otgher successful dinosaur FAs. Cas Liber 04:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I have removed the spaces (well spotted!) and some sentences with parentheses. The ones with parentheses left I feel would be too confusing if changed to commas. If you can still see any others which could be changed please let me know) cheers Cas Liber 20:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(I have combined a couple of stubby paras, however this is tricky as there is a load of succinct info which doesn't lend itself easily to para combining. Will ruminate on this one)Cas Liber 20:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry misread the criteria. Ref [43] comes after the comma, not before. There is a space for ref [5][43], [18] in the imagebox and [23]. M3tal H3ad 02:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(OK, got 'em all) Cas Liber 03:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Umm Daniel, the paragraphs are no stubbier than the Red Panda article you've just nominated above. However, being constructive, I am having trouble combining others - can you let me know which ones you think can be combined?) cheers Cas Liber 21:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
This argument has been identified by one or more editors as constituting an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery. Please resolve this by clarifying the basis for the objection in canonical policy. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING may be met with additional mockery and scorn. —ExplorerCDT 21:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - thanks for spotting that. I have taken out the first 'double beam' as it is explained fully a few lines further. As it stands it is now like Stegosaurus, another FA. It is tricky sometimes when there are a few more bits of info describing the etymology to put it straight away. In Velociraptor and Tyrannosaurus the meaning is immediately obvious once given, while Stegosaurus and Diplodocus require a little explanation. cheers Cas Liber 21:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

Proteasome[edit]

This A-class article was the Molecular and Cellular Biology collaboration from November. The current text was largely written by me, with helpful edits and image contributions from Splette and Willow. It's had an MCB peer review here and a less active main peer review here. Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Opabinia regalis 06:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first paragraph in the "Unfolding and translocation" section is muddled. Could these steps be put in chronological order?
Tried to clarify. It's hard to be chronological, since it's not known whether deubiquitination (necessarily) precedes substrate unfolding, and there's still debate over which step(s) require ATP hydrolysis vs just binding. Opabinia regalis 03:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand this sentence ''The general mechanism for globular protein unfolding itself is not well characterized; however, it is not entirely independent of the amino acid sequence."
Reworded. The unfolding mechanism of the proteasome has to work on any protein that might need degrading, but some substrates are 'better' than others. Opabinia regalis 03:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the references lack PMIDs
Fixed. Ugh, that's boring. Opabinia regalis 03:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If any refs still lack PMIDs or formatting, I'll gladly help—I love gnome work. Fvasconcellos 21:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think I got them all - I really should start remembering to put them in in the first place. But if you really like this stuff, then you just might be my new favorite editor...no, we need you to keep making nice SVG chemical structures! Opabinia regalis 05:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did. Thank you! :) Don't worry, I'll not get sidetracked from my goal of universal vector graphics domination... I've not even joined the Project so as not to get in over my head! Fvasconcellos 15:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, overall extremely good. TimVickers 00:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions! (Also, excellent prose fixes.) Opabinia regalis 03:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my concerns have been addressed. A very good article. TimVickers 04:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Lead condensed to three paragraphs. TimVickers 17:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim. I added back the definition of protease, since it's a good bet that some readers won't know the term. Opabinia regalis 01:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see the reference, click on the link. It is that simple. TimVickers 16:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very good, but I think you might ask the League of Copy-editors to do a quick once-over when everything else is fixed. Fresh eyes required, and it won't take them long. Tony 11:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last three minor things fixed, couple of later wording failures fixed; I'll give the copyeditors a ring. Opabinia regalis 03:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware[edit]

Third in the six to nine-part Hurricane Isabel series, and the second going for FAC. I think it certainly meets FA standards, extremely detailed and well-referenced. CrazyC83 02:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

Immune system[edit]

This is a self-nomination. This article is a summary of the important topics in relation to the immune system. It has numerous daughter articles, but I feel that it can clearly stand on it's own as a useful introduction to the topic, and fulfills the FAC criteria. The article was peer reviewed in November (spawning the daughter spin-off and other useful changes). At just over 30kb (total), I feel that the information is accessible to nearly all knowledge levels, with the daughter articles able to provide substantially more detail.--DO11.10 01:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all of the above objections have been fixed: I unbolded almost everything, added a few external links, changed the headings a bit, and the intro has been lengthened (thanks Tim).--DO11.10 20:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the prose, this fails 1(a) of WP:WIAFA (and unfortunately, needs a lot more work). Place your cursor over underlined text to see my comments:
Andy, thanks for your great suggestions, they made perfect sense to me! Commas and semi-colons are honestly things that just baffle me. I think that we are getting along well fixing some of these issues. If you happen to see anything else? Thanks againDO11.10 02:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copy-editing this as I go along, but there are some things that should be checked.

:*Is keratin really acidic?

Dunno about the ketatin yet but here is what Janeway 5 says: "Related antimicrobial peptides, the (beta)-defensins, are made by other epithelia, primarily in the skin and respiratory tract" Ref#4

:*Are there multiple antibacterial enzymes in saliva/tears, or is it just lysozyme?

"Lysozyme and phospholipase found in tears, saliva and nasal secretions can breakdown the cell wall of bacteria and destabilize bacterial membranes." and "Fatty acids in sweat inhibit the growth of bacteria" Somehow those got lost??Ref#2
Reworded to change "Enzymes" to "Lysozyme and Phospholipase A"

:*Why would spermidine and zinc repel pathogens?

Most refs I could find juts say that they are "anti-bacterial" also spermine needs to be added, and it may be a "zinc-rich antibacterial polypeptide". For example: "Natural host defenses that prevent prostatitis are the flushing of the prostatic urethra by emptying the bladder, ejaculation, and the presence of a zinc-rich antibacterial polypeptide that has antibacterial effects against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. The prostate has the highest level of zinc concentration of any organ. Healthy men have very high zinc levels, whereas men with CBP have low prostatic zinc levels and normal serum zinc levels. Spermine and spermidine also are natural host defenses in prostatic fluid. These impart the characteristic odor on ejaculate, and their antibacterial activity is directed mainly at gram-positive bacteria.[51]
Changed to zinc and peptides, added refs. TimVickers 04:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:*Do antibiotics cause yeast infections in the gut?

No, yeast infections in the vagina... my intention here was to illustrate that when commensal bacteria are killed (by antibiotics), other, potentially pathogenic organisms gain an opportunity to infect the host.
Reworded to remove confusion.

:*How do cytokines create a physical barrier against infection?

I think that should be "chemical" barrier, the swelling and other cells called in provide the physical barrier and are induced by the cytokines.
This needs to be clarified.

:*Immunoglobulins and IgG are introduced as terms without defining or linking. :*Immunoglobulins are not a common membrane component of cells. :*Complement has little role in the defence against intracellular pathogens.

True, so do most innate components, I don't know how to include this though.
Reworded, so it isn't implied that it is.

:*How does complement "rids the body of neutralized antigen-antibody complexes"? :*Phagocytosis is still very important for nutrient uptake (transferrin, cholesterol)

True, perhaps "but this role has largely been superseded by its function as a defence mechanism." thoughts?
If phagocytosis is essential for cell survival, it is arguably more important than immune function. I'd recommend just removing this.

:*You need to more clearly define what you men by "natural state" when talking about antigens. :*Infectious disease is still one of the top causes of death worldwide, with about six million people being killed by HIV/TB/malaria every year.

Good change there!!

:*HIV is most common in non-developed countries, but are congenital immunodeficiencies actually more common in developed countries?

Ah, I see... I meant more common than malnutrition as a cause.

TimVickers 01:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will check out some of the others, and post here. Thanks for all of your help!!--DO11.10 02:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to recurring.
Changed to reterovirus
Sentence re-written
I can't do elegance, but I think I've made it simpler. TimVickers 17:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can it more recast to be elegant? Tony 13:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

Immune system has been significantly revamped and rewritten by DO11.10 (talk · contribs), TimVickers (talk · contribs), Ciar (talk · contribs) and WillowW (talk · contribs) – warrants a fresh look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Corrections made. TimVickers 21:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added a better definition. Thank you. TimVickers 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to do this. Gnome help needed!
Link deleted
Changed to "produced by cytokines..."
Well it is an remarkably effective structure! TimVickers 17:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the Portuguese WP (already FA there)
O sistema imunitário (também conhecido como sistema imunológico) compreende todos os mecanismos pelos quais um organismo multicelular se defende de invasores internos, como bactérias, vírus ou parasitas.
The immune system comprises all mechanisms through which an organism defends itself against invaders, such as bacteria, viruses or parasites. (Quick adaptation by yours truly)
Thoughts? Fvasconcellos 15:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to The immune system is a mechanism that protects an organism from infection by identifying and then killing pathogens. TimVickers 17:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sorry for the nitpick. Fvasconcellos 17:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you think this article needs to summarise the history of immunology? I'm aware that this would be the first article on a body system to reach featured status, so we have nothing to compare it with. However, I note that while circulatory system has a history section, nervous system, gastrointestinal tract, endocrine system, muscular system, respiratory system, human skeleton and urinary system do not. The current immune system article is 68kb, so we do have a little space to expand. On balance I think this is an excellent suggestion, but should be implemented in summary style and direct the reader to the more in-depth coverage on the immunology page, especially for modern research. TimVickers 04:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with TimVickers on the history, it seems a little unnecessary for this article. As a compromise, a link to the history of immunology article could be added to the see also section. As for the adaptive immunity in pregnancy, this is already mentioned in the passive memory section of adaptive immunity in this article. Maybe changing in utero to during pregnancy might make this more obvious. Ciar 04:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few key things that the article really should cover - I think its a serious oversight that the article doesn't discuss immunology at all; the immune system is a bit different from the other systems since it has an entire field of study devoted to it. On the necessity of a historical overview- I think that the people that made important contributions to understanding of any topic should be mentioned in a FA - I had something like the history section in the protein article in mind. Maybe the "manipulation in medicine" section could be worked into the immunology overview. There are some sections in the current version that could be trimmed, like tumor immunology (oddly specific when other areas are given brief coverage) and disorders of human immunity; there are issues of TOC bloat here too. After going over the article again, the ordering of the sections seems kind of off too, why is physiological regulation the last topic discussed - surely its more important to a basic understanding of the immune system than "other mechanisms of host defence"; tacked on at the end there it seems like a late addition, and it is not one of the better written sections.--Peta 04:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really true that Immunology is different from Cardiology, neurobiology etc. However, I do think that a short section summarising the early history of this subject and directing the reader to a more detailed article could be useful. However, to discuss how something is regulated, it is necessary to first describe what is being regulated. Therefore the only logical place to describe regulatory mechanisms is at the end of the descriptive section. I see though that physiological regulation does belong before either medial or pathogenic regulation, so I moved the section upwards. TOC bloat fixed by merging the tumor immunology subsections. TimVickers 05:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To address the concerns above, a small section on the history of immunolgy has been added, with several of the "highlights" noted, and the term "in utero" has been changed to "during pregnancy" in the section on Passive memory so that the point becomes more obvious.--DO11.10 01:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also sentence on immunology as a science added to lead. TimVickers 01:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

Regulamentul Organic[edit]

A very well-structured and well-referenced article about a rather little-known topic. The article is also well-written and rich in content, including images, and thus provides a very comprehensive overview of the topic. I think this is ready for FA status. Ronline ✉ 08:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Red links are actually a problem for FA only here:
Main articles: 1848 Moldavian revolution, 1848 Wallachian revolution
We have here a link to two articles not yet existing, and which are presented as the "main articles". This gives a sense of incompleteness in the whole effort done here. Apart from that, the work is really exellent, and the user who did a great deal of this job is Dahn, who deserves our congratulations.--Yannismarou 17:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One or two red links won't stop me supporting, but I'd prefer to see the overwhelming majority blue for a Support. This is a personal preference though and shouldn't subtract from the excellent work Dahn has put in. - Francis Tyers · 17:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but I also want to know by Dahn if he regards the current article as being in its final form or if he intends to initiate further improvements, such as the creation of the two red links I mentioned above.--Yannismarou 17:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm helping out on the redlinks, just translated Albina Românească. - Francis Tyers · 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Done another few Proclamation of Islaz, and Akkerman Convention among them. - Francis Tyers · 12:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Presenting an article as if it employed summary style via Main templates is going to be a non-starter for me - since the article doesn't use Summary style, those templates should be removed, simply linking the future articles somewhere into the text. I don't have a problem with red-links - I do have a problem with the incorrect use of Summary style and the Main template. Sandy (Talk) 21:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases these could be changed to ((seealso)) from ((main)). - Francis Tyers · 08:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am resonsible for that format, and it was not at all my intention to indicate that. In the future, that is to be the solution for format, and I thought there was nothing wrong with burning some stages (better do things right the first time than to sit around hunting down little omissions later). I don't see this as incorrect use of the Summary Style, since all roads are going to lead to the same point - this will become obvious the moment articles are created (<me being a jerk>is the indication here that I should up and create those articles as well, say, tomorrow?</me being a jerk>) Dahn 23:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Sandy says is that at this particular moment that the nomination appeared here this is a wrong use of summary style, and I agree. Of course, it is clear that your intention is to fix this deficiency in the future.--Yannismarou 08:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please fix this soon or I will be a Strong object. Have a look at WP:SS and WP:GTL for an explanation of the use of the main template - it is being used wrongly, implying that summary style is used and that this article is a summary of a non-existing (larger, more comprehensive) article. Please fix - if you intend to write those articles in the future, the way to fix it is to refer to them inline, in the body of the text, by linking them in to the article. Sandy (Talk) 16:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is having them as ((seealso)) ok? - Francis Tyers · 16:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be strange, but I wouldn't strongly object. The templates all imply that the article has been written and provides further information for summarizing, whereas a red wikilink is "normal". Sandy (Talk) 18:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The red links are not an obstacle for FA status. Actually, many users (like Yomangani) regard them as a + for a FA! Only the two links I mentioned above could be regarded as an "obstacle", because they are presented as "main articles". But a FA nomination can last for more than a month if necessary, and in the meantime I think you could fix these problem or you could remove this particular phrase with the main articles links until you create them. Of course, during the FAC other suggestions may be voiced, which you should deal with. In any case, it is up to you to decide what is the best for the article, since you are its main editor. If you decide not to vote in favor of this nomination, I will not support either.--Yannismarou 18:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for the suggestions, I'll consider both and come up with a solution within a month. Btw, don't let my actions serve as an example in this case - I don't plan to vote on an article I have contributed so much to (it would be immodest, like voting for your own adminship), but, in case you think it is worth an FA by the end of the month, please do so. And thank you all (TSO1D included); let's not forget Bogdan, who furnished most of the pictures. Dahn 23:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main (and basically only!) problem with this great and thoroughly worked article is the wrong use of summary style with the two red links, which should be fixed per Sandy's suggestions, before this FAC is closed.
  • Minor stylistic: Per MoS it is inadvisable to link sigle years.--Yannismarou 08:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm! This is indeed obscure, but I believe he means Moldavia and Wallachia.--Yannismarou 14:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's all clarified in the introductory paragraph - I'm afraid I couldn't be more explicit without becoming repetitive. Dahn 16:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather than say "The two countries", you could explicitly say "Moldavia and Wallachia". That wouldn't be redundant, and might be clearer. - Jmabel | Talk 21:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But references to both are present in the first paragraph, after which this immediately follows, and which I am to presume we have in there for people to read. Plus, the phrase itself ends with the word "Wallachians". Wouldn't it hurt the text to break down as simple and as essential a concept as this? After all, if, with all the repetitions already in there and with all the wikipedia system of links, people cannot figure out where the article takes place, there is really no article that could help them. Dahn 22:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but there's a significant break between the lead and the sentence in question. I was confused because a) the lead does not make it clear that Moldavia and Wallachia were independent countries at the time b) there's a reference to the Russo-Turkish War of 1710-1711, leading me to believe that perhaps the "two countries" referred to Russia and Turkey. Replacing "two countries" with "Moldavia and Wallachia" wouldn't introduce any redundancy at all, in my view. There would be three sentences in between the two instances, and a clear section break. Obviously it's not a big deal; just saying that it might clear up some confusion. Gzkn 01:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed that to "See also" instead of "Main article". Is it OK now? Ronline ✉ 02:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Nuland 1988, p. 4
  2. ^ SA 2006 election results and outcomes, State Electoral Office, 2006
  3. ^ Election results: House of Assembly 1890-2002 Page 8, State Electoral Office, 2006
  4. ^ Can Liberals heal rifts?, Stateline SA, 2006
More