- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Nikkimaria 16:47, 17 April 2011 [7].
- Nominator(s): Prime Blue (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After a complete overhaul in November and regular refinements since then (including copy-edits by Geoff B), I am confident that the article now fulfills all the FA criteria – so I'm giving it a shot with the nomination. The GA review mentioned that actual reviewer names rather than publications are encouraged for the reception section, though I felt that, with the immense amount of reviews referenced in prose, including the names would make the section more confusing and difficult to read than need be – so I'll leave it as is at the moment and hope it will not cause any problems. Anyway, thanks in advance for your reviews. Prime Blue (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- "The characters' real-time polygonal models are superimposed over pre-rendered still images" - what on earth does that mean? Needs to be explained in article text
- Per Wikipedia:Music_samples, fair-use music clips "should not exceed 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter". Assuming the listed time of 1:50 (110 seconds) for the original song is correct, the clip you use is too long. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added "movable" to better explain the difference between the models and the still images. Replaced sound sample with shorter version. Prime Blue (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tending to oppose The reception section looks excessive; surely 3 paragraphs is enough to summarise everything said about the game? And that review-infobox! The legacy section, usually meant for a retrospective look at the influence and importance of a game/film/album, is strangely a detailed discussion of the RE2 storyline continued in other games.—indopug (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think this is an actionable opposition. Three paragraphs of the reception section cover the most important positive and negative aspects of the game as criticized by major review outlets, with another paragraph addressing the reception of ports. Two additional paragraphs are focused entirely on the notability of the game, showing its commercial success and how important the game is in comparison to other titles. Altogether, this is the standard length for featured video game articles that received a comparable amount of critical reviews (such as the recently promoted Tales of Monkey Island). You have to be more specific about what you think is wrong with the infobox. The legacy section is required to fulfill the comprehensiveness criterion of the FAC, and shows the title's impact on the continuation of the game series and its storyline, as well as the company's future business decisions.
- If you do not agree with something in particular, please mention the passage in question. I am open to criticism. Prime Blue (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Having reread the legacy section, I think your problem with it might have been the plot summary of the second drama album, which I also found to be too extensive in retrospect. I cut it down to the bare essentials. Prime Blue (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I agree with Prime Blue that the Reception section is not excessive. Its a seminal title that received a significant amount of coverage; why skimp? It's not like the section's a chaotically-structured, 15-paragraph monstrosity or anything. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The dab link is in the video game infobox, I requested it to be delinked in the template code. Prime Blue (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: The article is very comprehensive, and the prose is in good shape. Here are the issues that stood out to me.
- Media
- The number of non-free media in the article seems kind of excessive, but the commentary provides strong support for them. I'd say the weakest one is File:Resident Evil 1.5.png because of similarities to the main gameplay image.
- Re: I oriented myself on comparable featured articles (Tales of Monkey Island, Chrono Trigger etc.) and tried to make the non-free use rationales as strong as possible – if you insist on removing the 1.5 image, I will do so, though I really think with the level of commentary provided on the version, it improves the readers' understanding as to what the version was like and why it was canceled.
- For consistency, I think File:Resident Evil 2 Raccoon City.ogg should use
{{Non-free use rationale}} like the other files.
- Maybe consider adding File:PSX-DualShock.png to the "Re-releases and ports" section. File:N64-Expansion-Pak.jpg might be another idea, but I think the dual shock would be better
- Structure and prose
- "Resident Evil 1.5" and "Biohazard 2" should probably be in boldface since they are alternate names and likely search terms.
- I think the plot goes into a bit too much detail and could be trimmed.
- Re: Usual word limit for plot summaries is 700 words (with even some leniency applied for more extensive works, such as RPGs or graphic adventures). Current plot section is at 682 words, even though it also describes the setting of the game. I cut unimportant characters and scenes as well as the alternate story paths, while still maintaining the most important subplots not to confuse people who did not play the game.
- Maybe split "Development" into two subsections to break up the large amount of text. "Resident Evil 1.5" and "Redesign" or something similar. Your call.
- Reception
- I originally thought the same thing others said about the "Reception" section, but it was a quicker read than I anticipated. However, I think some consolidating would be good still. Some of the comments are slight variations of each other and are just too similar in my opinion.
- Re: As far as I can see, everything included in the section addresses separate points of criticism (that's what I initially set out to do). The only thing I'd qualify as remotely overlapping are the two sentences about the writing, and I still wouldn't consider that unduly detailed or extensive.
- The last big paragraph wasn't a quick read though. I think you could split it in two. The Game.com portion is already separate, so I would split it at the Dreamcast version instead of the Game.com version.
- The comments here should be attributed to the author. For example, Ryan Mac Donald of GameSpot or Computer and Video Games' Paul Mallinson. This may bulk up the section, which is even more reason to trim and consolidate.
- Re: Done. Though I highly suggest this to be added to the guidelines if people continue to point it out as mandatory at an FA nomination – so far, it isn't mentioned anywhere and can become a major nuisance.
- Review table
- Excluding the aggregates, scores from fourteen publications in the review table is too many. Trim it to at least half that.
- I don't it is quickly apparent what the abbreviations are, especially to non-gamers. I suggest including the abbreviations in the first instance of the console name in the prose. For example, Dual Shock Ver. (DSV) and Dreamcast (DC).
- Re: Done. Added the abbreviations to the rereleases and ports section as they do not corrupt the flow of the prose there (they seem unfitting for the lead).
- I assume GCN is the Nintendo GameCube. Why isn't it NGC or just GC?
- Re: GCN is the abbreviation for Nintendo GameCube normally used on Wikipedia (also the official one, NGC is Japanese-only).
- Maybe rename "Legacy" to "Related media". Seems like a more descriptive title.
I'll take a look at the references later. The article is in good shape. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Replied in-line with "Re:". Prime Blue (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't looked over the above changes, but will probably over the weekend.
Source review - Here is my review of the sources.
- Ref 38, the press release from Capcom. Is there a link for that anywhere?
- Re: Can't find it anymore, replaced with another source.
- Ref 55 and 60 from the magazine Total!. Are the issue numbers really "11/99" and "8/99"? If so I think you can forgo that info because the citation also has the publication date.
- Re: They didn't number their issues, removed.
- Ref 65, 68, 69, 71, 72, and 132 from VGMDB. Is this a reliable source? If not, then you should remove the link. The remaining information is sufficient for citation purposes.
- Re: As stated in the GA review, the album booklets itself are cited – the VGMdb links were just there for easier verification as they provide booklet scans.
- Ref 88 from Famitsu. Similar to the above ones. Is Geimin reliable?
- Re: See below.
- Ref 90 also from Famitsu. I don't believe that fs.finalfantasytr.com is reliable. Do you have the issue info?
- Re: Included as previous FAs had no problems with Famitsu score archives (e.g. The World Ends with You, Killer7), don't consider this contentious information.
- Ref 108 from Official UK PlayStation Magazine. Do you have the feature title?
- Re: No, that was added by another editor.
- (Guyinblack25 talk 20:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Prime Blue (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional support. I vaguely remember this game from when I was younger, so I'll go ahead and review it. I'll be giving these comments as I read through the article.
- "The second installment in the Resident Evil series, its story takes place two months after the events of the first game and is set in Raccoon City, a Midwestern mountain community whose residents have been turned into zombies by the T-virus, a biological weapon developed by the pharmaceutical company Umbrella." - way too long for a sentence in the lede
- I notice there are several links that are redirects. You might want to look through them again to make sure they go where you want them to.
- Re: Everything leads to where it should (redirects covered by WP:NOTBROKEN).
- I was getting a little lost in the plot section, particularly halfway through the second paragraph. Some things just sound rather sudden and unexpected in the plot, such as "Ada shows up again and sacrifices herself to rescue Leon, confessing that she fell in love with him". It just sounds out of the blue and... IDK, rushed? I had to stop, however, when I read this - "now mutated into a massive blob". Surely there is a more encyclopediac term than "massive blob"
- Re: Mentioned her emotions in an earlier sentence so it does not jump at readers (though with the word limit, it is kind of hard to accurately portray the buildup of character-driven mystery thriller plots), also explained the pendant deal better as it might be confusing still. I think the main problem with the second point was "massive", but reworded the rest as well to give a better idea.
- One thing I'm wondering, what sort of corporation does Umbrella claim to be?
- Re: A pharmaceutical company (well, as mentioned in the article, they really are, the additional biological weapons business is done in secrecy).
- I just have to say, I really like how the plot section is sourced. Other video game articles say "the video game is the source", but I like how you show the quotes and whatnot. (nothing actionable here, just saying I like it!)
- "The development was handled by a group of about 40 to 50 people that consisted of more than half of the original game's staff" - just to make sure, you mean that the original staff would've had 80 to 100 people? I'm surprised that a sequel would have so many fewer people involved. Unless, do you mean the redesign was handled by that number of people?
- Re: Good thing you brought this up as that's not what was meant: Among those 40 to 50 people, there were half of the original game's staff, the rest being rookies. Reworded it.
- "Another 810,000 copies of the Dual Shock Ver. were shipped until March 1999" - two things. Does "were shipped" mean the same as "were sold"? And what does "until March 1999" mean? Does it mean "as of March 1999"?
- Re: At this point in time, it certainly does – but the source should mean only "shipped" rather than "sold", which is why I kept that wording. Changed "until" to "as of".
- Just a little quibble, but you use this phrase twice in the article - "though criticized for its controls, voice acting and some of its gameplay elements"
- The paragraphs in "Adaptations and Sequels" are unnecessarily long
- All in all, I think it's really good, and I'm willing to give it a conditional support. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is balanced. The lead does not include any material from the Music section. I imagine a sentence or two on this subject would fit in quite nicely with the second paragraph. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Joined a comment about the music with the redesign. Prime Blue (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone who reviewed the article and gave comments so far! :-) Prime Blue (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the Gameplay section, I think the section would be more accessible if the first sentence was relegated down to the second last in para 1. I think it'd read better to explain in plain english what the game was about before shifting to technical detail (we then have a flow of basci --> more technical info).
- Re: Done (put it at the end not to interrupt the explanation of the gameplay mechanics).
- ...
transformed into zombies... (I changed 'turned' into 'transformed') - quibble here: are they zombies or merely zombie-like creatures? As they are alive and mutated rather than dead as such?
- Re: Primary and reliable third-party sources refer to the creatures as zombies (some came back from the dead, but most were infected alive).
you are using "psychotic" to mean crazy here I hope....
- Re: Yup, basically driven crazy and acting irrationally because of the circumstances.
- ok.
Otherwise looking pretty good actually. There might be some more prose which can be massaged a little but I'm not otherwise seeing any clangers. I've only played RE4 so nice to read some background :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your copy-edits! Prime Blue (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm unconvinced by the prose quality and there are some things that ought to have been picked up on by now, such as the ordering of citations at the end of this sentence: "The minigame 'The 4th Survivor' depicts the successful G-virus retrieval mission of Hunk, one of the special agents sent by Umbrella,[26] whereas 'The To-fu Survivor' and 'Extreme Battle' are stand-alone missions that bear no relevance to the plot of the game.[28][12]" There are many similar examples throughout the article. And how exactly do you "bear relevance" anyway? Here are some examples of the kind of prose problems I see, but bear in mind that they are only examples:
- "In this version of the story, however, Umbrella had already been closed down due to their illegal experiments." Are you certain that "due to" is correct here? (Hint: it isn't.)
- Re: Changed these, but it would be helpful if you pointed out what was wrong with them, this is the first time I see a complaint about "due to". I usually keep footnotes in the order they source something in a sentence. Changed as well, but is there a MoS guideline on the order of citations?
- "A noun is 'due to', a verb is 'owing to'". Thus "Umbrella had already been closed down owing to their illegal experiments". If your footnotes aren't sourcing everything in the sentence they follow then they're in the wrong place. Malleus Fatuorum 09:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oxford Dictionaries considers the prepositional use "part of standard English" and "common in all types of literature" now, but thanks for clearing up the difference. The footnotes are sourcing everything in the sentences, I meant that they previously followed the order they source something in a sentence itself (e.g., if fact 1 is backed up by reference [2] and fact 2 is backed up by reference [1], I would source the sentence "fact 1 fact 2" with [2][1] rather than [1][2]). That's why I'm asking if the ascending numerical order is dictated by a MoS guideline, it just made more sense to me the other way around. Prime Blue (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The development team sought to retain the level of fear from the original game ...". They couldn't possibly have "retained the level of fear", as that's an emotion felt by the players, not intrinsic to the computer programme.
- Re: That was their intention and the reasoning behind the character change, as explained in the source. Whether they accomplished or even could accomplish that is a different issue.
- "... Elza Walker, a college student and motorcycle racer who came to Raccoon City to look for an acquaintance". What does that mean exactly? She was searching for someone she vaguely already knew, for whatever reason, or she was trying to make a new acquaintance?
- "The amount of polygons used in enemy models was far lower ...". Far lower than what? It should be "number of polygons" rather than "amount" anyway.
- Re: Paragraphs talk about differences between initial and final version, added a reminder.
- "In the initial stages, producer Mikami often intervened due to disagreements with Kamiya ...". Another one of those "due to"s.
- "Shortly after, however, Resident Evil 1.5 was scrapped at a development stage of 60–80 percent". Seems to be running around the houses a bit there. Does that mean it was scrapped when it was between 60 and 80 percent complete? That's a pretty wide range in any event. Didn't they know how complete it was?
- Re: Would seem so, but that's the range mentioned in the sources.
- "The old story Mikami tried to end the series with was criticized by supervisor Yoshiki Okamoto who found it to be too conclusive to allow for future installments." Needs some punctuation and preferably rewriting.
- "At a time when the team did not make any progress on rewriting the scenario, Okamoto was introduced to professional screenwriter Noboru Sugimura ..." Strange choice tense in "when the team did not make any progress". How could "when" be anything other than "at a time"?
- Re: Removed "when". Don't know what's wrong with the tense, should it be past perfect?
- "The title was shipped with a playable preview disc of the new Resident Evil 2 version, both to promote it and to apologize to the players for its belated release." The "both" is obviously redundant.
- "... the principal locations in the final build were made to look more high-flown and artistic". What does "high-flown" mean?
- "Ada is the only main character not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene because her movie model could not be finished in time." This is inherently ambiguous. It could mean that Ada is the only main character not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene, or the only one not to appear because her movie model couldn't be finished in time.
- Re: Reworded, though I don't see the ambiguity.
- Do you not see the difference between what you wrote and "Ada is the only main character not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene, because her movie model could not be finished in time"? Malleus Fatuorum 09:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, no, I honestly don't. If it only meant "Ada is the only main character not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene", then the subordinate clause would not be there. Prime Blue (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me try again. There are two possible subjects in that sentence: main characters not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene and main characters not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene because their movie models weren't completed in time. Malleus Fatuorum 14:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Guess I figured out the wrong interpretation: "Out of the main characters not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene, Ada is the only one not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene because her movie model wasn't completed in time". Prime Blue (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Prime Blue (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not involved in this nomination, but I thought I'd advise you to tone down the pedantic attitude. For example: "Are you certain that "due to" is correct here? (Hint: it isn't.)". For FAC nominators, opposition is a huge pain already; you don't need to make it worse. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disregarding the recent disruptions, I think I've addressed Malleus' individual concerns above, and he also provided additional copy-edits to the article. If you find more mistakes to be addressed by copy-edits, please point them out. Prime Blue (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The prose is certainly better than it was, but it still needs some work IMO. I'll offer a few more examples:
- "Developed with a team of about 40 to 50 people ...". Why "with a team"? Wasn't it developed by a team?
- yep. changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Meant something like "by using a team" rather than "by a team" before.
- "... Resident Evil 2 was ported to Microsoft Windows, the Nintendo 64, Dreamcast and Nintendo GameCube, and also received a modified 2.5D version for the Game.com handheld." What on Earth does "received" mean here? And what does the "also" add?
- removed "also". Not familair enough with gamer nuances to think of a better verb so will leave that to nominator. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Common expression used when games are ported to other systems, but reworded as "received" is used in the next sentence.
- "A survival horror title, the game's objective is to explore different locations while solving puzzles ...". That's not the objective of the game, that's the objective of the players.
- ok fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Each of the two playable characters is confronted with different puzzles ...". Should be "confronted by".
- I'd think "confronted with" is fine here, especially as the object (puzzle) is inanimate. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One could certainly reasonably argue that, so I'm happy to withdraw that objection. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Development on Resident Evil 2 began one month after the completion of its predecessor ...". Should be "Development of".
- yep, fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: "Development on" and "development of" are basically interchangeable.
- No, they're not. Malleus Fatuorum 14:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just judging from what I've come across in all sorts of sources, would be a big surprise if it happened to be an actual mistake creeping into respectable publications. Prime Blue (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Happens all the time. Malleus Fatuorum 16:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "... a man named John, who was later implemented into Resident Evil 2 as gun shop owner Robert Kendo." Are you sure about "implemented into"? I'm most definitely not.
- implemented --> incorporated (maybe a still better option though) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Maybe "included in ... as"?
- "Costume changes and wounds inflicted by enemies were reflected in a change of the characters' polygonal models." Reads rather awkwardly: "change of the characters' models"? What about something like "Costume changes and wounds inflicted by enemies were reflected in changes to the characters' polygonal models"?
- yeah, that's better too. done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In short, the content seems fine to me, but you need to recruit a good copyeditor. And after JimmBlackwing's outburst above that won't be me. I'm afraid that until the whole article is reworked I won't be supporting this nomination. Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really see what a statement by an uninvolved party has to do with whether or not you copyedit the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: I just hope my next nomination won't cause as much drama as this one... Either karma or bad luck. I'll ask on the project's talk page for a copyeditor, maybe someone will volunteer. Prime Blue (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have another lookover later today and see what else I can massage prose-wise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Much appreciated, thank you. Prime Blue (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on prose and readability issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "It is set in Raccoon City, a Midwestern mountain community" - midwest what? This is linked to midwest US later, but you shouldn't assume that the term is familiar to non-Americans especially
- "Depending on certain requirements" is quite vague and seems a bit awkward
- Re: Reworded. Can't go too much into details because of WP:GAMEGUIDE.
- "two months after the mansion incident" - I've never played this game, so I have absolutely no idea what this is referring to
- "for the purpose of masking the development of the new G-virus" - awkward phrasing
- "one such G-virus mutant" - does this refer to an infected human or a mutated version of the virus itself? If the former, should also make it clear that humans become bioweapons via mutation as opposed to simple infection
- Re: Reworded. "Mutating" and "monster" should be enough connectives to make readers understand what this means.
- I'm finding the storyline quite hard to follow. Is Birkin associated with Umbrella? Was Sherry infected/mutated? etc
- Re: Provided additional information. Though again, the word limit makes it hard to explain everything in great detail (especially when another user thinks the plot section is too detailed already).
- "Claire is reunited with Sherry and discovers that Birkin has already implanted her with an embryo" - "her" being Claire or Sherry?
- Citation-needed tag needs to be addressed, some citations in Reception especially should be bundled where feasible
- Re: Original research addressed with revert. I don't think the citations in the reception section currently hurt the readability of the article to warrant otherwise unconnected groups of references, so I'll hold back on that until more users consider this a problem.
- What's a "support partner"? What do you mean by "inexperienced"? What is "ported"? Article needs to be more accessible to non-gamers
- Re: Explained "support partner" and "inexperienced". I don't think there's a simple, natural and non-gamer-friendly alternative to the word "port", so I wikified it.
- Two sentences discussing "Real-world influences..." seem misplaced
- Re: That paragraph mostly talks about character and environment designs, so putting those two sentences (the real-world influences being one aspect of the design process) somewhere else would be detrimental, I think.
- "Though he was initially consulted on a trial basis, Okamoto was impressed with how easily Sugimura came up with solutions" - "he" being Okamoto or Sugimura? Check for similar issues
- WP:OVERLINK - PlayStation Network is linked twice in three sentences, common terms like piano need not be linked, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Delinked some more general terms.
Withdraw: Obvious that it won't pass. Thanks to everyone who collaborated on making this article better, it's back to peer review for now. Prime Blue (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Nikkimaria 20:39, 16 April 2011 [8].
- Nominator(s): RJH (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this as a featured article because it is an interesting topic about the nearest star system currently known to have a candidate planet. The page has undergone a peer review and is rated as a good article. I'll try to address constructive concerns, but please be specific.
Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images
- File:Eridanus_epsilon_location.png should have a retouched template
- File:System_Epsilon_Eridani.JPG should have the full photo credit from the source
- File:View_epsilon_eridani_c.png should be described in the caption as a rendering, not an illustration
- File:Ssc2008-19a.jpg - source link is broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have attempted to address your concerns. Let me know if I misunderstood. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: Perhaps these should be looked at by someone knowledgeable in this field. Certainly, to me they seem to be high quality and reliable, and there are no format issues that I can see. Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Epsilon Eridani is both smaller and less massive than the Sun - interesting - normally succinct prose would identify the "both" as redundant here...but I am torn as I do feel it ties the two attributes together nicely, so I am just
rambling commenting really....
... making it the nearest extrasolar system with a candidate exoplanet. - do we gain anything by using "candidate" over "possible", "probable" or "likely" here? The adjective always reminds me of politics....
- 'candidate' is fairly common parlance in astronomical journal articles. It seems pretty neutral to me and it doesn't require deducing odds.
- ok, i'll pay that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This observable movement implied a relatively close proximity to the Sun, - why not "This observable movement implied it was relatively close (or near/nearby) to the Sun," (just trying to use shorter words for longer ones if possible as there are alot of long words :))
- Fixed.
...excess infrared emissions... - think about where you wanna link "infrared" to and link...and delink subsequent mention in article
- Fixed.
as novae explosions - wierd use of plural in adjective - surely it'd be "as explosions of novae" or "nova explosions"?
- Fixed.
close proximity of this star - tautological - why not just "proximity" or "closeness"?
- Fixed.
m sin i - link to sine (?) or subheading within?
- Linked.
given we're talking about planetary habitability etc. I do think the age is worth mentioning in the lead.
- This is already mentioned in the third sentence.
- ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise looking pretty good....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review.—RJH (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from the nominator—As there haven't been many comments after two weeks, I'd like to request that this FAC remain on the list for a while longer to see if any other issues get captured. Thank you kindly.—RJH (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- RJH, might I suggest posting a neutrally-worded request for review at a relevant WikiProject, or on the talk page of a subject-matter expert? This would help with more specialized review, and would address Brian's post above about having sources reviewed by someone more knowledgeable in this field. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per our usual practice, I did post a notice on WikiProject Astronomical objects back on March 4th. But I think that those members who are going to comment on the article already did so during the PR and GA processes. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe a post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy would get more eyes on this? Also, even if editors have reviewed the article at GA and peer review level, there is nothing wrong with asking those editors to take another look, particularly if there have been changes since they last looked at the article. Even just a note from them saying that they support per the reviews they did earlier, and that they've looked at the changes and support the changes, would help. Carcharoth (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most participants are members of both projects. If this is to go down for lack of support, then so be it. I do appreciate the time people spent reviewing the article; that was my primary goal in the nomination. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- This article uses both British and American spellings, and should be standardized on one or the other (see WP:ENGVAR)
- Sorry but I'm not seeing what you mean. Could you be more specific please?
- For example, "kilometers" is the American spelling, whereas "millimetre" is British. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, "millimetre" is the SI spelling. This is used per the "international scope" guidelines in WP:UNITS. It's unfortunate that the US hasn't adopted it yet, but I wasn't really trying to mix US and British spelling.
- "with a lower enrichment of elements other than hydrogen or helium" - meaning not clear. Do you mean it has a lower level of other elements than the sun?
- Yes. I added clarification.
- In general, this article could be made more accessible to non-specialist readers.
- Is the problem with some of the technical wording? It's hard to know how far to take that; the links provide more information and many of the technical terms used do also include an explanation.
- Technical wording, and also what you assume the reader already knows - which in my case, unfortunately, isn't much. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I tried to add further clarification for a number of terms that seemed technical in nature, or at least obscure. Not sure how to judge my success though without further feedback. Thanks.—RJH (talk)
- Wikilinking needs work. Don't link very common terms, link potentially unfamiliar terms on first appearance, and don't relink terms in close proximity. Also, even when a term is linked it's often helpful to provide a brief explanation for the benefit of the non-specialist reader
- I cleaned up some of them, but I think most are still needed. See previous answer.
- Manual of style edits needed, particularly hyphen/dash use
- As far as I could see, the hyphen/dash use is correct. The script has been run through BrighterOrange's script. The only error I could find was due to a template, which I attempted to fix.
- Unfortunately scripts aren't equipped to pick up on nuances of usage. For example, ranges expressed with prepositions (like "from 1980–2000") should not use a dash. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you perhaps mean "Luyten 726-8"? Sorry but this is the standard Luyten catalogue nomenclature; it's not really a range. All of the numerical ranges use en-dashes. I did find one negative number that was using a dash instead of a −, so that one is fixed.—RJH (talk)
- No, I mean "from 1980–2000" and similar. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are all of the ranges used in the article: 1881–3, 1980–2000, 700–850, 35–100, 0.10–0.15, 0.5–1.0, 0.6–1.4, 35–75. Those all comply with WP:ENDASH because they all use en-dash to stand for to or through in ranges. I remain unclear about what issue you are seeing. Perhaps there is a font issue with your browser? They all look like en-dashes to me. Thanks.—RJH (talk)
- "with Nova Cygni 1975 being used as the timer" - what does this mean?
- "The following year, this star was proposed as one of the targets for Project Daedalus of the British Interplanetary Society" - what came of this proposal?
- It was only a paper study, so I tried to clarify that.
- "with its chromospheric abundance of iron estimated at 74% Solar" - phrasing
- "The spatially averaged magnetic field strength of this star" - meaning?
- Provide conversions for metrical measurements
- Do you mean to old English? Metric is the scientific standard. Please see WP:UNITS: "In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic." Otherwise, I'm not sure what you need here.
- The introduction to that section specifies that metric appears first (the primary unit), but also "Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same measurement, follow the "primary" unit with a conversion in parentheses". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just starting to look at this article, but there are some instances where conversion makes little sense, particularly if the unit is a modern one. In the infobox, for example, there is little sign of conversions, and I think that is a good thing. Requiring everything to be expressed in two units can be taken too far. Also, it could be argued that in astronomy, English-speaking countries don't use different units here. Everyone uses metric, and I think you would struggle to find star distances and radial velocities (for instance), commonly expressed in imperial units. It is far more common to express them in metric units or in units specific to the field (e.g. AU or parsec or light-year). Would it help if all the instances of units were listed somewhere to be discussed? Carcharoth (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, in astronomical articles it has just been a convention to only use Old English units in situations that the reader might directly experience. Thus, Fahrenheit is used for Earth-like atmospheric temperatures, but you would never use it to describe the surface temperature of a star; at least not in a scientific article. Anyway, if I put conversions in there, past experience has shown that they would likely get stripped out later.—RJH (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The structure of the belts and the dust disk suggests the presence of three planets in the Epsilon Eridani system" - okay, but you've previously only mentioned two potential planets, where's the third? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is also alluded to in the "Epsilon Eridani c" section. I modified it to say "more than two planets" as the actual number remains uncertain.—RJH (talk)
- Thank you for the review.—RJH (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- The names of the various researchers mentioned lack context. The reader currently needs to click through to the individual articles to see the nationality or profession of the researchers. "US astronomer Artie Hatzes" and "German celestial cartographer Johann Bayer" and "English astronomer John Flamsteed" and so on, all read better to me than just the bare names.
- Thanks. In the past I've had mixed feedback about listing the nationalities and professions of the people mentioned. I'll go ahead and add the information, but I think the jury is still out on this. Shrug.—RJH (talk)
- In the 'Properties' section you say "With a declination of −9.45°, Epsilon Eridani can be viewed from much of the Earth's surface." - this is something I was expecting to see in the lead - where on Earth can you view this star from, and roughly where in the celestial sphere it appears relative to other constellations. Not everyone will know where Eridanus is.
- Actually, I think the map at the top of the article does a decent job of showing the location. The information on viewing Eridanus should really be on the constellation article. Is that reasonable? Even the FA'd Sirius article doesn't provide a viewing "how-to" in the lead. I think it should probably be left to astronomy guides.—RJH (talk)
- Is it possible to say anything about prehistoric observations of this star? Do we know for sure whether it is one of the stars included in the ancient forms of the constellation Eridanus?
- Unfortunately not. It just isn't a prominent star visually, so it never appears to have accumulated much mythology. The star only became notable during the modern era.—RJH (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the 'Kinematics' section, I was trying to work out from the figures provided, its orbital speed in km/s around the Milky Way's centre. Does it make sense to provide that figure or not? To help people work things out, could you also say whether it is moving in the plane of the Milky Way, up or down, and whether it is moving in the same direction as the Sun around the Milky Way? I think the "(U, V, W) = (−3, +7, −20)" answers those questions, but it would be nice to unpack that and explain it a bit more. i.e. build up a mental picture of how this star is moving relative to our Sun, and how both are moving relative to the rest of the Galaxy. Also, it is common to talk about how the Sun has orbited the Milky Way x times since it formed - have any sources calculated similar things for this star?
- Ah, well, giving a net velocity through the Milky Way based on the space velocity would require a calculation by us. Unfortunately the source didn't give the maximum distance out of the Milky Way plane, nor the number of times it has traveled about the galaxy. I think these two would also require calculations on our part. While interesting, I'm not sure that including these would be appropriate without a source.—RJH (talk)
- 'Dust disk' section: "Observations with the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope" - it would be good to give the year here. Or if the year is not certain, say when the research was published (I assume 1998). If there are other areas of research that can be similarly dated, that would help give the narrative some flow.
- The two notes appear to be calculations. Are these calculations you have done or are they calculations that others have done? If the former, are the calculations allowed by WP:CALC?
- Only the second note is a calculation. For ease of confirmation, I provided full details of the calculation and a citation for the formula. For me it is a routine calculation and the numbers and results were checked during an earlier review. If you feel it necessary, I can remove it and the computed net motion. This would just mean the reader would have to deduce it from the two components of proper motion.—RJH (talk)
May have more comments later, as this is one article I'd like to take the time to read through thoroughly. Carcharoth (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Updated: 08:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I'm confused by the first paragraph of the lead (which is fundamental to describing what it is). 'Epsilon Eridani is a star' (singular) followed by 'it is the third closest star system (plural?) visible to the naked eye. Is Epsilon Eridani the name of the system or a single star? The redirected piped link goes to a list of stars not systems, perhaps that article needs clarifying? Are the system stars visible to the naked eye or just the one star?
- I'm not the nominator (I'm another reader of the article), but I too am not sure what is meant here. I can, however, see the potential for confusion when using the terms "star system", "stellar system" and "planetary system". One of the sources here uses the term 'stellar system' as in "Project Daedalus - The ranking of nearby stellar systems for exploration". The 'Properties' section says "ninth nearest stellar system". This article uses the term 'star system' several times: in the lead, in the 'Kinematics' section, and in two of the footer templates - the term is also used in one source ("The One Hundred Nearest Star Systems") and in an external link ("Astronomers discover a nearby star system just like our own Solar System"). The term 'planetary system' is used in the article and in one of the sources here ("Closest Planetary System Hosts Two Asteroid Belts"). I had always personally used "planetary system" to refer to the planets and other bodies around a star, "solar system" to refer to the Sun and its planets and other bodies, and "stellar system" to refer to other stars and their planetary systems if they have them (the logic being that you replace 'solar' with 'stellar'). Things like double stars and so on, I suppose could be star systems, but I'd never heard of them referred to this way. I suppose a lone star without planets could also be a star system, but it seems simpler to call it a star. Having said that, I doubt any star lacks other bodies orbiting it, so in some ways it makes sense that all stars are part of a star system. Indeed, our article on 'star system' says "Star system may also be used to refer to a system of a single star together with a planetary system of orbiting smaller bodies." As far as I know, Epsilon Eridani is a single-star star system. Obviously if the sources use terms in contradictory ways (I hope they aren't doing this), then you can't avoid confusion, but the article text should be consistent. Carcharoth (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How many stars are known to be in the system? 'Only 10.5 light years away', seems a long way to me! Needs to be put in relative terms. How bright is it? Magnitude or brightness does not seem to be mentioned in the lead, I see it in the infobox but that could/should be described in words somehow as a descriptive feature of what an observer might expect to find.
- Would Spectral class K2 mean that it is orange in colour? That link could be anchored directly to the K2 section of that article could it not? Seems to me that the lead needs to be generalised for the lay reader or use the technical terms plus an explanation.
- I've not looked at the rest of the article, I have experience of astronomy and would like to help more in this area of WP, assuming that I don't get my head bitten off here! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to familiarize yourself with the FAC process, the FA criteria and the types of things that reviewers look for in an article. :-) —RJH (talk)
- Question this is the third closes star, and probably among the 10 brightest ones... and there is no actual picture of it???? Nergaal (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but, given current technology, all you're going to see at present is a faint point of light. (For example.) There is a submillimetre shot of the debris disk, but I had concerns about the licensing.—RJH (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that an image that looks like a star might enhance the article. Googling around did not give me anything licensed for our use. The Hubble site has no telescopic images of this star. The more scientifically important image could be the one at http://outreach.jach.hawaii.edu/pressroom/1998_epseri mentioned by RJHall. This image shows the star and its dust cloud in the submillimeter radio spectrum. A person who might be able to release it is Jane S. Greaves of the University of St. Andrews. She has a web page at http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~jsg5/ which includes an email address. EdJohnston (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Yes, I have that article linked in the External links section.—RJH (talk)
- I cannot believe that there are no decent images of this star. Its apparent magnitude of 3.7 is gianormously bigger than the likes of Haumea (apparent ~17), which do have some pictures. Nergaal (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There were none that I could find, besides the above. Images of Haumea may be available precisely because it was so hard to find, and because they show the moons and/or the current position. It would require much higher resolution to show the planets, if any, around Epsilon Eridani, and the star doesn't move anywhere near as much. Therefore, the images of this star are less interesting.—RJH (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/atlas/atlas_profile.cfm?Star=105? Nergaal (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment since it is such a close star, I would be interested to see a separate section on proposed exploration (besides that done by telescopes). Nergaal (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm set against this idea because the same information applies to multiple nearby stars. Whatever could be said on the topic is already covered by the Interstellar travel article; or should be. This article already mentions of the star being one of several nearby candidates of interest, so I think that is more than sufficient.—RJH (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is tasty.
"Its rotation period is a relatively rapid 11.2 days, although this varies by latitude." If the rotation period varies by latitude, then how can it be definitively described by one number? Perhaps "Its average rotation period is a relatively rapid 11.2 days, although this varies by latitude." ?
"In addition, Epsilon Eridani harbors an extensive outer debris disk corresponding to the Solar System's Kuiper belt." I don't think "corresponding" is the right word here. How about ", similar" instead?
- Well, 'corresponding' means having the same relationship; 'similar' would mean the two are nearly a physical match, which they aren't.
I think the lead should mention the star's potential for supporting life, as that is one of its most interesting features.
- I added a mention in the same sentence as 'SETI', which seems appropriate.
The lead should also answer the question: "How long have we known about this star?"
- I added a sentence about when the star received its name.
--Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is likely that Epsilon Eridani is of most interest to both astronomers and the public due to the possible planets. I suggest that the lead could be revised to pull that information into the first paragraph, per don't bury the lead. Here is what would happen if the star's technical details (in pgph 1) were swapped with the planet information from pgph 2. I have highlighted in green the material that got moved forward in this draft:
- Epsilon Eridani (ε Eri, ε Eridani) is a star in the constellation Eridanus. At a distance of 10.5 light years (ly), it has an apparent magnitude of 3.73 and is the third closest of the individual stars or star systems visible to the naked eye. Its age is estimated at less than a billion years. The motion of this star along the line of sight to the Earth, known as the radial velocity, has been observed for more than twenty years. Periodic changes in this data yield evidence of a giant planet orbiting Epsilon Eridani, making it the nearest extrasolar system with a candidate exoplanet.[1] This unconfirmed object, conventionally known as Epsilon Eridani b, was formally announced in 2000 by a team of astronomers led by Artie Hatzes.[1] Current data indicate that this planet orbits with a period of about 7 years at a mean separation of 3.4 astronomical units (AU), corresponding to 505 million kilometers.[2] However, the existence of the proposed planet is not universally accepted because the radial velocity data contain a high level of background noise from the star's magnetic activity.[3]
- Because of its youth, Epsilon Eridani has a higher level of magnetic activity than the Sun, with a stellar wind 30 times as strong. Its rotation period is a relatively rapid 11.2 days at the equator, although this varies by latitude. Epsilon Eridani is both smaller and less massive than the Sun, with a lower enrichment of elements other than hydrogen or helium compared to the Sun.[4] Astronomers categorize it as a main-sequence star of spectral class K2, which means the energy being generated at the core through nuclear fusion of hydrogen is emitted from the surface at a temperature of about 5,000 K, giving the star an orange hue.
If this were done, some reorganization should be attempted as well. In our article on the possible planet Epsilon Eridani c, the star is called an orange dwarf. Is that correct? The star is not called an orange dwarf here. I suggest that 'conventionally known as Epsilon Eridani b' should drop the 'conventionally', which adds no information. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... From my perspective, putting information about the primary topic of the article second would would be burying the lead.
- I understand the natural enthusiasm about planetary systems and possibility of extraterrestrial life, but really the article is about the star and that should be presented first. If reviewers are enthusiastic about the topic of extraterrestrial life, then I would recommend that they try to bring that article up to FA standard rather than seeking to use this article as a promotional page. :-)
- The use of "orange dwarf" is rare and is not proper astronomical parlance. It is better to call it a K-dwarf, a K-type dwarf, a K-type main-sequence star, &c. The orange hue is mentioned at the end of the first paragraph, where it is attributed to the temperature. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with comments following. Caveat: I'm a planetary person rather than stellar, and I'm not an exoplanet specialist. I would suggest asking User:Mike_Peel to take a look; he does galactic, but he might be aware of some other folk who work on stars who could look it over.
Lead Structure is good.
- "Because of its youth, Epsilon Eridani has a higher level of magnetic activity than the Sun, with a stellar wind 30 times as strong." Is a comparison to the Sun valid for a K2? Could just say its activity is 30 times higher than the Sun at present.
- I changed it to say "the modern Sun".
- Probably leave the rotation period and its latitude variation to the body text, where it can have a fuller explanation.
- "has been observed for more than twenty years." If that does make it one of the longest-observed stars, mention that as an interesting point.
- This may be difficult to determine and properly reference. To me it only seems interesting because it spans multiple orbits of the candidate planet, presumably reducing the error margin.
- "outer debris disk corresponding to the Solar System's Kuiper belt" While this statement is correct, could probably just say "of remnant planetesimals from the system's formation" to keep it more general for the lead.
- Worth mentioning its origin in an open cluster? ie. it began life in an open cluster and is now part of the UM Moving Group.
Observation history
- Break out the debris discovery into a subsection, since SETI is also sectioned.
- Aggressively trim down the SETI material. eg. Habitable Planets for Man could be much shorter. This section is overly long and needs to be more succinct: eg. discuss that the star has been monitored by SETI searches in radio at 21-cm and in microwaves. Less telescope detail.
- I did some trimming, but I'm reluctant to make further cuts because of past interest by other editors.
Properties
- Intrigued that its metallicity is < solar if it's younger than the Sun. Any comment? Also, how does its metallicity compare to the other members of its Moving Group? No chemical studies made?
- Yes I also found that interesting, but I only found one study that attempted to address it. The abundance of iron in the UMa group is reported as below solar,[9] although not as much as for this star.
- Actually, the discussion of metallicity seems a little scattered. Consider if there's a way to pull that closer together.
- The metallicity is in two parts; the first discussing the physical properties of the star and the second discussing the age anomaly. I'm not sure that bunching those together would help the flow, as the sections are organized at a higher level.
- Clarify the first two paras of Magnetic activity. If it's a BY Drac, say it is a BY Drac variable because of... and pull together the magnetic information - it just needs better sequencing through there, though some of the prose phrasing is nice.
- Okay, I re-organized the material.
- "At its estimated distance from the Earth, this astrosphere would span an angle of 42 arcminutes" clarify as "If visible to the human eye, this would span" or suchlike.
- "Luyten 726-8 may penetrate a conjectured Oort cloud about Epsilon Eridani, which could gravitationally perturb some comets with long orbital periods." Rephrase. "If e Eri has an Oort cloud of comets, Luyten 726-8 could perturb..."
Planetary system
Halfway through this - will revisit to conclude review. Looks very nice so far, excellent explanation of m sin i and the accompanying issues.
Iridia (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review thus far.—RJH (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concluding my comments
picking up where I left off...in Planetary system. Iridia (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Icalanise that the order in this section now feels awkward. I would place the dust disk subsection before the planets section. That will preserve order in things like the explanation of resonance, which is otherwise first introduced baldly at e Eri c.
- I would not say that objects in the 3:2 resonance are plutinos. Those are a distinct dynamical population in the Kuiper belt. They do not necessarily map to an extrasolar system.
- Will leave off until you've made the changes to the last para of Dust disk. These aren't too major changes: a section rearrangement and followthrough on the suggestion by Icalanise to incorporate the new paper published this March (during this FAC!). Delegates: I'd recommend continuing the nom at this stage. Iridia (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm seeing this as a major rework of the article. It will require time to perform this properly and the article will need another review cycle. Ergo, it will need to be taken back through PR and then through FAC. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- RJH, I'm unclear what you're saying above-- are you withdrawing the nomination or disagreeing with the reviewer? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SandyGeorgia, please withdraw the nomination. Implementing these suggestions may result in significant changes to the article, which I expect will then require another pass through the review cycle. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 02:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "the minimal distance": does "a minimum distance" work, or is "minimal" more common in astronomy? - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, 'minimum' is closer to the correct meaning. I changed it.
- There's an active merge suggestion in Epsilon Eridani#Epsilon Eridani c, and I see you support the merge. Has that information been added to this article yet?
- That activity is independent of the FAC. I've been treating it as still under discussion.
- I don't see it as independent, for two reasons: we generally don't promote when there are active tags on a page, and if this article needs to have material it doesn't have (for any reason), then it doesn't meet FAC's "comprehensiveness" criterion. Can you at least take a guess what material you want to include, and try to include it, even if you self-revert afterward? - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, I'm finished with copyediting, and plan to support. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to delegate: the request to merge material into this article was recent; if possible, give RJH a little time to work on this. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a good faith effort to merge all of the significant material that was properly sourced on the planet article. (Most of the remaining material is already in the Epsilon Eridani article, and the remainder is unsourced.) This allowed me to remove the merge tag from the nominated article. I'll move the useful unsourced entries to the talk page for future processing. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These (plus one) were my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - coming at this from a primary interest in exoplanetary systems. Icalanise (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The nearby star Luyten 726-8 will have a close encounter with Epsilon Eridani in about 31,500 years when they will be separated by about 0.93 ly." — Luyten 726-8 is a binary star system. Maybe worth mentioning that one of the components is UV Ceti, a designation which may be somewhat better-known than the designation for the system as a whole.
- "system includes two debris belts composed of rocky asteroids: one at about 3 AU and the second at about 20 AU, whose structure may be maintained by a hypothetical second planet, Epsilon Eridani c." — I suggest taking a look at Reidemeister et al. (2011) [10] - this is not as clear-cut as was initially made out in the Spitzer news release. Note this paper is currently cited as reference 82 in the debris disc part of the article (although its implications with regard to the two asteroid belts model are not discussed), currently with a reference only to arXiv, this should be updated now the paper is published.
- Yes that does potentially throw a bucket of cold water on the whole multiple asteroid belts concept. It may take a fair amount of rework to properly fit this into the article, at least within the time remaining. At this point I think the FAC should be rejected so this issue can be properly addressed. Thanks for pointing this out. I did address the citation format. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding Epsilon Eridani b, it should probably be mentioned that the Benedict et al. (2006) results used astrometry as well as radial velocity.
- I'm not clear what this would add to the article, since the reference is only being used to cite the predicted planetary properties rather than discuss how they were derived.
- Well there is a discussion about the mass/inclination degeneracy that limits radial velocity detections in the article. Therefore it is probably worth mentioning that astrometry resolves this degeneracy so you can get the true mass of the planet. Icalanise (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Thus, a terrestrial planet would be subject to bombardment similar to what happened to the Earth during its first 600 million years with the Late Heavy Bombardment." — the reference at the end of this sentence deals with dust ring morphology and doesn't seem to have anything to do with impact rates in the inner system.
- You're right. It appears that the Aguilar and Pulliam (2008) news release discussed the possibility of a Late Heavy Bombardment, but they did not directly connect it with the proposed ε Eri c planet.
- I disagree that potential habitability (and hypothetical future exploration, which is also included in the section) should be discussed before the debris system, it is as though this speculation is more important than the genuinely observed properties of the system, but maybe that's just me.
- Well I agree with you and that was the original arrangement of the two sections (Possible planets/Dust disk). However, it was subsequently re-organized by another editor so I think this would first need to be discussed on the article talk page.
- "However, the presence of a large planet with a highly elliptical orbit in proximity to the habitable zone of the star reduces the likelihood of a terrestrial planet having a stable orbit within the habitable zone" — given the uncertainties in the orbit of candidate "b", how relevant this is may not be so clear-cut.
- I pulled the paragraph, since, per the earlier point, it might be WP:SYNTH.
Thanks for the review.—RJH (talk)
Sources Sorry, I realize Brian gave this his ok above, but I can see some formatting inconsistenices that could be cleaned up; this is just a sampling, but the references should be scrubbed for similar formatting issues throughout: Sasata (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- there's a mix of sentence case and title case for the journal article titles—this should be consistent
- I've attempted to fix this. RJH (talk)
- similarly, should be consistent about whether the month is given with the year published
- I added additional date information where available.
- The archive id for ref #6 (van Leeuwen 2007) is not working. Why are the volume/issue/pages not the same as indicated in the Bibcode link?
- spacing between author initials is not consistent
- (re: ref 12, Saumon 1996): what's the point of giving links to both the doi and the arXiv when they both lead to the same page? (other refs have same issue)
- It is possible the destination for the doi may change, depending on the publisher.
- issue # is not always given when available (see for ex, refs 14 &16, among others)
- I fixed it where I could find it.
- publisher location for Boyle 2009? Belkora 2002?
- My understanding was that the location is needed if the ISBN is not available.
- Retrieval dates not required for web-versions of print sources (like Google Books, ref #29)
- Book scans are sometimes removed from Google.
- Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:24, 16 April 2011 [14].
- Nominator(s): Tærkast (Communicate) 17:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I bring you one of the most controversial films of all time, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. "Who will survive and what will be left of them?" I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it stands a good chance of passing this time round, however, should this prove not to be possible, it's OK, because I will work at it until it does. Tærkast (Communicate) 17:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Restart, article revamped while at FAC, unclear if issues are resolved, previous comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I've watched all of the changes to the article since the FAC started. I don't believe that there were any real significant changes, and what was changed (even if you view it as significant or not) was for the better anyway. My support still stands. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - IIRC correctly a source review was done before the restart; I haven't checked the particulars of that review, and am only evaluating the article as it stands. Also, spotchecks not done
- Why include only one author for a work that only has two?
- Multiple problems with reference formatting and consistency. Examples: page ranges must use ndashes always; be consistent in whether "p." is spaced or not (ie. "p.1" vs "p. 1"); be consistent in what is wikilinked when
- Should provide page numbers for non-weblinked newspaper articles
- Make sure you're using the right kind of cite template, or at least choose consistently. For example, one reference to Texas Monthly uses citebook, while another uses citejournal
- Find some way to distinguish visually between citations to the two Muir 2002s
- Don't duplicate cited sources in External links
- When citing to a video/audio source, it's generally a good idea to cite a specific time or time range to make verification easier
- Be consistent in whether second authors are listed first name or last name first
- Page number(s) for Farley?
- Be consistent in what you call things. For example, is news.bbc.co.uk "BBC News" or "BBC News Online"?
- Ref 96: don't repeat volume number
- What is IGN? Spell out or link potentially unfamiliar acronyms
- Was this originally from another source? Who is the author?
- This should be cited to the original source
- What makes this a reliable source? This? This? This? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, will deal with it. IGN doesn't stand for anything. The last couple of refs aren't of paramount importance, should I use Vendorsites for DVD releases? And a Film Threat is notable--Tærkast (Communicate) 11:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the Halloween ref, it's the official Halloween site, there doesn't appear tobe any author. For Film Critic.com, author is notable, the site is owned by AMC, and Film Threat is also a notable site, owned by Hamster Stampede, but I could remove it. I could also remove the Kim Newman Film Reference, but it is a useful site. For the home video releases, they are only there for talking about release and stuff, don't know what other reliable sites could be used.--Tærkast (Communicate) 12:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Notability" and "reliability" aren't (necessarily) the same. Could you justify your use of these sites with reference to WP:RS and related policies/guidelines, or cite a previous FAC or RS/N discussion where these sources were accepted as reliable? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine I'll remove most of those sources, and replace the DVD sources with Amazon or whatever.
Don't really know what reliable sources to use for home video releases. I'm sure the current other sources will suffice, will try and find some more--Tærkast (Communicate) 13:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No need for an apology. Duly noted--Tærkast (Communicate) 13:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've given it a go, with Reception, Themes and Post-Release still pending. I request the nominator to consider trimming down the Post-release section to about three tight, interesting paragraphs; right now it excessively details home-video release dates and comic-book publication info (redundant to the TCSM comics article). It also repetitively discusses all the sequels and remake ever produced when, surely, a couple of summarising sentences would suffice?
- Another idea: how about making it another sub-section of Reception, by discussing the ensuing TCSM franchise in a couple of paragraphs?—indopug (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not too bad. I'll see what I can do.--Tærkast (Communicate) 18:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion is that if it does not directly relate to this film then it should be cut and put on the franchise page (if it's not already there). Comics that are based on Part 3 have no place here. I think the reviews of the other sequels are better left for the franchise page as well. I think that a lot of times these older films with sequels get their pages turned into mini franchise articles because the actual franchise articles suck and don't cover the information well. That is no longer the case with Friday the 13th, Halloween, or A Nightmare on Elm Street and that is slowly not being the case with the TCM franchise page. So, things that occur in 2005 that are a better relationship with the remake than to this page should be removed. It helps to trim the fat off of this page and move things to a more appropriate location. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cut it down some, but I'm wondering if I cut too much? Thoughts Taerkast and Indopug? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's fine, next thing to tackle is home video. What we need to do then is decide the structure of the post-release section.--Tærkast (Communicate) 18:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bignole, the complete removal of comics info means the reader get no idea that the film spawned off a multimedia franchise (unless there's something about that elsewhere that I missed). Sequels: I don't think naming all the sequels chronologically is useful either (and redundant to the TCSM navbox below). Instead, with the help sourced critical analysis, could you write something more general and over-arching about the five sequels: "Starting with TCSM 2 (1986), the film spawned three sequels in the 1980s and 90s. Each of these featured ever-increasing amounts of gore and horror, but received a critical mauling and far lesser commercial success than the original. 'Snarky quote by critic'. <Summarise last two films similarly>."
- Unrelated: the Australian Classification Board paragraph, can you confirm that all the info is backed by the cited sources?—indopug (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, all the info is backed by the Classification Board as per the sources.--Tærkast (Communicate) 19:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not find "frequent and gratuitous violence of high intensity" in the sources (which are all ACB certificates in that paragraph—or have I overlooked something?).—indopug (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, the ACB does not appear to state it. Removed, I wish it did though, the BBFC usually does theirs, but that's the UK film board.--Tærkast (Communicate) 13:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question becomes, "What spawned the other media?" Obviously, all these derived come back to this first film, but that does not mean that this film directly spawned any of those comic books. In this case, from what I can see, this film did not spawn any of that. We have talked about, in the lead, how this film spawned a franchise, but no comic book directly relates to this film.
BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, it appears that all of that information will need to be removed because whatever was sourcing it is now gone. The sources for each individual citation are all reverting to a single overview page on that website and not providing any of that information anymore. So, unless it can be refound, it's going to have to go. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some sample idiosyncracies I've found:
- Roger Ebert is notable. Wikilink him.
- Why omit the name of Ebert's journal, but include all the other critics' publication names?
- Why mention the lead actors of just one of the five subsequent films?
- Why wikilink second incidence of "remake" in the space of seven words, but not the first?
- What's the difference between a remake and an official remake?
- Was there no book version of the film?
- Slightly bothered by US-centric approach to box office takings, per WORLDVIEW. Are there no statistics for worldwide box office for films from the mid 70s?
- First use of "MPAA" in both Lead and body copy (not just former) should be explained
- PG and R should be wikilinked. I've never heard of an R rating.
- Was the limited cinema release in the UK during that initial year or, as the text seems to flow (but makes less sense logically) after the BBFC ban?
- Why explain an 18 certificate, but not PG and R?
- "the word "chainsaw" became outlawed in titles" Just in the UK?
- "splats of real animal blood" is "splats" a quote? If not, it's awfully colloquial for an encyclopedia article. If it is, put it in quote marks.
--Dweller (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Will deal with those. As for the question of the book, no, there isn't a book version of the film. It's not based on anything. The word chainsaw did become outlawed just in the UK yeah. As far as I'm aware, there are no worldwide box office statistics for this film at all. PG rating is linked in the lead. I don't think the ratings are of ultimate paramount importance, and the overlinking of such things should also be considered.--Tærkast (Communicate) 15:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dealt with most of thse issues, but perhaps archiving might be a good idea now? I mean, I don't want it to happen, but my time will be taken up with RL quite soon, so that might be something to think about.--Tærkast (Communicate) 21:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments, leaning support. Steve T • C This is a fine article, into which a lot of effort has obviously gone, and I hope you can get it over the line. While giving the article a light copy-edit yesterday evening I began listing issues in my sandbox, but it looks like someone spotted that and has resolved at least a few of them. Only a few items remain:
The "Filming" section doesn't get off to a gripping start, with two pieces of information that don't seem all that relevant (my emphasis): "The primary filming location was an early 1900s farmhouse located on Quick Hill Road near Round Rock, Texas, where the La Frontera development is currently located. The house was later moved to Kingsland, Texas, restored, and turned into a restaurant as part of the Antlers Hotel." Or if they are relevant, they're certainly less important that what follows about principal photography, which should be the focus. Might these work better relegated to the "Notes" section?In "Post-production: "David Foster, producer of the 1982 horror film The Thing, arranged for a private screening for some of Bryanston Pictures' West Coast executives, and received 1.5 percent of Vortex's profits and a deferred fee of $500."—I may be wrong, but that seems to be saying that Foster received a 1.5 percent stake and $500 just because he arranged that screening?In "Critical response": "In his 1976 article ... Stephen Koch mentioned that he felt the sadistic violence in The Texas Chain Saw Massacre to be extreme and still unimaginative."—I'm not sure what the "still" is indicating here, as it implies a return or reconsideration of opinion. Is that the case? If so, perhaps beginning, "Revisiting the film in a 1976 article ..."?"Later, critics began to praise the film for its artistic qualities and effectiveness."—its effectiveness at what?The second paragraph in particular has a couple of quotes that feel more like what you would see on a poster than an in-depth summary of what these critics thought about the film: "a punishing assault on the senses"; "a backwoods masterpiece of fear and loathing, Texas style". I'm not saying they should be removed, but perhaps the last one at least could be trimmed or paraphrased?"Noted reviewer Rex Reed"—as opposed to the other, non-notable reviewers, such as, er, Ebert? Seems weird to single him out. The fact he has a link should be enough to indicate his notability."The film currently has a 90% overall approval rating from critics on film aggregate review website Rotten Tomatoes, with an average score of 7.7 out of 10. This is based on 40 reviews collected between the years 2000 and 2009."—OK, so hands up, I was going to scream blue murder at your use of Rotten Tomatoes, as it does not offer an accurate reflection of the critical reception of films released before 2000, per WP:ROTTEN. Then I spotted that last sentence, and all was right with the world. If I have a suggestion, it's that you should perhaps explain what a "90% approval rating" is, as well as how the average score is arrived at. Perhaps, "Review aggregate website Rotten Tomatoes reports that 90% of critics give the film a positive review, with an average score of 7.7 out of 10" or something along those lines?In "Cultural Impact": "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, considered one of the greatest and most controversial horror films of all time ..."—do you think it might be helpful to say by whom here, and when? I had to click down to the cites to see that this is long after the film's release. The first cite is a 2011 poll of the public by the BBC, and that's probably fine, but I'm wondering what the second, See No Evil: Banned Films and Video Controversy (2000), says exactly. Are Kerekes and Slater reporting on a critical re-evaluation, or again on public opinion?"Ben Cobb of British public service Channel 4"—a likely jarring description of the service for any UK readers. You already introduce Channel 4 in a previous section, with a link, so it's probably unnecessary to say exactly what it is."Bill Nichols commented, '[it] achieves the force of authentic art, profoundly disturbing' and was 'far more than personal, as the general response it has envoked [sic?] demonstrates.'"—this doesn't work grammatically; however I can't figure out what it's supposed to be saying, especially the last part, so I'm not sure how to fix it."Christopher Null of Filmcritic.com said, 'In our collective consciousness, Leatherface and his chainsaw have become as iconic as Freddy and his razors or Jason and his hockey mask.'"—it may be useful to link to those characters' articles for those readers unfamiliar with them. It's frowned on a little to link within quotes, but is permitted in the MOS for instances of necessary clarification.
- And that's all the weather! Feel free to ignore or rebut my issues/suggestions. I have this page watchlisted, so no need to ping. All the best, Steve T • C 21:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Steve. Will deal with those in due course.--Tærkast (Communicate) 22:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Think I've taken care of most of them. As for Forster, yes, it's true, he did get a 1.5% share just for screening the film.--Tærkast (Communicate) 12:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Sorry about the delay in responding; I plum forgot to check back in on this, even though I know how frustratingly slowly a FAC can sometimes seem to proceed. I'll look over your changes and revisit my comments tomorrow evening (UK time). All the best, Steve T • C 22:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck some. Back shortly after another read through. Steve T • C 20:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Think it's OK now? I'm off on the 10th, will be back on the 30th, anything could happen between now and then, which is what worries me.--Tærkast (Communicate) 20:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The change to the Bill Nichols bit is better, but it's still not quite right. The second half of the statement doesn't link very well with the first. Essentially, it's saying, "Bill Nichols commented ... and was 'far more than personal, as the general response [to the film] demonstrates.'" How about something along the lines of, "Bill Nichols commented, '[it] achieves the force of authentic art, [is] profoundly disturbing and far more than personal, as the general response [to the film] demonstrates."—which more explicitly links the statement to the first. Steve T • C 20:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, and thanks so much for your comments.--Tærkast (Communicate) 20:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--Tærkast (Communicate) 20:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck the last. I'll give it another read and see if I'm happy to support yet. Steve T • C 21:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can see a considerable amount of thoughtful work has gone into this since the previous nomination, but the number of prose problems I found in the lede alone makes me concerned. I'll just address those for the moment:
- "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is a 1974 American independent horror film directed by Tobe Hooper, who co-wrote with Kim Henkel."
That last verb needs an object: "it", or "its screenplay", or "the screenplay".
- "It stars Marilyn Burns, Edwin Neal, Paul A. Partain, Jim Siedow, and Gunnar Hansen, who respectively portray Sally Hardesty, Franklin Hardesty, the Hitchhiker, the proprietor, and the main antagonist, Leatherface."
I assume (i.e., hope) there is some good reason that "Hitchhiker" is capped while "proprietor" is not, but whatever it is, it's not good enough to justify this glaring stylistic inconsistency.
- "Although it was marketed as a true story to attract a wider audience and to provide subtle commentary on the political climate at the time..."
The grammatically logical connection between the sentence's first clause and its last is not conceptually logical: "It was marketed as a true story to provide subtle commentary on the political climate at the time." The connection made between the marketing and the intention (I presume Hooper's intention) to make a subtle comment about the era's political climate is both unclear and unsound.
- "...its overall premise is entirely fictional."
"Overall premise" is redundant and "premise" appears to be the wrong word. "Plot" or (since "plot" appears in the next sentence) "story" or "narrative" seems to be what was meant.
- "PG" is unquoted and glossed with its unabbreviated form. "R" is enquoted and glossed with its official definition.
Appearing in the same sentence, these are, again, rather glaring stylistic inconsistencies.
- "...numerous theaters later withdrew the film from release after concerns from viewers regarding its violent content."
Doesn't parse. Could go with "...from release after viewers voiced concerns about its..." Or with "...from release in response to complaints from viewers about its..." Or with "...from release after viewers complained about its..."
Given all the attention that's been paid to the article, I was expecting that the lede--the section that almost always receives the most attention--would be virtually flawless at this point. It is far from that, raising serious questions about the prose quality of the rest of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DCGeist (talk • contribs)
Just archive this nom. Please. I'll be going on holiday, and don't have time to fix all this stuff. One problem after the other, with differing opinions amongst editors. There's no satisfying everyone, but it seems I'd have to in order for this article to ever pass. Archive, please.--Tærkast (Communicate) 09:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I've also taken into account the nearly 3 month time period of this FAC, so it may be best to archive now.--Tærkast (Communicate) 09:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Scrap that, I'll see what I can do in the time I've left.--Tærkast (Communicate) 12:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting that it's two months, not three :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two months, you say? Ah, it is correct. Thanks Sandy.--TaerkastUA (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've been working my way through the rest of the article, and (for the most part) the prose is in much better shape than I anticipated after reading the lede—just light copyediting needed, which I've been doing. The math here doesn't add up:
- [Post-production:] "A film production group, Pie in the Sky, donated $23,532 in exchange for 19 percent of Vortex's half of the profits. This left Henkel and Hooper with a 23.5 percent stake, and the remaining 18 percent was divided among 20 cast and crew members."
Nineteen percent of 50 percent equals 9.5 percent. That leaves a total of 40.5 percent for the Henkel-Hooper partnership and the cast and crew members. What you have—23.5 percent and 18 percent—adds up to 41.5 percent. I do not have access to the two sources from which the data derives, so I don't know if the information in one or the other was mistranscribed in the composition of the Wikipedia article or if their numbers do not add up due to an error in one or the other. Please double-check the sources and emend the data or gloss the mathematical discrepancy as appropriate.—DCGeist (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I remember working on this section back in October diff . MAB owned 50% and Vortex 22.5% and Pie in the Sky 9.5% and the cast and crew 18%. So the only thing wrong is Vortex did not own 23.5 as you say but 22.5. --Diannaa (Talk) 17:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [Release (caption box):] "The film which you are about to see is an account of the tragedy which befell a group of five youths, in particularly Sally Hardesty and her invalid brother, Franklin..."
Does it actually say "in particular" or "particularly"? If the error is in the original, it needs a [sic] here.—DCGeist (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [Release:] "After the initial release, including a one-year theatrical run in London, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was banned in Britain, largely on the authority of British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) Secretary James Ferman. It saw limited cinema release due to the actions of various city councils, and later received an 18 certificate (indicating that it should not be seen or purchased by a person under 18) by the BBFC.... The BBFC passed The Texas Chain Saw Massacre for release in 1999 with no cuts."
Very confusing. What does "largely on the authority" mean? Did someone higher up have to approve his decision? How did it see "limited cinema release due to the actions of various city councils" if it was banned? (The "cinema" there is, of course, redundant.) Was it, in fact, not exactly banned? When precisely did it receive an "18 certificate" and how does that relate to the 1999 development when the BBFC passed it "with no cuts"? Did the version that received an 18 certificate have cuts? What certificate did it receive in 1999?—DCGeist (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- City councils don't actually have to listen to the BBFC, which is why it was given a limited release. The BBFC rated the film "18" when it passed it in 1999. I'll make that clear. Thanks, --Tærkast (Discuss) 09:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The edits didn't make clear why the text was mentioning twice that it received a BBFC certificate. So I looked at the source for the first instance—not only did I discover that the BBFC gave it an 18 certificate just once, in 1999, which shouldn't have been difficult to make clear, I also discovered that the claim that it "saw limited cinema release due to the actions of various city councils" was unfounded. One city council granted it a license...in 1998. I've made that correction.
- A problem remains:
- "Censors attempted to edit the film for the purposes of a wider release in 1977 but were unsuccessful."
- This is unclear and dubious. Who are these "censors" who failed to make a cut that satisfied (presumably their own) censorship board? Do you mean the filmmakers or the film's British distributor? We wouldn't refer to either of those parties as "censors". And what is meant by "wider" release? We've established that after the ban, there was no release in Britain for over 20 years, right? The source for this claim (Ruth Petrie's Film and Censorship: The Index Reader) is not available for viewing on Amazon and has only snippet views available on Google Books—I did try to verify, at least, that the book included a reference to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and found none. Unless you (or another editor) actually have this book in your possession and can edit the line in question as needed based on the supposed text of the cited page (p. 156), the line should be eliminated entirely.—DCGeist (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Important Just to say. I'm off tomorrow (the 10th) for 3 weeks, so I will probably not be able to check in. I sincerely hope this FAC ends well. Thanks, --Tærkast (Discuss) 19:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Regretfully. I just checked the source for another claim that seemed oddly phrased, and found that the information there was wildly misrepresented in our article. I made the correction, but that's two sources eyeballed, two major errors found—and a third "source" looking very shaky. All in just one section. I wrote in the last FAC that "rigorous vetting of all the cites and the claims based on them" needed to happen. It clearly hasn't.—DCGeist (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you point out the sources in question? I'm sure a few could be removed, which shouldn't be enough to stop this FAC from passing.--Tærkast (Discuss) 09:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think generalising one section to the entire article makes it representative of the rest of the sources. Misinformation can be a problem yes, but not of such that it needs to fail. It can be easily fixed, but as it's up to me, unfortunately, I don't have time to fix it up. 3 guesses this will be closed by the time I return.--Tærkast (Discuss) 09:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:24, 16 April 2011 [15].
- Nominator(s): ipodnano05 * leave@message 04:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the article meets the criteria to become a Featured Article in Wikipedia. It has already been been granted Good Article status and received a peer review in the past. And, I think it's ready now. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 04:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images
File:Wonder_World_Tour_poster.png - FUR needs some work. "The image is significant in identifying the subject of the article, which is the song." - no, the subject is the tour, not the song. "The image is used in the article section giving a visual description of the poster released for the tour." - no, it's in the infobox. "The image has a brief description that identifies the image, notes the source, and provides attribution to the copyright holder." - no, you don't tell us who has copyright. Also, licensing tag is incorrect, as this is not an album cover.
- File:Miley_Cyrus_-_Wonder_World_Tour_-_Breakout.jpg -
need a more informative description than "A teenage girl singing" (as for other images with similar description). Also, who holds copyright for the stage design and props (like whatever that big thing behind her is)?
-
- Not necessarily true - images can be erroneously transferred or uploaded to Commons without being free. I'm not sure of US copyright laws surrounding stage design, which is why I'm not opposing over this issue, but it's still something you should look into. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I think what Nikki means is that a photo of a copyrighted work (like the stage) might not be "free" under one of the quirks of American copyright law. I'm a copy editor, not a copyright lawyer, but I don't see anything in the design that's original enough for copyright to apply, with the possible exception of the motorbike. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead Comments Hi there. I'll leave a longer review later, but I'm reviewing the lead for now. Here's what I have for you so far:
"The Wonder World Tour is the second concert tour by American recording artist Miley Cyrus, in order to promote her second studio album Breakout (2008) and first extended play (EP) The Time of Our Lives (2009)." This sentence doesn't really make sense. There should probably be something before "in order to", like "she began the tour in order to".
"in order to prevent the extensive ticket scalping that occurred during Cyrus' previous tour." This is another sentence that doesn't make much sense. I understand what the meaning is, but it sounds as if she's trying to prevent the ticket scalping that already occurred. Perhaps you could say something like "ticket scalping similar to what had occurred during Cyrus' previous tour". Also, perhaps you could add a wikilink for "ticket scalping". We both know what it means, but others (especially from other countries) might not.
"an organization devoted to fight against cancer." Should be: "an organization devoted to the fight against cancer" or "fighting cancer".
"The Wonder World Tour was described as part of Cyrus' transitional period" Not a big deal, but I would say "has been described".
"all of which bared different themes" Again, not a huge deal, but I would say "each of which had a different theme"
The second paragraph of the lead used "Cyrus" a lot. Maybe replaced a few of those with "she"
"The Wonder World Tour was financially successful despite the financial recession that was present in 2009." Maybe remove the word "financially" to remove some redundancy.
"It was able to sell-out all European dates in ten minutes and mark the largest attendance at The O2 Arena in London, England." Should be "marks".
"During the first leg of the tour, one bus overturned several times in a highway." Should be "on a highway".
"but multiple theories for it exist." I think "yet multiple theories exist" sounds a little better.(sorry, forgot to sign)-RHM22 (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Ok, looks good! I'll leave you a review for the rest of the article later.-RHM22 (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More comments: I'm still not finished with this review! I apologize for my slowness. Anyway, I'll try to get to the rest of it tomorrow. For now, here are few more comments in addition to the miscellaneous minor fixes I made throughout.
Development:
"The Wonder World Tour was titled accordingly because of its diversity in themes and styles." "Accordingly" doesn't seem to be in the proper context here. Maybe something like "The Wonder World Tour was so named because..." or "Wonder World Tour was chosen as the title because..."
"The reason for the prior to occur was because..." sounds very awkward. Maybe something like "the reason for this was..." Later on in that sentence, it says "Cyrus felt more confident as a vocalist to perform stunts and use props while singing.", which I don't understand the meaning of. Did you mean that using props made her feel more comfortable on stage? If so, I would suggest rewording it as such: "Cyrus felt more confident while performing stunts and using props during her performances."
- The first part was done. In regards to the other part, not really. What I meant is that, since her voice grew, she became more confident as a vocalist. Therefore, she was able to use props while singing. Before, she did not want to use props because she didn't feel she could do that and sing at the same time. Am I being clear? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Ideas were given by different people and experimented during filmed rehearsals to filter which ideas would make the final cut." This is also awkward. Maybe something like "Ideas were suggested by different individuals and were tested during filmed rehearsals in order to decide which would make the final cut." Also, it might be a good idea to explain who the people are that gave the ideas (employees, friends, planners etc)
- I would, but the interview just says people. It doesn't specify. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that's fine then. There's nothing you can do if your source doesn't say anything else!-RHM22 (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"tractor-resembling car" sounds extremely awkward. I'm not sure what to replace it with, but it looks very odd in there.-RHM22 (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What about car that resembled a tractor? I don't know. They both seem awkward to me. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a tough one. Was it a car made to look like a tractor? If so, maybe something like "a car altered to resemble a tractor" might be better.-RHM22 (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. That's basically it. I changed it. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Ok, my review is finished. I fixed several minor typos and grammar stuff, but I do have two more suggestions for you.
Bus accident
"Bumped up" seems incredibly informal, especially for an FAC. It should probably be "injured" or something like that.
- Replaced with "suffered minor injuries"
"Zilio was later able to return to work on the Wonder World Tour with some injuries and a bit rattled, but in fine condition." Maybe something like "Zilio was later able to return to work on the tour, despite some minor injuries."
Also, maybe something like "Bus incident" would be a better header. It's not a huge deal, but "incident" just sounds better to me. It's your call on that one.
- Nope, it's fine the way it is.-RHM22 (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
General comments:
My biggest problem with the article is the multitude of images of Cyrus performing. They're nice photos, but it seems like there are too many of them and a number of them are not really in the relevant sections. Maybe replacing some of the ones of her performing with some photos of the other people discussed in the article would help to even it out a little bit.
- I'm sorry but there are no free images of the personnel. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 02:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I copyedited the entire article, but I still think it needs a good once over from another set of eyes. Perhaps it would be a good idea to leave a request with the Guild of copyeditors and see if anyone over there would like to give it a check.
- I'm a decent copy-editor (and MoS wonk), but somewhat pressed for time. If you could be more specific about what you feel needs attention, I'll do what I can. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm not certain that there's any one section that could use copyediting, just a once over of the whole article in case I missed anything (and I'm sure I did!) For instance, "Cyrus" is repeated a lot throughout the article. I fixed a few of them, but there are still some that look awkward when replaced with "she", so I left those alone. Someone else looking at the article might not think it necessary for it to be copyedited, but there a few interruptions in the flow to my eye.-RHM22 (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's it!-RHM22 (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article reads good now, and though I still think it could use a minor copyedit, I believe it should make "the climb" to featured article!-RHM22 (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments: Nitpicks.
- Non-print sources should not be italicized (e.g. MTV News, CNN etc)
-
-
Ref 21: The source appears to be the recording of a song, yet the text cited to it seems to be mainly about Miley Cyrus's various changes of clothing. How does this work?
Ref 9: "MTV. Viacom"; Ref 25: "MTV. Getty Images". Why the difference?
Ref 35: Why the use of parentheses? - and "retrieved" rather than "Retrieved".
Ref 40: "retrieved" lower case
Otherwise sources seem to be OK, though I have not had time for any significant spotchecking. Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Not too bad, mostly minor prose issues
The poster's FUR needs improving; "To provide a visual companion to an informative article" isn't really a good enough reason to use non-free content
"The tour was made" → The tour was held
"It began in September 2009 and concluded in December 2009, visiting cities in the United States and United Kingdom; thus, the Wonder World Tour became Cyrus' first world tour." - don't like the use of "thus" here as the two parts of the sentence aren't really related. Also maybe change "world" to "international"
- Why doesn't it relate? It covered the United Kingdom, a new territory for her. Her last tour was also international because it covered Canada. This covers another continent and that is usually referred to as a "world tour". -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The current wording is slightly confusing as when I read it I thought it meant her first tour. Maybe I'm a bit thick, but it may be a good idea to stipulate that it was her first world tour but not her first tour?
"The full-length concert film was released on the limited, deluxe edition of Cyrus' third studio album" - no need for comma
"furthering her distance from Hannah Montana franchise" - needs a "the" before Hannah
"including Cyrus' then-active Twitter account" - remove "then-active"
Per MOS:CAPTION - captions that are full sentences require captions, those that are not do not
"the average rehearsal period is about three months" - for Cyrus? For pop musicians?
why is the Best of Both Worlds Tour linked in "Development"?
"It consisted of a rectangular main stage, which features staircases that elevate the center of the stage, a narrow runway, and a B-stage that runs the length of the main stage and connected to the main stage by the runway" - changes tense multiple times
"Cyrus noted that it's" - don't use contractions except in direct quotes
"multi-screen, video units" - why the comma?
"The structure of the video panels was designed by Jammal Sims" - do not need his first name as you have already mentioned him
"to go airborne" isn't flash prose
"asking them to bring their "hopes, wishes, and dreams."" - quotes should be followed directly by a ref
"Because it came along late in the design process, the main elevator was not built to handle the weight of the car" - I don't think you have mentioned any car before this (I may be wrong). Explain "the car"
"silver, flowing, evening gown" - no need for commas
- I suggest you give the article a read-through and copy-edit it. I can give more examples for you to fix, if you wish.
Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Some more comments:[reply]
Unlink Trace Cyrus in the synopsis as it is linked beforehand
- "
[i]f there was any worries that Miley Cyrus" → "if there [were] any worries that Miley Cyrus"
- The picture in the 'Bus accident' section is inappopriate here
"One person, Bill "Uncle Bill" Douglas, a 53-year-old of Austin, Texas, died at the scene of the accident" - mention his role in the tour
The 'Opening act' section should be in the 'Setlist' section (maybe a subsection?)
Who published the press release ref (#3)?
- It is unclear that ref 14 is a video (I found out in the cite template). Is the video available online? How are readers able to access the video?
- They were reward videos sent to those who purchased their tickets with an American Express credit cards. Since it was exclusive for that, the video does not appear on the American Express website. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 05:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This concerns me - how are readers supposed to access this info? Is there another, more accessible source that could be used as a replacement?
Ref 46 is a press release - use {{cite press release}}
Allmusic ref (#47) - Allmusic does not need to be italicised
Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Possibly oppose. I see a real problem with the boxscore references. Only two reference is used to justify them, but they neither have any issue date, nor any publication date. Furthermore, I have access to Billboard and can say that WW tour is present in 10 different issues. So that whole table fails WP:OR. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what to do about it, quite frankly. I trusted that someone had added them with correct references. I don't know how to add it, nor do I have a subscription to Billboard magazine. I'm sorry, but can you please help? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I can help, but it will take hell lot of time, something I dont think/not sure the FAC will cover. I think you know my present condition Ipod, hence... It really takes time to search billboard.biz archives. Note to you for future references, always ask editors like me or Eric—people who have access to archives—to check these things. — Legolas (talk2me) 12:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh god, I had forgotten. I'm so sorry. I'll ask Eric for hep myself. I don't want to put a burden on you. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:24, 16 April 2011 [16].
- Nominator(s): Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 02:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel that it meets the citeria for featured articles, and because I have resolved all the issues raised in previous WikiProject A-class reviews and the previous featured article candidacy. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 02:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Former FAC here Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 02:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
- Provide complete page range for Albrecht in its bibliography entry
- Spell out "Publishing" in MBI
- UK instead of England
Images
- File:Arado_234%2B381_parasite_aircraft.jpg - any further information on copyright status? Source link does not discuss author or copyright holder
- Well, that's where it came from, if they don't have anything, don't ask me for anything.
- File:Arado_E.381_I_3d.svg and File:Arado_E.381_I_3v.svg - are these drawings based on existing images or sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey WikiCopter, just letting you know I removed the templates you added above - per the instructions at the top of the FAC page, those shouldn't be used here. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per standard disclaimer, after giving Wikicopter the stink-eye in the first FAC. I reviewed this at the A-class review, and there's only been one edit since then. - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No thanks for the stink-eye earlier (though it probably was justified). I didn't edit since the ACR since I didn't think I needed to do much. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 06:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 12:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the work you're doing responding to concerns. I have been weakly active the last week, I hope to speed up this week. FAC Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 21:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
It would be better for the first block of references in the article to be in numerical order, unless there's a special reason why they are in that order.
Development: In the first paragraph of the section, I see no need to have so many cites to the same source. You have five cites, all to reference 4, which strikes me as a bit of overkill. You could get away with just three: the one at the end of the paragraph and the two directly after the quotes.
First "a" should be removed from "with armament and a with a Walter HWK 109-509 rocket engine for power."
Variants: Why are the full plane names bolded here and in the last section? Feels like bolding should be limited to the one section.
- Those sections seem like they should be their own page, and the first instance of the subject of the page should be bolded. In fact, if I ever get enough information to split those articles off, I will do so. However, if you don't like it, you can remove the bolding. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 03:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The pilot would lie in in a prone position...". Remove second "in".
In the bibliography, check the page range of the Ulrich Albrecht piece. There might be a number missing from the second figure. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments a quick run through...
- "Kleinstjäger" should really use the {{lang}} template for screen-readers. It's easy, free, and makes no visible change to most of us, but does tell the visually challenged that this is German.
- Hiya RM. I need some educating on this one. If a blind person has trouble deciphering Kleinstjäger without the lang template, won't they have trouble with Luftwaffe, Flugzeugwerke and Messerschmitt? If they can't understand German, will it make a difference how the screen reader pronounces it? If they can, couldn't they follow links to the German Wikipedia? And most important, I think: if their screen reader knows that all the words are in either English or German, and can't figure out which, shouldn't they get a smarter screen reader? Google can generally pick the right language out of hundreds; choosing between two shouldn't be that hard. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Dank. Well, the thing that stuck out in my mind was that, a little further on, we have [[Ministry of Aviation (Germany)|Ministry of Aviation]] ({{lang-de|Reichsluftfahrtministerium}}) which gave me a clue that the lang template was known and could be used. I'm far from an accessibility expert and unfortunately my stock expert (User:RexxS) has been offline a few days now, but I guess it boils down to whether FAC pay too much heed to WP:ACCESS or not. I don't have all the answers, I suppose all I'd like is some kind of consistency throughout the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At MILHIST (except for just a few writers), we're generally not mentioning the foreign word unless the foreign word is used extensively in English sources. I'm very dubious that English sources would prefer "Reichsluftfahrtministerium" to "Ministry of Aviation"; would it be satisfactory to delete that German word and its lang template? - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Arado Ar 234" could be linked in the lead.
- "but the plane was cancelled" not keen on "plane", perhaps, "the development was cancelled".
- "[3][1][4]" any reason why these citations shouldn't be numerically ordered?
- You have parasite fighter in the infobox but that's not used in the lead, perhaps be clearer?
- "exploited the Luftwaffe concept" suddenly Luftwaffe is italicised (it wasn't in the lead or the infobox..)
- "The level of g-forces envisioned" shouldn't that be "the levels of g-force envisioned"?
- "Arado E.381/I, Arado E.381/II, and Arado E.381/III. " not sure you need this, why not just "the marks I, II and III"?
- "cancelled" is good BritEng, but "realized" is definitely not. Which WP:ENGVAR are you using?
- Both are fine in AmEng. This is AmEng.
- No need to continually re-bold the name of the aircraft.
- Image in the specification section has no caption.
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: RM's talk page says he's away, and I'd rather not ping him if he's busy. I'm reasonably sure we dealt with all his concerns. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did ping him, no reply. - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments
I would suggest expanding the lead with a sentence or two definition of parasite aircraft and in the development section summarize the thinking behind parasite aircraft as an implementation of the small, high g-force little fighter; obviously the reader could click the wiki link but its kind of a strange (IMHO dumb) concept and the article doesn't have a length problem. Kirk (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you tell us a little more about what you want, Kirk? - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes; In the lead, something like 'A parasite aircraft was a fighter aircraft carried by a larger aircraft, almost always a bomber, and was generally used to protect a bomber formation from fighter attacks and was preferred to a separate fighter formation because of X' I don'know the answer to X.
Somewhere in the article, explain they were first used with Zepplins and expand on X. Also, someone thought this was a good use of scarce resources: why?
More on this - my scarce resource comment is something I gathered from this statement in the lead section: ...eventually abandoned because of a shortage of Ar 234 mother ships and a lack of interest from the Ministry of Aviation. and those statements aren't supported in the body anywhere which is a problem. Also, the lead mentions twice the project was cancelled. Kirk (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't understand why the Arado Ar 234 was being used for this purpose; the article explains the bomber interception mission but the original idea of parasite fighters was for protecting bombers and the Arado Ar 234 was too fast to be intercepted by fighter aircraft, and weren't being flown in formations so why did they need parasite fighters? Or was this only to intercept bomber formations so in which case why use expensive Arado AR 234s? Hopefully this helps. Kirk (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, guys. Sorry I didn't get to this earlier. I would have replied on Wednesday, except some people (privacy refuses to let me disclose their identities) shut off the computer as I was about to submit. Afterwards, I went to Spokane, Washington and Couer d'Alene, Idaho. In fact, I'm still here. Here in Eastern Washington, I'll have relatively limited access to the internet, so excuse me if I don't get back for a week (plans to get back by the end of the next week).
- AHEM. Now on to the FAC buisness...
- X is expanded, please review. I don't remember that the Zepplins were used with this aircraft. Where are these aircraft mentioned as a good use of scarce German resources? To understand why the Germans used Ar 234s as the launch aircraft, go ask the Germans. The sources I used do not mention why. Yes, these aircraft were used to shoot down the enemy bombers, not the enemy fighters attacking their home plane. Sorry if I sound a little confusing, but I have limited time and have to run through all of the GA reviews I'm doing. FAC Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 04:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I crossed off the things I had above with the exception of the why part, which I expanded to address your concerns.Kirk (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the parasite aircraft article was better I wouldn't have had as much problem with your limited description - this aircraft was more of a parasite interceptor fighter instead of just 'fighter'; the role being intercepting bombers instead of fighters attacking fighters attacking a bomber formation but I doubt your sources made this distinction. Overall, good work!Kirk (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is balanced. It's not often that I see one-paragraph leads, but I think in this case it works just fine. Thanks for the good work and speedy responses!
The lead should, at the very least, mention the fact that the Arado E.381 came in three different flavors."Had the Arado E.381 been completed it would have been carried aloft by and launched from an Arado Ar 234 carrier aircraft to attack Allied aircraft, but the development was canceled." This leaves the reader wondering why the project was cancelled, a question that isn't answered until the end of the second paragraph. I suggest rearranging the lead material to inform the reader of the reasons for cancellation shortly after this sentence.I think the most interesting/unusual feature of this design was the prone orientation of the pilot. This should definitely be mentioned in the lead.
--Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Great suggestions. I tackled two of them with this edit. For your middle point, I need to see how Wikicopter responds to Kirk's points. WC, as you know we've got a lot of German-speakers in the project with access to German sources, you might want to ask around. - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To Kirk and Cryptic: Fixed; I also tweaked some awkward wording. FAC Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 20:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now on comprehensiveness grounds and lead clarity. I know very little about airplanes, and what I know about WWII details came mostly from other FAs, which may make me a good person to review this article.
- Lead issues
- I got lost on the second sentence of the lead. Had to reread that a few times to make it gel in my brain. I would recommend reorganizing this a bit. I'd mention it's cancellation first and then go into the would have beens...
- I assume the comparison to the Messerschmitt Bf109 means something....because I have no idea what that type of aircraft is or why we'd compare its crosssesction. Is the Bf109 the biggest? the average?
- Might be important to have the info about 3 possible designs at the beginning of the lead and not the end.
- " Luftwaffe's concept of "gaining a tactical advantage by placing excessive stress on the man in the cockpit"" - huh? Why was placing excessive stress on someone a tactical advantage? Can this be fleshed out a little more?
- Rennenberg and Walker says so. Argue with them.
- Is there any information on why Arado and the others designed these. Did the Luftwaffe solicit them specifically? Was there a general call for a specific type of aircraft and Arado decided to participate? Did Arado already have a history of developing new planes for the Luftwaffe?
- Sources on the way. Not sure.
- Were parasite fighters common? Was this a new concept?
- How many rounds of ammo was normal to carry? I see the "only" 45 and wondered.
- Thousands. 60 could have been sent on its way to the enemy in a second or two.
- Was the design not completed, or was the design not implemented? If they weren't completed, do we know what wasn't done?
- I don't get your concern.
- Were the other companies also designing parasites for the Ar 234s?
- Not sure. Is this important, or just curiousity?
- What was supposed to be done with the aircraft - and the pilot - when the plane landed?!?
- Glide down, reuse (what else? Germany is strapped for resources, reuse is best).
- Was there a height/weight requirement for the pilots? Since the bulges were located in specific spots, I wondered if there had been thought to how big the pilot would have to be.
- Did the mark 3 have a hatch on the side and on the top? That's how i interpreted this, but that seemed excessive
- I guess so. I'm not sure. Sources are on the way as above.
- In the Mark II section, the fuselage is given in standard units first; everywhere else it's metric first
- That's how it was given in the sources.
- Did the process get so far as to let Arado eliminate some of the other competitors? Did they get close to being chosen as the final provider, or did the process not get that far?
- What happened, if anything, after the project was cancelled? Were the designs just shelved? Was any part of this used in other aircraft? Was there anything revolutionary about the design that was carried forward elsewhere? Karanacs (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry to come to be a Jonny-come-lately, but I don't think this is quite the finished article yet. There appear to be some gaps/inconsistencies in the narrative, and the prose needs work in a few places. Some examples:
- We're told in the Development section that the aircraft had room for "only forty-five 30 mm (1.2 in) rounds" (why "only"?), yet in the very next section that's apparently gone up to 60 rounds.
- "The Mark II had similar features with the exception of having a larger overall size and smaller fins." Similar features to what? The Mark I? I'm not overly fond of "with the exception of" either.
- Sorry I'm getting frustrated, but two late opposes can be draining... I noted that it is similar to the Mark I. I don't know why you don't like "with the exception of." What else could we say?
- Your frustration is understandable. But my concern is with the quality of the article, and whether I believe it meets the FA criteria; the sentence is awkward. What about something like "The Mark II was similar to the Mark I, except for being larger and having smaller fins". (You don't "have" a size, you are a size.) Malleus Fatuorum 04:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "As pilots could only enter from a hatch above the cockpit, the pilot would have had to enter the E.381 before it could be attached to the carrier Ar 234C and had no way to escape in case of an emergency." Presumably this is saying that the pilot had no means of escape while the aircraft was attached to its mother ship? But what about when it was in free flight? Could the pilot escape then? If not, then to suggest that the reason the pilot couldn't escape was because of the attachment to the carrier isn't correct.
- Well, if that's what my sources say, what can I say? It doesn't say anything about free flight or gliding. I could assume that the aircraft could not be evacuated only when it was attached, but would reviewers allow that?
- My point is that your ordering of the facts implies that pilots had no means of escape because the aircraft was mounted underneath its mother ship, but that's clearly not the case once it's in free flight. Malleus Fatuorum 04:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Arado E.381/II section is written very choppily.
- "The aircraft's straight wings had a blister for a single MK 108 30 mm (1.2 in) cannon and 60[8] rounds." Why is the citation after "60" rather than at the end of the sentence? It's also rather unclear. The wings (plural) had a blister (singular)?
- Blister underneath wings underneath fuselage. Cite fixed.
- "... the fuselage deepened in the form of a hump which extended to the tail, which housed a single MK 108 cannon ...". Awkward.
Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments—I have no knowledge of the subject matter, but my instincts say "lean oppose" because of the lack of polish, and concerns about comprehensiveness. I hadn't read the comments above before reviewing, so please forgive if I'm repeating. Sasata (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "…designed by Arado Flugzeugwerke in December 1944" the main article text does not mention when it was designed
- "Each of the three proposed designs" what 3 designs? There's not enough context yet for this to be in the second sentence of the lead.
- link Allied
- "It was designed with a rocket engine to quickly close and fire on American and British bombers." I didn't know one could use a rocket engine to make designs. Or, (in an alternate interpretation), I was unaware that rocket engines could be used to "Close and fire" at enemies. Also, why is this sentence in the lead thrice reffed? Is it not cited in the article?
- "… approximately a quarter of the cross section of the Messerschmitt Bf 109." What's the relevance of the comparison to this particular airplane?
- link fuselage (earlier), point blank range
- "According to their "specific design philosophy"" why do these three words need to be quoted?
- "This is because the aircraft was cancelled, due to a lack of funds, mother aircraft Ar 234s and a lack of interest by the Ministry of Aviation[1][2][2][7][8]" clunky and confusing sentence; no fullstop at the end; ref 2 is cited twice
- inconsistent display of units: "30 mm (1.2 in) rounds" vs. later "5-millimeter (0.20 in)"
- what's a blister?
- "… and 60 (other writers say 45) rounds[4][6]." discrepancy in # of rounds has already been mentioned; put punctuation before citations
- why are the specs for only the E.381/I given? How about a comparative table showing the differences between the three versions? (as in the Spanish Wiki)
- for consistency, should specify the publication states for Albrecht (2002) and Green (1971)
- fix the doublestop at the end of Ford (2000)
- why doesn't this article have the longitudinal section diagram shown in the Spanish Wiki article?
- the Spanish version of the article gives some interesting data about resources needed for production that isn't included here
- aren't there any German-language sources which have more information?
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:08, 8 April 2011 [22].
- Nominator(s): SSZ (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all the FA criteria. According to the Library of Congress, no such article exists in any language. Thank you in advance for your review. SSZ (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have not read beyond the lead, but am concerned that this lead is cluttered with multiple citations, sometimes in strings of three and four. The purpose of the lead is to summarise broadly the content of the article. It should not be a repository of detailed facts; these should be in the article itself, and should be cited there. At present the lead looks unwelcoming to the general reader, and I recommend that it be redafted in accordance with WP:LEAD. I am proceeding to a sources review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. SSZ (talk)
Sources comments:
The article is well-referenced, but some basic attention is required to citation formatting. You probably need to look at the sections in WP:CITE which deal with how to format citations. You might consider whether the use of citation templates would be helpful. Particular points to note:_
- The title of the book, article or web page should be included in the url to create the link, but not the author's name, nor the publisher or journal/book title. I have reorganised Ref 23, so that you can see what I mean.
- The general order for a citation is: author (if known), date or year, title (with link if online), publisher, issue number (for journals, if known), page numbers (if known), ISBN (for books published after 1970), last access date (for online citations).
- Titles of journals, newspapers and books should be italicised
- For journals, give date of issue (not just the year) and, if possible, issue number. Give page numbers wherever possible
- For newspapers, always give the date, not the year, and the page number wherever possible
- Where authors' names are known they should be given in the order surname → forename (subject to linguistic convention).
- Where access to an online source is via a subscription, use the (subscription required) template to signify this. Ref 25 is an example of such; there are likely to be more.
- If any of the refs are in languages other than English, this should be noted also.
In addition to the above, a number of links appear to be not working: Refs 154, 155, 156 and 158. Possibly others. A thorough overhaul of reference formats and links is advised. Brianboulton (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. SSZ (talk)
Comments by User:A. Parrot (mainly on prose)
The text is mostly well-written, though there are a couple of strange errors (noted below). I'm not that knowledgeable about economics and mostly can't speak to the article's accuracy, but there are a few points that concern me. For example, the prediction that the tourism sector's percentage of national employment will jump from 1.8% (in 2010) to 10% only five years later seems awfully optimistic. The source is a researcher for the Iran Travel and Tourism Organization and should therefore have access to good information, but might the organization have a tendency toward over-optimistic forecasts? Do you know of any other possible sources that could disagree? Similarly, there's the prediction (pointed out in the last FAC and still present) by Goldman Sachs that Iran will become one of the world's largest economies, which could be problematic if Goldman Sachs has any vested interest in Iran's development. I think you should look over your sources again and consider if any of them might have reason for making inflated claims. For those that might, consider alternative sources—and if you can't find alternative sources, state in the text where the information comes from (as you have for Goldman Sachs).
The body isn't over-referenced like the lead, although there are a lot of passages supported by two references. If any of those double refs are unnecessary to support the statements, cut one. (I know it's hard to find the right balance.)
Smaller things:
- In the "History" section, could you say why Iran suffered capital flight in the 1970s?
- In the "Five-year socio-economic development plan" section, it says Iran is in transition to a market economy, but doesn't say what it's transitioning from, and people need to click on the link to find out. It's better to say it outright. Consider doing the same when "transition economy" is mentioned in the lead, although at least the implication is clearer there. You should probably also mention in "History" when the economy became centrally planned (after the Revolution?)
- In the "Economic reform plan" section", you link "nationwide distribution of goods and services" to the "Retail industry" section of Industry of Iran. This kind of non-intuitive link is generally discouraged. The larger problem, though, is that you don't say what the plan is going to change about the nationwide distribution of goods and services; it makes it seem like Iran doesn't have such a thing right now.
- In "Centralization and privatization": "Following the cessation of hostilities with Iraq in 1988, the Iranian Government declared its intention to privatize most state industries in an effort to stimulate the ailing economy." Why was it ailing? Because of the war?
- Same section: "Cooperative companies… will be operated in accordance with Islamic criteria." "Islamic" is a very broad term. If this means according to shari'ah law (or the ayatollahs' version thereof), say so. If the "Islamic criteria" are not something easily linked, you may have to state some specifics in the text.
- In "Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps": "the IRGC maintains a monopoly on smuggling." They defy their own government's laws to smuggle? That would surprise a lot of people, and should probably be stated a little more explicitly.
- In "Trade unions": "Employing personnel on consecutive six-month contracts is illegal." Why this type of employment specifically? Why six months as opposed to other lengths?
- In "Agriculture and foodstuffs", the list of products mentions "fruits (including citrus)". Why mention citrus specifically? Is citrus especially numerous or profitable?
- In "Manufacturing": "social learning loop" sounds a little jargonish, and the link that comes with it does not immediately explain the term. Could this concept be expressed more clearly within the bullet point?
- In "Construction and real estate": "a sharp rise in inflation and a credit squeeze caused the boom to." A word is missing here.
- Same section: "and one of the prime investment targets of well off Iranians as tangible." I can't tell how "as tangible" fits into the sentence.
- In "Tourism and travel", the caption for the photo of Mount Demavand should say what the mountain is. If space is an issue, you can drop the second sentence of the caption, which is also in the body text.
- Communications and IT has a "citation needed" tag.
- Done. SSZ (talk)
Images
- Captions should meet requirements for prose and sourcing - copy-edit needed on these, source material not supported by the text, check WP:MOS issues
- Images in File:Privatization_Iran.jpg are blurry and pixelated
- File:Iran-electricity.gif - source link is dead
- File:Privatization_Iran.jpg and other images that include buildings in Iran need licensing checked - per this Iran does not have freedom of panorama
- File:Ira_world_GNI_percapita.PNG gives its source as "modification from Wikipedia" - this needs to be explained. What is the base map for this image, and what is its copyright status? From what source was the data used to create this map derived?
Oppose unless/until these issues are addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. SSZ (talk)
I did all the tedious work (and less tedious one). However, if you think I missed something, please be bold and do it yourself :) SSZ (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You obviously put a lot of work into this article, and I would like to support it. At present, however, it feels like a collection of facts about the Iranian economy rather than a comprehensive picture of the Iranian economy. Just to name a few examples: in "Labor and welfare" it says that more than two-thirds of the population is under 30, but it doesn't elaborate on how that relates to the economy; in "Personal income" it says that primary school-level enrollment is nearly 100%, but doesn't say how that affects personal income. Those facts that are clearly relevant to the sections they're in often feel disconnected, with no flow between them or indication of how they interrelate. I hope that you keep working to improve this article, but I don't feel it's ready yet. A. Parrot (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I regret that you compare an article on the economy with an article on society. Please see economy of India which was promoted FA in 2005 and please tell me whether you have a similar or a different standard? Moreover for any subject, you must have a sum of basic knowledge that cannot be contained in the subject itself and which need to be mastered before reading the article. What you refer to in your comments is directly related to that point. In the same manner, I cannot explain what a tire is made of in a an article about Mercedez-Benz or give the meaning of the verb "to be" in a book about Shakespeare. SSZ (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My objection is not that the article is too technical, nor did I compare it to any other. My problem is that, while facts are abundant, there is too little connection between the facts. I can guess generally how school enrollment relates to personal income, but a featured article shouldn't make me guess. The underlying reasons for some things are missing, too. Clearly there's a large black market in Iran, but why is it so big? The lead says that contraband is a problem, but the body doesn't elaborate on how it is a problem. The facts and figures are impressive, but there needs to be more overall analysis of the economic system.
- The link to the old version of Economy of India shows how much FA standards have changed since 2005; its grammar and referencing would never pass today. It's difficult to compare articles from that far back. A. Parrot (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. SSZ (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:26, 2 April 2011 [27].
- Nominator(s): M rickabaugh (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the criteria for an FA article. Introduction to Evolution was at one time a featured article, but was demoted. As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2010, I have gone in and added some content to make the article cover basic genetic drift as well as the theory of natural selection as a mechanism for changes in frequency of alleles. The article is similar to its previous FA form, with modifications from myself and other Wikipedia editors. I understand that introduction articles are not particularly favored by the Wikipedia community, but the Evolution article is difficult to understand without more background in that area of biology, which is why the introduction to evolution article is necessarily. I have talked with my biology teacher, who was the author of the original article and he approves of my nomination. Thank you for considering my nomination. M rickabaugh (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Before I even begin reviewing the article, allow me to express my sincerest gratitude for your efforts to improve such a monumentally important and challenging topic. Writing an accessible article on evolution is like trying to teach squirrels how to solve a four-dimensional Rubik's cube. Anywho, here are some areas in need improvement:
- WP:LEAD suggests a maximum of 4 paragraphs. I would even be okay with 5 paragraphs for a particularly massive article, but 6 large paragraphs for a 35 kB article is definitely too many.
- In most cases, only the first word of a section title should be capitalized. For example, Founder Effect should be Founder effect.
- Some of the section titles are too long. I suggest shortening Darwin's idea: evolution by natural selection to Natural selection or some such. Similarly, I suggest shortening Different views on the mechanism of evolution to Mechanism.
- I suggest removing the Summary section. While I realize that this is an introductory article, it is still a Wikipedia article, not an essay.
The article employs spaced en dashes (" – ") to break sentences. It should instead employ unspaced em dashes ("—").
-
- "Quammen, David" is a silly name. No action needed here, I just had to point this out.
- Noted - I will request that "Quammen" seek the appropriate documents for a name change!
- Why is Co-evolution included under Evidence for evolution? For that matter, why is it included in this article at all? This is supposed to be an introductory article, which should necessarily be less broad in scope than the main article.
- From a teacher's standpoint - I have found the concept of co-evolution to serve as a concrete example of the adaptive properties of evolution that is easily grasped. Rather than evidence it should probably relocated to examples of evolution or perhaps worked int the text under natural selection as a example or some such thing. I would beg indulgence and request that the topic stay.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:NaturalhistoryMag.jpg, which was used being used in the Different views section, has been deleted. It should be replaced; if it cannot be replaced, I suggest removing Stephen Jay Gould from the list of awesome dudebros.
--Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - like Cryptic, I appreciate your willingness to improve this article. Unfortunately, I don't feel it meets the FA criteria at this time
- Two dead links, one redirect to disambiguation page
- Both the lead and the ToC are too long given the length of the article
- Quite a bit of unsourced material - examples: "Genetic drift affects smaller populations more than it affects larger populations."; deck of cards analogy; "Dobzhansky's 1937 work Genetics and the Origin of Species was an important step in bridging the gap between genetics and field biology. Mayr, on the basis of an understanding of genes and direct observations of evolutionary processes from field research, introduced the biological species concept, which defined a species as a group of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from all other populations. The paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson helped to incorporate fossil research, which showed a pattern consistent with the branching and non-directional pathway of evolution of organisms predicted by the modern synthesis."
- Multiple inconsistencies in reference formatting
- Manual of style edits needed - wikilinking problems (both overlinking and underlinking), stacking and sandwiching of images, etc
I suggest submitting this article to peer review prior to attempting FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is a wonderful article and I absolutely agree with your comment that it is a necessary one. It is far more approachable than evolution. I don't think it is quite ready for FA but I have some constructive suggestions:
- I don't think "Convergent evolution" belongs under evidence for evolution. It is worth mentioning but it should be moved to a separate section like you did with co-evolution.
- I think you should add a brief subsection on biogeography (the geographic distribution of species) and in particular island biogeography and adaptive radiations to the evidence section. You could use Darwin's finches from the Galapagos or the Silversword alliance from Hawaii as an example. This sort of biogeographical evidence was historically very important to both Darwin and Wallace, and if it is summarized corectly, it is still quite compelling. If you don't beat me to it, I will put something together. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The subsection on the Hardy-Weinberg principle is worded in a confusing way (especially the first sentence). I had to read it a couple of times before I realized that the main point was that real world populations would never be in equilibrium because they could never meet the criteria. It needs to be reworded to be less confusing; this is especially important with an introductory article.
In general I hope you continue to improve the article, and I plan to help. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The nominator for this article is my student who will no doubt gain much from this experience. I wish to clarify a statement in the rationale for nomination. Numerous authors played a role in the previous FA attempt - not just me! I operated as RandomReplicator; although I had the most edits most were correcting my own mistakes! Any feedback that would help the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2010 would be welcome on the appropriate talk page.--JimmyButler (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now—Unfortunately I have to concur with some of the earlier comments. While the article has some wonderful material, at present it seems a little uneven and is perhaps disorganized in some places.
- The lead fails to be an accessible and non-technical summary for the lay reader. It relies upon technical terms like hereditary material, genes, allele frequencies, phenotype and genetic drift without explanation. It also has more than four paragraphs and does not properly summarize the article, per WP:LEAD. (In fact, the "Summary" section at the end may do a better job.) Please see if you can modify it to make the material more approachable for the general population.
- I am afraid you can not understand evolution, even a simplified version of it, unless you know basic vocabulary such as genes or hereditary material; however I have placed a link over Genes for those who do not understand these "technical terms" if you think I should continue adding links--as I have no room to place an explanation for each term--please tell me. .--Firekragg (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2011
- I understand. However, my objection concerns the lack of explanation of those technical terms; not the use of the terms in themselves. This is critical because this is an introductory article. Anybody looking for an introduction shouldn't be expected to already have the background knowledge needed.
- Besides, I don't think it will add too much to the size of the lead if you work the meaning into the context. For example, couldn't the lead say, "Third, there are variations among the alleles, or gene flavors, of offspring..."?—RJH (talk)
- The lead has been greatly reduced. Much of the technical terms were added when the article expanded to include genetic drift as a major force influencing evolution whereas before the emphasis was exclusively natural selection. The author was extremely diligent and careful with accuracy; with reluctance - I have gutted it. Please review to determine if both length and complexity have been addressed. Note - this is version 592 of the lead; balancing specificity without losing the audience may require compromise!--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The first two sections of the article body are good, but then the Genetic drift section again relies upon a technical term, alleles, that has not been explained. The reader may become slightly lost here.
- I am not clear about the purpose of the "Hardy-Weinberg principle" section. The first line states the "Hardy-Weinberg principle". The second line then appears to demolish the principle by stating that equilibrium is impossible. The principle is not used elsewhere in the article, so what does it add? I think it needs to clarify why this is an important aspect of the general theory.
- The "Modern synthesis" section has no sources and appears to be an uneven mix of history with explanation. I think it needs to be reworked and should focus more on the explanation than the history.
- It seems like "Evidence for evolution" should follow the first section. I.e. first introduce the theory, then provide the evidence to support it, followed by details of underlying causes and effects of evolution.
- The citations section varies between the use of abbreviated journal names and full names. I think one style should be chosen, preferably with full names as abbreviations can be obscure to a person unused to scientific citations.
- Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sc => Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
- CBE Life Sci Educ => CBE Life Sciences Education
- Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) => Trends in Ecology & Evolution (Amsterdam)
- Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. => Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- The "External links" section is fairly long and most appear to be of the same nature. There's already a "Further reading" section so it is not clear that such an extensive list is necessary. Please check that they all comply with WP:EXT.
- Please check the Toolbox above. You're missing 'Alt' text.
Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re journal names: suggest you wikilink those that we have articles for, then use ISO abbreviation or full name consistently, it won't matter which to me. I corrected the format of a couple of jstor links to match cite journal documentation. Ref 14 needs an ISBN. Rjwilmsi 10:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
apj544_2_L145 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
eep_eps_eri was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
apj690_2_1522 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
aaa426 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Facepalm. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
All to "truce". [Grandiose]
not a good summary atm. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
