Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2015

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Archived nominations
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

2008 UEFA Champions League Final

edit
Nominator(s): – PeeJay 17:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is a continuation of the previous one, which was closed prematurely due to my inability to respond to comments as I had been blocked for two weeks. Hopefully that will not be a problem this time. I still believe the article passes all the FA criteria, despite comments at the previous FAC discussion. I was able to respond to all of User:Brianboulton's concerns last time, although he didn't do a full review of the article, and User:EddieHugh's comments were largely based on his opinion of what constitutes "too much detail". I believe the article contains just the right amount of detail on every aspect of the subject; some might say this is too much, but everything included in the article is likely to be something that at least someone reading the article would be looking to find out. Furthermore, everything is adequately sourced, satisfying criterion 1c. – PeeJay 17:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mkativerata comments

edit

I'm inclined to oppose at this stage, sorry. Brianboulton's review the first time around said "further copyediting is needed" but this broader copyediting doesn't appear to have taken place. I sampled three sections myself: pre-match, team selection and post-match. There were some prose glitches, which are fixable quickly. But there are some more endemic problems such as inaccurate representation of sources (see the Ferguson and Giggs quotes below), use of sources of dubious reliability (Daily Mail, UEFA), and possible original research (eg "This went against the predictions of some pundits"). The article is certainly a very good one and undoubtedly GA quality. But I think it is falling short of the FA bar and needs a good solid line-by-line review before it is ready. My sample comments:

  • "There were originally concerns over the players' safety on the new field" - were these concerns legitimate enough to warrant a mention in the article? Is the Daily Mail a reliable source for this purpose?
    • The Daily Mail is a notoriously unreliable newspaper, except when it comes to football. Their sport coverage is remarkably good for a newspaper that routinely comes up with sensationalist headlines. In this case, the quote about the field being unsafe came originally from Sky Sports News, but since I wasn't able to find an archived video of Steve McMahon saying those words on television, I felt the Daily Mail source was adequate. The quote they sourced themselves was from the head groundsman, who merely said there "might be a bit of a bobble". – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "based their decision on a number of factors, including stadium capacity, safety and security facilities, and accessibility - might be worth mentioning, as the source does, that "commercial potential" was also a factor. I wonder, too, if sourcing this to UEFA is appropriate. They are hardly likely to admit to any political factors being relevant to its decision...
    • That's true, but I wasn't able to find any sources criticising UEFA's choice either. Most of the sources were pretty routine in that they simply said "Moscow will host the 2008 final and these are the reasons UEFA gave in their press release". – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In recent years, each Champions League final has been given an identity of its own with a unique logo, design concept, and overall theme inspired by the cultural and historical heritage of the host city." - This is copy-pasted from the source.
  • "As has taken place for every Champions League final since 1997, a ceremonial handover of the UEFA Champions League trophy took place" - Grating repetition of "took place"
  • "former player and current technical operations director Leonardo" - current is confusing. Does it mean as of 2008 or as of now? Also, this is a massive sentence.
  • ""Midday Champions League Ticket Sales" (Chelsea) is a dead link for me.
    • Crap. I only added that link in January and it was hard enough to find a source for Chelsea's ticket allocation policy as it was. What can I do? – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among the celebrities who did not travel..." - the relevance of this sentence escapes me.
  • Any non-UEFA sources available about the match ball? I'm sure Adidas paid UEFA handsomely to have their ball used, so the use of UEFA sources in this section troubles me a bit.
    • I'll see what I can find, but most sites that talk about the ball are blogs or photo galleries. I think the small amount of info in this article, plus the fact that I haven't made any claim to the technical qualities of the ball, make it OK to source the info about its design to UEFA. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As per tradition" - the source doesn't mention this as a tradition. Is it a tradition, a preferred practice, or a rule? Is it necessary to say in the article?
    • I don't know if it's rule or just coincidence, but every European Cup final has had linesmen/assistant referees from the same country as the lead referee. Either way, I've removed the "as per tradition" bit. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his only real decision being" - source? I don't think the Guardian article supports this.
  • "This went against the predictions of some pundits" - the only source is Pleat, who would not be "some pundits".
  • "Ferguson predicted that his substitutes might have a big impact on the match" - but his actual quote is "The substitutes you make have got to have an impact, which is why I have to give a lot of consideration to the type of player I want on the bench. If I have to use them I hope they make an impact". This sounds more hopeful than predictive.
  • "Ryan Giggs' pre-match prediction that he would not make the starting line-up". As above, the actual quote falls some way short of a prediction: "I can't be sure I'll play"
  • "reportedly deciding over Grant's job within four days after the final" - is this just Daily Mail gossip?
  • "Grant was officially sacked three days after the match." - what is the point, then of the statement that his job was being "decided over" within four days of the match?
  • "watch the game on outdoors" ?
  • "Five police were also said to have been injured" - said by whom?
  • Support - I cannot say how much I love this article. I'm happy that others have read through it and improvements have been made. This article was the best thing in the topic area months ago and is now even better with the extra eyes and suggestions. I am not fond of the teams but the primary editor did a fantastic job.Cptnono (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - But! There are two pieces of criticism that I wish to discuss firstly...
One - The image of the Statue of Lenin is too dark for my liking (Unfortunately there isn't much that can be done about this, especially with the weather as drab and grey as it was). Can anything be done about this?
Two, to me, the imagery throughout the Match summary seems to be slightly biased to Manchester United (ie. Man Utd's "Believe" Tifo, Man Utd in possession, Man Utd on the attack). I get that they won and all, but it was a draw after 120 mins. Perhaps a single image of Chelsea in possession or on a break would do this section some good, I feel. - J man708 (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nothing to be done about the Lenin statue until I can get my hands on a copy of Photoshop to lighten it up a bit (unless someone else can do that). As for the other photos, they were the best ones in the Flickr gallery I found. They're not the clearest, I'll admit, but to balance things out, perhaps the captions need changing? – PeeJay 13:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

edit
  • "with the PSC-Texture surface innovated": what does this mean?
  • "Micheľ was supported by assistant referees and a fourth official from the same country; Micheľ's refereeing team was completed by assistants Roman Slysko and Martin Balko, and fourth official Vladimír Hriňák." This seems needlessly wordy; can we compress this to a single sentence and add it to the end of the previous paragraph?
  • "vice-captain to the missing Gary Neville": what does this mean?
    • It means Ryan Giggs was Gary Neville's deputy as club captain, but since Neville was not involved in the game, Giggs took over his role in lifting the trophy with Rio Ferdinand, who was only captain for this match. – PeeJay 11:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your rephrasing is certainly better, but what's a club captain? Is that a new role since I used to watch a lot of football? I thought the captain was just the person who wore the armband on the field; is there a separate club captain role nowadays? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The club captain is the club's regular captain, yes, but the team captain is the one who wears the armband on the day. Most of the time they're the same person, but if the club captain misses a lot of games due to injury, there may be a more regular team captain. This is explained best at Captain (association football). – PeeJay 11:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deciding over Grant's job within four days after the final": the source is dated 22 May and unless I'm missing something it says nothing about four days.
  • "any victory parade would have to take place later in the summer or not at all": did it take place?
  • In the sentence starting "Having won the rights in 2005 to broadcast UEFA...", "having won the rights" is a dangling modifier.
  • I would eliminate anything in the "See also" section that is already linked in the article, per WP:ALSO.
  • I don't feel as strongly as EddieHugh, who is opposing because of the level of detail, but I do think some of it could be cut to the article's benefit. I'll watch the discussion in that section.
  • The last paragraph of the "Background" section is uncited.
  • The Liverpool-Chelsea picture is clearly not of the game itself; I think it should be cut; or at least provide an accurate caption that explains why there are children on the pitch.
  • "Since then, he has refereed 55 Champions League matches": that's as of the date of the source, which is from 2008; I think this needs rephrasing to avoid implying he has refereed 55 CL matches up to now.
  • The ball pictured in the article looks a little different to the ones shown in the source.

I've completed a pass; I'll read through again once you've had a chance to respond. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; EddieHugh

edit

As I was mentioned earlier, I respond. I commented last time that, "There is a vast amount of trivia in this article that appears to have been included just because the information is available." I listed examples there, so repeat them here. Perhaps the nominator could comment on why the following fall within the bounds of FA criterion 4, "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style"... giving details of:

  • The personal history of the referee.
    • The referee's personal history goes to the reason for his selection as referee for the match and his pedigree in previous matches involving the two teams is useful. – PeeJay 11:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The big games he was in charge of are relevant, but things such as "in November 1993, he refereed his first international match" and "5–0 win over Brøndby in the group stage" are not. Anyone wanting that level of detail about a referee should go to the article on him (where that info is not found – indicating how unimportant it is). EddieHugh (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How the ball was unveiled.
    • It's all part of the ceremony of the match, and that includes the trophy handover. The fact that prominent people were involved is evidence of the magnitude of the game, similar to the guests at the Super Bowl who toss the coin before the game. – PeeJay 11:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The magnitude of the game is self-evident. Tossing a coin has an impact on the match (I see no mention of it in this article, though); who was present when a ball was unveiled, and where it happened, is marketing trivia. EddieHugh (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many flights were required to get supporters to Russia.
But the number of people is stated in the same sentence. Why have an indicator of something when that thing has already been specified? EddieHugh (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Visa arrangements.
    • The difficulty people face in getting to Russia is well documented, and the fact that the visa requirements were relaxed just so this game could be played is notable. – PeeJay 11:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If so, just state the basic, final, facts; steps along the way are superfluous (and the 6-month detail doesn't appear to be in the source). EddieHugh (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which people handed over the trophy before the match.
  • The 50-year history of the stadium.
    • Again, the pedigree of the stadium in being used for UEFA matches and other high-profile games is notable. There's less than a paragraph on the history of the stadium itself, so I don't see why this is a problem. – PeeJay 11:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, anyone who wants that level of detail about a football stadium can read it in the article on that football stadium. It's former name and former capacity, for example, surely had no influence on anything to do with this match. EddieHugh (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Team predictions.
    • A lot of pundits had a say before the game on what they thought the teams would be, and the fact that the final sides were different to what was expected is notable. – PeeJay 11:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Name a match when all pundits got everything right. It's inevitable, not notable, given the number of predictions. It's impressive that you or another editor dug out the information, but that's not justification for including it. EddieHugh (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great detail of the clubs' 50-year European history.
    • Yet again, it goes down to pedigree and the history of the teams' involvement in big matches, as well as the historical significance of playing in the final. It was Chelsea's first and Manchester United's third, as well as being 40 years since their first European Cup win and 50 years since the Munich air disaster. It's all relevant. – PeeJay 11:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mostly convinced, as a lot of it comes back in later in the article. Most of the detail in "in 2000 when Real Madrid beat fellow Spanish side Valencia 3–0 at the Stade de France; and in 2003, when Italian sides Milan and Juventus played out a 0–0 draw before Milan won 3–2 on penalties" is extraneous, though; why not just "in 2000, when Real Madrid faced fellow Spanish side Valencia; and in 2003, when Italian sides Milan and Juventus played"?
Yes, it's an aside. Laying natural grass on artificial grass is interesting, but it's not in the source (assuming it's #53) either; it has "it has now been relaid with turf". EddieHugh (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another one... "Among the celebrities who did not travel"... a list of people who could have watched the match, but didn't... this is just padding. EddieHugh (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And another one (stressing that these are still just examples)... "after he hit a 31-year-old while attempting to drive down Fulham Broadway"... what's the relevance of this level of detail on why someone was arrested in London after the match? EddieHugh (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other sourcing problems encountered at random: "featured images of the Moscow skyline, as well as the UEFA Champions League logo and trophy rendered in a Russian artistic style, with text in a font similar to Cyrillic script" (I don't see this is the source); "a unique design concept has been developed for each Champions League final since 1997" (not in #54); the Penalty shoot-out section has only one source, which covers part of one sentence; the first 2.5 sentences of the Post-match section are unsourced; "around 6,000 police were on duty" ("5,000" in source). EddieHugh (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I don't think we're going to resolve the objections here any time soon, so I'll be archiving this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2015 [2].

Songs from the Black Hole

edit
Nominator(s): Popcornduff (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the unreleased album by the American alternative rock band Weezer. It was to be a science fiction rock opera that expressed songwriter Rivers Cuomo's mixed feelings about rock and roll success. The article achieved Good Article status last year and I've made improvements since then; I believe it now meets the FA criteria. Popcornduff (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm afraid this review is a non-starter so I'll archive shortly. Generally when there's little or no feedback we permit you to renominate without waiting the usual two weeks (per FAC instructions) but I'd like to suggest having a go at Peer Review before that to try and get some more eyes on it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC) [3].[reply]

2006 UAW-Ford 500

edit
Nominator(s): Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2006 running of the UAW-Ford 500, a NASCAR race held at Talladega Superspeedway. I have tried to bring this article to standards similar to those seen in WikiProject NASCAR's only other FA, 2010 Sylvania 300. I went back and fixed some minor issues; the first nomination failed to receive a thorough review, so I'm hopeful I can receive some positive feedback this time. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but after three weeks we seem to have attracted even less commentary than last time. I note that you revisited prose per the previous closing comment but perhaps it would benefit from independent eyes on it, e.g. from the GOCE, before renominating. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2015 [4].

Steve Zakuani

edit
Nominator(s): Cptnono (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being nominated a second time after taking some much needed advice and assistance. Substantial expansion (while eliminating potential bias) was done,[5] and an editor from The Guild of Copy Editors did some fantastic work.[6] The first FAC asked for some good sourcing and I can now say that even a published paper was used for the relatively young subject. I don't think there are any issues remaining but am stoked to take care of any issues.

Disclaimer: I'm participating in the Wiki Cup.Cptnono (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks good overall. My one complaint would be the intro is a little long. Stevetauber (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I feared the opposite since the lead is a relatively short summary. I would be happy to take action if you see anything in particular that seems like too much.Cptnono (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at WP:LEADLENGTH. The article is 13kb of prose, which normally would warrant one to two paragraphs. Four paragraphs for an article of this length would require remarkable justification. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed?Cptnono (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but this review seems to be almost a non-starter, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Given the lack of feedback, no issue with you renominating in less than the usual two-week waiting period. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Apatosaurus

edit
Nominator(s): IJReid (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC) LittleJerry (talk) 16:49, 28 Marsh 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the best known sauropods, often known as Brontosaurus in popular culture. Four species are known, and this genus has undergone major revisions in the past. The article was expanded by myself and LittleJerry, and recently passed a GA review. The appearance of this dinosaur has stayed relatively stable, with only the head changing greatly since it was described. Many images can be found of two of the species, while the others are only known from one or two skeletons. IJReid discuss 16:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:Support: This is my first time reviewing a Featured Article, so take everything with a grain of salt:
  • The "Paleobiology" section is the largest section of the article, but the lead is dominated by a summary of the "Description" section. Also, the lead section does not discuss the "In popular culture" section. (except perhaps the brief phrase saying it was once classified as Brontosaurus ).
I believe there is reasoning for this. The popular culture section is actually the least important section (in my opinion no articles should have them) and most mentions in it are of the common occurrences of "Brontosaurus" in popular books and movies. Most pop-culture info is not truly accurate, and therefore does not need mention in the lead. I will add more paleobiology info, just know that paleobiology is all assumptions based on description, which is why the latter is more important. IJReid discuss 23:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added paleobiology info to lead. IJReid discuss 23:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A brief mention of cultural impact would be in order, the intro is supposed to summarise the entire article, after all. "Brontosaurus" has had more of a cultural impact than most other dinosaurs, probably only surpassed by Tyrannosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following statements are confusing:
  • "Among the species is A. excelsus, long considered to be separate under the genus Brontosaurus" I know it is saying that it was considered to be part of a separate genus, named Brontosaurus, but it was hard to process at first.
Reworded. IJReid discuss 23:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An alternative method, using limb length and body mass, found Apatosaurus to stop growing at 70 years of age, growing 520 kg (1,150 lb) per year." it almost sounds like this is saying that it grows 520kg/year after stopping growing, which doesn't make sense. In context of the previous sentences, this makes more sense, but perhaps it should be more clear that it is growing 520kg/year on average until 70.
Corrected.
  • Which is the reference for the origin of A. louisae's name? The nearby references are not freely available, and their titles do not suggest they would contain this information.
Holland 1916 (http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=referenceInfo&reference_no=53213). Not the full reference, which I cannot find online. The best one is probably Gilmore (1936), which is cited in the article and is on A. louisae. The etymology is found in Parsons (199-), cited in the article. IJReid discuss 23:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Importance of Morrison formation is not described. From the writing, it could be one place where Apatosaurus has been found, or the only place.
I am confused. In the first paragraph of Discovery it mentions it was the formation of the Bone Wars, and the wording in the lead seems to be clear. IJReid discuss 23:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My real question is, have Apatosaurus fossils been found anywhere besides the Morrison formation? It seems from the lead that this is true, but I didn't see it explicitly mentioned in the article. It seems like one of the preexisting references would mention this fact. If I have again missed an important detail, let me know.Brirush (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added in Discovery. IJReid discuss 01:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks on reference style and image attribution seemed fine for criteria 2,3.
  • Besides above comments, all of criteria 1 (well-written, well-researched, etc.) and 4 (length) seem satisfied.

Brirush (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done, I enjoyed reading that, just a few comments and queries:
There are various terms that could do with wikilinking or perhaps even replacing with more common terms manus coosified and Rugosities for starters. Is coosified a typo or rare variant of co-ossified?
I believe that this is fixed. I think that coosified was a spelling error, but I'm not certain. IJReid discuss 16:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re "Many of the dinosaurs of the Morrison Formation are the same genera as those seen in Portuguese rocks of the Lourinha Formation (mainly Allosaurus, Ceratosaurus, Torvosaurus, and Apatosaurus)" I see this as contradicting "All Apatosaurus specimens are from the Morrison Formation."
Fixed, Apatosaurus is not present but has a close counterpart. IJReid discuss 16:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we add something about reproduction? Even if only that scientists assume they reproduced by laying eggs but haven't yet found any eggs they can be sure are from apatosaurus.
I added info on the juvenile Apatosaurus specimens known. IJReid discuss 22:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind checking "Trackways of Apatosaurus and other sauropods show that they walked an average of 30–40 km (19–25 mi) per day. A study found that they might have been able to walk 20–30 km (12–19 mi) per hour.[6] The slow locomotion of sauropods may be due to the minimal muscling or recoil after strides", I'd like to know how they can work out how far these things could walk in a day from a few tracks, especially if they are saying that they walked fast enough to do their daily travel in 90 minutes. Also if you are quoting that as slow walking speed it might be an idea to include a comparator, it is not slow compared to my walking speed.
I think I have fixed this. IJReid discuss 02:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Yes, that works for me. ϢereSpielChequers 15:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not it's a wiki.... Thanks for writing this and bringing it to FAC ϢereSpielChequers 12:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping LittleJerry for these last two, as he was the one that did most of the paleobiology work. IJReid discuss 16:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps something has been published about the juvenile specimen(s)? I'm pretty sure no eggs are known, and it would probably be hard to find a source stating that Apatosaurus specifically laid eggs, as this is assumed for all dinosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that nominating this article is a bad idea given the recent claims that Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus are in fact two different species. It looks like the paleontological community is about to revise the classification of the whole of the Diplodocidae clade with Elosaurus and Eobrontosaurus being reclassified as Brontosaurs. Whatever emerges as a result of the new morphological study, this article should reflect the latest findings. My knowledge of dinosaurs is limited to reading books about them when I was a kid so perhaps an expert in this field should consider, at the very least commenting on the latest finding, or even removing the Brontosaurus to Apatosaurus redirect and start a new page for Brontosaurus. See http://motherboard.vice.com/read/inner-children-rejoice-there-is-probably-a-brontosaurus-after-all and https://peerj.com/articles/857/

They have always been considered separate species, this study revives Brontosaurus as a separate genus. See discussion here[8], it is too preliminary to split the articles, as this is only one study (it is very possible that other studies will have different results), so we should wait for a scientific consensus. But the finding should certainly be addressed by this article. But even if this was split, it wouldn't be too bad, mainly the history and popular culture sections would be affected. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely alright, I guess this FAC will stay open for a while, so no rush. FunkMonk (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not this long, I'm afraid -- things seem to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Boys Don't Cry (film)

edit
Nominator(s): BenLinus1214talk 01:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Boys Don't Cry, a 1999 independent romantic drama film which dramatizes the life of Brandon Teena, a trans man who was raped and murdered in 1993. A couple years ago, it passed a GA review with flying colors, and I believe that it meets the FA criteria. The article has fleshed-out Production, Style, Themes, Release, Reception, and Controversy sections (exactly what I think an article on a movie should be). I am aware that the article has been subject to pronoun-related vandalism. This seems to have gone down as of late, but if it resurfaces, I think page protection might be a good idea. BenLinus1214talk 01:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

Oppose, suggest withdrawal. An interesting topic, but the article seems to fall a little short. Though this certainly isn't a bad article, issues with sourcing, neutrality, writing and non-free content all add up to it needing more work yet.

  • "The film has been cited as one of the most controversial and talked-about films of 1999" Where is your source for this? You don't seem to say it in the article proper.
  • "Brandon Teena was never his legal name; it is uncertain the extent to which this name was used prior to his death. It is the name most commonly used by the press and other media. Other names may include his legal name, as well as "Billy Brenson" and "Teena Ray"." Could we have a source/sources for this?
  • "In the Boys Don't Cry commentary contained on the 2000 and 2009 DVD release of the film, director Kimberly Peirce states that she admired the way Brandon behaved towards women, especially the good will and generosity he showed them." Why do we need this?
  • "Peirce began working on a concept for the film and gave it the working title Take It Like a Man." Reference?
  • "Peirce co-wrote the screenplay with Andy Bienen. They worked together for a year and a half on the final drafts and made sure they did not "mythologize" Brandon; the aim was to keep him as human as possible." Reference?
  • "at her home" Whose home?
  • "Peirce also interviewed Tisdel's mother. She also interviewed" Repetition
  • "Much factual information was incorporated into Boys Don't Cry, including Nissen being an arsonist, and the games of chicken and joy riding that were a common pastime of the real Lotter, Nissen, and Brandon." Reference? Also, "games of chicken" and "joy riding" may be unfamiliar terms- links?
  • "The LGBT community was highly interested in the project because of all the publicity the murder had received." I don't like the fact that this is sourced to Pierce. If you don't have a third-party source, perhaps you could clarify that this was Pierce's claim.
  • We do have a better picture of Sevigny- are you attached to that one for some reason?
  • You use the word "pants" a few times- is this not a little informal?
  • "Peirce had envisioned only two actors for the role of Lana Tisdel: a young Jodie Foster and Chloë Sevigny, who had prior credits in mostly independent films. Peirce had decided to cast Sevigny based on her impressive performance in The Last Days of Disco (1998).[27] Sevigny had auditioned for the role of Brandon,[28] but Peirce decided that Sevigny would be suited playing Tisdel.[29][30]" This almost reads like three different stories- I think this needs to be restructured.
  • "The film portrays a double murder when in actuality a third person, Phillip DeVine, a black disabled man, was killed at the scene. At the time he had been dating Lana Tisdel's sister, Leslie Tisdel." Is this intended as an example? If so, perhaps "For example, the film portrays a only double murder, when in actuality a third person, Phillip DeVine—a black disabled man—was killed at the scene. At the time, he had been dating Lana Tisdel's sister, Leslie Tisdel."
  • "perspective, his imagination, and the way he perceived things" I'm not clear what the difference for the first and last is.
  • "The bumper-skiing scene was delayed when a police officer, just arriving at a shift change, required that a large lighting crane be moved from one side of the road to the other. The scenes took six hours to shoot and ended up being filmed at sunrise, which resulted in a blue sky in the background." First, I'm not sure what the "shift change" thing is about, second, you refer to the scene even though this scene has not been mentioned yet, and third, I do not know what bumper-skiing is.
  • "A flood gave the cast and crew a "mud bath" and resulted in some of the filming equipment being stuck in mud. Radio wires in some of the scenes conflicted with the sound production. Swank required a stunt double for the scene in which she falls off the back of a truck. Teena's rape scene was given an extended filming time, and Sexton, who portrayed the attacker, walked away in tears afterward." This is just a list of facts.
  • You're going to need to do something about that "clarification needed" tag.
  • Is File:Boysdontcryrollerrinkscene.JPG an artificial combination of four separate screenshots? You can't do that- there's no reason that four screenshots in one JPG is any more acceptable than four separate screenshots. If there were four separate screenshots, people would be opposing based on the excessive use of non-free content.
  • "the striking transition shots seen throughout the film" Non-neutral.
  • "he visual style is often dark, saturated, and raw, depicting the harsh Midwestern United States" Again.
  • "the violent, emotionally charged scenes" Again (also, repetition of "scene").
  • "During a very compressed prep period" Colloquial tone
  • "She also watched several of her favorite" Who's "she"?
  • "Peirce also used the same shots in the opening roller rink scene (where Brandon pursues his first relationship with a young girl) that were used in The Wizard of Oz (1939) when Dorothy first left her house and entered the land of Oz. The scene consists of a three shot sequence meant to symbolize a metaphoric "entrance to manhood" for Brandon." I'm afraid I don't follow this. Presumably you don't mean that footage from The Wizard of Oz was used, but, if not, I'm unclear on what you do mean.
  • "Peirce also used the same shots ... backdrop of the city skyline." This is apparently all unsourced.
  • "Time lapse photography is used in several sequences, most significantly in the scene where Brandon and Lana discuss plans to tell the family that she has "seen him in the full-flesh", and when Lana is seen driving on the highway after Brandon's murder, before the credits appear." Source?
  • "The Boys Don't Cry soundtrack features a compilation of country and rock music from the film." Unclear. Of course the soundtrack contains music from the film- that's what a soundtrack is? Or do you mean a soundtrack album?
  • "1988 country-pop hit" Non-neutral tone
  • Who performs the "Boys Don't Cry" cover?
  • ""The Bluest Eyes in Texas" was played when Hilary Swank went onstage to receive her Academy Award for Best Actress in 2000." Unsourced. In any case, is this important?
  • "This summarization strengthens the academic view that the film is about the search for freedom and identity in a society where diversity is rarely accepted" That's a very strange claim. Why would a tagline/advertising campaign strengthen an academic view? What does your source say?
  • Actually, that's not a reliable source. It's a student essay "published" through something resembling a vanity press. There is no peer review or editorial oversight. Unless the status of the author gives us reason to think otherwise, the source should be removed.
  • "is even uttered" Tone.
  • "and some critics even cite parallels" Tone. What makes you think Herz is a critic?
  • "Some critics noted that the film was about the illusions often produced by love or a strong relationship." Source? Also, weasel words.
  • "Critics and academics have attributed Boys Don't Cry's success" You only seem to have one source, here.
  • "many commentators" Ditto.

I have to dash right now. I will finish this review later. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Tks Josh, I will archive this as being under-prepared for FAC; the number of paragraphs I saw without any sourcing is enough of a red light. Perhaps you could carry on with any commentary on the article talk page, to help Ben progress it to a potential renomination after the minimum two weeks have passed per FAC instructions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry about that. I guess I didn't read the wording of the article carefully enough. I'm not that much of a regular contributor, but I'll fix that stuff and talk to you before nominating again. BenLinus1214talk 15:47, 25 April 2015 (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 archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2015 [10].

Geiger–Marsden experiment

edit
Nominator(s): Kurzon (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Geiger-Marsden experiments, the experiments by which scientists discovered that every atom contains a nucleus. Kurzon (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey

edit
  • Obviously a lot of work has been put into the article, but there are a number of issues. There is an awful lot of uncited text—often entire paragraphs—and it's not clear how a lot of the sources in the "Bibliography" are used (many are not cited in the body). The lead (per WP:LEADLENGTH) is far shorter than one would expect from a 19kb article. Is this your first FAC? I strongly recommend withdrawing and taking the article to WP:PR and WP:GAN before submitting it here again. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note - I agree, the swathes of text lacking attribution to reliable sources is immediately apparent. This nomination is premature.

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Addition

edit
Nominator(s): Brirush (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most basic subjects in human life, addition. This article is exceptionally well thought-out, and easily passed a Good Article nomination. One of the goals of any WikiProject is for its top-importance articles to reach Featured Article status, and I believe that this WikiProject Mathematics article meets all of the FA criteria. If all goes well, this would be the first of a number of mathematics articles to be improved and then nominated for FA.Brirush (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Addition01.svg is tagged as missing a description
  • Why not use File:Addition_chart.svg?
  • File:AdditionLineAlgebraic.svg is tagged as missing a description, same with File:AdditionLineUnary.svg. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria I have added descriptions to the three images and replace the png with an svg. Another editor has fixed the caption. Let me know if there are any other image-related issues I should know about. Thanks! Brirush (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • is the terminology any different in other languages, especially not indo-euroepan ones?
I found this: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/addend#Translations, but it didn't reveal anything insightful. Perhaps I could add Wiktionary links to the article?Brirush (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The terminology is similar in other languages; for instance, in Chinese, the addends are called 加數, literally "addition numbers". In persian, they are called جَمع‌وَند, where جَمع‌ means "sum". I can add this to the article, but with so many language families, all with essentially the same terms, I don't know if it would be helpful.
  • I believe some dolphins/orcas and parrots have been able to to addition
Found and added a ref for Asian elephants. No images yet, though. I think images of animals performing addition are very rare, but finding an image of a rhesus macaque or Asian elephant doing something else would be say.Brirush (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have only found one claim for adding parrots: Alex (parrot) is described in a short Duke University blurb as recognizing 2+2=4. However, none of the numerous sources on his page seem to back up this claim. For dolphins and orcas, the best claims I can find say that they can count up to six, but I have not yet found an addition reference.
"Alex could even add, to a limited extent, correctly giving the number of similar objects on a tray" and has a book ref. First goofle seach I found [12]. Nergaal (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would love and image like the one here.
Good idea! I'll see what I can do.
Good idea; not sure why I didn't do it originally.

Nergaal (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Nergaal (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Addition chart.svg is extremely hard to read without cllicking on it. perhaps increase the font size.
  • why is 17 italicized in AdditionVertical.svg?
  • there should be a ref right after terms, the addends or the summands. I personally haven't heard of these names.
  • augend needs citation
  • " it was once common to add upward" when?
  • where is the character "+" from? when did it first appear? greeks didn't use any symbols
  • how is the "+" defined in ASCII? are there special rules for its shape?
  • "Extending a length" has no citations, same for Successor and Units
  • "This is known as carrying" should have a citation
  • Abacus should be mentioned
  • when do students typically learn addition in school? kindergarden or only 1st grade?
? Nergaal (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reference about first graders using math worldwide. Because Kindergarten is not universal, I'm not sure what to put about it. I think I might find a reference saying that addition is typically taught before first grade.
Actually, just found a good reference. It is usually taught before school, but countries differ. I' r added it to the article as well.
  • I can't seem to find anywhere mention of what happens in computing when the addition goes beyond the memory limit. I.e. Y2k.
  • didn't ancient merchants have some sort of calculators? not sure if "Blaise Pascal invented the mechanical calculator in 1642" is correct
  • "the poset N2" what is this?
  • why not discuss complex numbers addition?

Nergaal (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Nergaal (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Nergaal

  • I have removed this image, as I don't think it is helpful at this stage of the article, or perhaps any stage.
  • The 17 is italicized as it represents an answer 'pencilled in' after the original problem was given. Usually, there is more italic work shown (such as carrying and such); an example can be seen in subtraction. I think the italicization should remain for continuity with the other articles.
Try adding this in the description where the image is located to remove possible confusion. Nergaal (talk)
Fixed
  • I've added references for "term", "addend", and "summand". I had a reference for all three at once, but it may have been based on this article itself, so I didn't use it.
  • I expanded the description of adding upwards
  • I added a description of the plus sign's history.
Didn't + come about with Arab numerals?
I thought so too, but several online sources say it is fairly recent. Apparently the symbol itself is old, but had unrelated meanings (for instance, it was a minus sign when added after a number in Hindu).
  • I have seen no evidence of special rules for +'s shape. I have added ASCII code.
et should be italicized? Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
rm the white space before that sentence pls. Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Finished both.
  • Added refs in the "extending a length" section. Also the successors and units sections.
  • I have added a reference for carrying.
  • I have added material on abacus, taken and adapted from the corresponding article.

I'll finish the last few later today.Brirush (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps add something like "similar errors were expected to happen with y2k" to make this term . Nergaal (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Feel free to suggest more improvements here; as a new section, it may need more work than the rest.
  • The Antikythera mechanism was a mechanical calculator of sorts, but it did not seem to perform arbitrary additions. I think, given the references we have, we should stick with Pascal.
fine

Let me know if you have any other concerns, or if you disagree with any of my corrections.Brirush (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Drive by comments on referencing

edit
  • Lipschutz Lipson is not in references
  • Need first names:
    • Bunt, Jones, and Bedient
    • Davison, Landau, McCracken, and Thompson
    • Baroody and Tiilikainen
    • Fosnot and Dolk
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed with first or last name first
  • Only list sources that are cited (others in Further reading):
    • Bunt, Jones, and Bedient not cited
    • Kaplan not cited
    • Williams not cited
    • Davison not cited
    • Baroody and Tiilikainen not cited
    • Weaver not cited (and would need publisher)
    • Poonen not cited
  • Book titles should be in title case
  • (3e ed.) -> (3rd ed.) (why the "e" - French?)
  • Marguin (1994) - why is the book listed twice when short cites are used?
  • Wynn, Karen has a title=
  • Books should include the publisher:
    • Wynn, Karen needs publisher
    • Baroody and Tiilikainen needs publisher

Aa77zz (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed all of these tasks, as well as a few similar things (a few of the mathematical refs had name problems). Let me know if my new further reading section works. The 3e thing seems to come from someone writing "edition=3e", intending it to come out as "3e" and not "3e Ed".Brirush (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but we really should be seeing declarations of support for promotion after this long at FAC, so I'll be archiving this shortly. Per FAC instructions, pls allow two weeks before nominating this or another article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC) [13].[reply]

LIM-49 Nike Zeus

edit
Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the US's first concerted effort to build and deploy an anti-ballistic missile system. It faced enormous hurdles as the nature of the ICBM threat changed more rapidly than it could be developed. By the time it entered final testing in 1962, it was clear the system was essentially useless.

The missile is interesting, but the overarching story is even more interesting. While researching the article, I came across formerly secret documents discussing the effectiveness of the Zeus system. Lacking Zeus, they predicted that the Soviets would kill 95% of the US population in a full-scale exchange. Zeus would reduce that to only 75%. They concluded it simply wasn't worth building - why bother spending $10 to $12 billion saving a few million civilians?

Zeus eventually died, and was replaced by a way more complex system, Nike-X. Nike-X entered into a race with even more ICBMs. Rinse, repeat - Sentinel, Safeguard, Sentry, SDI... I find the Zeus story to be a wonderful microcosm of the entire Cold War era debate about megadeaths and guns and butter.

Plus it has some super-cool color pictures of missile launches.

Relisting after closure. All issues raised in the last FAC were addressed when it was closed, but I have made some tweaks since then. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: It's a long read but well-written, thorough, and an interesting piece of history. I found only one very minor issue, which I addressed. I believe this article is worthy of being promoted to featured status. Praemonitus (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but this review has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Given the lack of commentary I'd have no objection to renominating in less than the usual two weeks, but another try at MilHist A-Class might also be in order first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Corona Borealis

edit
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had some problems buffing this article early on but it has come together nicely I feel - it has had input from a professional astronomer (Mike Peel (talk · contribs)) whose queries I have addressed apart from some header classification that would need larger discussion as all the other constellation FAs are like this one. But anyway, I found this one interesting to put together, so come take a look and tell me what needs further tweaking...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ST11
  • Not sure it is necessary to mention Corona Australis in the lead, as it is only tangentially related, apart from the name.
Hmm, I'll reserve judgement on that one...my preference would be to leave it in (but not strongly) and will remove if a consensus builds here to do so. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely not a big thing at all. I could still support with the mention still there. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need to mention how the exoplanets were detected in the lead? I think it would be nice to mention maybe ADS 9731 instead, as one of the few sextuple stars known.
Good point - tweaked lead now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the HCB Great Wall, is the redshift of 1.6–2.1 a range over its length or is it an uncertainty?
aaah good catch - the GRBs mapped clustered at redshifts 1.6–2.1, however the second paper concludes the the redshift is ~2. Tweaked now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I definitely think MS 1603.6+2600 (UW CrB) is worth mentioning somewhere; an X-ray binary away from the Milky Way is always quite interesting, especially one such as this with somewhat strange properties.
made the stub - just tryng to write get my head around the papers and it up now added it now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3C 332 is probably worth a mention as well, as a well-studied active galaxy.
I'm having trouble locating a recent reference that discusses it in detail - SIMBAD has 202 refs but most are about lots of galaxies.... :( Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really a big thing either. I only think it's worth a mention because of the dearth of interesting deep-sky objects in this constellation, but it's not required.

...and I think that's it! StringTheory11 (t • c) 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Overall it looks good and I think it's just about ready for FA status. I found a few minor issues, which I attempted to fix. Here are my unresolved concerns:

My concerns were addressed. Thank you Praemonitus (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a luminosity approximately 102831 times": this value doesn't look approximate since it has 6 digits of precision.
oops - fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Corona Borealis contains no bright deep-sky objects." What is "bright" in this context? Visible to the naked eye?
source doesn't specify - very few deep-sky objects are visible to the naked eye though so sentence not very helpful. But is nice to have some sort of introductiry sentence here. Will see how to tweak Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the references, 'Ian Ridpath' is not in the same form as the other authors (last name, first name).
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

got 'em both Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — ...as its main stars form a semicircular arc. Instead of "main stars", could you say "brightest stars"? --Siddhant (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes though they are not strictly the seven brightest stars they are almost, and it is more understandable than "main stars" so changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question — Abell 2162 is present in Corona Borealis but that's not mentioned anywhere in the article. Since it is not a significant galaxy cluster, should there be a "List of galaxy clusters in Corona Borealis" like we have a List of stars in Corona Borealis? A related question is, where can I find a list of all Abell object if given a constellation? Is there such a table available on the Internet somewhere? Should such a list be copied onto Wikipedia? Oh, and List of Abell clusters is incomplete with regards to this. --Siddhant (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some stars don't get into the article either. The page can't be exaustive. Feel free to expandList of Abell clusters! (in fact, I've begun doing this... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry Cas but despite this having been listed in FAC urgents we seem to have had no new commentary in almost a month, so I'll archive it and perhaps you can give it a fresh start in a couple of weeks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - usually I find this means the prose is a bit boring/inacessible in places, so will get some eyes on it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 18 April 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2015 [15].

Battle of Malvern Hill

edit
Nominator(s): ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Battle of Malvern Hill, fought July 1, 1862, between General George McClellan's Army of the Potomac and General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. The battle ended in a Confederate defeat and effectively ended McClellan's campaign on the Virginian Peninsula. This is my first FA article but I dare not ask you to go easy on me (neither will you ;)). FAs are the best of the best. For the record though, I would like to get it to FA before July 1 so it can be featured on the Main Page. It may be jumping the gun but it is a solid goal :) Thank you, ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Image review

  • Is the Battle begins caption taken from somewhere else, or is meant to be a title? Its tone is a bit odd
    • Changed to "The Union ships Monitor, Galena, Jacob Bell and Aroostook launching missiles onto the battlefield at Malvern Hill." Good?
  • File:Sneden_watercolor_of_Battle_of_Malvern_Hill.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    • I think this is corrected.
  • File:GenGS.jpg needs US PD tag and author date of death
    • This should be done as well.
  • File:John_B_Magruder.jpg: author and date of death?
    • Not sure if this corrects it, but I changed the license to {{PD-US}}. It was published between 1861-1865, well before 1923 so must be in the public domain. Furthermore, the source (Library of Congress) doesn't say who the source is.
  • File:Revised_Union_battleplan_for_the_Battle_of_Malvern_Hill.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Map_of_the_night's_march_after_Battle_of_Malvern_Hill.jpg
  • File:Union_barrage_at_Malvern_Hill_-_July_1,_1862.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. Can I use this as a source? It's from the Hampton Roads Naval Museum. I could also use this as a source from the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities. Using the former would allow me to reupload a more clear, coloured version of the same image. Both of those seem to be reliable sources. In fact I can use both. The source at the VAF says it was published in 1863 and since it's necessary that I provide a date of publication, that's valuable. Thoughts? (By the way, thank you Nikkimaria for the image review.) Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 17:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe we can mark this as done as well. I've reuploaded a colored version. and added {{PD-art}} and {{PD-old-100}}. Both are applicable and together they prove that the image is in the public domain according to US copyright laws and most copyright laws around the world. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll be happy to help with copyediting after we get a support or two. - Dank (push to talk) 19:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Striking, there's more to do here than I have time for. Sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Thank you Dank. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 21:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment pending support I'll support this, after it gets some copy -editing. You've got a lot of dupe links, too. Let me know when Dank does his copy edit, and I'll give it another go-over for copy/prose. your source list doesn't include all in your footnotes (such as Sweetman or Rollyson). auntieruth (talk)

@Auntieruth55: Mike Christie has copyedited recently, did you want to take another look at the article now? @Dank: Just FYI... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Ian, there's more to do here than I have time for. - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: fine

  • did not do spot checks
  • sources cited include many of the principle works on the battle/campaign.
  • further reading section is a nice touch, and includes several important and readable works on the campaign. auntieruth (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

edit
Resolved concerns

I'm copyediting as I go through the article; please revert if I make a mess of anything.

  • "McClellan's attempts to take the city were repeatedly held off by Confederate commander-in-chief Joseph E. Johnston. But when Johnston was replaced by Robert E. Lee, the Confederacy went on the offensive." Rather than start a sentence with "But", I'd suggest either joining these two sentences with a comma, or making it "When Johnston" at the start of the second one.
  • "Collectively called the Seven Days Battles, Lee launched a series of counterattacks": rephrase -- Lee was not collectively called the Seven Days Battles.
  • "By the next day, McClellan extended his battle line": either "had extended" or cut "By".
    • Changed to "had extended".
  • "By May 30, McClellan had already begun moving troops": why "already"?
    • Removed.
  • Should the caption say the bridge was created by Sumner's troops, rather than by Sumner? That's how the information on the image itself has it.
  • "Lee was ostensibly not feeling so reclusive": I like the idea here, but I don't think this quite works. How about just "Lee was less cautious"?
    • Changed to "Lee was less cautious"
  • "The resulting battle was a unique occurrence during the Seven Days": in what way?
  • "one mismatched attack after another": I don't follow -- they were overmatched by their Union opponents? Or they failed to coordinate their attacks?
    • one attack after another over muddy, uneven ground against the Union line
  • "The day after however": I'd cut "however", and I think you should give the date -- it's been a day or two since the previous date was given and the reader won't be sure what date we've reached.
    • Deleted "however" and added "On June 29"
  • "The battle's execution was uncoordinated, allowing the Federals escaped": looks like an incompletely edited sentence.
    • Yup, good catch. Fixed.
  • "This series of aggressions would come to be a part of the Seven Days Battles": I'm not sure what "come to be a part of" means here.
  • "inviting battle; Lee obliged": there's nothing wrong with this, but you might consider making that a period after battle -- making the last two words a sentence on their own would be a rather nice dramatic touch.
    • Changed semi-colon to period.
  • "was distanced about two miles from": suggest cutting "distanced".
    • Deleted "distanced"
  • "Western Run creek, another tributary of Turkey Island Creek which, perversely enough, lay mostly along the eastern side of the hill and slanted into the northern side slightly": this sentence has no main verb, and I don't understand "perversely enough".
    • Reworded to Western Run creek was another tributary of Turkey Island Creek which lay mostly along the eastern side of the hill and slanted into the northern side slightly
  • Is there any chance of a simplified topographic map that could accompany the geography section? The description seems precise but a map is worth a thousand words.
    • Tried to find some on LoC and NARA websites. All of them have complicated sketches of where the Union/Confederate divisions were placed instead of a simple depiction of the hill's topography.
      Fair enough; it would be nice to add something like that if you ever do find something suitable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Longstreet ostensibly did not share Hill's objections": I don't think "ostensibly" adds anything here.
    • Deleted "ostensibly"
  • "Lee chose for the relatively well-rested units of": I think this would read more naturally without "for".
    • Deleted "for"
  • Several times you repeat the full rank and name of a general after introducing him earlier in the section. There's rarely a need for this unless it's been a while since they were mentioned; A.P. Hill and D.H. Hill are an obvious exception, but Longstreet should usually just be Longstreet after the reader knows who he is.
  • "Lee's Army of Northern Virginia would form a semi-circle enveloping Malvern Hill": it's not clear if this is a description of the plan or a description of what would actually happen. I think it's the plan, so I would make it something like "Lee's plan was for the Army of Northern Virginia ...". I also don't think a colon is the best punctuation at the end of that sentence; I'd suggest a period there.
    • Reworded to Lee planned for his Army of Northern Virginia to form a semi-circle enveloping Malvern Hill.
  • "the divisions of Stonewall Jackson forces and John Magruder": I suspect this is incompletely edited. Shouldn't it be either "the divisions of Stonewall Jackson and John Magruder" or "Stonewall Jackson's and John Magruder's forces"?
    • Yup, fixed.
  • "who held the battle of Malvern Hill as the first battle he'd ever commanded in": a bit wordy. How about "who had never before held a command during battle"?
  • The text says the order was unlikely to have been seen by Lee, but the quote box doesn't make that clear. I think adding a note to the quotebox would be worthwhile -- I read it before I read the text and assumed that this was verbatim from Lee.
  • "He corroborated his view with": this might be more natural as "This view was corroborated by".
    • Reworded.
  • "As evidenced by the plights of Major General John Magruder and Brigadier General Benjamin Huger, Malvern Hill would be no exception": I'm not keen on this wording, for a couple of reasons. It might be better to simplify it a little. How about "These misfortunes continued during the Battle of Malvern Hill, with both Magruder and Huger making mistakes in the deployment of their forces"?
    • Reworded
  • "destined to reach the day's battlefield": I'm not sure what "destined" means here.
    • Reworded to eventually reaching the day's battlefields
  • "a relatively less disparate condition": I don't think this means quite what you want it to. I think you mean that the army's disposition was more orderly and there were no serious errors in the disposition, as there were with the Confederates. How about "The Army of the Potomac's disposition in the lead up to the battle was more orderly than Lee's"?
    • Reworded.
  • "somewhat less precarious than Magruder": "precarious" doesn't seem the right word; there was nothing precarious about Magruder's mistake, surely?
    • Reworded to Brigadier General Huger and his men had found themselves in a predicament as delicate as Magruder's
  • "A.P. Hill sent one of his batteries to the right artillery position—his best one, supposedly": I'm curious about the source for "supposedly"; if this is truly an opinion, and not definite, is it worth attributing the source in the text?
    • Deleted —his best one, supposedly since it is speculative.
  • "the Rowan Artillery of the Brigadier General William H.C. Whiting's division": should be "of", not "of the"?
    • Yup, fixed.
  • "waked the wrath": this might be an American English vs. British English point, but I'd expect to see "woke the wrath", not "waked".
    • Seems either would have been correct in this case but nonetheless I changed it to "woke"
  • Since the story of the beginning of the battle doesn't reach 3:30 P.M. till towards the end of that section, it might be better to move the mention of the gunboats to that point, since the Galena didn't return till about that time. Or were the other two boats engaged earlier?
    • The source doesn't make this clear. There is evidence to suggest that the gunboats began their barrage at around the same time the artillery fight began to pick up (at about 1 PM) but this contitutes original research since no source directly states that.
      I think this is a problem as currently worded. The narrative in the beginning of battle section makes it clear that the artillery fire from both sides was underway well before 2:30 P.M., but the when the involvement of the ironclad and the boats is mentioned the only time context we are given is that the ironclad was not present till 3:30. I think it would be better to be clearer that the ironclad was not involved at the time the barrage began, and that the gunboats may or may not have been -- it's OK to let the reader know that the sources are unclear on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did Magruder think Armistead's men had been successful? And in fact how did he know what happened to them at all, given that Huger didn't know where they were?
    • He thought Armistead was successful because by the time he reached the battlefield, Armistead's men were halfway up the hill. (He might have thought that with healthy reinforcements, Armistead's men could advance. This was proven untrue when the first major charge of the day was repelled quite effectively by the Union guns) Huger didn't know where Armistead and Wright were because he sent them ahead the perform flanking actions on the Charles City Road to any Union forces they met. They didn't meet any Union forces because the road was clear. So they just marched until they reached the battlefield. Once they reached the battlefield they were ordered to replace Magruder and Huger. Benjamin Huger was a stickler for the chain of command and hated when anyone but himself gave his brigades orders. He was quite upset at Malvern Hill.
      Rereading I think this is OK; I think the material is all there. If I can figure a way to clarify it I'll try it but I think it's OK as it stands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Equally grim as the visuals left from Malvern Hill's fighting were the casualty numbers": I think "visuals" sounds a bit anachronistic here, and I'm also not convinced it's a good comparision -- the sight of the dead and wounded isn't really a separate issue from the casualty numbers; they're just different aspects of the same thing. Comparing the two makes little rhetorical sense. I think you can make this just "The casualty numbers from the battle were grim."
    • Reworded.
  • "She recalled that they "breathed in the vapors" of the charnel houses": I wouldn't use "charnel house" outside quotes unless you specifically mean an actual charnel house; if it's a metaphorical use it's better if the original quote is used.
    • Added the full text of the quote.
  • "In fact, Lee reported that he'd taken some ten thousand Union soldiers prisoner": what does "in fact" mean here? If the point is the difference between the two counts of missing soldiers, I'd suggest being more direct -- perhaps "Lee reported that he'd taken ten thousand Union soldiers prisoner, a number significantly higher than the total reporting missing by McLellan."
    • Reworded to Enough Federals had fallen into Confederate hands that Lee reported capturing ten thousand prisoners.
  • Our article on Fitz John Porter uses the spelling with the space between the first two names; you're using "FitzJohn". It's apparent both are used, so this isn't relevant for FAC, but it would be nice if we were consistent across articles. Is there any reason to pick one spelling over another?
    • Force of habit actually. Wikipedia was the first place I'd ever heard FitzJohn Porter referred to as "Fitz John Porter" with space. The literature I'd read on the Peninsula Campaign always referred to him as "FitzJohn". Either way, I've changed all instances to "Fitz John" per precedent.
  • "James Longstreet might have incited the Confederate defeat": I'm not sure what the intended meaning is, but "incited" seems clearly the wrong word.
    • Changed to "instigated"
  • "Despite these occurrences, however": "occurrences" doesn't seem right -- I think you want to say something like "Despite these issues" or "problems".
    • Reworded to Despite these mishaps
  • "the same shell that wounded me wounded four other's in my company": is the apostrophe in the source? If so I'd add a [sic] after it.
    • Removed comma. Added accidentally.
  • "in good timing as well—mere seconds later": I'd cut this to just "seconds later".
    • Deleted "merely"
  • In footnote f, it should be "lay", not "lie", and you have three "however"s, as well as "additionally" and "also". These can surely be cut down. "However" is very easy to overuse and can often be simply deleted with no ill effects.
    • Changed "lie" to "lay". Did some rewording to correct the "however"s, etc.
  • "Sears goes on, saying that": suggest "Sears goes on to say that" or just "Sears adds that".
    • Done. Sears adds that
  • "nine-inch (230 millimeter)– and eleven inch (280 millimetre)–Dahlgrens": this is a bit hard to read, with the conversions as well as the separated hyphenation. How about just giving the non-metric units, then adding a parenthesis after "Dahlgrens" to give both the conversions?
    • changed to Moreover, nine-inch and eleven-inch (230 millimeter and 280 millimeter) Dahlgren guns and one hundred-pounder (45 kilogram) Parrot rifles

I've completed a pass through the article and will wait for responses before reading through again. Generally I think this is a sound article, well-organized and appropriately sourced. I have some concerns about the prose but I think they're mostly cosmetic. I've indicated some issues above and have made a few copyedits; I'll do another pass later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything above has been taken care of. I'll do another read through and copyedit, and will post any further points I find here; as before if my copyedits don't look right to you please revert. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. I have three more minor points that can be easily fixed.

  • In the geography section, some instances of "creek" are capitalized in the names and some are not -- can you just confirm that this is consistent with the sources?
  • "Davis and Lee eventually decided that large-scale pursuit of McClellan's army was careless": "careless" is surely not the right word; and the tense seems wrong too: do you mean something like "would be too risky"?
  • "Our success has not as great or complete as we should have desired": I didn't fix this because it's a direct quote, but I assume this is missing "been".

Other than these three points I think this article is now FA-quality, with a couple of caveats. First, I see that it has not had a A-class review from the Military History Wikiproject. Of course that's not a prerequisite, but in the absence of an A-class review I'd like to hear from someone with ACW expertise that this article does fairly reflect the scholarship on the battle; I'm just a layman on the topic and can't pretend to have reviewed this for comprehensiveness or balance. Second, I think the article would benefit from at least one more map. I think the basic topography of the area would be much easier to understand with a good map, and there are geographic features in the larger area that I gather are beyond the borders of the one map that we do have -- e.g. the James River. The current map is very good for its age, but clarity is as important as authenticity and as a reader I couldn't follow the battle as well as I would have liked to. I'd also like to be able to follow some of the action on a map (perhaps a different one): Magruder's misdirected march, and Huger's delays, are still vague to me because I couldn't place them in relation to the battlefield as well as I would like; and of course if the sources exist then the action on the battlefield itself could be illustrated too -- exactly where was Armistead's "successful" charge, for example?

I've indicated weak support above because of these two points, but really the addition of one or more modern maps is the main thing that would lead me to strike "weak" from my support. The comment about MilHist just reflects that fact that I can't honestly support on 1b and 1c of the FA criteria. The structure of the article seems just right to me, and the narrative is straightforward and clear. A very good article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Coemgenus

edit
Resolved concerns

This article looks pretty good overall, but the lede, especially, has some problems.

Lede
  • The first paragraph is fine. The second is awkward. I'd start with a sentence describing how the Army of the Potomac got to the peninsula--whatever else historians think of McClellan, the idea to transport the army by ship behind rebel lines was a bold one, and sets up the story.
    • I was conflicted as when I should start the background. This certainly would be a neat addition. I've added and cited it in the main "Military situation" section, and added it to the lede.
  • "McClellan's attempts to take the city were repeatedly fended off by Confederate commander-in-chief Joseph E. Johnston." The passive voice shifts the action here. Why not "Confederate commander-in-chief Joseph E. Johnston fended off McClellan's repeated attempts to take the city."?
    • Done.
  • "Lee succeeded Johnston..." Maybe slightly more detail is warranted. Perhaps "After Johnson was wounded, Lee took command and..."
    • Done.
  • "...began taking up positions..." Probably better as "took up positions".
    • Done.
  • "The preparations of Lee's men..." Probably better as "Confederate preparations..." or even "Lee's preparations..."
    • Done.
  • "...caution caused Benjamin Huger to be late..." Might read better as "... an excess of caution delayed Benjamin Huger..."
    • Done.
  • "Nonetheless, it was the Confederates who started the battle..." Might read better as "Nonetheless, the Confederates attacked first..."
    • Done.
  • "The Union artillery triumphed in its defensive role, however. This was the story of the day, as attack after attack was repulsed by the Union." Could be tightened up. For example: "The Union artillery, however, was the story of the day, repulsing attack after attack."
    • A note on this though: I changed "The Union artillery" to "The Federal artillery". the double use of "Union" (it's used just a few words prior) might be jarring to the reader.
  • "...Lee was heralded as the savior of Richmond in Confederate newspapers." Again, passive voice is a problem here. Try: "... Confederate newspapers heralded Lee..." or "...the Confederate press heralded Lee..."
    • Done.
  • "...and began preparing..." could be "...to prepare..." That way we emphasise the important verb in the sentence (" to prepare").
    • Done.
  • "...Malvern Hill effectively ended the campaign..." If McClellan withdrew, it was fully ended, right? The word "effectively" weakens the point, unless there was some further action on the peninsula I'm forgetting.
    • Nope, not forgetting anything. The Campaign was over, I've deleted effectively.
  • I'll stop there. More to follow. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Military situation
  • The body of the article is mostly good, but there are passive voice problems here and there. Not that it's wrong to use it where called for, but sentences usually sound better with active-voice phrasing. I'd recommend a thorough read-through on this one issue.
  • For example: "This attack was repelled by the Union however, with heavy losses on the Confederate side." It would read better as "Union fires repelled the attack with heavy losses on the Confederate side." Or even: "Union forces turned back the Confederate onslaught, inflicting heavy losses."
    • @Coemgenus: I've done a read through of it and I've corrected the ones I've found. Although, you seem to be more of an expert on the topic so you'll probably find a few more (perhaps, a lot more, even.) Furthermore, I'd like to get your opinion on Note c in the article. Should I just put that as a paragraph in the text rather than a note that people won't read. It explains the [immense] breadth of the fire that day. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nikkimaria

edit

Sourcing comments

  • Using fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of colwidth. Also, {{refbegin}} has that parameter, which should be used over adding {{div col}}
  • Be consistent in whether books include location; if they do it should be more specific than "United States"
  • Some bibliographic details are repeated between Citations and Sources, while other sources are represented by short cites in Citations and full details only in Sources
  • Can you verify the Cullen title?
  • Can you verify the Longstreet listing? It's missing date. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • I'm not seeing any of that paragraph in FN88, at least not on the listed page
  • Some of the content from FN96 is too close to the source - compare for example "McClellan, in contrast to Lee, knew exactly where the blame lay. It was the "heartless villains" in Washington that authored his defeat" with "McClellan knew precisely where to lay the blame. The authors of his defeat...were the "heartless villains" in Washington", or "McClellan found solace in his opinion that everything that happened to him on the Peninsula was the divine will of God" with "The general found solace in his conviction that everything that had happened to him on the Peninsula was God's will".
    • Still some problems here - "paramount enemy" is direct from the source, though the source applies it to McClellan rather than Stanton.
  • "Lieutenant William Folwell, wondered why "they deify a General whose greatest feat was a masterly retreat."[96]" - quote in the source says "whose greatest feat has been a masterly retreat" (my emphasis), please correct
  • "Longstreet did not share Hill's objections, laughing off his caution and saying, "Don't get so scared, now that we've got him [General McClellan] whipped."" - this quote is actually on p314 of that source, not 309 or 310
  • "The Confederate artillery fire had some effect" is a direct quote from the source
  • "The cries of the wounded tore through the night air" is a direct quote from the source
  • "uncomplaining silence from the hero" - should be "of the hero"
  • The long Averell quote is missing a few words
  • "In obedience to your orders, twice responded" - source says "twice repeated"
  • "A gun burst, of course, would cause terrible damage to the crew operating it. It takes extreme courage to operate guns in this way" is very close to "It took courage to fire in this way, for a bursting gun would do terrible damage to its crew". Please check for other instances of too-close paraphrasing
  • "I do not think McClellan was up to the mark" - source says "I do not think McClellan has come up to the mark". Please check for other errors in direct quotes

Oppose at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've gone over the entire article and addressed the points you've raised. I've reworded what needs rewording, check the citations, added quotes to what needs it, etc. It's rather incredible how easy it is to close-paraphrase. My fault entirely. I think another spotcheck is in order. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 02:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits so far, but there are still issues here:

  • "have been established to rake the enemy's line" - should be "enemies' line"
  • "The regiments pushed the skirmishers back easily enough, but in doing so, walked into the intense fire" is quite close to "They chased the skirmishers back easily enough, but in doing so advanced into a withering fire"
  • "the Federals were pulling back across Malvern Hill (this was actually Edwin Sumner's troops moving because of Confederate shelling); and Union artillery fire slackening on his front" is quite close to "Yankee troops pulling back across Malvern Hill (this was Sumner's men taking cover from the Confederate shells) and the enemy's artillery fire slackening on his front"
  • "kin searched among the wounded for their loved ones and tried to reclaim the bodies of the dead" is quite close to "families searched for the wounded and tried to reclaim the bodies of the dead"

Generally speaking, verifiability is better than on last check, but I'm still quite concerned about the paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, and I have struck my oppose. Some remaining concerns:

Hey Nikkimaria, can you see if your concerns have been addressed (particularly the sourcing comments) and strike them if you feel they have. Thank you very much, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - per the ping above

Hey Parsecboy. Can you possibly do a look over to see if your concerns have been addressed, and stirike your comments if so, r indicate which one haven't been? Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 20:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Karanacs

edit

Oppose for now by karanacs. There are pervasive issues in the article with appropriate citation of quotations. It is best practice to cite a quotation to the specific book and page number on which it appeared, not to a range of pages (unless the quote crosses pages) or multiple books. This is not the case for many of the quotations in this article. I've noted most of those issues here but ask you to please double-check the others and make sure they are also appropriately cited. I'll strike the oppose when those are addressed. There are also instances throughout of ranks being used where they don't need to be.

  • In the first paragraph, we need a more specific citation for the quotation - "the stride of a giant". The page range is not specific enough.
  • they "could see the church spires of the city" -> Which book did this quotation from from? The citation after the next sentence lists two. This needs to be more explicitly cited.
  • " As glorious as that victory might have been," -> I'm not sure why this phrase is included. The wording doesn't seem neutral at all
  • Do we need "General" in the section names? I'd actually change them to "Union forces prepare" and "Confederate forces advance", but I understand leaving it as "McCllellan's forces..." etc.
  • The first sentence of Lee's forces advance seems awkward to me. I would expect the list of generals to appear immediately after "met with his generals, ... ," before the "on the Long Bridge Road...." I see this same structure in a few other places in the article also. It's an awkward read, and I believe syntactically incorrect (of course, I'm old, so maybe things have changed).
  • "so discomfit them as to warrant an assault by infantry." -> again, the citation is not specific enough
  • I'm not thrilled with the gallery of images. I think it is unnecessary, and it does not display well on my widescreen monitor (the second row is centered, the first row is offset to the left because the box for "Lee's message to his commanders" is almost entirely in this section). Having to scroll for one of the captions is also not good practice. If the images can't be distributed throughout the rest of the article, do they really need to be there?
  • "They landed on the battlefield eventually," - shouldn't landed just be for ships and planes?
  • The first and last paragraphs of Major General Magruder arrives has the same issue with quotations and citations
  • "No troops were ever better handled; never was better military skill displayed than by him." - again, specific citation
  • There are a lot of instances where ranks are repeated after the person's introduction, which isn't necessary. I removed several but may have missed some - can you please look through to fix this?
  • " "They have not all got away if we go immediately after them." -> quote, two different books cited

Karanacs (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Auntieruth55

edit
  • Ok, I've done a read through of half of the article....it is in much better shape than it was earlier in this process. It's still got rough edges. I took the liberty of smoothing some of them out, mostly repetitive phrases, etc. YOu can see what I did in the history.
  • in the lead: it would haunt him? it haunted him, or the issue dogged his campaign, or something.
  • the Preliminary goals and strengths of forces section is very weak and choppy. It seems to me that suddenly we've found that McClellan's effort has failed--he's in retreat--and that Lee's is successful. Is there a way to weave this together? The armies are relatively evenly matched. As I'm reading this, M is making a "last stand" .... It would make some sense to me to weave in the strength of forces with the efforts of both armies to reconnoiter one another. Just some thoughts. I'll get back to reading the rest on Wednesday a.m. auntieruth (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but we've given this every chance to garner sufficient support for promotion and it hasn't happened, so I'm going to archive it and suggest a fresh start after the usual two-week break. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2015 (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 archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC) [16].[reply]

Irataba

edit
Nominator(s): ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC) . User:Rationalobserver is the primary author and co nom but has since been regrettably blocked for 6 months. User:Maunus has contributed but is currently on a break.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Irataba, one of the last independent Mohave head chiefs. Renowned for his size and presence among European Americans, he did much to bridge the divide between whites and native Indians in the mid 19th century. While visiting Washington DC and other major cities in 1864 he was given a silver-headed cane from Abraham Lincoln and was bestowed with all sorts of gifts for his important role in American history, yet lived his later years in relative disgrace among his tribe. Despite this, following his death in 1874 the Mohaves burned their entire village rather than the customary chief's hut as a mark of great respect and honor.

This has had an extraordinarily detailed peer review by many different people. It needed quite a lot of work. I saw potential at an earlier stage and helped prepare this, the subject I found very interesting indeed as I hope you do. I ransacked most of my resources and believe it is a very comprehensive account of a man who doesn't have a great deal of biographical information available. Following the input of the reviewers and the extensive efforts of Rationalobserver and other editors in improving what was already a good article I feel this is now ready. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I am restarting this FAC. The article has changed too much during this nomination for a clear consensus to be reached. The previous discussion can be found here, but this will no longer be taken into account. Graham Beards (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham Beards: I'm going to withdraw this then if it's OK. I've emailed you too if you could reply, thanks. I was happy with the earlier nominated version myself as were others but Maunus has made some positive changes and still seems to have some specialist books now to further expand it. It's not a good idea running the FAC while it is still being expanded. Once he is done, hopefully sooner rather than later I will ensure that it is copyedited and then renom in the summer sometime probably. Thankyou to everybody who reviewed and supported it anyway, we'll get there soon enough, hope you understand.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:49, 15 April 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC) [17].[reply]

61 Cygni

edit
Nominator(s): -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 14:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a visual binary system in the constellation Cygnus. The article seems to meet all the criteria for a FA and I have made still more updation and minor fixes so as to meet the criteria. The article is currently a GA and the article have undergone major expansion after that. Top editors aren't active now and RJHall retired a little while ago. Still, I have done much to make it meet to the criteria. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 14:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review – The article is in decent shape, although perhaps a little short. Here are a few observations:

  • The 'absolute magnitude' values in the infobox need a proper citation; just computing them isn't enough. (Kervella et al. (2008) give the absolute bolometric magnitudes for the two stars; it might be better to use that field instead.)
  • The article needs to explain the meaning of the name '61 Cygni'. For example, where did it originate?
  • The meaning of 'K5 V' and 'K7 V' needs to be clarified, as the reader might not be familiar with the MK notation and its connection to the statement "K class (orange) main sequence stars".
  • The Observation history section should use consistent units for the parallax and be consistent about labeling parallax measurements.
  • The final two sentences of the Observation history section needs a citation.
  • The term 'old-disk stars' needs to be explained.
Done now..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you could use this reference to note whether an infrared excess has (or has not) been found.
(Move the comments to the correct bullet. Praemonitus (talk))
I read it but it seems to me like there aren't any IR excess as they say much about GJ 581, GJ 667C, and GJ 876 M-dwarfs. GJ 820 has its name only in the table. So should I include in the article that there aren't any IR excess? Plus, I couldn't deduce from them that there are any habitable zones either. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the absence of a detectable IR excess is still of interest because it tells the reader something about the state of the system. The reference for the habitability radii is in a separate bullet above. Praemonitus (talk)
I think the same is explained in Refining planetary boundaries section. Right? -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me as that 1998 result is contradicted by the more recent data. Perhaps there's another source that will discuss it? Praemonitus (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed this point. Praemonitus (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could also use Table 7 in this reference to speak to the stellar habitable zones around the two stars.
Still couldn't get it. Please link it to the page itself...-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 15:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is part of a PDF document. Have you tried reading the arXiv article and scrolling down to near the end? Praemonitus (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Checking through the references, I found "stellar-database.com" is being used in several cases. It is not clear that this a reliable source—the site is maintained by a Science Fiction writer—and so I think it should be replaced. Praemonitus (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Praemonitus, Replace all? I have replaced two of them with simbad, which is already used many-a-times. Two to go..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 12:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ST11
  • The entire "Distance" section is a huge eyesore and frankly unimportant. Readers aren't going to care about every single distance estimate published, and are only going to care about the most accurate one, which is already present in the infobox. I'd remove the whole section.
  • If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the table helps show how the parallax method works. There's two things wrong with that: I don't see how the table conveys that at all, and such info would not be appropriate for this article but rather for the parallax article. The approximations of pi is different, since the increasing approximations of pi has been a subject of intense study itself, and well, pi is much more important to everyday life than this single star. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But is the removal of the section necessary to result in further shortening of the article? -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the section isn't needed because all it conveys is the fact that the instrumentation is growing more accurate as time passes. It doesn't tell the reader anything new about the stars. If you absolutely have to retain it, I'd suggest moving it to the end of the article (as an appendix) so that it doesn't disrupt the flow. Praemonitus (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both stars in the system are rather typical variable stars (BY Dra and flare). However, I'm not seeing magnitude ranges anywhere in this article for either star, which are absolutely necessary.
Now included..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overall though, this article is pretty good. It is admittedly somewhat short, but that's not a problem; it's better to have only clear, concise, and relevant information and it covers its topic well.

StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question. In which book/document did Giuseppe Piazzi first demonstrate its large proper motion. Shouldn't that be somewhere in the reference? I couldn't find any reference to it. --Siddhant (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I felt it very first. Still searching.....-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Since a complete scan of the book is available on Google Books, shouldn't that be linked to (while of course mentioning that the text is in Italian)? Do we know the page number on which 61 Cygni is mentioned (though I agree, that it might be too much to ask for)? --Siddhant (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but with no comments for over two weeks this review seems to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC) [19].[reply]

Avianca Flight 52

edit
Nominator(s): Veggies (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a passenger flight that crashed in New York due to fuel starvation in January 1990. I believe it has reached FA-quality after an extensive research and editing process by myself over the past few weeks that greatly expanded on the history, dynamics, and effects of the crash. Veggies (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the media portrayals, I'm not sure how to cite those. It's a weird situation where I can show you that these things exist:
but I can't cite them. Suggestions? -- Veggies (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I used the cite vid template as you suggested. As for citations, those sentences refer back to the citations immediately prior. Everything is cited, but I don't put inline-citations after every sentence. My rule of thumb is one inline-citation per three sentences, so long as all three sentences are in the citation just before. -- Veggies (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nimbus227

edit
  • Just had a skip read through and the prose looks quite good. Some things I've noticed, variant info in the lead is too much detail (707-321B), just plain Boeing 707 would do. JFK abbreviation is unlinked (how it should be) but 'NTSB' is blue (consistency of format). What time of day did this accident happen?
I can see no metric conversions for units. The plural of 'lb' is lb. Some of the footnotes are uncited. I may have some book sources on this article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I notice a lot of text being added or re-arranged, the article needs to be stable (WP:WIAFA 1e) otherwise reviewers can get very confused (unreviewed text with problems could be added after a 'support' comment for instance). I'm not sure if the exact time and the UTC link is needed in the lead, it is generally assumed that times are local, probably a guideline on it somewhere. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair, I just finished renovations yesterday and submitted it to FAC right after that. Maybe I should have let it breathe for a day, but there's no one editing this article presently but myself—no edit wars or contentious issues. As for time of day, I followed the example on WP:TIMEZONE. -- Veggies (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've posted some other thoughts on the article talk page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nimbus227: If I've satisfied your concerns, would you consider supporting the article for FA? -- Veggies (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment from Curly Turkey

edit
  • Is the topic of this article the flight or the crash? It opens "Avianca Flight 52 was a regularly scheduled flight from Bogotá to New York, via Medellín." but the rest of the lead is entirely about the crash. If the article is about the crash, I suggest retitling and rewriting the opening sentence to make it clear the article is about the crash. If the article is indeed supposed to be about the flight itself, then the lead will have to be rewritten to give an overview of the flight itself. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic is about the flight on Jan 25, 1990, that ended in a crash, as well as the subsequent effects and the investigation that followed. I can definitely incorporate more details from the flight itself before the crash into the lede. It's a good point. Thank you. -- Veggies (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@Nikkimaria: The image itself or the thumbnail in the article? -- Veggies (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thumbnail in the article - since it uses upright it should be scalable. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I upscaled it a bit. -- Veggies (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: If I've satisfied your concerns, would you consider supporting the article for FA? -- Veggies (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Veggies: A satisfactory image review is generally just that, it won't result in "support" because it is just one aspect of the overall review, which also takes in prose, structure, sourcing and comprehensiveness. In any case, please do not solicit support from reviewers, as here and above -- they can make their own decisions and are quite at liberty to neither support nor oppose outright if they so choose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but this review has been open over a month without attracting any support for promotion so I'll be archiving it shortly. Per FAC instructions, pls wait two weeks before re-nominating this (or any) article here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC) [21].[reply]

Juan Manuel de Rosas

edit
Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC) and • Astynax talk[reply]

Juan Manuel de Rosas is one of the key figures in South American history, probably the most well-known 19th century dictator in that region (after Francisco Solano López). For a brief moment he was almost able to turn Argentina into the main power in South America, and almost conquered nearby countries. He became so powerful that the Empire of Brazil under Emperor Pedro II forged an alliance to crush him. This article used dozens of well-known sources in academia, although is mostly based on John Lynch's biography, regarded as the best one in any language. Lecen (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment from Curly Turkey

edit
  • I'm curious about the nicknamed "Restorer of the Laws" bit:
    • It appears nowhere in the body (it appears three times in the Spanish FA).
    • Should there not be a definite article there? The Spanish FA gives El Restaurador de las Leyes.
    • Seems odd that a nickname important enough to appear in the opening line would not be given in Spanish, even though Conquistador del desierto is.
    • Was he really "nicknamed" so? As in, did people address him as "Rstorer of the Laws"? The Spanish article calls it a título.
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas_as_a_child_(transparent).png needs a US PD tag
  • File:Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas_1829.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
  • File:Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas_1845.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:La_Residencia_de_Rosas_en_Palermo.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas_exiled.JPG needs a US PD tag
  • File:Estatua_a_Rosas_en_Palermo.JPG: since Argentina does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture, we need to account for the copyright status of the work itself as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the US PD tags. I couldn't find birth and death dates for "Arthur Onslow", who is described both as British and French painter in Argentine sources. I'm going to take a look at the university library on Monday to see if I can find something. What would you suggest that we should do regarding the sculpture photo? --Lecen (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • See if you can establish the artist and/or the date of creation, to determine whether it is now in the public domain. If it is not, or if you cannot determine conclusively that it is, we'll need to remove it. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The sculpture was created in 1999. It certainly doesn't belong to the artist, since it's a public sculpture. The government also doesn't charge for it, which means that it has no intention in getting profit out of it. I can't imagine the Argentine government suing people for using photos of public sculptures in public spaces. But I don't know if that would be enough by Wikipedia standards. --Lecen (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

edit

I see some minor problems with the prose in the lead; I'll list them here, but I would recommend getting an editor who hasn't worked with the article to copyedit it.

  • "caudillo" is defined the second time it's used, rather than the first. I can see why this was done but I don't think it works; most readers won't understand the term without following the link.
  • "indisputable leader" -- "undisputed leader" is the more usual phrasing.
  • "Rosas was recalled after his supporters launched a coup in Buenos Aires and became governor again": rephrase; "his supporters" appears to be the subject of "became governor" on first reading.
  • "encountered countless" -- suggest rephrasing to avoid repetition of "count".
  • "a major rebellion that spread to several Argentine provinces that lasted years": awkward construction.

I've skimmed the rest of the article and I see some similar issues elsewhere in the article -- as I said, nothing too serious, but I think the article is just a touch short of featured quality prose. I haven't done a thorough read for content and structure. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- This review has been open a month without attracting any support for promotion so I'll be archiving it shortly. Pls feel free to renominate after the usual two-week break, during which time Mike's suggested copyedit could be undertaken. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC) [23].[reply]

Neil Armstrong

edit
Nominator(s): The Snowager-is awake 01:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a well-written article adhering to the point of view and was promoted to a Good Article status around 4 years ago. In my opinion, this article should be a featured article, having lots of references and adhering to its point of view. The Snowager-is awake 01:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The most cursory glance at the article indicates that, whatever its potential merits, it is quite unready for FAC in its present state. I'm not sure what the above nom statement is intended to mean, but I will remind the nominator that, when making this nomination, he/she edited a page which in large bolded letters instructed: "Wait! Before nominating an article please ensure that it meets all the featured article criteria" – which are then listed. You could hardly fail to notice this instruction, but you appear to have ignored it. You need to familiarise yourself with FAC procedures, and avoid impulse nominations of articles that you merely like the look of. If you are really interested in helping to develop this artice, you should nominate it for WP:Peer review, and perhaps canvass possible editors who might be interested in working on it, with a view to a FAC nomination at a later date. For the present it should be withdrawn. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC) [24].[reply]

2000 Belgian Grand Prix

edit
Nominator(s): Z105space (Talk to me!) 21:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Formula One World Championship race held on 27 August 2000. The 2000 Belgian Grand Prix was won by McLaren's Mika Häkkinen after a breathtaking passing manoeuvre on Ferrari's Michael Schumacher while lapping BAR driver Ricardo Zonta. This was also the second race in F1 history to start behind the safety car as the track was too wet for a stationary start. The article has undergone a peer review where the concerns raised were dealt with. One note to add, this article is part of my objective to get the 2000 Formula One season to featured topic status. I hope that reviewers will enjoy reading this article and I welcome all feedback whether positive or negative. Z105space (Talk to me!) 21:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: Per FAC instructions, when a nomination of yours has been archived you're required to wait two weeks before again nominating any article, unless given leave to do so by a coordinator. As you're only a few days short and didn't receive too much commentary last time we'll make an exception, but please follow the instructions in future. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Thank you and I shall take this into account in the future, Apologies for the late reply Z105space (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm afraid with no commentary after a month we'll have to archive this. Because of the lack of feedback you could in theory renominate without waiting the usual two weeks following your article being archived. I know the article's had GA and Peer Reviews, you can let those reviewers know -- via neutrally worded notices to their talk pages -- that the article is up for FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC) [25].[reply]

Graduados

edit
Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a successful Argentine telenovela. It has been selected as a good article, and improved even further since then. Cambalachero (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Retrohead

edit
  • If Graduados is in Spanish, that means The Graduates is the English term, and the language in brackets from the opening sentence needs to be corrected.
  • The introduction seems concise, reads understandable and contains information from all sections.
  • I understood the plot from first reading. I know we can not expect references for the plot of the entire series, but I wonder does the FA tolerate sections with no refs. I've seen book-related articles being nominated at FARC because their plot is not sourced.
  • Can you describe Showmatch more precisely? "Blockbuster series" instead of "blockbuster program" could be a better fit. And it was moved an hour earlier to compete with Graduados, right?
  • I guess you're referring to "ballads" as "soft songs" in the 'Other media'?
Done. Yes, ballads are soft songs. As far as I know, references are not required on the plot section, because the reference is the plot of the work itself; references may be required if the section goes beyond a mere plot summary. Cambalachero (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "working title" would be more suitable instead of the original title of El paseaperros. The term original means that the series was released under the first title, while "working" means that the title was during the development of the storyline.
  • Done reading the prose, you've got my support on this criteria.--Retrohead (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Erick

edit

Very interesting article, I'm taking a look right now.

  • The checklinks tool spotted one non-functioning url.
  • The disambiguation tool picked one internal link that needs to be disambiguated
  • You're missing an alt for the infobox image (the parameter is image_alt).
  • " The plot concerns a group of 1989 high-school graduates who reunite twenty years later." 2012 is more than twenty years later from 1989. I'd suggest either "more than twenty years later" or "twenty-three years later"
  • "An episode included a flashback to San Carlos de Bariloche" I think "One episode included a flashback to San Carlos de Bariloche" sounds more appropriate.
  • Is the Gran Rex Theater referring to the Teatro Gran Rex? If so, you should wikilink it.
  • Is there a reason why you mention the telenovela wining Program of the Year twice? How about "Graduados received 12 Tato Awards (including Television Program of the Year) from 20 nominations on November 17, 2012." or something similar?
  • "The producers of Graduados released an album of music used in the series." Should specify whether it's a compilation album or soundtrack even you already linked to compilation album.
  • "The first CD went gold" Please mention which country the album was certified gold at. I presume it's in Argentina, but it should be mentioned nonetheless.
  • "As the series wound down Telefe considered a theatrical version for the 2013 summer season, similar to a 2010 version by the producers of Valientes, but the cast had other commitments." There should be a comma after "down". You can put a parenthesis between "similar" and "Valientes" if there are too many commas in the sentence.
  • Some of the news sources in the references section should be linked such as La Nacion (only link the first instance).
  • -More coming. Erick (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The disambiguation link, however, is correct as it is: it is the Graduados (disambiguation) hatnote at the top of the article. --Cambalachero (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, that makes sense. Well just address of the issues and I'll be glad to give my support. Erick (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, except for the link in the references. I was told in a previous FAC of another article that references should have a similar style, which means that I should link all the names of sources, or none. Not all sources have specific articles, so this may generate a lot of red links. --Cambalachero (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, makes sense. Anyways, you've addressed everything else which is enough for me to support this article. Good job! Erick (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but it's been six weeks and there still appears to be a long way to go to get sufficient commentary and support for promotion, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC) [26].[reply]

Prester John

edit
Nominator(s): Cuchullain and -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 16:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a legendary Christian patriarch and king popular in European chronicles and tradition from the 12th through the 17th century. The article looks good and perfect for FA..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 16:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cambalachero

edit

Image review: File:Prester John.jpg should use the {{information}} template, and change the license to PD-100. The author of File:PriesterJohannes.jpg is Hartmann Schedel, not the uploader, and should also be changed to PD-100. File:WangKhan.JPG should also change to PD-100. File:Prester John map.jpg should also fix the incorrect mention to the uploader as author, and change to PD-100. --Cambalachero (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: This nomination is premature. The article survived a GA review in 2009, but has not been formally reviewed since. The nominator, The Herald, who has made no significant contributions, rushed the nomination in spite of the principal contributor's expressed view: "I'm not sure the article is quite ready for an FA push". Apart from anything else, the article is full of uncited statements, including a number of whole paragraphs – the legacy section looks particularly weak. It is a well established principle that articles should not be nominated here until all the preparatory work has been done, and I propose speedy withdrawal until there is clear evidence that the article is ready, against the FAC criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC) [27].[reply]

The Story of the Three Bears

edit
Nominator(s): SeeSpot Run (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a tale written and published by the poet and essayist Robert Southey. It appears to be the first time the tale was put into print for the mass market. The story is one of the most popular and best known tales in the English language. SeeSpot Run (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments looking good - had a read-through and the prose reads nicely and looks pretty thorough. Some issues:
  • Second para of Literary elements needs citations (should be easy to find)
  • As does parts of Film and television and Other
  • I'd convert other into a paragraph, not bulleted points.

I have a sneaking suspicion there might be some other analysis to add but I might be wrong. Back later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elements of the article have been reviewed and have been deleted as inappropriate.SeeSpot Run (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
this interpretation looks interesting as a critique etc. fulltext is online too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Image removed as of WP policy. Needs permission.SeeSpot Run (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image is provably public domain. I have restored it to the article and added some information to the file description page. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cambalachero

edit

The comment between parentheses in the plot is too long, and perhaps should be rewritten. Most of the paragraphs are very short, and should be merged or expanded. For example, the first two paragraphs of "Origin" talk about the same, and have no reason to be set apart. Cambalachero (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Montanabw

edit
  • I have to oppose this FAC at present, I think it is best withdrawn and taken to either peer review or back to the drawing board. It just is not ready for prime time yet. It could get there, but it really is still at best GA. Montanabw(talk) 21:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall writing style is choppy and disjointed. One-paragraph sections may pass GA, but lack comprehensiveness for FA. Though short articles can be FA, this one lacks adequate comprehensiveness. Montanabw(talk) 21:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plot synopsis needs some variation from a direct WP:SYNOPSIS. In particular, because the Goldilocks version is better-known than the "old woman" version, to not note both in the synopsis is a significant omission - one could state that the original story was [basic synopsis from first version] and then have a second paragraph with the more sanitized "Goldilocks" version. Montanabw(talk) 21:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The story predates Southey, and though it does examine how it "was a retelling of a story that had long been in circulation," the chronology is cursory, disorganized and hard to follow. Mure's version and the "Scrapefoot" version are not adequately examined (see e.g. this. The development of "Goldilocks" from "Silver hair" and "Golden Hair" is also inadequately examined. Montanabw(talk) 21:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are just a few comments, I don't think it is necessary to give a fuller review because I think this was a premature nomination. There also appears to be some stability issues and edit-warring going on too. Montanabw(talk) 21:22, 5 April 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC) [28].[reply]

Impossible Remixes

edit
Nominator(s): GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 06:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Australian recording artist Kylie Minogue's fifth remix album Impossible Remixes. I had found a section of comments regarding the page and I have looked through them and have improved the article severly with reliable sources. The article has included new information that has been sought out and includes a personnel column, track list information and more information that will be reliable for this album. GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 06:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest early closure Sorry, but the prose quality of this article is well below FA standard. As a few examples picked more or less at random:

  • "Minogue left London-based record label PWL in 1992 after becoming aware of British tabloids accusing the staff of PWL for creating too similar music to other artists who were signed to the label" (the first sentence of the body of the article)
  • "Impossible Princess entered the UK Albums Chart at number ten on 4 April 1998 and descended the way out after a four week duration"
  • "The photo shoot, originally shot in black and white, features Minogue in a furry jersey and a loose one-shoulder shirt, with different color filters on each photo he shot."
  • "The album did not performed commercially well" Nick-D (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Yes, I have to agree re. the prose, it really does need a full copyedit, after which I'd suggest GAN and/or PR before considering a renomination at FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2015 (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 archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 08:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC) [29].[reply]

One World Trade Center

edit
Nominator(s): CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about One World Trade Center (officially known as Freedom Tower from 2002—2009), the primary building of Manhattan's World Trade Center. This building was built to replace the former One World Trade Center, commonly known as the North Tower, a part of the iconic Twin Towers that were destroyed in the September 11th attacks. This building is the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere, and most expensive skyscraper in the world, reaching 541.3 meters into the sky, which is 1,776 feet, representing American Independence from Great Britain in 1776. Not just known for replacing the North Tower, but also for his energy efficiency, one of the most green office buildings in the world. This article is currently a GA article, but this article deserves to be a Featured article, and has had a lot of work put into the article to make it some of the best work on Wikipedia. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mkativerata comments

edit

Oppose, sorry. As a first point: this article has a few significant contributors: have they been notified about this? This is a good article. But it's one of those articles that may well meet the GA criteria, but falls short of FA standards. The article presents sourced information about the subject in a reasonably structured manner; for that reason it is a GA. What it is not is an engagingly written article, with an overall sense of purpose, that discerningly uses only high-quality reliable sources. These are few examples of issues that highlight the GA/FA gap here:

  • Overall, the sources used for the article include a lot of press releases, self-published sources, etc. This peculiar website is sourced four times. There just aren't the high-quality reliable sources that the FA criteria require.
  • The "Construction" section is a very bland and piecemeal chronology: it gets to a point at which every sentence starts with "On [date]". To meet the "brilliant/engaging prose" criterion of an FA, this section would need to be much more engaging and readable; it would need to be bound together by an overall purpose and direction.
  • "In March 2014, the tower was scaled by 16-year-old New Jersey resident Justin Casquejo, who entered the site through a hole in a fence. He was subsequently arrested on trespassing charges and apologized for the disruption, but gave no apology for trespassing." - the source cited does not say anything about apologies. And in the remainder of the paragraph, some of Casquejo's actions are qualified with the allegedly tag, but others are not, for no apparent reason.
  • Some of the information about tenants seems out of date. Why do we need to know that Chadbourne and Parke were a prospective tenant in 2012? We are told that by September 2012, around 55 percent of the building's floor space had been leased. But what about now?
  • The section "Port Authority construction workers" is not about the construction workers; it is about a film. The entire section is sourced to the film's website.
  • Sometimes it is "One World Trade Center", sometimes it is "1 World Trade Center", sometimes it is "1 WTC". In an FA, these would need to be consistent.

I don't mean to be too critical. I think it would be very difficult for anyone to bridge the GA/FA gap on this one. The reason is that it is too early for high-quality reliable sources to be available on this subject matter -- books, journal articles, etc -- and too early for the article to have a clear overall perspective or narrative. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mkativerata — Of course your not to critical! I will work on these suggestions! Am I aloud to close this so I can work on your suggestions? Thanks! CookieMonster755 (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/April_2015&oldid=660147103"