Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2006

Pope Benedict XVI

I am nominating this article for FA status because I feel it has sincerely achieved it. This article has been nominated twice before, the first time because the article was poorly written and unstable, the second because Pope Benedict had only just been elected and it was felt time needed to be given for him to deal with the issues thought to be important to his papacy. Both issues have now been dealt with. The article is well written with a good lead section and concentric levels of detail, and suitable images. Pope Benedict has been in office for a year now and the editors on this have added his views and actions with an objective and exhaustive eye. I feel the time has come to elevate Pope Benedict XVI to FA status. Dev920 00:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment too many paras close to each other start with "On xyz date". Footnotes go at the end of punctuation, not in the middle of a sentence.Rlevse 01:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to replace those paragraph starts, but 1)it's difficult to know what to replace them with, see my current efforts here, and 2) they being added on a regular basis by a changing IP. Where are these footnotes you refer to? Dev920 01:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at the footnotes your have. The footnote number should be immediately after the period or comma without spaces. For example, footnotes 10,11,32,33 need fixing. Look over the others too.Rlevse 02:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Footnotes go after punctuation per WP:FN, usually without a space. (Some editors prefer a space, but if so they are consistent throughout the article.) See notably this section and this section needing work. I haven't read the whole article at once because it is 100k; something would needs to be broken off or cut. A good candidate for a sub-article is section 5, and the trivia section could be deleted. For an article this long it is somewhat under-referenced. Gimmetrow 02:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've taken care of this minor stuff myslef.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• • You have both made extremely valid and helpful criticisms. It is currently 5:24 am in England, and I have been unable to sleep because I want to include your recommendations so much (dreaming about editing; what a wikiholic). However, I MUST attempt it, so if I could ask for your patience for 24 hours, and I will be on it asap (assuming another editor doesn't do it in the meantime, which would be great). Thankyou. Dev920 04:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Article would benefit from the use of summary style. In particular, the Dialogue with Islam section is a bit tedious. Kaldari 06:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Object - There are entire sections of this article on one of the most controversial figures of our time that have no in-line citations. In the lead section, I immediately saw one bald assertion: "When he was younger, he was considered a liberal". I have never heard this in my life (I live in Italy!!). And it is not attributed. I also agree with the criticims formulated above. Most of the references are just links with no further information. Date of publication? Access date? Author? WP:CITE requires full bibliographic information. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, 1a (or 2a) Brilliant prose is important:

Ratzinger came increasingly to see these and associated developments (such as decreasing respect for authority among his students, the rise of the German gay rights movement as related to a departure from traditional Catholic teachings. Increasingly, his views, despite his reformist bent, contrasted with those liberal ideas gaining currency in theological circles.

What is that?

Like his predecessor, Benedict XVI maintains the traditional Catholic doctrines on artificial birth control, abortion, and homosexuality while promoting Catholic social teaching.

Is this a good paragraph? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Struck out prose objection. I've read through it more thorougly and made some minor corrections. It seems alright, except perhaps that repetitive "in 1926, in 1927..." thing. More citations and more "NPOV", I think, are the main issues.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object. - article lacks in referencing criticism. There is no criticism section (see the Tony Blair featured article for a good example). - article doesn't mention the 1990 ratinger-galileo controversy: at that time he supported the process against Galileo saying that it "was reasonable and just" [1] [2] [3] [4] --BMF81 23:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have just split off the section the event you refer to would go in. Dev920 00:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• I apologise for not addressing these concerns quickly. However, I have been working hard on both Wikiquote and Jake Gyllenhaal, so have not been able to give this article my full attention. I have, however, moved all footnotes to after the sentence's full stop, and have split off the information on Benedict as Prefect into a separate article.

Tomorrow I will conduct a thorough copyedit of Benedict's article, and tidy up those rather turgid paragraphs you referred to. The information is there, but you're right, it needs a little touching up.

Regarding a criticism section, I was under the impression that criticisms were raised and dealt with in the relevant sections on this article, rather than in one block. Is this not enough?

I have reviewed the the article and it seems to me that the people who wrote it did so using the books listed in the References section (I know because I've read most of them!); they simply haven't been footnoted. The article therefore seems under referenced when in fact it is not. WP:CITE does not seem to require the entire article to be footnoted: am I reading it wrong? Dev920 00:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not the whole article, but this is pretty strong:

This means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor.

I interpret this, and I know there are many other editors who agree with me, as basically saying "if it's a claim, source it." Accodring to this rule, I could go in and put a verify tag on the vast majory of the the sentences in the article (I won't do that). It's a good idea to add in-line cites to prevent people from coming in and saying "where did this come from" and having to point to the reference section every time. I would prefer an in-line cite a paragraph and/or for all non-obvious claims. But I could be satisfied with just some progess on this front. Thanks. I will help with some of the copyedit myself today, sicne I have some time. The other editors object is more serious, however. There does seem to be a lack of substantial criticism, IMO. Criticism sections are not required. But--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC) there should be mention of controversy that has taken place in Italy, for example, about the Church's interference in the politics of artifical insemination. To mention just two names: Umberto Eco has criticized the Pope's talk about relativism. I'll see if I can find a source. Umberto Veronese, former minister of health and famous doctor over here in Italy, has criticized the poistion on stem-cells and other resrach issue. Eugenio Scalfari has critizied the Church's general "politicization" under the new Pope. These are obviously controverisal poistions even within the Catholic community. But there's not much discussion.

• Comment. Since being the pope, he has also been extensively satirized, and I think the most prominent examples should be mentioned. I have one book to reference on this (Bollito misto con mostarda by Daniele Luttazzi), unfortunly that is in italian.--BMF81 10:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Rid of the trivia section. Either incorporate the info elsewhere, or rid of it - trivia sections aren't recommended for FA's but only for a stub/start class articles so an editor with more time on their hands can incorporate the info into an appropriate section. LuciferMorgan 16:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed that section.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have become unwell, brought on by working too hard on Wikipedia and it's sister projects. I therefore have to take a break to recover. I will definitely be back within two weeks, but more likely one. I hope you all understand, I just need some time off to get over this and devote my full attention to Pope Benedict. I ask that that the FA director bear this in mind when deciding when to close the nomination. I'm sorry to have to delay this, but I promise I will return. If any other editor from the article can take up the cause in my unwilling absence, that would be great. Thankyou. Dev920 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Hey, look here!! Take care of yourself and your health before ANYTHING else on this earth. Don't worry about the FAC. I hope it is not this, in particular, that is troubling you. Let me know and I will withdraw my object before you can sneeze. But if it's general overwork or other matters, then I will try to do what I can but I cannot really address the objection about balance and so on that even some others have lodged. Just try to get well and stop thinking about Wikipedia if it is a more serious problem, of course. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Object. It is a great article and a really intersting read. HOWEVER:

• The sections on his travels. Too listy. They need to be summarised into a few paragraphs with a main article link to List of Apostolic journeys by Pope Benedict XVI or something similar.
• The sections on his Encyclicals and Pastorial Activities are just 2 lines long. Same as above. Maybe a paragraph on each, stating why he has had so few (is this out of the ordinary or what) and having a main article link to List of Encyclicals of Pope Benedict XVI and List of Pastorial Activities of Pope Benedict XVI. If a paragraph can not be written, put them in the See Also section.

Todd661 08:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Object This is a well organized article on a world leader, but one can read all the way through it without encountering much evidence of the fact that many both within and without the Catholic Church object to some of his policies or have criticisms of him. This makes it too POV for a featured article. At the end are a list of a few "Criticism" references which are not cited in the body of the article. One of these is from Andrew Greeley: "He is an intellectual opposed to questioning doctrine. He is a shepherd with scant pastoral experience. He is a creature of the 20th century deeply opposed to the modern world. In these seeming contradictions, you can begin to see the contours of one of the most unusual, gifted men to become Pope." Liberals within the church have criticized his forceful orthodoxy. There are over 600,000 Google hits under '"Pope Benedict XVI " criticism'so there should not be a shortage of verifiable sources that there has been thoughtful criticism of his policies and his tactics in his career in Rome before becoming Pope. I do not advocate editors simply using the article as a forum for their own criticism of the man or the church or his policies as Pope, but there certainly should be a listing of the criticism many have of him. The article leaves the impression everyone in the world loves him and approves everything he has done. Edison 18:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Objection withdrawn. Edison 20:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why there is a criticism section...to put criticisms. For all the biographies I have seen, the critics are not allowed free reign throughout the article page but are kept to that section. Judgesurreal777 04:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is that there is no "Criticism" section in the body of the article. I have re-read the article, and despite much criticism of the Pope's orthodoxy and conservatism among many liberal Catholics worldwide and especially among liberal American Catholics, the only whiff of criticism in the body of the article is that gay Catholics complained about his position towards homosexuality, and Eastern Orthodox Catholics complained about his dropping the part of the papal title which said the Pope was head of the Western church. A reader only hears the Pope's side of issues facing the church. On August 22, a section criticizing his handling of the sexual abuse of minors was deleted. Apparently there have been editors at work for quite some time to immediately delete criticism in the body of the article, even though the criticisms cited verifiable sources. It is thus unbalanced and too POV to be a featured article. A "puff piece" should not be a featured article, but a balanced treatment of the subject might well be. Edison 16:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You have a diff? I don't see that a section was deleted. Gimmetrow 16:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no section of text called "Criticism." There is a section of websites, which is not at all the same. See the article "George W. Bush" for an example, which is "Criticism and public perception ". This should be a well edited section of the main article, presenting what I described above. Apparently any such section inserted in the past was edited out. Edison 18:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You stated, "On August 22, a section criticisizing... was deleted." I couldn't find this; I would work it back in if it could. Gimmetrow 21:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The section I described as deleted was in fact move by Dev920 to a separate article on his time as CDF at 00:24 on 26 Aug. Looking back over the edit history for the past couple of years I see lots of revert wars over various issues, (sush as his title, his picture, his car registration, and his war service) but not the repeated deletion of a general "Criticism" section. So I have removed my objection to this being a featured article. However, I would hope that the numerous editors working on this article might yet introduce a "Criticism" or "Criticism and public perception" section, such as one may see for Pope John Paul II (745 words, 6 basic criticisms) or about Pope Paul IV ( 2 separate criticisms) or about Pope John XXIII (a 230 word criticism section) or even George W. Bush, whose article is pretty carefully vetted by his supporters, yet which has a lengthy criticism section. I am the wrong person to write such a section, and I suppose it is unfair to require the admirers of the Pope to write it, so please leave a mental spot for it if a thoughtful critic of the Pope wishes to take the time to list the main criticisms properly sourced to liberal Catholics, nonCatholics, or other groups who disagree with his actions or teachings. The peril of requiring his supporters to write a critism section is that the criticisms might turn into yet more praise: "Some say he is too honest and pure hearted." Bettter to wait for a critic to write the criticsm, because there certainly is some, but the lack thereof should not be a bar to the article being featured. Edison 20:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway you, as me, recognize that the article lacks in reporting the wide criticism on B16. Therefore the 2(b) criteria "Comprehensive", is not met by current revision.--BMF81 02:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils

Recreate archive from history at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Jersey Devils, incorrectly archived

Well, I've worked my butt off for this article. I think it looks pretty nice at this point. It's got good content, a lot of references and nice graphics too. So I figured why not, I'll give this article a chance at FA-status.

• Support. Per nom. --Sportskido8 13:52 EST, 25 August 2006
• Object. As someone who's done work on this page, it pains me to say this, but it's not FA status yet. There hasn't even been a peer review, which is typically one of the first steps towards FA status. I have a feeling it's only going to be shot down quickly at this point, but I can't support this page for FA as it currently stands. Anthony Hit me up... 17:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  That was extremely vague, but alright...--Sportskido8 14:00 EST, 25 August 2006

• Anthony, would you please give some specific and actionable objections? Mak (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Having undergone a large number of revisions just within the last week, this article does not meet the stability requirement. Additionally, there are a number of images that are not tagged/sourced appropriately. Neutrality is an issue, with statements such as "The move appeared to make little sense." There are gaps in the formatting, leaving excess white space. The lead is entirely too short for an article of this length. This really should have undergone a peer review first. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 18:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Did it really need a peer review that badly? I have to disagree. Anyway, white space is probably an issue, you're right. The reason I put it in articles is to make it look more pleasing to the eye. I know we're supposed to save KB and whatever but I hate to see clutter. The lead should be longer, I'll work on that. Stability? It was just me making 500 edits a day to clean it up, what's wrong with that? And Chlomes...you uploaded the picture of the 1982-1983 team. Now you're objecting yourself? Which other pictures are a problem? --Sportskido8 14:47 EST, 25 August 2006

• Object. Sorry, but I feel that this article is not even close to being ready for FA-status. I've started working on it some, but it will most likely be weeks or months before this should be considered for FA-status. The article needs some better-quality writing (it's certainly not bad, but not compelling or brilliant, as Wikipedia:What is a featured article? requests), needs sources, and needs to be stable. --Muéro 19:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — I think it would be nice if people could actually give some points of where to improve the article instead of simply opposing because "it's not FA status yet." Now, for some input:
  • I feel the article has some work to be done on prose. I strongly suggest you look at Chicago Bears very closely (it's actually a featured article candidate right now, looks like it'll pass). In particular, the introduction paragraphs need to be rewritten.
  • Get rid of those titles for each section (ie. not "Early struggles," just "1982–1991;" not "The early years," just "Kansas City and Colorado").
  • Shift the sections around and rename them. Again, look at the Bears article. "Team jersey" could be expanded like that article ("Team colors and mascots"), "Retired numbers" is a subsection of "Famous players," maybe "Individual records" could be split off into "Famous players" or as a subsection of "Statistics and records" (you'd have to rename "Season-by-season record"), there looks to be enough information to warrant a subsection.
  • Try using the main template instead of further. And don't put a tag like that in the introduction. You're introducing readers to the NJ Devils article, not to a separate article.
  • Look at the Bears' "Retired numbers" section. Simple, elegant. The Devils' version looks rather erratic.
• I know I'm being rather general with my points, but they should be enough to get the article in the right direction. I'm sure with more input from others on FAC, you'll be able to get this article better than ever. ♠ SG →Talk 20:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You make a lot of good points and I'll start to work on them. The only thing I disagree with is the simple, elegance of "retired numbers." The Bears article is very nice, no doubt about it. But I'm not a fan of having 4 pink tables in a row thrown at me, and that's why I kept it to 2 in a row for this article and moved a lot of stuff to the sister article "notable players and award winners." Maybe that was good, maybe not. I like to be creative with the retired numbers, like I was with the Yankees ones. Granted, there are more numbers to work with there, but I hate to follow that up with a table. I'll change this one though, somehow. --Sportskido8 16:51 EST, 25 August 2006

Request. Can the above posters please cross out anything that was scrutinized which now appears fixed with the recent changes to the article? --Sportskido8 3:30 EST, 27 August 2006

• Object currently. The prose is still a bit disorganized. (I am working on that.) My main issue is that there is still some unsourced editorial commentary (e.g. "The next season, they were expected to be contenders once again"), which violates NPOV. I am doing my best to improve the article, but sourcing opinions is a difficult task. – flamurai (t) 12:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - An excellent point was brought up on the article talk page. There is no information regarding the team's role as an NHL scapegoat in making the league more "boring" in the 1990s through their successful use of the neutral zone trap. This is a major theme in recent team history, and without at least a paragraph on it the article cannot be considered thorough in its scope. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Cannot be considered thorough by who?...You? --Sportskido8 14:59 CST, 29 August 2006

Yes, me. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rob Paulsen

I think this should personally be a featured article of all the voice actor articles I believe this one might be the best written.--Jack Cox 04:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object Lead is only one sentence long (three paragraphs is recommended), and the article contains no references or citations aside from one YouTube video. Teemu08 04:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object only one ref, some sections could be expanded. Note: lead recommendation is 2-3 paras, depending on the length; not a hard and fast 3.Rlevse 10:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object - I'm afraid I have to agree, this article needs far more referencing. The expanded lead is a nice improvement, and from a purely stylistic point of view, use of bold text needs to be uniform throughout the article, or eliminated for all but the very start of the article, where the actor is named. Suggestion: If someone can get a hold of the recent Animaniacs Season One and/or Pinky and the Brain Season One DVD sets, he's interviewed on both, which would provide viable, verifiable references. --JohnDBuell 17:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object Needs citations. Career info is basically a laundry list; needs specific information on roles. Stilgar135 01:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Jan Vennegoor of Hesselink

Very interesting and novel piece. One feels that we need an FAC that is short, precise and informative for once. BjF 17:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Even short, precise, and informative articles need references to meet the Featured article criteria. --Allen3 ^talk 17:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object. It's a stub...

• Object, Here we go again using FAC instead of Peer Review: no refs, no body, trivia has to go or be in main body of article, a stub, etc.Rlevse 00:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object Article is a stub. Also, the footballer has not become world famous, let alone well known in Europe. For me, the standard will be Ronaldinho --Ageo020 03:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The article was promoted 17:10, 24 September 2007.

---

Pearl Jam

previous FAC

Article on the American rock band. It has been a collaborative effort between me, -5-, BP322, BGC, WesleyDodds and others. After a thorough peer review, I feel the article is well-written and comprehensive, and is much better than it was at the last FAC. I'm sure any objections will be quickly addressed. CloudNine 10:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Some audio samples are missing fair use rationales. Also, I was told by an admin here yesterday that only around three audio samples are acceptable in an article for it to qualify as fair use. Epbr123 10:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd rationaled all of them. In progress. I doubt three audio samples is a hard and fast rule, especially when it comes to a band with a varied musical career, such as Pearl Jam. (I can't imagine The Beatles trimming down to three clips). CloudNine 10:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Turns out only "Daughter" was missing a suitable fair use rationale. CloudNine 10:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That was the only file I looked at, so I thought it was statistically safe to assume there may have been others. Epbr123 10:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment This article has come such a long way since the previous FAC. I think all of those mentioned above should be commended for their efforts on this article. Just the other day I was reading old talks from the previous FAC regarding the very small number of references at that time. Well as you can see there is a very large amount now. I'm so appreciative of all of your hardwork. IMHO this article certainly deserves a spot as a featured article. --MattWatt 08:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. Great job everyone! --Esprit15d 22:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Oppose: Pearl Jam is one of my favorite bands and you have done great justice (representing the good and bad) here very well. However, meeting WP/grammar criteria is another beast entirely. The article still needs a little work. Of the four featured article criteria, I recommend addressing the following:

1. Basic criteria met?:

1a. Well written?

• "Drummers that joined the band following Dave Krusen's departure included" - should be "Drummers that have joined the band following Dave Krusen's departure include"
• "bands of the grunge movement" - Grunge should be capitalized
• "21st century" - Century should be capitalized
• "Gossard and Ament had begun playing" - "Gossard and Ament began playing"
• "had been doing previously in Mother Love Bone" - Mother Love Bone can only be repeated so many time before it starts to grate. Take it out of this sentence since it's obvious
• "out a five song demo tape" - five-song should be hyphenated
• "film Singles, "State of Love" - that comma should be a colon or a double-dash
• "Vs. included the songs "Daughter" (sample (help·info)), "Dissident", "Go", "Rearviewmirror", and "Animal."" - Why list these songs? Are they hits? Do they have some other significance or tying factor? "Daughter" is obvious, but the others need some justification, or the list should be trimmed or eliminated. Readers can go to the album page for a tracklisting.
• "They declined to produce music videos" - say "any more music videos" for two reasons: (1) They had already released one (2) They had already declined one. So this is more of a clarification of their future stance than a general policy or new stance.
• "He was replaced by Jack Irons, a close friend of Vedder and the former and original drummer of the Red Hot Chili Peppers; Irons had originally introduced Vedder to the members of Pearl Jam." - I think this statement should include something like "finally replaced by Jack Irons" or something to acknowledge that he finally agreed to join the band
• "Irons had originally introduced Vedder to the members of Pearl Jam." - remove this redundant statment
• "an homage to" - should be "a homage" (the first syllable in homage is accented)
• " drummer Matt Cameron on a temporary basis;[37] Cameron soon became a permanent replacement for Irons" - kind of wordy. Just say " drummer Matt Cameron on an initially temporary basis,[37] but he soon became a permanent replacement.
• The information in the Etymology section should be integrated into the last paragraph of the Formation: 1984–1990 section. Its current placement is anticlimatic and the section is awfully short.

1b. Comprehensive? Yes

1c. Factually accurate? Yes

1d. Neutral? This is particularly well done.

1e. Stable? Yes

2. Complies with Manual of style and relevant WikiProjects?:

2a. Concise lead section? Yes

2b. Hierarchical headings? Yes

2c. Table of contents? I didn't really catch this the first time (apologies), but the TOC is crowded with the American Music Awards, MTV Video Music Awards, Grammy Awards, and the Esky Music Awards. Those do not need to be seperate subheadings. You might see John Mayer for table ideas, or even Alison Krauss for prose ideas. You could even just bold the text, instead of having them as headings.

2d. Sufficient inline citations? Yes

3. Properly placed, tagged and/or rationalized images?: Images all look good, but the samples at the end of the article - notsomuch. As much as it sucks, laundry list style sample sections are frowned on, and just about forbidden from FAs. Because they don't support discussion in the body, their fair use claim in tenuous. I saw several samples nicely integrated into the text of the artcle; I would keep those and delete that section at the end.

4. Appropriate length?: Yes

When these issues are addressed, note the changes here and notify me on my talk page. Thank you for your work so far. — Esprit15d 14:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Vedder is noted for his "poetic lyrics and Jim Morrison-like vocal growl." - This opinion is only according to DeRogatis, so it should be attributed to him. The way it is currently worded suggests this opinion is held by several critics. LuciferMorgan 21:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Reworded. CloudNine 21:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The band’s latest album, 2006’s Pearl Jam, was cited as a return to the band’s early sound. By whom? Which critics cited this? Please name those who hold this opinion. LuciferMorgan 23:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Rephrased it so that it appears as a critical opinion; naming the two critics (there are more) would sound awkward. CloudNine 10:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

While Nirvana had brought grunge to the mainstream in the early 1990s, Pearl Jam quickly outsold them and became not only the most successful alternative rock band, but the most popular American rock band of the decade. Debatable this is, and I'm sure other critics disagree. How do you measure success? Different critics measure success in different ways, so it's hard to determine. It would be best to simply attribute this to Erlewine. LuciferMorgan 09:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed succcessful (agree, this is unclear) to popular (consensus on the talk page indicated that popularity was measured by record sales rather than critical opinion. CloudNine 10:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Spin said in 2001, "The group that was once accused of being synthetic grunge now seem as organic and principled a rock band as exists."[32] When quoting a magazine, it is best to name the writer and the publication they're working for. Different staff within the same magazine may have differing opinions, and sometimes this proves to be the case with retrospective views and so on. Essentially, a review is the opinion of the reviewer and not the magazine as a whole. LuciferMorgan 10:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to Spin, the article with the quote is by "Eric Weisbard with Jessica Letkemann, Ann Powers, Chris Norris, William Van Meter, and Will Hermes," so perhaps that's sign of consensus in the Spin offices? Perhaps I should just state the primary writer, Weisbard? CloudNine 10:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How come so many people wrote one article? Something doesn't sit right with that. LuciferMorgan 11:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to the article. It is strange though. CloudNine 11:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a collection of various quotes by the band and other people compiled for this piece. And I'm sure all of the authors listed were the people involved with different interviews of different people. Just look at all the various people they have quoted! Everyone from Dave Grohl to Cameron Crowe. The main author "Weisbard" was probably just the guy who picked all of these snippets and organized them into sections. So I'm not entirely sure how you would reference this, but I would just use the lead author. I used to read 5H a lot many years ago, but I never saw this. Probably because this was done in 2001. This is a really interesting read. --MattWatt 18:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed your point; I've cited Weisbard as the source of the comment. CloudNine 11:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You wikilink decades, 1990s, but not solo years, 1990. A proper lead, being a summary of the body, won't need several footnotes, only 1-2, if any. See if you can rework it and move footnotes into the body.Sumoeagle179 10:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see where I've wiki-linked decades in the prose. Could you point out an example? We need three citations at least in the body (for statistics and quotes), and some of the statements are controversial as well (see the talk page for the number of people who have tried to remove "Pearl Jam was the most popular American rock band..."). I would like to remove some citations, but I don't think it's a good idea at the moment. CloudNine 10:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I said wikilink decades, you misunderstood. Just search for '0s' and you'll see. Wikilink the first instance of each. The first six cites are in the lead and 3-4 can be moved to the body, especially with a rewrite of the lead.Sumoeagle179 18:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion (concurrent with the general guideline) that only full dates need to be linked. WesleyDodds 08:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to have as little citations as possible in the lead, but I don't think rewriting the lead is the right move here. CloudNine 08:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Fixes needed
  • ^ Marks, Craig. "Let's Get Lost". Spin Magazine. December 1994.
  • ^ Pearl's Jam. Entertainment Weekly (1993-11-19).
• Doesn't look professional; if you wikify the dates, they'll show consistently per user prefs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I believe I've fixed the citations now. Wikilinking dates now. CloudNine 10:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed all that I've seen. CloudNine 11:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why "Century" with the cap?

• Per an above comment. My preference is lower-case, which I'll change to.

• Done.

• MOS breach in internal final punctuation for quote.

• Done. CloudNine 19:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm concerned at the number of fair-use-claimed audio samples (ouch, SEVEN?) that are not the subject of critical, descriptive or analytical commentary in the surrounding text. I don't think they qualify. Tony 11:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Addressing this now. CloudNine 11:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Removed those that did not have critical commentary. There are now five samples. CloudNine 12:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. As member of Alternative music WikiProject. Great work on this article! Had some issues with the lead though:
  • Is it necessary to mention each of the drummers associated with the band? From what I gather from the article, the likes of Chamberlain hardly did anything. It might be enough to mention just the current line-up in the lead.
    • Done.
  • "Formed in the aftermath of the demise of Ament and Gossard's previous band Mother Love Bone, Pearl Jam broke into the mainstream with its debut album Ten in 1992, nearly a full year after its release." - Seems a little choppy to me. The sentence doesn't make any sense unless one reads about it further in the article.
    • Rephrased.
  • The 2nd para of the lead could be split into 2: the first dealing with the various albums and the second about their boycotts of videos and Ticketmaster etc.
    • I'm not sure there's enough content to fill two paragraphs; the current version flows quite well through their career.
  • "Most popular American rock band" is mentioned at least twice throughout the article, but although it is backed by a source, it should probably be added with a "according to All Music Guide" in the sentence itself.
    • Consensus on talk indicated that this statement was fine, as popularity is directly linked to record sales.

Tommy Stardust 23:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review. CloudNine 10:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Article has occasional singular/pleural disagreement:

• ...Pearl Jam(singular) was nevertheless criticized early on as being a corporate cash-in on the alternative rock explosion. However, they(pleural) became noted for their(pleural) refusal to adhere to traditional music industry practices as their(pleural) career(singular) progressed.
• Since their(pleural) inception, the band(singular)...
• No disagreement here: Pearl Jam(singular) has outlasted many of its(singular) contemporaries.Rosiestephenson 21:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment regarding this sentence in general and the last word in particular: They gave former Red Hot Chili Peppers drummer Jack Irons the demo to see if he would be interested in joining the band and to distribute to anyone he felt might fit the singing bill. I know what you mean by "...the singing bill", but I'd encourage using another word, rather than "bill". The sentence, as a whole, needs attention; for example, change the second half to something like: "...and to distribute the demo to anyone he felt might fit the..."Rosiestephenson 21:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed all your comments. Thanks for your review. CloudNine 19:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support, looks good to me. Trebor 15:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I haven't read the article and might not (this FAC doesn't seem to have a dearth of exposure); but a glance at the infobox shows me that the "Associated Acts" list is quite bloated, to the point of marked abnormality. Just to make sure, is everything on that list absolutely necessary? I'd recommend going through these one-by-one and excising all but the essential. If they're all essential then so be it, but it is quite bloated and is reflects somewhat sloppily. Grim-Gym 03:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've always though that; I wonder if I should cut down on some of MacCready's and Cameron's side-projects. They do all have one or more members of Pearl Jam though. CloudNine 07:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Green River, Mother Love Bone, and Temple of the Dog should stay, since they feature multiple Pearl Jam members. The rest are less important. WesleyDodds 07:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed some of the more minor projects of one member. I'm sure their membership can be mentioned in their respective biographies. CloudNine 07:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Great. Grim 13:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support seems good enough. igordebraga ≠ 22:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

British Isles

Superbly referenced and structured. The high level of discussion and debate on the article has resulted in an article of high integrity and qualityBjF 22:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Surely it would be best to resolve the merge question before a nomination. Jkelly 22:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Object ref formatting needs work. One displays only the external jump number. Some footnotes are not at the end of punctuation where they should be (not in the sentence and no space after the punctuation), solo years should not be wikilinked-only full dates, the bigblock quotes with blue marks are distracting, the merge should be settled before nominating, and the footnote with the citation tag needs fixed.Rlevse 00:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The article is not stable and nowhere near ready for FAC. Rhion 17:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment While assuming good faith, I wonder if BjF has enough experience to nominate the several articles for FAC that he or she has- contributions page here [5]. MAG1 20:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Poorly structured and appalling standard of writing --Khendon 09:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ateneo de Manila University

This article has been reviewed by numerous other users, and has already been selected as a Good Article. The article is pretty stable, with the latest edits being minor additions of new information or slight restructuring. The material is quite neutral, and quite comprehensive, with room left for more more specific details in main pages. The article appears to meet all the Featured Article Criteria. Rmcsamson 09:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object. No inline cititions. --Howard the Duck 10:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Needs better lead section and images, and a student life section too. -- Mithril Cloud 11:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object. (1) Not enough images, considering the article's length. (2) There should be Inline citations to help readers verify info. (3) The "Notable alumni and professors" section should be more than a link. (4) Very short sections should be merged into larger sections. (5) The history section is too long... I think it could be cut to 1/2 or 1/3 its current length. Try to emulate the example of Featured Articles like Cornell University, Duke University, and the University of Michigan. Coffee 12:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object This article clearly fails to fulfill point number 1c of WP:FA. Allow me to quote it here; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. Get the necessary references and add more free license images. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object.non neutral....most of the references and citations came from sources within the University or by people affiliated with the university...this is already tainted with bias...203.36.224.71 05:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Megadeth

a very complete article with every one of the most important events in the life of the band. User:Matmetal 06:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Matmetal

• Object - no references Judgesurreal777 06:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object - not properly cited, no decent lead. violet/riga (t) 08:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Not enough images, and the ones that are there are both fair use. Also not well referenced. Michael Billington (talk •contribs) 13:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- there's one freely licensed one in the article now. Jkelly 16:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object - as per above Wisdom89 16:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Poorly referenced, weasel words, not at all brilliant prose imho. --kingboyk 12:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Biased, unreferenced and no inline citations. LuciferMorgan 15:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object- Few and poor references and not enough pictures. Felixboy 13:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

IBM

I thoroughly enjoyed this article, its neat chronological structure, comprehensive referencing and conciseness make it an ideal candidate for FAC in my view.BjF 22:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please read the instructions above: "Please do not post more than one nomination at a time, as this may make it difficult to do justice to each." Sandy 23:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, citation tags need fixed, refs come after punctuation, not before.Rlevse 01:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object at the very least the article has a copyedit tag on it with part of a summary "lots of typos" - and there has been little done sense it appears... RN 19:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Simply not there yet. Moncrief 16:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Roger Ailes

This article is very factual article. This article is very good and talks about the life about one of the most sucessful TV Producers of all time. This article has been rewritten and is really looking good. It may not be that long but it is a really good read and very informational. --Zonerocks 21:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Unreferenced. You might want to review other recently-promoted featured articles, visit WP:PR, and read WP:WIAFA. Sandy 00:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object Lead is way too short, refs/ext links need fixed.Rlevse 01:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Pentagon

Well photographed, well structured and well referenced. Concise and not unnecessarily elongated. An ideal FAC BjF 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I see you have nominated quite a few articles now within these last days. All of them have nothing but objections. I suggest you read the guidelines once more, so we can focus on those articles that actually got a chance. And no, this article is not one of them. --Maitch 20:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object - Article ostensibly lacks depth and comprehensiveness. The lead is far too excessive for the brevity of the rest of the text. Fact lists are undesirable and should be avoided, especially for subjects such as this. Please rethink and convert all noteworthy information into prose and place somewhere within the body of the text. Eliminate trivia section completely and concentrate on expanding subsections. Increase the number of references accordingly. Wisdom89 21:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object, agree with Wisdom89. You might want to review some recently-promoted featured articles and visit WP:PR and WP:WIAFA to get the article ready for FAC. Sandy 23:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Not well referenced, several numbers and statements show no reference. Wandalstouring 20:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment How could the information I added just yesterday (about which side was hit on 9-11, and once I found that, something I hadn't even planned to look for--why the attack could have had worse results) been have been missing for more than eight years? I'm not even sure it's that good. But it was information I was curious about and needed to be there.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Smashing Pumpkins

A great article that absoulutely meets the criteria for a featured article.0111 03:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Question? Did you see the instructions at the top of the page? "Please do not post more than one nomination at a time, as this may make it difficult to do justice to each." Sandy 11:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Answer It wasn't technically at the same time 0111 16:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That means "concurrently" in this case. In any event, it's just a suggestion, not a rule. If you feel comfortable handling multiple FACs, give it a shot. Ryu Kaze 19:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Weak Support a great article but may need some more refrences/sources.

Object - I'd like to see a section dedicated to information regarding the band's impact and influence on the grunge scene, as well as criticisms to even things out. The lead also makes several claims which require citations - especially when mentioning what emotions are evoked from a particular song, or sales figures. Wisdom89 03:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Object, for now. As a primary editor of this article, I know there's some things that still need to be addressed, primarily the musical impact/influence and citations of sales figures, as Wisdom89 points out. I'll see what I can do in the next few days. Although, given Wisdom89's other points, I also want to point out that there's an entire paragraph dedicated to criticism already in the Mainstream success section. WesleyDodds 10:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Object and suggest delisting since the primary editor doesn't support. Without meaning to be unkind, 0111 is perhaps a little overenthusiastic in his nominations... --kingboyk 14:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Support a great article0111 21:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Instead of belately stamping your nomination/support on the article in question, perhaps you should be actively improving the article and addressing those concerns listed above. Wisdom89 23:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Answer to Commentwhy don't you do it.I personally think it's featured article material.

I'm not sure that you understand: by nominating the article, you take responsibility for it, and are expected to address concerns if you want it to become FA. You're supposed to be pro-active about it. A bunch of us are actually chipping away at this article, but we know it is far from where it needs to be. - Phorque 22:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I think the way the headings are layed out, the way its all divided up, could use some improvement. I think, for instance, that the "mainstream success" part should be broken up, at least with smaller subheadings (its too huge a mass of text as it is which kind of makes it uninviting), and the "post breakup" part should perhaps be given its own section (and have some of the loose sentences bound together in more continuous prose). --Clngre 04:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Weak Support Reads pretty well, but needs a better photo of the band for the inofbox and needs a seperate "Sound Samples" section. Otherwise, we're looking at FA material here! Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ^☎/ _∑ 13:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Just to let you know, it's actually more acceptable to have the samples in boxes alongside text. When the samples are put next to relevant text for the purposes of illustrating or enhancing that section, that's fair use. If you just dump 10 samples at the bottom of the article, it doesn't serve much purpose. That being said, I think we need to make sure that all the samples have an adequate description justifying their presence. - Phorque 13:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. This page has improved since I last visited and is definitely Featured Article material. Good work.

• Support This has page gone through a lot of improvement and I would support its candidacy -- UKPhoenix79 11:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object The image of D'Arcy in the "Post-breakup" section is dubious, I tried asking the uploader to prove they owned the rights to release it into the public domain, but no response. And as I once stated before, that entire section has less to do with the band and more to do with the individuals, it could be boiled down to a short paragraph or removed entirely and put into the individuals' articles. - Phorque 22:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, I like what WesleyDodds did with section, but I still feel the other objections are valid, and I myself plan to continue improving this article. - Phorque 12:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sasha (DJ)

Seems to meet all Featured Article criteria. Currently at Good Article status and is stable and well referenced. Has undergone peer review, GA review and such (see talk page for links). Relevant, pretty pictures and relevant bluelinks aplenty! Well formatted, NPOV, all that good stuff. This is a "self-nom", so to speak, as I've put in a good deal of work to this one and a bunch of related articles. Thanks for feedback, comments, etc... Wickethewok 21:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment good article. Ran the auto peer review script and left the results on the articles talk page. The articles title is 'Alexander Coe' and his name is presented as Alexander "Sasha" Coe which is easly skimmed over, but the whole article refers to him as "sasha". Maybe it could follow the way Madonna (entertainer) does it and say "better known as ...". With these few fixes I will change to support. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 03:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI: WP:AWB stats: 4276 words, 289 wikilinks, 6 images, 7 categories. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 03:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Support I can't see much left to fix. Not sure why there aren't more supports. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 06:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've fixed a bunch of the stuff listed. There were a couple of the generated suggestions I couldn't find what generated them (date linking and footnotes). Wickethewok 04:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object Prose. The article has a lot of NME style jargon/slang - could it be re-written encyclopedically so that someone over 40 can understand it? eg.

1. Spinning acid house.
2. and the two created mix albums together (what are mix albums?)
3. helped spread progressive trance and house in the 1990s (spread the popularity of progressive trance and house?)
4. gig (performance)
5. Later in 2002, Sasha began collaborations with big beat artist Junkie XL, whose work he heavily influenced Junkie XL's work - ?
6. .[22]. - remove second full stop.
7. mix album and production record - both terms need definition or wikilinking (as above)
8. Sasha lives New York City with a personal studio in Florida (Sasha lives in New York City?)

This is a sample - please have another really good go through the article so that someone unconnected with the subject can understand it. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• I fixed the above stuff (about half of that stuff above was from my small fixes last night! 0_o). Anyways, I'm taking another couple runs through the article to find any words that wouldn't be obvious to people who don't know electronic music. Wickethewok 13:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry guys it's still got problems - Sasha has been one of the most consistently popular among dance music fans, as he has been voted into the top five DJs in the world by readers of DJMag every year since 1997, including finishing #1 in 2000 and #2 only to partner John Digweed in 2001. Also the preceding paragraph or so refers to how he 'connects to the dance floor' (with his feet? - if it's a quote then fine, put it into quotation marks, if not - reword). --Mcginnly | Natter 13:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I split that sentence into two separate ones to keep it from being so long and awkward. For the second thing, I changed it to the original quote. Wickethewok 13:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The prose is still far from compelling - Starting out in the late 1980s playing acid house, he rose as a central figure in the popularization of electronic dance music.

After meeting John Digweed, Sasha toured internationally with Digweed and created a series of mix albums (repetition of Digweed)

There is no mention of his personal life at all - where does he live? does he have a partner? kids?--Mcginnly | Natter 11:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• That info is at the end of the "Post Digweed" section - he is married, currently lives in NYC, and doesn't have kids. I would like to be able to get more info about his personal life though. Wickethewok 14:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think the article name needs to be reconsidered. "Sasha" is very famous in electronic music circles. "Alexander Coe" I have never heard of. --kingboyk 14:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Would "Sasha (DJ)" be more appropriate? Or maybe "Sasha (disc jockey)" - should the abbreviation be used? Either of these would be more consistent with examples such as Ravedave's Madonna example. Wickethewok 14:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• I would think Sasha (DJ) or Sasha (musician). Which is more accurate? --kingboyk 14:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I think "musician" would be debateable. Are DJs musicians? I think "Sasha (DJ)" would be best. Wickethewok 14:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Done. --kingboyk 16:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Could you use Template:Infobox musical artist instead of Template:Infobox band? And could you add some music samples which might help understand the style of the DJ. CG 18:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• I changed the infobox type per your suggestion. Tonight I will try to figure out some good music samples to add. Wickethewok 18:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• You could read the related guideline Wikipedia:Music samples. CG 18:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Aye, I've looked at it and picked out a few tracks to sample. I'm planning to add 6-8 music samples tonight. Thanks for fixing up the infobox as well. Wickethewok 19:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• No please, add only relevant tracks, the ones you find they offer a lot to the understanding of the article and the style of the DJ. Don't fill the page with unnecessary samples. 2-3 is often enough. I recommend you to Read the guideline. CG 20:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• I did read the guidelines and it says nothing regarding the number of samples, other than it shouldn't interfere with the quality of the article. Looking at a bunch of musical artist FAs I see quite a spread of number of samples ranging from none to double digits. Anyways, I'll keep it to a few of the most important tracks/those that typify the styles Sasha has gone through. How about four? I was thinking of Sasha's remix of Gus Gus - Purple (1997), Xpander (1999), Junkie XL and Sasha - Breezer (2002), and Felix Da Housecat - Watching Cars Go By (Sasha Remix) (2004). I think these would adequately portray the various genres/time periods. The additional samples I was thinking of before would've been from earlier in his career, and are probably less relevant to his notoriety. Wickethewok 20:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not arguing about the number of samples. You can put 10 if they are relevant. What I'm saying is that editors, especillay fans of the artist spend often fill the page with samples of every work mentioned. As for me, music samples should be carefully chosen so they are encyclopedic, helping the reader to understand the article, the style of the article or the evolution of his music, and fulfilling fair use criteria. CG 20:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• No worries, I understand quite well that more isn't always better. I've seen more than enough bad video game articles to know that. Btw, I think I should point out that I'm trying to use tracks that Sasha helped create, rather than just tracks he played, as I think they're both more relevant and easier to claim fair-use for. I plan on digging through my CDs later tonight. Cheers! Wickethewok 20:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Again, if you read the guideline, it says that it's preferable that samples are included in boxes and not inlined with text. See Selena for an example. CG 08:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• OK - I added in four boxed samples into the article. Any additional suggestions/comments/feedback regarding the samples or anything else? Wickethewok 21:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This article still needs a thorough going over by someone (preferably who doesn't listen to sasha's music):-

• Sasha described the release of the album as "received with a lot of head scratching" due to the styles of music of Airdrawndagger being generally more laid back and not featuring the heavier "club sound" of his previous mix albums and productions. (non punctuation so too long - laid back=relaxed?
• With regards to mix albums, Sasha states that going in he only has a vague idea of the tracklist for the album. (going in)
• Over his next mix albums, Sasha popularized progressive trance by artists such as
• #2 to only partner John Digweed in 2001 (what's the only doing here?)

--Mcginnly | Natter 14:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing out those sentences - the prose was quite awkward. I went ahead and fixed those. As Mcginnly says above, the articles still needs a thorough going-over by someone who knows very little about Sasha/electronic music in general. Wickethewok 15:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object -- two images in this article are tagged with {{promotional}} without any indication that they are from a press kit and lack authorship and licensing information. We have a freely licensed image of the subject to replace one of them. Jkelly 20:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Another user has added in a different picture for first picture from a specific press kit. I don't think there are any freely licensed images where you can clearly see Sasha's face. Alternatively, we could replace the top picture with the clearly promotional photo featured [here http://www.redlightmanagement.com/artists/sasha/] <-- This one is undoubtably promotional as the management company has included a large, hi-quality image especially for download. I'm currently trying to track down either some copyright-free or promotional photos from the Delta Heavy Tour to use as a photo of Sasha & Digweed. Wickethewok 04:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object There's no section discussing the critical reaction from music critics towards Sasha's music, utilized by other artist FA's. LuciferMorgan 08:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Out of the music artist FAs I've surveyed randomly, none of them have a separate section for criticisms. Most of them seem to integrate critics remarks into the articles. Could you provide an example of what you speak? Thanks! Wickethewok 04:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding images: I have obtained some awesome Sasha photos from the kind public relations people over at Ableton.com. I am going to integrate them once a license is decided on. Wickethewok 18:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sword

This is a great article, lots of references to other articles for deeper analysis, good form, the right amount of pictures, and stable. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 02:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn - I'd like to withdraw this nomination and save people time. Above it says only the FA Director should archive, so I didn't want to just remove the section... — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 12:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The second half of the article seems to be more a list than an article. In addition, references/footnotes should be included in the article not in the articles that Sword article wikilinks. It would be hard to verified the information and not "scholarly" way to reference materials. As of the August 24th version of this article, I wouldn't trust the information in it because there are no references. --65.139.18.98 02:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object. I expected there to be information about the earliest kind of sword, which was made from copper. Bronze swords were actually made later on. --Sbluen 08:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The article needs a copyedit. One of the first sentences I noticed was "Symbol for bravery for fighting a juste cause, Lady Justice sword symbolize bravery of witnesses to stay neutral even against own kin." Rhion 12:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object. No in-line citations. Too may lists, make some of those paragraphs. The lead is supposed to summarize the whole article, a brief review of the history would fit well in the lead for example. --enano ^(Talk) 14:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object A random collection of a little history and a bunch of lists and bullets. Thanatosimii 03:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Montreal

I think this article is very complete and accurate. the pictures are beautiful and relevent to the text.

PYMontpetit 20:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - the article seems to have a fairly low number of citations, especially given its length. WilyD 20:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Too many short stubby sections, some of which are only a sentence long; these need to be expanded or merged into neighbouring sections (I'd lean toward the latter because the table of contents is very long). Inline external links should be converted to footnotes (article is tagged with {{cleanup-references}}). Extraordinary Machine 21:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Ext. Machine. Too few refs, ref format needs fixed, external jumps need fixed, stubby, too many lists, etc.Rlevse 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The massive lead, info box, and table of contents alone almost killed this one for me. There are also many lists and many paragraphs that are too short. --Danaman5 03:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Needs more citations and fewer short paragraphs. The strip club section seems a bit fishy; it definitely needs to be cited. The article could also use a short section about dumbass American kids who take up buses up there to take advantage of the drinking age; to my knowledge, that's one of the city's primary methods of making money. Stilgar135 02:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Dien Bien Phu

A little something I've been working on on-and-off for about a year now. One of the best resources on the web on the battle. Raul654 19:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support, just for using Hell in a Very Small Place as a ref ^_^. — Deckiller 20:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Minor object; this is a good article, but hasn't had sufficient copyediting, and is sprinkled with errors in spelling ("painfull evident"), grammar ("Castries seclusion in his bunker"), and word choice ("four months later when the conflicted war"). I'll be happy to support once somebody goes over it with a fine-toothed comb. Incidentally, might it be possible for you to switch the article over to cite.php? The extensive parenthetical notes are somewhat offputting, particularly in the "Prisoners" section. Kirill Lokshin 20:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem with cite.php is that I can think of no way to use it without generating a seperate reference for each page (at which point, the referneces section would become obscene) If someone knows of an alternative, I'd be happy to consider it. Raul654 20:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Meh, fair enough; personally, I don't consider obscenely long sections of footnotes to be a problem, but to each his own, I suppose. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Minor object per Kirill; I've started a light copyedit, and I see numerous typos and other issues :) Very informative and all, but the prose needs work. — Deckiller 20:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've run it through a spellchecker (I wrote most of the article on a single shot last night, so typos are not unexpected). The typos should all be gone now. Raul654 20:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think cite.php would be a good idea, but Raul is the primary author, and I believe that it's author's choice as to what referencing style to use. — Deckiller 21:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent piece of information on little-known subject. PHG 22:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object Its good, but there are very easily fixable problems. You really need to use cite.php, listing page numbers is no problem in other articles so it shouldn't be a problem here. The references need to be properly formatted. You should not link single days and not italicize quotes. There are also a few too many 1 or 2 sentence paragraphs and they should be merged. Medvedenko 22:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Against my better judgement, I've switched ot the cite.php. About the dates, however, you are dead wrong - If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should normally be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present. - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) Raul654 23:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment it also says There is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article.... (see whole para), so I can see why people get confused on this and there is disagreement.Rlevse 12:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • It says that only in reference to something like just "April" or just "Tuesday" (the examples used there). As long as they look at the examples, I don't think anyone should be confused by "bare month and day". The preceding subsection, which talks about dates containing a month and a day, says that they should always be linked, except in the case of quotes, section headers and on disambiguation pages where only the disambiguated articles should be linked. Ryu Kaze 13:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If you don't particularly care about traditional numbering, you could use named ref tags; there are a lot of repeated page numbers that would collapse that way. Other than that, maybe three columns would be better than two here? Kirill Lokshin 00:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • No, the references section is fine. Raul654 03:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — I've not read the whole thing yet, but Medvenko is quite right about the matter of italics. Italics should only appear in quotes when they would appear normally. I'll give some better feedback soon. Ryu Kaze 00:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've removed the italics. Raul654 02:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Ryu Kaze 03:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - About this fac... Why is the first support by deckiller crossed out? Why does the nom states raul worked on it for a year and later he states he wrote most of it last night...? - Tutmosis 00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I wrote the background sections over a year ago. The section on combat is new as of last night. Raul654 01:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I imagine Deckiller put up that first "support" as a joke. It appears to be a joke. I find it funny anyway. Ryu Kaze 01:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object — For much the same reasons as Kirill, but also because of a lack of fair-use rationle for most of the images, or very brief arguments. As for the wording of the article, it seems to lack both encyclopedic tone and distance from the subject matter. As an example, look at the Defense of Laos section. The wording has a tendency to more describe than to detail, if that makes sense.

For instance, the opening sentence of this section (currently: "One issue plagued Navarre - did his mission as High Commissioner of Vietnam require him to defend the colony of Laos as well?") sounds a little flowery and involved editorially. Something like "Navarre was concerned with whether the obligations of his mission required him to also defend the colony of Laos" would be more appropriate. There's also a tendency for the wording to use adjectives where it shouldn't (ex: "...defending it would require taking on the grave risk..." or "...meeting produced a great misunderstanding..."), and some things are just worded awkardly (ex: "...operating his army at great distance from its home..." or "...the most disputed fact of the controversy surrounding the battle...").

This continues throughout the article. It needs to be extensively copyedited by some outside editors. Ryu Kaze 01:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ryu, this is a historical article, so it's going to be worded differently. I do agree that historical writing tends to be a bit...awkward, but the issue doesn't lie in the tone of the article, but wording and redundancies. — Deckiller 01:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, that section does read like an essay. — Deckiller 01:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Aye, that's exactly the word that sprung to mind, but I was trying to avoid using it. Coming from me, it might not carry the meaning it should have. Some might say everything sounds like an essay to those in my fraternity. Ryu Kaze 02:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Object. The use of long quotes in the midst of the text, with no suitable introduction, is jarring to me. --Danaman5 02:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object While this article is well on the way to FA status, it isn't there yet. Aside from the wording issues as noted above, some of the articles assertions appear to be questionable. For instance, it starts with the statement that the battle was "the final battle in the First Indochina War" yet at the end of the para the battle only "effectively ended the war" which implies that some further fighting took place (which it did). In the second para it is stated that the French "occasionally air-droppp[ed] reinforcements", when this was actually a constant practice during the battle. --Nick Dowling 10:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object Mostly because I want to see more variety in the citations. Right now there is an overwhelming reliance on the Davidson book. I also think the subsections under Combat operations could be rearranged so there are less of them (for example, you can divide them chronologically...March x to March xx then March xx to April y etc; that's just a suggestion...but I do really think you should axe off some of those subsections).UberCryxic 02:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, absolutely not. The whole point of hte article is to say what happened at the battle, which is what the subsections do (and for the record - except for Isabelle, are in exact chronological order) Raul654 03:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well okay fair enough. I don't want to press this as I don't consider it that important. I would still like, however, some greater variety in the citations. You have several works listed under references, but for all intents and purposes only one has been used.UberCryxic 17:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd greatly appreciate cite.php, per Kirill.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Citations go always after the punctuation without any gap between the punctuation and the citation. An article which wants to be FA should have these issues already fixed.--Yannismarou 16:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pornography

I felt like this entry is very thorough, and it best explains Wikipedia's work at it's best. Although I may be afraid that it may fail the test because a lot kids come here and the first page will most likely be seen, on the other hand Wikipedia isn't rated G, nor it's R, it's NR [Not Rated] and deserves a front page attention. Falconleaf 22:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comments: all those inline external links need to be converted into a proper reference format. Some sections are too, umm, stubby, and need filling out or merging (e.g., by Region, Economics). In general, this topic needs pretty thorough referencing (e.g., in the "legal status" section) if it is to gain (and maintain) featured status! Outriggr 22:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you withdraw the FAC. You seem to have nominated it because it is sensational rather than because it is well written. I am a regular editor there and I'd like to say that this article is nowhere near ready. Peer review would be a better idea, but it needs a lot of work before it will even be ready for that. Please don't waste people's time on FAC, It is so far from meeting FA standards that it would be better to let people work on it for a while longer first. Just because it is long doesn't mean its ready to be a FA. Although I think this can be a FA at some time in the future, right now it is not wikipedia's best. pschemp | talk 01:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above sentiments, minus the comment on Peer Review. Any time in an article's life is a good time for Peer Review (provided you're actually getting feedback over there, of course, which is hit or miss these days). Ryu Kaze 02:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Suggest nomination withdrawal. The talk page shows that this has yet to be peer reviewed. While it's better than the run-of-the-mill article, it has too many shortcomings to merit serious consideration here. The featured article whose history I know best, Joan of Arc, went through three separate peer reviews over the course of a year before coming to FAC. Best wishes - come back in a few months. Durova 04:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Whatever the outcome of this FAC, it will be a heatedly debated one. I personally do not think it should be placed on the main page. Children come to this site for reference, not to have smut thrown in their face. Yes, wikipedia is not monitored for youngsters, but once a seed is planted, it has disasterous results. In any case, we should have at least have a moral agenda? As per above, I think the article should be withdrawn from nomination. Thanks, Spawn Man 10:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Being a FA does not mean it should be featured on the Main page. This is not an actionable object. Sometimes wikipedians have agreed that a particular article should not be in the main page. Wikipedia got the same issue because of self-reference. CG 12:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • • I did not object, I made a comment of my own opinions. Thnx. Spawn Man 00:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Ups, sorry. I didn't notice that :-) CG 05:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Personally, I think this article should be in the main page if it ever reaches FA. It's a highly notable subject, and I'm opposed to operating the encyclopedia on the basis of concerns for morality (an inherently POV subject). Ryu Kaze 12:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Moral agenda?!?!?! Whose morals? That's really one of the most shocking statements I've heard on wiki for a long time. We're here to share knowledge, no more no less. Also, could I please ask that people bear in mind that FACs have nothing to do with putting an article on the front page. That's a seperate decision. (I say this because not only does my current FAC have "bad language" in it, so does my probable next nomination :), and it's a bit tiresome having to repeat over and over that this process is about getting a star, not about front page exposure). --kingboyk 13:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm being absolutely serious when I say that this article needs more images. Also, "Legal status of pornography" section needs to be converted to prose, with the listy stuff split off into another article. Too many external links (I suspect many of those are meant to be references). Too many short sections. Coffee 16:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Today, I got rid of that long list and made a List of pornography laws by region article as you suggested.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object Needs a total reorganisation. Anti-pornography movemement material is several times the size of the history section. Entirely too focused on the twentieth century. Image in lead is a very weird choice. There is just an enormous amount of work to be done. Jkelly 20:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reluctant Object Being a huge fan of porn myself, this is difficult for me to object. But as of right now the article is pretty crappy. It needs a lot more work to become FA. Stubby sections, bad categorization, and the prose stinks.UberCryxic 02:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article has huge holes (no pun intended). For example, the section on Porn by Women doesn't even mention Annie Sprinkle! Kaldari 05:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. The article has some great info but most of it is woefully disorgainzed, meandering, spammy and sometimes incoherent. The prose and stucture of the article need to be much tighter.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Several problems:
  • Subsections are far too short. (Yes, size does matter.) If a topic is important enough to merit its own subsection, you should have more to say than just one or two paragraphs.
  • Whole sections lack citations - the "Pornographic stereotypes" section stands out in this regard.
  • Speaking of which, per WP:MOS, section headers shouldn't include the name of the article; please rename the section headers without using any form of the word "pornography." ("Anti-pornography movement" might be okay, but I think there are ways you can rename this as well and still fully comply with the Manual of Style.)
  • I'd like to see some discussion of aesthetics: what consistutes good porn as opposed to mediocre or bad? (I'm a bit surprised not to see a reference to the famous dictum "I know it when I see it. Maybe I just overlooked it.)
  • The lede should summarize the important points of the article, but there are several important sections of the article that get no mention in the lede. If a topic is important enough to merit its own section in the article, it's important enough to be mentioned in the lede. Peirigill 19:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Frank Klepacki

Self-nomination. This article has gone from zero to hero. I've used all material available at Klepacki's website to create the biography and have contacted him to clear up cloudy points on his history. There are only a handful of fair-use images, and I've made a significant effort to write encyclopedic prose. Two of his solo albums are still stubs, as I'm totally exhausted. This is my third FA nomination, and I'm eager to improve my skills by responding to comments. As usual, any objections will be dealt with swiftly and zealously. Thanks for reviewing. --Zeality 21:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — It seems to cover the subject well and the image licensing is sufficient, but the prose could use some tightening up throughout. I don't think it's quite to the "brilliant" stage yet. You might need to get an outside editor to perform a copyedit for you. There seems to be a tendency to use more complex wording when more simple wording would suffice. Ex: "To define the style of the soundtrack, Klepacki listened to a multitude of bands at the meeting". "Multitude" is just a little too "out there", if that makes sense. "A number" would sound a little more down to earth. Another one that seemed a little rough to me was "While laboring on the soundtrack,...".

There's also several other random issues, such as the overuse of the word "moody", and some awkward wording like "...Klepacki composed songs in waves...", "...and noted he had seemingly spent his entire life grooming his abilities for that moment" ("felt" would work better than "noted"), and "On average, it takes a few days for Frank Klepacki to compose master a single a song." I think there was a typo in that last one, but even without the extra "a", it seems a little awkward still.

Also, I think this sentence would sound better using "his personal favorite" instead: "Klepacki then composed Fogger and the personal favorite Mud before...". By the way, did you intend for an "and" to appear in this one?: "He received his first drumset at age 8 began performing professionally by age 11."

By the way, the Command and Conquer series section shouldn't necessarily assume that the reader has already read the previous section. The reference to the meeting there is unnecessary.

Anyway, the information in here is good, and the wording isn't awful. It just needs to be tightened up a little and it will be ready. By the way, the second sentence of the lead would work best as "He is best known...". Ryu Kaze 23:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm terrible at soliciting help, so tomorrow I'm going to possibly do a round of hardcopy editing. --Zeality 01:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Well, I'd copyedit it myself if I had time to at the moment. Sorry about that. I hope you'll be able to find some people who can give you a hand. Good luck. Ryu Kaze 02:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, again, it is really well done. It just needs that final process of tightening it up. Ryu Kaze 02:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I sent out some invitations; thanks. I'll fix those and try importing the article (without references) into word to change my perspective. Hopefully this will be the first CVG game developer featured article (already first A-class!) --Zeality 15:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've spent about two and a half hours copyediting. Deckiller helped out a little too. Can't underestimate the value of taking that sucker out of the Wikipedia context for review. If the prose is still not up to snuff, it's up to my compadres or my a Rock Lee work ethic to fix it this time. On an unrelated note, I had to fight adding a fourth sample. A clip of his work with Mo Friction is hot. Carry on. --Zeality 01:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm satifised. Well done. Ryu Kaze 02:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support — As noted above, the subject is covered well and image licensing is sufficient. The prose now satisfies my concerns, and I can support. Ryu Kaze 02:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I can only improve with constructive criticism. I can't wait to help with Final Fantasy IV. --Zeality 02:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: the lead doesn't do the article justice, I suggest another paragraph or two. - Tutmosis 00:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a note about his affiliation with Westwood and Red Alert. I also wrote another paragraph to highlight his solo / band work. --Zeality 01:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The only thing I can think of is to change the "Command & Conquer series" header to a sub header of "Early Life/Career" and perhaps do something about the "Later Games" header. As Ryu mentioned above, each section should read independant of one another. Right now the prose for each section "Early Life/Career","Command & Conquer series", and "Later Games" flow into each other. I'd say, think about how to divide his career up(Westwood Games, After Westwood, Solo Works, Band Collaborations) into independant sections and make sure each section keeps only that part of his career in mind.

I assessed this article an A-class article and I would support this article for FA, but I'm a fan who knows a lot about his work. Before this hits FA status, we need editors who don't know anything about him to review it to make sure there isn't anything overlooked or unexplained. Mitaphane _talk 04:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the first sentence of each section to break the flow from the preceding one. The paragraphs should be self-sufficient. I also moved C&C to a subheader. Thanks for the commentary --Zeality 15:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object (Referencing concern now diminished.) Comment. Too many references are to the subject's own web site (I'm going to estimate over 50%). Additionally, those references all point to the home page of that web site. I don't care if that's because of a Flash interface. The referencing issue is actionable, unless references are not sufficiently available, which suggests notability and verifiability issues which indirectly would make featured status difficult for this article. References 26 and 27 are blank. Outriggr 10:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I just took a look at the website in question. It does appear to be a flash interface. However, Zeality has provided the section name for where the information may be found on the website in each reference. Given the circumstances, that's really the best he could do. Honestly, I don't see why such a set up is worse than citing a magazine as a reference and saying what page to find the cited information on. These web references are still infinitely more accessible, unless there are web copies of the magazine article.

As for notability, I think I'll field this one for Zeality. The notability of this guy really speaks for itself. He's the composer of the Command & Conquer series, which has shown up in the Guiness Book of World Records several times as the best-selling computer strategy game series of all time[6] and has sold more than 23 million copies[7] (some report as many as 35 million,[8] but I've not seen confirmation of this for myself). I've never even actually played a Command & Conquer title, but this sort of thing is well known among the video game community. Ryu Kaze 13:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Those reference blanks have been fixed. Examine certain CVG articles, like Chrono Cross. Roughly half the references come from the topic (the game) itself. There's no way avoiding it; most of Frank Klepacki's information is hosted at his website. The percentage could be cut down if certain interviews were available at their original URLs, but a lot of them have disappeared, prompting Klepacki to archive them on his website. In the event something could not be found, I had to reference the "Press" portion of his site where these articles are stored. As for the flash interface issue, his website is mostly static—the layout hasn't changed in three years, and information stays put save for the news page. The only way to find individual articles with one click from WP would be to take .html files that pop up in my browser's cache and host them somewhere. But that's probably illegal and it's also unwarranted since Klepacki is an archivist.

If there's a POV problem concerning information imported from his website, it can be compared to other biography articles drawing information from autobiographies. In Klepacki's case, he hasn't done anything heinous or evil, and his occupation is not a controversial one. This leaves no real "criticism" of the man. The information taken from his website his mostly historical as well. We're only interested in things like a.) when he composed certain songs, b.) years active for his bands, c.) awards he won, d.) video games he's scored, etc. Aside from the work / beliefs section, which is included because he's speaking about his music (which is what makes him notable), I've omitted opinions on certain things found in his interviews—like the fact that he had a blast doing cameos, or had fun playing Renegade, or that he had to beg Joseph D. Kucan to come to a show. What IS included is all factual information, and Klepacki has little reason to lie to trump up his reputation. I don't believe this would be a POV problem. If there's a WP:POLICY on number of references from one source, perhaps the references to his video game composition list page could be changed to the video games themselves on a case by case basis. But that's sort of nitpicking. --Zeality 15:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the well-reasoned comments! I just have great difficulty with the notion of a biographical featured article that uses the person's web site heavily as a source. To me, whatever one's interpretation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources on this matter (you'll have yours and I mine, of course!), it's not good precedent for the featured article standard. Outriggr 06:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's count. There are 38 references. There are 17 from Klepacki's site. Two of those are interviews originally hosted elsewhere, so I can link them in the {{citeweb}} and use the archive= tag to reference Klepacki's site or, if I can find a Wayback machine URL, I'll use that. Aboutme could be changed to the MobyGames rap sheet or reviews of Home Cookin' / The Bitters website to substantiate his involvement in video game music and outside projects. I AM has not website, but the Home Cookin' website on the internet archive / review of their CD can be used as a reference for that, and the Bitters do have a site, so down two more. Most of the rest is COMMENTARY:, which are of integral importance to the article. With no other information available on the development of Command & Conquer or Star Wars: Empire at War, his historical notes are the only source. But if we substitute the things above, it'll put the total count at 40 references with 12 coming from Klepacki's website. Sound better? I'll get on it. --Zeality 13:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've pulled it off with two stipulations:

• There is no mention of the film "Unreel Invasion" anywhere on the internet or Cinevegas's archives, so I had to use the aboutme portion again down there.
• Klepacki does not cite the exact name of the local awards for Home Cookin', so I had to use the homecookin reference from his site there. Nonetheless, I hit a veritable goldmine with Las Vegas Weekly and was able to add over three new references for Home Cookin' across the article to mitigate the problem.

There are now 45 references, 14 13 of them coming from his website. --Zeality 14:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is much better Zeality so I shall withdraw my objection. As for supporting, I haven't got that far yet. :-) Good work, Outriggr 20:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll keep this in mind with other articles. --Zeality 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Póvoa de Varzim

• self-nom. with the help of Yomangani. I am re-submitting this article for FA consideration. changes: a second peer-review. Subarticles (economy of... culture of... etc.) New people pictures. It now has sub-articles (namelly parishes and districts). Featured article in the Portuguese language wikipedia for some time. It is "complete" and already used as reference by some. I Hope you like it. --Pedro 20:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

• "In the coastal plain, a Roman villa was constructed, the property of a Roman family - the Euracini who mixed with the Castro people who returned to live on the plain - Villa Euracini probably developed in this way." Unclear meaning after the first hyphen (which should be a dash anyway).
• I question our ability to accept Image:Lota da Povoa de Varzim em 1960 3.jpg and Image:Lanchapoveira.jpg under free-use licenses. They both seem to be derivative works of illustrations made too recently to be public domain. Andrew Levine 23:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• thanks for your cleaning. As for illustrations:
• Those are azulejos, meaning they are street decorations and are seen as a craft. It is more or less like you painting your house's exterior walls. People instead of painting preferred to lay azulejos.
• In this case, I photographed a wall. In fact, that is the harbour's north wall. Those azulejos were placed in there by the City Council. Each square is an individual peace and most of these azulejos (there are many more in that wall) are old pictures that were "transformed" into azulejos. Some pieces are removed and painted again because they are too near the beach. As far as I know, those are not eligible to be copyrighted, like Portuguese pavement. Pictures that I took are not PD, but have a commons licence.
• But I would prefer a real picture of the boat that the city hall has to make the article more "alive". I'll see if I can get it and other old pictures to a commons licence, not PD.--Pedro 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • When I said "made too recently to be public domain" I was referring to the illustrations, not the photographs. Portuguese pavement is not an artistic work. The wall illustrations are. It would be as if I took a faithful photo of a painting that was copyrighted (say The Persistence of Memory) and tried to release it under a commons license. Andrew Levine 08:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not the same thing, Andrew. See the pictures of the pt:Azulejo article to understand what this kind of art/craft really are and for what they are for. Although I'm not a lawyer, I doubt that they have copyright throw a photo as there are no grounds to make a law about that, azulejos are tiles and can not be put on the net or in emule, but only on a wall, a house (in the kitchen, bathroom or outside). those pictures came from a wall like this: Image:Palacio_Queluz_Corredor_Mangas1.JPG --Pedro 11:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Question. Pedro, why is this article a GA nominee and a FAC at the same time? --enano ^(Talk) 16:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• • it is for weeks at GAC. There are no legal issues regarding that also. lol. let's discuss the article instead of that.-Pedro 16:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, no problem with me. --enano ^(Talk) 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The article is now a GA. And I've changed the pictures Andrew Levine talked about to better ones. BTW, noone has an opinion?! :S -Pedro 23:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • support per nom.--Pedro 12:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape

Archived: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/RuneScape/Archive1

This article was nominated for FA status before, and its concerns were addressed. --Ed^{talk c E} 16:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Firstly, there are a few references tagged with "Better Reference Needed". That should be taken care of. But secondly, I'm concerned about the level of prose in some section, primarily the criticism and development sections, which seem very "list oriented" in the way the information is organized. Instead, it should be written in prose format. Fieari 18:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Response- First of all, if you want excellent prose, don't use "firstly" =). The "Better Reference Needed" tags were added to remind us that better citations were needed. As of now, we haven't found any yet, We're still looking. I will make the needed changes to the criticisms and development sections.--Ed^{talk c E} 20:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object — 2a, 2b, 3b.

2b and 3b issues

Improving the prose should come after my 3b concerns, which are that there are too many stubby sections, leading to poor organization. Sections like gameplay should have no subheadings (unless you merge some of those huge runescape lists, which will help for comprehensiveness). List of other organization concerns:

• The history section should be one section, not broken up into several version stubby paragraphs. Flow it into a complete work of prose.
• Graphics shouldn't need subheadings.
• In the gameplay section, each paragraph doesn't need a subheading. For example, the skills section can comprise a paragraph, quests a paragraph, and so on.
• The community and criticism sections should be converted to full prose without list format.
• I still see some citationneeded tags in the criticism section.
• Overall, if you organize correctly and add more/better citations, this will allow the article to meet 3b and the comprehensiveness standard all in one. The information is around, it just needs better organization to fit the FA style of "no bulleted lists and minisections".

2a issues

• The prose needs a lot of work, but this should come after organization, citing, and checks for comprehensiveness. Here are some examples:

"In order to succeed in RuneScape, a player must carry out some tasks." - perhaps reword, or remove completely (the critism section should not explain the gameplay; gameplay detains belong in the gameplay section). Thus, the paragraph should jump right into "Tasks in RuneScape..."

Watch an overuse of additive terms, such as "also", "furthermore", "moreover", and "additionally". These are worshipped in scholary works, but shunned on Wikipedia.

Watch out for redundancies, such as "in order to", "himself", "simply".

Automatic speculation alerts = "may be", "some/others" "perhaps".

Version 0.1: The first version began as a one-man project. Andrew Gower started working on the original game in 1998. This version was very different from the RuneScape of today. It had isometric graphics, and was originally titled 'DeviousMUD'. This version was never released to the public. - entire section here needs to be reworded so that the sentences aren't so simple.

This is a ramble, because the article still needs quite a lot of work. I'd be more than willing to help. — Deckiller 21:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that! It really helps so we know what to do! J.J.Sagnella 21:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) I gave you a few examples of what I was talking about (though the prose needs rewording, since I'm unfamiliar with RuneScape). I'd be willing to help out some more if you'd like. — Deckiller 21:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. But when I remove the bold text and the list format in the Criticisms section, it turned out like this:[9]. It just makes the section into a very long paragraph.--Ed^{talk c E} 22:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can do with the criticism section. — Deckiller 22:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• The criticism/reception section needs an overhaul. I recommend looking at Final Fantasy VII or Final Fantasy XI (probably the better choice, as an MMORPG) for a good example. — Deckiller 22:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: Why don't we take all of the criticisms, and blend the comments with the whole article?? Like for the gameplay criticism, we blend it with the gameplay subsection.--Ed^{talk c E} 00:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Most gaming FAs (if not all) have that in a seperate section, as the comments themselves shouldn't have to describe gameplay or anything (it should be along the lines of "Gamespot criticized the music, stating that it was "plain and unoriginal for an RPG developed so recently".) — Deckiller 01:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• As the user who wanted to improve RuneScape to Good Article status, I regret to say I cannot support this. The article has not even reached Good Article status, and it has been unprotected and nominated for Featured Article. I just briefly looked through the article, and much of the work I have done for it has been undone. Where are the press reviews in the Criticism section? With my Wikilife in crisis, there's not much I can do for this article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Needs press criticism or at least some kind of negative commentary from reviewers in the criticism section. Right now, it seems to be "official reviewers say it is great" versus "players say it is bad." And no, this isn't because of my rancorous hatred of MMOs, though RuneScape enlightened me on that. Just caught my eye. --Zeality 21:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Reasons stated here below:

1. History and Development: The first paragraph doesn't quote or cite any sources. Who's to say that picture is legit? On top of that, there is no citations backing the first three versions were ever created. They may have been, they may not have been. All I'd ask for here is proof.

2. History and Development, Advertising: Does this really need to be in H&D? I don't believe so. Maybe it *could* serve better under the community, as ads are commonplace now and they do affect the community's opinion of the game.

3. Gameplay, Combat and Skills: Enter the fancruft. Does anyone really need to know the max combat level of both versions and/or the calculations made of them? A fansite would be better suited to that knowledge, or even the RuneScape Knowledge Base. On top of that, if you are going to keep the skills listing, I'd believe Slayer would be better suited to Combat-related, as you must fight the NPCs in order to build experience in that field. In that sense, Construction would be seen as processing as well, due to the fact that you manufacture parts in order to build a house. Lack of citations here, as well.

4. Gameplay, Interaction: This section could use a bit of polish. Why should the Encyclopedia list the hundredth quest for this game? I would understand if you could cite this part, "RuneScape features mini-games for its players, which are activities somewhat like quests but that can be done multiple times. Mini-games take place in certain areas and normally involve a specific skill. Many mini-games involve cooperative efforts or allow players to compete with each other. Popular mini-games include Castle Wars and Pest Control.", but until that happens I'd have to disagree. Citations, citations, citations.

5. Gameplay, Random Events: Could be merged with Interaction since a majority of these require you to perform tasks which require NPC interaction.

6. Community: Cite a few more refernces here. I could easily verify that there are a vast number of players that speak all sorts of languages, but to someone that glanced at this page not knowing that, they'd wonder how you found that out. Adding community criticisms would be best here, too.

7. Criticism: There is no critique here. I don't see much except a few opinions from GameFAQs. Not necessarily the best place to pull criticisms from. You could look around on various fansites, pull a huge list of angry opinions from there and come up with a much better section. Other than that, this section of the article needs a lot of work. Makoto 01:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Megatokyo

The to do list is clear, and it looks like the objections from the first and second nominations have been dealt with. Therefore, I'm renominating this article. I think it's ready to be featured. --L33tminion (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Concerning the fair use criteria (criteria #3 and #8): Is it really necessary to add all 4 book covers? I think one is sufficient. Sijo Ripa 23:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (solved Sijo Ripa 00:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment: Concerning criteria #8, the extra covers do, in fact, "contribute significantly to the article." The section they reside in discusses them seperately, and thus the images serve to illustrate the section, instead of simply decorate it. Concerning criteria #3, one cover would be not be adequate, due to the fact that the section discusses all of the books. Having only one cover would not be comprehensive - a requirement of featured articles. JimmyBlackwing 23:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I strongly disagree. The covers by themselves add hardly anything in the first place (see criterium #8), let alone four of them. Furthermore "four" cannot be considered "as little as possible" and can be considered as "multiple images are used while one serves the purpose adequately" (see criterium #3). On the basis of this alone, I will object to FA status (even more because I don't feel really comfortable by the fact that besides these four, seven other possible-non-necessary images are used under the fair use rule cover.). Sijo Ripa 23:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I have removed the covers in the Books section. And on the subject of the other "possible-non-necessary" images, the first two are unquestionably necessary to detail the article. Not having an image in the lead's infobox would be failure to identify the subject of the article, and the image in the plot section details the comic's design, panel layout, and style - all necessary for the identification of the subject. The character images are needed to illustrate the comic's characters, which is necessary to comply with the standards set by other featured articles about comics - Calvin & Hobbes, and The Adventures of Tintin. JimmyBlackwing 00:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, I didn't emphasize the rest up because it's more debatable and I give them the benefit of the doubt. I didn't think there was any doubt concerning the cover images so I'm glad that's solved now. By the way, note that older FA's (such as Calvin & Hobbes, and The Adventures of Tintin - two FA's of 2004) often violate some/many current FA standards, as the FA standards have risen over the years. Sijo Ripa 00:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
          • (If that's really the case, they should be improved or defeatured. I'm pretty sure that all featured articles are supposed to meet current standards... --L33tminion (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC))
          • Note: I didn't object to one cover image. I did (strongly) object to four. Sijo Ripa 00:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
          • In response to your previous comment: Yes, I have seen that on many occasions. The problem was that those articles are some of the only usable examples present on Wikipedia after which I could shape the article. However, regardless of the use of character images in older featured articles about comics, I believe that, as featured articles need to be "comprehensive", the images are necessary. JimmyBlackwing 00:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Agreed. --L33tminion (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The article now contains only one cover image in that section, and I think it's safe to say that this concern has been addressed. --L33tminion (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yep. Sijo Ripa 00:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support Comment — The article's informative on the subject, mostly written well, and illustrated adequately. There's also a nice touch with the "Fan translations" box in the External links. However, there's a few issues I have with it, and some stylistic adjustments I have to suggest that I feel would improve the article:
  • Why the spoiler tag tornado? It's unnecessary — and aesthetically offensive — to add the "close" tag right before another "open" tag. Just remove the first "close" tag and the second "open" tag, place the first "open" tag before the table of contents", and leave the second "close" tag where it is
  • Navigation boxes generally should go at the bottom of an article
  • Discuss things in terms of what's already happened, as though the series is already over and done with. Don't treat it at as an on-going thing, even though it still is. Example: the sentence "However, this philosophy is starting to change, as he is spending more time with Kimiko and other women, and listening more to the advice of Seraphim, his 'conscience enforcement agent' and general friend" should be something like "However, this philosophy changes over time, as he spends more time with Kimiko and other women, and more frequently heeds the advice of Seraphim, his 'conscience enforcement agent' and general friend". "General friend" is kind of awkward wording, by the way. I'd suggest dropping that part
  • Some sentences are a mouthful, aren't correctly paced, are incorrectly punctuated or are just awkward. Examples:
    • "Piro finds work at a store called "Megagamers" that specializes in anime, manga and video games, while Largo takes on somewhat irregular jobs with the "Tokyo Police Cataclysm Division" and as an English teacher at a local high school (becoming "Great Teacher Largo," a reference to the anime and manga Great Teacher Onizuka, and teaching his students about L33t, games and hacking) for the duration of the early plot" ——— This sentence is mostly fine up to "... and teaching". From there, it becomes long-winded, awkward, and uses incorrect punctuation. Might I suggest this instead?: "Much of the early plot developments detail Piro beginning work at a store called 'Megagamers', which specializes in anime, manga and video games, while Largo takes on somewhat irregular jobs. Largo's work includes service with the "Tokyo Police Cataclysm Division" and as an English teacher at a local high school (becoming "Great Teacher Largo," a reference to the anime and manga Great Teacher Onizuka), where he teaches his students about L33t, games and hacking"
    • "Other plot threads include the character Nanasawa Kimiko's rise to idol status, due to her outburst on Mumu-chan's Voicevoice Paradise, a radio talk show, where she came to the defense of fanboys after being angered by Mumu's derisive comments about them, and the trials and consequences of it, as well as the enigmatic Tohya Miho's involvement with Piro and Largo - before meeting them in Japan, she knew them from a massively multi-player online role-playing game called Endgames " ——— Simply long-winded
    • "Piro and Largo grow as individuals as the series progresses, becoming deeper and more serious characters than the stereotypes they represented at first, and begin shaky relationships with women in their lives" ——— This is just worded awkwardly. Perhaps something like "As the series progresses, Piro and Largo begin shaky relationships with women they meet and grow as individuals, becoming deeper and more serious characters than the stereotypes they first represented" would be better

If these issues can be addressed, I'll throw my support behind the article. Ryu Kaze 14:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I just took a shot at this. What do you think now? (and as a note, the navigation box is there to direct readers to the character articles, if they wish for more in-depth information) JimmyBlackwing 15:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I considered moving that earlier, to fit convention, but then I realized that it didn't make any sense if moved. I've just tried changing that again (replacing it with Template:Main and see also at the top of the section). That fits convention, and it might be clearer, but it might not be as pretty. I think that might be a good solution, but feel free to revert it if you think that makes it worse. --L33tminion (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Looks fine to me. It just makes more sense to the reader than Template:Megatokyo would, I think. JimmyBlackwing 16:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Speaking of which, should Alternate Universes and Omake Theatre in Megatokyo be moved to Alternate universes and omake theatre in Megatokyo (per title capitalization conventions)? (And does Gallagher spell it "theatre" or "theater"?) --L33tminion (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Never considered that, but you're right. Also, Gallagher seems to spell it "theater," so I suppose the spelling should be changed there. JimmyBlackwing 17:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Fixed it, and got all the article space links to point directly to the new title. --L33tminion (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, while I'm still a little concerned about the flow of one line ("...derisive comments about them; as well as the enigmatic..."), I'm satifised with the changes made. This article now has my support. Ryu Kaze 22:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
            • I tweaked it a bit. It still feels mildly awkward, but then it's hard to be objective about something so small. Any good? --Masamage 03:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Works for me. Nicely done. Ryu Kaze 14:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support! Enormous amounts of time and work have gone into this article, and it's definately paid off. Very well-written and very clear; it's an excellent resource for those who want to learn about a significant internet phenomenon without necessarily reading the four books. --Masamage 03:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. You guys have been cooperative after I've ridden you guys hard in the past months, and I think I might have earned some enmity in so doing, but I'm afraid I have to keep at it. I attempted to thoroughly read the article, the lead, "Plot and themes," and "Major characters" (long bones of contention) devoured all my efforts. The official objections are for criteria 1a (prose) and 2a (the lead). Try though I might, I could only get through the lead and "Major characters," spending far more time on this than I had planned.

• The lead section does not yet stand as an independent encyclopedic article, like it should. Plot and character descriptions are anemic at best, and there's no mention of the critical reception. (You've got the NYT, so flaunt it!)
• Strictly speaking, "Megatokyo" the term is not Japanese (just like "Indianapolis" is not Greek), so would it be possible to insert something like the following in the third paragraph? "For artistic and branding purposes, "Megatokyo" is also rendered as ~KANA~ on the website and some merchandise"?
• Would this be better for the second sentence: "The Megatokyo content is usually published for free online every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Such content consists principally of the comic strips, although "Shirt Guy Dom" and "Dead Piro Days" are often published when a proper strip cannot be completed in time."
• "Fantastical imagining of Tokyo" is somewhat redundant, and feels unencyclopedic. Perhaps "fictional version of Tokyo?"
• Second paragraph, second sentence: How about, "Starting in the gag-a-day format, Megatokyo soon developed a more complex and coherent plot, exploring its characters, while still including frequent, subtler gags and jokes."
• You mention that Caston's no longer with it, then that L33t has survived him, but you give no word of the tensions and controversy surrounding his departure. That's merits mention in the lead. The end of the second paragraph is ideal for mentioning why and when and with what results MT started changing.
• I would also reformulate mention of L33t into a broader, if brief, discussion of cultural and artistic citations and allusions in MT. I know Gallagher discusses this in his "rants," or perhaps just in the commentary to the first print edition of vol. 1.
• Comment."Plot and themes"/"Major characters": To be honest, I had so many problems with these sections that I merged them and gave them no small re-write, which I propose for your consideration. I think I retained the most important character details. I'm not married to this re-write, but I think it's suggestive of 1) the level of detail sufficient for a featured article, and 2) how plot and character details can be integrated. As it stands now, "Major characters" has too much detail (like Largo's working on computers in the nude, and it belabors Miho's gothiness). As I've stated before, it's my opinion that separate character and plot sections are difficult to achieve and allow extraneous detail to slip in.

• I hope you'll be willing to compromise on this one. I think that a little redundancy is worth it in exchange for the clarity and ease of use that a "characters" section provides. Is there a way we can improve the prose in those two sections without merging them? --L33tminion (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm certainly willing to withdraw the objection if the prose improves, and I've noticed your edits in that direction. The prose and lead are what led to the objection; the separate sections was (is) a strong matter of taste that got caught up in dealing with the prose. Since it's not a part of the objection, I've demoted this bit to a comment. (Apologies to everyone for all the sound and fury.)--Monocrat 21:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yay! That is darned reasonable of you. :D I think you've raised some compelling points about the seperate sections, by the way. I have some ideas about the necessity of the character snapshots, but I need to mull them around a bit before using them. Anyway, thanks for being so clear and so supportive this whole time. It's a breath of fresh air. --Masamage 22:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOS-JA, Kimiko and Erika's names should be given in Western order.

• I think this has been addressed. --L33tminion (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Here's hoping it stays addressed this time. ;)--Monocrat 21:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• The character image for Piro needs fuller copyright statements and sourcing to original image, and (am I right in thinking that) all images should explicitly name the copyright holder.

I stand by my talk-page statement that the article is ready for FAC. FA is another matter. I had hoped to wait a week or so to see if others picked up on these issues, but I got impatient. :) I hope to see the article bear a little star, but it's not quite there. I've been at this for several hours now; I just can't get to the other sections right now, but I fear they will need work.--Monocrat 06:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I believe the majority of the issues you commented on have been taken care of. Unfortunately, Megatokyo's site is moving so unbelievably slowly that I was unable to find the source for that Piro image, and referencing an expansion of the discussion on L33t would have been a nearly impossible task - I'll take care of them once the site gets back up to speed.

Now, on to the main point. As far as your suggested merge of the two sections goes, I do not see the reason to do so. I understand that you were able to get an article (Excel Saga) to featured status while using the system - that's great. However, there is an incredibly large difference between a Webcomic and an anime. The closest things I had to model the article after were The Adventures of TinTin and Calvin and Hobbes. I'm not sure if it's an official policy, guideline or whatever, but general practice is modeling your article after what other articles that have been featured have done. Though the featured articles I named were both from 2004, defeaturing is something that exists for a reason - if these articles didn't deserve their positions, they would probably not be featured right now.

I examined your rewriting of the article to include the supersection, and honestly must say that if I stumbled upon this article undergoing FAC with that section, I would oppose it. I must once again bring up the fact that having no dedicated "characters" section was cited as a flaw in Megatokyo's most recent peer review - suggesting that the way you put forth may not necessarily be the right way to go about this (although perhaps not the inherently wrong way, either). Though the system may have worked for your article, it may not necessarily work here. Also, though the discussion of plot elements in the characters section may be inappropriate (I have removed these, I might add), discussions of the characters in the plot section is not a particularly large problem - the characters are an integral part of the plot, and as such also require separate, dedicated discussions in their own sections to do their complexities justice. The character section contains what you considered to be "too much detail"; however, is not the point of a character-based story its characters? As such, I would assume that some increase in the normal amount of detail would be normal. Like I touched on before - what may have worked for Excel Saga may not work here. It's something similar to modeling Jabba the Hutt after Final Fantasy X, or vice versa. I hope I have made my reasoning clear. JimmyBlackwing 15:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of the smaller points. And I know how slow MT can be at times. On to the meat of the matter: Excel Saga is indeed an apt example because it was and still is a character-driven manga, if of a different genre, and the anime based on its was also character-driven. Not all suggestions from peer review are worthwhile in the long run. What matters is FAC. Regarding the level of detail in "Main characters," a proper understanding of Megatokyo can be conveyed without the following: "He is technically gifted, though he uses beer as a CPU coolant; and cannot pass up the opportunity to tamper with anything even remotely technological in nature, usually working on computer hardware in the nude, as an extreme measure to avoid electrostatic discharge." Why am I opposed to a separate (main) characters section?

• We agree that the characters are integral to the plot, so why the false separation? It leads to commingling of information anyway, and ghettoizes the characters' personalities, rather than letting them be shown at liberty in the plot.
• As it stands, you don't do the characters' complexities justice. Only a thorough reading and analysis can do them real justice. The purpose here is to give suggestions and overviews of their complexities.
• Of the whole "Largo" subsection, only the third paragraph gives us anything that is interesting and new to the article; the rest is excessive detail or little more than repetition of details in "Plot."
• The first paragraph of "Piro" is just a light expansion (really a rewording) of details in "Plot."
• Kimiko's section would be complete simply by adding to the end of its first paragraph something like the following: "Like Piro, Kimiko is kind, soft-spoken, and lacks self-confidence, but she is mildly impulsive and prone to mood-swings. Also like Piro, her shyness and self-doubt cause her to keep her feelings secret."
• Erika's could also be trimmed likewise.
• Miho's section is a little wordy, but tolerable.
• Notes about what language each character speaks isn't really necessary (also covered in "Plot").
• This leads to roughly 380 (42.2%) of 900 words that can be cut for repetitious or excessive detail. At this point, "Main characters" hardly warrants its own section, let alone five subsections. A dedicated section for characters encourages this kind of fluff so that section seems full.

That is why I am opposed to a separate section. You might lose cherised details in this--I know the feeling--but the objective is to succinctly and logically present the characters. And I contend that this cannot be done with separate sections. However, it seems neither of us will back down from our respective positions. My proposed Synopsis was meant more to be suggestive. I hope, however, that it shows that I'm just trying to improve the article. :) As time permits, I'll scan the second half of the article. --Monocrat 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • I see where you're coming from, though it's difficult for me to just agree to doing it. The point is that your support of the article being featured is what is important - if making some sort of merge is necessary for that, then I will see what I can do. On one final note, I meant the peer review example as more of something to show that your viewpoint on characters sections is contested by more than just myself. JimmyBlackwing 17:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I'm being unreasonable, and I want very much to be reasonable. What's important is not a solitary oppose (which can often be disregarded in the final tally), but engaging in dialogue to improve the article. And I thank you for that. At the very least, I am a minority view--so I wouldn't rush to make the merger yet. I've asked for thoughts on my view, so we'll see. You've got a while left in the nom, so pending more discussion, I'll suspend this whole plot/character concern for the time being. But the prose still needs work. :)--Monocrat 17:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a small note on the combined plot/characters section: that's actually far more intimidating. When I'm presented with several small, discrete topics, I unconsciously find it friendly and intuitive. When I looked at your Synopsis section, it was so long that I didn't want to read it. I tend to imagine that someone who looks up MT in an encyclopedia rather than reading is someone who doesn't want to get involved in a long narrative, and wants quick facts. These seperate sections can be read individually without lack of understanding; your Synopsis requires reading the entire thing. --Masamage 19:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Masamage. Well put. --L33tminion (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I sympathize about long sections. The proposal was mostly suggestive, but I've inserted some headings. Better? :)--Monocrat 19:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Enormously! I think I still prefer the way it is currently (for reasons I'm unclear on), but that made a gigantic difference. --Masamage 21:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, violates fair use criterion #3. Eight "fair use" images in only 40k of text is about six or seven too many. User:Angr 06:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair use is not a text/article ratio (Final Fantasy VI is 55kb with 14 fair use images), it is a matter of necessity and availability; all images are required for their various purposes, and by virtue of being a commercial work, no free images could ever be substituted. Nifboy 06:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If it's just a matter of necessity, then eight "fair use" images are eight too many. None of these images is necessary; but having one or two is tolerable. User:Angr 09:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Going by this, it would be logical to de-feature nearly every single featured article on popular culture. The images are used for the identification of the subject matter, and the illustration of sections which discuss related elements. Though it may not be absolutely necessary to have them, it is far and away standard procedure when it comes to articles like these. I do not understand why this article, out of all the others, is so wrong in doing this. JimmyBlackwing 10:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I've singled this article out. Indeed, it would be best to de-feature all articles containing unnecessary fair-use images, and not to promote any new ones. But since Wikipedia's fair-use policy is roundly ignored here at FAC, I'm trying to increase its visibility the only way I know how: by opposing any article that violates it. You cannot steal a bunch of images from someone who has worked hard and/or paid a lot of money for them, put them into a Wikipedia article, and then try to get that article called one of Wikipedia's best. It's simply immoral. User:Angr 15:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm afraid I must bring up the fact that all you are doing is making a point. A far superior alternative to disrupting Wikipedia's business as usual to illustrate your point would be to discuss the guidelines in question on their respective talk pages. I am sorry if this came off as rude, but I just thought I should bring up the fact that you're trying to change a guideline by breaking another. JimmyBlackwing 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
            • If Wikipedia's business as usual is promoting articles that violate policy to FA status, then include me out. I'm not objecting to these FACs to try to get policy changed, I'm objecting to them to try to get existing policy adhered to. That is not interrupting Wikipedia to make a point. User:Angr 15:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Nowhere in the policy page you noted does it say that "fair use" images should not be used at all. The closest it comes is criterion #3, which you listed. However, "as little as possible" is completely subjective. While I might consider "as little as possible" to mean only using them to illustrate articles in significant ways, you might consider it to mean none at all, as you have shown. I do not see how it is particularly necessary of you to oppose every nomination made with images used under "fair use," in this case - it would be more productive to get the policy amended in order to make it clearer, so arguments over personal interpretations of the guidelines and policies would occur less often. JimmyBlackwing 16:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Are we allowed to seek Fred Gallagher's permission? How would that work? --Masamage 09:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia can't use images "by permission" if that permission extends only to Wikipedia, but of course you can ask the artist to release some pictures under a free license such as GFDL or CC-BY-SA (or both simultaneously). User:Angr 10:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
          • User:Angr has added this objection to pretty much every FAC with fair use images. Really, it's a subjective matter that's being argued as though it has specific boundaries in this case. Personally, I think all of these objections are going to be dismissed by Raul on the basis that they seem to be more an attempt at "making an example" for the sake of individual fair use wikiphilosophy than an actual constructive comment. As long as you provide an explanation for why the image is being used that meets sourcing and licensing requirements, you're doing all you're supposed to with images.

Angr's objections have been a matter of discussion for fair use in general, not something that should be targeted at individual FACs. It's inconsiderate of fellow editors and the work that's been performed on them. Ryu Kaze 14:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Blackwing. To call this "stealing" is absurd. I find it hard to imagine that use of this type is costing the creators of such works even marginally. Second of all, stealing is illegal, and fair use rights are legally protected. IMO, either Angr is greatly exaggerating or their problem is with the current state of copyright law. --L33tminion (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on images: Personally, I think most of the images are fine from a fair use perspective. The cover of vol. 4 seems to be decoration in general, although it might have more value if moved up to the discussion of the Seraphim subplot. I would still cut it. Nevertheless, the use of an entire page of the comic seems inappropriate, especially since there's no discussion of that page, its content, or its place in the story. I would remove it post haste.--Monocrat 15:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the editors could add a line or two describing the style of art and presentation used? I can see an example page as a relevant illustration of concept under the right circumstances. It'd be a shame to lose such a valuable piece of imagery. Ryu Kaze 15:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. It is used to illustrate the style in which the comic is put forth. If you just use single character images, then the layout could be like A Lesson is Learned but the Damage is Irreversible's or Penny Arcade's, for all the reader knows. It's definitely needed. I'll work on fixing that. JimmyBlackwing 15:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm unsure, to be honest, that a few lines would be sufficient. First, can you easily discuss the page itself, which seems to me a requirement for fair use. Second, is it really necessary to have that image here: if someone is truly interested in seeing the layout and comparing it with manga or American comics, the MT website is just a scroll and click away. Plus, I find the image, as it is in the article and its own page, to be visually unappealing. On another note, and purely a matter of taste: have you considered using the image for the vol. 1 first edition in the infobox? It's a much nicer image, methinks, than the second edition. Anyway, I'm glad to see you're working on the images' copyright statements. :)--Monocrat 15:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a featured article's calling to be comprehensive - leaving out such an important detail as the layout of the comic would be a total failure to live up to this. Though the site may easily be accessed, the point is that it is something the article should cover itself. On the subject of the cover image, I had not considered it - I figured I would just leave the image as it was, since no one objected to it and I had no issue with it. Finally, I must say that yes, I should be able to find a way to discuss the image, though it may be difficult - I may need to replace it with a different strip for an easier time of it, on that note. JimmyBlackwing 15:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't need a strip, and you don't need to discuss a specific strip, to discuss the comic's layout. The actual comic is freely available if people have questions about it. By insisting on using an actual strip, I feel you make more work than necessary to achieve FA, and open yourself up to possible copyright violations. Your call. This is not an objection.--Monocrat 16:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, I would object to the article being featured without an illustration of a strip (or at least an excerpt of a few panels). I would not consider the article to be well-illustrated without it. IMO, the current image doesn't even stray close to being a copyvio (it's one comic and it's clearly illustrative of the style of the work), and removing it would decrease the quality of the article. --L33tminion (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I added some basic fair use rationale to the picture, but since the section that it is placed in is currently not relevant to it at all, I am having difficulty explaining how the image contributes significantly to the article. Could someone add some information to "Plot and themes" that is relevant to both the image and the plot/themes? Hargle 12:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I will get on that right away. JimmyBlackwing 12:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I added a more specific rationale for that image, will that be sufficient? Hargle 14:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, L33tminion, one can't please all the people all the time. I stand by my comment--though I seem to be overruled on this--that the strip is unattractive in the article, and unnecessary both per se and for a discussion of the comic's layout. We're not talking about an Action Comics that exists only in library archives and personal collections. There is a freely available alternative for readers, the MT website itself. As for copyright... yes, it is just one of hundreds of pages from MT. But it was published and hence copyrighted as a stand-alone work of art, and the article uses all of it. That stretches my interpretation of fair use: character images are small compared to the whole work; a full page is large. As I said before, this is just a comment.--Monocrat 13:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, any article on something online is going to be mostly information that's "only a click away"; I don't see why that should be unacceptable for the illustrations. Necessity is not a prerequisite for illustrative fair use. As far as whether the strip is "unattractive in the article" I guess our aesthetic sensibilities differ on that point, but if you've got suggestions for an alternate excerpt that illustrates layout and artistic style, I'd be happy to hear them. --L33tminion (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Two questions for you, Monocrat. What did you have in mind when you said "I would also reformulate mention of L33t into a broader, if brief, discussion of cultural and artistic citations and allusions in MT. I know Gallagher discusses this in his "rants," or perhaps just in the commentary to the first print edition of vol. 1"? I would like confirmation before I make an attempt, in order to avoid serious error. Secondly, would you be opposed to the use of the first (1st edition) and fourth book covers in the Books section as an illustration of how Megatokyo's printed presentation has changed along with Gallagher's style, and the publishers he has gone with? I am curious about this before I completely cut the final cover. On one final note, it would be ever so kind of you to update your lists of issues you have with the article so the editors know what remains to be fixed - I myself have gotten kind of lost, at this point. JimmyBlackwing 15:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Good detailed article with ideal referencing. I was familiar with Megatokyo for a while and feel that this article is a good representation of it. The pictures are very well selected as well. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. This looks to be in good shape overall, and it does a good job explaining a comic which can itself can be tricky for the unaquainted to understand. I do have a couple of concerns, which I think shouldn't be too troublesome to fix:
  • First, the remark about "the infamous "Shirt Guy Dom" stick-figure strips" -- these are mentioned but not explained. Why are they infamous?
  • The use of Leet as a spoken language, I know, is a joke. But since the article refers to characters as "speaking" and "understanding" leet with various degrees of fluency, could you throw in a few sentences to make it a little more clear how Megatokyo uses leet? Are chracters speaking English leet, Japanese leet, or is leet considered a whole seperate language?
  • Lastly, I'm a bit concerned that some of the uses of Japanese terms, though commonly used in English-langauge anime and manga publications, do not need to be in Japanese. I'm fine with terms like shojo manga, which have no equal in english, but do we need to use the Japanese for terms like renai game ("dating sim"), seiyū ("voice actor"), dōjinshi ("self-published comics"), omake ("bonus"), and gosurori (redirects to "gothic lolita")? We're supposed to be writing for a general audience, and Megatokyo isn't even really Japanese, so I'm thinking these terms are likely to be a bit off-putting for non-specialists.

Other than that, really good work. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 02:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • I have taken a shot at addressing this issues. [10] Will that be sufficient? JimmyBlackwing 02:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, that works for me. Full support. Enjoyable article all around. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 03:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - For the same reasons as GoOdCoNtEnT. ISD 13:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support I made this same comment on the nom for Padme Amidala. There's no way you can have a large amount of CC/GDFL imagery for something that is a media property. --Kitch 17:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• To closing admin. The discussion with User:Monocrat has continued on the Megatokyo article's talk page. Whether this information is necessary or not, I am unsure, but I thought I should clear up any possible confusion in advance. JimmyBlackwing 20:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Ive been working on this article and seen it grow and this article is worthy of featured article status. -Vcelloho 04:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object, character descriptions don't adhere to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). At least, maybe they do superficially, but not enough to my liking. Ashibaka tock 16:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, please? --Masamage 17:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ashibaka, I attempted to clean up this problem. [11] <- Is that along the lines of what you were looking for? JimmyBlackwing 18:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That's pretty close to what I meant. Thanks. Ashibaka tock 20:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I recommend Googling Scholar and Print for more academic refs, currently most of them are from comic publisher, and the second largest group are newspaper reviews.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If at all possible, I would have already done so. The current references are used out of necessity - due to Megatokyo's webcomic nature, it's difficult to find refs that would be considered "academic." A search for "Megatokyo" in the sections of Google you suggested reveals nothing that would be useful as a reference. However, the sites used are all notable and reliable sources to some extent, even if not all on the level of reliability as, say, The New York Times or TIME. I do not believe there is a problem with using the current references, in this case. JimmyBlackwing 05:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • A FA needs to have better sources, wether they're available or not. In a case where such sources are not available, such an article should not become a featured article. -- Ned Scott 13:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment; I would like the name order dispute on the talk page to be resolved before this makes FA. Frankly, I would rather Western order (per WP:MOS-JA and WP:Manga), or some very compelling rationale why we should make things more confusing for English readers ("Megatokyo does it" isn't a good enough reason), particularly because the general audience may or may not even see the tiny little note stating that names are in reverse order. Nifboy 04:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Please note you are commenting on disputed naming conventions. "The fictional series in question uses that naming convention" seems like more than reasonable rational to use a naming convention to me (if the reader wishes to know about the naming convention, I believe Help:Japanese (the question mark) will help them... that and article phrasing should clue the reader in). Also: the italised comment at the top of the character section clearly spells out that japanese names are listed as Surname Givenname. -Aknorals 13:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. per the name order dispute. FA are supposed to be the best of the best, and follow applicable guidelines. A great deal of editors to Japanese related articles don't like changing name order, but we do. I can understand if the editors here don't want to, and their reasons are the same as those who didn't want to change the order for JP names. The point of the guideline for western naming order wasn't supposed to single out Japanese topics specifically, but to have consistency for naming order across all articles. It wouldn't make sense to include the western naming order guideline in any place but WP:MOS-JA, but that's only because they didn't think of bizarre situations like this. This is just a small technicality, and it does not exclude this article from following established naming conventions. -- Ned Scott 13:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: You opposed based on your interpretation of a guideline? I do not believe that is allowed. Please keep this disruptive debate all in one place (the WP:MOS-JA talk page). Thanks. JimmyBlackwing 00:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It is perfectly kosher to oppose based on an article's not meeting applicable guidelines. Consider FF6's old FAC that sprung up an equally large discussion on the use of the game's logo in the infobox, when WP:CVG says to use boxart; most of the FF6 editors said the logo was better. What's there now that it's FA? Boxart. Nifboy 00:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • However this article is not applicable to MOS-JA. - See the discussion page. WhisperToMe 02:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Again, the ONLY reason it's in MOS-JA is because at the time it didn't make much sense to put it in a "general" naming convention. I don't think they thought about situations such as this. Not only that, but it's a work of fiction heavily using Japanese elements, saying it is totally excluded from MOS-JA is absurd. Again, can you tell me why other Japanese articles can't be excused for the same reasons you've provided for this article? -- Ned Scott 06:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm pulling out of this. I stand by what I said, in that something shouldn't be excluded from such naming conventions simply because it's not "Japanese" by technicality. Should it follow the western naming order? yes. Does it actually matter? no. For this article, I can't say it's a big deal. We have a label for the characters, and from that we can identify the characters. I really don't care what part of the name is the first or last, as long as I know who is being talked about. I got way too caught up in this, and I'm sorry for my knee-jerk reaction. While I'm not convinced enough to support, I do withdraw my oppose. -- Ned Scott 08:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support - The MOS-Ja does not apply to this article. WhisperToMe 02:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object—1a. This isn't so much ungrammatical or ambiguous as full of redundancies and awkward expressions. It's certainly not "compelling, even brilliant" prose as required. Please find good copy-editors to run through the whole text intensively: it needs to be tighter and stylish. I know several who are good at this kind of topic, and you probably do too. Let's look at just the opening paragraph, which is supposed to be a display.
  • "Megatokyo is a popular webcomic created by Fred Gallagher and Rodney Caston, though now written and illustrated solely by Gallagher."—Replace "though" with "and"?
    • I've replaced it with neither ("... created by Fred Gallagher and Rodney Caston, now written and illustrated solely by Gallagher"). I think that flows better without the "and", but either way it's an improvement over "though". Good suggestion, now fixed.
  • "Its writing and art styles"—bit ungainly; try "The styles of its writing and illustrations".
    • Fixed
  • "The contents and comic strip of Megatokyo"—category problem: the comic strip is part of the contents, isn't it?
    • Fixed
  • "with updates generally occurring every Monday, Wednesday and Friday"—Remove "occurring"; consider "generally on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays".
    • Fixed to "with regular updates on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday"
  • "are often published in their stead"—last three words archaic expression. ("in their place"? or just "instead"?)
    • Fixed
  • "Officially, Megatokyo is only available in English; unofficial translations into other languages are available elsewhere on the Internet, although the French and German translations are the only ones close to matching the original's update schedule." While not compulsory, it would be nicer as "is available only in English". Remove "into other languages". Remove "elsewhere". "Although" should only be used where the next clause is surprising or contradictory to what has just been said. Perhaps you need ", of which the French ...". Inset "that come" before "close". "The original's" is ungainly; try "the update schedule of the English version." Tony 05:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Fixed. It looks like Ryu Kaze has been doing some excellent work on the copyediting. Many thanks for your suggestions. --L33tminion (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. By the way, you mentioned knowing editors who are good at copyediting this kind of topic? Would you mind giving me their names? JimmyBlackwing 06:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Note on your talk page. Tony 08:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — I'd just like to inject that I've performed an extensive copyedit of the article now, per JimmyBlackwing's request, and that a couple of other editors have been/are going over it as well. Hopefully this effort will resolve any concerns with the article's prose. Ryu Kaze 00:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Temporary oppose. The article is full of informal language ("hits on" and so on), and many large, substantial, significant, redundant redundancies appear throughout the work itself (redundancies intended). — Deckiller 00:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • While I agree that "hits on" is perhaps too informal, I think the current wording is substantially less accurate. Look at the comic in question and judge for yourself. --L33tminion (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Changed it to "harasses". --L33tminion (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support looks much better after the threeway copyedit. — Deckiller 01:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Keane

Self nom. This article is about British band Keane. I've worked for three months now on it. I think it contains the most information possible about the band (excepting private facts for reasons of the band). However this article will keep being improved as they are an active band. Fluence 01:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I've just noticed a few things that should be addressed.

1. All the the promotional pictures used in the article should have fair use rationales written for them.
2. The lead has too many one sentence paragraphs. These should be blended together into two larger paragraphs.
3. A lot of fansites are listed under the External links section. Could this be cut down a bit?
4. I see that a lot of your main source of information is a Keane fansite (keaneshaped.co.uk). You should try to find a variety of sources instead of using just one.

-- Underneath-it-All 15:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to look another sources of information about Keane around the Internet and the very few magazines that talk about them (I live in Mexico) but almost every source contains information taken from Keaneshaped. I think that fansite contains more information than the official page. I can't delete the links to the FAQ page of that fansite because of Copyright. Chris Flynn (owner of site) let the information he has recovered to be included here but including the links to his fansite. However, I've included the links to the original articles and sources on the "References" section. Some articles are now only found on Keaneshaped (there have been removed from the main source) so that's why there are very few references. If I change the "Notes" section links from Keaneshaped, Chris Flynn would have to erase half the article. I've also retired fansites and blended the lead. About the fair uses I'm looking forward to them Fluence 16:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Can't the information within the trivia section be used elsewhere so the trivia section can be removed? Trivia sections aren't recommended in FA's. Also, there is no section citing their cultural influences and impact upon music. LuciferMorgan 13:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• OK I've removed the trivia and added a section. I don't like trivias either but as I've saw that many articles have them I included on this one Fluence 22:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of the references for the influences section and impact are from Keaneshaped and as Underneath-it-All said, there should be more references apart from the fansite but that information can't be found anywhere else but the link I've just included (Keane.at) Fluence 00:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The page really is very imformative and no doubt it deserves 'featured status' Victoria Eleanor 14:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Which criteria are you referring to? Tony 06:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object 1a. There is good in this article, but it needs thorough massaging throughout to meet the criterion. Let's look at three sentences in the lead.

"They are recognized worldwide because unlike most rock artists, they do not use a guitar in their music and because of Tom Chaplin's soft voice and falsetto. Despite this "no guitar" stance, they use synthesizers which sound almost exactly like guitars.[1] Keane have a particular style of music (piano rock) that many have compared to Coldplay, members of whom they met when they were at school."

I'm going to be very fussy:

• • would it be easier to read with another comma, before "unlike"?
  • "They" (being a band) contrasted with individual "artists"; use "bands" instead?
  • "voice" and "falsetto" are a category problem.
  • We're hit with the assertion that having no guitars is a "stance", after just being told that this is a characteristic of their musical texture. Before meeting it in passing, I'd rather have that deliberate stance or policy or philosophy formally explained, either here or in the body of the article.
  • The "despite" sentence seems to undermine the logic of their worldwide recognisability on the basis of having no guitars. It seems to be a reversal.
  • The two "becauses" are awkward—maybe the comma will improve this, but one because is a negative and the other is a positive. Why not draw these attributes together:

"They are easily recognized for the distinctive softness of Tom Chaplin's voice, often used in falsetto, and their use of synthesized rather than acoustic guitars." I'm unsure because I'm foreign to the topic, but it's wrong at the moment—I can see that much.

• • Remove "of music" as redundant. Why not "have a piano rock style that has been compared to the band Coldplay, ...". Should Coldplay be linked? "British band, Coldplay"? Dunno. Reference required to support your assertion that many people have said ...?

This is not nearly good enough. Tony 06:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Edited for Tony1's demands.Fluence 00:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Household income in the United States

Self nomination This article covers the subject matter extensively and addresses it neutrally from several different vantage points. It made it to GA status wihtout a hitch and every single statement is referenced as well as completely NPOV. Please note that this article's subject matter is income statistics so it might not be as entertaining as some other articles but it covers and important issue concerning US society. (Besides entertainment isn't on the criteria list) I did my best to make all facts user-friendly and interpret their meaning so that even someone is unfamiliar with the subject can statisfy his or her curiosity. Thank you. Regards, Signature^brendel 04:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment the article is well done, but without some comparision to the rest of the world I don't think it is comprehensive, the United States doesn't exist on its own, and surely there are some interesting international comparisons that could be made within the OECD (at least). The lead should be broken into two paragraphs.--Peta 04:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, break the lead into two paragraph, okay I'll take a look. Also, you kind of have a point the US doesn't exsist alone, no. But unlike some measurements such as GDP per capita, Pucharsing power per capita, household income is not a universal measure. Many countries don't count the same way the US does and do not make the same numbers available. I'll take a look at the Canadian Census, perhaps I can find something the same as US data there. (International comparisions would certainly add to the article but are extremely difficult to find as definitions of household income and availability of data vary) Otherwise I guess I'm just assuming (considering the title) that the reader just kind of has an idea what $40,000 a year are worth-relatively speaking. Signature^brendel 04:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this useful (another link in case the first doesn't work). --Peta 05:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The article name states clearly thats it deals with the United States and it is a statistical article similar to a list. What can you compare to the rest of the world without listing the same type of statistics for every country? That would make the article remarkably long. - Tutmosis 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm still trying to figure something out but giving the same statistics for every country would not only make this article remarkably wrong but would also be impossible. Not every country uses "Household income" and even the definition of "household" varies. Signature^brendel 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, I have looked at the article provided by Peta but none of the statistics there are comparable to the US. They would though be approriate if placed on the Poverty in the United States article as that article isn't as specific as this one. I have looked at the Candian Census-there is only one problem the statistics are Candian dollars ;-) So, I'll convert the amounts but will have to note that due to constant fluctuations on the currency market, conversion rates are always a bit of. Signature^brendel 18:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, were you replying to me or Peta? My comment above was towards Peta comment. I'm not suggesting you put statistics from all other countries. - Tutmosis 20:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I was relpying to Peta. Sorry for the confusion. Signature^brendel 20:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I would suggest that you start the lead with a description of what the article is talking about. Like define household income. Currently the article starts with a statistic and for that matter the article is a hell lot of statistics. I think the article is missing something. Aside from providing current statistics on the household income in the states I think the article should give an overview of previous stats and how they compare to the current ones. Reading the article I dont understand if each number is an improvement or a decrease from previous years. Also even though I have no idea, did the government make any efforts to improve any of this stats? or planning to. If they did then that would be a good thing to include. Also you might include the role household income plays on an economy or something of that sort. Ofcourse this subject matter is very new to me and my suggestions might be baseless so let me know what you think. The article looks great by the way. - Tutmosis 14:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have attempted to bring in a description of what household income is-add a couple of sentencea to the intro. These are the standard stats used by the Census Bureau-so yes a comparison to 1990 for example is possible in some areas. Until 1999 much Census Data wasn't published only so I cannot find "counter-figures" for everything here. I will try and include some comparative statistics and add a new intro sentence. Signature^brendel 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added the 1990 median household income figure and explained its value considering inflation. Regards, Signature^brendel 19:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Thanks for implementing my suggestions, your really did a good job on the article. You even made all the pictures and graphs yourself. The last thing is boldind the first mention of the title in the lead. It be really good if you could get "Household income in the United States" words together in the lead so it can be bolded. Good luck on your future projects. - Tutmosis 20:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I tweaked the first sentence a bit in order to apply bold face to the title-term. Thank you for your suggestions and support. Signature^brendel 20:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. It's well researched, and seems well structured, but wow it needs some more copyediting. I saw a number of sentences I can't even tell what they really meant or had awkward phrasing, enough so that I couldn't fix them. Taxman

Alright, I'll run a spell and grammar check and proof read it. Signature^brendel 03:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, for the most part it just needs a copyedit (some of which I've done myself). In some places you are missing commas. Other things to note:
  • "In order measure household income the pre-tax earnings of all persons in a household that are over the age of 15 are combined." This sentence either is missing a word or has too many words. I can't tell for sure.
  • "had mean of only one income" Should this be "had a mean"? I'm not sure enough of your meaning to change it myself.
  • Likewise, "below national median" or "below the national median"?
  • The states in the "income by state" chart should all be linked. Andrew Levine 12:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I am personally not done with the copyedit, but will be today-I will also suggest linking all the states. Signature^brendel 16:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object. It certainly is impressive, especially the referencing, but there are some issues that I'd like to address. 1) and most serious - I fear the article is not comprehensive: I would like to see a section on history of that phenomena. And even more, important needed missing section are those about who analyzes this data and what is it used for. 2) lead could use a picture - even a graph would be nice 3) lead also needs many interlinks (per WP:BTW): in the very first sentence there are important unlinked concepts like wealth, government, institution, in the second household and resident, and the list could go on. 4) footnotes 8 and 9 are broken.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay as for history-there is not that much to say-though I'll see what I can do. I may add another mention of the Census Bureau-as this is the institution that measures households income. I'll add a graph and more wiki links. Links 8 and 8 will be fixed. Regards, Signature^brendel 23:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Piotr brings up a good point. History of household income would be very important to be comprhensive. What trends have there been, real vs. nominal, purchasing power, etc. Also the census bureau is one of the main collectors of that data, but the IRS also collects data on taxable income of course. Discussing the vagaries of that data and what differences it has to the census data would be valuable. In other words more discussion of the meaning of the data, less regurgitation of it. I'll look for more on the language improvement too. - Taxman ^Talk 12:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: In addition to what Piotr and Taxman have just mentioned, I think it is vital to include some information on how the household income data is actually put into application. The first sentence says the data is "commonly used by the United States government as well as private institutions." But the article never gets around to giving examples of what they use it for. Andrew Levine 22:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm currently traveling so I only check my watchlist briefly. But addressing your concerns: I'll add a paragraph for the application of the data and for how the economic survey works. Also, Household income is only real if you will. There is no pucharsing power or nominal household income. The census bureua simply counts the gross income of all income earners in a given household and since 2000 has been publishing this data in detail, for free online. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object. 1a (prose) and 1c (facts). Economics articles can and should make an effort to explain things in a crystal-clear way to non-economists. This article is full of ambiguities and wordings that lack clarity. Many questions are begged, just in the lead that I looked at intensively. This needs a thorough audit. Here are my queries about the lead:
  • Right at the top, the logic of this sentence is unclear: "The use of household income is often seen as the most dependable measure of personal wealth, as people tend to live in households that include other wage earners besides themselves."
  • "In 2003, the median annual household income according to the US Census Bureau was determined to be $43,389,[2] nearly identical to that of Canada which was roughly $41,510 (USD) in the year 2000." Remove "determined to be" (there's another one of these lower down). I can see that you've included Canadian info in response to comments that it was all too US-centric, but this is very odd here. Why just Canada? It's info from three years previously (and a whopping six years ago, anyway), so the "nearly identical" claim is a little wobbly.
  • Get rid of "in the year"—there are a number of them. We know that 2003 was a year.
  • Consider abbreviating after first spelling out "the United States". Make it concise and easy for our readers.
  • "The 2005 economic survey also found that"—Every extra sentence is "also"; it's stronger without.
  • A mean of "two income earners" and then "one income earner"? Surely to one decimal place.
  • "Among those in-between the relative extremes of the income strata a large and quite powerful section of households with moderately high middle class incomes[7] and an even larger number of households with moderately low incomes.[5]". Here and in numerous other sentences, a comma would help the readers. I know that many commas are a matter of personal preferences, but when you bump up multiword nominal groups, it's hard to read. I read it and wondered whether the comma should be after "between" or "strata". In any case, the sentence is ungrammatical.
  • Here, I can safely say that you must have a comma after either "44%" or "1990"—which is it? "While the median household income has increased 44% since 1990 it has decreased very slightly when considering inflation." Make it explicit in the first clause that you're comparing dollar values with inflation-equivalent values. Otherwise, the punters will be totally lost. It took me a few reads to realise what you meant. Insert "by" before "44%", I think.
  • "was determined to be $30,056 or $44,603 in 2003 dollars." Are you giving us a choice: either of those two amounts? No, so write "$30,056 ($44,603 in 2003 dollars)".
  • "In 2003, the median household income was, however, only $43,389, showing a slight decrease." Decrease since 1990, or when? And since the values here arise from a number of factors, you might make that point, to put in perspective this "slight decrease". Is this point suitable in the lead, anyway? Without supporting detail, it's kind of misleading. Tony 05:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfinished work

Renominated

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Unfinished work (2) violet/riga (t) 13:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This article explains the primary reasons behind creative works remaining unfinished, giving (prominent) examples for each in different media. May not be the longest article, but it doesn't really need to be as it covers the topic to a good enough degree. Any further detail and lists of works can be placed in subarticles. violet/riga (t) 20:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support How ironic that something on unfinished work can be so complete. --Kitch 21:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- Literature: No mention of Kafka? No Proust? No Stephen Hero? Nothing at all on sculpture (the Kouros on Naxos only survived because it was unfinished)? These are some of the very first things I think of when I think of an unfinished work. What is our criteria for including a mention here? The "See also" section could be incorporated into the text or removed. Jkelly 21:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Kafka is worthy of inclusion in a similar way to the mention of Orson Welles, so I'll get to that one soon. Proust and Stephen Hero don't seem to add anything different to the article that isn't covered by other examples already. There is mention of sculpture, but I hadn't noticed that there weren't any examples; the Kouros on Naxos aren't detailed in any Wikipedia article, but I will look into some sources. The criteria for inclusion are a) it adds an example to illustrate something different, b) it is a very famous example of incomplete work. I want to avoid having too many examples and turning this into a list (categories or a list article can do that). Thanks for your comments and suggestions - I'll hopefully address the two mentioned soon. violet/riga (t) 08:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Kafka has been added. I can't find many scholarly sources about the unfinished Kouros, only tourists mentioning them from their travels, but I haven't looked too in depth yet. violet/riga (t) 09:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm a little unsure about this whole approach, to be honest. Does it make sense for us, as Wikipedia editors, to be saying "This is an important example of an unfinished work / That is not an important example of an unfinished work."? Looking at the notes, I don't see a single one that is a discussion of unfinished works as a whole. Jkelly 20:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not entirely sure of what you're saying here. The article gives examples that illustrate the point being made. The most important examples found that illustrate those points are presented. It is not an article that should give a list of all the unfinished works that exist. violet/riga (t) 22:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — I think more could be added. Classical works such as the Aeneid was never finished. There is some discussion regarding whether or not The Tale of Genji was unfinished as well. Nietzsche was also known for not finishing many of his planned philosophical works. I'll list more if I can think of them. Lemegeton 11:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • But do they add anything different to the article? I would think they should be in a category or list. violet/riga (t) 12:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Where's Hemingway? --Neutrality^talk 18:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Why should he be mentioned? violet/riga (t) 18:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Ernest Hemingway#Posthumous publications...--Neutrality^talk 18:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
      • True, it has fleshed out one section of the article. Please take a look. violet/riga (t) 19:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Neutrality has been asked to review this vote but has so far not returned. violet/riga (t) 14:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Are you going to start keeping lists of other unfinished, yet published works? P.G. Wodehouse's Sunset at Blandings and Douglas Adams's Salmon of Doubt both come to mind. --JohnDBuell 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • They will be in the relevant category (Category:Unfinished books) or, if more detail is required, a list. This unfinished work article should not contain a massive list of unfinished work. violet/riga (t) 08:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh I agree with that completely. I just wondered if you had a page or sandbox or 'holding area' to add works to for later list inclusion. --JohnDBuell 11:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • There's a bit of something on the talk page. violet/riga (t) 16:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. No mention of Architecture whatsoever. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Now that I think of it, the Laws section could also explore the legal situation of unfinished works in other countries. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not supposed to have architecture - that comes under unfinished building. As for the laws, well I've never seen any explicit unfinished copyright laws outside of the one given. violet/riga (t) 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't see the value at this point of having a separate article for unfinished buildings. Given that at this point the article is only a stub you could fit it here, and if the section ever grows too large it could go back to its own. As for the laws, you should probably move the paragraph to the lead or a footnote. The section is too short and seems out of place after the discussion of unfinished works in different areas. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry but I disagree about the buildings section. That is going to undergo a large expansion soon and doesn't really come under the criteria of "creative works" that this article is about. The laws section could be demoted into just a note, but nothing should appear in the lead that doesn't appear in the article itself, and I think it is relevant enough to have its own section. I will write a note about it being unusual. violet/riga (t) 15:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Are you telling me that architecture, long considered one of the fine arts, has no element of creativity of its own? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment: Why not a compromise here: An "Architecture" sub-heading, followed by {{main|Unfinished building}}, a paragraph or two about unfinished buildings and structures (would you include things for which plans were laid, but barely started - if so, a heck of a lot of Speer's designs for Berlin could be included), and then let the Unfinished building article do the rest (and remove it from the See also heading). --JohnDBuell 17:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
              • I think that architecture is a creative art, but that building isn't necessarily. It would be good therefore to have an architecture subheading and that can indeed be {main}ed to unfinished building. I might have time to work on it tonight. violet/riga (t) 17:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
                • I've played around at something slightly different and added a "Construction and engineering" section. Please take a look and see what you think of that. violet/riga (t) 22:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
                  • I've expanded the section quite significantly now - please take a look. violet/riga (t) 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• (reindenting) Support. Good compromise. I still feel a bit uneasy about the Laws section, though. Overall this is a very nice article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I feel foolish, I forgot I hadn't actually voted before :) --JohnDBuell 17:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Interesting subject, but I don't think this article is very well-written. In my opinion, there are three areas in particular that need work:

1. Overuse of qualifiers: In the lead alone we find (in order) "most commonly," "sometimes," "can be," "sometimes," "may refer," "many examples," "many people," "various reasons," "some," "many," "some," "may be," and "some." Obviously, it's difficult to cover such a broad and disparate subject without making blanket statements or using work-around words like these. In the rest of the article, the word "often" is used nine times. Many readers often find that the overuse of qualifiers can be annoying.
2. Lack of focus: The article tends to jump abruptly from one unfinished work to another. The two paragraphs in the "Science and philosophy" section seem to have nothing to do with one another. Another example: "One of the earliest and most prominent examples is Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, which breaks off in mid-sentence. D.H. Lawrence drafted and abandoned Mr Noon in 1921, the first part of which was then published posthumously in 1934 as part of the A Modern Lover collection."
3. Redundancy: Certain themes are hammered away at throughout the article to the point of excess. Examples:

Some projects are simply too grandiose and would never be likely to be finished... The size of the project can be such that a story is never finished.

If the work involves other people, such as a cast of actors or the subject of a portrait, the work may be stopped because of their unavailability... A piece of work may not be completed if the subject becomes unavailable, such as part of the landscape changing or even the person being painted dying.

--Alex S 20:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Sorry but I have to disagree on most of your points there...
    1. To me the lead reads fine, and "often" is not overused given the fact that the we simply can't use too many other ways of writing it.
    2. You mention only one part that is not written verbosely, and one which I intend to fix (incidentally added by someone else).
    3. Sorry but the lead is supposed to summarise the whole article, and thus some things are obviously going to be repeated.
  • violet/riga (t) 22:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't get me wrong, this is a very good article -- it's interesting, well-referenced, covers a wide range of examples, and uses images well. However, as per your request on my talk page to respond to your comment, I'm going to have to maintain my opposition to FA status. Point #1 seems to be simply a difference of taste. In #2 you recast my objection as if I wanted the writing to be more verbose. This is false -- I think it should be less verbose, with fewer repeted phrases and words (see #3 and #1). To re-explain my objection: parts of the article read like a "List of unfinished works" with the entries listed horizontally, in sentences. Transitions might help fix this problem. As for #3, I understand your point. Still, part of the beauty of English is that you can say the same thing twice without repeating a single word. Nonetheless, one of our language's most admirable qualities is its ability to communicate identical ideas in completely different fashions. You get the idea. --Alex S 23:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I still disagree with what you are saying and think it's more of a style thing, which I can't really see as a reason to object. Your call though. violet/riga (t) 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Alex S has copyedited the article, and I hope he will now be happy enough to change his vote. violet/riga (t) 14:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object - for reasons given by Rune Welsh. Construction and engineering are not intrinsically architecture although they can be. To elucidate - here's Le Corbusier on the subject "You employ stone, wood and concrete, and with these materials you build houses and palaces: that is construction. Ingenuity is at work. But suddenly you touch my heart, you do me good. I am happy and I say: "This is beautiful. That is Architecture. Art enters in......" Architecture does not necessarily have to be a building either - it can be a paper project. Also I think you need to disambiguate certain Follies which are designed to look like romantic ruins (but are 'finished' in the sense that that is how the designer intended them.--Mcginnly | Natter 17:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no doubt that there are many architectural projects that have been started on paper but scrapped, but how many of these are notable? Have famous architects made unfinished plans that are famous? If so, then it could be worthy of mention. Sure, I know very little about that subject but I've searched around and not found any unfinished architectural plans that merit inclusion. violet/riga (t) 17:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added a passing mention of follies. violet/riga (t) 18:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Architecture has been incorporated to a much greater deal now. violet/riga (t) 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There is now quite a bit about this area of unfinished work, but the main article is unfinished building and I would rather not overload this article with one artform. violet/riga (t) 14:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Meh, seeing this blink on and off the FAC list is somewhat bizarre; but that's between you and the director ;-) As for the article, object:
  1. The biggest problem is the architecture section, which focuses on banal trivia (bridges in Wisconsin and so forth) rather than notable unfinished buildings. The coverage of unfinished monumental architecture is entirely missing: no Nazi architecture, no Sagrada Familia, no Cologne Cathedral or Strasbourg Cathedral, no Palace of Soviets, and so forth. I understand that space here is somewhat limited (although the article is still quite short, for such a major topic), but even so, the examples used should be the more notable ones.
  2. The lead should be made significantly longer; at the very least, a general overview of different types of unfinished works (works never finished, works finished by others, works finished much later, works only designed/proposed but never started, etc.) is needed.
  3. Some strange omissions in the literature section (no mention of Honoré de Balzac!), but this is more minor. I'm surprised there's almost nothing about unfinished series and sequels written by other authors here, though.
  4. There seems to be some confusion about the definition of "creative works": if engineering is included (e.g. ships, software), why is there no detailed discussion of unfinished designs outside of civil engineering. Leonardo da Vinci comes to mind here.
  5. While I don't advocate a full "In fiction" section or anything of the sort, not mentioning the Tower of Babel is a critical omission, in my view.
  6. The mention of photographs in the "Unfinished work and the law" section is very jarring, given that there has been no discussion of that particular artform earlier (and it's not at all clear, to the casual reader, how a photograph can be unfinished).
  7. Finally, I'm a bit concerned about the level of referencing. The article is fairly sparsely cited; and, where citations are given, they are mostly to online sources. Given the nature of the topic, I would have expected a much heftier use of traditional scholarly works as sources. Kirill Lokshin 15:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking the time to comment. I've rebulleted your list into numeric form so that I can more easily reply - I hope that's ok.
    1. I don't agree that the given examples are "banal trivia". Yes, the bridge example isn't amazing, but it was to illustrate a construction that wasn't simply a building. The ones you list: Nazi architecture (no more relevant than others and not mentioned in that article); Sagrada Familia (will be added as an example of ongoing work) [added]; Cologne Cathedral [added] or Strasbourg Cathedral (could be mentioned because of the duration, but not strictly "unfinished" now); Palace of Soviets (could be mentioned but not massively important. I don't want to overpopulate with examples, and we could argue all day about which ones merit inclusion.
    2. The lead was shrunk by another editor, and I have restored it to its more appropriate size.
    3. Honoré de Balzac has the most unfinished works I've seen, but I'm not willing to assert that it is the most in the article. [I've added mention of this, but I've not found a reference for it anywhere, including fr:wiki] Other than that, I could use him as an example of plenty of unfinished pieces. As for unfinished series of books, there is The Canterbury Tales but if there is another good example it could be added.
    4. There could be mention of other non civil engineering works, but again I don't wish to overload the article (nor do I wish to mention Da Vinci all the time, though he is a great example).
    5. I agree that we should be wary of "in fiction" sections, and I couldn't decide whether to go with Tower of Babel or not. It probably is worthy of a mention somewhere. [I've added it to the See also section, which I think is the best compromise]
    6. Personally I don't think that it is too unclear about the photograph.
    7. I can't agree with you here. There are 39 different external references used and virtually all parts of the article are referenced. I don't think that printed works are necessary either.
  • violet/riga (t) 18:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Updated using this colour after a few changes to the article. violet/riga (t) 21:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, focusing on the more salient points.

1. The reason I mentioned Nazi architecture (here thinking primarily of Speer's various Berlin designs) and the Palace of Soviets is because they are good examples of a type of unfinished work that is almost entirely glossed over in the article, but which is very common when dealing with monumental architecture: work left unfinished because of the collapse of the state or social order for which the work was to be a monument. If you don't like the modern examples, you could go with something like the Olympeion instead; but I think it's wrong to omit this facet entirely.

3. The Dune series comes to mind; but that might be too trivial here.

4. I think some examples of pure engineering might be appropriate. A non-Da Vinci example that comes to mind is Project Babylon; but that might be too obscure.

6. It's not clear to me, anyways. Are they talking about things like multiple exposure photographs? Kirill Lokshin 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I've added the Palace of Soviets

3. Not too trivial - it works well as an example

4. Project Babylon certainly isn't too obscure (at least to me), and has been incorporated into the article

6. I've slightly reworded it, so I hope that helps.

violet/riga (t) 23:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks much better now; nice work! Kirill Lokshin 00:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Lehigh University

After engaging in a few weeks of heavy editing through several parties, I feel that this article meets the criteria for a Featured Article. It contains all pertinant, factual information and is free of filler and is "tight". The pictures included well represent the university. The article is strictly NPOV.

Note: Self-nomination Plm209 15:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support as nominator Plm209 15:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Just by browsing through the article, it needs the most important thing to be a "featured article." Where are the references? This nomination will be voted down automatically because of that. In addition, "Engineering highlights" section destracts from the article's main focus which is probably should devoted mostly to the school not its alumni. See past American-centric University featured articles: Wikipedia:Featured articles#Education. --4.253.37.16 15:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • One more comment The "trivia" section probably shouldn't exist to become a featured article and if it did then should be in paragraph form instead of a list.--4.253.37.16 15:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Needs a few more pictures. I would like to see at least one modern picture of the campus, a picture or two in the sports section (two would be nice, one of the team playing and perhaps their sports complex if they have one), and I would rather see a picture of a Ford Mustang as it was designed, not a current model one. PPGMD 15:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply I didnt know if you noticed the photo gallery on the bottom of the page. This includes photos of many buildings on campus. Will be working on the sports photos and mustang photo soon.
• Oppose per the anon editor.Rlevse 15:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Definitely a good article, but, along with PPGMD's comments: way too many red links, too many short sections (coed. should be either expanded or put into academics, for example), too many one-sentence paragraphs. The trivia section isn't bad in and out of itself, but it seems too long in comparison the rest of the article. Stilgar135 17:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Opppose lack of references, stubby sections, overwhelming Table of Contents, trivia section. Sandy 01:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too listy, too many red links, too many one sentence paragraphs, and the infamous non-encyclopaedic trivia section rears its head - if the information in the trivia section is noteworthy, then it should be integrated into the rest of the article and be made to blend in, but if the trivia info is insignificant then it should be removed. LuciferMorgan 22:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Sandy, sorry. Terri G 17:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Jane Fonda

I propose this as it is a splendid, interesting, comprehensive, well-referenced and photographed article that meets all the criteria that we seek to convey.BjF 20:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object -- Insufficient lead and inconsistant referencing. Sometimes the article uses the footnote style, sometimes it links directly to another website. Fieari 00:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Entire swaths of the article are unreferenced, and there are stubby sections, some consisting of only a single (very short) paragraph. Fieari 02:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Skimpy lead, and not enough references. Her father committed suicide when she was 12? Needs a direct in-line reference. Many other such examples through the article. Also agree with Fieari: ref style needs to be consistent. EuroSong ^talk 00:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I have hoped to make this a featured article, but I had not nominated it because I knew it needed some improvement. To address objections, I restructured the lead, made the reference style consistent, and referenced the suicide of Fonda's mother. I will work on adding other references when I have more time. I think the article also needs a bit of copyediting and possibly, more information on Fonda's early life. Andrea Parton 16:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object agree with Fieari. Sandy 22:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Petra (band)

self nomination

Yeah, it's my favorite band, but it was also one of the most important bands in Christian rock from their beginnings (1972) up to their retirement (2005), which IMO, makes it a relevant article. I'm not the only one who's been working with the article, but I can say that I've worked the gross of it (especially the band history and the discography). The band has been nominated (and won) several Grammys and was a constant seller. Thief12 05:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object - no references or citations. Also, the discography section should probably be its own article: it takes up too much space on the page Teemu08 06:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object - It's a nice article, but there are no references at all. How do I know you didn't just make all that up? :) EuroSong ^talk 09:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I added references to lots of things said in the Biography. Let me know how it is now. Most of the stuff said in the biography and the whole article can also be verified at all the sites posted in the "External Links" section. Thanks. Thief12 22:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Good article, no complaints ST47 20:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This article just documents the history of the band, without discussing the band's cultural contributions and critical receptance (needed). Also, the trivia section rears its head - if the information is noteworthy integrate it into the rest of the article, otherwise rid of it. LuciferMorgan 22:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Very few references. Some P. Erson 23:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment You may want to look at other WP:FAs about musical groups to get a sense of what is needed here. Jkelly 22:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Excellently done.HappyBoy 22:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)HappyBoy
• Support Well, putting things in perspective, opposing this due to a lack of reference is a weak stand to take. The reason? For a musical group, this article is well referenced compared to the vast majority of other music articles. On top of this, the article is well written with good use of images. It also did not neglect major facts and details and views the subject in question fairly and without bias. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Article is shallow and doesn't seem very comprehensive. This can be easily remedied, however. It consists mainly of a history section with little discussion about the band's criticisms, reputations, influences, or impact. Also, expunge the Trivia section as it is unnecessary. Wisdom89 23:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Texas

This article seems very comprehensive - it is a good starting point for all things Texas. Really well done if you ask me. Staypuftman 19:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Two fairly minor points:
  • It doesn't seem necessary to list the ships named Texas, since it doesn't really have much to do with the state, and doesn't really have a significant impact on people's perceptions of the state. That should go on the Texas (disambiguation) page.
  • Do we really need a list of all of the state's various designations? I feel we should pull out the more significant ones (e.g., flower, motto, bird, etc.) and find a new home for the other ones (e.g., dinosaur, molecule, gemstone cut), as they don't seem like data that are going to be relevant for most people looking up Texas. People going to an article with a name like List of official symbols of Texas (following the precedent of List of official symbols of Massachusetts), on the other hand, should expect to see all that stuff. Jun-Dai 00:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Please take a look at the nomination procedure on this page; simply adding a new section to this page is not the correct procedure. Regarding the article itself, I object based on the following FA criteria:

2b - I don't think the history section can be considered comprehensive when two eras (Reconstruction and New South and Texas modernizes) spanning 100 years are summed up in a total of five sentences.

2c - I am uneasy about the references all being web sources, but the real problem here is the fact that someone used another Wikipedia page as a reference. (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources) Also, the enormous "further reading" section doesn't seem necessary, considering that none of the mentioned print sources were actually used as references.

3a - Based on other geographical FAs, the lead for Texas could be significantly expanded; try adding such things as the state's boundaries (and if they are defined by geological formations), bordering states, a little bit more information on the region's history (not just as a US territory), and anything (government, cities, economy, culture) that makes Texas unique. Most of this will be repeated later in the respective sections, but in more detail. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amuck (talk • contribs)

• Object. Large sections of the article are entirely unreferenced, e.g. all of the "History" section (one reference is hinted at the end, Blanton 2005, but the full citation turns out to be missing. I checked if there were any "general references" that might be supporting the history section, but there aren't. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object per above. The History section needs to be much stronger than this. Also Image:HCPA Houston.jpg needs to be replaced, and the sports team logo removed. Jkelly 22:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object.
  • The History section could be much better:
    • It lists the native american tribes who once lived in the area, but gives no information regarding the time period when they lived there or what happened to them.
    • European and American Settlement is rather short - there is one sentence about 1528 then the text jumps to four sentences about 1821-1833.
    • The text in Annexation and Statehood is unclear in places, for example, "Great Britain tried to maintain Texas independence (as a counterweight to the United States), maintained a Texas Embassy in London, and tried to convince Mexico to stop threatening war."
    • Reconstruction and the New South and Texas Modernises are rather short.
  • The article also lacks inline citations to support many of its statements. For example:
    • Law enforcement: "Texas leads the nation in executions by far, with 366 executions from 1976 to 2006."
    • Economics: "In 1926, San Antonio had over 120,000 people, the largest population of any city in Texas."
    • Economics: "As of 2006, Texas, for the first time, has more Fortune 500 company headquarters (56) than any other state..."
    • Demographics: "As of 2004, the state has 3.5 million foreign-born residents (15.6 percent of the state population), of which an estimated 1.2 million are illegal aliens..."
    • Race and ethnic origins: "The largest reported ancestry groups in Texas include: Mexican (24.3%), African American (11.5%), German-American (9.9%), Anglo American (7.2%), and Scots-Irish American (7.2%)."
  • Good luck with the article - Jazriel 15:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object Precious little about Indigenous peoples of the Americas, considering that their descendants (whether you call them Cherokee, Mexican, half-breed, or whatever) are something like 1/4 of the state's population. --M@rēino 22:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Nochiya Tribe

I believe this article meets all of Wikipedia's standards and that it is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. --A2raya07 18:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object lead too short, not one single footnote.Rlevse 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object -- verifiability concerns, and I'm also worried about the images. For example Image:Mar Yosip Khnanisho.jpg reads "I am the owner of this image". What does that mean? Was the uploader the photographer or does this just mean that they have a copy of the photo? Jkelly 21:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object. A quick skim leaves me confused: there are two articles, Nochiya Tribe and Nochiyayeh, with no clear indication of how their lemmata differ. I assume that one is meant to be about one specific aspect of the larger topic, but what is the defining factor here? Ethnicity or religion? Are they synonymous? If the cap (head garment) is important to their identity, there should be a colour photograph showing it. My advice is to put this article through peer review, and in that process specifically invite editors of related articles to comment. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Redshift

Please see previous failed nomination in the archive.

Renomination of this good, peer-reviewed article. After much work, I think the article currently is as high if not higher quality than most featured articles. In my opinion, the controversy with User:Iantresman in particular has cooled off to the point now where the article is neutral and comprehensive. --ScienceApologist 22:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object While the article is adequate in representing redshift from an astronomical viewpoint, it marginalises (a) the Wolf Effect, the only redshift (in additional to the Doppler redshift), that sources tell us has been demonstrated in the laboratory (b) supresses nearly all "criticism" of the interpretation of redshift, amd discussion of "alternative" redshift mechanisms/interpretations (c) Won't even link to (See also) some other articles on redshift (presumably because they are too "controversial"), eg. Redshift quantization, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies. --Iantresman 22:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object Several problems here - if appropriately dealt with, I will vote support. First, the introductory paragraph is too short and does not talk about things like history, gravitational red shift etc. It thus does not adequately summarize the article. See WP:LEAD for more information. Other problems include the presence of one sentence paragraphs and sentences which don't seem to fit - blue shift in the intro is confusing (especially in context of the preceding sentence), the line about white noise, the information about the Einstein effect, etc. I think that more explanation is needed to understand these concepts and they are otherwise confusing. Whole sections are without references - the observations in astronomy section only has four references total, three coming in the same line! To end, the entire article needs a thorough copyediting after the rest has been fixed. I will avoid getting into the discussion mentioned above because I honestly don't know the subject matter well enough. But, if this page is improved, we will have to delve into that, as well! InvictaHOG 23:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  Introductory section now includes information from overview which, in my opinion, was inappropriately split. I'm hesitant to include too much of the history of redshifts more than what is already stated because this is an article on a phenomena not a historical event. Let me know if you think something should be in the lead.

  I'm going to need more information about what specificallly you find confusing about blueshift, white noise, and the Einstein effect in order to more adequately explain it. Please let me know.

  If you could indicate precisely where you require references, that would be best. Most of the descriptions are summary in nature and don't lend themselves to single references.

--ScienceApologist 13:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

A quick survey of the article revealed several sentences and sections which should be referenced. The information came from some place (your head?) and if it isn't a reference then it could be mistaken!

• In 1977, the CfA Redshift Survey was begun in an attempt to map the large-scale structure of the universe, with the first release of data completed in 1982. (See Redshift survey section below.)
• The entire section on measurement, characterization, interpretation - this encompasses three paragraphs and a table! It might just be common knowledge to someone in the field, but how would we know?
• The entire redshift summary table
• The expansion of space section has two different referencing styles. Please standardize the references in the entire article
• Under Observations in astronomy - the section starting with "Spectroscopy" is unreferenced as is the entire subheading local observations. For instance, how do we know that Huggins first used this method in 1868? It's certainly not something which everyone knows.
• Under extragalactic observations, there are five paragraphs (beginning with "For galaxies") which do not have a single reference.

The entire section on redshift surveys is unreferenced, as is the section on Effects due to physical optics or radiative transfer.

Overall, I'd say that a good half of the article is unreferenced. As for the other concerns, the article still needs to get rid of single sentence paragraphs, single paragraph sections, and needs to be copyedited. InvictaHOG 15:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Referencing can improve, but it would be better if you inserted the {{fact}} tag in the article where you see problems rather than writing section names in general. That would really be appreciated. The specific instances you cited, I inserted the reference. Remember, this is a scientific article, not a history article, so keep in mind that some of the things which you balk at may be simply because you aren't familiar with the material. That's why we have external sources -- because many of the facts are verifiable by literally hundreds of sources and there are issues of NPOV if we preferentially cite common knowledge facts to single sources. I'm also going to have to dispute that single sentence paragraphs and single paragraph sections are a problem. There is nothing in Wikipedia:Style guide to indicate this is the case and sometimes, especially with technical and scientific writing this is de rigeur. As per the suggestion at the top of the style guide, where two styles are equally acceptable from an editorial standpoint, it isn't right to marginalize one in terms of another. I'm always willing to have a general copyedit, but I'm probably not the best person to do this as I'm not a copyeditor. If you would like to do this be my guest. --ScienceApologist 20:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as a scientific article, rather it is an encyclopedia article talking about a scientific concept. It's an important difference (and one I've had to adopt to while editing here as a scientist). It's not NPOV, IMHO, to cite a single reference for a fact that is "common knowledge." If it is found in any introductory textbook, then by all means just put down the textbook and the page. As for single sentence paragraphs - they are not well-received in the scientific world I am familiar with (physics, biology, medicine). As for the MoS, under the Wikipedia:Guide to layout it asks that we limit them. InvictaHOG 23:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Refactored to Wikipedia Talk:Featured article candidates/Redshift --ScienceApologist 18:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Please unclutter the TOC. You should only be using more than two hierarchical levels if you have very good reasons for it. As it stands, you have two "header orphans" at the third hierarchical level. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The article seems to accurately represent the views of the scientific community to the best of my ability to determine. While additional citations would make it clearer that this is the case, at least half of the items tagged as needing citations really _are_ common knowledge that would be found in any recent textbook that covers the subject. While I'd be happy to see more citations added, I think that the article in its present form is about as close to optimal as it's going to get. --Christopher Thomas 01:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. As per Christopher Thomas' support, I believe that the areas lacking citations are mostly common knowledge in the field, and can be found in any reasonably comprehensive textbook. Citing only one of hundreds of textbooks in these cases would essentially result in an advertisement for that textbook. --Constantine Evans 22:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think they're only common knowledge if you already know the subject. If you don't, then surely you'd expect Wikipedia to be the source of the citations. --Iantresman 22:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sample textbooks are included in the reference section. We shouldn't include specific endorsements as this may, in fact, be a violation of NPOV. --ScienceApologist 13:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with endorsements, but providing reliable, verifiable citations. For example, the sentence introducing mechanisms suggests that there are only three, due to transformation of frames of reference. This requires a citation.
• I can provide several reliable, peer reviewed citations suggestion that there is a forth redshift mechanism, the Wolf Effect --Iantresman 17:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• We've been over this before. It is not right to hold the article accountable to your demonstrated ignorance. Citations rightly occur when there is an easily discernable discoverer who deserves credit or where the prose interpretation can be traced to an individual. Otherwise, including citations constitutes a textbook preference that Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of promoting. This is actually a legal issue. There are plenty of textbook publishers who would prefer their text be cited over others. It's best, therefore, to let sleeping dogs lie. --ScienceApologist 20:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• If there are three redshift mechanisms, which are due to frame transformations, then this MUST be verifiable... somewhere. If it is common knowledge, then there must be dozens of sources, and citing one of these sources both verifies the statement, AND, allows the reader to find out more information. It has nothing to do with promoting any specific text.
• I can provide reliable verifiable citations to all my statements. Surely so can you? --Iantresman 22:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate: chosing a single source absolutely promotes a specific text unfairly. --ScienceApologist 00:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I've misunderstood. I didn't realise we were talking about a single source. As far as I am concerning, multiple citations implies multiple reference sources. This should not be a problem of some of the statements are common knowledge. --Iantresman 08:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Noel Gallagher

I now believe all previous complaints to have been satisfied, and feel the article is sufficiently comprehensive and well-written. If, by some iverlooked failing, POV is still a concern, please - rather than complain here - simply tone down what you believe to be offending.

If you want sound clips, the same applies - they are available here and on several of the relevant album pages. I do not knowe how to add them so if you want them ,could you please do it yourself or advise me as to what is needed and where.

Ta very much--Crestville 00:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment—I hope the rest of it is better than the first two sentences: "Noel Thomas David Gallagher (born 29 May 1967) is the lead songwriter, guitarist and sometime lead-singer with the English rock band Oasis. He is the older brother of Oasis front man Liam Gallagher and the two are often pigeon-holed as squabbling siblings."
  • "Lead songwriter isn't hyphenated, but "lead-singer" is?
  • Perhaps "elder" rather than "older", but the latter is acceptable.
  • "Front man" should be one word.
  • The two ideas in the second sentence are not closely enough related to be jammed together with an "and". Good example for my tutorial article on this.

Can you get someone to audit the whole text, please? Tony 04:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment adressesd, though in England I'm pretty sure we use older as opposed to elder.--Crestville 09:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Crestville, just a note: it's best to wait for other editors to strike comments themselves. Tony's comments typically provide examples only. Sandy 17:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Soory, I get imaptient with stuff like that. Tony, feel free to unstrike them.--Crestville 20:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think it's a great article. I do have a coupla small things to bitch about, though:
  • Bit of a gripe about the Controversy section. To me, there's a definite ring of "Oh my God, and then he said he'd shoot Robbie Williams' dog, zomg" about it. I accept that it's hard to maintain complete neutrality when you're talking about NOEL GALLAGHER. Still...
  • Have found that it's dangerous to provide links to YouTube here — user accounts are transient, and videos are frequently deleted.
  • Ugh, what's with the wikilinking to things like "car" and "radio" in the early years section?
  • Need to do some en-dashing, too many hyphens, and some minor punctuation stuff.

I can take care of my last two complaints... but the first two would require someone who actually knows something about the man. Maybe *cough* you *cough* — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 16:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Also wondering about the part where it is implied that Johnny Depp is one of Gallagher's idols. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 16:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... one more tiny thing... the article keeps stating "lead singer with", as opposed to "lead singer of", which I feel is probably more common. Any thoughts? — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 16:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh man, I'm disorganised, but my final comment: the references dry up towards the end of the article, and they don't stick to a uniform format. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Right, ta very much, I'll look into these, though the youtube links are not essential. That the information was included in, say, Behind the Music is the relevant factor, the clip is just a novelty really.

Also, I'm not too sure what you're saying about the controversy section. How do you feel the tone should be so as to improve it?--Crestville 20:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking... less of a sort of list of what he did and when he did it? But I can't think there's any other way you can go about it. Perhaps leave that hanging until other people apart from myself say something about it... it might be just my opinion. Also, one more silly complaint – I think all the dates need to be in the same (British) format. OK, I'll come back in a couple of hours and try to do something about the little things, but don't sweat too much about the controversy section, I guess. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 23:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - well written article, but could definitely be better. The writing is a little too choppy for my liking. For instance, there are far too many "also"s in the body. I think it needs a copyedit. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Way too many unreferenced and poorly referenced comments, especially derogotory ones. Youtube is not good to reference to because copyright-violating clips (like many used for this article) often disappear. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 21:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object: "Relationship with Liam Gallagher" needs citations. Several of them at least, and high-quality ones (preferably newspapers and books). "Changing band dynamic" needs more citations as well, especially that argument. Citations should immediately follow punctuation,^[1] with no spaces.^[2] "At some point in the early 1980s (sources vary)" but no sources are mentioned. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

FairTax

I think this article has reached FA quality. In the words of the GA reviewer, "This article is a nice one to read and is fully detailed with a bit of math here and there, well-balanced and has a nice prose." Since then, we've continued to work on it getting it ready for FA and I think it is there. The article has had several peer reviews and has been in work for 2 years. Morphh 01:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - quotes should not be in italics, per the MoS. --Peta 01:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Corrected - Thanks, Morphh 01:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please provide inline citations. The first paragraph I glanced upon was:

In the period before the FairTax is implemented, it would create a strong incentive for individuals to buy goods without the sales tax using credit. After the FairTax is in effect, the credit could be paid off using untaxed payroll. Opponents of the FairTax worry it could exacerbate an existing consumer debt problem. On the other hand, proponents of the FairTax note that this effect will also allow individuals to pay off all their existing (post-FairTax) debt quicker.

On questions of taxation, readers need to be certain the article is neutral. Inline citations backing up statements are essential. Sandy 03:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you found one of the few that don't have sources. :-) Much of this paragraph is from information gained through the article. It just points out the use of credit in the situation. I'll add a ref to this one and check for any others that could use one. Morphh 03:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't you hate it when that happens? :) I'll look again tomorrow. Sandy 04:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object Dispassionate attention should be given to the proposal's reception in Congress - the advocates for this emphasize how many sponsors it has, but what about its reception in the tax-writings committees(I note that there is citation to a rebuttal to a Joint Committee on Taxation report but not a citation to or discussion of the report itself) and on the floor of the House (has the bill gotten there? what were the votes?). There are a number of weak citations to advocates and to web sites (including some of the opposing viewpoints - is a website for "Jews for the Preservation of Gun Ownership" really the best place to find economic policy expertise?), and attention is needed to making sure the best citations for the discussion are used. Similarly, the tendancy to lead with the supporter's positions and treat objections as secondary or to insert objections only with rebuttal lends a very one-sided tone to the page; pro and con should be more clearly balanced. Relegating discussion of talk show host Boortz to the last paragraph leaves earlier references to him, including the book cover used as the main image, hanging. I think this page needs a careful and thorough review by an impartial editor with some knowledge of tax law or economics; it is going to be difficult for editors who are clearly supporters to neutralize the tone. Sam 16:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The bill has not made it to the floor for a vote, so it is not known what the overall reception in congress is. The statements on cosponsorship are easy to see, compare, and are factual - I'm not sure where the POV is in that regard. The reviews by the JCT were not the FairTax legislation but could be added in the legislative section as a comparative NRST plan. The article tends to lead with supporter claims as the article is mainly based on the legislation. It is best to outline what the legislation states or predicted benefits and then describe challenges to the claim. I think it is also important that both sides be allowed to express their POV and this may be in the form of a rebuttal to the criticism. There are at least 4 sections that lead with criticism and most lead with a neutral description based on the legislation - such as defining the rate as 23%. Many times a critism is not based on the legislation as written but considerations if things were changed. These discussions should be treated after what the plan actually is based on in the legislation. It is the most well balanced piece on the topic that I have ever seen. Perhaps the "Jews for the Preservation of Gun Ownership" doesn't sound like a great source but they wrote a good critique paper. I'll try to find something better for that section. I'll also try to add a bit more on Boortz earlier in the article. The book is co-authored by John Linder (the author of the legislation). I'm not sure discussing Boortz in detail earlier will add much value to the article. It is not his plan, he just wrote about it. Morphh 17:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sam's analysis delves into some of the concerns I have. I will be hesitant to support until I am thoroughly convinced this article is impartial. One thing that might help is to inline cite extensively, so it is possible for reviewers to better understand sourcing behind every statement. I haven't opposed FA, but I will really need to be convinced to support, considering the potential for POV. I'll be looking for very strong, impartial sources, or a good balance if sources are less than impartial. Sandy 18:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It is very difficult to find impartial sources. The Wikipedia article has become the impartial source on the topic (I've heard this from both sides). Most sources are either for or against it and rarely describe the other POV. Like many topics, there is also a lot of incorrect information out there on both sides. It should be noted that many of what some would state as the "proponent" view and then a criticism is really stating the legislation and then an opposing view and in some cases a rebuttal. Many of the statements are just outlining the facts of the bill. We could easily add more references though it may look a bit messy. We've tried to add them after anything that someone may question or if it provides additional details / information. Morphh 18:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty of finding impartial sources is one reason why it is hard to write articles on developing policy issues, but I think it's one of those problems that all we can do is acknowledge it and then tackle it. I will mark up a couple of paragraphs to show you how I think tone could be changed to be more impartial. It will likely require a shift in emphasis (for example, gaining sponsors is quite exciting to an organization trying to get a bill moving, but in looking at the level of support this has at this point in time, I don't think that point quite compares to the point that the bill hasn't gotten out of committee in 6 years). I will warn you that while I know quite a bit about taxes and tax policies, including different consumption tax programs, I know absolutely nothing about this particular proposal, so please forgive any inaccuracies - I am doing it more for a demonstration than for the substance of the changes. Sam 22:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Take a look, and note I have no investment in any particular language, so if you think anything is not neutral or something important was eliminated, please restore it. As I edited, one of the things that seemed to give this the greatest "advocacy" tone was the presence of lists of not terribly notable supporters (e.g., truly minor Presidential candidates, Libertarian party) without noting opponents; since this is a Legislative History section, I focused on the current legislative leadership. Has any of the Senate leadership taken a position on the bill? I also found some redundancy, and tried to pare for length and readability. But I think what I just did to one section needs to be done to the entire article. Sam 23:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the example. On the presence of the lists, I'll have to rethink this aspect. Since the FairTax is such a major change to the tax system, the "status quo" is the norm. Since this is an article about the FairTax, it seemed to make sense to show the different areas that it has gained support. It would seem odd to state those that prefer the current system or have not made any supporting statements. It also showed some of the multi-party support - Rep, Dem, Lib. I guess this could be a proponent view but it seems applicable. I'd like to here other's thoughts in regard to this. Thank you again for the assistance. I'll work on this along with adding more cites. Morphh 00:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've added many more inline cites after this reveiw for reviewers to better understand sourcing behind statements. I've tried to use more neutral language in recent copyedits. Morphh 02:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object. This is poorly written, and it really matters here, because this is a subject that needs to be explained to non-experts in crystal-clear, easy-to-comprehend prose. Some economics journalists are very good at this. I have serious quibbles with almost every sentence. Let's look at the lead.
  • "While the FairTax replaces taxes like FICA, it does not remove or change any government funded programs such as Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid." Please remove "any". "Or" is probably better as "and".

"Any" was used as emphasis as some think the plan will alter social programs. I don't have a problem with removing it but it was intentional. Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• • "The legislation would apply a 23% federal retail sales tax on the total transaction value of new retail goods and services purchases; consumers pay to the government 23 cents of every dollar spent (sometimes called tax inclusive)." Remove "total". What does "new" mean here? Remove as unnecessary? Most readers won't understand the term "tax inclusive", and I think that even US editors, who aren't so hot on hyphens, would insist on hyphenating it and the opposite term. You need "in other words, " after the semicoon, and I'd introduce tax-inclusive and -exclusive in a new sentence. Not well organised here.

The word "total" is important to the definition. "New" as in not "used". A good must be "new" for it to be taxed - this is described in the article. I didn't want use the intro as a place for defining all terms. There is not enough room to do it and explain the rest of the article. Some find the inclusive/exclusive terms more familiar so we included them. They are further defined in the article. I've seen both a dash used and without - I'll add it in if it is preferred. Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• • "The assessed tax rate is 30% if the FairTax is added ..."—Perhaps "The assessed tax rate would be 30% if the FairTax were added ...". And since this, as far as I can see, is the revenue-neutral option, it should be made clear further up that the 23% is not the real rate proposed, or would be "in addition to current sales taxes". But try to keep it simple.

They are the same rate and both are revenue neutral. It is just a mater of math and what is used for the base. The 23% is what is written in the legislation. Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• • "However, this is a matter of dispute as some disagree as to the tax rate required for the FairTax to be revenue-neutral." This is not a good sentence. Try: "however, the tax-exclusive rate required for revenue-neutrality is disputed." Avoid "some", meaning "some people/economists/who?". Please consider using em dashes rather than hyphens as punctuation.

Sounds good - minus the exclusive term. More details are provided in the article. We were trying to make summary sentences and they could have been worded better. Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• • "Economists state goods and services contain embedded taxes from the current tax structure and compliance costs associated. Prices are expected to decrease prices after these costs are removed." Not all economists, surely (perhaps "many"?). "Believe that" or "contend that" would be better than "state". But hang on, aren't you stating the obvious here? I don't think you need to bring economists into it explicitly—just retain the reference. "In", not "from". The second sentence is garbled.

I don't know of any economists that state otherwise - I would say all but I get your point. Thanks for pointing out the second sentence - a sufficient length intro was just added and it seems we had a few copyedits to do. Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• • "The effective tax rate for any household is variable due to the fixed monthly tax rebate checks"—Keep it in the conditional mood ("would be"), so the readers will understand the sense. It is, after all, a proposal, not current fact. Does "checks" refer to what non-US speakers call "cheques", i.e., slips of paper that say "pay this person this much"? If so, please reword, because it's ambiguous. Better to just remove it and retain "rebates".

Yes - though it can be electronic. I agree. Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• • "The checks, paid in advance each month, would be meant to eliminate the taxation of each household’s purchase of necessities and can lower a household's effective rate to zero or a negative rate." Better: "Monthly payments in advance would compensate for the taxation on the purchase of necessities and would reduce the effective rate to ..." Is this the effective overall rate, or just the effective rate for necessities?

The effective rate is overall. Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• • "distribution of taxation"—this is unclear. Do you mean "the allocation of the tax burden"?

Yes - this is the terminology that the economists use. Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• • "The FairTax has predicted effects in the areas of tax burden visibility,..."—Better: "The FairTax would have ramifications for tax burden visibility,..."—I don't think you need to hedge here: no serious economist would say that it would have no effect on the items you list. "International business appeal" is vague. Rather than "black markets", which is narrower than what I think you mean, use "the cash economy". The reference to "the 16th amendment" will mean nothing to non-Americans, and probably to many Americans, too. A phrase or two explaining it?

Thanks - I'll work on this, however, I expect we'll need assistance. The intro is probably the best example. A month ago, it was only two paragraphs but did not summarize the article. So we expanded it and then it was too long. I removed two paragraphs during FA nom. We ended up with trying to summarize a long article in a few paragraphs and some pieces just didn't click. Thanks again for your help in making this a better article. I'm reading your "How to" guide now and will work on copyedits this week. Morphh 19:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this needs intensive collaboration that includes copy-editors who are unfamiliar with the text—even with the topic. Please don't just address the examples I've provided. Tony 03:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've made large copyedits after Tony1's review to improve the writting. Morphh 02:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support - per nom - --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment graphics should be in SVG. eg Image:Effectiverate.jpg, Image:Fairtax-dollars.png, Image:Fairtax-percentile.png, Image:Stability.jpg and Image:Prebatechart.jpg. I would also consider whether the last graphic is necessary or would a summary do. WP 09:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Geezz - An oppose over graphic format.. how about a Comment? For one, the graphics are not vector based images so SVG is not applicable unless the images were completely recreated from scratch using a vector based image editor. Second, the JPG files that could be in PNG format should only be converted if it reduces the file size without causing artifacts which PNG does not in these images. I can convert them but it will produce an increase in file size and offer no improvement in quality. Third, is this even a criteria for FA? Morphh 12:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't a criteria, see Procellariidae above for an explanation of where the push for SVG came from. It would be useful to replace the images with SVG's, but work on the rest of the article first, I think. --16:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I've made many changes to the article per the discussions above. Morphh 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere Only We Know

Self nom.This is a song by English band Keane. I think it contains all the possible information that can be found around the Internet about the song. It includes information about its b-sides and the musical structure of the single, as well as cover versions--Fluence 02:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... it was missing a references section for the notes in the article, so I added the section. It still seems awfully short on inline citations, but I havn't took an in-depth look. RN 04:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object choppy lead, stubby sections, too many lists, only a few refs.Rlevse 13:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object not enough prose, not enough references. Lincher 13:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - so that's who sings this song! Excellent. Haven't read the article, but I've wanted to know who sung it for quite a while now. Yes, I know. I've been living under a rock. So sue me. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to find information in another place but Keaneshaped and Keane.at fansites. That's why there are only two references. All information is taken from that sites and the Official forum (exact link can't be given for reasons of the band. Link to official website where the forum can be found)Fluence 22:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

About the references, last time I forgot to write the notes section at the bottom but there were there before. Thanks to RN for writing it Fluence 22:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- As far as I have gone into Keane research since two years, I find each and everything on this page and so I think it should go for featured status. Considering all the pics, the data, sheet music and what not, this article deserves the post. Victoria Eleanor 14:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Next to inline citations are within the article, the paragraphs are way too stubby, and there seems to be tons of listy parts. Also, no reference is made to how this track was critically recieved by noteworthy critics of the genre the song falls under which is necessary. LuciferMorgan 22:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment- That only shows you've never researched information about the song. Its Wikipedia article contains itself more information about the song than on every other place in the planet. Fluence 23:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - The fact that a WP article has more information than any other resource on the planet is not a reason for it to be featured. FA's show the best of Wikipedia, not the best article of a subject. Alexj2002 14:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - I've seen several Featured articles even worse than this one so they cannot be called "the best of Wikipedia". Oh, and also, there are no piano rock critics. The song was treated as alternative, a wrong given genre.Fluence 22:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Very Slight Support. I support it because it took a lot of effort to get all that info on just one song. Maybe if you can add the meaning of the lyrics and some history behind it, it'll get more support, I am sure. Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 17:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Finish'. The article has officially failed now. For Jayant412, Keane hadn't wanted to give a meaning for the lyrics of none. I'll post the article in again :)Fluence 23:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ušće Tower

This article has been worked on for some time. It is about a skyscraper in the city of Belgrade. The tower has a lot of history – not something usual for a skyscraper. In the history section all the aspects of the history of this building are listed and thorougly talked through. There is also information about the future complex and the office tower. As a new tower "Ušće Tower 2" will start construction soon even more quality information will be added to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LukaP (talk • contribs)

• Oppose: Poor spelling, poor grammar, no references or citations, the infobox takes up nearly a quarter of the page at 1280x1024, image tags seem dubious (one of the sources given did not have the image - at least I couldn't find it), Et cetera. darkliight^[πalk] 09:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose no references or citations, Gnangarra 14:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose All but perhaps the first main image have rather dubious copyright status. I've tagged two really bad ones and put them up on WP:PUI. Kevin_b_er 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - No references. Dodgy English ("The foundations and the skeleton of the building was so strong..." etc). Sorry, but Featured Articles on the English-language Wikipedia really need a native English speaker to copy-edit them. Other minor points: for example the heading "Destruction" implies that the tower was destroyed by the air strikes; but actually it was only damaged and repairable. Mix of BrE and AmE ("centre" in one place, "center" in another).. should all be BrE IMHO since Serbia is in Europe, but whichever variety is used it should at least be consistent. The whole thing has good potential, but needs to be looked at carefully in its current state. EuroSong ^talk 17:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Indian Standard Time

Worked on it over the weekend. It's a short article, and I've researched on the internet to gain as much information as possible on this subject. It's sufficiently referenced, has appropriately licenced images, and a nice SVG map. This marks my return to FAC after almost a year. I'm open to suggestions if I can get credible references. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• "In 1802, John Goldingham, nominated as the first official astronomer of the Company in India, established the longitude of Madras (13°5′24″N, 80°18′30″E) being 5 hours and 30 minutes ahead of Greenwich Mean Time as the Standard Time, the first instance of such use." First instance of such use in India, right? Or in the world?
• "He managed to stall proceedings in the Bombay Municipal Corporation for a few days by arguing that the government did not take the people into confidence." The exact connection between people's stance against Tilak's trial and convertion of Bombay Time to IST did not become clear. Was it just a case of using people's emotions to one cause to manipulate another cause?
• "However Calcutta time was officially maintained as a separate time zone until 1948." We have a reason why Bombay time was maintained. Was there any specific reason in case of Calcutta?
• "a error"->an error.
• "INSAT satellite-based standard time and frequency broadcast service which offers IST correct to ±10 microsecond and frequency calibration up to ±10−10." More wikilinks? frequency calibration, frequency broadcast service etc? Difficult to understand for non-technical people. Similar problems with frequency counters, phase recorders, mirror time servers. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! Replying:

• It does not make a difference if it were to be India or the world as a difference of +5:30 wrt GMT would make it unique to India. I've copyedited it to read "first ever instance of such use in" to make it less ambigious
• Yes, he used public sentiment to garner support for his cause. I've edited it to make it clearer
• Calcutta time --> Nope, sadly my references do not mention why it was changed so late.
• "An error" --> corrected
• I've edited the relavent terms, though I don't think all are necessary for wikification. Please check.

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 23:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment this sentence in history need to be firmed up though Calcutta and Bombay continued to maintain their own local time for the next couple of years. The second question from this same sentence is the use of City names in India, Mumbai and Kolkata are the preferred names for Bombay and Calcutta, from other Indian articles I thought the preferred names were to be used. Gnangarra 03:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  Fixed now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment—any reason to include the trivia related to Linux? Seems irrelevant to me. Other than that, it looks good. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  Removed trivia and image. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comments/Suggestions: A well-written article in a short span of time, commendable work by Nichalp. I have a few suggestions. Is it posisble to include details of Jantar Mantar as a means of keeping time in pre-British era? I found that the history section talk very vaguely about "mathematical models", and details of Jantar Mantar would be quite relevant. Secondly, I am a bit concerned with over-use of "although", "however", etc. In the last sentence of the lead, it is mentioned "...that lies between the two towns". Is Allahabad mentioned here as between Greenwich and Mirzapur. I find it quite odd to get mention, as its location is quite irrelevant and there is no direct route between the two cities so that the use of "between" can be qualified. There were a few more prose related issues, that I have myself fixed. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks for the suggestions. I've fixed the text and added a sentence on Jantar Mantar. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object Its difficult for me to judge this article properly, but it appears incomprehensive. A "References and futher reading" section is necessary - there needs to be a clear set of books prescribed for reference and more information. The "History" section is not good - it is important, IMO to have some information on how the Maurya Empire, Gupta Empire, Mughal Empire and other larger political entitites of ancient and medieval India callibrate and maintain time standards. I'd like to see more data on how IST was callibrated, test and how it is maintained. For example, what are the scientific details, economic impact of the proposal to split IST into 3 zones? The "Problems" section is good, but I'd like to see more scientific information than just political and historical stuff. Perhaps there is also information on the implementation of IST - how do far-flung areas, isolated areas keep time properly? What is the economic relevance/impact of IST? I don't know how copious are the sources on this subject, so forgive me if my requests appear unreasonable. I think you can find a lot more data at the Asiatic library, Bombay University or Prince of Wales. Rama's arrow 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks for the comments. Replying:

  1. I would like to keep it as close to the history of the current time zone as possible, that's why I started right away with the +5:30 timezone origins. I'll try and add some more information if I get the sources on ancient India. I've added Jantar Mantar for now.
  2. IST callibrated and maintained... – I'm not sure what you mean by this as IST is callibrated using atomic clocks for which the article on it should suffice.
  3. "Far flung areas keep the time – I've added information on the time being broadcast by AIR and Doordarshan.
  4. You're right there aren't too many published sources (just a handful on Google books mention it) on this subject so getting such info is difficult.
  5. Could you elaborate on what you want to see in the economic bit topic?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 19:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) I feel its necessary to explain for national empires - how did ancient/medieval people deal with this widespread geographic difference? (2) I believe you should explain how standard times/IST works with respect to India's geography and climate - an account of how Indian/British scientists callibrated this time zone is necessary (as much as possible), and readers should be available to understand the purpose and process of deriving standard times from this article itself, with particular note to India's needs. What was done before atomic clocks and how are these clocks maintained? Its not much as such, I reckon 1-2 paras. And the "Problems" section will go nicely at the end of such a section. (3) The far-flung areas, the northeastern region, the disputed areas of Kashmir etc. - do people observe time as per their own traditions? As the article speaks of people asking for a separate timezone for Assam, what are the economic effects of the IST if 8 am is different for Assam from M.P.? How does it affect people's lives, economic routine? administration? (4) Fresh point I consider it necessary that the article examine the alternative proposals for 3 time zones, what happens for India's maritime territory, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep and IST as compared to the alternate Nepal Standard Time, Pakistan Standard Time and Bangladesh Standard Time, as they are closely linked to India's geography. I know its hard to find some books on this, but I do want to push you a bit more to make sure this article is comprehensive. What I'm asking for is a bit Indo-centric scientific information, as well as some data on how daily life in India is affected by having IST. Rama's arrow 19:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I was initially concerned with the lack of coverage of historical aspects of IST (as pointed by Rama's Arrow). For that, I have myself added whatever I found relevant. There is a fine line between what would be considered revlevant for IST article, and what would go to article about time-keeping in India, as this article should talk about the standard only. Hence, even some info added by me might be found irrelevant by other editors, and get deleted. For these reasons, I have specifically not added info about the details of Hindu calender beyond a certain point. Weighing the other concerns raised, I find that this article deals with them sufficiently in the scope set for it. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Webley Revolver

This particular article has been extensively re-written over the last two months or so (largely by myself), with a lot of additions and illustrations added. I've had it peer reviewed by the folks at WikiProject Military History, and having taken all their suggestions on board and implemented them, I'd like to nominate this article for Featured Article status. Self-Nomination --Commander Zulu 05:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object WP:LEAD section is too small, and there's inconsistant inline referencing, sometimes using the footnote system, other times just linking directly to a web site. Additionally, lacks "brilliant prose" in that there's a heavy use of overly large paragraphs. Sections often consist of a single large paragraph, which hinders ease of reading. Other times, sections consist of a single SMALL paragraph, which looks stubby. Is there really no more to be said on these subjects? If so, why is a whole section dedicated to them? Fieari 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object, but actually, AndyZ's PR script says the lead is too long. Agree with Fieari's other issues.Rlevse 18:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm basing the "too small" comment on the fact that it's just one paragraph, however big that paragraph might be. Which is too big, granted, but I mentioned that too. *shrug* Fieari 01:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment PLease get rid of the bolding. Sandy 02:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object There are entire sections with no inline citations (see, for example, paragraph beginning with "After the end of the World War I,"), bolding is overused, and please fix the footnote punctuation. On prose, this is one sentence in the lead:
    • The Webley service revolver was most notably used in World War I (as the Webley Mk VI), although it had actually been adopted in 1887 (as the Webley Mk I) and risen to prominence during the Boer War of 1899-1902 (as the Webley Mk IV), and were of the "top-break" variety (breaking open much like a double-barrel shotgun to be reloaded), with the advantage of also being self-extracting—the act of breaking the revolver open also operated the extractor, removing the spent cartridges from the cylinder. Sandy 00:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph you pointed out DOES have an inline citation (no 17)... how would you re-write the introduction? Help me out here, instead of just objecting. --Commander Zulu 08:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reply: I don't agree the lead section is too small- what would you put there if you were writing it? In many cases there isn't much more than can be said on some of the contained subjects- they're too important to ignore or incorporate into other sections, but unless you want specialist publication-level detail, I think that's the best compromise. And what's wrong with the bolding/dual use of citations? Feel free to make some of these suggested changes... I'm still relatively new at WP and I have to say the editing and layout here is totally alien to my own experiences, even as a published writer. --Commander Zulu 03:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  I've turned the inline links into proper footnotes; perhaps somebody more familiar with citing websites could massage them into whatever the correct citation format is? Kirill Lokshin 04:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Seems well written and well-supported. CynicalMe 00:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object - it takes a long time to determine whether an article is FA, while it takes a short time to determine that an article is not FA quality. well it was enough for me to review this article for a few seconds to determine its quality. The article is incomplete and the referencing is questionable. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• The lead section is fine - disregard the too long/too short comments and concentrate your efforst on the other issues mentioned. Raul654 02:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Clarification: So, am I to understand that the only real problems anyone has are related to the layout (many of which have subsequently been fixed)? --Commander Zulu 07:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'd just like to say maybe the article should have gone through peer review first (as all articles should be before FA nomination in my opinion). LuciferMorgan 22:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Trusted Computing

Well written, with some interesting viewpoints on the future of computing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wrobbo (talk • contribs) .

Oppose. There are citation needed tags and links should be made into refs. I don't get the point of Image:Trusted Computing3.png. Maybe move the link to that video near the top of the External links? The external links could be sorted and grouped according to content.WP 09:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Opppose. There's some high-quality prose in this article, and is probably one of the most neutral and informative presentations of the subject anywhere on the Internet, but it really still needs a lot of clean-up, sourcing of statements, and possibly some pictures/diagrams. Some of the speculative text needs to be sourced or removed, too. -/- Warren 10:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - There are only 6 in-line citations. Great writing, but on an FA article I'd expect at least 30, and on a tech article like this, where references are easier to obtain 40-50 wouldn't be surprising. Damn fine NPOV though. Don't be discouraged by the opposes- this article can be cleaned up nicely and pass FAC with flying colors with a little effort. --PresN 21:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose there are still some section of the italian article ( which is a "featured article") i haven't translated , give me a little time . if you want some picturezs , there are a lot of pictures in the italian article. . Dbiagioli 12:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Dbiagioli

• Oppose Not nearly enough references, and some rather unprofessional vernacular (like the image with the words "who's in your PC?"). --Kitch 17:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Socialist Party of Great Britain

I'll add a more detailed justification for nomination later, suffice to say I've worked on the page and although it needs a little tweaking, I believe in substantially meets the criteria for featuring...--Red Deathy 15:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment veering towards an oppose. Firstly the lead is way too short. Secondly, I don't like the way the article handles the party's history. The story of how the party came to be formed in 1904 is a fascinating one (told in detail in "Socialists, Liberals and Labour" among others). I would also like to see some note taken of the party's electoral candidacies and performances. David | Talk 16:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object Lead needs expanding (actually a rewrite...) and some paragraphs are short and need merging. RN 16:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object Lead way too short and too many short, one-sentence paragraphs.Rlevse 16:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, should have declared an interest, as someone who has worked extensively on the article. Anyway, paragraphs consolidated, and new intro, including more history entered.--Red Deathy 08:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object 3a) Lead is one long paragraph, and 2d) neutrality – there appears to be no balance or criticism or opposing view points. On 2a and 2c, here is one convoluted, unreferenced sentence: The SPGB is vehemently anti-Leninist and currently fights to protect its identity against Socialist Party of England and Wales, the relatively new name of the Trotskyist former Militant Tendency (in propaganda and publicity material the SPGB often styles itself simply The Socialist Party whilst SPEW uses Socialist Party (without the definite article) and contests elections as Socialist Alternative). Sandy 01:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, on neutrality, could you give any suggestions on what you mean, it gives factual statements on the party's theory and history, and everything (pretty much) is referenced so tehre's no disputing them. I'll scare up some refs on the SPEW thing.--Red Deathy 07:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ladysmith Black Mambazo

Self-nomination The article is indeed coming along well, and I have tried to remove POV comments, unverified claims etc. to improve the article to some extent. I believe it meets the criteria needed for a featured article; please discuss whenever possible. LBM 22:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Referencing is insufficient (some sections have no references at all), the lead is very short and History seems to be over emphasized. It's not a bad article, but it needs some work still. —Cuiviénen 02:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The article needs a lot more references (as well as inline citations) and like mentioned above, the lead should be expanded. -- Underneath-it-All 02:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have tried to include more references to the article; I have also expanded the lead somewhat. Please tell me if it is acceptable enough. -- LBM 17:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object -- Image:Ladysmith 2006.jpg and Image:J Shabalala, on stage.jpg fail WP:FUC and are in danger of deletion. They do not have a fair use rationale and are very much not low resolution; they could easily be used to produce high-quality reproductions. Please consider taking the time to use fan forums and message boards to look for photographers willing to donate their images under a freely reusable license. Jkelly 18:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I have reduced the image sizes, is this acceptable? LBM 19:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Much better on the resolution. Incidentally, could you remove the unfree image from your userpage? Thanks. Jkelly 21:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. LBM 21:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comments
  • The paragraph under "History" should be an overview of everything underneath it (i.e. a brief summary of their entire existence), and what's there now should be merged into the first subsection.
  • Agree that more citations are needed.
  • The group won nearly every competition that was held; eventually in 1973, they were allowed to perform, but forbidden to compete with the other choirs. - is the implication that they were banned because they won "neary every competition", and were then re-allowed in 1973? If so, say so. If not, it's not clear.
  • Watch referring to LBM as "the group". Anytime it's potentially ambiguous, use the full name. The first time in each paragraph, use the full name.
  • Does need some copyediting cleanup. I've made a start, but there's a lot to be done.
  • I've added some citeneeded templates.
  • December 10, Joseph's brother and one of the bass members in the group, Headman Shabalala, was shot and killed by Sean Nicholas, a white off-duty security guard. - no year is given for this
  • His death was considered a racial killing and Joseph stopped singing. - considered by whom?
  • Don't refer to him as Joseph. Use Shabalala.
  • His death was considered a racial killing and Joseph stopped singing. - make the connection between these two events explicity
  • But eventually, helped by his beliefs, he returned to singing and recruited four of his six sons into the group in 1993, following the retirement of another three members. - which beliefs? what is the connection between his return to singing and recruiting his sons
  • The abolition of Apartheid in South Africa and the election of the first black president, Nelson Mandela, brought about the group's first release since 1991 - explain and cite how these events brough about the release
  • That first paragraph under "1994-2003" is entirely uncited. I'd also like to see some sort of (cited) claim of the relationship between Mandela and LBM. Presumably they were allies for some reason, so explain why and cite it, if possible.
  • this was followed up by a Best of... release - give the actual name of the release
  • Songs in quotes and albums in italics
  • Ladysmith Black Mambazo recorded with artists from both the US and South Africa: - cleanup the list that follows this, as it's too long and not accurate (it includes a Congolese-Belgian group and a Canadian singer)
• Tuf-Kat 07:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I have added quite a few more citations and reworded some content, I'll try to do some extra touch-ups shortly. --LBM | TALK TO ME 18:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Squirtle

Probably meets the criticera —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 12:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object Porbably needs needs more cites, mainly in the anime and game sections. Also, it's a bit short. Both Torchic and Bulbasaur, the two FA Pokemon articles, are longer, and have twice the cites. --PresN 15:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support I don't know if the length of article is a good indicator of FA-worthiness, but all other technical merits suggest it is FA-ready. --Kitch 17:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great article, even though it is slightly short. Some P. Erson 15:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Are you there, Minun? The article hasn't been edited since the 11th, and you haven't responded to my object. If you're serious about getting this to FA, message me, and I'll try to give you more precise info on what it would take to make me give this a support. --PresN 15:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Haha, I feel dumb. Turns out Minun's been banned. So, he won't be responding to this FAC anymore. (link) --PresN 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object, poor TCG, anime, video games sections, lack of cites, poor prose, fan cruft and unsourced sections. Roll on Bulbasaur and Torchic. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 18:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object for reasons stated by HighwayCello; I particularly agree that the prose is subpar. Amuck 18:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'm taking over the nomination due to banning of Minun. Please stand by. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 01:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Stand by? Anyway, I'd like to object for reasons given by others; there also seems to be a problem with the reference to chapter 33, which apparently has two different titles?! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• TM101 - Object Use object to signify that article is unready for featured status. Compare to FF7 fac - no effort made to display any information on real-world significance or development. Everyone else's reasons good too. (not to mention that sunbirds and turtles are mortal enemies) Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

New England

My reasons for nominating this article are the following:

• it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's very best work;
• it is well-written, comprehensive, stable, neutral, and factually accurate;
• it has a good and well-organized table of contents, as well as a concise lead;
• it has many beautiful and appropriate images with concise captions;
• it has various sub-topics, and maintains a decent length without going into tangential detail;
• and, finally, it is very well-cited.

Where I anticipate some disagreement:

• some of the prose may need some rewriting -- I copyedit what I can, but my time is limited;
• and some material might be moved into sub-articles.

I look forward to hearing all of your comments. I feel that this article is a good candidate for featured article status; if there are any problems, I imagine that they can be fixed very quickly and with little effort. Thanks for your consideration. --AaronS 14:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. This article is very nice, but I think some things remain:
  • Is "Regional population layout" subsection really useful? Why not remove it and move the three regions directly to 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3?
  • There are a lot of stubby paragraphs that could probably be merged, both in the article and in the lead.
  • The references sections goes below "Notes" not above.

Overall though, a very nice article! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I will fix those problems as soon as I can. Thanks. --AaronS 15:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support with reservations. And rather minor ones at that.
  • The list of largest cities in New England in the "Urban New England" section needs a reference (either to an external source or another referenced list in Wikipedia). Right now it's unclear when and where the82.6.163.253 16:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC) figures are taken from (2000 U.S. census? State fact sheets? Accurate as of 2006?).
  • The "Major Professional Sports Teams" section could be better organized. Right now it has the appearance of a bunch of items slapped together with no real flow or paragraph structure.

On the whole a really great article that is informative and well referenced. I had never stopped to realize until now how well-written the article is despite having it on my watchlist for anti-vandalism purposes! - Pal 15:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object – It starts off pretty well, before dipping.
  1. Sports and media are loosely covered.
  2. Prose is choppy in some places eg. New England is a region of the United States located in the northeastern corner of the country. It is comprised of the states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The two sentences can be merged. 2. 'Together, the Mid-Atlantic... As a non-US resident, I'm not sure what mid-Atlantic refers to. having some context of it in the prose would be helpful without having to click links. Another example of choppy prose would be the opening sentences of the second para of the History section. One more: "Cambridge, Massachusetts has Harvard Square and Harvard University."
  3. MoS for units have not been followed. (1,917 m (6,288 ft)) Use &nbsp; to insert a non-breaking space between a number and its unit.
  4. More info on climate, flora, fauna and geology needed. A good geographical map would be useful.
  5. =Coastal New England= reads like a tourist brochure.
  6. =Urban New England= could do with some more content.
  7. "Lawrence-Methuen-Salem MA NH" -- not very helpful to non-US readers.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object:
  • The lack of a close-up map of the region is very noticeable in its absence.
  • "unique among U.S. geographic regions in that it is also a former political entity. " What about the Kingdom of Hawaii? And maybe the Republic of Texas?
  • "it would later oppose the War of 1812" The region was unified in opposition?
  • Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source.
  • "In the 18th century and the early 19th century, New England was still considered to be a very distinct region of the country, as it is today." Bad writing.
  • "During the War of 1812, there was a limited amount of talk of secession from the Union" citation needed.
  • "and as obvious as the region's unique dialect." You don't mention a regional dialect anywhere, so we don't know what the European influence there is.
  • "Try getting rid of paragraphs of under three sentences. Merge them into other, appropriate pargraphs. Andrew Levine 20:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Response: (1) I'll try looking for one of those. (2) Neither of those were regions; New England has always been a region encompassing several states, governments, or colonies. (3) Yes, the region was unified. (4) True 'dat. (5) Yes, that is bad writing, but it's easily fixable. (6) There was talk of secession during the War of 1812; this is a well-known historical fact, so it shouldn't be hard to cite. (7) The regional dialect is discussed in the cultural roots section, so I'm not sure about what you're talking about. (8) Paragraph merging seems very appropriate. Thanks for your comments. --AaronS 20:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about #7, that's my mistake. As for #3, if true, it needs citation. #2 requires some clarification in the article on what "region" means in this sense, like add "multi-state region". I hope to support soon. Andrew Levine 20:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries. The information relating to the War of 1812 can be found in just about any discussion of the war; it was a big deal at the time that the New England states refused to support it. So, finding citations should be easy. As "region" is concerned, would you be satisfied with "region of the United States," wikilinked to Regions of the United States? Regions typically aren't defined on the same grounds as the political divisions of the states. New England was a region before there were any states or anything resembling a state. --AaronS 21:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object I began by fixing what I thought were several large faults, then ran into some I couldn't fix ... one example being the leading figure (of the flags) that displays very poorly ... and decided just to "object." The prose is not just poor, it is consistently poor, and in some sections the material included seems to be just bits selected at random. Sfahey 22:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

After reading the subsequent comments, I went back and read the thing more fully, through to the end. The middle sections are, contrary to my blanket statement above, quite well written, especially as they manage to tie the region together nicely. I still "object", though. Two particulars to show what I meant by "random" bits, from just one section: I don't think the History section even mentions the Pilgrims as such, and out of nowhere comes "after the Pequot War," which also hasn't been mentioned. Sfahey

• (talking to myself here) I made several "improvements," including fixing several things raised my me and others. What is good here is VERY good, but more significant, unfortunately, is that the substandard stuff is VERY bad. Specifically:

1. the goofy "Entertainment and Music" section (Dick Dale????)

2. the "History" section ending at 1812

3. the "Population" section ignoring Maine, NH, and Vt.

If it doesn't make it this time, this one will be back. Sfahey 02:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Response: Thanks for your comments and edits, Sfahey. I have a question, though: (1) what's wrong with Dick Dale? As for the history section, I agree that there's a problem. I'll look at the various state histories and see if I can pull something together to cover 1812-2006. The population section does also seem to ignore northern New England. --AaronS 13:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Dale was born in Mass., but lived and made music in Calif. I'd think he might merit a line in a several page "Entertainment" section, but to have him and that punk group represent a region that has the Boston Symphony, J. Geils, Jack Lemmon, Bette Davis, Aerosmith, Katherine Hepburn, etc. is a large stretch. Oh, if you add stuff to the end of the history section: cyclical economic woes have been a big thing there, with the rise and fall of whaling, the demise of most of the farming, the high tech boom and bust, and the near-complete demise of the big textile mills in the 20th c. Sometime I'll get around to adding a Geology section if this doesn't make it to FA this time. Sfahey 21:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Those are all excellent points. Thanks for hopping on board and helping out. Your comments and edits are helpful. According to this, Dale did not leave MA until his senior year of high school. --AaronS 00:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support Nicely written. Good choice of topics. Does not simply rehash what's better covered in articles on individual states. Treats the region and its coherence well. Fg2 00:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support I believe that the smaller issues can be resolved easily. Overall, it's a great article and I believe it meets criteria for a featured article. Hello32020 12:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object Problems throughout, some samples given.
  • Weasle words (examples): Robert Frost, who was born in California, is almost always associated with New England; and New Englanders generally support and In the southwestern part of the state, many Connecticut residents support the New York Yankees and other New York pro teams.
  • Lacking inline citations and rigorous referencing (examples only, indicating need for reviewing entire text - some of these border on POV as well):
    • Thanksgiving day high school football rivalries date back to the 19th century, and the Harvard-Yale rivalry is the oldest in college football. ... Due to the steep grade of Heartbreak Hill, it is considered one of the most difficult and prestigious marathons of its kind.
    • Literature, unreferenced entirely.
    • Cultural roots, completely unreferenced.
    • According to US News and World Report, 8 of the nation's top-50 universities and 13 of its top-50 liberal arts colleges are located in New England. Cite please (USNews rankings change every year).
  • Prose - random sample: In northern New England, New Hampshire's White Mountains are popular ski destinations, as well as offering for camping and hiking.
  • Comprehensive: considering the wealth of history in New England, the Notable places section is disappointing and reads like a tourist guide rather than an encyclopedia.
    • How did Canterbury make this list? What is the criteria? At the pre-college level, New England is home to a majority of the most prominent American independent schools (also known as private schools), such as Phillips Academy in Massachusetts, St. Paul's School and Phillips Exeter Academy in New Hampshire, and Canterbury School, Choate Rosemary Hall, Hotchkiss School, and Loomis Chaffee in Connecticut, ...
  • Non-encyclopedic content: Bars and pubs, especially those with Irish themes, are popular social venues. Again, reads like a tour guide, rather than an encyclopedia entry.

The article needs to be thoroughly referenced and brought up to encyclopedic, rather than tourist guide, standard. Sandy 22:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Sandy 22:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for those who voted to support this FAC, as it was encouraging, and thanks especially to those who provided well thought-out and detailed evaluations and critiques. All of your suggestions are sound and helpful, and will certainly keep me and other editors happily occupied for quite some time. Best of luck to you all. --AaronS 13:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

R.E.M. (band)

I'm nomming this for a featured article because I've been an R.E.M. fan nearly my whole life and I find it to be very well-written. LoomisSimmons 17:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Don't let fan worship blind you to the technical merits of an article compared to FA criteria. Not nearly enough imagery or references. Probably wouldn't quite pass GA-class muster yet. --Kitch 17:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Jackass, much? "Fan worship"? "Blind"? I think it's a fantastic article. If you don't, fine. But keep the snide comments to yourself. Maybe if it was about 70 more KB of bloated dreck, it would meet FA quality? Geez, I hope not. LoomisSimmons 17:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Watch your mouth, son. Profanity and sarcasm do not a good rebuttal make. I did not intend to be rude, but checking the featured article criteria is the first step in the nomination process. --Kitch 18:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you Mr. Wikipedia? Is Jimbo Jones your dad? Are you even an admin? I mean, I could ignore you altogether, but now I'm curious as to who you think you are that you can give me orders. I may be taking to Wiki royalty and not even know it! LoomisSimmons 18:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not giving you orders. I'm reading the top of the Featured article candidates page, which is agreed-to Wikipedia policy. Now please stop with the immaturity. --Kitch 18:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You still here? Wow, you must really hate R.E.M.! I mean, you've given your vote; what more could you possibly have to say? I mean, if you keep kicking your feet and crying, does your vote count twice or something? LoomisSimmons 18:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, I love R.E.M. Loving a subject has nothing to do with whether or not it's worthy of an FA nod or vote. I love the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and I opposed its FA nod on technical merit. This is no different. Now I'd suggest keeping quiet about it. You're only making a fool of yourself with your own "kicking your feet and crying". --Kitch 18:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I give you credit - you refuse to shut give up. You must have an admin nomination around here somewhere. "See, Daddy! I can be a complete asshole just like you! Pick me, pick me! I'm ever so rude!" Geez, I never thought I'd root for the presence of furries, but whatever would distract you right about now would be a plus. LoomisSimmons 19:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Cool it guys! Being rude to each other won't help matters at all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Kitch. Some P. Erson 18:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is FAR too premature. A solid bit of the Warner-era material still holds the music review / editorial type writing that affected the entire article until a few months ago. And it seems like we skipped a step - this article should have been put up for peer review first. -- ChrisB 19:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think of that, but you're right. That makes a lot more sense. If you link me to the instructions for that, I'll take this nom down and start with peer review. LoomisSimmons 19:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer reviews can be requested at Wikipedia:Peer review. Instructions on listing an article for review can also be found there.

• Oppose. It needs more inline citations. Also, the information in the trivia section should either be integrated elsewhere or removed entirely - trivia sections aren't generally recommended. LuciferMorgan 21:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Looks like Loomis withdrew the nomination and requested a peer review instead. Teemu08 06:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Tampa Bay Buccaneers

It's a good article. It cover all the players and major history and stats.

• Oppose While I'm a Bucs fan, this article just doesn't cut it. Most certainly, not nearly enough referencing. This wouldn't even pass GA-class muster. --Kitch 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object; sorry, no inline citations or references. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The article has too many lists towards the end, and as commented by Spangineer the article has no inline citations (readily demanded from FAs nowadays) and no references. Also, the trivia section rears its head - if the info it contains is relevant integrate it into the article otherwise remove the info. LuciferMorgan 22:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Pikachu

This is the third nomination. The issues of the second nomination have been resolved. It is comparable in quality to the other two Pokémon-related featured articles: Bulbasaur and Torchic. Considering the notoriety of Pikachu, this should have had an FA-quality article long ago IMHO. I think it's finally ready now.

• Of course, I Support this nomination. --Kitch 17:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: What happened to citation #31? And please move citations so that they consistently follow punctuation,^[1] like this.^[2] --Spangineer^es (háblame) 19:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've fixed that; it's an error that happens if the first appearance of a named citation tries to refer to an earlier citation by that name (in this case, the first was <.ref name=movie/> and the second <.ref name=movie>Reference</ref>). The latter is overridden by the blank in the former. —Cuiviénen 23:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object fair amount to do, see Peer Review script I left on talk page.Rlevse 20:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: Well-written and well-referenced, but you have a problem with the placement of the references. They should be placed after commas and periods; you have several problems of this in the early sections. Example: "Pikachu is the most popular and notable Pokémon, and is generally regarded as the mascot of the Pokémon franchise, in the same way Link is the mascot of the Legend of Zelda series, or Mario[4] is the mascot for the Super Mario franchise and Nintendo [5]." The [4] is pretty distracting, and the [5] should go after the period. Check the whole article for stuff like this. Also, I'm not sure if you need all these references. In the video games section, you have references (in the middle of the text) directing to the games' amazon.com profiles. I checked the Bulbasaur and Torchic articles, and they only have 1 or 2 references to Amazon. If people want to learn about the game, they can click on the wikilinks.

The whole article should have a spelling and grammar run-through, as I noticed some glaring mistakes in the anime section. -Dark Kubrick 20:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that I have fixed the ref placement issue now. Jeltz talk 22:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that there is also repeated information in some of the sections. An example would be Pikachu evolving into Raichu via the Thunderstone; this is in both video games and characteristics. I would also remove the got milk? ad, and try to find a picture of Pikachu in one of the parodies. -Dark Kubrick 00:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with that the referencing is a bit over-zealous at times in this article but I could be biased since I went through all of them to correct the style. :) Jeltz talk 22:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Support. A comprehensive article that only needs a few minor touch-ups. --Gray Porpoise 22:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose One article on one Pokemon could be FA. Two, maybe. I think this is getting just a shade ridiculous, however. The FA is the best example of Wiki work possible - just because there is a dedicated fanbase doesn't mean each Pokemon article that is ruthlessly edited should make FA. That said, Pikachu is the obvious choice among the pokemon articles for FA, but there are too many already. --24.11.220.107 07:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think that is a valid criteria to object. Judge the article on its own merits, not on whether there are already enough pokemon FAs. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• • That isn't valid reasoning for an objection. 24.11.220.107, please refer to Wikipedia:What is a featured article? If the objection isn't based on something there, then it's invalid. Ryu Kaze 13:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: "That said, Pikachu is the obvious choice among the pokemon articles for FA..." Wouldn't Pokémon be the most obvious choice for FA? Just asking. Andrew Levine 14:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object -
  • Does not satisfy 2(a). Compare this sentence from the lead: Pikachu is among the most recognizable of the Pokémon... with this from the next paragraph: Pikachu is the most popular and notable Pokémon. Also compare this sentence in the lead: In the Pokémon universe Pikachu are ground-dwelling mammals... (missing a comma and we have already established that Pikachu exist only in the Pokemon universe) with this from the body: Pikachu are oftenly mistaken for rabbits, but are really mice. (oftenly?) Why not call it a mouse in the lead instead of saying "ground-dwelling mammal"? Another problem sentence from the lead: Coincidentally, there also is a mouse-like lagomorph that makes its habitat in North America, known as a pika which may have affected the North American name, Pikachu. First, this is weasel text ("may have affected"). Secondly, if it did in fact affect the name, it's not a coincidence. Here's a comma splice from the lead: Pikachu often travel in packs, and are rarely territorial, however, when threatened, a group can generate... The rest of the text has similar problems.
  • Has reference problems. I picked this sentence at random from the lead for a reference check: Pikachu is the most popular and notable Pokémon, and is generally regarded as the mascot of the Pokémon franchise, in the same way Link is the mascot of the Legend of Zelda series, or Mario[4] is the mascot for the Super Mario franchise and Nintendo.[5] These two footnotes do not support the claim made in the sentence. I didn't bother checking any other refs. I also see a lot of footnotes after game names, such as "Players playing Pokémon Yellow[15]..." What is supposed to be referenced here? That players play Pokemon Yellow? The footnote links to an amazon.com page about the game; I don't see the relevance. Also, the references are inconsistenly formatted. I suggest using templates like {{cite web}} to standardize them, like this. Other references, such as "Pokémon Adventures ISBN 1569315078" need critical information such as an author.
  • Fair use problems. You can't use both Image:Pikachu.png and Image:Pikachu 18.gif in the same article and realistically claim fair use for both; they're too similar.

Pagrashtak 16:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Problems with references, e.g. what sort of reference is "All-Pokémon dialogue" (no further details given), and [http://www.nintendo.com/gamemini?gameid=m-Game-0000-127 either has one bracket too much or too little. More attention to detail needed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object Poor prose, fannish stuff, lack of referneces, I can go on. I won't. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 17:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Houston Astros

Well I was thinking, that the article itself is good, and it represents a neutral note of the team, and it shows a good "heartwarming" story on how a mediocre team went to the World Series. I'm a fan of it myself (also a Toronto Blue Jays fan), that this team deserves it's publicity through it's good-well thought out article. Falconleaf 22:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object Unfortunately, good doesn't make featured status. Per WP:WIAFA, the article is missing references and inline citations (see WP:V, WP:CITE). The lead fails WP:LEAD. As has been argued in edit wars, The Houston Astros is a Major League Baseball team. There are typos that need to be fixed, for example ten-team National League The team (missing period). There are also a couple of stylistic problems, including overlinking of years (see WP:MOSDATE), linking in headings, starting with "The" in headings, over-capitalizing in headings (as in Destroy, Fire Sale, and Rebuild) (see WP:MOS#Headings). Also, trivia sections generally are looked down upon as being trivial and unnecessary. Suggest a peer review first. AZ _t 01:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object - should go to peer review to prepare for FAC. Short lead, no references, doesn't conform to WP:MOS, has a trivia section, needs a thorough copy edit. Sandy 22:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Tsez language

• Work of a genius. — Timwi 18:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. You will need some inline citations. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Much of the content I took from an unpublished script from Bernard Comrie. Citing this wouldn't help much... —N-true 19:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • We still need citations for a featured article. Remember, our content (and especially our featured articles) should be verifiable. —Cuiviénen 19:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object. This an extremely good article for a near-dead language. However, it is heavy on lists and tables and light on prose. Also, it focuses overmuch on the speaking of the language and little on the language itself; little is mentioned of the history of the language, its etymology, etc. There are no language articles currently featured to my knowledge, but English language would be a good article to look at for ideas. (Of course, this article should be a lot shorter than that one and many of the topics covered there do not apply here.) Also, as pointed out above, we really do need verifiability for featured articles, so citations are a must. I would refer you to Wikipedia:Peer review. —Cuiviénen 19:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No language articles featured?? :-p — Look at Laal language and Nafaanra language, both featured articles -- none of them fulfill the criteria that you are basing your "oppose" vote on. I think you need to rethink this, or nominate both of those for featured article removal. — Timwi 19:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't actually check the FA page, so thank you for doing so for me. However, I would indeed nominate Nafaanra and Laal for FAR if I did not feel that the best is to wait for an FA to appear on the Main Page (unless it is egregiously bad), then FARing it if not major improvements are then made. —Cuiviénen 22:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, Laal language should probably go on FAR. —Cuiviénen 22:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object With a cursory glance I can see that Laal language and Nafaanra language have more, though perhaps not sufficient, coverage of the context for the language, and less drilling down to details of the language. For one thing, they both have maps, and given that Tsez seems to be spoken in a limited geographical area, it'd be nice if it had one too. Even Nafaanra has too much detail, and it seems to be more of an overview than Tsez. Really sections on morphology, grammar, etc., should be broken out into separate pages and glossed over in the main article. Also, Tsez is more technical. Try getting some monolingual friends to look at the article and point to sections they think should be simplified. Nevertheless, I'm glad that this material is here. Jun-Dai 21:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object It looks like a lot of time went into this article and the editors that compiled it were very thorough; that is to be commended. However, there is too much detail for a featured article and not nearly enough in-line citations. The nitty-gritty details on phonology and grammar need to be moved to their own daughter articles and just summarized here in the main article. Sentences like "Tsez grammar was first analyzed by the Georgian linguist Davit Imnaishvili in 1963." and "Currently, a collection of Tsez folklore texts (written in the Mokok dialect) is in production." both need to be cited, we (the readers) can't simply take Wikipedia's word for it, a verifiable source must be provided for all such claims. It's almost there, but not quite. The content is great, it's just the organization and citing that need work.--WilliamThweatt 21:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The article is quite far from FA status for the following reasons:

• We have a template for how to construct language articles, and while it's not absolutely mandatory, it's a very well-rounded template that has been around in the current form for quite a while now and is strongly recommended as a basis for how to construct pretty much any article about a living (spoken) language.
• There is little or no information on dialects, geographic distribution, history, vocabulary and classification. This is roughly equivalent to half of the content of a well-rounded language article and usually contains the information that is most relevant to those who aren't interested in the fine details of linguistic analysis.
• The reference list is almost entirely made up of highly detailed academic works on various aspects of Tsez grammar. They are useful in more detailed sub-articles, but I hope that at least some of them will migrate along with content to the sub-article(s).
• We have some very good, and above all, more recent FAs such as Tamil, Aramaic and Swedish that are far better to compare with than English, which has some very specific traits in being a world leading lingua franca. While I don't mean to say that languages spoken only by a few thousand individuals have to have the same kind of coverage the ambition should at least be to approach this level of detail and accuracy. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose—needs extensive coverage of the social and historical situation surrounding the language to match the linguistic coverage. Everyking 12:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Throat Gaggers

This is a work of pure genius. I am proud to nominate this article which showcases the very best Wikipedia, and more importantly, pornography, has to offer.Courtney Akins 01:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Move to AfD. Seriously. Girolamo Savonarola 01:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Strongest possible oppose bad faith nomination. Article has been proposed for deletion. Gwernol 02:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the article had previously been prodded, I have instead sent it to AfD. Gwernol 02:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Support Since I was the nomiatrix -- and it was only proposed for deletion by same guy that wrote the last comment.Courtney Akins 02:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Article barely a stub, bad faith nomination, non-notable, information non-verified Canadian-Bacon ^(contribs) 02:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Obvious bad-faith nom. — NMChico24 04:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Nominator is innocently spamming talk pages with innocouos hello messages. Gee wiz. 'Delete - oh, wait, wrong debate... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Strongest possible oppose bad faith nomination. This guy can't be serious.!!!!Rlevse 10:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Guy? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose Next time someone accuses gays of flaunting their sexuality, I'll have to tell them about the heterosexual Ms. Akins here... --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

San Francisco

• Support - Meets criteria for featured articles, so I don't see why not. -Blackjack48 00:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object Without even looking at the prose, you have at least 3 tags on sections that need to be split, large white spaces created by picture location, two reference styles, one-sentence sections (about jails), trivia and unreferenced notables, a large number of external jumps, and a need for inline citations (example, The Port of San Francisco was once the largest and busiest seaport on the west coast, but that title is now held by the joint ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.). I suggest WP:PR can help you get the article closer to FA status. Sandy 00:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• In "History", I counted seven running paragraphs constructed of just ten sentences. More stubs further down, especially in "Media". Isn't "southeast" one word? Please polish it. Tony 02:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object - The article might need to undergo peer review (and the extensive editings and cleanup that will result) before attaining featured article status. --physicq210 04:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• comment lots of info. I don't like the "County jails" and "education" sections though. With that sections cleaned I would support.--Pedro 19:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Wow. I guess being listed as a good article doesn't mean anything. -Blackjack48 00:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

True; it has little credibility when you look at the process. Tony 15:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• • this article is much better than some featured articles. The objective of an encyclopaedia article is to explain "everything" about a given subject. This does it well. --Pedro 12:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the scope of the objectives is considerably wider than that. Tony 01:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with Tony. Pedro, I suspect you have been misinformed about Wikipedia's goals. Nothing less than high quality writing, neutrality, sourced information and comprehensiveness will make an article through FAC. It's an unfortunate fact that FAC is necessarily a far harsher mistress than GA. I should know: several of my articles haven't made it. This doesn't mean your article is bad, it just means that it hasn't quite gotten to FA quality as yet. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object I agree that it is very comprehensive but it fails other criteria in particular 2(a). The prose needs some substantial improvement. At one point there are about 10 consecutive paragraphs that begin with either "The" or "In". --Nebular110 03:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman

Note: this FAC has been moved; you may be looking for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry S. Truman/archive2, which was originally at this page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Quite a lot of good work has gone into this in recent months, I think. Please drop by and tell us where you think it needs to go to become a featured article. BYT 14:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object for now :Nice start, but suggest you work on the PR script I put on the talk page. Will reconsider later.Rlevse 16:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object :A lot of work fleshing this out and bringing in more and better citations is needed. There is a single in-line citation for Truman's entire first term (excluding the 1948 election campaign). Of the citations that are used, it looks like the article is built from web sites, Margaret Truman's book, and McCullough's popular history -- it would be good to see a broader base of references and more by academic historians. Sam 18:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the feedback, and the good direction. BYT 13:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me know when you want me to look at it again; thanks for your work on this. Sam 15:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support - per nom - --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object, this is a very good start but I see a lot of phrases that need citations. For example:
  • "had been a supporter of the Zionist movement as early as 1939"
  • "The idea of a Jewish state in the Middle East was also extremely popular in the U.S."
  • "Truman had ordered a (controversial) addition to the exterior of the building," (what was controversial?)
  • "When he left office in 1953, Truman was one of the most unpopular chief executives in history. "
• These are just a few examples. Andrew Levine 17:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's according to Hoyle to do so, I'd like to withdraw this nom. I know where we need to do work. Please feel free to leave additional notes on my talk page... BYT 20:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object Sadly, not enough inline references. That's the only thing holding it back IMHO. --Kitch 00:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Defense Cutbacks, Soviet Espionage Scandal, Korean War

• With the additions to the Soviet Espionage, Defense Budget Cutbacks, and Korean War intervention sections, it's now a much better and balanced article. Please note that these contributions are fully referenced: paragraphs, sometimes even sentences are individually cited, much more so in comparison to other sections of HST articles. I feel that attempts to excise this material while leaving in various trivia and legacy paragraphs, song lyrics, etc. are POV, especially where Truman's actions or motives are explained in his defense. - TIM 24 SEP 2006

B-29 Superfortress

I have not worked on this, aside from a few minor fixes, but it stood out as an exceptional entry, and I would like to nominate it as a featured article. It was previously nominated about two years ago. It has been substantially rewritten since then. While it does not heavily use inline citations, it is well-referenced and appears to have been very extensively researched. —ptk✰fgs 02:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object; a number of issues here:
  • Inline citations—in fairly large numbers—are a sine qua non for FAs now. Only three in an article of this size and complexity is simply an unacceptably low level of referencing.
  • The lead is rather short; perhaps another paragraph would be worthwhile?
  • There's a lot of choppy prose (one-sentence paragraphs, stubby sections) throughout the article. The "Operators" section is particularly problematic in this regard. The "Noteworthy survivors" section is just a list, not really prose at all.
  • Can the spacing of the various elements in the "Related content" section be cleaned up somehow?

Significant work is still needed here, I think. Kirill Lokshin 03:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object - This article needs copy-edit, and needs to be wikified. It also lacks details on many sections, and doesn't state why the plane is notable. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object. While this entry is currently of reasonable quality, it's certainly not of FA standard. In addition to the points raised above, I'd also note that the article would benefit from a section discussing the impact of the aircraft on WW2 (the fact that several campaigns were fought purely to secure B-29 bases for example). The article probably also needs more photos to improve its appearance. I'd suggest that this article be nominated for a collaboration by WikiProject Aircraft and/or the Military aviation task force --Nick Dowling 12:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree. Needs far more references. --Kitch 17:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Epic in Miami

Self Nomination I spent many hours of typing and reasearch on this article about one of the most famous games in NFL history. I believe it is an exceptionally good entry. It contains complete information on both teams involved in the game, important stats, records that were set, and events that occured in the aftermath. All quotes are cited. Stats and other reaserch have been compiled by numerous websites including the NFL's own hall of fame site to ensure accuracy. Chainclaw 18:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object. This article is clearly very well researched, but I think the level of detail is significantly higher than ideal for an encyclopedia article. In addition:
  • The article could use a bit more from the media reaction to the game
  • The article would be greatly improved by the inclusion of some relevant images
  • It would be good if the links in the references section linked to the specific pages relevant to the topic on the article on those sites

--L33tminion (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see how you can have too much detail unless it's irrelevant in some way. And yes the article would benifit from some pictures, but I'm not very familiar how to post images on wikipedia. If somone else could put some on there, it would be greatly appreciated. Besides, pictures are not a prerequisite for featured article. As for your last point, well I used databasefootball.com and profootballreference.com to find regular and postseason stats for numerous individual players and the two teams by typing in their names on those sites. I figured it would be long and pointless to give reference links to every single player I looked up, so I just listed the websites themselves. I figured poeple can just type in the player names like I did if they wanted to verify my information. Would it really be better to link to every player and team I used databasefootball and profootball referece for? That would put about 20 or more links in the reference section all leading different parts of the same website.Chainclaw 19:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I withdraw my comment on the links. As far as detail goes, there is such a thing as too much trivia. I might not be in the best position to evaluate this article because I'm not very knowledgeable about the topic. I suggest you visit WikiProject NFL. I also suggest submitting this article to peer review. --L33tminion (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object The lead is too short and doesn't summarize the article, there are no footnotes and lots of external jumps that need to be turned into footnotes.Rlevse 02:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object - article seems incomplete and the referencing is horrible. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How is it incomplete? It lists the background of the teams involved in the game, the game itself, and the aftermath of the game. What is missing? Also could explain how the referencing is horrible? It has 6 different sources, including the NFL's hall of fame website and the official websites of each team in the game. Chainclaw 17:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object The article needs to have inline citations and some more references. The lead section should also be expanded. Also, maybe a photo could be added? -- Underneath-it-All 18:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Three different poeple have now stated either the lead section or the entire article is incomplete. I would appreciate it if they would explain what exactly is incomplete. The lead section lists who was involved in the game, when it was, where it was, and why it was significant. The entire article lists the background of the teams involved in the game, the game itself, records that were set, and the aftermath of the game. What else is needed? - Chainclaw 18:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD. For an article of this size, the lead should be two to three paragraphs. Think of it as what the article would look like if it was condensed into two or three paragraphs. Oldelpaso 20:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

EVE Online

A great deal of hard work has gone into making this article a very nice one. I think it shows what Wikipedia can produce when people work together. --Xander the Potato Vanquisher 16:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object lots of external jumps, no footnotes. Rlevse 19:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Footnotes have been added. We are working continuously on more references --Xander the Potato Vanquisher 13:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object Per above and several short sections and subsections, along with a short lead. I suggest copyediting the whole article, getting it to GA status and having it undergo a peer review. Slof 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Object - Good article, no referencing --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object - As much as I like seeing CVG articles up for FA, I'm going to have to object. Chrono Trigger and FFX-2 are also up for FA status- and have 57 and 46 references, respectively. That's probably more than would be needed for this article, but you need more than 0. --PresN 15:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The article does not have any inline citations and the pictures do not have fair use rationales written for them. -- Underneath-it-All 18:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• All of our images now have fair-use rationales with them. Also, there are inline citations in sections we have been able to find resources for. --Xander the Potato Vanquisher 13:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Lack of citations for this article may have to do with the nature of the game. Much of the information presented this article is from first-hand experience. Active players of the game write for this article. EVE-Online lacks a comprehensive explaination of in-game features that can be cited. I would beg the community to keep this in mind. --Xander the Potato Vanquisher 15:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that just means you have to look harder, because first-hand experience is Original Research, and you can't have that if you want FA status. If you can't find any outside sources, it may not be able to ever be FA status. I'll go through it in a second and see if I can find things that "should" have some sort of external source. --PresN 16:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

1) published from May to December 2003 by Simon & Schuster Interactive

2) fter which CCP purchased the rights back and began a digital distribution scheme

3) The Background section is a screen long for me, and is covered by 1 source. Granted, that source is the official background page of the game, but maybe somewhere there's another source? Anywhere? Dunno, it just looks bad to me.

• Added many more references for the storyline section and broke it up into a discussion of the races in the EVE universe.

4) Players can engage in many tasks a few of the major ones being... (even a review would be fine there)

5) The servers have a scheduled daily downtime between 11:00 and 12:00 GMT (maybe a cite? Not very crucial if you can't find one.)

6) Advancement section- there has to be somewhere that they describe the skill tree and such- a manual, an online short manual, a review of the game somewhere...

7) Players can barter between themselves for items, or may use the extensive in-game market system for ISK-based transactions

8) Combat and SIS sections- same as Advancement

9) same for Death and Jump Clones

10) EVE currently costs €14.95 / $14.95 a month

11) Those who are playing EVE Online can send 14-day trials to their friends via...

12) Patches- probably find cites from main website, you only have them for the Kali patch

13) Milestones need cites

These are just what a quick run through found. You have 14 in line cites at the moment, you should have at least 30-40 for an article of this size to get FA status. --PresN 17:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object. 1) References are impressive but can still be improved. Try to incorporate all academic references to the game: see this. Also, those books would probably provide enough references to pass the article on the 'references' criteria.2) Further comments: I'd merge 'Major Content Patches', 'Graphics Engine and Windows Vista' (stubsection) and 'Milestones' (list') under one subsection, 'History' of 'Development', which would discuss how the game was designed and how it has changed since (and what is planned). 3) Perhaps one of the biggest issues: not comprehensive: I would also like to see a section on the community: notable alliances, famous players, fansites. Community makes or breaks MMORPGs, and currently the article ignores this important aspect.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Oh, much better on the cites. I'd suggest changing "Serenity and the Chinese EVE-Online" by taking out the line "The developers have blogged on some of challenges involved.[34]" and moving that cite up to the first sentence "As discussed in the recent dev blog with LeKjart,". It's a little confusing to not have the cite there, only for it to pop up a paragraph later, I had to check to make sure it was the same blog. Other than that, I'd still like more cites in the gameplay section, the parts of my above comment that you haven't struck out yet. Get that done, and I'll change it to support. --PresN 15:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Maze (HM Prison)

I have nominated this article as it will be extremely topical within the next few months as the site is being largely demolished for redevelopment and is extremely historically significant.GiollaUidir 15:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article does not cite its sources. See WP:CITE. -- Underneath-it-All 19:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's very interesting, but too short and it seems to rely on only one reference. It should be referenced to a number of different authors, and it would also need inline citations. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Needs expansion, footnotes. Should become featured once expanded. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fair use claim on the first image is weak. I would prefer to see a free license image featured if possible. Article could use more inline citiations. Kaldari 22:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose too short. The background section starts in the middle of nowhere, in other words, the reader needs a background to understand what is being said there. Few citations.--ppm 19:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fight Club (film)

This was a very helpful and comprehensive article. I feel it would make a good feature article due to it's completeness. Webster100 15:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Object - good article but confusing. --GoOdCoNtEnT 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object. At the very least, this cannot be a FA because it:

Fails 2a - about half of the article is taken up by lists, rather than prose; this includes a gigantic trivia section. The plot section is currently tagged with Template:Confusing, as well.

Fails 2c - a total of two footnotes is insufficient.

Fails 3a - lead is far too short. --Amuck 17:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object. agree with amuck.Rlevse 18:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object. The plot section has a confusing tag, there are too many lists, and the pictures do not have fair use rationales written for them. -- Underneath-it-All 18:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object as per Amuck. -- LGagnon 04:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object the article needs clarification, and the lists should be converted to prose. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object as per the reasons stated by Amuck. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Talmud

The Talmud article is very detailed, unbiased (which is unusual for such a controversial topic), and referenced with legitimate historical sources. After reading it, I decided that it is front-page material. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support - per nom - --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object Very well done, except there are no inline citations (footnotes) (see req. 2c "....complemented where appropriate by inline citations...". There is also at least one external jump that needs fixed. Let me know if this gets fixed.Rlevse 10:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Goodcontent's fourth nomination in a few days, but s/he hasn't acted on suggestions on first nom yet. Sandy 12:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object the scholars section is not a good addition; insufficient discussion of the content; no citations and insufficient references. The criticism sections, while informative are not comprehensive or cited. Rama's arrow 16:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object There are no citations and certain section should be expanded (as they are too small). Also, while the article does contain a lot of information, it is not comprehensive. -- Underneath-it-All 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object There is too much poorly defined and unnecessary jargon. And the article is currently disorganized. It suffers perhaps from too much information, I think, not too little. -- חנינא

• Object - I cannot support an article without extensive in-line citations, and 0 isn't even close to extensive. Also, this is the exact reason that nominators are heavily encouraged to only submit one article at a time- you can't focus on all of the comments if you're juggling several articles. --PresN 21:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ice cream

I believe this article is well-written, informative and meets WP:FAC criteria, which are:

1. It exemplifies our very best work.
2. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. Read Great writing and The perfect article to see how high the standards are set. In this respect:
   • (a) "well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant;
   • (b) "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details;
   • (c) "factually accurate" includes supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); these include a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). For articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is strongly encouraged;
   • (d) "neutral" means that an article is uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view); and
   • (e) "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.
3. It complies with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects. These include having:
   • (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
   • (b) a proper system of hierarchical headings; and
   • (c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see Wikipedia:Section).
4. It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article.
5. It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it uses summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any 'daughter' articles.

particularly:

1. • (e) "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.

The article hasn't changed significantly too much and has interesting facts relating to the article.

It seems to be very good so far. --TheM62Manchester 07:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The article has many {{fact}} tags. Also, there are many external links within the article text. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I will try and get those fixed; as for the external links, so do many other articles. --TheM62Manchester 08:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. This is very far from being featured (even if you copy the requirements to the nomination) being generally unencyclopedic and not comprehensive; please consider a peer review. Jeronimo 10:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Needs more (inline) references/citations. Take for example: "Because ice cream is sold by volume, it is economically advantageous for producers to reduce the density of the product in order to cut costs. Indeed, one of Margaret Thatcher's first jobs was to find ways of increasing the air content of ice cream." It should be possible to confirm facts in both these sentences. This is just a sample, it is needed throughout the article.
  • Contains seemingly random statements such as "In 1984, President Ronald Reagan designated July as National Ice Cream Month in the United States, and the third Sunday of the month as National Ice Cream Day.[1]" (in the lead section!) or "On the Mediterranean coast of Turkey, ice cream is sometimes sold to beachgoers from small powerboats equipped with chest freezers." This should be an encyclopedia article, not a random collection of facts and tidbits.
  • The "Ice cream around the world" section is poor. It collects writings of Wikipedians from a few countries, rather than giving a good overview of worldwide ice cream consumption and culture. Again, this should be encyclopedic, not a collection of facts.
  • While the article's lead somewhat narrows the definition of ice cream, much of the article is about other frozen desserts (notably "precurors of ice cream"). Please sort out what the article is about.
  • The external links section is messy, unannotated. Wikipedia is not a web directory.
  • Organization of sections poor; sections "other frozen treats" and "ice cream alternatives" seemingly overlap, a section like "Using liquid nitrogen" should be a subsection of the (non-existing) "How icecream is made".
• Comment. Apologies for nominating this; I'm trying to get WP:1FA. --TheM62Manchester 11:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Only one or two users vote on RfA with that rather controversial rule. Heck, even its own creator abandoned it. Adminship is no incentive to push for featured articles — finding a great formula and feeling a sense of accomplishment are. — Deckiller 18:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object The lede is too short, and far from a summary of the article's content, per WP:LEAD. The missing citations are also worrisome: the article is included in the "Articles lacking sources" category! The "Ice cream throughout the world" section contains many very short subsections; that should be reorganized, and as noted above, should be comprehensively global, not just a collection of various countries' practices. -Fsotrain09 21:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object This page just lists random facts about ice cream. The organization is horrible and references are poor. This page acts better as a disamb. page than as an article. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Christmas

Christmas originally gained feature status on Dec. 24, 2004. It lost feature status on Jan. 1, 2006. You can see the old versions of the article [http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Christmas&diff=32012542&oldid=8777491 here. Since then, the article has been comprehensively re-edited. It now has a new set of illustrations (including several Old Masters) and a well-referenced history section. The history section is mostly new material, but also consolodates the historical material in the previous version. The historical interpretions are referenced to articles in History Today, a British magazine written by professional historians. There are links to the article summaries, although the full articles are available only by subscription. Another neat new feature is that Biblical verses have been linked to www.biblegateway.com, which allows you to read the verse in your choice of language and translation. Check out the "References" section -- 28 references, all given as footnotes. Kauffner 13:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Some section lack inline references. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object per RyanG. Also, could someone do something about the ugly infobox. Generally, we should never use red as a background colour for something there is text in. --Maitch 06:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. In a quick skim for WP:FN I saw two cites before periods and one extra period after a cite. The cites are scarce near the end of the article. Gimmetrow 14:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object—2b: the history section is pretty superficial. Needs to offer a deeper account than what you'd receive in Sunday School if it's to be FA material. Tony 11:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object: the real history of Christmas is missing, at least the controversy (such as the pagan origin of Christmas). See the talk-page (Talk:Christmas#"wildly unhistorical"?). __Maysara 09:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Too much focus on Western culture. Little or no reference to 3rd world. Last section is POV. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Having an entire section debating what year Jesus was born in is totally unneccessary in this article. The lengthy section on the Star of Bethlehem is also gratuitous. I'll try removing them and see what the reaction is. Hopefully the History section can be revised to actually be about Christmas. We don't need an exhaustive analysis of the nativity here, since that is well covered elsewhere. Kaldari 21:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Tobacco smoking

This article previously failed the nomination for Featured article for having being non-NPOV and for not having enough references. Since then, it was signficantly modified to become more accurate, better cited, far more neutral, and cleaner. Before, the article just focused on the harms of smoking. Now, it focuses on the Reasons for smoking, health effects of smoking (both pro and con), history of tobacco smoking, smoking in the media, and tobacco regulation. Tobacco smoking is a very stable topic and is not likely to be changed very frequently. Please re-review it and decide whether it is now Featured article quality. --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support - per nom --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. When the headings conform to MOS (capitalization and order of sections), and the footnotes have a bibliographic style, I'll have another look. With all those blue links to websites in the footnotes, I can't determine the quality of your references without clicking on each one. There also seems to be a link farm in the External Links. The TOC seems overwhelming, but I'm not sure any of it can be deleted. Sandy 21:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - the page was modified to conform to MOS (capitalization and order of sections) --GoOdCoNtEnT 22:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:GTL for the correct ordering of sections. Your TOC is overwhelming: there are one paragraph sections that could be combined into one section. When you've updated the references to include full bibliographic info, I'll take a closer look at the article. Sandy 00:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I upgraded a few refs as an example to get you going. You should also fix your footnotes; the inline cite goes right after the punctuation, with no space. I was pleased to find a number of PMID references, but saw some journal studies with no PMID abstract: you can find the abstracts by using the PubMed search function. Also, there are quite a few statements that need inline citations. Sandy 02:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding the Free London Press report: per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles), be careful with media reports of medical studies. You can go to PubMed and find the actual study, and link to both the actual study and the media report, which will strengthen the quality of your article and references. You might go to WP:MCOTW for some tips on getting the article up to FA quality. Sandy 02:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Object—2a, 2b and 3a. There's a pervading lack of precision in the writing, and in some places it's over-sectioned; the lead is inadequate (should be at least two paragraphs, and do what WP says it should; it's not comprehensive—no mention of women and smoking, inadequate on the third world, superficial WRT advertising, and US-centric in places, e.g., "Taxation".

• • Spot the redundant word in the opening sentence: "Tobacco smoking is the act of burning the dried leaves of the tobacco plant and inhaling the resulting smoke." (The context of the smoke is so obvious that we don't want "resulting" here.) The rest of the lead needs therapy, but here I'm going to straight to the first para in the History section.

• • "Tobacco smoking, using both pipes and cigars, was common to many Native American cultures of the Americas." This sentence is a bomb-site. Do you need the amplifier "both" here? Can you avoid the repetition of "Americ(an)"? Check that you do mean "common to (emphasising "a common element in many cultures"), and not "common among". Why not: "Tobacco smoking with pipes and cigars was common among Native Americans." That's what it seems to boil down to when the fat melts.
  • "It is depicted in the art of the Classic-era Maya civilization about 1,500 years ago." Perhaps a reference?
  • "The Mayans smoked tobacco and also mixed it with lime and chewed it in a snuff-like substance." You can't chew something in a substance. I'm always looking for ways of avoiding "also", which is usually an admission of defeat. This might do the trick: "The Mayans smoked tobacco, and mixed it with lime to produce a snuff-like substance that they chewed." The comma is optional.
  • "Among the Mayans tobacco was used as an all-purpose medicine, and was widely believed to have magical powers, being used in divinations and talismans." Why the complicated passive voice? Try: "The Mayans used tobacco as an all-purpose medicine; they believed that it had magical powers, and used it in divinations and talismans." But this doesn't solve the awkwardness of listing two very different items—talismans are objects; divinations are processes.

You'll need to enlist the help of other copy-editors to get this up to standard. Try the medicos. They should be interested, given our reach into the third world. Tony 05:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I do not think that excessive links would hurt an article in any way. By the way, we are fixing the errors noted above. Can you please wait till we fix the errors before continuing voting? --GoOdCoNtEnT 03:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:NOT and WP:EL. Let us know when the article is thoroughly referenced, and I'll take another look. Sandy 18:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. There are some serious issues with accuracy in this article which I am disappointed were never caught by anyone. Amazingly, in this article, it credits an increase in the neurotransmitter acetylcholine in the brain with the effects of nicotine. The information seemed suspicious to me, and to my dismay, I found that the source that was cited did not mention this at all! In fact, as nicotine binds to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in the brain, it has an "antagonistic" effect, meaning that it inhibits function of these receptors, which is the exact opposite of what acetylcholine does. This alone almost made me want to put out a NPOV on this article and when I saw it was almost a featured article I thought I had better put this notice in here to make sure you correct the factual inaccuracies.

NPOV isn't there. The article still reads very much like an advertisement for trying smoking tobacco or marijuana. It omits to reference the existing WP articles such as "Tobacco and health" and "Smoking cessation", the mere existence of which is supposed to excuse this article in minimizing reference to health effects.

Atlantis

This article contains errors. It purports to recount Plato's description but includes invented facts (e.g. that the island was 700 km across). It needs major fact-checking. Note that any re-telling of Plato's account is difficult. Since the original dialogues are not that long, and available many places on the net, IMO it is better to give only a very short summary and refer the reader to the "original" (i.e., translated) text.--Lindorm 13:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Good article. Well sourced and very informative. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Question Three articles in FAC at once, Goodcontent? Following an FAC requires rigorous and diligent work: do you really want 3 going at once? Sandy 12:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I like it Could do with a dramatic picture illustrating the island being submerged, but this would be a good FA. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes needs new picture, but besides that, it's great! Also per above. WikieZach| talk 20:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Commment I detest these quotes with the big blue marks, the quote marks are more dominating thant the quote itself.Rlevse 14:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object; poor referencing. The first level two section needs inline citations, especially where there are quotes. In one place, an entire sentence is lifted from somewhere and not incorporated into sentence in the article. Also needs a serious copyedit: things like "dialog" should have been picked up by now. And yes, the quotes are a little much. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 16:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not place more than one nomination at a time — this makes it difficult to do each article and its objections justice. Zzzzz 16:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: There's a translation of the featured German article in progress (User:Athenaios and me are doing it). In my mind the article is pretty much incomplete right now. --Bender235 16:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object. In addition to all of the above (especially the fact the article isn't stable judging by the translation effort), a two-sentence section (Atlantis in fiction) shouldn't be in a featured article, especially if the topic of the section has pages of content itself. Also, the article to be checked for NPOV - for example, a sentence like "More plausibly, the highly respected Plato scholar" can't be in the article. Jeronimo 21:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Not Ready. I'm a contributor to this article and I don't think it's ready. I'm unhappy with the summary of the Timaeus and Critias, and the "Modern" section is too small and poorly-sourced. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that means it will be even better in the future. I hope it gets FA eventually, but for now i've struck out my support. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 05:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Forgive me if I'm wrong but quick reading of the article gave me no description of the atlantian society described by Plato or other figures such as Edgar Cayce. There is a bunch of stuff about energy diamongs, flying transportation, spiritual beings/super human stuff being floated around. Some also wrote about connection of atlantis to the bermuda triangle. There is also no mention of theories about how the island was destroyed such as tsunami etc. Also no theories of surviving and migrating atlantians to other parts of the world such as mediterranean, egypt, africa etc. theories. All seem worth mentioning in my opinion. - Tutmosis 14:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually not - at least not that detailed -, because this has nothing to do with Plato's Atlantis. If we add everything to this article what some weird psychic imagined, we also have to add a detailed version of Walt Disney's Atlantis "theory" as seen in the 2001 movie. --Bender235 01:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. A very interesting read, but I think I'd like to see more inline references. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment I agre with tutmosis. --Pedro 21:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I have read the article now and am not sure how applicable my previous point was unless the article has been changed since then. I have a few issues:

• I dont understand why the section "Receptions" is titled so. The section talks about various other claimed accounts and criticism and discussion of Atlantis by various figures, all mixed together. This type of information is rarely if ever called "Reception" to my knowledge unless you talking about a movie. Also I think this section needs to be split into "Other Accounts" and "Examination and Critism" for example. The names are self-explanatory.
• There are some prose issues. A copy-edit by a few editors should fix it. Example? one sentence starts with "Anyway,".
• There might also be some original research problems here with statements such as "are surely put into their mouths by Plato". Who is so sure? I hope its not the article author(s) opinion or if it is a notable figure than it should be stated who and why she/he states so.
• The two pictures of authors off-balance the text and it be nice if that would be fixed.
• What does Francis Bacon's novel have anything to do with accounts of atlantis? This bit looks like it belongs in "Atlantis in fiction" unless he actually states that his book is a real historical account.
• In the "Reception" section there is some information that is not properly explained.
  • "...proposed that Atlantis was somehow related to Mayan and Aztec culture." Ok, how? did they not give an explanation for this?
  • "As continental drift became better understood... theories of Atlantis were shown to be impossible" Ok... can you elaborate on who has proposed that continental drift proves atlantis to be false and how did they make that connection?
• I dont see the point of the quote by Julia Annas. Why do we need to know what someones opinion is unless they back it up? Im sure there are a million notable figures who have an opinion on the issue. People of interests are those who back there opinion up. She just states how she believes platos work should be interpreted...
• Why isnt there no information regarding evidence or search for evidence. Example? In recent history underwater rock formations have been discovered that look like a road which influenced some authors/researchers to try to tie atlantis to this. No matter how stupid some scarce claimed evidence sounds, I think its still notable if it has gained notability to be put into works like research literature or televised media.
• "Atlantis in fiction" section is a stub like already mentioned.

Thank you! - Tutmosis 23:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Romania

I find that this article is worthy of nomination to be a feautred article, because it is comprehensive, stable and informative. Compared to the croatian featured article Rumunjska, it contains a significant amount of extra information. -Danielsavoiu 20:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Strong support - Yes, Romania article is complete, well written and it should be marked as a featured article. Well done. --Eliade 19:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Insufficient lead and insufficient inline citations. Not enough references. I would guess that croatia's FA standards are somewhat lower than ours are. Fieari 20:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object -- Five images now listed at WP:PUI and five at WP:CP. The galleries (plural) should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, or at least what is left of them after all of the copyright infringements are deleted. Jkelly 21:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I have contacted the holder of Copyright of those images, and have requested the person in question to allow Wikipedia to use the resources. By the time I get an answer, I request that copyright infringement not be a criteria of judging the article's quality. Danielsavoiu 07:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - The Communist era of the history section looks far too long to me. I realise this is an emotive issue, but this level of detail belongs in the article History of Romania (which interestingly is much shorter on this period!). I'd also like to see more refs. If these things can be fixed I'll support the nomination. Walkerma 05:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I'd agree with this. The article is quite long as is. The gallery images should be

sprinkled in appropriate subpages rather than tacked on the bottom.Cas Liber 21:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Lack of balance. Michael 05:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support-Romania is a well done article and I think it fulfils the necessary conditions to be a featured article, the only thing is really missing is promoting more Romania's natural and cultural heritages. Arthur 12 August 2006

Puerto Rico

Great writing, good article status, excelent FA nominee. Hezzy 18:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Insufficient lead (should be at least three paragraphs), insufficient referencing. Remember, anyone can edit wikipedia, so if you're doing a research paper for school or whatnot, you can't reference us... so we need to provide where we got the information so that the person can reference them instead. Lots and lots of facts in this article are unreferenced as such. Fieari 18:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object -- why are we claiming Image:Taino Village.JPG is public domain? Please check the license status of all of the images used in the article. Jkelly 18:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

So you object because of one possible image tag error? Joelito (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Normally I leave image template problems as a "Comment", as they're largely tricky Wikipedia:Fair use things. But making an unsourced claim that what we are republishing is public domain without anything to demonstrate that it is true is significantly worse than making dodgy (or even nonsense) fair use claims. Frankly, I don't think editors should be bringing articles to WP:FAC without spending a few minutes researching each image that is being used. Jkelly 19:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object not quite ready. Many missing aspects. Joelito (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• object agree with others and needs pics. Many sections have too much detail (politics). While Culture, for instance, is a stub. --Pedro 19:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object - There are some claims in the History part that are just inaccurate (one of the most blatant ones is that Luis Muñoz Rivera somehow persuaded the Spanish government to concede autonomy to Puerto Rico in 1897... he reached a compromise with a Spanish political leader who came to power just before the Spanish prime minister at the time was assassinated. In other words, good timing...) Needs more references and some editing, as per above. Demf 13:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Newshounds

This is a self-nomination. I believe that this article should be featured, as it is very stable, contains relevant images, and is referenced. It also has already been given the status of good article. ISD 09:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Try and expand on the lead. It should have a broad overview of the topic in question as well as a few major facts from the main body of the article. --Skully Collins _{Review Me! Please?} 11:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I am worried that all of the sources are from an official site. Hasn't there been any outside commentary? I am also worried that about half of the content is bulleted information on characters. I would oppose... but, I'll wait to see other comments. gren グレン 13:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Describes the topic well, but doesn't give any sense of what's notable about it. Is the comic especially popular? Well reviewed? Controversial? Newshounds is listed as a topic of high importance to webcomic coverage on Wikipedia, but the article lacks context that would give the reader an idea of what's interesting about it, other than that it exists. Also, needs more sources other than Newshounds itself and the official site. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 14:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object, as above. Plus, list centric. Fieari 18:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object, fully concur with Lee Bailey. Jeronimo 08:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above, and too cuttered. Michael 05:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Japan

Strong supportI feel Japan should be a featured article. It has standard country layout, good references, relevent pictures. Plz support by voting at the nom page.WoodElf 08:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object What was once a Good Article has been the subject of a very active edit war for well over a month. When the edit war stops, it will be close to Featured Article status but probably should go through Peer Review anyway. Fg2 09:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The article itself is of very high quality (edit war notwithstanding). Fg2 09:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually the edit war is i believe over. The page seems to have acquired its mature form, lots of info and no repitition. It would make a fine addition to the featured articles. WoodElf 12:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Religion subsection is poorly written. Neutrality^talk 16:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Objectagree with above, plus there are at least two external jumps that need to be properly formatted into refs. Rlevse 21:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object The first section on history has no citations for the first 3 paragraphs even though almost every sentence seems to need one. Two that especially stood out are:

"The oldest surviving pottery in the world may be found in Japan, although the dating is disputed."

and

"Many believe that the Ainu, an indigenous people found mostly on the northern island of Hokkaidō, are descended from the Jomon and thus represent descendants of the first inhabitants of Japan."

The second also uses weasel words. MarkBuckles 23:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Way overlinked with dictionary items. Stubby parapraphs abound. "Island country" is awkward, since Japan comprises many islands. Tony 02:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This article is receiving 50+ edits a day with many reversions and hardly seems stable. It also doesn't seem well managed. I posted a question on the talk page a few days ago requesting clarification of wording and have received no response. MarkBuckles 02:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Natural resources subsection hasn't been written yet, while their lack of natural resources has strong influences on their policies through 20th- 21st centuries. Besides, Their ability to produce enormous amont of anime, manga, coumputer games should be mentioned in culture section. __Okc 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Lacks inline citations to identify the source of statements and quotations, particularly in the History section, for example:
  • History: "Archaeological research indicates that the earliest inhabitants of the Japanese Archipelago migrated over land bridges from Northeast Asia about 30,000 years ago."
  • History: "Other evidence also suggests that there may have been some migration by sea from Southeast Asia during a period of general migration toward the Pacific Ocean."
  • History: "Japan first appeared in written history in 57 AD with the following mention in Book of Later Han: "Across the ocean from Luoyang are the people of Wa (in Chinese, "Wo" or "dwarf state").Formed from more than one hundred tribes, they come and pay tribute frequently.""
  • Military: "Military budget of Japan is less than one percent of its GDP, thus very less; however its military budget is estimated to be the sixth largest in the world at around $48 billion per year."
  • Fishery: "Japan ranked second in the world behind China in tonnage of fish caught—11.9 million tons in 1989, down slightly from 11.1 million tons in 1980."
  • Religion: "84% of Japanese people profess to believe both Shinto (the indigenous religion of Japan) and Buddhism."
  • Religion: "A minority profess to Christianity (0.7%) and other religions (4.7%) like shamanism, Islam, and Hinduism."
  • Education: "... 96% of high school graduates attend a university, junior college, trade school, or other post-secondary institution."
• Also some sections of the article appear to be incomplete, for example, Major Cities and Fishery, the latter of which has no up-to-date information. Jazriel 12:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object Multiple citations are being deleted and only one citation being used to mislead the article in a certain direction. The Yayoi section in particular. If you actually read the Yayoi article the 2 main theories are Korea/China as the source of origin. The Japan article keeps deleting references about Korea and state China as the origin via Korean peninsula. --4.23.83.100 10:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Little Bighorn

Excellent, the article is well-written, well-referenced and it covers well the subject.--Fertar 16:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support:Seen I propose it.--Fertar 16:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong object, completely uncited and unreferenced, full of weasel wording and unattributed opinion, has multiple list sections, and so forth. Kirill Lokshin 16:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object per Kirill plange 16:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. No in-line citing. Cite.php --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 17:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. No in-line citation.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object per Kirill Rlevse 21:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Kirill. In line citations are a must. Has several factual inaccuracies which I'll gladly address in the article's Talk page as soon as I can. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 14:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to Strong object. Sorry, but a deeper analysis shows more worrying mistakes than I thought at first. I'm compiling a list of all those that I've been able to detect, and I'll discuss it at the Talk page once it's ready. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 14:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object. There are no citations or references!! -- Underneath-it-All 01:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object Not strongly, however, as it seems a fair amount of research has gone into this article. Many citations and a bulkier lead would sway my opinion though.UberCryxic 19:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object A featured article on a battle with no maps or references? There are 3 english maps available at wikicommons, what's wrong with them? Mieciu K 16:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - why are you people opposing this article? the person definetely spend a lot of time doing quality research with legit sources, provided a lot of detail (casualties, progression, etc.), found good pictures, and kept it un-biased. I wish history textbooks very like this article. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - this is a good article. However, the objects above cannot be ignored. I suggest you recommend this article for GA status first. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

David Cameron

This is a well written, informative biography which I am sure is deserving of Featured Article status. It is certainly comprehensive, covering every detail of Cameron's political career (even before his election to parliament) and his early life. As leader of the opposition, I am sure he is a significant person (as he is potentially the next Prime Minister of Great Britain). It is factually accurate, which can be seen from the level of citations on the page, and it is well balanced, and certainly sticks to a high standard of NPOV. Now that the leadership election is over and Cameron is settled in to work, the article is not changing rapidly, and is certainly not the subject of major edit wars. Vandalism is relatively low on this page. It uses proper headings, but could probably benefit from haveing a longer leading section. It has a good number of images with concise and accurate captions, and is of a good length and is entirely on topic. Seivad 18:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see this as a significant enough article to warrant being a featured article Jamesedwardsmith 18:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Any topic notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia qualifies for featured article status. Joelito (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Criteria for featured article status do not depend on the significance of the subject, but on the quality of the article. Some very "obscure" (but still encyclopædic) articles have been featured on the main page - and as leader of the opposition in one of the world's most influential countries, David Cameron is VERY notable anyway! EuroSong ^talk 23:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I must clarify my misuse of words there. I meant it was not significant enough in terms of completeness and quality of writing, rather than wether it is elligible for selection as a featured article. My apologies Jamesedwardsmith 13:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Suggest WP:PR to get the article in shape for FA nomination. Without even looking at the prose, there are two different ref styles, refs improperly formatted (WP:FN), stubby one-sentence paragraphs, and external jumps (The campaign included the website www.davethechameleon.com.) Sandy 19:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Not fully comprehensive. What happened in his career between graduating in 1988 and becoming Leader of the Opposition in 2005 is covered in a very summary fashion with no analysis. David | Talk 10:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object - per above - another trash article nominated for FA. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin

I think it's a great article. Soundoflolllermania 09:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A fine article--it's information dense and covers all of the bases. 71.76.219.92 14:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's generally very good, maybe some tidying up to do, but I believe it is a fine article. --FrasierC 14:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object: A few long lists that could be shortened and also the "Trivia" section needs to go, as it's unencyclopedic --Skully Collins _{Review Me! Please?} 14:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: To be honest, your criticism of the article's trivia section is somewhat misplaced. Not all trivia is unencyclopedia although some of it is. None of the trivia in the article of this frivious sort; it is all quite interesting as well as somewhat important. (The trivia section had no items saying, for example, 'this band's favorite color is puce'.) In fact, the section contains mostly important facts that do not really fit anywhere else in the article. The section name might we be changed to 'Miscellaneous Facts' or something like that. Nigelquinine 17:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I think the album images should be spread throughout the article - the whole History section is a long block of text. Led Zeppelin inspired quite a lot of artists - there could be a section on their effect on music. Also, The Beatles might provide some inspiration to potential editors. CloudNine 10:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object: I'm not comfortable with such patchy and sporadic inline citations (they are too few and far between for the volume of text in this article), which also seem to be mingling with external links. I'd suggest sticking to one particular format for sourcing to maintain consistency. I see some unencyclopedic prose as well. As some examples, the following claim requires massive citing:

• "Presence was a platinum seller, but the album received mixed responses from critics and fans; while some appreciated the looser style, others dismissed it as sloppy, and some critics speculated that the band member's legendary excesses might have caught up with them at last. The time "Presence" was recorded marked the beginning of Page's injecting heroin, which may have interfered with Led Zeppelin's later live shows and studio recordings, although Page has denied this"
• The following terms border on illegitimate for use in an enyclopedia, unless you're paraphrasing multipe critics, or directly quoting a single individual: "driving bass line, thundering drums, melodic guitar riffs and a memorable guitar solo"
• "Rumor has it that a member of the staff had slapped Peter Grant's son when he was taking down a dressing room sign." Use of the word "Rumor" doesn't sit well with me, as it appears to be in violation of what wikipedia is not and is overtly unsourced. Wisdom89 17:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Object although I can see the future FA coming out of this one. Intro could actually be longer or at least summarize the article better; as it is it reads like the original stub that someone just built on. And can we color-correct the infobox image? It looks like someone left it sitting out in the sun for a month. Also, I realize it's difficult to get good free-use images of bands that old but despite that, the text on the image page and the licensing info are sort of contradictory (right below text saying there aren't any copyright problems there's a fair-use notice). This should be resolved.
Also, I second the comments about the referencing. At the very least make all the external refs into footnotes. Daniel Case 18:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object—2a.
  • "Led Zeppelin were an English rock band, described by the BBC as "one of the most influential bands of the rock era."[1]." I suppose I can cope with the forced plural, but why not use normal grammar? Can you possibly make this statement without attribution? It would be much stronger, and it's such a broad, common-knowledge statement that you can get away with it in the lead.
  • "Led Zeppelin consisted of four members; "—Shouldn't this be a colon to introduce a list?
  • "While the band are perhaps best known as pioneers of hard rock and heavy metal, their music also included disparate elements from an eclectic spectrum, including blues, rockabilly, soul, funk, Celtic, Indian, Arabic, and Latin music." Don't say "perhaps", especially in the lead; we expect precise, certain information. If you're not sure, don't say it at all. "Also included"—get RID of "also". Why is there "included" and "including" in the one sentence? Do you really need "disparate" and "eclectic"? When you list "Indian" and "Arabic" music, do you mean the traditional, classical versions? Bit vague.
    • "The group disbanded in 1980, following the death of"—Remove the comma.
    • "More than 300 million Led Zeppelin albums have been sold worldwide,[2] including 109.5 million sales in the United States alone."

Now, that's not a good start for just six sentences to bring up so many problems. This article needs thorough copy-editing before it's going anywhere. Please network on WP for other interested editors to do it; fresh eyes are needed. Tony 11:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object - you think its a good article. you cant even say why its a good article.. i think its trash.. per above --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Still needs a lot of work to reach featured status. The article has a bit too much "fancruft" (for lack of a better word), and could use a lot more pictures considering the heavy amount of text. Album descriptions also need to be made more concise. Some song samples would also be nice (as can be found on The Beatles and Pink Floyd, both of which are featured articles).

Can someone tell me how to add pictures within the text...like the exact html way?

• Comment—1c: Using Encyclopaedia Britannica; dead links; Shadwick (undated) Led Zeppelin 1968–1980: The Story Of A Band And Their Music not referred to original no publication information. 2c: Inconsistent terminal full stops in citations. Inconsistency in absence of retrieval dates for electronic resources. Inconsistency (failure) to appropriately cite books (The Rough Guide to Rock). Page not given in Trouser Press citation. Inconsistency Dollar (2005); Shadwick (2005) (fn30); Waksman (undated) lacks publication information. 52 of 250ish footnotes checked, not going to check the rest with this level of errors. Subedit your citations for correctness and consistency, in particular, ensure adequate publication information is provided to allow others to locate the works, works cited multiple times can be placed into a bibliography to centralise their publication information. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ravenglass & Eskdale Railway

I believe that this article includes a comprehensive history of the English narrow gauge railway, and is very informative, giving the reader information on both the line itself and the locomotives which work upon it. It differs from your bog-standard article on British heritage railways, and includes images, both of the present and the past on the railway. The history does not go over the top, and is complete from the railway's opening to present day. --Skarloey 19:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object No references, four red links in the lead, list-heavy (given the shortness of the actual prose, I wonder how comprehensive the article is). Sandy 19:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object Per SandyGeorgia. This could become a FA candidate one day, but needs more work first. Some problems: the complete lack of sources. Multiple redlinks throughout article. "The line" section should be reduced just to the major stations and should also include basic information about each station. The "History" section should be split into separate sections, or into subsections. Needs more information (preferably including a photo) of the original 3 ft (914 mm) gauge line. Needs more information about the Bassett Lowke-era line and the relationship to the minimum gauge railways movement. Photo captions are too long. Gwernol 19:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• object Per Sandy.--Pedro 10:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object Per Sandy Lordwow 22:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Sandy. Michael 08:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object per Sandy --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

New York Yankees

This is the second time I am nominating this article. The first time around it was really a mess, so me and a lot of other people have done a lot of work on it. I realize it is still 75 KB long, but this is the Yankees we are talking about here. There is just too much to write to keep it as short as some of the other FA's are. It has a lot of good content and I think it is organized very well, so I give it my support. Sportskido8 15:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Plenty still to do before this reaches featured status, including unresolved issues from the last FAC.
  • Poorly referenced.
  • Still too long. If need be, split the history to History of the New York Yankees, and use summary style.
  • The information in "quick facts" should be written as prose in relevant sections rather than as a loosely linked list of trivia. Oldelpaso 20:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object Reasons for objection have been already stated by the above poster. If you want to see how an American-centric sports team article should look then, I recommend you to view the New England Patriots article which is well referenced in terms of contents and images. The Patriots' history section has been spun-off to cut down the file size. The images on the New York Yankees article are also lacking proper copyright information. Are you sure the Image:WhiteyF.jpg, Image:GeorgeS.jpg, and various photos in the article are licensed GFDL? --Who What Where Nguyen Why 22:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object. In addition to the above: Jeronimo 20:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • To much lists/tables without prose. Some of these do belong in the article, but need some additional text. Others should be spun-off, such as the season-by-season overview.
  • The "Quick facts" section is just horrible and unencyclopedic. Some of it can be grouped into new sections, moved to existing ones, while some facts aren't for this article.
  • Current roster is unnecessary and to much focussed on present-day, and should be spun of to a separate article.
  • We don't learn anything at all about the team's popularity, spectators numbers, tv viewers, etc.

• Monster Object. There are far too many Red Sox fans out there who vandalize this article. Heck, it's almost as vandalized as Bush. Should this be a featured article, it will receive a barrage of attackers and protesters. --How dare you? 17:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And there are as many other editors ready to revert back and attempt to get S-Protect. Oh yeah, and my vote is object. See above comments, especially those about the images, by other editors. Try a peer review first. -- Win777 21:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well still it would be an offense to Red Sox fans - with this said featured articles should never be of well-renowned sports teams. --How dare you? 01:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how vandalism should get a say in what does or doesn't merit being a Featured Article. If editors put in the dedication and work to get it to Featured Article quality, then it should be a Featured Article. If some fans of an opposing team are too immature to accept it, they can be IP banned after they begin vandalizing, or they can do the constructive thing and get the opposing team's article to FA status. I strongly oppose any suggestion that vandalism should have a say in what does or doesn't get to become a Featured Article. That's just begging for vandals to play their hand. Ryu Kaze 14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok then. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George W. Bush/archive1 for more information on this matter though. --How dare you? 14:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object — Per reasons below (except when identified as a suggestion rather than a point of objection):
  • The "Quick facts" section needs to be turned into prose and distributed elsewhere as appropriate. At the moment, it's just a trivia section under another name. If you can't find applicable sections to include all the information, you may have to lose some of it, I'm sorry to say. Sometimes you have to make painful cuts in situations such as this
  • Way too limited use of references. The most you have references for at the moment is the current roster. I don't know how much info that book you mention at the bottom has, but if it has a lot of the information being presented in the article, there should be more frequent indications of exactly where this information applies and from where in the book. Also, ideally, there should be more than one such reference in the creation of an article. If it's the best you've got, then it's the best you've got, but at least provide a better indication of which info's coming from the book. References shouldn't go all the way at the end of an article, by the way. They're supposed to fall between "See also" and "External links"
  • (Note: striking, as editor has made attempt at supplying explanation behind source; verification for source still pending) Image licensing issues mentioned above. We can't just accept that a random editor on the encyclopedia was given a GFDL for these things without some kind of verifiability. There's not even a source on the images
  • (Clarification based on nominator's response below: this one was meant more as a recommendation for straightening the article up a bit, rather than actual grounds for objection; I certainly understand that length has no bearing on quality and — as the nominator strongly believes this section remaining intact to be vital to the integrity of the article — I withdraw it as even a suggestion) The article's of an unnecessary length because of the history section. That needs to become an article to itself, with a summarized form used here
  • (Note: meant as a suggestion for style improvement) "Team captains" should probably be placed in a spot it would mesh better. Perhaps before the "Current roster" section
  • (Note: meant more as a suggestion than grounds for objection) While on the subject of the current roster, lose the section sub-headers for it in the Table of Contents. They don't contribute to navigation. Also, maybe try to get some more info on the current roster. As it stands, it's just a list. Maybe mention some of the decision-making that went into selecting them
  • (Note: again, more of a suggestion to improve overall quality; not a point of ojbection) As with the current roster's section, maybe add some additional info on a few of these guys in the Hall of Famers section in prose form

The article has a long way to go, but with some dedication — and taking into account the issues raised here — I can see it getting there. Good luck. Ryu Kaze 14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Response to critics. Ok, you're right about the references. I didn't see that it only had one reference, and that's pretty bad. I didn't write a lot of the article and I have absolutely no way of tracing back to where it came from. But I disagree that it is too long. For some reason there is this notion that great articles can't be longer than 35 KB. But that's why tables of contents were invented. If you people were book publishers you would've told Tolstoy to make War and Peace 300 pages long. The "history" of the Yankees just seems too important to spin off as a separate article. I don't see how this can be done.

Quick facts...that can probably be done away with, but most sports teams articles have it and I figured it was standard. That can be done away with though. The images all have proper permission too, I was lazy and didn't write it down. Please leave them there.

As for the 4th poster...you really make no sense at all. Nobody is stopping the Red Sox fans from trying to make THEIR article featured. In fact they already got the Patriots featured. Sports teams should never be featured huh? If that's so then you can make a case for any other article in the world. And how the hell can you object to an article because it would be "an offense to Red Sox fans". Sorry pal, but you sound like one there. There is definitely a group who objects to every single featured article every day of the week. Don't give me this "we stick up for Red Sox fans" crap. If they don't like it then too bad. I would like to thank the first 3 editors (and the last one) for their constructive criticism. The 4th one, How Dare You, was simply unhelpful.

P.S. It is a matter of perspective about what constitutes a "featured article", and after looking at the New England Patriots one, I am not impressed, nor do I feel that the Yankees page should be modeled after it. It is WAY too short, contains too much text, and is not that informative. The fact that the team's history was split up does not do it any good. If you ask 100 different random, people on the street (who don't like either team) if the Yankees article is better than the Patriots one, I bet that 80 out of the 100 would say yes. But yeah, Wikipedia has all these guidelines, so it's tough. Quick Facts was fixed by the way.Sportskido8 12:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• • You're welcome for the input, but please try not to respond quite so defensively. I realize you've put in some work here and probably gained an attachment, but it's best to try remaining cool and explaining your position.

I do agree that the history of the team is very important, and I certainly wouldn't object on the basis of the length of that section. I mentioned that mainly as a further recommendation to help in straightening the article out a bit, not as an actual flaw. I'll remove that from my list of objection material, as that was more of a recommendation than a point of objection. I'm certainly not someone who thinks that articles should be under 40kb. You only need take a look at several articles I've gotten to FA status or have worked on that are currently in FAC (such as Final Fantasy X, Final Fantasy VIII, Chrono Trigger or Shadow of the Colossus) to see that I'm certainly not one who confuses quality with length. I apologize if I offended you in this regard, and apologize for not having been clear.

As for the images, I'm not about to try to remove them. I just felt that they should meet proper criteria, and you certainly should be given the opportunity to supply it. I see that you cite Dave Fleming as the source of the images. I'm not doubting you on that. I'm just curious as to whether or not you have a means of verifying it for other editors. As things stand, only you know it with absolute certainty. What if you never worked on the article again? Other editors wouldn't know or have any means of defending that position. We need to create articles with this concern in mind.

You said you fixed the Quick facts section, but both it and a Trivia section are there now. There's good information, but the style of presentation is highly discouraged.

I've struck out several things, by the way, or clarified some other points. Basically, my objection is mainly in effect at this point on the basis of references and the trivia materials' presentation. Some more info on the current roster or some of the Hall of Famers would be nice, but the references and trivia stuff are the most important thing. If you can get that, I'd be pretty much satisfied and would strike the objection itself, though I also think the article could benefit from some coverage of the team's popularity if you can get it. Like I said, I can see this making it to FA, but it's going to need a bit of elbow grease. Ryu Kaze 23:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object - This page is a disaster. It is too long, poorly organized, constantly vandalized, and confusing to the reader. I would start it over from scratch. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Vandalism doesn't actually play into the stability stipulation of Wikipedia:What is a featured article? Stability implies that the article's content doesn't change significantly on a day-to-day basis (prior to the beginning of FAC; changes during FAC are expected) and that the article isn't currently the subject of ongoing edit wars or disputes concerning content. Ryu Kaze 14:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly call it a disaster, or confusing. But thanks.Sportskido8 17:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sundew

This article is an extensive work based mainly on a translation of the parallel German article, which has received Excellent Article status on the German Wikipedia. The article has undergone peer review (see archive) and appropriate changes were made, although unfortunately only one user submitted comments. Self-nominate and Support. NoahElhardt 04:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object Needs more inline references. --Peter Andersen 09:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object There is not enough inline references. Also, certain sections are very small. These should be either expanded or blended in with other sections. -- Underneath-it-All 17:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The reason the article is a little scant on inline citations is because it is mainly a translation of the German article. Apparently the German Wikipedia uses inline citations mainly for quotations. I have requested most of the missing inline citations from the German author, so those should be added soon.
    • I've upped the number of citations to 27, and still have a few more coming (I'll have to root through species descriptions for these). --NoahElhardt 20:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Any suggestions on how to blend the smaller paragraphs into others? It is hard, for example, to blend a section on "Roots" with a section on "Flowers". I agree with you in theory, but am having trouble applying the theory in this case. Thanks --NoahElhardt 21:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The reproduction and flower sections could be merged for a start since they are totally linked.--Peta 07:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll see what I can do, although those two sections, while related, are different types of sections. In an article about humans, one wouldn't merge a section on "Mouth" with a section on "Language", even though they are "totally linked". --NoahElhardt 15:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object - needs expansion - --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What sections, subject matters do you think could use expansion? In other words, what kind of information is missing that you would like to see added? --NoahElhardt 15:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Eritrea

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eritrea/archive1

Since the first time it was nominated it has undergone major edits cleaning up wording, fixing citations and style. It has been put under two peer reviews since then.--Merhawie 00:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks promising, well laid out. Need to either black the red links or whip up some stubs. Cas Liber 12:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object—The writing and organisation are way below standard.
  • "The State of Eritrea is a country in northern East Africa." Tension between "State" and "country". This is the opening sentence.
  • "The Sudan"—old-fashioned colonial term (the ...)—it's an ellision, and spelt out would be "the Sudan region". Better to remove "the".
  • "also includes"—please no; one of these is clearly redundant unless you've just told us about something else it "includes".
  • "Contemporary Eritrea gained its independence from Ethiopia after a thirty-year war which lasted from September 1, 1961 to May 29, 1991." Remove the first word, which is redundant. If the war lasted that long, why give precise dates?
  • "Eritrea is officially a parliamentary democracy consisting of six regions and defines itself as a multilingual and multicultural nation." Think carefully about the ideas you've jammed into the one sentence. Are they smoothly integrated? And what does "officially" add?
  • "there are nine nationalities"—but only one nation; the term raises questions, so why not use "ethnic groups"?
  • "Eritrea is also a mineral rich country with large deposits of gold, silver and copper."—Also to what? Look at the preceding text to see why this word is inappropriate. "Mineral rich" should be hyphenated. It's odd to have this stuck at the end of a lead in which nothing is said about the economy.
  • "There is no official language in Eritrea, rather it has three working languages, Tigrinya, Arabic, and English, and Italian is still sometimes spoken as a commercial language." The punctuation trashes this sentence.

The ideas are chucked together without attempting to create an integrated lead that will do what WP says it should do. The same organisational and writing problems are evident in the rest of the article. There seem to be people working on getting Libya up to scratch after its recent ... ahem ... promotion; perhaps they might band together to support rapid improvement of this one. We need more Africa-related FAs. Tony 12:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object - poor organization. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I was reading the articles too fast during the process of nominations. I will do a better job next time. But in your article, I didn't like how the whole article was organized and the orders of sections. Individual articles were very good though. --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Solar system

You may be looking for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Solar System/archive2 or Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Solar system: see here for explanation of FAC archive corrections SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

More testing the water, really. I'm looking to see what can be done to make the article feature quality. I would appreciate your comments. Serendipodous 23:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you are looking for Wikipedia:Peer review. Jkelly 23:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This article's already received several peer reviews. I've answered most of their comments. Serendipodous 23:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to address some of the image crowding, but became discouraged. Jkelly 02:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Support: Well rounded, nice amount of introductory info on solar system components, some inline references and images nicely spaced out and relevant. The only thing is to either whip up a stub page on Inner oort Cloud or leave it black for the time being. Cas Liber 12:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A few red links won't hurt anything. Will review later. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 12:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object—2a.
  • "For many years, the solar system had the only planetary system known." Awkward.
  • "nine planets and their 165 moons [1], known as of July, 2006,..."—What exactly does "known" mean here?
  • "The Sun's two largest orbiting bodies, Jupiter and Saturn, together account for more than 90% of the system's remaining mass. (The Oort cloud too might hold a substantial percentage, but as yet its existence is unconfirmed...". Redundancy marked; the Oort cloud sounds like a certainty, only to be questioned later in the sentence,
  • "The major planets are, in order of distance from the Sun, Mercury,...". Word order awkward in places—here, "are" should be after "Sun,".
  • "lie within the same shallow plane, called the ecliptic plane,..."—Unnecessary repetition.

Plus lots more. There are numerous good copy-editors in this field. Tony 12:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object Several organizational issues and other stuff. Jeronimo 15:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It would appear to be more logical to start with "Formation" (and possibly "Discovery and history") - debatable though.
  • The first section starts with an explanation of distances; this looks like it would be more at home in a footnote.
  • "Layout and distances" has Kepler's laws as a main article, but doesn't mention these laws in the section.
  • The images of the inner and outer planets might best be combined in a single image, it is currently rather messy with so many images.
  • It appears strange to me that the "normal" planets get less text/attention than most of the "abnormalities" and "extremities". The article should have a good balance of importance, and less important features of the solar system should get less attention and refer to their respective article.
  • It seems strange not to mention some of the "Galactic context" in the lead section; The Milky Way is only mentioned first shortly before that section.
  • Non-standard terms should be explained, even if they link to another article. For example, in "Formation and evolution" Gyr is not a common abbreviatio, while it can easily be explained in the same sentence between parenthesis. The same goes for many more terms, expressions and abbreviations.
  • The level of attention for the formula in the "Layout and distances" section seems unappropriate for the article, especially since it is admitted to be "uncomfortable science".
  • Some of the image captions are not properly capitalized or could be more informative. Other images are only vaguely relevent, and could easily be removed in this article (e.g. "Galileo's telescope", "A representation of a planet's elliptical orbit").
  • The "See also" section could be much shorter. Some terms would better be linked in appropriate places, other are not too relevant.
  • The External links section should be sorted out, and annotated. Why are sites relevant?
• Object Article was simmutaneously nominated for Good Article status. It was unsuccessful for reasons detailed on its talk page. --jwanders^Talk 00:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object for now. A few comments:
  • I see nothing regarding the discovery of Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto.
  • "Pluto remains the only planet not having been visited by a man-made spacecraft, though that will change with the successful launch of the New Horizons spacecraft on 19 January 2006. This unmanned mission is scheduled to fly by Pluto in July 2015 and then make an extensive study of as many Kuiper Belt objects as it can."--sounds awkward
  • I would like to see a liitle bit more detail regarding the formation of the solar system.
  • "The upcoming MESSENGER probe should aid in resolving this issue." --could be worded better.
  • Maybe add something about the debate regarding the definition of a planet?

--Nebular110 00:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object - too much focus on individual planets rather than the system as a whole. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The article was promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.

---

BAE Systems

Previous FAC

I have fixed the issues raised during the last FAC. These were excessive use of lists, a very short history section and a short criticism section. Other improvements include compliance with WP:LEAD (concise summary of entire article & interest provoking) and a general formatting cleanup to comply with MOS.

Tony raised some issues on my talk page at the time of the last FAC. I have addressed them to the best of my ability. The biggest change was as a result of "How is it positioned in the British military–industrial complex?" - i.e. the BAE Systems#Areas of business section.

I look forward to any comments. Mark83 18:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Hi again, Mark! I promise that I'll take a full look at the article in the near future, but right now, I don't have the patience. However, I'd like to note that the very first sentence doesn't make much sense. -- Kicking222 19:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you in advance. I've re-read the first sentence and can't see a problem, however I'm open to suggestions. Mark83 20:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Actually I had a third look and I think I've corrected it. Mark83 20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

4u1e

• I've got some niggling wording comments that I've left on the talk:BAE Systems to avoid cluttering up this page. 4u1e 11:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• And obviously (but someone has to mention it!), there's currently one 'citation needed' tag in the text. 4u1e 11:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I put that there believe it or not! Yes, it was because the Marconi heritage section has been pulled from the Marconi/Ericsson site which contained the referenced work. Working on it.Mark83 11:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Done. [12] Mark83 15:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• You might need to do another scan to be sure that the lead summarises the main text - the bit about the Spitfire only appears in the lead, for example. It would be of interest in the Heritage section as well. 4u1e 11:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • An issue from the last FAC was that the lead did not provoke interest (as per WP:LEAD). A few inconic projects from the predecessor companies' was my way around that. Perhaps paraphrase that section in the main text and/or some other examples? Mark83 15:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I think a couple or three examples of iconic heritage platforms/projects in the heritage section would be a good idea. The current list of companies is perhaps not very interesting for readers new to the topic (and is depressing for anyone with any interest in the once rich and varied British aerospace industry!) 4u1e 17:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Had a go - basically a paraphrase of the intro. Any thoughts? [13] Mark83 18:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
        • That's the kind of thing - could you replace one with an electronics example? (I'm all for aircraft myself, but I suppose we should give a full picture!) 4u1e 18:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Done. [14] Mark83 16:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

*Very weak oppose I feel like there are a few slight problems with the text. "Heritage" and "Formation" could use a couple more sources, and there's a paragraph in "Expansion and restructuring" that has no references. The "Criticisms" section has many short paragraphs that could be merged. Finally, I feel like the non-UK sections of "Areas of business" could be expanded, but that might just be because I had a brief inside view of one of those non-UK areas and thus feel like there's more to say. Aside from that, I did a slight bit of copyediting, but another read-through (by myself, or Mark, or anyone else) certainly couldn't hurt. Overall, the article's almost there. -- Kicking222 14:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks very much for your comments.
  • Heritage now sourced. Please let me know if there's a sentence in particular you think needs cited.[15]
  • Formation is pretty well sourced. Reading it again I assume it's the "The creation of a UK company, compared with what would have been a British–German firm, made the possibility of penetrating the US defence market more likely..." passage that needs more citation?
  • Unsourced paragraph in "Expansion and restructuring" fixed.[16]
  • "non-UK sections of "Areas of business" -- Would you mind clarifying what you would like to see? Maybe for the US include details of major acquisitions (Lockheed Martin AES/Boeing Commerical Electronics etc etc.) and details of major facilites? Mark83 17:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support Well done, my friend. Everything I had a problem with before looks great now. As far as my last point, it was easily the most important one. I think it comes down to, simply enough, add something if there's something to add, but don't strain for it. Either way, it doesn't matter- this is a great article, and it deserves to be featured. -- Kicking222 20:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much. I think the Lockheed Martin & Boeing acquisitons at least could do with a mention, I'll look into it. Mark83 21:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Overall looks like a pretty good job. A couple of things that stand out to me at the moment:
  • The Organisation section seems a bit lost. Would it help to have a paragraph or so of prose giving a brief explanation of the organisation's structure, rather than just a list with no introductory text? Perhaps a line or so next to each division covering what it's responsible for (not always obvious, e.g. Insyte)? Also, I'm not really sure how the order of these has been decided, but to the casual reader it might look a bit random.
  • The Areas of Business section could possibly do with a slight expansion - particularly the significance of BAE's acquisitions in the US. On JSF, for example, BAE initially negotiated a guaranteed 10% workshare, but its acquisitions of other JSF contractors have taken its total workshare close to 18% (haven't had a chance to look up a source for that yet). There's also no mention of Saudi Arabia under "Rest of World" even though BAE Systems has about 4600 employees there, according to BAE Systems Customer Solutions & Support.
  • What is the intended meaning of the sentence "BAE has long been the subject of press reports linking it to major North American defence contractors, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics." under United States? Obviously it's true, but it seems a bit pointless since BAE has/had well-documented projects in conjunction with all three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yummifruitbat (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    • All great points, thank you for them.
      • I totally understand your queries about context and formatting of the organisation section, I'll rework it.
        • Context provided & reformatted. [17] Mark83 16:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I would welcome any suggestion as to how to expand the Areas of Business section. I will take up the suggestion to expand the Saudi Arabian element of that. As for the US - do you think using the JSF as an example would be a good way to go? Detail what share the company had and how it expanded with acquisitions - e.g. particularly Sanders as part of Lockheed AES?
        • Expanded. [18] I couldn't find references for JSF workshare, in fact I found references that workshare was specifically not allocated. Mark83 16:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
      • The intended meaning of the sentence "BAE has long been the subject of press reports linking it to major North American defence contractors" is not projects, but linked as in as possible merger partners. You are 100% right that that's not at all clear. I'll reword and reference it better. Mark83 19:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Done. [19] Mark83 16:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. This is much better; well done indeed. The "Criticisms" section is in WP's best tradition of NPOV. But there are a few things still.
  • The first thing I noticed was the significant overlinking, in an article that already has a lot of high-value links. Please weed out the trivial ones to avoid diluting the high-value ones, and to reduce the blue spattering. For example, non-full dates ("June 2002" et al.) should not be linked. "British"? "World War II"? Well-known currencies not normally linked (see MOS), and the names of Anglophone countries, well, who needs to consult those articles here? Nor do you need to cite "GB" with the pounds symbol (see MOS).
  • "1955-present" etc. En dash for ranges, but why not "since 1955"?
  • "due to "a change in circumstances." Use logical punctuation at the end of quotes. Sometimes you do.
  • c. consistently spaced.
  • Consistently abbreviate the US and the UK, rather than spelling them out. Tony (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and constructive comments.

• Minor & oblique links removed. [20]
• GB£ > £ [21]
• Logical punctuation done. [22]
• c. part of currency conversions standardised. [23]
• US/UK abbreviations done. [24] Mark83 15:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Date ranges fixed in templates.[25][26] Mark83 16:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Anthropology

Not a good article. Particularly the history is poor, beginning with the history in the US. While US anthro is excellent, precisely a discipline having diversity as its object needs alternative genealogies

Very good article. Meets all Featured Article criteria. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support - per nom - --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Why are you weakly supporting nominatons? Shouldn't you be giving full support to articles you nominate? — Deckiller 06:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I want others to have a stronger deciding role in whether this article should be featured or not. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: lead definately needs to be expanded. 216.58.91.187 16:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not place more than one nomination at a time — this makes it difficult to do each article and its objections justice. Zzzzz 16:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object. A few quick observations show this is not a featured article right now. It is nice Jeronimo 21:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Lead is too short.
  • Lack of inline citations.
  • Unannotated list of "fields and subfields"
  • Sections dedicated to the USA, France, Britain and "after World War II" indicate poor structure and/or incomplete coverage of the topic.

• Object. I don't want to repeat Jeronimo's suggests. NCurse _work 21:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speaking as an anthropologist, several of the articles related to this one are quite poorly or partially written: Anthropology, Cultural anthropology, Social anthropology, and History of anthropology. Broadly, as noted by GoOdCoNtEnT, all of these are written from a fairly US-centric viewpoint, ignoring the historical roots and present dialogue among British, French, US, and to some degree other European and Latin American anthropologies. All of these also focus on a particularly critical and sensationalist portrayal of racial/racist elements in 19th-century anthropology to the neglect of much substantive discussion of 20th-century developments or current practice. I would like to propose creation of a WikiAnthro project, but I am a relatively new user and would definitely need help with this. Mccajor 06:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• I have now joined WikiProject: Anthropology, but it seems to be a fairly inactive project. Comment on the current, heavily revised version of the article would be helpful. Mccajor 18:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Bob Marley

It is Bob Marley, need I say more? Well written article.--Ezeu 05:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. --Ezeu 06:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It's very interesting and readable, though I think it needs a bit of tidying for FA status. For example, there are a few citation needed templates; not many inline references; and the ones that exist don't include full citations. The intro is too short, in my view. I also notice a few periods/full stops after the footnote, rather than before. I also don't like the large quotation marks, but that's just a personal dislike. Most importantly, I'm not sure it tells us enough about him. Is there any critical material that should be added, for example? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Also, this image has no tag. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Images of faces should look toward the text, because the reader's eye follows the face. So this image should be on the other side of the page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• I've added a little to the intro, but it needs another paragraph, perhaps about his political influence. Also, I think the intro needs to make his iconic status clear. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object – Yeah, it's Bob Marley, and it SHOULD be featured, but I don't think it can be in its current state. There are a few "citation needed" notes around that should be fulfilled. In addition, I would change all of the "song names" into song name, using italics instead, and also get rid of the red links; looks better. Lastly, some of the quotes look out of place. Is it just me, or does this article have some sort of style problem? It just looks strange, but I can't put my finger on it. The problem might be that there are so many short paragraphs; could they be put together? ♠ SG →Talk 07:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"Song names" in quotes are policy per WP:SONG#Naming_conventions. --Maitch 13:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my bad! Everything else still stands, though. ♠ SG →Talk 19:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object yes, you need to say more, like it's FA status. The fact it's on Marley does not alone make it FA. I agree with SG, it needs work, esp on the layout and those quotes in big blue marks--the blue marks are more dominating than the quote itself and any eyesore. Concur with SG's other comments too.Rlevse 14:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object Lacking in information, I mostly object because this article could be hugely better with much more detail that has been published and isnt reflected in the article, SqueakBox 23:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object The layout is very off-putting. Please reconsider the quote formatting currently in the article. Entire sections with no references. Two images are listed at WP:PUI. Image:Wailers group high res(resized).jpg needs to be scaled down and needs a proper fair use rationale. Jkelly 01:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object ! Come on. It's Bob Marley — a legend. The article is nowhere near compelling and comprehensive, and fails miserably to give a consummate overview of his career. Note to editor: The article should resemble "The Beatles" when it is ready. Orane (talk • cont.) 01:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object - Overfocused on singer's music career, underfocused on his non-music life. Also incomplete and poorly cited. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Charizard

• Failed FAC
• Second Failed FAC

Since last time, the images have been trimmed down like the contributors asked, and I believe its ready now, cheers —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 12:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object again As per my objections in the first FAC, " Sorry, but after all these things have been cleaned up, I feel the article needs more secondary sources. As far as I can see, I count 4 secondary sources out of 72. By the way, secondary sources are things which are the games, manuals, guides, fan sites or DVDs. This article needs way more." Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 14:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object, way too little time between the other 2 FAC's. Give it a month of fixing time, then put it back up.--Ac1983fan^{(yell at me)} 17:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object, not so much on the content (which needs a little copyedit, but is generally very good), but on the FAC gap. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 17:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul Martin

Good Article on a former prime minister--Jack Cox 13:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - there isn't a single footnote or reference mentioned in the article. There is no way this article as is passes the requirement to be a featured article, as not a shred of it is verified.Michael Dorosh 20:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)