Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2011

March 2011

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:59, 30 March 2011 [1].

---

Grindcore

Nominator(s): Aryder779 (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is thorough, well-researched, well-written, and notable. Aryder779 (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose at this time. I appreciate your efforts but I don't feel it is yet at FA standards. Here is a sampling of concerns:

• Multiple broken external links, see here
• Multiple problems with prose, including use of contractions, grammatical errors, awkward and unclear phrasings, overuse of direct quotations
• Some problems with lack of accessibility to non-specialist readers, although this may be associated with unclear phrasing. For example, from the lead, what on earth is a "frog gurgle"? "Many bands record simple phrases that may be rhythmically sprawled out across an instrumental lasting only a couple of bars in length." - how can something sprawl over only a couple of bars?
• Lack of citations. Examples of things that should be cited: "Vocals may be used as merely an added sound effect, a common practice with bands such as the experimental Naked City."; "Beyond the microsong, it is characteristic of grindcore to have short songs in general" - check for others
• Inconsistent referencing format, missing information from citations and other reference problems
• Use of questionable sources, for example this blog

I suggest withdrawal of this nomination to give you more time to address these issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - concur with Nikkimaria's points above, and add the following:

• Numbers of plain numbered external links in the notes - per the MOS those should have titles instead of just plain numbers.
• Needs citations, besides the one Nikkimaria listed, the following are further examples (note I didn't do a complete audit)
  • "...have been associated with grindcore by some commentators."
  • "In addition, grindcore was one influence on the powerviolence movement within American hardcore punk, and has affected some strains of metalcore. Some musicians have also produced hybrids between grind and electronic music."
  • "...was also cited as an influence on early Napalm Death."
• Overlinking -
  • No need to link (just examples) "vegetarians" "satirical" "anti-racism" "feminism" "anti-militarism" "anti-capitalism" "drums" "electric guitar"
  • Overlinking of terms - a number of bands and styles are linked multiple times in the article, which is unneeded. There are SOOO many links that they are distracting to the reader.
• Prose concerns - Many of the sentences feature terms that, while linked, are not explained in the text, forcing the reader to click to another article to discover what is going on. Also, repetition. Example: "Among other influences, Napalm Death took impetus from the industrial music scene.[26] Subsequently, Napalm Death's former guitarist, Justin Broadrick, went on to a career in industrial metal with Godflesh.[24] Mick Harris, in his post-Napalm Death project, Scorn, briefly experimented with the style." Napalm Death is used three times in three sentences - surely that's a bit much?
• Unexplained abbreviations: DIY, RIAA, again, just a sample
• Sources that may not meet WP:RS - this one, this one, this one, and that was just a quick sample.
• This report would need to be checked to make sure that the listed sites are copying Wikipedia and not the other way around.

Strongly suggest enlisting two or more non-music editors to help copyedit for comprehensiveness, etc. Peer Review might be good also. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I repaired all of the bad links except for two. One goes to a site that has a paywall; not sure if that needs to be changed or not, since the text is available for viewing on a myspace page. The second goes to ReGen Magazine, which appears to have wiped out most of its content very recently. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Nikkimaria 04:40, 29 March 2011 [2].

---

Irresistible (Jessica Simpson song)

Nominator(s): Novice7 (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I've worked on this article for quite some time now, and believe it now meets the criteria for an FA. Previous FA nomination archive is here. Thanks. Novice7 (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose on sourcing

• Be consistent in whether you include publishers for newspapers or not
• In general, reference formatting is problematic and should be much more consistent
• Spotchecks found multiple instances of close paraphrasing. Examples: "adds a dimension of her own to the album" vs "added a dimension of her own to the album"; "He calls me every week and encourages me to write for different projects, like Jennifer Lopez, Jessica Simpson, Hall & Oates" vs "Motolla called Bagge each week, encouraging him to write songs for Sony artists, including Jennifer Lopez, Jessica Simpson, and Hall & Oates"; "the song has some very feminine angles" vs "'Irresistible' has some very feminine angles"
• What makes this a reliable source? Walmart? This?
• Can you justify your use of this, this and this via WP:SPS? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the issues Nikkimaria. I guess I've fixed the references and the close paraphrasing issues. As for About.com and ChartStats, I have removed/replaced them. The Walmart review is done by Adrian Zupp (a journalist and writer), who works for Boston Phoenix. If it should not be included, I can remove it. And, I removed the Daniel Pearl and Felipe Nino websites, but the Cameron Casey website shows that he directed the So So Def remix. The DVD also credits him, so, I'll add that reference too. Novice7 (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: nominator has withdrawn this nomination. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:47, 27 March 2011 [3].

---

Netball

Nominator(s): LauraHale (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a comprehensive overview of an important international women's sport. LauraHale (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

N.B. This article was nominated for GA on March 5 and reviewed by User:Bill william compton starting on March 6.[4] The nominator then asked for a replacement reviewer and the call went out for a second opinion. I volunteered and started providing substantive comments around March 13. Meanwhile another editor, User:KnowIG, who had made substantial edits, started a detailed critique. When User:Bill william compton clarified that he had handed off the review to me, KnowIG made uncivil remarks for which he was indefinitely blocked. I got to the point where I had discovered some close paraphrasing and discussed a plan to check the entire article further. At that point, the nominator withdrew the nomination, and no other editor wished to pursue the GA review. Hence, Talk:Netball/GA1 failed. Yesterday, the nominator renominated the article and it was quickly reviewed by an editor who had already made many substantial edits to it. Twelve hours after the nomination, User:Hawkeye7 passed it as meeting all GA criteria without any comments. Talk:Netball/GA2 I am providing this general background in case the recent history arises in the discussions which may follow. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

MOS work needed, and overciting-- this is not a controversial statement, hopefully:

• School leagues and domestic competitions emerged during the first half of the 20th century,[6][7][28][29][30][31][32][33] and in 1924 ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - unfortunately I don't feel the article currently meets the FA criteria. A sampling of issues:

• As Sandy mentions, WP:MOS work is needed - "%" should be spelled out in article text, numbers under 10 should be spelled out, etc
• Prose needs work - lots of short choppy sentences, paragraphs and sections, needs copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow, etc
• ToC is quite long, and many of the subsections are quite short. Also, "Globally" is IMO a bit too long in proportion to the other sections
• Multiple problems with reference formatting (example: "Parliament of New South Wales, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, {{{date}}}, columns 11179–11179, (Alison Megarrity, .") and reliable sources (example, why are you citing a children's alphabet book?) Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose by Cryptic C62. Lots of work still needed.

• Lead balancing: As far as I can tell, Variants and Demographic appeal are not mentioned in the lead.
• I am of the opinion that the various tables in International competitions should be replaced by prose. While detailed statistics may be helpful in the relevant competition articles (such as Netball World Championships and 4 Nations Netball Cup), they don't serve any real purpose.
• The excessive details on passing technique should be removed per WP:NOTHOWTO.
• The caption for File:Netball Court.JPG says "A netball court", but the picture only shows very little of the actual court.
• There are lots of one-sentence paragraphs and very short sections. Fun Net is particularly devoid of content, and should be removed unless more can be added.
• The Globally section is far too large. The need to limit the depth of the TOC is often a good indication that an article has become bloated.
• Prose:
  • "Netball rules do not permit players to let their landing foot touch the ground again if it is lifted at all while in possession of the ball" What is a "landing foot"?
  • Avoid unencyclopedic phrasing such as "Netball began to take off". Planes take off. Sports grow in popularity.
  • "Netball is the favourite women's sport in Jamaica," I assume that "favourite" means "most popular"? The two terms have distinct meanings.
  • "Spar – “Good for You” Netball League is the most important national netball competition in Botswana. Naming rights for the league were given to Sar in 2010." Are "Spar" and "Sar" the same thing?

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose—I suggest that the nomination be withdrawn to address issues with the article. As a secondary reason, this article has been the subject of discussion at a RfC/U. In full disclosure, I am a certifying party to that RfC for other, unrelated issues, and Racepacket (talk · contribs) is the subject of that discussion.

In looking through the article, it does not meet the FA criteria.

• References:
  • Titles rendered by their publishers in ALL CAPS should be reduced to either Title Case or Sentence case per the MOS. The choice over which case style to use is up to the editors of the article, but should be applied consistently to all titles. "FREQUENCY OF ATTENDANCE AT MAIN SPORTS" should be either "Frequency of Attendance at Main Sports" or "Frequency of attendance at main sports". There are others that need to be changed as well.
  • Online references should denote their formats when they aren't standard webpages. New Zealand Indoor Netball (January 2008). "7-a-side Indoor Netball Official Rule Book" is a PDF and should have that indicated. (If using citation templates, add |format=PDF to the template.)
  • Many citations are missing publication locations that I would expect to see. (I don't expect web-only sources to have publication locations, but books I do.) Just one example: Davis, Luke; Davis, Damien (2006). Netball. Getting into. Macmillan Education. ISBN 0732999871. OCLC 156762948. In this case, I'm confused by the "Getting into" section of the citation as well.
  • Newspaper or magazine titles should be in italics: Samoa Observer (18 December 2008). "Samoa prepares for World netball series". Samoa Observer. Retrieved 1 March 2011.
  • Tagg, Brendon (December 2008). `Imagine, a Man Playing Netball!' : Masculinities and Sport in New Zealand. 43. 409–430. doi:10.1177/1012690208099875. Retrieved 28 February 2011. Two issues: even with the doi link, I'd expect to have a publication's name for this source. Second, the quotation marks in the title need to be fixed.
  • A request: can you add ISBNs/ISSNs/OCLC numbers where they are missing, for consistency? This wouldn't be an absolute must, but since so many sources have them, it would be nice if all of them could list them where possible. (I'm not per se asking for both an ISBN/ISSN and a OCLC number, just one is sufficient.)
    • All book citations should now have oclc and isbn when that information is available. LauraHale (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "United States of America Netball Association (USANA)": do we need the abbreviation in the citation? If not, cut it out to reduce the alphabet soup clutter.
  • In the version of the article I've reviewed, footnotes 7 and 165 are broken.
• Content:
  • Until the discussions over netball's status with the IOC is cleared up, I can't state that I'm comfortable with that section of the article. Please note, I'm not taking a position in that discussion, but until it is resolved, that section of the article can't be called "stable" in my mind, and stability is part of the FA criteria.
  • "The Goal Keeper is a specialised defensive position. The player in this position is often the last person that can keep the opposing shooters from scoring.^{[40][45][47][48]}" In my experience, no sentence needs more than two footnotes in most cases. In dealing with highway articles' history sections, we often need to cite to two maps that show the conditions before and after a change. In other cases, a second footnote might be needed for an inflation-adjusted cost figure. Beyond that, seeing multiple references for a sentence raises red flags about the information being presented. Please audit through the article to determine what sentences really require multiple references, and which ones really need only one footnote, even if the information is contained in multiple sources.
  • I don't think all of the boldface text in the "Passing" section meets the standards of the MOS. Please check that it does, or convert the boldface into regular roman text. Ditto "Fun Net", "Netta", and "High Five Netball". The boldfacing in "Fastball" probably checks out as part of a definition-style list.
• Organization:
  • In the Africa section, the countries are not presented in any logical order. (I suggest reorganizing the subsections by alphabetical order.) I'd also move the {{main}} tags from the top of the section to each subsection as appropriate. Why are there not subsections on Lesotho or Namibia, yet they are listed in the list of main articles?
  • Australia should probably be moved to the Oceania section under the Principle of least astonishment, even though the international federation has put it in their Asia grouping.

I've only skimmed the article to identify these concerns. I have not actually read the prose, so I can't and I won't comment on the quality of the writing. Given various circumstances, I'm making a friendly suggestion to withdraw the nomination, let other issues subside and then come back to this article with a fresh state of affairs to consider nominating it. My own FACs are never nominated directly after a GAN review. I always let them go through our project's A-Class Review, WP:PR, or both first. Sometimes I even let them sit for a few weeks or months before the FAC is opened so I can skim through the article first with a clearer head before making the nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 03:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. The article reflects a tremendous improvement in a short period of time, and is a truly impressive collection of information on a broad, interesting, and important topic. However, it bears many hallmarks of an article that has not yet achieved maturity. The text flow is adequate, but falls short of "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." Stability is difficult to assess, because of a number of ongoing debates with this article and related ones. The lead section is very short, and does not provide the kind of overview necessary for such a wide-ranging topic. The structure, while highly detailed and logical, contains far too many sections that are very short, some of them only two sentences. Finally, I believe the article is too long, and should be reworked to take advantage of the many sub-topic articles that exist; it may be necessary to create some additional ones, as well, to achieve the full effect.

That's a lot of critiques, so I want to reiterate: I find the work done here very impressive. One general suggestion: I have worked on one FA on a wide-ranging topic, Columbia River. For that article, it took I believe well over a year of hard work to get it to FA (and there were still many things to do during the review). During that year, a number of editors with backgrounds and interests in different areas came and went, and there was a great deal of discussion around each of the sections. Near the conclusion of that effort, we turned our attention to the lead section, and had a careful discussion about what needed to go in, informed by the in-depth collaboration that had preceded it. I don't want to suggest that every article on a broad topic needs to follow this model, but I present it to give an idea of the scale of effort I associate with the creation of an FA on a broad topic. Simpler topics do not require this level of effort; Stanley Green is one that comes to mind that was written by and experienced Wikipedian and passed in a pretty short amount of time. But for an article like Netball to achieve FA, I think a lot more work by a lot more people will be needed. And it will probably be necessary for some of the personal antagonism to be dealt with before effective collaboration is possible. -Pete (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:10, 26 March 2011 [5].

---

Mount Cleveland (Alaska)

Nominator(s): ResMar 03:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

So, Mount Cleveland. An remote on-and-off active Alaskan volcano with a tendency to scramble flight plans. Now, I know that this is a short-ish article. The Alaska Volcano Observatory have done an amazing job compiling all of the relevant sources online; I contacted them in the writing of the article, and they basically said that, "if it's not there, it probably doesn't exist." Being a remote stratovolcano, Cleveland doesn't exact get a lot of attention from the authorities; but the source digging that took place in the writing of the article covers pretty much all there is to say on the volcano. Cheers! ResMar 03:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• I like the approach taken here (in fairness, I should mention that I'm mentally comparing this to another volcano article I reviewed recently). I particularly liked that an ASTER image of the volcano is used here, as well as an ISS picture. The article is definitely well-illustrated with the obvious pictures. I also like the etymology section and the description of the surroundings and the topographic prominence information. It really helps build a picture of the area in the mind's eye.

Thanks. ResMar 04:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• I also like the explanatory introduction about tectonic plates, but possibly you have over-simplified this. I also think there are some errors there as well. You say "The Earth's crust is covered by several large tectonic plates, which slowly move towards and collide with one another" - this ignores plates that move apart from each other, or move alongside each other. Also, it is not correct to say that tectonic plates cover the crust, the tectonic plates are the crust (technically the crust and the upper mantle - i.e. the lithosphere). Also, you say "As the plate moves deeper into the earth and begins to melt, some of the magma is ejected back up, and erupts out of boundary in the form of a volcano." - the phrase "ejected back up" comes across as a bit colloquial. You also need a "the" before "boundary", though even there, the term "boundary" is probably imprecise. "Erupts upwards from the subduction zone" might be better. You also put "backwash" in quotes - is this an original phrase you have come up with here? If so, the tone comes across an unencyclopedic.

This was written just before the FAC was submitted, so will probably have the largest body of errors. It's night here and I'm tired, so I'll take it on tomorrow. ResMar 05:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok I'll handle what Aw has below and it should be ready. ResMar 04:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Striking my comment, but noting that Awickert will have much more useful things to say. Carcharoth (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• You say "variably vegetated", but nothing more than that. Does anyone say anywhere what the vegetation is, or whether there is any fauna?

Well, nothing more is said. I'm guessing it's just standard fare moss and the like. From pre-hand experience, you can judge the age of a flow by how much primary and secondary growth is on it; it takes about 100 years or so for plants to start growing on an old lava flow. I don't have first-hand experience with Cleveland of course, so I can't say much. I am certain however that the conditions are too volatile for sustained animal life, however. So, in summary, there are not enough sources to tell us that. ResMar 05:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Which source does the Aleut oral tradition come from? It's not entirely clear, and it would be nice to read more on that.

The source doesn't say: "Aleut lore maintains that the two ends of Chuginadak were separate islands and that a volcanic eruption joined them by creating the intervening ismuth." The source is Baker (1906), Geographic Dictionary of Alaska. Judging by the nature of the title, the original source, besides being very difficult to get to, would probably not have any more information then Myers stated in his manuscript. ResMar 05:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Have any studies been done on the rock types produced by the volcano?

No one has really traveled there for any memorable length of time. Except for that one crazy college student...his paper probably has something in it, probably in the "straitography" section. ResMar 05:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Working on it. ResMar 04:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That's all the comments I have for now. Carcharoth (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well the MoS has a policy of using your cited source, not the sources your cited source cites; so unless someone can get their hands on a copy of that old book, we can't reference it directly as a source...ResMar 05:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be a Wikipedia verifibility or citing policy, not a MoS policy. Last I looked, MoS was still a guideline. Anyway, the point I am making here is that I'm not clear which source you are saying has cited Baker (1906). It is perfectly acceptable to be more specific and say that source X (published in 2009) has cited source Y (published in 1906). Currently, all I see used as a reference for that sentence is "Integrated satellite observations of the 2001 eruption of Mt. Cleveland, Alaska", in which I would be surprised to find a reference to the volcano being an Aleut fire goddess. Maybe it is in one of the other sources you use in that section? Essentially, what I'm saying here is that you have three sources for the "Etymology" section, and I can't work out which facts have come from which source. You may need to break down the citations in more detail. Carcharoth (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean here...the first source refers to something in the introduction, the second one is bulk body of the section, and is the one interesting thing Myers says, and the last one is a tiny tidbit off of an Alaskan geological survey. ResMar 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

How is the reader supposed to know which reference is "bulk body of the section"? Carcharoth (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Returning to this review to strike one point, but to reiterate my concerns that the sourcing is not clear. I've read page 41 of the unpublished manuscript (which consists of 203 pages mostly on other stuff) and I see nothing there on the Aleut fire goddess reference. Is it somewhere else in that manuscript? Given the concerns about using this source, you need to be clear what is being sourced from it. I can order a copy of Baker (1906) to consult if that will help. Carcharoth (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• In the info box, the following confused me: "Topo map USGS Samalga Island". Why is the name of a different island in there? I eventually worked out what was going on here by reading the infobox documentation, but I think many readers will get horribly confused here. Also, the reference there is not what I expected - I would have expected a link to where a reader can obtain the topographic map if they want to do that. You appear to have linked to a fact sheet. Please feel free to raise this at the template talk page or anywhere else needed.

I don't honestly know too much about that. The map is not currently available online. ResMar 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I can like to the not available page, but that would be antagonistic to the readers. I may add a note however explaining what it is, if you want. ResMar 04:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably best handled at the template level. What I'd be looking for is something that helps the reader to understand what they are looking at when they read this. Carcharoth (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Also in the infobox, under "Climbing", you have: "Easiest route: By boat from Nikolsk". I think you have misunderstood what that parameter is for. I suspect it is a parameter for mountain climbers to specify the easiest route to the summit from the base of the mountain. Not sure if you want to encourage that here(!), but in any case, it is almost certainly not intended as a place to say how to get to the mountain. Indeed, the template documentation here confirms my suspicions. You will need to change this or drop this parameter altogether if (as is likely) it is not a 'climbing' mountain (due to its remoteness).

Done. ResMar 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've cooled a bit on my enthusiasm for the "Geological setting" section. There is an argument that going too far back along the explanation process is condescending to the readers. The whole first paragraph of this section risks losing the interest of readers as they wonder what this all has to do with this mountain. Of course, all will become clear, but I think you need to start the first sentence of the first section, with a direct reference to the mountain in question - something like: "Mount Cleveland's geological setting is...". This warns the reader that you are going to spend a bit of article-space giving the setting and context, and allows other readers to skim ahead if they want to do that. An alternative is:

  "Mount Cleveland is part of the Aleutian Arc, a long volcanic chain extending off the coast of Alaska. The Aleutian Arc has formed at a boundary between two of the Earth's tectonic plates. [paragraph explaining tectonic plates and volcanoes forming at subduction zones] North American plate activity is personified by..."

  But in general, if a section like this is introduced that might be useful (or objected to) in lots of other articles, it may be best to get some wider consensus first, both for using it and for how it should be written.

Ok, I tried to rearrange it as best I could. ResMar 04:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That helps, but did you try and get wider consensus for how such "geological setting" sections should be written? If this catches on, it will affect a lot of articles. Do other articles currently use this sort of section? Carcharoth (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Three new comments above, from a second reading of the article. Carcharoth (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  Struck some objections as dealt with. Will have a look at others later. Carcharoth (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment:

• I live half a mile from the University of Alaska. If you want me to take a look at the library, drop me a note. You might also try contacting User talk:Adasiak, because he works at the UAF library. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's really neccessary. If something comes up I might, though. We will see. ResMar 04:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources review:-

• Ref 2: Peaklist. The site's home page says: "Peaklist is a free site available to all interested parties ... It is a labor of love (and madness) prepared by dozens of contributors". Fine, but do we know anything about the credentials of these contributors or the degree of editorial control? Has the site been acknowledged by learned organisations, been quoted in articles, etc?

As I understand it the general concensus among the mountain-article writers is that that site is good for elevation/prominence data, but not for anything else. ResMar 23:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, here is some positive confirmation; it is mentioned again here, where the editor says he uses it a lot/it is based on their own analysis of satellite data. It's listed on the WP:MOUNTAINS sources, and skimmed over in a couple of FACs. ResMar 00:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the debate to which you refer here lends much support to the case for reliability of the Peaklist site. Rather the contrary; as is stated, the convenience of a source should not be confused with reliability. I will leave this open for others to decide. Brianboulton (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 8 is the citation for the sentence: "The west coast of North America is the site of plate margins between the large Pacific and North American plates, and also between the smaller Juan de Fuca and Cocos plates." The source does not actually say this; there is no mention of Juan de Fuca, and Cocos is mentioned in a different context.

I couldn't find a proper map; I'll look again :/. The Juan de Fuca is mentioned under a synonymous, but less often used, name. ResMar 23:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, switched to another reference. ResMar 23:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 11: Do we know the status of the unpublished manuscript? The download time is so long that I was unable to examine it, but we need to know its level (PhD thesis, Masters' thesis, scholarly article etc), and the degree of scholarly vetting it received.

The author of the paper has a page on the UWYO site. He's got a PhD in the area, so I'll go with saying that the manuscript is reliable. It's unpublished, so no vetting, although it isn't a thesis (he got his degrees 20 years beforehand). It's reliable enough; there isn't anything else for entomology, so getting rid of the source gets rid of that whole section pretty much. ResMar 23:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean etymology not entomology. :-) But on that topic, could you add in the Aleut legend source you mentioned? The Baker (1906) one you mentioned earlier. That is not actually in the article at present. Going back to the naming of the volcano after Cleveland, surely that must be mentioned elsewhere? More pedantically, I'm not 100% sure that the legends giving rise to the native name, and the person the voclano was named after, are strictly etymology (which is more changes in the linguistic formation of a word), but I can't think of a more precise section title. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not mentioned anywhere else, as a matter of fact, finding it was a big accomplishment for me. The article is stitched togethor, so many of the sources stand alone as the only ones for what little extra tidbit they may say. ResMar 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I did find this (PDF) from the Alaska state legislature where (at the end of an inordinately long list of things named after Ronald Reagan) they name other things named after former presidents, including Cleveland, and cite the USGS as the source of their information. Though worryingly they say Mount Cleveland is "near" Skagway! Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Back to my initial point; the fact that the author of an unpublished paper has a PhD in a related field doesn't mean that the paper itself can be taken, automatically, to be reliable. Unpublished, unvetted papers are in general not accepted by WP as reliable scholarly sources. I realise this is awkward if there is no alternative source readily available, but I would urge that you look for an alternate confirmatory source. Brianboulton (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't see why it is less accurate then any other web-hosted document. It's posted on the AVO site; you want me to contact them again about the reliability of it? ResMar

Doesn't seem to be a problem. I don't think the AVO geologists would blindly put up something that wasn't accurate. If it was good enough material for them, it's good enough material for Wikipedia. ResMar 04:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. Spotchecks carried out; apart from the issue in Ref 8 above, all is well here. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Images

• "Astronauts were the first to observe the eruption, and alerted the Alaska Volcano Observatory." - source?

Explicitly linked in the image description. Putting it in the cap seems redundant. ResMar 05:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean it's supported by the image source link? That doesn't particularly matter, especially given that the image description page doesn't contain this information. Even if it seems redundant to you, I would recommend you source it in the caption and/or include it in the article and source it there. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 04:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• File:MountCleveland.jpg - I'm not sure that this image is PD. The USGS disclaimer generally applies only to photos created by USGS employees, and this one was not. Furthermore, the statement from the source page that you quote ("this photograph is "for use by the interested public, multimedia producers, desktop publishers, and the high-end printing industry") does not explicitly invoke public domain.

Elaborate. The AVO works by the lowest common denominator, meaning, the USGS usually works public, so AVO usually works public (domain). The AVO is the USGS and two Universities in Alaska. I sent an e-mail; usually they give a green light on these things. ResMar 05:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence of your assertion that "AVO works by the lowest common denominator"? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it's just something I know. Still waiting on the email. ResMar 21:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok I got positive conformation. I can foward you the email if you would like. ResMar 23:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to forward it, but can you confirm what exactly it's confirming - that AVO works by lowest common denominator, that the image is PD, something else...? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"these are all public domain so feel free to use as you wish. They may be reproduced with no further permission. If possible to credit the photographer and their affiliation and/or USGS, that is terrific."ResMar 04:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)(Condensed by Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC))

Okay, that's fine then, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• File:USA_Alaska_location_map.svg - what data source was used to create this map?

Ugh, I think this popped up in the GAC. I have no clue. I have no involvement whatsoever with the creation of a basic SVG map of Alaska. It could have been taken off of the layout in NASA Worldwind for all I know! Contact the people in charge of that group of templates; I can't say anything for the map. ResMar 05:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• File:Alaska's_Aleutian_Island_(ASTER).jpg - description is copy-pasted from source page and should be noted as such

Done. ResMar 05:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• File:Flag_of_Alaska.svg - source links are dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Switched to a new link, although it may not have been uploaded by the same person. The Flag of Alaska is cut and dry stuff, so it doesn't matter much. ResMar 05:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The main homepage link is still dead, although that's less of an issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate this part...ResMar 05:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment on the new "Geological setting" section: there are no refs for the subduction dynamics, which is probably why it is wrong. The slab does not melt; rather, certain mineral phases dewater as they enter an unstable temperature-pressure regime, and this water causes the local mantle to melt; looking up "flux melting" could be useful. Awickert (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Awickert, stop making everything look complicated and me look like an idiot =) Will do... ResMar 21:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, sorry, that was unnecessarily blunt. I found a press release here about this relatively recent paper on it. Awickert (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Gah, so busy, sorry guys =( ResMar 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize; this is my first time on in days. Good luck with it, Awickert (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this will be the last thing I will handle, probably tommorow. ResMar 04:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have now combed over the section again, what do you think? Stress that some more? Other source...? ResMar 03:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I just revised it and shortened it. You might want to find a generic ref or two on the Aleutian arc to slap in there; shouldn't be hard with the interwebs. I think that the air travel part could be put in another section, but I'll leave that to you. Awickert (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, its in the dangers section, but I felt one sentence would be good there. ResMar 22:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is beyond the scope of that section, but it's ultimately your call. Awickert (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments from NortyNort

• "The island was abandoned for the remainder of the war" - Although the easy assumption can be made, World War II should be specified.

Don't really see why; kick to the flow. ResMar 03:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, I w/l'd war to WWII which suffices.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Nikolski is 75km east of the volcano, not 40km.
• Rhyolite. I know it is a volcanic rock but I was curious why its discovery was mentioned.

Because it the only rock I can find that was recovered off the volcano. ResMar 03:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• In the picture caption of the Tana complex, I had to view the picture's caption on the file page before I understood that the dark lines were on the cone. Specifying that would be more helpful.
• Off hand, the last paragraph in the Geography and setting section seems like it would be better placed in the Eruptive history section.

I enjoyed the read and learned what "breadcrust bombs" are. I just have minor comments on the review. The article is "short-ish" and after poking through the sources in the AVO library along with some searches, I am not sure much more could be added, aside from a great amount of undue detail. I submitted the article for a CorenBot search but results haven't come back and I couldn't check dead-links. Both are probably due to the whole Toolserver being down now. I will comment on that later.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, almost all of the sources mentioned in the article mention Cleveland only in passing detail. ResMar 03:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I will hopefully get to this on the weekend. ResMar 21:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, CorenBot and a dead link check came back negative.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:04, 26 March 2011 [6].

---

Knock You Down

Nominator(s): Candyo32 23:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked on it for a while, and it has met GA criteria, and now I believe it may be a potential featured article. Candyo32 23:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Images

• "frenetic mid-tempo groove." - this quote in article text omits the hyphen; does the original source include it? Amend one of the two occurrences as necessary

Done.

• File:Knockyoudown.jpg - is there a more specific source link available? The image does not appear on the linked page. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Candyo32 14:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Why is there no length in the infobox?

done-t

• Add CD single to formats

done-t

• "recording artist and songwriter" could be replaced by singer-songwriter

done-t

• Remove commas after Ne-Yo and Cossom

done-t

• "which also includes elements of pop music" - remove "also"

done-t

• Give a specific release date in teh lead

done-t

• "coincidentally it was released at the time surrounding the death of the late singer" - rewrite
• RIANZ needs to be spelled out in full

done-t

• Open the background section by naming personnel (writers and producer, at least)
• Recording and release info needs to be here too
• Ref 3 (sheet music) is dead/redirects. Try [7]

I was told to format similar to the FA 4 Minutes (Madonna song), which doesn't use the url.

But the link of ref 3 (hmv) redirects to the home page. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• You need to attribute sheet music sources in prose

Could you point out what needs sourcing in the prose?

What I mean is you need to say "According to the sheet music published at Musinotes.com by xyz publishing, blah blah..." Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Coincidentally, the song was released in numerous territories around the death of the singer." How about the time of the death?
• "West also refers to the domestic abuse accusations against his Jackson's father" - stray "his"
• Do not link inside quotes
• "in the following lyric" → in the line,
• "and would later go on" - write in past tense
• "It was a success in the United States also" - the Hot 100 is US
• "It success in Europe allowed it to chart" - slightly weasel-ish. 'It' needs an 's', as well
• Reduce File:Knockyoudownvideo.jpg to 300px wide

Done

• "intro" is colloquial

Done

• "diss" is slightly colloquial, too

I don't know another word to use instead of "diss" to give the same meaning, what would you recommend? Per another editors comments below, I put diss in quotations.

• "neither camps" - change to singular

Removing completely per below comments.

• Would the performance on Dick Clark's New Year's... not have been on 31 Dec, not 1 Jan?

Hilson's performance on the show was after 12 a.m.

• Is there an image of a performance? If not, then an image of Hilson?

There is not one of her performing the song, and I don't see how just a regular image of her would be relevant with the album artwork and music video cap.

• Credits: order names alphabetically, and link tasks
• Can you shift the year-end charts to the right?
• The release history needs to be more comprehensive, as the song was obviously released outside these three countries

Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it really necessary considering a release history isn't a component of WP:SONGS anyway? Candyo32 19:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources review:

• Nitpicks
  • Ref 2: "Digital Spy" is not a print source and should not be italicised

done-t

• • Ref 4 should have a date

There is an accessdate there, I don't know why its not showing up.

• Reliability
  • I'm not saying they're not reliable, but Hitfix (ref 7) and Singersroom (ref 333) are both new to me. Are there any recommendations or references to these sites that can help to confirm them as high quality reliable sources?

I found that Singersroom won the 2010 Soul Train Award for Best Soul Site. [8] Candyo32 21:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Spotchecks
  • Among the several statements cited to Ref 2 are the following. I cannot find these, or indeed any reference to Michael Jackson, in this source. Where ought I to be looking?
    • "In "Knock You Down", Kanye West makes multiple references to Michael Jackson, and coincidentally, the song was released in numerous territories around the death of the singer."
    • "The song also includes electronic tones, and derives from pop and hip-hop genres"
    • "In West's lines, he references Michael Jackson and his song "Bad" in the lines "This is bad, real bad, Michael Jackson." Coincidentally, the song was released in numerous territories around the death of the singer"
    • "West also refers to the domestic abuse accusations against his Jackson's father, Joe, in the following lyric "Now mad, real mad, Joe Jackson."
  • The followng statement is cited to ref 25: "In an interview on the Today Show, anchor Hota Kotb made a remark to Ne-Yo, stating, 'You have this really hot new video that you do with Kanye West and another woman named Keri. You [and Kanye] are such big stars. How did this happen?' Blogs reported this as a possible diss toward Hilson, however, neither camps reported anything after the fact." The word "diss" is an obvious colloquialism and, if you are to use it, should be in quotes. Also, blogs don't "report", they "comment". My main concern, though, is that the final part of the sentence, "neither camps reported anything after the fact." is not covered within the source.

Quoted diss, and removed last part.

Other spotchecks proved OK but I was only able to cover a fairly small proportion of the refs. Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:42, 26 March 2011 [9].

---

Steph Cunningham

Nominator(s): RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 15:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the subject matter is notable, a lot of work has been put into this article over time. I feel it's potential and believe it meets the requirements. I think fictional characters can be subject to a number of issues. We have made it broad in coverage, made sure it is not biased by including big contribuations from an editor who was not familiar with the subject. Followed the MoS really closely. Also we have kept things brief, there is sometimes the temptation, to include information that only a fan would see useful, so we've cut that out.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 15:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Images

• File:Steph_Cunningham_(Hollyoaks).jpg: need more information. What season/episode did the screenshot come from? Who owns the copyright to the show?

This has just been added, it's not part of the nomination.90.215.255.53 (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That image was added after the nomination like stated above, not relevant here. It has been removed now anyway. It was a non-free screenshot, which is not acceptable for FA. There was no point adding it back and adding a rationale.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 00:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations
• Reference formatting should be more consistent
• Newspaper references without web links should have page numbers
• What makes this a reliable source?

Spotchecks not done yet, will try to do later. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - The locations will be removed, they are not meant to be there, as we don't know the location for some, therefore non will be added. There are no newspaper ref's without weblinks, so not sure what you mean there. Lowculture is a popular culture website that was once taken to the reliable sources notice board and deemed fair. If they should be more consistent in formatting, then how?RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 00:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

My mistake on the newspaper refs, thought I saw a couple but can't find any now. Could you provide a link to the RSN discussion you mention? As to the formatting issue, there are multiple inconsistencies. For example, compare ""Carley Stenson - Steph Cunningham in Hollyoaks". Chester Chronicle. (Trinity Mirror). 22 September 2010. Retrieved 2 November 2010." to "Johnson, Emma (26 August 2003). "Steph does her TV homework; Emma Johnson sees how Hollyoaks deals with epilepsy". Liverpool Echo. Trinity Mirror. Retrieved 4 March 2011." to "Brown, Merle (2 November 2002). "Soap watch: Sick Scott wallows in being shallow; Emmerdale". Daily Record. Glasgow, Scotland: Trinity Mirror. Retrieved 4 March 2011." - these three citations should be formatted in the same way. This is an example of inconsistency to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

All publishers are cited the same way now, there are no locations anymore. I can't find that. Seems legit, seems to have recieved media attention and praised by The Gaurdian newspaper. What's your view?RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 02:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

My concern about the site is it seems to be a blog (hosted by WordPress, anyways), there's no contact info ("contact us" page is broken) and no author bio (the "about us" page is quite uninformative), and there's no real way to tell from the site itself why it would meet WP:RS. Do you have more information about it? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No I don't, I just noticed it's always been used and is in a few GA articles. Other than the mentions from the reputable news ppublications, I'd be at a loss. Anyway, I set up a new thread at reliable sources, if the deem it not fit I'll remove it for sure. Are the refs okay now btw? (I think I got it right?)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 02:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Better. A couple with issues (27 and 51), otherwise all fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

They are? Should the archive date be alone in ref 51 and not have an accessdate? Not sure what is wrong with 27 though..RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 03:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

27 is a single-page ref and should thus use "p." instead of "pp."; 51 should not italicize "Press Association". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, that is now fixed.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 04:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Lowculture reception has been removed following light discussion at the sources noticeboard.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 15:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

All sourcing issues have been addressed, although I haven't done spotchecks for close paraphrasing and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Spotchecks/WP:V
• Quotes in lead need to be cited
• the Daily Record's Merle Brown referred to her as "a true red-blooded female,[10] - where does this quote end?
• Some inaccuracies, spelling errors, etc in direct quotes - check for accuracy
• My spotchecks turned up multiple instances of overly close paraphrasing. Examples: "It has been my dream job for ten years and I shall miss all of the fantastic friends I have made in the cast and crew" vs "Hollyoaks had been her "dream job" and that she would miss her friends in the cast and crew"; "the episode's director, who had witnessed seizures first-hand, having once worked in a hospital" vs "the director had witnessed them first hand. He used to work in a hospital"; "she had previously been the only actress in the village." vs "she's been the only actress in the village"
• I also found several instances where material in the text is not supported by the cited source. For example, "When his younger brother Tom (Ellis Hollins) developed a crush on her, the "kind, sensitive way" Steph handled it altered his impression, with Littler explaining: "Max begins to realise there's more to her than her looks. He begins to think she's actually really nice and they become friends."" is cited to this story which doesn't say any of what it's supposed to support; similarly, "This inspired a rivalry with fellow budding actor Summer Shaw (Summer Strallen), which saw Steph "determined to keep the limelight on her."" is cited to this, which does not include that information.

Oppose unless/until these issues are addressed. Note also that the above are examples only, not a comprehensive list of all verifiability problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Support I support this beautifully written article, and fantastic read. A lot of work has gone into it. HorrorFan121 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I haven't got past the lead. Poor quality prose and unclear, poorly structured lead, which doesn't explain who the character is in relation to the programme, or why the character is notable. This is poor quality for a GA, and if there were not this FA nomination in hand, I would bring this to a community GAR. SilkTork *^YES! 00:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As a GA review this does not appear to be thorough enough, and this came just three days after what appears to be a very exacting and detailed review in which the decision was not to list. SilkTork *^YES! 00:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It was failed because I requested it to be. So it would recieve a fair review. However that reviews points were adressed the next day and the article recieved a major copy edit, excluding the lead.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 02:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:40, 26 March 2011 [10].

---

Mangalorean Catholics

Nominator(s): Joyson Noel (talk • contributions) 13:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the article’s second nomination for FA status. It currently holds GA status. I believe that this article satisfies the current criteria for FA, as it is well-researched and well-referenced with credible sources. All the images are either in the public domain or have been released under Creative Commons licenses. Having failed the previous nomination, the article has since been thoroughly copy-edited by User:Diannaa and User:Mike Searson, not to mention myself. The spellings have been anglicized to correspond with Indian English, which uses the British variant of spelling. Furthermore, the article has undergone a peer review. See this. All the issues raised therein have been addressed. Another user Kensplanet had previously requested a peer review for the purpose of ascertaining whether it met the FA requirements or not. See here. In the interest of avoiding repetitive questions, i would suggest that the concerned reviewer/s go through the above links, as well as this link to the article’s previous nomination. Thanks. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 13:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - not to be discouraging, but I don't feel this article is ready for FA status at this time. A sampling of concerns:

• I appreciate that the article's been copyedited, but prose is still highly problematic. You've got a typo in a section heading, several instances of USEng spelling, some very short and choppy sentences and paragraphs, and a general lack of clarity and flow in the text
• Manual of style issues: "%" should be spelled out in article text, wikilinking problems (both overlinking and underlinking: link potentially unfamiliar terms on first appearance, don't link very common terms at all), etc
• Multiple inconsistencies in reference formatting, missing information (for example, page numbers for non-weblinked newspapers and magazines). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Are there any more? Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 14:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Given certain time constraints, it should take about 4 to 5 days for me to re-vamp the article. Please refrain from voting till then. Any comments, however, will be greatly appreciated. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 16:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are more. As indicated above, this is a sampling of concerns - I didn't think it necessary to list every single problem with the article to oppose its promotion. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I too am sorry to be discouraging, but I have to agree with Nikkimaria that the article isn't yet ready. I'll give a few more examples, and I stress that these are merely examples:

• "In 1526 Portuguese ships arrived in Mangalore, and local converts slowly increased." The converts increased?
• "They observed their traditional Hindu customs ...". Who is "they" referring to here? The last subject of the preceding sentence is the "native Bednore rulers of South Canara", but I suspect this is really referring to the Goan Catholics agriculturists. Why "agriculturists" instead of "farmers" anyway?
• "Most migrants were people from the lower economic strata who had been left out of government and economic jobs". Rather ungainly. Better to say something like "who had been excluded from government and economic jobs". What is an "economic job" anyway?
• ... their lands had been confiscated due to heavy taxation under the Portuguese in Goa". I don't understand this at all. Skipping over the use of "due to", in what way did heavy taxation lead to land being confiscated?
• "... he was entrusted the spiritual nourishment of Christian community in Mangalore and other parts of India by Pope John XXII." seems to be at least one word missing there.
• Is the article using American or British English? I see "honoured", but "colored".

Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - the prose needs work. I found way too many repetitions of "Mangalorean Catholic" all over the prose, which is repetitious and interrupts the flow of the prose. It's also way over linked - there is no need to link things like "spices" "pineapple", "Roman Catholic", too many links to Portugese, and similar.

• What makes http://www.daijiworld.com/chan/exclusive_arch.asp?ex_id=955 a reliable source?

Daijiworld Media is a private media company with a daily viewer-ship of around 100,000 visitors from around 180 countries, roughly 60% of whom are Non-resident Indian (NRI) Mangaloreans.

• Likewise http://www.ethnologue.com/home.asp?

William Bright, editor of Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America in 1986, wrote that "Ethnologue is indispensable for any reference shelf on the languages of the world."

• Likewise http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=32675&n_tit=News+headlines?
• Current ref 186 lacks publisher and last accessdate at the very least.
• This source Journey through… is actually not published in 1988, it was originally published in 1807, and should reflect that.
• Same with the Bowring source - originally published in 1893.
• The Cardona - this appears to be an anthology - is Cardona the author of all that you've cited there?
• The two Heras sources - they are apparently two volumes of the same multi-volume work, why are they cited completely differently?
• The Jordanes source - originally published in 1863.
• The Natan work is self published, is he an expert? Does he fulfill WP:SPS?

I don't think so. It was added by another user. I'll try to find out an alternative source.

• Why are we citing a historian who died in 1928 for his History of the Popes, for "Ludwig von Pastor author of The History of the Popes, from the Close of the Middle Ages. Volume 39 emphasizes saying "countless" Mangalorean Catholics were hanged, including women with their children clinging around their necks. Others were trampled or dragged by elephants." Surely we can cite something more recent for this information, or something on the actual subject of the history of India? And that sentence is badly constructed also.

I have so far been unable to find an alternative source. I plan on purchasing new books to be used as reference for the related Seringapatam Captivity article.

• The two Silva refs are apparently to the same multi-volume work, why are they cited utterly differently?
• Prose - at random and these are just examples. I found the prose very unengaging and difficult to read, as it was often made up of many short choppy sentences and paragraphs
  • "Mangalorean Catholics have retained many Indian customs and traditions; these are especially visible during the celebration of a marriage.[187] Their culture is more traditional and Indian." these two thoughts don't mesh well together - what are these traditions that the Catholic traditions are "more traditional and Indian" than?
  • "The German missionary Plebot set up the first tile factory at Mangalore in 1860. It was called the Basel Mission tile factory.[142] Mangalorean Catholics learnt the technique of preparing Mangalore tiles.[29] The Albuquerque tile factory, the first Indian Mangalore tile factory, was started in South Canara by Pascal Albuquerque, a Mangalorean Catholic, at Pane Mangalore in 1868. Since then, Mangalorean Catholics have been actively involved in manufacturing the tiles. The Alvares tile factory was established in Mangalore by Simon Alvares, a Mangalorean Catholic from Bombay, in 1878." Repeat "Mangaloran Catholic" much there? And too many short choppy sentences which makes the prose very hard to read.
  • "The Mangalorean Catholics came to Bombay out of economic necessity.[126] The first permanent settlement of Mangalorean Catholics in Bombay was recorded in the 1890s.[127] The first Mangalorean Catholic settlement in Madras was recorded in the 1940s.[128] Joachim Alva, a Mangalorean Catholic politician, actively participated in uniting the Mangalorean Catholic community against the British during the Indian Independence Movement." Again with the repetition of MC, as well as stilted phrasing.
  • "Their captivity at Seringapatam (1784–1799), where many died, were killed, or were forcibly converted to Islam, led to the formation of a separate and common Mangalorean Catholic cultural identity among members of the group, who hitherto had considered themselves an extension of the larger Goan Catholic community." the various bits about "died, killed…" interrupt the flow of the prose and make it difficult to connect the first part of the sentence with the last part.
• Another concern is that you often attribute too much. It's very common to see constructions like "Historian Alan Machado Prabhu, author of Sarasvati's Children: A History of the Mangalorean Christians (1999), estimates that almost 95% of Mangalorean Catholics have Goan origins." That bit of the title and the date of publication only impede the reader. Unless the work is so notable it has its own article, you don't need to mention it in the attribution.

My opinion is that the work needed (given the large size of the article) would be too much for the normal review period. It's an impressive work, but needs some prose polishing and editing for conciseness as well as making sure you're only presenting the important facts. The prose feels like a jumble of information put together, and doesn't engage the reader. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur. I don't think that it would be possible for me to make the necessary changes within the normal review period. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 11:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:29, 21 March 2011 [11].

---

ILoo

Nominator(s): Smallman12q (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...the topic has met GA criteria and is sufficiently well-written and sourced that it should be able to become a FA. Smallman12q (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Use a consistent date format
• Be consistent in whether publisher locations are included
• All web citations need retrieval date
• Use consistent names - for example, is the Seattle paper the "Post Intelligencer" or the "Post-Intelligencer"?
• In general citation formatting should be more consistent
• Authors should be listed either first name or last name first consistently
• Newspaper articles without web links should have page numbers
• Can you justify your use of this site?
• Ref 24: formatting
• Check WP:Further reading for relevant guideline on that section - you may need to transfer some entries to External links or remove them entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the dates, ordered the further reading by name, and expanded the doi. If the page isn't included in the ref, then the database didn't provide me with one, as for this site, its an online version of The computer desktop encyclopedia.Smallman12q (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• I think we can do more to pin down whether the iLoo was intended to serve as a Wi-Fi hot spot or whether it was merely going to use Wi-Fi for an internet connection. (Of course, many rock concerts and festivals are in locations without Wi-Fi, so it is hard to follow how internet connectivity was to be established.)

I'm not sure how to word this in there. Microsoft would have no problem running an adhoc lan wifi, or simply a cable...though no sources say...Smallman12q (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I know I risk getting a reputation for being preoccupied with loos and wires, but to power the various computers and vacuum toilet they must have a power line, so I assumed that they would have a broadband line as well. Perhaps the design was not refined to that point, but it struck me as odd that they explicitly specified a Wi-Fi antenna and a public access computer on the exterior of the unit in their drawings without contemplating a hot spot. Racepacket (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Are we sure that the official typography for Cubitt's product was the i-loo with a lower case L? The quotation has a capital L.

Fixed...should be i-Loo.

• Perhaps add a comma after "After reading an article on the iLoo"

Fixed, and changed to "about" the loo to prevent confusion=PSmallman12q (talk)

• Although not directly on point, the article might mention that many promotions have since occurred at rock concerts, outdoor festivals, and running events offering free internet connectivity, but they were not tightly coupled with toliets.

Feel free to add that in...though I'm not sure where.

• The article is clear that Microsoft's iLoo never went forward, but does not say one way or the other whether the i-Loo was displayed following April 2003.

Not sure...can't find any mention of it beyond 2003.

Racepacket (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me know if there's anything else.Smallman12q (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• If you need a reference for vacuum toilets, look at: http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/question314.htm

Fascinating=PSmallman12q (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Support - Racepacket (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have just added some alt-text to the image, I don't know if you want to check it over for errors. Having read the article through several times, I can't see anything wrong with it (the article, not the idea). This should be a great candidate for the 1st April TFA. Support. Bob talk 13:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• This article seems to have been unnaturally forced into {{Web browsers}} and {{MSN services}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Unnaturally forced? How so?Smallman12q (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I may be out of my expertise, but this is not an article about a web browser or a MSN enterprise. How do you justify its inclusion on either.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The iLoo sought to bring the internet to the toilet through a browser...so I thought it relevant. Though MSN didn't release the iLoo, it did have a negative influence on the brand (as the article shows), so I thought it too was sufficiently relevant.Smallman12q (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. . .I will let other decide this issue. It is a bit outside my expertise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I am completely unconvinced by this article, the research behind it, and the quality of the writing. Some examples of the latter, and I stress examples:

• "The following day on May 13, 2003, however, Microsoft retracted the denial the next day, stating the iLoo had been a legitimate demonstration project ..."

• "... that was to be released in Britain for the summer music festivals, but had terminated by Microsoft executives in Redmond, Washington".

• "Prior to the cancellation, an iLoo prototype was in the "early of construction".

• I could go on and on and on, but the bottom line is that this is very far from the finished article and is being rushed. because of the April 1 deadline. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't intend for it to run on April 1, I was aiming for April 30 in honor of the press release. I don't believe Wikipedia should reuse April fool's jokes, and running it on April 1st would needlessly bash Microsoft, while simultaneously discrediting the i-loo as a viable concept for Andrew Cubitt...and thus unfairly supporting Microsoft's point of view.Smallman12q (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Revisiting because I've been given to believe that the article has been copyedited since my comments above. I'm afraid though that it still doesn't cut the mustard for me. Just from the lead:

• Is it "Internet" or "internet"?
• "However, on May 13, another Microsoft press release stated that although the project had not been a hoax but had been cancelled because it would do little to promote the MSN brand." Doesn't make sense. What's that "although" doing there?
• There has since been speculation as to whether the project was cancelled for fear of being sued by Andrew Cubitt ...". That's very slack. The project couldn't have been afraid of being sued.
• "It was intended as the next in a series of successful initiatives by MSN UK which sought to introduce the internet in unusual locations, including MSN Street, MSN Park Bench and MSN Deckchair." So "MSN Street" and so on are locations?

Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. This nomination should be withdrawn. It's very-badly written and silly errors remain; "Oh May 13, 2003, Microsoft retracted the denial". The prose is stagnant and there are many illogical sentences, which try to convey too many ideas at once. It desperately needs a thorough going over by an experienced editor.Sorry. Graham Colm (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

A quick look turns up basic grammatical errors, such as: and what would be happen if the keyboard was urinated upon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:24, 20 March 2011 [12].

---

SS Edmund Fitzgerald

Nominator(s): North8000 (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because we think it is ready, and believe that it is both a famous and interesting topic. Famous for many reasons, including a 729 foot long ship going down in a huge storm with 35 ft waves on a lake, with all hands lost, and the cause remaining a mystery. In early November 2010 we went into high gear on an effort to improve this article, with the ultimate goal of becoming Featured Article of the Day on November 10, 2011, the anniversary of the date that the Edmund Fitzgerald sank. We have put ourselves through several self-reviews which were as tough as we could make them. We then asked for and received a thorough review when it achieved GA. We then submitted it to Peer Review, and asked for and received a thorough review by several individuals, a process which has now been completed. In the last 4 months we have made about 1,800 edits to the article itself, trying to make it the best possible, and responding to all of the expert feedback which we received and are so so thankful for. We have active editors ready to respond to any feedback. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Support - based on responses to my concerns and progress made regarding other user's points as well. Comments from Canada Hky (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC) I love the song, and enjoyed reading the article. Just a few notes, as this mainly focuses on sea-faring (lake-faring?) terms that gave me pause in the article. Apologies in advance if any of these are stupid questions. Just think of me as an inquisitive idiot.

Thanks! We'll address them in line. As a general note, during PR it was indicated that we're near the max recommended size....we trimmed it a bit, and thus we're also having to keep that in mind. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• What's a "long ton" - is a wikilink possible? Also, I realize this might be a function of significant figures available in the source, but under "Design and construction" 26000 long tons = 26000 t, but under "Career", we have 27,402 long tons = 27,842 t.

  I corrected that now (wikilink and missing conversion precision fixing). --Rontombontom (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding the christening, the cite placement seems strange, being placed after "christening", and then not having a cite for the fact that it took three tries.

  Thanks for pointing that out. I moved it to the end of the sentence. North8000 (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• I might have missed it, but would a link to flagship be useful in the career section?

  Yes, thanks. I added it. North8000 (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Was there a reason they stopped carrying guests a few weeks before the ship sank?

  I can't find anything in the sources about why they stopped carrying passengers a few weeks before the ship sank. It is probably a safe assumption it was because heavy weather on the Great Lakes usually begins by the first of November but Stonehouse didn't give a reason.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done So I think a statement leading a reader to believe that such was overall ended does not have a basis. I was copy editing that sentence anyway for a different reason, and changed it to the known statement. ....that they were carried as recently as a few weeks before the sinking. North8000 (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "It ran aground in 1969 and collided with the S.S. Hochelaga in 1970. It struck the wall of a lock later that same year, and again in 1973." - anyway to eliminate the consecutive "It" to start the sentence.

  That was a simple copyedit: I exchanged the second "It" with the ship name in the next sentence. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• In this sentence "...made the Fitzgerald a young ship when it foundered." is "foundered" referring to the previously described incidents, or the sinking?

  For ships "founder" specifically means sinking and is used a lot in the article. I changed the word to "sank" in the case which you noted to avoid confusion with the previous sentence by those less familiar with the term. North8000 (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Captain Paquette of the Sykes reported that after 1 a.m., he overheard McSorley say that his ship was working so much that he had reduced his RPMs." - why is that important / relevant? I understand that if the ship is working harder, RPMs increase - but I don't understand the relationship in this sentence.

  It could be that only the deceased captian could say for sure what he meant. But I think it's pretty sure that that meant that the ship was really getting beat up and possibly stressing/flexing/twisting pounding through the waves at the prior speed. And the "reducing the RPM's" is a way of saying he was lowering the ship's speed. I think that the significance is that this is a sourced indication that the ship was first starting to have a hard time. I guess the question is whether we should add more explanation on that without venturing into OR. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  If it can't be adequately explained, the other option is to remove it. I agree that the exact meaning is unknown because the captain isn't around to clarify, but it is confusing as is. Canada Hky (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done. Substituted everyday wording for both terms. North8000 (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "lee" - has this been linked, or explained previously?

  Thanks for pointing that out. I added an internal link. North8000 (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• In the "Cargo hold flooding" section, the following sentence, "To avoid paying overtime even in foul weather, it was common practice for ore freighters to set out with not all of the clamps locked in place on the hatch covers." I don't see the link between OT and the hatches? Possibly an explanation of how long it would take to close the clamps? In the next sentence, with the "weather permitting" part - does this mean they would leave them open in bad weather?

  This tripped me, too, when I did a peer review of the article; it was then that the editors chose a direct quote, but maybe a paraphrase to avoid the confusion would be better. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  The only solution that I can think of is a much briefer statement with a different source. "Avoid OT" I think means that to fully fasten the clamps in port within the desired shipping schedule would require longer (more expensive) work days. And I'm guessing "weather permitting" was a mis-speak, that they meant meant "if weather required". But that would be pretty far into OR to say that from the quote. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  My guess was that in the quoted sentence, "weather permitting" was not a mis-speak, but an indication that the time-consuming clamping work at port could take even longer than a day if weather is bad. But as you guessed differently and as Fifelfoo was confused, at least a longer quote (giving context) is necessary for the use of this source for a clearer paraphrase; if the context doesn't make things clear, then another source as you say. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  The "weather permitting" sentence was a precise quote. I paraphrased it. I hope that helps clear it up. I deleted the part about overtime.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Lack of instrumentation" - "Mark Twain's time" - when exactly is that? Also, how recent a development was a fathometer? Cutting edge technology in 1975, or its been around for 40 years?

  I deleted "Mark Twain and clarified that fathometers were available when the Fitzgerald sank. The source did not specify when fathometers were developed or first in use.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• The article uses both Sykes and Wilfred Sykes, is it common to switch between? I noticed the usage of Fitzgerald is fairly consistent.

  Thanks. We discussed this regarding the Fitz and decided that the we'd use "Edmund Fitzgerald" for the first occurrence in each section and then just the "Fitzgerald" after that. I think we need to apply that same rule to the Sykes. North8000 (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  That has now been done. North8000 (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Also, it is frequently "Captain Paquette" vs. "Paquette", but almost always "McSorley".

  Revised for consistency.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

1c/2c review. Source quality in general looks good (with a few notes below on 2 sources), except, I am at sea with music source quality, and cannot review that. Interesting article from the lede and citations. Citation quality stuff is just fixits. I do not check for plagiarism or close paraphrasing. DOIs are fine, but only present for a limited number of academic works (1?). This is a fairly normal sourcing and citation quality review for me, with normal issues noted; but: Possible COI note: North8000 and I both edit on a contentious and difficult article, closers ought to be aware that I've attempted to avoid any COI; but, please take into account this possible source of COI on my part. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC) All fixits requested performed in a timely manner. 1c/2c is good except for: music citations, plagiarism and paraphrase checking (which I don't do). Well done to the article authors for such quick responses Fifelfoo (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

As a note, I'm totally cool with it, don't consider it COI, and thank you for your work North8000 (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• To clean up the FAC, and encourage other reviewers, detailed discussion of citations was moved to the fac talk page for this article. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this Nikkimaria's Oppose? Hard to tell since the sig is separated by commentary. What is the status? Has Nikkimaria been pinged? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's mine, and unfortunately I'm not ready to change my declaration. Most of the specific issues I brought up have been fixed, but the general issues (MoS and prose quality in particular, haven't rechecked referencing lately) are still problematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Doing more review and work on it regarding prose. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Worked on prose revision. Suggestions are welcome.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Just completed more review and work on prose, with the help of someone else who I asked to look over my shoulder in the process. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Dab link to merchant seaman, ref 234 is a broken link

  Could not find at that pointer, Nor in a text search of the whole article and of the pre-nomination version of the article. Could you clarify? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  Merchant seaman is a strange disambiguation page, with one link to Merchant Navy and another to a redirect to the same. Ref 234 apparently became ref 232 in the meantime; fixed both. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Quite a few run-on sentences - please split or reword

  Some examples:

  • "SS Edmund Fitzgerald (nicknamed "Mighty Fitz," "Fitz," or "Big Fitz") was an American Great Lakes freighter, which was known for its size and became famous after sinking in a Lake Superior storm on November 10, 1975, with the loss of the entire crew" - move size to another sentence

    Revised.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  • "The Fitzgerald set seasonal haul records six different times[6] and became nicknamed "Fitz", "Pride of the American Flag",[30] "Mighty Fitz", "Toledo Express",[31] "Big Fitz",[32] or the "Titanic of the Great Lakes"." - should be two sentences

    Revised.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  Then I went through the whole article looking for other run-ons. I think we got them all. North8000 (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "When the wreck was found on November 14, by Navy aircraft" - Canadian or US Navy?

  Someone fixed this.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Each includes factors and events in addition to the storm such as structural failure, shoaling, rogue waves, taking on water through the cargo hatches or deck due to topside damage, and human factors which may in turn have caused or contributed to these" - awkward and unclear as written

  Reworked that sentence. This was a tough but important one to shorten and simplify for the lead. Each theory and finding has factors which caused each other, compounded with each other, or which were a link in the theorized causal chain of events. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Several manual of style problems, particularly in hyphens/dashes and overlinking

  On linking: The article has a lot of terminology that needs definitions without pushing the recommended size limit. Rontombontom just made a few reductions and took out the one dup. I know of 2-3 more which I'd feel comfortable taking out unilaterally. If we take out more, I think that borderline ones are place names and semi-commonplace terms. We're happy to do that if it's the right thing. I'll bring this up on the talk page North8000 (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  I dealt with the remaining hyphen to endash conversions. I found a single case of successive links, which was in one of the phrases repeated from the lede, and copyedited it. I have noticed only one case of repeated linking of the same word close in the text (Detroit River); repeating when far apart is permitted per WP:REPEATLINK. Other than that, I don't see cases of overlink: for example, the linked professions aren't common knowledge. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  I finished my "unilateral" pass and took out 4 more. Beyond that, and based on Rontombonntom's comment, maybe we are now reduced enough, and awaith further comments on this. North8000 (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  Examples:

  • Unnecessary links: pantry, coal, oil.

    I took out pantry in that previous batch of removals, now I took out coal. I previously considered taking out oil, but it links to the particular type of oil used as fuel for ships which I thought would be useful for general readers. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Repeated links: second mate, Caribou Island

    Fixed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Hyphen problems: "5⁄16-inch (7.9 mm) thick", "U.S.-flag", "mid-section"

    Fixed mid-section, looks like someone already fixed the other two North8000 (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Dash problems: most ranges that use prepositions (for example, "between 5:00–5:30 p.m"), "pp. 16-17" (should use an endash)

    I fixed the one remaining pagerange endash, the other was already endash; and fixed the non-adjective "X inch thick steel". "U.S.-flag" functions as an adjective in "U.S.-flag ship", it seemed awkward however, so I copyedited it as "ship sailing under the U.S. flag". I was less sure regarding mid-section, but edited it assuming it's normally hyphenated only as adjective too. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

    Midsection is a word, changed it to that which settles it either way. :-) North8000 (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Can we avoid repeating phrases word-for-word between the lead and the article text?

  I believe these are now all fixed. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "classic lines" - what does this mean? What's a "lost-time accident"? Make sure the text is accessible to non-specialist readers

  Replaced "classic lines" with "appearance". Still noodling on / researching "lost-time..." North8000 (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  "time-off" is also now resolved. Reworded sentence North8000 (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "passengers as company guests" - guests of Northwestern or Oglebay?

  I checked all of my sources and they did not specify which company had guests aboard the Fitzgerald. I would guess it could have been Northwestern, Columbia, or Oglebay, but I couldn't confirm it. Stonehouse said that the passengers were company guests but he did not specify which companies.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Spell out numbers under 10

  For the record, I found one "8 hours" and one "3 times", fixed those. There is the crew list by rank, but I'm not sure if the rule applies for that. All other numbers below 10 appear to be measurements. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, it also applies to the crew list

  Fixed North8000 (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• SS or S.S.?

  SS. Found one S.S. and changed it to SS. North8000 (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Avoid repetitive phrasing - for example, you open five consecutive paragraphs with "The Fitzgerald..."

  Mostly fixed, needs one more sentence changed. That awaits researching on another issue. North8000 (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done North8000 (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Use a consistent time format

  I found and converted 2-3 remaining ISO format dates. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  Great, but my concern was about times, not dates

  Do you mean the 7 p.m./7:00 p.m. duality? (A consistent "p.m." format was one of my own PR recommendations, and I couldn't find missed ones.) Is there a MOS on this? --Rontombontom (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  Yep - MoS requires colons in times, though it allows for either p.m. or 24-hour time

  Yes, MOS:TIME does require colons as separators: "colons separate hours, minutes, and seconds (1:38:09 pm and 13:38:09)" However, it doesn't say anything about hour, hour/minute, hour/minute/second notations. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  Now all times are hours:minutes, but finding a guideline on this would be nice. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Needs a thorough copy-edit for grammar ("McSorley called again the Anderson"?), flow and clarity.

  That example phrase would be a typo, but I was unable to find it, even pre-submisison versions of the article. Do you know where it was? Thanks North8000 (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  You couldn't find it because I already fixed that (as previously noted in the edit summary and the article's Discussion page). --Rontombontom (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  More examples:

  • "At the time of its launch on June 8, 1958, the Fitzgerald was the largest boat on the Great Lakes and it remained the largest until 1971" - awkward phrasing

    Revised.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  • "reaching a height 36 feet" - grammar

    Fixed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  • "Captain Dudley J. Paquette of the Sykes predicted that a major storm would cross directly across Lake Superior" - redundancy

    Fixed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Need a more consistent formatting for references. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  Could you be more specific on some of your points? Even supposing the article fails the FAC vote now, the editors won't be able to figure out what exactly should be improved before a second attempt. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  Which points in particular? Fifelfoo has provided a fairly detailed list of referencing problems, and I've responded to some of your comments above. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  Do you mean that your "more consistent formatting for references" recommendation seconds Fifelfoo's specifics? Other than that, the points I wondered about: run-on sentences, MOS and overlink, time format (I think I guessed that one now), and possibly more examples of what needs copy-edit for grammar and flow. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  To some extent, yes - in general, reference formatting should be more consistent, but Fifelfoo gives some good specific examples of what that means. Responded to the other points in-line.

  Thanks. Action items being dealt with in those specific areas. North8000 (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Support For full disclosure, I happened upon this article when participating as reviewer in its pre-FAC Peer Review, but at the end of it I became a significant contributor to one sub-section, which my judgement shall not apply to (1.3 Final voyage and wreck, which I reordered to correct and complement the timeline). I support the nomination because

• the theme of the article is not close to me yet managed to get me interested as reader;
• the article covers all aspects of its theme, from the technical aspects of the ship through operation history and all the various theories on sinking to its memory;
• during the three weeks as reviewer in PR, where I saw my recommendations followed, I focused mainly on a thorough check of the sources, to see whether the article accurately reflects what's in them, whether the sources are the best that can be used for the purpose and are reliable (in particular for all the numerical values displayed);
• in PR I also checked the (numerous) unit conversions and the application of most MOS:NUM rules;
• I also checked prose, the current version reads well for me;
• I also recommended wikicode cleanup, icluding unused parameters and spaces in cites;
• the problems I see, after the comments by others above, as far as specified, appear to be mostly minor issues that can be dealt with by copyedit during the FAC review. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment When looking at some of the incomplete citations noted by Fifelfoo, I took another closer look at the sources of the "Restrictions on surveys" section. I concluded that (1) for one sentence, none of the three sources used can be considered reliable (the passage in question in local media sources has the same origin, seems to have been retracted, and contradicts other more reliable sources), (2) more relevant text can be added on the basis of the other sources, (3) there are some additional, related reliable sources that can be added. After discussion with the editors, I went WP:BOLD and edited this section myself, so I am now significant contributor rather than reviewer on this single-paragraph section, too. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Nominator Support Amended by Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Disclosure, I am the nominator and an active editor. Rather than repeating them here, my general comments are in the nomination. I intended on doing this later, after the article received and responded to input here, and assumed that that would be more the process. Then I noticed an "oppose" the day after the nomination, (maybe that is the norm subject to change after the items are addressed?) which led me to do this earlier than planned. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the nominator's support is implicit and doesn't have to be stated separately. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It is implicit, and I've thus amended your declaration to clarify for delegates. As to the "oppose" issue: reviewers commonly change their declarations if/when their concerns are addressed to their satisfaction. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Question/note to reviewers Is this response format of addressing you points individually, indented in-line OK with everyone? If not we could rearrange on someone's or everyone's.

Also, should we be striking out the items felt to be addressed? I was thinking that this is not necessary, and not as good as merely presenting the report/facts regarding the addressing of the items, but either way is fine. Thanks North8000 (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The rule is: "If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text." In the special case of bullet points, it seems general usage to reply indented, I guess that doesn't count as splitting up. However, striking through should most certainly be left to the reviewer (as done by Canada Hky). --Rontombontom (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Racepacket (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• The Edwards cite again; currently [32]. Is there a page number? Something is missing here. Brad (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done. Added page number and url.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Re MoS issues I have run AWB over this article and it did not find any major errors. AWB isn't perfect but it is very good at spotting MoS issues. Brad (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Infobox pic needs alt text for continuity with the rest.

  Done. Alternate text added. North8000 (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• All images are public domain with the exception of three which are published under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 (2) and the cc-by-sa-2.0 (1).
• All images are properly tagged and categorized and there are no outstanding maintenance issues. Brad (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering Nikkimaria's almost three-week old Oppose on prose and MOS issues, I took a quick glance and found this:

Industry standards that built freshwater vessels to last more than a half-century made the Fitzgerald a young ship when it sank.

Standards don't build vessels, and if reviewers are supporting the article with glaring prose problems, there are problems. Please re-work the prose and come back in a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:05, 19 March 2011 [13].

---

We R Who We R

Nominator(s): - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... Ive worked on this article since day one, it just passed its GA nomination and i think it meets/or is close to meeting FA standards. Please leave your comments below and thank you. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose

• Don't use contractions

Maybe im blind, i just read the article and i cant find any other than in quotes.

"noting the video doesn't follow the same message". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Done. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -

• Spotchecks found several instances of close paraphrasing. For example: "in the wake of the news that bullying had led to the multiple suicides of gay youth" vs "in the wake of the news about bullying that has led to multiple suicides of gay youth"; "there is nothing particularly original here musically" vs "There is nothing particularly original here musically"

Done Both rewritten :)

Have you checked for other potentially problematic passages? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, i did not find any other instances of this. I believe Adabow did a source check as he found a couple sourcing issues in his review, but didnt find any close paraphrasing. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: I did not carry out a full source/plagiarism check, as there are FAC regulars which are more experienced at this. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• "almost spiritual sense of being subsumed and out-of-body." - since this is a direct quote, wording should be identical to the source. Check other quotes for accuracy

Done. Sentence re-written and quoting fixed.

• The review concluded that "We R Who We R" demonstrates that [Kesha] still has mileage left in her electro-pop sound as she gears up for her next album." - where does the quote start?

Done. Fixed.

• "Kesha uses her "signature" talk-singing vocal style" - "signature" does not appear in the cited source

Done. Re-written as i cant find the source for the direct quote either, i think that may have just been someone adding it in quotes.

• What makes this a reliable source? This?
• Referencing format should be more consistent

Not sure what you mean, all follow same format, date, work/publisher fields.

• Needs some copy-editing for clarity and flow. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Why would Yahoo! not be reliable? I think about.com is good too. CTJF83 17:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
    • The particular Yahoo site referenced is a blog - see WP:BLOGS. As for about.com, see here among other places for relevant discussion regarding its reliability. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
      • That didn't really seem to clear up one way or another. I also think you're misquoting WP:BLOGS. We aren't talking about http://www.blogger.com or http://wordpress.com/ being used as references. Presumably Yahoo! has actual professional writers on their blog, just like the blog writers on LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, etc. CTJF83 18:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Yahoo is not a blog, WP:BLOG is talking about places like Blogspot, not established sub-webpages. "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field." is not the case. As for About.com, that discussion is 2 almost 3 years old. Consensus can change, and it has, About.com's music review are listen in almost any music article and is becoming more and more common. Silent consensus (which happens all the time) has established that it is reliable. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
          • As the nom quoted, not just anyone can add to Yahoo. CTJF83 18:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
            • If that's the case, then it shouldn't be too hard to justify their use and demonstrate the authority of the authors. "Silent consensus" on non-FA articles is not a valid argument, sorry. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
              • Well i dont know how to explain it, its a third party established author (Bill Lamb) published and funded by the New York Times Company. What part of that in unreliable? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagreewit Nikki, this "blog" is not a blog, Yahoo! uses blog-like pages where people like you and me can post comments about their articles. Even the word "blog" is used, it does not makes it one. On the other hand, WP:EL (a similar policy about references) states that blogs have to be avoided excepting "those controlled by recognized authorities" and Yahoo! is one of those authorities. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can accept that - I've struck my query about Yahoo. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC

• Comments

• "It was written by Kesha, with Dr. Luke, Benny Blanco and Ammo, who also produced the song." - unclear whether Luke, Blanco and Ammo produced it or just Ammo

Done - Rewritten.

• "Kesha's previous work, reviewers felt that the song was a strong dance-pop number that combines a good rhythm with an inspiring message filled with genuine humor." - changes tense

Done

• Link About.com in the composition section

Done

• "Dr. Luke's production was complimented" - not stated in review

Done - Rewritten.

• "Vena commented that though the song isn't ground breaking" - contractions outside quotes should be expanded

Done

• The review concluded that "We R Who We R" "demonstrates that..." - reword so that you don't have two quote marks next to each other

Done changed to "the song"

• "debuted at number one on the charts" and "atop the charts" - why plural?

Done

• UK single chart → UK Singles Chart

Done

• The non-free screenshot adds absolutely nothing to the article

Done removed the image.

• "the Australian X Factor" → the second season of The X Factor Australia

Done

• You have the wrong ref for the Swedish cert in the prose. You should also mention that the cert is for Sweden, or say that it was awarded by IFPI Sweden

Done Oops.

No, it's not done. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I apparently for got to hit Save O_O its done now. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -

Not Dones (Yet)

• Quotes in quotes should have singular quote marks (') rather than double marks (") per MOS:QUOTE
• "Rolling Stone placed the song at 50th" - awkward

Suggestion on reword?

• I think you should axe the "I mean, I'm not going to give away all of it, but" part of the quote

Remove if you wish im not 100% what you mean.

• Remove or reword the last sentence of the Music video section

Again, remove if you wish not 100% sure what you mean.

• Is there any info about performances of the song on the Get Sleazy Tour?

-sign- no there isnt, i dont even have a concert synopsis for the tour yet, nothing reliable or detailed =/

• See also links or succession boxes should be added for where the song went to #1

I dont care for See also's, there is nothing about them in MOS (i dont think) and they just look like unneeded lists, same with succession boxes. You may add them if you wish.

• "During the song's ninth and tenth weeks on the chart, it surpassed the two million paid downloads mark" - was it week 9 or week 10?

Done rewritten for clarification.

Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Just noticed another thing, could you add the recording location/date from the album notes (if you have 'em)? Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright i cannot find it in the album notes, i dont think it specifies. We R Who We R Credits (One of Two) and We R Who We R Credits (Two of Two). It says where it was engineered, "Conway Studios Los Angeles, CA" is that what you're looking for? O_O. And im working on the issue above, i have to basically do a complete reword. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)}}

• Support Nice work! Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support After some extensive changes, everything seems to be in order. Bruce Campbell (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Just one thing, shouldn't it be "Auto-Tune", instead of "auto-Tune"? Pancake (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the support. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of sources needs to be cleared up, per Nikkimaria ... what makes Bill Lamb a reliable sources, and what are the credentials of that Yahoo blogger? Please note WP:WIAFA, 1c, regarding a thorough survey of the relevant high-quality sources. Image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As i said above, i dont know how to argue sources. Sources are argued based on opinion on if they are reliable or not. What makes About.com reliable? He is an established editor published and funded by the New York Times Company. WP:SOURCES "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." About.com, third party neutral source. "Bill Lamb is a music journalist specializing in pop music. He has been covering the world of pop music on the web since 1999." Reliability of Yahoo was argued by 3 different users stating its reliable. I dont know how to explain this anymore. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for Sandy, but it's the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" part that bothers me, particularly as regards about.com, which IMO has a generally poor reputation in that domain. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can write for about.com (probably yahoo as well); this has been visited many times at the RSN noticeboard, you need to establish that the author in question is an expert. Bill Lamb's bio gives nothing to establish him as an expert except that he writes on the internet (so what?, so do I), and I can't even locate a bio for the Yahoo blogger. I watchlist FACs that I query-- no need to ping my talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CCC#Consensus_can_change and has changed, Ive read those discussions many times and i dont agree, the people who have supported the article also agree (im assuming as they didnt even question them). I've read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources dozens of times and all i can give you is a checklist of the things it meets. If you want to fail the article for these sources please do because i don't know how to argue this any further. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think we've had this discussion over at FLC multiple times, about.com is in best case scenarios, barely reliable, and often not reliable at all. I don't see any way a case could be made, taking the entire history of it at the RSN and various FXC's that it is "high-quality", which is a stricter requirement than either RS, GAN, or FLC (though if I could slide that wording into WP:FL? I would.) Put me down as an oppose over 1c, and I could also use persuasion over the Yahoo sources, too. Courcelles 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Question Why did you uncap someone else' resolved comments? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's recommended that you not use caps or templates unless absolutely necessary, as it increases page load time. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

And they cause the FAC archives to exceed template limits and drop pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Withdrawing nomination - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:34, 19 March 2011 [14].

---

Cyclone Waka

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is the most comprehensive summary of Cyclone Waka available. This storm was one of the most destructive in Tongan history, leveling hundreds of homes and defoliating forests. All thoughts and comments are welcome and encouraged. Thanks, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Link check: No dead links. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments

• "ReliefWeb is a UN site, either run by or related to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). It might be worth adding this info to the first of the ReliefWeb citations.

Added that bit where it wasn't noted Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Refs 3 and 5 ("Gary Padgett"): I have raised questions about this source before. Of concern is the note at the end which says "This summary should be considered a very preliminary overview of the tropical cyclones that occur in each month", which suggests that the information is liable to change. Doesn't that rather disqualify it from being a high quality reliable source?
• Ref 12 (and others): The Press is a bit cryptic, without a link. Give location.

Locations given where not implied in the source. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 21: This is a large site with a detailed index. The citation should indicate where the information is to be found.

Page number given Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 24: Meteo France is, I believe, a website. Should this source not have a link?

Meteo France is the French National weather service like NOAA etc - but ive managed to track down a link to it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks JR. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Non-print sources should not be italicised (Ref 31, BBC - check for others)

That appeared to be the only one, fixed it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, all sources and citations look good. A liitle spotchecking did not indicate the presnce of problems. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

About Gary Padgett, it is no more or less reliable than the warning centers he gets the data from. In that time period, we don't have access to the advisories from all of the warning centers, so he is all we have to work with. The warning centers do have a reanalysis after the fact, in the form of the best track (which is basically as useful as the track map in the article), so it doesn't have the good advisory data that we like. It's not optimal, but using GP is better than nothing. And I'll note as usual that GP has appeared in several NOAA publications, so he is reliable himself. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Gary Padgett clarification Hink and thanks for the source check Brianboulton Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 1 circular redirect- Severe Tropical Cyclone Waka (probably in a template somewhere). --PresN 00:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the link, it was in two templates. Thanks for the link check PresN Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support, with my comments addressed.
  • "a near-equatorial trough of low pressure" - isn't trough of low pressure redundant? A trough already is an area of low pressure
    • Corrected Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You should say Category 4 on what scale. A lot of people on here probably know of the Saffir-Simpson scale, so it should be clarified it isn't that one.
    • Clarified Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Shortly thereafter, it passed directly over Vava'u" - you should clarify that is part of Tonga, since it's sort of ambiguous (it could just be an overseas territory, some other country, etc)
    • Added Tonga Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe mention when Faxai developed.
    • I think that what's already in the article is sufficient, there really isn't a need to mention the date since they were separate systems. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, you say the southern disturbance took a lot longer to develop, but Faxai developed only three days before Waka. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
        • That's for the tropical depression portion, Faxai had gone through its complete life cycle before Waka was named. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
          • But you can see my concern. I won't make a big deal about it, just a comment. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • What caused the wind shear in the region, and why the JTWC cancel the TCFA's?
    • No reason given for either [15] [16]. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You mention water temperatures of 30º C toward the end of the first MH paragraph, but I have no idea if that's any warmer or not than when you earlier say "Although warm sea surface temperature in the region favored development"
    • It's the same temperature Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • So when you mention the exact temperature, it is redundant to when you first mention "warm sea surface temperature".
        • Reworded Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Where was the system when the JTWC classified it?
    • Added Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You mention its motion for the first time in the second paragraph as going to the southwest, but that was ten days after it formed. What was its motion before then?
    • It's mentioned in the first paragraph already, "Moving southeastward, the system gradually became more organized." Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Is the storm path based on the JTWC? If so, you should say so.
    • It's primarily from the JTWC but I see no need to make this clarification. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe it's just my screen, but I see two lines in almost the exact same place that says "was upgraded to a (severe) tropical cyclone". Is there a way you can tweak the writing so it isn't so redundant?
    • Doesn't show on my screen (even before today's edits). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, more importantly there is such similar phrasing so close to each other. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Where are you referring to? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
          • "Upon doing so, it was upgraded to a tropical cyclone and given the name Waka. Shortly thereafter, the storm underwent rapid intensification;[2] roughly 24 hours after being named, Waka was upgraded to a severe tropical cyclone, attaining sustained winds of 120 km/h (75 mph)." - it's similar wording so close for such similar upgrades. Can't you think of alternate wording to "was upgraded to a tropical cyclone" in one of those instances? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Reworded the second one to just "Waka attained sustained winds of..." Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Why did it turn to the southeast and accelerate?
    • A trough to the northwest, added it Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "was sheared away" - rather than saying that and using passive voice, can't you actually mention wind shear?
    • Reworded to "As a result, wind shear displaced convection from the centre..." Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Tracking southeastward, the remnant cyclone briefly slowed over open waters before again accelerating to the southeast" - is "southeast" really needed twice in the same sentence?
    • Just making sure readers know where it was moving ;) Removed the redundancy. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • A location would be good where it was last noted. For example, how far SE of New Zealand, or N of Antarctica?
    • It really wasn't close to any major landmass, about 2,200 km north-northeast of Antarctica but it's there now Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I figured, but I think it's cool to mention how close to Antarctica it was. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Numerous roads were blocked by fallen trees, power and water supplies were also interrupted to most residents." - is that supposed to be a semicolon, or were you trying something else there?
    • Yea, semicolon. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The writing in the impact section isn't the best (the writing is longer than it needs to be in places, lots of passive voice), but this sentence stood out as needing rewriting - "Severe damage also took place on Niuatoputapu where coastal homes were impacted by Waka's storm surge and several structures lost their roofs."
    • Thanks for making the copyedit, is there anything left to fix for this comment? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "470 homes and six schools" - I think "six" should be written as 6 in this instance, since the numbers are so close to each other and there should be synergy
    • Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "In terms of monetary losses, damage from Cyclone Waka amounted to 104.2 million paʻanga ($51.3 million USD)[22][23]" - first, there is no period at the end, second is the damage from 2002 USD or 2011 USD, and third, it could be written so much simpler. "Damage throughout Tonga amounted to 104.2 million paʻanga ($51.3 million USD)."
    • I had a reason for that wording at the time but I forgot what it was... Reworded it anyways. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • You should still specify what year it's in, since the cyclone was in two years. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
        • It's stated in the infobox, I don't see the need to add it again. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "A'a Island sustained the highest decrease in plants bearing food at 100%" - so that means all of the food-bearing plants were killed? Why not just say that instead of 100%?
    • Reworded Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Link for "Hihifo"? (btw, Hihifo links to a place in Tonga - are you sure that reference is for somewhere outside of Tonga?)
    • There's also a Hihifo, Wallis which doesn't have an article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Ahh, I see now. There's a link for Hihifo Airport on Wallis, just to let you know. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I was thinking of adding that as the link but I wasn't sure. It's linked to there now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)`
  • "Every lifeguard in Whangamata was called in to assist in keeping and estimated 8,000 people out of the water. Former lifeguards were also called in to aid in this" - two things. First, couldn't the two sentences be merged? "Every lifeguard in Whangamata, as well as former lifeguards, were..." And second - do you mean "in keeping an estimated..."?
    • They were estimating how many people they kept out :P fixed and reworded Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "This aircraft was sent based on the FRANZ Agreement enacted in 1992." - poor wording. "This aircraft was sent in accordance with the FRANZ Agreement, enacted in 1992" I would recommend.
    • Reworded Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Due to the substantial damage to agriculture, food shortages were expected to impact the region in the near future" - rather than "near future", couldn't you indicate some other time-relevant term for the immediate time period after the cyclone's strike?
    • The source was written at the time so there's no definitive period. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • But surely something like "in the weeks/months/years/decades/centuries/millennia following the cyclone" would be more encyclopediac. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Found a time frame, it was months (impact was felt by April). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You start with US$ in the aftermath section, and you switch to just $ later on. Is it all USD, or does it change to some other currency?
    • Corrected to US$ Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That's it for now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've addressed all but one comment. The remaining one is about the quality of the Preps/Impact section. For some reason I can't get a grasp on passive voice and how to avoid/correct it. Would you be able to point out where corrections need to be made in the section? Thanks for the review as well Hink! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll try and copyedit that section later. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the responses, I've responded to them. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
• "104.2 million paʻanga ($51.3 million USD) was wrought in damage." - This is kind of awkward wording.
  • Reworded Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Hundreds of structures [...] were destroyed. Winds [...] destroying hundreds of structures" - "Hundreds of structures" is a vague term, which isn't inherently problematic, but it doesn't need to be mentioned twice. Perhaps something generic along the lines of "The storm destroyed hundreds of structures along its path"?
  • Removed the second usage of that (I assumed it was the lead) and added defoliation Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• "During December 30, the centre of the storm" - See the linguistic contradiction?
  • Corrected there and elsewhere Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• "The JTWC assessed the storm to have attained similar one-minute sustained winds upon peaking." - It would be helpful to note that the reason for identical 10- and 1-minute sustained winds is an agency-to-agency discrepancy rather than a meteorological anomaly.
  • Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• "little infrastructural losses" - Self-explanatory.
  • Corrected Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• "much of the island was sandblasted" - Since I'm sure "sandblasted" is being used in a figurative sense, it would be good to clarify what it actually means.
  • Not sure how to clarify it Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Numerous homes were destroyed and those that were left standing lost their roofs. According to the Red Cross, about 200 homes in the city were severely damaged or destroyed." - I feel like these sentences basically say the same thing.
  • Merged Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise it looks good. Juliancolton (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review JC! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Thanks for the quick fixes. Juliancolton (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Source link for Waka 2001 track.png seems to be dead. Also, should provide licensing information for background image (NASA) for both this and the close-up image of same
  • Fixed up both of them Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Cyclone_Waka_passing_over_Tonga.jpg - how was it modified? Might want to note change(s)
  • I'm quite sure the change to that image is blatant enough to not be noted... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise images seem fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review Nikkimaria! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• Meteorological history: "however, this was due to discrepancies between the two center." Should the last word be plural?
• Tonga: "of" appears missing from "Vava'u lost roughly 90% its crops".
• You don't need to have multiple Nuku'alofa links in a section like are present here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed up, thanks for the comments Giants2008 Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:12, 19 March 2011 [17].

---

Dragon Quest

Nominator(s): 陣内_Jinnai 17:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has gone through great expansion and overhaul since the last time including a copyedit. While it failed a wikiproject A-class assement, it seemed to be more due to copyediting. I would like to try and, if possible, get this as a FA for the 25th anniversary of the series this May.陣内_Jinnai 17:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• "The Mystery Dungeon and Itadaki Street series use characters and other elements from Dragon Quest games; the Mystery Dungeon series has gone on to spawn its own franchise." - source?
  • The games themselves. I guess I could cite EVERY SINGLE GAME of the multitude from that series which are, for the mystery dungeon, in the dozens. However, I would attest that the links that previously cite some of those games are enough.
  • Alright, I have a source that notes that another non-Dragon Quest game uses the same engine, by the same developer with the same series title, but different characters.陣内_Jinnai 20:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• "Beginning in 1989 with three series, the media franchise expanded rapidly" - source?
  • Rephrased. That statement is a now a summary statement supported by the following paragraphs in that section.
• "Playing the Dragon Warrior III with the name "Erdrick" is impossible as the game does not allow you to continue if the name is used." - source?
  • The game itself. Look at general sources.
• "Horii's company, Armor Project, is in charge of the Dragon Quest games that were published by Enix and Square Enix." - source?
  • The games themselves. Look at general sources.
• "The Japanese release of Dragon Quest VIII retains the traditional text menus. However, the Japanese release of Dragon Quest IX uses the menus based on the English release of Dragon Quest VIII." - source?
  • The games themselves. Look at general sources.
• Square Enix or Square-Enix?
  • Fixed. Square Enix.
• All web references need publishers and retrieval dates
  • Fixed, i think. I fixed the publishers, but as far as I could tell they all had access dates. If there isn't one, please list it specifically.
    • Current refs 33, 79 lack publisher; 111 was retrieved in the future
      • Fixed.陣内_Jinnai 22:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Ref 10 has the wrong publisher listed
• What does IGN stand for? Also, it's a publisher, not an author
  • IGN stands for IGN as far as I know. The full name, if one exists, is never used by any source, reliable or not.
• What makes this a reliable source?
  • It was used in a historical enyclopedia for gaming published by a reknowned proffessor in the field. See WP:SE#Sources.
    • Who is the author of the site, and what are his qualifications in this field?
• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when. Also check existing wikilinks - 1up is linked to a gaming term, not a publisher/publication
  • Fixed 1up
• What makes this a reliable source? This? This?
  • All of those meet the qualifications of a WP:SPS. If you want more details, WP:VG/S has had a history which can tell you more of who are more familar with them. However, its pretty easy to others generally considered RSes using them.
    • Looked at VG/S and linked discussions. I'm ambivalent on Square Enix Music, but the discussions don't seem to support the use of RPGamer or RPGFan in FA-level articles. Can you justify their use?
• ref 71: title?
  • Added.陣内_Jinnai 22:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Book sources usually need page numbers
  • Source #? A lot of those books are being used in a way to "show they exist" not to cite a specific passage or anything. As such they do not need page numbers.
• Can you rationalize your use of amazon.com and other commercial/promotional sites here?
  • They are used to meet WP:V that items exist or for interviews on them, such as the Dragon Quest website. That is a perfectly acceptable use for those sites.
• In general, citation formatting should be more consistent.
  • Please elaborate.
    • Name things consistently (for example, squareenixmusic.com has two different names); be more consistent in what is italicized when; be more consistent in what is wikilinked when; use a consistent date formatting; like citations should be formatted the same; etc
      • Should now be fixed as far as date formatting, wikilinking and formating style (as much as can be with different types of refs). As for italics, I need some clearer indication where stuff is improperly italicized and its not part of the template.
        • For example, 1up is sometimes italicized and sometimes not.
      • {{cite video game}} has not been updated to conform with core due to outstanding issues that no one at core seems willing to help with. I've posted there some time ago and its resulted in no action. So some of the Japanese games have italicized kana/kanji, but there is nothing I can do about this.陣内_Jinnai 19:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• • I didn't state this before because I thought it would be apparant with a series that would be citing from every one of their 9 main series games that plastering citations after every single item which can be verified by playing the game would be better done by general sources as in some cases that's 9 references after a source and would clearly harm the readability if everywhere across the whole article it was done. You'll note I only do this for the main series games and not the spinoffs because the spinoffs are used a lot less and often times 1-2 cites are all that is needed.陣内_Jinnai 23:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Look at the VG project own guidelines, which advise against relying so heavily on games as primary sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
      • And where possible and appropriate, I've used secondary sources. However, I cannot find where it discourages them, except for use with plot. Moreover, the overall usage does not violate WP:PRIMARY for what they're being used for.陣内_Jinnai 20:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs or dead external links. --PresN 01:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• One small thing that I noticed is that we are using the names from the English remakes when we are talking about the Japanese versions of the orignal games. For example the line Dragon Quest IV: Chapters of the Chosen was released in Japan in 1990 and in North America in 1992 as Dragon Warrior IV is used. One problem here is that the original Famicom game was not called Chapters of the Chosen so the part about Chapters of the Chosen being released in 1990 is not completely accurate. I was wondering if the original names should be used when the original version is being discussed. This is not a big issue for me and I have what the rules say about this. Finally, if it is changed the 5th a 6th games should be altered as well.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Dragon Quest IV's original title is ドラゴンクエストIV 導かれし者たち which rougly translates to Dragon Quest IV:The Chosen Ones. In addition, MOS:FOREIGN discourages usage of foreign words, especially when there is an English translation. That it isn't a 100% litteral translation doesn't matter as most translations aren't.陣内_Jinnai 03:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Good, that settles that. I hope the request goes well.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments by New Age Retro Hippie

• No major objections anymore; I was impressed that the Reception adequately covered the recent boost in popularity outside of Japan with DQIX's sales. Support. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• Wouldn't it make more sense to put the gameplay/common elements at the beginning of the article? Or at least something of a quick development overview? Right now the article doesn't really flow, or give a proper intro outside the lead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • As I can see how it would be modeled for individual video game articles, I can see where you're coming from there. Hence I moved it.陣内_Jinnai 20:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• What's the source for "Dragon Quest is not as successful outside Japan, as it is eclipsed by another RPG series, Final Fantasy."?
  • Added cite.陣内_Jinnai 18:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• [18] doesn't support the first part of the gameplay section, namely, "In Dragon Quest, players control a party of characters that can walk into a town and buy weapons, armor, and items to defeat monsters. Outside of town, on the world map or in a dungeon,".
• Likewise, the above ref does not support "When the party encounters monsters, during either a random encounter or boss battle, the view switches from an overhead perspective to the first person, and players are presented with several options on a menu. The first-person menu-based battles have become a staple of the series."
• Another spot check: "Each game has its particular set of classes; typical options include the Cleric, Fighter, Jester, Thief, Warrior, and Mage classes." → not explicitly supported by [19] or [20], and the note appended (currently #5) is full of unverified commentary (as are many of the notes.)
  • Oppose Judging by the above there appear to be referencing concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I'll address the others later, but I'll say the same thing I told Nikkimaria

      I didn't state this before because I thought it would be apparant with a series that would be citing from every one of their 9 main series games that plastering citations after every single item which can be verified by playing the game would be better done by general sources as in some cases that's 9 references after a source and would clearly harm the readability if everywhere across the whole article it was done. You'll note I only do this for the main series games and not the spinoffs because the spinoffs are used a lot less and often times 1-2 cites are all that is needed.

    • the items cited are non-contriverisial statements of fact verifiable within the game. That is what WP:PRIMARY is for. I take offense that the notes are largely "unsourced commentary", especially that one because it is in no way "commentary". In fact every comment there is sourceable by the games themselves save maybe references terms "first person" and "overhead". If you believe that they each need sites, I will have to say I disagree here in that goes against what is allowable perWP:CITE#General reference. The only way to not have them is basically plaster the article with tons of statements with 9+ references after every few lines, something people here equally dislike.陣内_Jinnai 22:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I can't tell what Dragon Quest plays like, let alone play all the games to see if that is in fact true. Such generalizations about an entire series should be sourced. Anyone who has never played the series is not going to have any idea whether anything you've written is true, and thus should be cited. This isn't 1+1=2 territory. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
        • How do you want me to do this that won't create tons of citations across the body that will likely get it kicked out of a future FAC because "there are too many citations" since I've had to deal with that before. Since some of the items deal with some game sand some others, I can't just latch them into 1 single citation for each game. I'll have to do every game individually which will inevitably create tons of sentances with a lot of citations after it with the end result is imo it'll never please everyone here because another reviewer will come along and tell me to reduce those citations because they harm the flow, which the only way to do will be to make them general citations. It doesn't matter whether you've played the game; its still veriable and its still cited; WP:CITE doesn't require inline citations for non-contriviersial/non-quote statements. Other than some of the terminology, nothing there could be said to be contriverisal.
        • As for the terms, I can do some editing to remove some of the terminology as I can see your point with that.陣内_Jinnai 18:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I did find a secondary source to back up at least one of the sentances (after editing it) and I've removed the info on the type of perspectives (top-down and first-person).陣内_Jinnai 17:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Looks good to me, but could someone finish merging Dragon Quest X before we finish here? It's impotent to know what the merged article will look like before final approval. Great work! Judgesurreal777 04:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Hopefully, my recent work will warrant overturning the merge request, as I'd rather not have to worry about its merge. I figure it will only grow from there; I'm not terribly comfortable with merging articles into series articles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
    • It's being discussed now and may take some time to come to a full resolution.陣内_Jinnai 19:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well if its not going to be merged, then Support, the work done on this article has been extensive and of a high quality in keeping with FA standards. Judgesurreal777 23:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:34, 18 March 2011 [21].

---

Airbus A330

Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 05:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article has undergone the expansion and improvements necessary for Featured Article status. During the last 2 months, I have, with help from other Wikipedians, expanded the article to its current size. Meanwhile, I've rewritten existing text, eliminated unreferenced claims, and added sources to those lacking them. I truly hope and believe that this article could obtain Featured Article status, supplementing existing aviation-related FA articles such as Boeing 747 and Boeing 777. So, if you don't mind, please post some comments below and help me out with making this article worth reading for everybody. Any problem can be ironed out during the FAC process. Thanks --Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 05:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• "Airlines were not satisfied with a compromised aircraft, so Airbus decided to proceed with an entirely new aircraft, the Airbus A350XWB." - source?

• Done

• "The A330-200 is also available as an ultra-long range corporate jet by Airbus Executive and Private Aviation. The Boeing equivalent is currently the Boeing 767-300ER—and to a lesser extent, the 767-400ER—and in the future, will be the 787-8." - source?

• Removed

• Missing bibliographic information for Eden 2008

• All information is provided under "Bibliography".

• There is no Eden 2008 under Bibliography
• Done. Sorry, I put in the wrong edition and isbn.

• Jackson 2008, Recent developments, Reed 1992 are not cited

Like before, ll information is provided under "Bibliography".

Yes, but these sources don't appear in any footnotes

• I was planning to use Reed 1992, but found it could be covered by other sources. Placed between <!-- -->. Sorry

• Multiple inconsistencies in reference format and content (Rechecked 22:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC), not fixed)

• All are consistent. If not, which one?

• Many are inconsistent. For example, airbus.com is alternately referred to as Airbus S.A.S., airbus.com and simply Airbus

• Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs

• There are 8 PDFs, two of them are used more than once, and they're both single-page articles.

• Even the ones used only once need page number(s)

• Done

• Spell out "%". Needs general editing for manual of style issues

• Done

• Percentage issue fixed; other MoS issues remain. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Make sure you identify the dollar country (for example, US$) in cases where it's unclear

• Done

• Use a consistent date format

Can you be more specific?

Date ranges should use ndashes in references, check for typos ("201 1"?)

• Done.

• What makes this a reliable source? This? This? This? This?

What's wrong with them? They're all credible?

Please explain your reasoning with reference to WP:RS and related guidelines, or provide a previous discussion at FAC or RS/N where they were accepted as credible

I agree with Nikiemaria, they don't meet WP:RS. I've formalised the pprune.org one (You should cite to the reliable source, not people talking about the reliable source, hence if the real newsstory comes from Bloomberg News, as in this case, they're the Publisher, not Pprune. I'll work on some others, but this is going to be a pain.) You should always to apply the most professional, most respectable publisher-material when there's a choice, any hint of unprofessionalism isn't tolerated in Featured Articles, the absolute pinnicle of quality on Wikipedia has very high standards. Kyteto (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• For no.1, Airliners.net is used extensively on Wikipedia (even Boeing 777#External links has a link to the respective pages). If you compare this Airbus A330-300 specifications by Airbus, and that of Airliners.net, the specifications are near identical.

Then the solution is to dump airliners.net and use the official Airbus pages. It is a change I've had to make to dozens of pages I've overhauled, replacing informal refs with formal ones containing the same information, because they're simply not allowed as citations in FA class articles under the policy of WP: Reliable Sources. The rules on External Links are less stringent, as they're not backing up any facts (it is basically the difference between trying to prove a fact in the article, and including a good followup article on the subject outside ow Wikipedia, one's evidence and needs to be water-tight, one doesn't have to be as it isn't making a case.) Kyteto (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• I see no solid reason for the issue with the airliners.net pages. The airliners.net aircraft pages are copied with permission from The International Directory of Civil Aircraft ISBN 1875671528 or an older edition of it. The original source is clearly WP:RS and so should these pages. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Then why not cite the original source? The issue is we don't know that the transcription is necessarily accurate. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Added original source

• As for no.2, when I searched for info about the A330-500, this is among the few results that came up. Having a read through the article, I considered it to be credible and because it's got specifications. I didn't realise that (silly me, not spotting Bloomberg News) it came from Bloomberg until you told me.
• For http://blog.flightstory.net/1395/photo-first-a330-200-freighter/ , I found a similar doc at http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:3DEzaZr_bRYJ:www.airbus.com/presscentre/presskits/%3FeID%3Ddam_frontend_push%26docID%3D14756+A330-200F+is+a+mid-size,+long-haul+all-cargo+aircraft+capable+of+c&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgOfHILUNghIHZDEn3bAmisfEVyP11N-orwdGcTUSL5-GhmGjkrjYbDrEgrKSI1mTDebFkWpE-Efu97SmzGgB0tMOBGVMAzFRhyVnb4ieqysikzqDlY_ELJWbxzt3TVswKWBdMC&sig=AHIEtbToiRzGkRHjga-DIwe4WLhJG3-80A.

I'll switch out to that then, the accuracy of the content to formal sources doesn't matter at WP:RS, if somebody checking the information needs to double-check the cites to see if they're accurate, there are problems (hence why it is best to simply cite directly from the blokes you can actually trust at their word). Content being right or wrong factually doesn't matter, it is the credentials of the publisher that's the issue. Kyteto (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Defence Review is actually an organisation which provides news and coverage on defence matters.

• Okay, but who writes it? What are their qualifications to comment on defence matters? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've replaced source no.4 with a press release from Boeing following their appeal.

• http://www.airdisaster.com/ cannot be found.

I had already removed it as it was a unneeded duplicate ref, but because the commenter has their underwear in a bunch about the use of striking, there was no quick-and-easy way to demonstrate it had been dealt with, so exactly as my criticism, it caused unnecessary confusion to not strike it. Kyteto (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Make a note of your change, then. The "no striking other peoples' comments" is not my rule, but that of FAC itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• All web citations need publishers

• They all have one.

• But you actually need to say what it is. For example, refs 96 and 97 have no publisher listed

• Done

• Needs copy-editing for clarity and flow. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Per the instructions at the top of the FAC page, please don't strike comments made by reviewers. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Also, some of the captions will need citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Done

Neutral, leaning oppose - most of the above concerns have been adequately addressed. However, reference formatting and the MoS remain issues. I'm also concerned with the prose quality in this article, and suggest a thorough copy-edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - please bear in mind I'm reviewing this from a completely "never reviewed an airliner" perspective, and this is a quick run through the whole article...

• Is "large-capacity" meaningful? It's not linked.

• It's self-explanatory. Doesn't need to be linked, not ecyclopediac.

• "although the -200F can be powered by either of the two latter engines." seems a little high-detail for the lead?

• Removed

• Don't like linking "First flown", why not just be plain about it and say "Its maiden flight..."?

• Removed link.

• "but more popular" I guess popular needs context, it sold more? It was more enjoyable to passengers??

• The sentence starts with "Due to dwindling sales", so in this case, it's about sales.

• It's now March, can you update the lead "as of..."?

• Done

• "See also: Airbus A340#Development" can't you pipe link that to avoid a nasty #?

• Done

• long term -> hyphenate?

• Done

• "the revolutionary family of airliners later known as the Airbus A320, " is "the revolutionary family" neutral in tone? and any reason for Airbus A320 to be in italics?

• how's revolutionary not neutral?

• Done

• "The B9 was essentially a lengthened..." what does "essentially" add to this sentence?

• It means the B9 was a simply stretch.

• Odd you link range (on its own) well after, say, long-range.

• Fixed

• Not sure a non-expert knows what a "quadjet" is.

• Explained

• B11 in italics. I don't see why. (et seq).

• Because the name was changed (unless you want to bolden it). Removed

• Not sure you need to link wing here.

• Removed

• "one technical advantage, the TA11's outboard " comma is an odd delineator here, perhaps a semi-colon, or a spaced en-dash.

• Done

• In the quote "...They liked" if that ellipsis indicates missing text but the next sentence starts with a capital T then I suspect there should be a space before the They...

• Is this it?

• "The A330 and A340 adopted the A320 flight deck of the A320 (pictured)..." why link A320 on the second mention in this caption?

• Removed

• You use "nmi" without explaining or linking the first time round.

• Fixed

• Are you deliberately overlinking? e.g. you link "fly-by-wire" in two consecutive sections, and only abbreviate it in the second?

• Sometimes I don't keep track of the words I linked. Fixed

• "Airbus decided that from the start, the A330 would be powered..." odd English, why not "from the start that the A330..."?

• Fixed

• " original requirement for 267 to 289 kN (60,000 to 65,000 lbf) (a measure of engine output)" clumsy, why not "original requirement from an engine output of ...."?

• Removed

• "Airbus's partners" pretty sure I've seen "Airbus'" elsewhere. Would recommend internal consistency.

• Done

• There's a mixture of primary measurements, i.e. either Imperial converted to metric or vice-versa. I guess I'd have expected consistency throughout.

• Done

• "and 5 percent on time." How do you quantify this?

• Could you clarify?

• "British Aerospace gladly accepted £450 " -> "gladly accepted"? A little POV.

• Fixed

• "In 1989, Asian carrier Cathay Pacific ordered nine A330s, later increased to 11.[32]" I believe MOS says comparable amounts can be represented similarly, so "eleven" would be fine.

• Fixed

• I know you have a "see also" but worth linking "crashed" to the same article in the first sentence, last paragraph of that section.

• Fixed

• "world's second largest " second-largest.

• Fixed

• "postponed by delamination to the composite materials." who discovered that? Was it from reports from other airlines?

• Source doesn't say who discovered it. Does it matter? The point is deliveries were late because of production problems.

• "230 t (510,000 lb)" vs "233.0 t (514,000 lb)[66]" - missing period, but also, no need for that ".0".

• Removed

• "virtually identical " not sure this is encyclopedic, perhaps "similar"?

• "Similar" is not indicative of how closely they resemble.

• " the wing also has2.74 m (9 ft 0 in) winglet, " something not right here.

• Fixed

• You quote "t/c" but don't clearly explain what it is.

Thickness/cord. Done

• "manufactured by British Aerospace (BAe)" you've already abbreviated this...

• Fixed

• I've lost count of the number of times you link "fly-by-wire"...

• Fixed

• "and in the future, will be the Boeing 787 Dreamliner." ref for this claim is needed.
• "all of which are ETOPS-180 min rated. and uses the Honeywell " odd sentence. I guess it should be something like "all of which are ETOPS-180 minute rated and use the Honeywell..."?

• Fixed

• "See also: Airbus A350" why is that at the bottom of the "A330-200Lite" section?

• It's a follow on from that section. Moved.

• Why isn't the orders/deliveries table in chronological order per all chronological tables?
• What does italics mean in the table?

• The year is yet to finish.

• Operators section says 760 were in service, everything else says 765 were in service/delivered. What's the difference?

765 delivered', 760 in service. Also

• Is the Orders and deliveries table accessible?

• After reading it, I still don't get how to make it accessible.

• Engines table doesn't sort correctly in the Date... column.

• Done

• Lots of repeated periods in the references (due to use of templates, e.g. "Airbus S.A.S.. Retrieved 1 ..."

• Done

• Category:International airliners 1990-1999 should use an en-dash, and would be better as Category:International airliners 1990–99.

• Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Numerous problems that I can see. There is a gentle mix of US/Commonwealth terms used throughout (model/variant, landing gear/undercarriage etc.), should be one form or the other per WP:ENGVAR. Extra words/phrases could usefully be removed.

• Hatnotes - Not sure that these are required, I can't see the possible confusion between this aircraft and a 1920s biplane at least, if it stays 'plane' should be changed to the project accepted term 'aircraft'.

• Incorporate both hatnotes into one.

• Lead - First paragraph mixes unit priority (mentioned by the previous reviewer), Airbus give Metric/SI units, these should be used first then converted to Imperial or US units (whichever is chosen for the conversions). This problem runs throughout the article including the specification table.

• Fixed

Second paragraph; Airbus began by studying derivatives of its A300 in the 1970s, why not Airbus began studying derivatives of its A300 in the 1970s? The aircraft is the first Airbus airliner to offer a choice of three engine types, change to past tense perhaps as this feature/option is 20 years old now? The three engine types are linked but the first does not include the manufacturer (but does include the precise variant), the second links the generic type and not the variant, and the last links to the manufacturer, type and variant. If I wrote this I would use General Electric CF6, Pratt & Whitney PW4000 and Rolls-Royce Trent. The precise variants can be refined later in the relevant sections.

• Fixed

Third paragraph; To counter the A330? Realising that there is an apparent sales war between Boeing and Airbus a more neutral term might be offered as a market alternative? Why mention the A350?

• Fixed

• Background - Revolutionary does sound NNPOV, innovative might be a more neutral word. Simultaneously working on two projects at once. That's what simultaneously means doesn't it?!! Could be reworded. The Germans, which Germans? Percent = %? Occurs many times in the article. Therefore not needed. Wing and airframe? The term airframe includes the wing.

Done

• Design effort - Fin is linked but is not the best link, it is linked correctly later to vertical stabilizer which would need to be piped to fin if you want to retain the Commonwealth term. Franz-Josef Strauss is hyphenated, according to our article and the German article it should not be.

• Fixed

• I note from recent edit summaries that British English is being applied, vertical stabilizer and landing gear are US terms. To avoid future confusion a template can be added to the talk page for the form of English used (realising that not all editors go to the talk page but it helps), this is the British English template: {{British-English}}.

• Done

• Entry into service - Extended-range Twin-engine Operation Performance Standards (ETOPS), surely the term should be linked not the abbreviation?

• It's similar to National Aeronautics and Space Administration, people link and refer to it as NASA.

• All I was saying was to switch the link around like this: Extended-range Twin-engine Operation Performance Standards (ETOPS), if a term is given in full followed by an abbreviation then the words get linked. This had been done correctly at International Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC) for instance.

• Done

• Further development - A329 and A330M10 should not be italicised unless they were individual aircraft. Aircraft itself? Just aircraft perhaps? On the right-hand main landing gear well would normally be phrased in the right-hand main landing gear well. A resigned system, 'redesigned' I would think. The last paragraph on production seems misplaced, would be better under the header of 'Orders and deliveries'. A large portion of this section is related to safety problems although you could say that fixing the problems is 'further development', might be better moved to a new 'safety record' section along with the accidents that were directly related to this aircraft type.

• Even though the subheading says "Further development", it doesn't explicitly have to 100% be about further developments.

• It's your call.

• Design - The brake unit image is displacing the section header in my browser (Firefox), the wikilink is to 'carbon brake' but it just links to brake, misleading. On the ground, the two four-bogie Messier-Dowty-built main landing gear supports a maximum ramp weight of... Grammar doesn't seem quite right, 'support' perhaps? What is 'maximum ramp weight'?

• Done. Wikilinked maximum ramp weight.

• Grammar is still not right there and the US term landing gear has been used.

• Airframe and wing - this heading is a misnomer, the term airframe includes wing structure. Thickness/Chord ratio is not explained, a wikilink to chord (aircraft) could be added. Chord is misspelt 'cord' at the second instance. Shouldn't that be a 'low' ratio? 'Design' is repeated three times in the last sentence of the first paragraph. The second paragraph mostly repeats the information in the first. The higher the aspect ratio, the greater the aerodynamic efficiency needs a source. The A330, like its wing.., the wing is part of the airframe. There is another instance of fin linking to the wrong article.

• Flight deck and avionics - Electronic Flight Instrument System should have the abbreviation EFIS added for consistency with the other terms. It also features three primary flight and two secondary flight controls, should be 'control systems'. A link to aircraft flight control system could be included there somewhere.

• Variants - Described as 'models' in other places, is the ICAO code box necessary or encyclopaedic? A revised nose landing gear layout. The same A330-200 undercarriage is used a mixture of terms (US/Commonwealth) and confusing, 'undercarriage legs' perhaps?

Undercarriage are legs. ICAO code box, yes. Fixed

A330-300, engine linking inconsistency, first part linked, second two not linked. The closest Boeing competitors are the Boeing 777-200 and, the now-out-of-production McDonnell Douglas MD-11., needs a source. A330-300HGW; Who was seeking airliner with a range..., 'airliners' probably, or 'an airliner type'? A330-500; aft the wing, 'aft of the wing', allows for range, 'allows for a range'. What happened to the -500 project? Military variants; refueling is US spelling, the majority of the article appears to use Commonwealth spellings.

• Done

• Operators - Is European airlines an airline? The source for the table/numbers is usually given under the header, we don't normally time stamp these tables, they get updated through article maintenance as should any other date related entries in the article.

• Done

• Accidents and incidents - At first it looks like a long list indicating an unsafe aircraft type until the reader sees that many of them are not related to the aircraft type (e.g. hijackings, dangerous air cargo, terrorist action, weather conditions etc.). It would be better to create a list of accidents involving the A330 or similar and leave the more relevant ones behind. Readers come to these airliner articles to see how safe the aircraft are, bearing in mind WP:NOTGUIDE this section should at least be balanced so that the true situation can be seen.

• Removed.

• Specifications - Again the source should be at the top under the header. This table is non-standard for the aircraft project, Template:Aircraft specifications should be used. Noting that other airliner articles use similar layouts they are also non-standard and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep using them for airliner articles. Unit priority problems as noted earlier (particularly the range figures). The source for the engine table would be more visible given directly under the header, various different formats are given for the same generic engine type, two are wikilinked, one is not.

Boeing 747 and 777 share this same layout. Template:Aircraft specifications are for simpler aircraft.

• Where does it say that? Was Concorde a simple aircraft?

• I just realised. Concorde has only one variant, where as Boeing 747, 777 and Airbus A340 has at least three. The template does not cater for three variants.

• How many variants did the Vickers VC10 have? How many variants can we list in this table? As a plain wikitable it has no instructions for field completion. The convention is to pick one variant and list its specifications, this table misses out parameters. By being non-standard readers can't flick between articles and compare numbers. If specifications for more variants are needed they can be added to new variant articles, there are two A330 variant articles already.

• Are all the specifications on the VC10 the same? Yes they are. The A330 has two passenger viriants, the -200 and -300, which have different capacities.

• I don't want to get into a discussion on the VC10 but the variants differed in much the same way that the A330 variants do, it is shown more clearly here perhaps. Wikipedia aircraft articles are often 'number heavy', we should do what we can to minimise that problem (it gets noted by many non-aircraft oriented readers at reviews). The current specification table could appear to some as a sea of numbers but when it is looked at closely the differences are quite minor. An effective way to deal with this is to use the most common variant for the specifications and highlight the differences in the variants in their own sub-section, this has been done at the Sud Aviation Caravelle article. Another good reason to use the standard template is that it leaves room on the right for the placement of a 3-view drawing, (see de Havilland Comet) which is a widely accepted layout in the aircraft project. Is a 3-view drawing available for the A330? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Firstly, the Airbus A330 doesn't have a three-side view. Secondly, I don't know what the big fuss is about the table. Boeing 747 and 777 have specifications laid out this way. Thridly, Sud Aviation Caravelle#Variants still need a table to highlight the difference between the variants. Why not move that table down to #Specifications?

I will leave others to comment on the reliability or otherwise of the sources used. I am seeing an error with the Commons box, it is overlaying the navboxes and it is causing a problem with Template:Airbus A3xx timeline, shifting the text to the left.

Really, it can't find anything wrong on my browser, Explorer and Google Chrome.

• Looks ok now, strange.

• Images - Appear to be correctly licensed, some don't seem to have the full licensing template applied. As a style point it is better to have noses of aircraft and engines facing the text, I don't think there is a guideline on it but it is certainly a trick used with portraits of people in biographies. Most of the images here are right biased, some with aircraft facing to the right (away from the text), they could be moved to the left. Although the lead image is quite good I have seen possible better ones on Commons, there is quite a choice there now.

• Done

Although my comments may seem overly picky we are trying to achieve 'Wikipedia's very best work' and I can see some basic problems here at the moment. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Picky, yes, but as you say, we are trying to achieve "Wikipedia's very best work".

Wahh, nominating an article for FA is pretty daunting, given the amount of dedication involved. As I finish with one's comments, other Wikipedians come. However, this is going to train me as a copy-editor and a self-reviewer, isn't it. Keep the comments rolling in, the more, the better. Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 11:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Good, still some grammar problems and the US/Brit language thing has to be fixed, should make it clear that I don't care personally which form it is in, just has to be one or the other throughout. It is convention to follow the form used by the article creator if an article has no strong national ties (European consortium aircraft don't) but looking at back it can't be ascertained what form was intended to be used.

I see that there was a peer review which is a very wise step before FAC but it was only open for seven days and only one editor had a chance to look at it. There's no set time for a peer review to be open but I would have left it open much longer myself, there is no deadline! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:17, 18 March 2011 [22].

---

Reaction Engines Skylon

Nominator(s):   Novus  Orator  09:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it recently became a Good Article with flying colors and I am curious if it is worthy of FA quality certification.   Novus  Orator  09:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Where did Alan Bond speak? Where might one obtain a copy or transcript of his lecture? (done, but publisher needed)
• Need page numbers for citations to multi-page PDFs (done, but formatting is very messy)
• Be consistent in what you call things - for example, one publisher is alternately referred to as "Reaction Engines Limited" and "Reactionengines.co.uk" (example fixed, but others remain)
• Spell out journal names (done, but again formatting is inconsistent)
• Use a consistent date format (not done)
• If you're going to use a citation template, use it for all citations. In general, citation formatting should be more consistent (citation formatting is still very inconsistent)
• Don't repeat cited sources in External links (done)
• What makes this a reliable source? This? This? (done)
• This link wouldn't load (fixed, but now that I see the site I'm questioning its reliability)

Oppose until concerns are addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC) (Updated 13:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

Thanks for finding these trouble spots. I'm on it!--  Novus  Orator  05:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Done All of the issues mentioned by Nikkimaria have now been addressed and fixed. Feel free to continue to comment on this article.--  Novus  Orator  07:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Not Done - People are welcome to continue commenting on the article if they so choose, but not all the issues I mentioned have been addressed. I've made some notations on my previous comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll do my best to fix those areas. Your precise editor's eye is much appreciated.--  Novus  Orator  03:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - Improvements recommended

• On the source issue, I would recommend that each page of the same source be listed under a different citation. It is extremely difficult to search through 15-20 pages of text trying to look for one small nugget of information, and I believe it is standard practice to list the specific page. By moving the base source into a Bibliography, you can then short-hand the citations (listing just the author, year of publishing, and page number) directly into the cites, starting new citations for each seperate page.
• Some of the citations don't appear to back on the fact they're citing, which is alarming to say the least. In "A Comparison of Propulsion Concepts for SSTO Reusable Launchers" I can't find any mention of the fact that "All current orbital spacecraft use multiple stages". It may be a basic statement that can be taken for granted, but it shouldn't be attributed to a document that doesn't back that statement up. I may have made a genuine mistake on not finding the information on my readings through it, but even key word hunting couldn't induce the appearence of similar information. Kyteto (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• The Introduction is littered with citations. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section), citations should be kept to a minimum, only used on facts that aren't mentioned and referenced elsewhere in the body of the article: "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.... Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." Unnecessary references should be removed from the lead. Kyteto (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• I've already performed some consistancy changes, such as news articles from the online BBC website being given different publisher names on different references ("BBC Onlines" verses "BBC News", I have united them under "BBC News"), I'll continue to monitor and evaluate the article for other potential improvements.

I look upon this article favourably, it is a good subject manner and has been elaborated well; I'm willing to put the time in to help with some refinements, and once it looks to be of a quality I cannot find obvious flaws with, my support should be most forthcoming. Kyteto (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips and I'm on it.--  Novus  Orator  03:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:15, 18 March 2011 [23].

---

Battle of Fort Sumter

Nominator(s): Historical Perspective (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not a major contributor to the article (I have made some edits recently) however I have consulted with the three top contributors to the article and sought their input on nominating this for FA. I believe the article is well written and comprehensive. In connection with Operation Brothers at War, I am endeavoring to have this article promoted to FA in time for the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Fort Sumter. Hopefully, if reviewers feel it is worthy of FA, it could occupy the main page on April 12, 2011. I realize time is short, but I am willing to work hard and hopefully it can be done. Any suggestions on improving the article would be most appreciated. Thank you!! Historical Perspective (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose at this time. I appreciate the work that's gone into this article, but don't feel it's yet at FA status.

• Given the length of the article a longer lead would be appropriate
• "The battle lasted 1861-1865" - was there supposed to be more to this sentence?
• "American Revolutionary war" - capitalization
• Article needs some general copy-editing for clarity and flow
• "South Carolina authorities considered Anderson's move to be a breach of faith" - this needs to be further explained
• File:Sumter1.gif is missing author information. If author is unknown, say so
• File:ConfederateBattieries2.jpg is missing source and author information
• "Instead, it seemed prudent to send an unarmed civilian merchant ship, Star of the West...Brooklyn was fired upon by a battery on Morris Island" - but didn't you just say Brooklyn was not sent? Clarify
• Manual of Style edits needed - spell out "%", check hyphen use, etc
• Text needs to be more accessible to a non-specialist reader. For example, what is "casemated"? What is the normal size for an artillery company? What are howitzers and smoothbores?
• Don't begin sentences with "And". Check text for grammatical errors
  • Just a note ... the editors of Chicago disagree with the advice not to start a sentence with conjunctions such as "and" and "but" (at 5.206, with some of the strongest language I've seen in Chicago.) OTOH, I agree that starting a sentence that way often doesn't feel right to me in Wikipedia articles for some reason, and I agree with Nikki that the one "and" that starts a sentence feels out of place in this article. (Also, I'm wondering what that sentence means ... how was one situation similar to the other?) - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Web citations need publisher and retrieval date
• Page ranges should use ndashes
• Missing bibliographic information for McPherson
• Hatcher is in References but not Notes
• Be consistent in whether you include all authors in shortened citations for multi-author works. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Response. Thanks very much for your comments and for pointing out improvements that need to be made. I and other users have addressed them as follows:

• Lead: I added a paragraph to the lead regarding the winter "siege" which was, I believe, the only significant part of the article not already summarized.
• "The battle lasted…" The ed17 took care of this.
• "Revolutionary war" corrected by Hlj
• General copy editing for clarity and flow: not sure specifically how to address this. Perhaps once typos, glitches and other fixes have been made, there might be some specific suggestions re: flow.
• "South Carolina authorities…" Hlj has added narrative to explain this.
• Added unknown author on the file description page
• Unable to determine source for the color image so I replaced with a similar image from the collection of the Library of Congress.
• re: Star of the West, Hlj took care of this
• removed %, added ndashes for page ranges
• Added wikilinks and a bit of explanation for specialized terms such as casemates, company, howitzers, smoothbores, and mortars.
• Removed "And" and re-worded to clarify re: Fort Pickens
• Publisher and retrieval date has been added for web citations
• Hlj has taken care of MacPherson and Hatcher references

I believe these fixes address the specific items you listed. If there are additional fixes that you feel need to be made, please let me know. Many thanks, Historical Perspective (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I'll be happy to help, but copyediting is generally seen as one of the last steps in the process, and I can't tell with this one whether we're close to the end or right in the middle. I'll try to get a sense of that from reviewers' comments. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:09, 18 March 2011 [24].

---

Air well (condenser)

Nominator(s): Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because this article is interesting and engaging. The story of high-mass air wells, which never worked, is a modern parable of how not to do science and engineering. The account of radiative air wells on the other hand may be of the greatest practical importance to people who live in hot humid climes with a lack of potable water. Active collectors that are practical and ecconomical are currently being developed. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - an interesting topic, but I don't feel the article is yet at FA status

• Per WP:LEAD, lead for an article of this length should be at least 3 paragraphs
• Manual of Style edits needed - spell out "%", don't start section headings with "The", etc

Done Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• See here for a list of problematic links
• Avoid stacking images and sandwiching text between images
• Reference formatting needs to be much more consistent
• Unfortunately France does not have freedom of panorama, and therefore your lead image (and the later derivatives) need different licensing and may need to be removed

Oh dear! That sounds rather serious. Might there be a way round this, the structure is quite old and it is not a work of art but a machine protected by a patent? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

How old, exactly? Is the architect still living? When was it patented, and by whom? French copyright law is not something I know a lot about, but more information might help resolve this situation. The other possibility is to argue that the structure does not meet the "threshold of originality" required for copyright protection - see the page I linked above for more information on that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I read the link, I did not feel that I really understood it. The patent linked in the article is dated 1930 (there may well be earlier patents) and work on the structure in question started in 1930 too. The inventor was Achille Knapen, his company, British Knapen, was up and running in 1928 so it is very unlikley that he is still alive today. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Source links for File:Yeti_AC-12_atmospheric_water_generator.jpg are dead

Working link provided. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Captions should be grammatically correct and sourced where necessary
• "Zibold's condenser was approximately the same size as the ancient stone piles that had been found, and although the yield was very much less than the yield Zibold had calculated for the original structures, the experiment was an inspiration for later developers." - source?
• "Wolf Klaphake was a successful chemist working in Berlin during the 1920s and 30s. During that time, he tested several forms of air wells in Yugoslavia and on Vis Island in the Adriatic Sea. Klaphake's work was inspired by the works of Maimonides, a known Jewish scholar who wrote in Arabic about 1,000 years ago and who mentioned the use of water condensers in Palestine." - source?

Reference added. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Unfortunately, the aerial well never achieved anything like its hoped-for performance and produced no more than a few litres of water each day." - source? There are other unsourced statements that also need citations

Specific reference added. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Need page numbers for citations to multi-page PDFs
• What makes this a reliable source?
• Article needs editing for clarity, tone and flow. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:37, 18 March 2011 [25].

---

Frost Bank Tower

Nominator(s): TheAustinMan (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all of the requirements. All statements included in the GA nomination and peer reviews have been fixed, according to those statements. If the article is close to FA, I can fix things as the nomination continues. By the way, I'm only 11, so please, not too harsh. TheAustinMan (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - welcome to FAC! I don't mean to be discouraging, but I don't feel this article is yet at FA standards, although I'm open to changing my mind if you're able to resolve my concerns. If you need something below to be further explained, please let me know

• You use quite a few commercial sites as references, which can be a problem in terms of reliability - they tend not to be the type of high-quality references preferred for FA articles. Can you briefly explain your reasoning?
• This video - couple of problems with this. First off, when citing something to a video, it's a good idea to include a time - when does Jones mention the Bohemian Club? What makes Jones qualified to opine on the inspiration of the building - is he an expert in architecture, an arts critic...? Finally, why cite this to a mocking YouTube video instead of a more direct source like a newspaper article, or even an excerpt from a radio show? Also, the titles don't seem to match
• This source appears to be a student-written blog - what makes this a reliable source?
• Check formatting in references. Will you use a website name or an actual publisher name as a publisher? Check spelling ("allbuisness"?), consistency ("Retrieved" or "Accessed"?), etc
• Don't include things in See also that are linked in article text
• Some copy-editing needed for clarity and flow. Try reading the article out loud, as this often helps to identify problem areas. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Hello! Welcome to FAC! I took a look at the article. I agree with Nikkimaria. I'm not saying the article is bad. It's very good. Here are some errors (not big) I found:

• As Nikki said, references need a check. Some are formatted using {{cite web}}, while others are not formatted using the template. Be consistent.
• Again, as Nikki said, the video from youtube, is it official? Videos can be cited. Please take a look at WP:ELPEREN. A direct source is preferred.
• Insted of filling in publisher as Austinchronicle.com, can you expand it to The Austin Chronicle? (For refs 19–23).

Good luck.—Novice7 (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Nominator, TheAustinMan, has Resolved The Concerns Mentioned Above. Click "Show" Below For Details and Comments Regarding the Fixes

Resolved comments from TheAustinMan (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments "You use quite a few commercial sites as references, which can be a problem in terms of reliability - they tend not to be the type of high-quality references preferred for FA articles. Can you briefly explain your reasoning?" I used these commercial sites because they are related to the topic of buildings and architecture. They have also had a history of providing information which has been used by the general public. I also couldn't find other sources though... :( "This video - couple of problems with this. First off, when citing something to a video, it's a good idea to include a time - when does Jones mention the Bohemian Club? What makes Jones qualified to opine on the inspiration of the building - is he an expert in architecture, an arts critic...? Finally, why cite this to a mocking YouTube video instead of a more direct source like a newspaper article, or even an excerpt from a radio show? Also, the titles don't seem to match" "I have decided to take that video off because I agree that using YouTube videos doesn't fit with featured articles. I placed in a direct source instead. "This source appears to be a student-written blog - what makes this a reliable source?" I have decided to use another source rather than a student-written blog. "Check formatting in references. Will you use a website name or an actual publisher name as a publisher? Check spelling ("allbuisness"?), consistency ("Retrieved" or "Accessed"?), etc" I checked the formatting in the references. I decided to use the actual publisher name, so you will see the actual publisher. Some publishers have '.com' in their name, like AllBusiness, so don't take it for granted that every name with '.com' is not the real name. "Don't include things in See also that are linked in article text" I sort of "traded" links, so I took off some links in the article text that were unnecessary so they could be placed in the See Also. Kind of genius, right? "Some copy-editing needed for clarity and flow. Try reading the article out loud, as this often helps to identify problem areas." I copy edited the whole page and I think its better than before. If you still see some blocky sentences, please notify me. "As Nikki said, references need a check. Some are formatted using {{cite web}}, while others are not formatted using the template. Be consistent." I have consistancized the references so that they all use {{cite web}}. "Again, as Nikki said, the video from youtube, is it official? Videos can be cited. Please take a look at WP:ELPEREN. A direct source is preferred." As I mentioned, I have used a direct source instead. "Insted of filling in publisher as Austinchronicle.com, can you expand it to The Austin Chronicle? (For refs 19–23)." Yep. I changed the names. TheAustinMan (talk) TheAustinMan (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Comments Below Are Not Part of the Resolved Comment Box

Comments (contd..)

• Sorry, but I don't think Ref 7 says anything about January 2004 being the building's opening date.
• Ref 8 is a dead-end (broken).
• Ref 19 (Life123) seems like a question-answer website (like Yahoo! Answers). I don't think it's reliable. Also, it does not say anything about the club.
• Expand IALD (IALD Award)

I meant expand the abbreviation to International Association of Lighting Designers and add IALD in brackets. —Novice7 (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Comments Above Are Not Part of the Resolved Comment Box

Resolved comments from TheAustinMan (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC) (UTC)

Comments "Sorry, but I don't think Ref 7 says anything about January 2004 being the building's opening date." I noticed the fact was gone from that website. I used another reference instead "Ref 8 is a dead-end (broken)." I replaced that link with the updated link. "Ref 19 (Life123) seems like a question-answer website (like Yahoo! Answers). I don't think it's reliable. Also, it does not say anything about the club." I exchanged that for 2 references, each with a segment of information that combines to make what this article has. "Expand IALD (IALD Award)" "I meant expand the abbreviation to International Association of Lighting Designers and add IALD in brackets." I did that and added a reason why. TheAustinMan (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read the FAC instructions and do not add template hidden headers to FAC noms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Laser brain 04:50, 14 March 2011 [26].

---

Refugee controversy in Sjöbo

Nominator(s): Alphasinus (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for featured status because i think it passes the criteria. I've done some changes that made it qualify for GA status but the main contributer to the article is User:Theleftorium. Alphasinus (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments - Leaning oppose. Article doesn't seem well-developed to me. More background on the ethos of Swedish refugee policy would help build the story. Sources are thin, prose needs polishing. Here's some examples/recommendations: Sasata (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• no mention of the 1989 "Aliens Act"?
• no mention of the 1989 film about the incident, Sa Gar Ett Ar; Teden I Sjobo?
• Sources not used:

• Rysted, G. (1992). "Encounter with strangers: refugees and cultural confrontation in Sweden"
• Pred DS. (1992). "Even in Sweden: racisms, racialized spaces, and the popular geographical imagination"
• Graham M. (2002). "Emotional Bureaucracies: Emotions, Civil Servants, and Immigrants in the Swedish Welfare State" Ethos 30(3):199-226. JSTOR 3651871

• "...when the Moderate Party took over the power in the Sjöbo Municipal assembly." underlined part sounds odd
• various minor typographical errors: missing a space between sentence; cite before punctuation; is the quote in the "Debate and media attention" section supposed to be ended by a fullstop or an ellipsis?
• one sentence paragraphs need to be expanded or integrated elsewhere
• "The county had accepted a large amount of refugees" amount -> number
• percentages are given with both the symbol and by writing out "percentage"
• translations of the Swedish reference titles would be nice
• why is the "detailed article" ("The day that Sjöbo split") externally linked not used as a source?

Sources

• Earwig's tool found no copyvio, manual spotchecks not done due to lack of source availability and my lack of Swedish skills
• Make sure all non-English sources are identified as such
• I echo Sasata's question about why the external-links article was not used as a source
• It would be helpful to provide times for when information being cited to radio or video sources occurs - similar to page numbers for book sources, this allows the reader to more easily verify the information
• YouTube video should have an access date

Images

• "Then-Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson was critical of the result" - the result of what? I realize this is explained in the article text, but would be good to state here
• "A part of Sjöbo's town square, where both pro- and con- demonstrations were held" - source? Not mentioned in article text
• File:Sjöbo_Municipality_in_Scania_County.png - what evidence do you have that the outlines are PD? The source you linked has a copyright notice at the bottom. Also, would be good to provide a more specific source link. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• Why is a bare year linked in the first sentence? Of all the things to link in the beginning, where reader attention is greatest, this is about the least useful thing I can think of.
• I see "Municipal commissioner" and "Municipal Commissioner" in the lead. Which is it?
• Background and motion: Space needed after first sentence.
• Debate and media attention: Third paragraph of the section has a double period at the end.
• Aftermath: I don't understand why the end says "As of today" when the source is from 2006. That's not today. How about saying "the Sjobo Party remains active" or similar? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Laser brain 04:50, 14 March 2011 [27].

---

Mothers of the Disappeared

Nominator(s): Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"Midnight, our sons and daughters / Were cut down, taken from us / Hear their heartbeats... / We hear their heartbeats..."

Hello everybody. Today I bring to you an article on the U2 song "Mothers of the Disappeared". The closing track of The Joshua Tree, it details the plights of an organization of women whose children were forcibly disappeared. I could go on, but heck; that's what the article is for! I've thoroughly exhausted all of my resources and I am confident that this meets all of the FA criteria. The article has been through a recent Peer Review, and I hope that it will be considered among the best of Wikipedia's work when the process is through. Enjoy the article! Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: Minor points only:-

• Refs 16, 31, 39 (McCormick): At first glance "McCormick" does not appear in the bibliography. It appears as "U2 (2006). McCormick, Neil. ed." I would drop the initial "U2" and place McCormick in its proper alphabetical sequence.
• Ref 17: fix hyphen in pages range
• Ref 62: Is Propaganda the name of a journal or magazine? Who publishes it? Is "'Click.' Inside PopMart. 'Click.'" the title of an article?
• Ref 47 should be placed at the end of the sentence that it is citing.
• Ref 65: "Raidió Teilifís Éireann" should not be italicised (it isn't a printed source). Check for other instances.
• In the bibliography: No apparent citations to "U2 – The Joshua Tree: Authentic Record Transcriptions"
• Bibliography: Publisher locations missing from Cogan, Kootnikoff

A few sample spotchecks carried out without problems arising. Other than the above, sources and citations look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Some initial responses:

• The McCormick references follow the standard our WikiProject has agreed upon. The book doesn't have a copyright page that clearly outlines author roles in the book and different sources will tell you different things (e.g. WorldCat, Amazon, etc). The band members are listed on the cover, but most sources credit the book to McCormick, and to U2 as a group. However, all of the words in the book are the band members' own - McCormick doesn't offer his own words and only compiled the band members' accounts of their history, so he essentially is an editor (and the "cite book" template is correct in its formatting for editors). Rather than credit the footnotes to U2, which could be confusing since they have authored and published many items that can be used as references, we credit McCormick as the editor.

• I accept what you say. On the other hand, for clarity's sake it would be possible to format the short citations: "U2 (2006). McCormick, Neil (ed), p. xxx" (This is a suggestion not a request)

• Ref 17 had the hyphen fixed
• Ref 47 is only supporting the dedication part of the sentence - the date and circumstances of his fate are supported by the 2 citations that close the paragraph.
• Ref 62 is a fan magazine published for U2 fan club members, the publisher is unknown (at least by me, I never owned a paper copy of any of the issues).

• Can someone clarify what (28/29) is referring to? Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• (28/29) is the issue number. That particular publication was a double issue and labelled as both issue 28 and issue 29. Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 65 has had the radio station un-italicized.
• Cogan and Kootnikoff now have locations.

Let us know if you find anything else. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Y2kcrazyjoker4 addressed most of the concerns you presented. In regards to the others:

• "'Click.' Inside PopMart. 'Click.'" is the title of an article.
• If need be, I can place reference 47 at the end of the paragraph along with the two others. I placed it in the middle of the sentence because that was the only part it supported.
• The Authentic Record Transcriptions initially went to "Authentic Record Transcriptions (1999)" in the footnotes. Both have now been amended with an author. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the sources, subject to the small requested clarification on Propaganda. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Images/Media

• File:U2_Mothers_of_the_Disappeared.ogg needs further copyright information - producer, copyright holder? Does U2 hold copyright, or does Island?
• File:President_Ronald_Reagan_receives_the_Tower_Commission_Report_with_John_Tower_and_Edmund_Muskie.jpg - need ARC identifier. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The sound sample has been amended with the producers and copyright holder of the song. U2 own all of the rights to their music, and have done since 1983 I believe. I'm looking for the ARC identifier for the Reagan image, and will get back to you once I have found one. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit: I found and added the ARC identifier to the Reagan image in Commons. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Hating the quotebox overuse on this otherwise well-presented article. I normally like seeing a couple of these in an article, but the problem here is that they give undue weight to the always-melodramatic U2's Save the World rhetoric. As a U2 hater, my reading might be biased, but I think the article thus suffers from a severe pro-U2 bias.—indopug (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've integrated two of the five quote boxes into the prose. I don't see how the remaining three could give a pro-U2 bias; one describes the process of mixing the song, and the other two the inspiration behind it. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Laser brain 04:50, 14 March 2011 [28].

---

Calabozos

Nominator(s): ceranthor 03:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is a comprehensive and well-written account of a minor, but interesting volcano. Since beginning the article a little over a month ago, I've improved it drastically, adding lots of information, consulting new references, and finding nice images. The help of Awickert, who found resources for me, DiverDave, who helped when the article was still small, and Malleus, who copyedited the article for me, has been invaluable, and I thank them all for their contributions. I'd also like to thank Pyrotec for reviewing the article at GAN. ceranthor 03:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Addendum: I have not decided whether or not to include this as a WikiCup entry. ceranthor 22:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments

• please fine-tune the refs:

*et. al to the correct et al. (also in the article text)

*endashes for page ranges (bibliography)

*Drake et al. should have a doi

*compare refs #12 and #13, the latter has a comma following the author name, unlike the former

*why is ref #15 "Grunder and Mahood" when it's only "Grunder" in previous instances? What's the page #?

Source doesn't provide pg. numbers.

*ref #18 change "pg." to "p."; ref #8 change "page" to "p."

*ref #20 needs an author (Topinka, Lyn) and the date should be enclosed in parentheses like the prior instance (ref #19)

• inconsistent use of title case or sentence case in journal article titles in the bibliography

I'm simply following the article names themselves; the one that's not capitalized is not capitalized here.

The case for titles should be consistent in this article; it won't make any difference to the reader searching for the article if the case is switched from title to sentence or vice versa. Sasata (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

*author display not constant in the bibliography: some have "and" before the final author, some don't

*Siebert, L needs fullstop to be consistent with others

*does Stern et al. (2007) not have an ISBN or location?

Otherwise sources and citations look ok. Sasata (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• More: Sasata (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Moreno, T. and Gibbons W, ed., p. 154." why is this listed with the editors when there's a prior instance that lists by the author of the chapter?
• since you're using literature that starts with the author name Hildreth in both the Bibliography and the References section, it might be a good idea to specify the year in the short-form refs to alleviate confusion (eg. instead of "Hildreth et al., p. 45." use "Hildreth et al. (1984), p. 45."
• refs #9 and #14 have the first author delimited by semicolons, but the rest are by commas... not sure if that's deliberate or not but it looks a little odd
• still need to fix author display: compare "Simkin, T; Siebert, L. (1994)." and "Grunder, Anita L. and Mahood, Gail A. (1988)."

Should all be fixed. The references are delimited by semicolons where there's an author and coauthors.

Nevermind, I got rid of the semicolons.

Thanks for making the changes. For future reference, I think if you want to give the first names in full, it's easier to read the list of authors if they are delimited by semicolons. If you only give the initials, then commas are fine. I've never been a fan of the "and" before the final author, but of course that's personal preference. I'll give the rest of the article a full review after you've had time to deal with the extensive commentaries below. Sasata (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment on 1c/1c—Sources list looks a little thin to me... have any of these journal articles been checked for additional information? Sasata (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Title: The link between volcanism and tectonics in the southern volcanic zone of the Chilean Andes: A review

Author(s): Cembrano, J; Lara, L

Source: TECTONOPHYSICS Volume: 471 Issue: 1-2 Pages: 96-113 Published: 2009

Nothing additional on Calabozos, but it goes into detailed info about SVZ.

Title: Eruptive stratigraphy of the Tatara-San Pedro complex, 36 degrees S, southern volcanic zone, Chilean Andes: Reconstruction method and implications for magma evolution at long-lived arc volcanic centers

Author(s): Dungan, MA; Wulff, A; Thompson, R

Source: JOURNAL OF PETROLOGY Volume: 42 Issue: 3 Pages: 555-626 Published: MAR 2001

Similarly, here, just brief mentions of Calabozos, nothing new.

Title: The Puelche Volcanic Field: extensive Pleistocene rhyolite lava flows in the Andes of central Chile

Author(s): Hildreth, W; Fierstein, J; Godoy, E, et al.

Source: REVISTA GEOLOGICA DE CHILE Volume: 26 Issue: 2 Pages: 275-+ Published: DEC 1999

Found a bit of information! I'll add it to the article.

Title: Volcanism and erosion during the past 930 ky at the Tatara San Pedro complex, Chilean Andes

Author(s): Singer, BS; Thompson, RA; Dungan, MA, et al.

Source: GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA BULLETIN Volume: 109 Issue: 2 Pages: 127-142 Published: FEB 1997

Title: O-18/O-16 ISOTOPE GEOCHEMISTRY OF SILICIC LAVA FLOWS ERUPTED FROM VOLCAN OLLAGUE, ANDEAN CENTRAL VOLCANIC ZONE

Author(s): FEELEY, TC; SHARP, ZD

Source: EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS Volume: 133 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 239-254 Published: JUL 1995

Couldn't find a full-length article, but the abstract doesn't even mention Calabozos, so I'm going to assume there's not really anything here.

Title: LOW DELTA-O-18 SILICIC VOLCANIC-ROCKS AT THE CALABOZOS CALDERA COMPLEX, SOUTHERN ANDES - EVIDENCE FOR UPPER-CRUSTAL CONTAMINATION

Author(s): GRUNDER, AL

Source: CONTRIBUTIONS TO MINERALOGY AND PETROLOGY Volume: 95 Issue: 1 Pages: 71-81 Published: 1987

Title: THE HYDROTHERMAL SYSTEM OF THE CALABOZOS CALDERA, CENTRAL CHILEAN ANDES

Author(s): GRUNDER, AL; THOMPSON, JM; HILDRETH, W

Source: JOURNAL OF VOLCANOLOGY AND GEOTHERMAL RESEARCH Volume: 32 Issue: 4 Pages: 287-298 Published: JUL 1987

Yes, I've read over the two articles directly above and found them to be a little too specific and complicated for inclusion on wiki, but I'm willing to add them if you wish. As for the rest, I'm inclined to think that the articles on specific complexes would not be particularly useful, but the Calabozos one and the Chile volcanism ones look promising. ceranthor 13:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I've resolved your concerns, Sasata. ceranthor 14:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added a couple of DOIs. I think the references may need another pass through to ensure the issues above are sorted (e.g. page numbers and ISBNs are important), and can you check if the journal articles have free access to the full text anywhere? Rjwilmsi 21:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You fixed all the ISBN/DOI issues, and no, there are none of those freely available. If you find one online, you should probably be concerned. ;) ceranthor 22:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I just added the p. number for the Grunder/Mahood ref. Everything should now be fixed. ceranthor 22:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Given the length of the article, a slightly shorter lead would be more proportionate
• 2 dab links - Lenticle and Acid leaching
• "Part of the Chilean Andes' volcanic segment, it is considered part of the..."; "results in the formation or...results in the formation of" - repetitive, check for similar issues
• Lead could be a bit more accessible in nature. What is "plutonic"? "Tuff"? "mya"?
• Link unfamiliar terms on first appearance. For example, "stratovolcanoes" appears in the first paragraph but is not linked until the fourth. At the same time, avoid overlinking. For example, Miocene is linked twice in the same paragraph
• "Calabozos caldera is..." - is "Calabozos caldera" the correct name? If so, amend other instances; if not, grammar
• Check MoS issues, particularly hyphens/dashes
• "Beginning 6.4 million years ago the Chilean Andes were quiet, though whether or not this quiet took place throughout all of the Andes remains unknown. Central Chilean volcanoes began activity once again around 2.5 million years ago, and have erupted almost continuously since" - phrasing is slightly awkward
• "Calabozos lies in an area between thick and thin continental crust, suggesting its eruptions are probably fed from a pool of andesitic and rhyolitic magma that sits just under its caldera" - I'm not a geologist, so I'm having some trouble seeing how these points are connected. Why does its location in a transitional region imply the presence of a magma pool? Could this be made clearer?
• Which is correct: direction-direction-trending or direction-direction trending or direction-to-direction trending? (Rechecked 21:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC), not done)
• Calabozos "seems to be" or "is" of similar age to Cerro Azul? Make consistent
• "the record that defines the southern sector is poorly kept" - meaning is unclear, and seems to imply human involvement/stewardship
• "lake" refers to the laguna, correct? May want to clarify
• Make sure to provide conversions for all measurements in climate section

Didn't get all the way through yet, I'll revisit once you've had a chance to look at these points. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Should have fixed all but three. I can't think of any other way to phrase the kept sentence. I'm not good at spotting hyphen/dash problems (poor eyesight), and I actually quite like the length of the lead; if we could keep it that way, I would be happy. ;)

• "(lens-shaped layers of mineral or rock embedded in a different material.)." - don't need the first period, and I'm again confused by your meaning here - what "different material"? Must it be rock, or can it be anything?
• "The sheets of remaining ash left over from each of the eruptions range from 200 cubic kilometers (48 cu mi) to 500 cubic kilometers" - are those numbers each or total? If each, which eruption produced the higher number? If total, reword for clarity
• "As the ash was deposited, it accumulated in layers that formed quickly and resisted erosion, but only partially melded together. Other than three sections where very thick or thin rock did not coalesce well, the entire sheet is melded together." - these seem contradictory to me, can you explain/reword?
• "between less than 5 to approximately 15 percent" vs "contains five to 30 percent" - why the different approach to numbers?
• "its high levels of lithics probably originates from either being exposed to the rocks after they were erupted, lying adjacent to them while they underwent subsidence, or just formed slowly and over a long period of time. Any of these reasons would also effectively account for the poor mixing of the lavas" - grammar
• "ejected from Calabozos vicinity" - grammar
• "traveled in a similar format" - phrasing seems odd; I think I understand what you're saying, but it could be worded better
• "continue for hundreds of meters until they disappear" - one can assume they no longer continue after they disappear. Are you missing an adjective - gradually, suddenly?
• "non-welded sheets of lava. Another zone of nonwelded" - which hyphenation is correct?
• "near Cajon Los Calabozos" - this means nothing here, as there is no map and it's not explained until later that this is a hot spring (Rechecked 21:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC), not done)
• "It last erupted during Holocene time, producing a 2.5 cubic kilometers (1 cu mi) lava flow" - grammar. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I've resolved all your concerns. ceranthor 13:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Most specific issues are fixed. However, I think this article needs a good copy-edit for clarity and flow before I can support. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• How do you pronounce 'Calabozos'? Do you pronounce it differently from the English Calaboose, and what language is Calabozos from? Also, why does Calaboose redirect to prison? That confused me when I first clicked on it. It might be better not to link 'Calaboose' at all, unless the name means something.
• "pool of magma nearby" - seems a bit vague - can you be more specific?
• "Loma Seca Tuff" - is there a way to avoid semi-linking part of what looks like a proper noun, and linking tuff another way?
• "a massive amount of space surrounding the caldera" - this is also vague, I'm left wondering whether this is hundreds of metres, kilometres, tens of kilometres? Is it volume or distance? Is there way to be more specific than "massive"?
• "Each period is distinct for its composition and size" - this sounds like a very precise wording required by the science, but leaves the layreader wondering what it really means and why you've said it. Either explain why this is important, or drop this.
• 26 by 14 by 3.5 km - I find myself mentally picturing that and thinking - it is quite flat! If it is, maybe say that? I also find myself wondering if the large spread of the volcano 26 and 14 km away from the caldera accounts for this "massive amount" of tuff surrounding the caldera? i.e. is the tuff part of the volcano, or deposited outside this 26 by 14 km area?
  • Update: having looked at some other sources, I now see that it is the caldera that is 26 by 14 kilometres - one source calls it a mega-caldera. And the term I was looking for is Topographic prominence - do you know what that is for this volcano, or is it just a sprawling mess of volcanoes arising from this massive caldera? More like a complex than a single volcano?. Regardless, I think that the lack of a picture or map means that it is all too easy to misunderstand the current prose, like I did when reading: "The volcano's dimensions are 26 kilometers (16 mi) by 14 kilometers (8.7 mi)". I then mentally put a caldera on top of a volcano of that size... Maybe replace the word volcano with caldera? Carcharoth (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• You give the size of the volcano but not the caldera - has anyone published measurements of that?
• Having now reminded myself that a caldera is not a volcanic summit crater(!), do you know when the event took place that caused the most recent collapse that formed the caldera? Some sources call it a multi-ringed caldera (e.g. the abstract for Hildreth 1984 says "composite ring-structure caldera"), does that mean successive collapses after successive eruptions? And if this is a "composite ring-structure caldera" why does the article not say this?
• "Activity from the volcano has produced multiple other stratovolcanoes and even a complex volcano" - in mentally trying to picture this, I'm not clear whether the 'child' volcanoes are close by or on top of the existing one, or a fair distance away and connected to the same underground system. Is it possible to be clearer here? I read the "Later events" section, but that didn't really help. A map of the complex is really needed here.
• I also found myself (in the absence of any picture of the volcano) trying to picture what its surroundings are like. It is also not clear if the figure of 3,508 metres elevation is from sea level or from the base of the volcano? Which-ever it is, I find myself wanting to know what the other measurement is, so I can picture how high it rises above the mountains around it, or alternatively how high they rise above this one (or maybe they are all the same height). How far away are the other nearest peaks? How many are there? Is it tall for an Andean volcano or on the small size? Things like that.
• Are there satellite pictures of the region? Not everyone will know that you can follow the co-ordinates at the top to get to satellite imagery (and even there, zooming in gets a better view of what I think is the caldera), so maybe prompt readers via an external link and/or change the scale on the co-ords link?
• You say "an extremely remote area of poorly glaciated mountains" - can you be more precise? Can you give the distance to one of the nearest sizeable settlements?

Geology

• "The date of its last known eruption is unknown" - confusing - how can an eruption be both known and unknown? And doesn't Holocene mean the last eruptions were in the Holocene (as the infobox implies)? Maybe you mean the date is not known with precision?
• "In a publication" - change to "In a paper published in 1976"?
• "whether or not this quiet took place" -> "whether or not this quiet period took place"?
• How does the "K-Ar dating" paragraph relate to Calabozos? Were the Calabozos eruptions included in those described by Drake? If so, that needs to be explicitly stated.
• "just under" - can you be more precise, say kilometres at least? Give some idea, though I realise this is something that people may need to do further measurements to ascertain, what justifies "just under"? There must be something that allows an assessment like that to be made.
• Diagrams would really help here when describing the different layers and events. Prose description can only go so far.
• Rather than show a picture of another volcano of similar age, why not show one that looks similar in shape and appearance?
• "Malargüe" - double-check umlaut
• When you mention Hildreth, instead of "Their study", say "Their 1984 study" - gives chronological context to the research.
• Consider scattering date context throughout for the research to give something more accessible to latch onto for the reader getting lost in the geological terms.

Climate and vegetation

• You mention vegetation and climate but not the fauna - if there is no fauna (e.g. due to the climate, or due to the volcanism and the "pumice desert"), you should say this. If there are some limited fauna, or no studies have been done of the fauna, then say this.

Threats and preparedness

• You are going to hate me for saying this, but the mentions of the Armero tragedy, the CVO and Mount St Helens are gratuitous here. Step back a bit and think whether they really have anything of relevance to this article. If not, try and rewrite this section and focus more on the Volcanic Disaster Assistance Program, which sounds like it should have an article.

Pictures

• Unless the following photo can be used under a free licence, I would suggest pointing the readers to this photo of the caldera. That helped me understand things a bit more. I would also suggest finding some way of telling the reader early on to look at the photo to help orientate themselves when reading the article (I found the above image when Googling to try and work out what this 26 by 14 km bit was all about).
• Alternatively, you could search Google Images (like I just did), for "calabozos" + "caldera" (that gets rid of all the images of prisons), and the top hits are examples of Astronaut Photography of the Earth (from the Space Shuttles and the ISS). The site search interface is here. I searched for Calabozos and then found the 'Astronaut Photography of the Earth' search system useless, so went back to Google Images and there are the following six images: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. If those are public domain (the terms of use are here), then I hope one of them shows the caldera!
• I also found some ASTER images here. I got there by clicking the "MAPS" link on the sidebar on the entry for Calabozos on the GVP (Global Volcanism Program) page. Large number of images there, showing the caldera in a range of conditions. The one I liked was this one from 2006, but there are others as well, so if those can be used, do pick one (or more) that are best used to illustrate the article. I think the Calabozos caldera is the horizontal rectangular feature just above and to the right of the glacier-like feature.

Overall, I found myself wanting to know more about the geography and climate and environment of the area, and felt the article was a bit too focused on the complex geology (compare this article with another volcano article that has just been nominated at FAC: Mount Cleveland (Alaska) - the difference in approach between the two articles is quite striking). It's also incredibly frustrating to read descriptions of something with no picture to look at! I'm sure the geology is excellently summarised, but I found myself wanting more from the article and it felt like the story is only half-told and there is more detail yet to be found by later researchers. Carcharoth (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Added extra notes. 03:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! That's a lot of stuff for me to do, so it'll take me a good day or two to get around to all of these. ceranthor 13:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought I would have more time this week, so I apologize that I'll probably have to wait until tomorrow or Monday to get to these. Sorry! ceranthor 18:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Me and Cer, we write somewhat differently; I for one am less heavy on the tectonic setting stuff. The whole section as a matter of fact was Cer's idea originally =) ResMar 04:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:34, 11 March 2011 [35].

---

Irresistible (Jessica Simpson song)

Nominator(s): – Novice7 (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I've fixed the article up as much as I can (transforming it from this version to the current version). I believe it is well written and comprehensive. Thank you. – Novice7 (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Tbhotch

This is the first part of my review, have fun Novice :) Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 07:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Infobox

wearing a purple sweater and short... -> wearing a purple sweater and a short

around her shoulder -> which shoulder? or maybe you intended to say shoulders

To the right of the picture, the words "Jessica Simpson" and "Irresistible" are written. -> How they are written?

Recorded: Murlyn Studios in Stockholm, Sony Music Studios in New York City -> recorded when?

Fixed

• Lead

for Simpson's second studio album, also entitled Irresistible (2001). -> It can be re-worded

Year-end charts -> year-end charts

had a James Bond theme -> link it

Fixed

• Background

Stockholm; Sony Music Studios -> link them

Columbia Records released "Irresistible" on May 29, 2001 -> and there were not more release dates worldwide?

Fixed first issue. For the second, yes, there are release dates. But, I didn't include them as I though they might become redundant.

You can include where it was released on May 29. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 21:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Composition

94 beats per minute -> consistency with the numbers

F3 to the high note of E5 ... D2 to the note of E5 -> link them

shouldn’t -> You know

famous virginity intact -> BLP issue

version featured on Lizzie McGuire Soundtrack -> link it

The version featured on Lizzie McGuire Soundtrack has altered lyrics -> the version featured on the soundtrack has altered itself or someone altered it?

Fixed most. Added a citation for the virginity thing, and changed the soundtrack lyrics mention.

• Remixes

remixes from So So Def Recordings, Hex Hector, and others. -> Who others?

Dupri also appears on the remix video -> This is mentioned because...

Fixed first. For second, now that I've read it again, I feel it makes no sense as Dupri's presence is mentioned in the next sentence. Shall I remove it?

Yip, very redundant. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 21:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Critical reception

Change the name of the header since is is part of the "Reception" section

BBC -> link it

"Irresistible" won a BMI Music Award -> in which category

• Commercial reception

Commercial reception -> as above

Although in New Zealand, the single debuted at number forty-five and dropped to number fifty the subsequent week,[31] it eventually peaked at number forty-one.[31] -> need a copy-edit, including when it reached its peak. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 21:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"The song also" is mentioned five times, this needs to be fixed

Fixed most from both. Okay, so shall I merge the two individual receptions into one? – Novice7 (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That is on option, or the second is search synonyms such as "Commercial response" or "Critical reaction", or something like that. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 21:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

All fixed. – Novice7 (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Music video

It begins with a helicopter -> Is not "an helicopter"?

MTV's Total Request Live countdown -> MTV's Total Request Live (TRL) countdown

Fixed

• Live performance

setlist -> link it

song on MTV's TRL Tour -> unlink it

On June 4 -> year (I assume 2001 thanks to the next date)

Cancun -> grammar, Cancún

She appeared on an episode of MuchMusic in Canada on June 11 -> June 16 was previously mentioned, should this not go in chronological order?

She also performed the song at Monkey Club Paris -> in Paris, Texas or in France?

Fixed. Oops! I may have misplaced the MuchMusic performance. Corrected it, and it is in France.

• Refereces

Ref 3, could you be more specific? The {{Cite album-notes}} has 17 fields and you are using very few of them

Ref 5, who wrote the article

Ref 11, David Manship -> Capital City Press

Ref 16, as ref 3

Ref 22, Daily News. -> Daily News. Heartland Publications.

ref 29, consistency needed with the publisher

Ref 41, as ref 3

Ref 59, IMDb is not a reliable source

Refs 62-66, as ref 3

According to WorldCat, the ISBN of Today's Superstar Entertainment: Jessica Simpson is wrong

Fixed, I guess. As for the liner notes, I could not add much, as the album has a fold out booklet, and has no page numbers printed. Similarly, for the remix ep. The release notes also suffer from almost the same issue, as the singles do not have any booklets (the information is printed on the back cover).

Those are all my comments off this article, good luck. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 07:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your comments. – Novice7 (talk) 10:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. If I am able to say support, I do. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 04:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! – Novice7 (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The release date given in the infobox is unreferenced and original research. If the Australian release date reference is used it is generalizing from one countries information to apparently global claims via original research. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I made another version of the article. I don't know if I can move it to mainspace. I have referenced the release dates on that version. It is currently in my sandbox. Thanks for the comment. – Novice7 (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That is an improvement to write it in prose. However, the reference your using doesn't say anything about release in Australia. Also the Australian chart site already used in the article lists the single as being at the later date of 25/06/2001. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed the source. I checked the chart site. It shows the same release date for many countries, while Amazon shows different ones. – Novice7 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but my original observations still stand. In addition what makes Amazon.fr with it's information pertaining to only one specific retailer a high-quality reliable source for a release date in France? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I searched on all possible online stores, and could not find anything regarding the single release. I even tried Sony Music France's website and its archive using Web Archive. I used Amazon.fr, as the release date published there corresponds to original release date in that region. Proposal: Maybe I can mention the US release date (as I found a Record label source for it) and mention it in the lead and infobox. I can add mention it was released in the US, in the infobox. – Novice7 (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

So you seem to be saying you can't source the information in the article. How about removing all the release information entirely. Especially the one in the infobox? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I found a label source. And, of course, Amazon. Also, {{Infobox single}} says "the earliest known date". That's why I added May 29. I don't know if I am allowed to remove release dates. – Novice7 (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is the label source in the article? The release date has only the amazon.fr reference used. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Beside the US vinyl release. Here's the link [36]. 14:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, don't have the time to follow this up at the moment. Feel free to ignore my coments. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I changed the layout and style of the article. – Novice7 (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Quick comment: the new images need ALT for consistency. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 04:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it okay now? – Novice7 (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. – Novice7 (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good, with a few exceptions.
• The lyrics are more mature and suggestive than those Simpson's in previous songs. - those /of/ Simpson's, maybe?
• "I think you're going to see a new side of Jessica Simpson," she explained to Associated Press.[5] - Explained? Is there a better word to use?
• The song features a string section[20] by Stockholm Session Strings.[4] - Might be better as, "The song features string instruments played by etc.".
• Irresistible" was received with mixed reviews by critics. - You said in the lead that it was met with mixed to negative reviews, can we make this consistent?
• Teresa Gubbins of The Dallas Morning News was mixed in her review, writing that the "song's sound may help get [Ms.] Simpson on urban radio but it does nothing to showcase her voice." - maybe better as "had mixed feelings in her review"
• Her performance was commended by The Richmond Times, who wrote that her voice "soared,"[69] but reproved by Andrea Kibler of The Buffalo News, who felt Simpson was lip-syncing the whole song.[70] - Can a person feel that someone is lip-synching? May be better as opined or expressed that she thought Simpson was...

Great work. ceranthor 00:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. (Please note that I had asked Ceranthor if he could check the article out. I tried my best not to canvass.) – Novice7 (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Images/Media

• "It also incorporates hooks." - source?
• "Simpson performing on the United Service Organization's Celebrity tour" - what is this?
• No issues with the images themselves - fair-use images have appropriate rationales, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed both. For the first one, it was actually a mistake. I corrected the description. As for the second, added "the song". — Novice7 (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• "from her second studio album of the same name." I know this is majorly picky, but this could be read that she had two studio albums of the same name.
• "It was first released on ..." could relate to the album, since that's what you last spoke about.
• "came up with the title" a little colloquial reading for me.
• "inter-cut with Simpson's. Simpson performed " could you not say "She performed" as it's clear you're talking about Simpson here.
• I would think it more useful to link Disney Channel Original than to link music video.
• I would avoid using ASCAP as an abbreviation before you use it expanded.
• Songs for Hall & Oates? really?!
• "they wrote the song from scratch" - reiterate "Irresistible" rather than "the song".
• "with a couple of" a little colloquial for me.
• C Major -> C major.
• "double-punch" - I have no idea if this is good, bad or indifferent!
• "of BBC gave" we usually say "the BBC".
• Last sentences of Music video section are unreferenced.
• Is "skimpy" encyclopedic?
• Reality Tour or "Reality Tour", be consistent with the quote marks.
• No need to link Paris.
• "Riprock 'N' Alex G Remix " vs "Riprock N' Alex G Remix" - consistent apostrophes please.
• Weekly charts table, ultratip should come before ultratop, I assume you're ordering them alphabetically to start with..?
• Yearly Charts->Yearly charts.
• Refs 90 to 100 (bar a couple) need to use en-dash per WP:DASH, not spaced hyphens.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rambling Man! I fixed most of the issues.

• Yes, the source says "songs for Hall & Oates.."

• Cool. No problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Allmusic review seems positive as it says none of the other songs, except the mentioned ones, register as songs.
• I added a ref. for music video.
• I linked Paris as there is Paris, Texas and Paris, France.

• I would expect no-one to confuse Paris with the one in Texas, but there you go. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I sorted it alphabetically. I can move Tip up if you want me to :)

• It isn't alphabetical in initial order, that's my point. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oops. Sorry, I fixed it. — Novice7 (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• The refs from 90 to 100 are created by {{singlechart}}. I don't know how to fix it :(

• I think I've fixed the template so it now complies with WP:MOSDASH. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

— Novice7 (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks! — Novice7 (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Ref 100: Should has a language parameter; it is mostly in German.
  • Ref 42 and 43: I think too; mostly in German.
  • Ref 49 and 50: Connection refused.
  • Ref 54: Media type text/html is wrong for .pdf files.
  • Ref 59: node name or service name not known.
  • Ref 30: How's that there are two publishers? I would pick the one between brackets.
  • Ref 32: "publisher=[[Knight Ridder]]/[[Tribune Company" — forgot two square brackets.
  • Ref 6: "publisher=Amazon.com" — publisher is "Amazon Inc."
  • Why you italicize works? Explain.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks GreatOrangePumpkin

• As I wrote earlier, they're made by Singlechart template. I don't know how to fix them.

• My fault. I usually never look above comments.

• It's okay :)

• 42 and 43 are Billboard sources.

• You are right, but the language of the website is German.

• It shows up as English to me. Maybe it is region-specific? — Novice7 (talk)

• Extremely strange. Yesterday it was in German D:. How's that? Maybe I accidently translated the article with Google Translator, but I don't think I did that without realize something. Firefox is sometimes just crazy, nothing else :/.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's okay. Thanks. — Novice7 (talk)

• Maybe a server problem. It's working for me (ref 49 and 50).

• Seems to be OK now.

• Can you please explain? I've seen it before too, but don't know what it means.

• I have no clue what the problem is. You can try someone above; maybe they will fix it. Maybe Checklinks is just plain stupid.

• Sorry, I couldn't understand.

• Someone fixed it. The sentence is from Checklinks.

• Removed. Sorry.
• It's fixed.
• It says Amazon Inc.

• Checklinks is sometimes very strange. It still shows the wrong publisher. However, it is now correct.

• I italicized work field, because, only print sources should be italicized. But, if work field is left un-italicized, then online sources will also be italicized.

• Good to know.

— Novice7 (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again! — Novice7 (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I'm afraid that because of the use of the {{singlechart}} template, ref 97 now has a spam-esque title which has no relevance to the page it's linking, and also the template's main editor has chosen to use a spaced hyphen rather than en-dash. I would advise against using the template if this "title" is what you get for every reference using that website. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I've changed it. But, I remember hearing that once the template is used, it should not be removed :( —Novice7 (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why that would be the case. The template is just another way of using a {{cite}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I changed the German chart template as you pointed out. I hope the new title is okay. If I may ask, I thought the reference titles should be the same as that of the source? —Novice7 (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation template guidelines are a little more vague, just "Title of online item". This template interprets that as the HTML title, regardless of how useful it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for clarifying. I hope the German chart is okay now? —Novice7 (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Novice7 (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:34, 11 March 2011 [37].

---

Californium

Nominator(s): mav (reviews needed) 22:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been working on this article for some time now and think it now meets all FA criteria. If it is still weak in one or more areas, please tell me and I'll try to fix those issues. The article is already A class content-wise and has recently gone through a PR. This is an obscure element that is only available in tiny amounts, so it was difficult to find sources that had significant content that would be appropriate for a general encyclopedia article. mav (reviews needed) 22:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment—I participated in the peer review of this article. It is in pretty good condition but the first three sub-sections are really thick with jargon. I gave it another read-through and found a few more issues I'd like to see addressed:

The third paragraph in ===Physical properties=== was the worst offender; it added content best suited for a table and concepts that are well beyond the interest or understanding of a general reader. So I removed it. I think the rest can be mostly understood in context by anybody who has taken and passed high school chemistry while preserving info useful to an expert. --mav (reviews needed) 01:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It's looking better now. Thank you.—RJH (talk)

The jargon-filled compounds section has been moved to its own article. The section added little and was a bit of an aside anyway. Other edits made to help explain jargon in context and make prose more clear. --mav (reviews needed)

• • The lead does not cover most of the Characteristics section, nor the production or precautions sections.
    • Another paragraph added. --mav (reviews needed) 01:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Why does the physical properties section switch from Centigrade to Kelvin and then back to Centigrade?

    Centigrade is the de-facto standard temp scale used in chemistry for normal temperatures but extreme temps make more sense expressed in Kelvin. --mav (reviews needed) 01:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  • What is the 'Cp' in Cp₃Cf? The Cp article says only that it is an obsolete symbol for Lutetium and Copernicium.

    It is the symbol that represents a metallocene, which is C₅H₅^-. But that is getting too much in the weeds, so removed. --mav (reviews needed) 01:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I think this sentence needs a little work: "Its use in mineral prospecting and in medical treatments and research means it can be found near facilities that use californium." Is this trying to say that mishandling results in some loss of the element?

    Source does not say. Sentence changed to "Californium can be found near facilities that use the element in mineral prospecting and in medical treatments." --mav (reviews needed) 01:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't think this statement is quite accurate: "Electromagnetic emissions possibly caused by the decay of californium-254 are observed in the spectra of some supernovas." The observation was that the characteristic light curve of a supernova explosion is very similar to energy curve emitted by the 55-day day half life of Californium. Hence it was suggested that supernovae generated large amounts of Californium, which supplied the energy for the light emission. However, this is now known to be incorrect since the energy comes from the decay of nickel-56. I don't believe the spectra of Californium was ever observed.

    Good catch. Commented out pending finding a good cite refuting the older work. Then maybe turn it into a footnote. --mav (reviews needed) 01:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Could the article give an energy (in eV) of the neutrons emitted by californium-252? (Or a mean energy if it is emitted over a range?)

    Is this what you had in mind? --mav (reviews needed) 02:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

    • This source says that the fission neutrons have an energy range of 0 to 13 MeV with a mean value of 2.3(2–3?) MeV and a most probable value of 1 MeV (which I interpret to mean it has a heavily skewed energy distribution).—RJH (talk)
      • Cool, thanks. Added. --mav (reviews needed) 21:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately, I couldn't tell from the source whether it was 2.3 MeV or 2–3 MeV. The notation 2·3 MeV is unclear, which is why I wrote "2.3(2–3?) MeV". Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
          • The paper uses 55•0% somewhere on the second page and throughout the text it keeps using this notation. I bet it's because of being a 50's article. So 2.3 looks correct. Nergaal (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• • There are some uncommon units missing wikilinks: 'pCi' should be linked to picocurie; 'pm' should be wikilinked to picometre.

    Linked. --mav (reviews needed) 01:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for taking another look; I will start to address each point once I get home from work. --mav (reviews needed) 19:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirect which may lead to link rot; see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 00:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah - HTTP 302. I missed that. Now fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 17:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Coren's tool showed only a mirror. I've done a couple spotchecks and found nothing concerning, but don't have access to many of the sources
• Cuningham or Cunningham? Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry or Inorganic Nuclear Chemistry?

  Cunningham and and. Fixed. --mav (reviews needed)

• Page number(s) for Seaborg 2004?

  Added. --mav (reviews needed) 20:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether publisher locations are included, and whether states/countries are included for locations. Also "Oxford, England, UK" is excessive

  Locations added for all books where given and available. State and country format made consistent except for world cities, where such disambiguation is unwelcome. --mav (reviews needed) 18:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Use a consistent date format

  Done within each level of detail. --mav (reviews needed) 20:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Use a consistent format for sources with multiple authors

  Done. --mav (reviews needed)

• Be consistent on when you use et al - I see a four-author work that uses it and an eight-author work that does not

  Et al. now used after the third author except in cases of four authors. --mav (reviews needed) 20:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• I would advocate for spelling out journal names on all occurrences. Acronyms like "CRC" should also be spelled out or linked

  Good idea. Done. --mav (reviews needed) 20:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Check formatting for ref 49 (Seaborg 1994)

  Converted to cite book. --mav (reviews needed) 20:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 43 should be identified as a PDF

  format=PDF added. --mav (reviews needed) 20:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when in references

  All journal names and publishers linked. --mav (reviews needed) 20:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• "in airport neutron-activation detectors of explosives" - source?

  Not in my cites or on Google Books, so commented out. --mav (reviews needed) 20:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how editors are notated

  Errant "(editor) removed. Everything else is per cite template format. --mav (reviews needed) 20:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources seem reliable, although I can't speak to comprehensiveness. One question, though: you seem to use a considerable number of older sources and a few tertiary sources. Is there a reason for this?

Much of the work on this element occurred in the 1950s and 1960s. Most of the specialized encyclopedias used summarize primary sources and thus are secondary sources. The others are used sparingly. --mav (reviews needed) 20:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I'll address each point this weekend. --mav (reviews needed) 03:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There are some areas that seem to awkwardly mix phrasings and/or tenses. Here's one where a better phrasing would drastically improve clarity:

• "Two to six out of 100,000 people are estimated to die of a fatal cancer if they were continuously exposed to soil with an initial average concentration of 1 pCi/g of californium-251 and californium-249, respectively."

The "are" followed by "if they were" is rather disconcerting. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 16:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I'll address each point this weekend. --mav (reviews needed) 03:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hm. I'm not sure if this addresses your exact concern but I revised the sentence to hopefully make it more understandable: "An incidence of two to six fatal cancers are expected to occur for every 100,000 people continuously exposed to soil with an initial average concentration of 1 pCi/g of californium-251 and californium-249, respectively." I'll keep your general comment in mind as I copyedit. --mav (reviews needed) 21:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

More jargon moved to daughter articles or explained/made more clear. --mav (reviews needed) 03:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Missing bibcodes: would be good to add bibcodes to journal cites where available e.g. Bibcode:1956PhRv..102..180F is one. Also use of {{LCCN}} template would be useful to link reader to record (still within |id=). Rjwilmsi 23:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Is there any indication that Cf is the heaviest element isolated in elemental form? If that was the case, then it would be worth mentioning it somewhere. Nergaal (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  No. Our articles say its fermium, but I think its dubious too - we need a criterion of how many atoms make a solid (or element, or what is "visible", "weighable", etc.) and then compare it with numbers produced. Materialscientist (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments after doing a few edits:

• bulk modulus of 50 GPa: how does this compare to other more common materials (so a layperson can appreciate the value)?

  Added Al for comparison. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• "hydrogen hydrides" what is that? (the word hydrogen is probably wrong)

  Removed. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Californium(IV) oxide (CfO2) is formed by oxidation at high pressure. " high pressure of air or O2? and how high? 10 bars, or 10kbars?
  • MS: why did you delete this?

    Removed - in the original article the authors used high gas pressure (bars I guess) to speed up the natural oxidation process without the need for high temperatures, but they didn't have to. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• " Fission neutrons of californium-252 have an energy range of 0 to 13 MeV with a mean value of 2.3(2–3?) MeV and a most probable value of 1 MeV.[25]" while interesting, very few readers whould get anything out of this without further details. What is 3? supposed to mean? How much is 1 MeV for a fission neutron? I am tempted to suggest moving half of this info to a footnote.

  It was 2.3 with middot coming from an old notation for the decimal separator. To clarify why the energies are so different - 1 is sum average and 2.3 is statistical fit. I am puzzled by how to answer on "How much is 1 MeV for a fission neutron" - it is a lot for a neutron (can knock any atom from any solid), but might be low or high for different fusion reactions. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Californium metal was first prepared in 1974" what scale did they get? miligrams? less? picturable?

  Clarified. They deposited small-area thin films suitable for electron microscopy, i.e. they did not have to maximize the amount. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• is there an estimate on the total amounts of the element synthesized until now? more than 10kg?

  It should certainly be less than 100 g.Materialscientist (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• "very minute amounts might exist in some uranium ores" from the uranic neutrons?

  "Clarified". I guess not only neutrons, but also other reactions (alphas). Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• " Compounds containing ... but pure samples of the metal have not been made in particle accelerators." not sure if this sentence sounds right

  It was indeed odd. Fixed. I guess it meant to say that pure metal is produced in accelerators and compounds in reactors, which is somewhat dubious - it is always produced as a metal, but converts to compounds (by surface reactions) later. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Californium isotopes with mass numbers 249, 252, 253, and 254 were observed for the first time in the radioactive dust collected from the air after an explosion.[44]" I would say this should be moved to the history section with the reference to 1956

  Well, it is talking about how Cf gets into the environment. Thus I think it is best to keep it in the occurrence section. As I say below, this is a synthetic element so all aspects of its occurrence will be tied to history in some way. --mav (reviews needed) 02:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• should the occurrence section be part of the characteristics one?

  Mav can add more, but for most elements "occurrence" is much closer to "production" and thus placed there, as a separate section. Materialscientist (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  Given this is a synthetic element, I agree; occurrence in the case of Cf is directly related to human production. But occurrence does make more sense placed in the characteristics section for some elements, such as oxygen, where occurrence naturally flows from a stellar nucleosynthesis-oriented isotopes section. --mav (reviews needed) 02:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• rename production to nucleosynthesis?

  "Production" is the standard WP:ELEM section title and is more accessible than nucleosynthesis. --mav (reviews needed) 02:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• "4997Bk(n,y)25097Bk" I would use a non-shorthand notation for this reaction (what is "y" here?)

  Its γ. Fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Californium in the skeleton adheres to bone surfaces before slowly migrating throughout the bone." needs citation

  Verified and moved the supporting citation (it was oddly placed). Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• maybe mention how much Cf was used/given to discover Uuo

  Added from the source. The Russian team used about 10 mg in their both attempts. Materialscientist (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As expected from Mav, a very nice article! Nergaal (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments on and edits to the article. I've been out of town for the last couple days and just got back. I'll start to address concerns later on Friday and during this weekend. --mav (reviews needed) 10:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• It looks like some things are missing. I have just noticed that californium is the heaviest element that has been reported in supernovae from the nucleosynthesis page lead section, but that fact has the tag next to it. I would have included it if only that tag was not there, but it is and thus I cannot put it in. Can somebody find the natural californium source page? There seem to be a few other details that need putting in. I want the article to become featured, and so I need all the help of my fellow Project Elements users - Lanthanum-138, Mav, Nergaal, and a few others. Let's do this together. (Mav, can you help me?) FREYWA 06:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This is discussed on the talk page under Not in supernovae (I presume). The claim goes back to 1956 and is outdated by later observations.--Stone (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ref note added about supernovae. This element seems to be a magnet for incorrect initial findings or counter-findings that keep getting repeated in otherwise reliable sources (it took me over a month to resolve whether metallic Cf had been prepared or not). Wikipedia is a great place to work these issues out. Please feel free to copy and/or modify my note to other articles. What other details are missing? I intentionally overlooked a lot of really technical info that is well beyond the interest or understanding of a general encyclopedia reader. --mav (reviews needed) 14:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• Is "weighable" a word? And shouldn't the technical and scientific term be "mass"?

• I've seen it used several times in technical literature, but changed to "amounts large enough to see with the unaided eye" instead. --mav (reviews needed) 18:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I looked it up, and it is a word, but your change addresses the concern anyway (no comment on what should, ultimately, be used in these synthetic element articles). Carcharoth (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• "is one of highest atomic mass elements" - missing word 'the' (surprised this was missed in copyediting).

  Fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 18:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• "is one of highest atomic mass elements" - possibly a hyphen is needed somewhere as well.

  I don't think so... --mav (reviews needed) 18:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  Er, yeah. I need to think twice before suggesting hyphens. Carcharoth (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Californium slowly tarnishes in air at room temperature and disrupts the body's ability to form red blood cells by bio-accumulating in skeletal tissue." - These two separate properties shouldn't really be conflated in a single sentence. It is jarring to have to mentally switch from a picture of a tarnishing metal to californium-poisoning. i.e. If read too quickly, the reader will think that one property follows on from the other. Suggest splitting into two sentence or rephrasing.

  Separate sentences now. --mav (reviews needed) 18:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Characteristics

• "Weighable amounts of californium make it possible to determine some of its properties" - again with the word weighable. But I think the point here is that you have sufficient quantities of the elements to determine certain properties. i.e. it is not the fact that it is weighable, but that you have enough of it to do certain things (including weighing it). The whole section would read better if you just said "As a synthetic element, the properties of Californium can only be determined if enough of it is produced and the isotopes produced are stable enough to be analysed". On the other hand, if "weighable" is a technical term specific to studies of chemical elements, and synthetic elements in particular, then a footnote to that effect will help.

  Changed to "Unlike many other elements heavier than plutonium, enough californium can be collected to determine some of its properties." --mav (reviews needed) 19:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• It is not immediately clear to me that α and β are the Greek letters alpha and beta. I usually like to see some parenthetical note telling me what the symbol is, if it can be described simply.

  fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 19:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• If the "double-hexagonal close-packed form" exists below 900 degrees C, does the "face-centered cubic form" exist above 900 degrees C? The lead seems to imply this, with "two crystalline forms under normal pressure, one above 900 °C and one below", but the section here in the main body of the article seems to have missed out the words "that exists above 900 °C" for the β form.

  Correct, clarified. --mav (reviews needed) 19:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note 1: "The three lower mass transplutonium elements require much less pressure to delocalize their 5f electrons" - would it be possible to name and link to these other three elements? Also, lower-mass needs to be hyphenated.

  americium, curium, and berkelium mentioned and linked in note. --mav (reviews needed) 19:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  I've passed on the hyphen bit... Carcharoth (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Why is the bulk modulus compared to that of aluminium? A random comparison or a standard one?

  There is no standard comparison for this value. Aluminium is chosen as an element, which is accessible to most readers and which has a value close to that of Cf. Materialscientist (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  What MS said. I made this clear in the text via "... but smaller than more familiar metals, such as aluminium ..." --mav (reviews needed) 19:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, that makes it much clearer. Carcharoth (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• "similar to other 3+ actinide elements" - not everyone will realise "3+" refers to valence here. Suggest rewording to "similar to other 3+ valence actinide elements".

  Done. --mav (reviews needed) 19:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• "and dysprosium, which is the lanthanide above californium" - suggest using the word "element" before dysprosium to make things clearer.

  Done. --mav (reviews needed) 19:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• "chalcogen" - this one threw me, and I'm moderately familiar with most chemical terms. Suggest explaining what a chalcogen is, as it doesn't take long.

  It might sound odd, but "chalcogen" is less ambiguous than its explanation "an element of group 16" - whereas "chalcogen" is a very common term, group 16 is confused with group 6 (VI) even by scientists :) (because of coexistence of the wide/compact periodic tables). No slightest disrespect to this comment, but basic notions are to be wikilinked rather than explained. Materialscientist (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  OK, but since oxygen is a chalcogen, is there not redundancy or imprecision in saying "hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen or a chalcogen"? I tried rephrasing it, but it is difficult. Carcharoth (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  Sure, oxygen is chalcogen. Needs a prose tweak. Materialscientist (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  Rephrased to "a chalcogen (oxygen family element)" --mav (reviews needed) 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• If it reacts with hydrogen when heated, why is the reaction with "dry hydrogen" rapid? This seems like a discrepancy without further explanation.

  I presume small amount of moisture will modify (oxidize) the surface of Cf and slow down the reaction. Many reactions stop by such surface layer, whereas pure dry hydrogen easily diffuses through and reacts with the bulk of a metal. Materialscientist (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• What are the products of the reactions named in this section?
• "Few californium compounds have been made and studied." - is it possible to have a rough range here? Less than ten? Less than 20?
• It is not clear here how you get from the samples of californium, freshly produced by the methods described later in the article, to the oxidation states being described here. When it tarnishes in air, for example, which oxide is produced? Ditto for all the other compounds named - how are they produced?
• Is there a reason the 'Chemical properties and compounds' section uses "further information" and the 'Isotopes' section uses "main article"?

  Because Compounds of californium is not supposed to be strictly an expansion of the chemistry and compounds section in this article; instead, the daughter article expands on just one part of the subsection here. Yet, that is the case for Isotopes of californium. --mav (reviews needed) 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  OK, though I've seen "see also" used at the top of sections. I've only rarely seen templates like that used at the end of sections. It just looks strange to me. I see no reason not to put all such "see other bit over here" pointers at the top of sections. i.e. my objection (and I wasn't clear on this) was more about the placement of the pointer template. I'm so used to seeing them at the top of sections that seeing one at the bottom of a section is jarring. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The isotopes of californium range in mass number from 237 to 256." - would it be possible to have a source for this?

  Same as the rest of the paragraph. Added anyway. --mav (reviews needed) 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• "due to its high neutron capture and fission cross section" - it shouldn't be too hard to put this in a less technical way - my understanding of that is that it is unstable in the environment it is formed in (the earlier mentioned "intense neutron radiation in a nuclear reactor"), due to being split up by neutrons that hit it soon after it is formed (quite why this is the case for this isotope and not others is another question, which would require unpacking the mechanics of nuclear reactions a bit more).

  Changed to "...due to its propensity to collect neutrons (high neutron capture) and tendency to interact with other particles (high cross section)."--mav (reviews needed) 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• You describe the decay products of Californium-252, but not of the other isotopes. What do Californium-249 and Californium-251 decay into? Isotopes of californium was no help here.

  Already mentioned in the Most stable isotopes part of the infobox. Cf-252 is the most important isotope so it is also mentioned in the prose. We normally summarize trends here by stating what the most common decay modes above and below the longest lived isotope are but there is no such trend for Cf. The best I can do is add: "Most of the other isotopes of californium decay to isotopes of curium ( Z = 96) via alpha decay."--mav (reviews needed) 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  I forgot to look in the infobox. As I said, I went looking in Isotopes of californium and that didn't give the decay products apart from a very small entry in {{Actinidesvsfissionproducts}} for Cf-250 to Cm-243 (I had to look hard at that template to find that), so I assumed no-one had listed them anywhere yet. It seems strange that the infobox for the element would be more detailed than the article on the element's isotopes, but maybe that just indicates more work is needed on the related articles. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Californium-252 undergoes α-decay" - the term "alpha decay" is not linked here, and is written using the Greek letter. Later on in the article, the term is linked, and written as "alpha decay". Earlier in the 'Isotopes' section you link beta decay. Inconsistent linking and use of α/alpha and β/beta. Suggest whole article is checked for this.

  Fixed in this section. --mav (reviews needed) 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  Looks OK elsewhere as well. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• "One microgram spontaneously emits 2.3 million neutrons per second." - you link to microgram. Interesting as that article is, I'd much rather learn whether 2.3 million neutrons per second is a lot or not (it sounds like a lot). Also, is the energy range given for its neutrons high, low, or normal? i.e. Can the harmfulness of Californium-252 be compared to other radioactive isotopes. I realise it is not possible to do this if the sources don't say anything, but these are obvious questions readers will ask themselves.

History

• Your NYT source says ""Element Created; Has Heaviest Atom" - but the Wikipedia article is silent on what this means. Can this be clarified?

  The NYT is hardly a good thing to cite here anyway; it is simply cited to back up an inane statement about Cf not having a known use or value when it was discovered. As if knowing what the use or value of a newly discovered element was expected by anybody who had a clue about how basic science works; one normally has to perform lots of tests before finding out what use a new element may have. Cite and statement removed. --mav (reviews needed) 20:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• "35 MeV alpha particles" - I think this should be hyphenated as "35-MeV alpha particles" (as opposed to 35 particles of a MeV each).

  Good idea. Done. --mav (reviews needed) 20:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note 2: "set-aside" - this shouldn't be hyphenated here. The "difficult to get to California" bit is cute.

  Fixed and yep. :) --mav (reviews needed)

• "Californium metal was first prepared in 1974" - this begs the question of what state the 5000 atoms initially produced in 1950 were in. Is this "unknown", or were they ions detected by the synchrotron? You also say that "nuclei" were produced in 1950, and then later say "atoms". Which was it? Nuclei or atoms?

  Certainly atoms. Those 5000 atoms were scattered in the target composed of another material (which turned into a complex mixture after irradiation) and were detected by energy and character of emitted particles. I believe those were individual atoms (per low conversion probability) in a solid matrix, and that there was no technique to ascertain that in the 1950s (even now such identification would not be trivial). Materialscientist (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, that makes it clearer. So should the one instance of "nuclei" be changed to "atoms"? Search for "nuclei" in the text of the article. I suppose the equations are for nuclei, aren't they? Though if the beta particle is shown with a minus sign, why is the alpha particle not shown as a double positive charge? Alpha decay has a 2+ by the helium nucleus. I know the electrons matter little here, as these are nuclear reactions, not chemical reactions, but it still seems inconsistent. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• "long-duration irradiation" - what duration? Is this days, months, years? (You do give a hint later, with the "five years" bit).
• You fail to give the year for the weighable quantities bit.

  The actual journal article that published the achievement is cited. I don't have access to that article, so I can't say if the achievement was done the same year as publication or before that (or even if the article mentions the date). --mav (reviews needed) 20:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  I would suggest either trying to get hold of a copy of the reference, or giving the year the results were published. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Why is the metal production year (1974) put in so early? It seems out of order with the rest of the history.

  An artifact of section expansion. Fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 20:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Production

• "Bombardment of californium-250 with neutrons produces californium-251 and 252" - you need to either pre-hyphenate 252 or write out californium a third time, or rephrase this.

  Done. --mav (reviews needed)

• "Millionth gram" - this needs hyphenating, but isn't this just another way to say "microgram"?

  Changed to "microgram" --mav (reviews needed) 21:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Only two sites produce californium-252" - this repeats what was said in the 'History' section. Readers will notice this. But in any case, the material in each section looks at first glance to be contradictory! The history section says "The High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina" and the rest of the article (including the production section) says "Oak Ridge National Laboratory". When you click on High Flux Isotope Reactor you find out it is "located at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee". But then you go back to the history section of this article, and find that it says "at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina". What is going on here? (Note that the 'Applications' section mentions the 'Savannah River Plant' as well.) The quantities mentioned in the two sections don't seem to match up either. I would say, work out what needs saying, and say it in one section only. Note also my comment on the talk page of this FAC page about the IP edit that seems to have caused the confusion here.

  Argh - History section cleaned-up. I need to recheck all relevant sources to clear this up in all affected sections. --mav (reviews needed) 03:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• "available for commercial use through the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission" - here, it is worth making clear that the regulatory activities passed to this body (give the year) from the Atomic Energy Commission mentioned in the History section.
• You gave a price in the history section. Are no current prices available?

  For such elements the price is rarely available in reliable sources, and I can only speculate why (e.g. all orders are highly individual, they specify the required purity, form, etc., that affects the price). Materialscientist (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  Fair enough. An example here would at least give some idea, but it may be best to let readers look this one up themselves if they are curious. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Three californium isotopes with significant half-lives are produced, requiring a total of 14 neutron captures by uranium-238 without nuclear fission or alpha decay occurring during the process." - For this sentence to really sink in, it would be best to point out that the berkelium (and the elements it is produced from) are all themselves made in nuclear reactors or particle accelerators, in a chain that can be traced back to uranium (as in the diagram). This point hasn't been made earlier in the article.

  Good idea. Added "Californium-253 is at the end of a decay chain that starts with uranium-238, includes several isotopes of plutonium, americium, curium, and berkelium and the californium isotopes 249 to 253 (see diagram)." --mav (reviews needed) 21:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Applications

• "half-lifes" - should this be "half-lives"?
• "received a loan of 119 µg of californium-252" - do you need to link or write out "µg"?

  Note to Mav: it stood as mg, but changed to µg a few hours ago per source

  See also my note further down about µg vs mg vs g. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Neutron penetration into materials makes it useful" - replace "it" with "californium".
• As an aside, the 'applications' section is very interesting and well-written, and the changes in use over time was fascinating (the californium bullet bit was hilarious - though not really an 'application' is it?).
• "and fission fragment and half-life studies are other applications of californium" - by "fission fragment" do you mean "fission fragment studies"? I found this sentence a bit impenetrable. It would be nice to know what fission fragment studies are and how californium is used in half-life studies.

  To clarify: "studies of fission fragments [chemical identity] and half-lives". Technically, these might be different measurements, of emission energy, emitting particle nature, and of decay time. Materialscientist (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Precautions

• "an initial average concentration of 1 pCi/g" - any chance of explaining what this means? Comparing it to something else? Is this, for example, considered a safe or dangerous level? How does it compare to the levels mentioned in the 'Occurrence' section?

Other

• Didn't check the infobox (I saw some verification thing going on in all the chemical infoboxes, that I assume has been done now?), though it does look fascinating, but the redlink "d" is a bit distracting. Minor quibble, I know!
• Seaborg died in 1999. It confuses me to see "Seaborg 2004" in the references! Is there not a more elegant way to cite an entry in an edition that was published after the author of that piece died?

  It is the 5th edition, of an encyclopedia, which usually reprints former editions with minor additions and corrections. Materialscientist (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  An extreme example of the same issue is for Mark Twain's autobiography (2010). The date is simply a publication date. I'm not aware of any citation convention that accounts for this type of thing. --mav (reviews needed) 18:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  I'm going to strike this, as difficult to action or unactionable. Personally I'd not bother with giving the author here, as it is the encyclopedia editors that are taking responsibility for the republication of Seaborg's original entry. Out of interest, does the entry in that edition directly credit Seaborg or indicate when the entry was first written, and does it indicate whether updates have been made and does it credit any changes (the actual text of the entry might make it clear that changes have been made since the last edition)? FWIW, the first edition seems to have been 1994. Carcharoth (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• In the two equations in the article, I was able to understand what the equations were showing because I can read such equations, but someone with no science background would not recognise them. Is it possible to have links or words under each bit to explain them? In particular, something saying that Cm is curium, that He is (in this case) an alpha particle/helium nucleus, that Cf is californium (in case the reader has forgotten this), and that n is the symbol for a neutron? For the second equation, saying that Bk is Berkelium, that β- is a beta particle/electron, and that n,γ is (I think) neutron and gamma rays?
• The article would read better, IMO, if it ended on the final sentence of the "applications" section. Has the order of sections in the elements articles been determined by WikiProject Chemistry? If so, fair enough, but the "Precautions" section ends on a fairly damp squib of a rather technical nature. Best of all would be to end with the "ununoctium" bit, sticking the "other applications of californium" sentence somewhere else.

  The section order is set by WP:ELEMENTS. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Guidelines. --mav (reviews needed) 18:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  Though I see you don't stick rigidly to that layout, so technically this is actionable, or to put it another way, if I pointed out that parts of this article's layout don't conform to that WikiProject guideline (I'm not going to do this, as I agree with the changes you made), you would have to justify the changes, but it doesn't work the other way round? It's not a major concern, but it still stands, as I think ending an article on "precautions" is failing to consider the best way to finish the article. I'll have a look at some other featured articles on elements and consider this some more. Carcharoth (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Seaborg's Nobel Prize was for his work on discoveries in the transuranic elements. I believe that that includes his work on this element. If that can be double-checked, it is worth mentioning here, I think.

  Nobel cite says "for their discoveries in the chemistry of the transuranium elements". Cf was announced in Feb. 1950 and the prize given in 1951. The speech mentions Cf, but as a recent addition, thus per my WP:OR I would say it was probably not a decisive element of the Nobel Prize award. Materialscientist (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  That is the "Presentation Speech by Professor A. Westgren, Chairman of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences". Now that you've pointed me there, I got to wondering what Seaborg sent in his Banquet Speech (unfortunately he gave it in Swediah and I can't understand it) or even in his official Nobel Lacture. I tried to find a suitable quote from there, but it doesn't really fit. There might be possibly pointers there to improve the history section still further, though. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Two of the researchers mentioned in the history section either don't have articles or are wrongly linked here. Stanley Thompson (1893-1953) was a Canadian golf course architect. Kenneth Street (1890-1972) was an Australian jurist. I don't know if either were related to the researchers in question here, but it is kind of depressing that articles arrive at FAC without people at earlier review stages having checked links like this (please don't take offense at this, it is not directed at this article in particular - it happens on other articles as well). When I noticed this on another FAC article recently, I suggested that all the links be double-checked to make sure they go to the correct destination. It takes time, but is worth doing.

  Fixed by Stone and noted for future copyedits. --mav (reviews needed) 18:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  I see Stone has created Stanley Gerald Thompson. And from there I found this (Stone had found a mirror site, I think, not sure about how that works), which is fascinating and a potential help in finding journal articles about the history of the discovery, but that could be a whole other article in itself. Carcharoth (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  Additional note: I did short stub for Kenneth Street, Jr. as well. Street died in 2006. I wasn't aware that Ghiorso died only a few months ago (December 2010). A nice bit of trivia (not for this article) is that there was a proposal to give ununoctium the name Ghiorsium. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• The picture of the shipping cask is a great one for this article, but I was hoping to read something in the article about the technology involved there, and what the methods used are to transport this element and why such large and heavy casks are needed. I have a vague idea why, but I'm not going to speculate. The other question would be how the element is got out of that flask and into the equipment mentioned in the applications section.
• In some places the article talks about milligrams, in others it talks about micrograms, and in others it talks about grams. This is a difference of several orders of magnitude. I noticed Materialscientist corrected at least one instance where microgram had wrongly been written as milligram. Is it possible to do a complete check through the whole article to make sure no similar mistakes are present? Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully some of those comments will be of use. I'll check back over the next few days and see if anything else comes up on a second reading. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review - I'll start addressing your points later on Sunday. --mav (reviews needed) 06:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comments - reading through now - will make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning), and jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• In the Physical properties section, you change from Celsius to Kelvin. I think it'd be better to stick to one or used C (K) or something.

Unresolved items copied to talk:Californium. --mav (reviews needed) 11:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:34, 11 March 2011 [38].

---

The Autobiography of Malcolm X

Nominator(s): — GabeMc (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC), Protonk (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

We are nominating The Autobiography of Malcolm X for featured article because after it's GAN and two peer reviews we believe the article is FA quality. — GabeMc (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This nomination was trancluded on 9 February; when transcluding a FAC, please update the timestamps to avoid premature closing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments:

• All sources look good. Some require fee or subscription to view the article, and these should be noted, by adding either "Fee required" or (subscription required) to the citation. This applies to 69, 70, 74, 75, 76. Check for others.
• Spotchecks: Mostly OK, but: "In 1998, Time named The Autobiography of Malcolm X one of the ten most influential nonfiction books of the 20th century"[78] I can't see this mentioned in cited source. Brianboulton (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll try to get a scan of the original article but I think the marginal notes in print made clear those 10 books in the linked reference were the top of the "Time 100" non-fiction books for the 20th century. Protonk (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I linked to the Table of Contents of that issue of Time, which describes the list of nonfiction books. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, I added the {{subscription}} tags where appropriate. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The link to the "Table of contents" adds nothing and should be removed. The Paul Gray source will be OK if you change the text to correspond with what's in the source, which lists ten "required reading" nonfiction books. It doesn't say "ten most influential" and doesn't mention the 20th century. So you should say: "In 1998, Time named The Autobiography of Malcolm X as one of ten "required reading" nonfiction books". Brianboulton (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I'll change it, but I believe you're wrong. The cover of Time says "100 Artists and Entertainers of the Century" and the Table of Contents indicates that this list is part of a special section whose contents are all "most influential". But I'm not interested in getting in a pissing match over it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose
  • " Arnold Rampersad and Michael Eric Dyson agree that the narrative of the Autobiography resembles the Augustinian approach to confessional narrative."—who are Arnold Rampersad and Michael Eric Dyson (in other words, why do we care what they think?) Likewise, every time you bring in a new critic, professor, what have you, explain who they actually are. Wikilinks are not a crutch for unclear writing.
    • Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "and was credited in much the same way ghostwriters are credited, when they are credited."—Besides having way too many "credited" in close proximity, this doesn't actually explain how ghostwriters are credited.
    • Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "modern sources tend to treat him as an essential and core collaborator"—which ones? you start out by essentially stating this as fact, but at the end of the paragraph you appear to only have Dyson and Marable supporting that idea.
    • By the end of the section it is clear that modern sources such as Dyson, Marable, Eakin, Stone, Gillespie and Wolfenstein all support the idea that Haley was "an essential and core collaborator". — GabeMc (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "In a view shared by many critics"—I'm uncomfortable with this, as the citation schema suggests that no source clearly stated "many critics", instead it's a synthesis of different books' reaction to the view.
    • Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The biggest issue here is that the article is severely tilted out of balance; the critical response section is inadequate I feel for telling me exactly how the book was received. There are only really positive views selected, but is that actually representative of its reception at the time? Can you objectively source "Other contemporary reviews were positive but mixed"?
    • I'll try to make this more clear in the text, but what we have are reviews from The Nation, NYT, Newsweek, Time, LAT, and I think (though it isn't in the article) the Saturday Evening Post. Apart from snippets or references from other secondary works, we can only work from those reviews. I know this doesn't count for much but I don't have a strong reason to believe those reviews are not representative. Protonk (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but we need to prove something is, not that something isn't or given the benefit of the doubt. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I've removed the sentence in question. I'd like to be able to make a broader claim about contemporary reviews since a lot of retrospective commentary doesn't focus on the actual distribution of opinion about the book, but I'll wait until I find a source. Protonk (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Thanks. I'll take a look at the article later on tonight hopefully. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm also concerned about the excessive quotations, which may have been attempts to avoid close paraphrasing. Either way they give the article a disjointed feel, more a collection of facts and views in some sections than a cohesive article about a subject. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Images

• "This was the only time the two men ever met and their meeting lasted only one minute." - source?
  • The Malcolm X page cites Cone's Martin & Malcolm & America: A Dream or a Nightmare p.2. I'll see if Gabe or Malik have another source or just want to add that. Protonk (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I added Cone as a footnote. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• File:Alex_haley_US_coast_guard.png - evidence that it was taken by a USCG employee? Source link? If I recall correctly you provided a source link at the last FAC, but you need to put it on the image description page
  • Source added to image page on commons. Protonk (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• File:AutobiographyOfMalcolmX.JPG - source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I freshened the link. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Image links, for my convenience: File:AutobiographyOfMalcolmX.JPG, File:MartinLutherKingMalcolmX-3.jpg, File:Alex haley US coast guard.png. Protonk (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note to nominators - You may wish to get proactive in seeking reviews for this nomination. The first nom was archived for lack of attention, and this one is going that way. With the FAC backlog as it is, I would normally archive the nom at this point, but I'm willing to let it run longer since this is your second attempt. Please drop notes at relevant WikiProjects asking for reviews, ping previous reviewers, etc. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Something else to put in my box of reasons why I don't usually bring things to FAC, I guess. Protonk (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what that means. I'm just providing advice as a delegate for how to move your nomination forward. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Noted. I'm just making a general comment. Protonk (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I left requests at the three relevant WikiProjects (Books, African diaspora, and Islam). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - But here are a few minor areas of possible improvement:

1. Section "Malcolm X and Haley as collaborators" seems overly long; should be broken into a couple of subsections.
2. Section "Malcolm X and Haley as collaborators" could use a better, more precise title that encompasses all that material.
3. Pic of MLK near top of "Malcolm X and Haley as collaborators" section doesnt seem too relevant at that location. Move?
4. I would like to see a small section at bottom on "Impact" or "Legacy" or "Influence" of the book, which summarizes latter works that refer to it, or pay homage, etc
5. I would combine the two sections "References" and "Further Reading", but that's just my preference.
6. True bibliophiles would insist on a list of the editions (I presume there were multiple)

• Fixed. --Noleander (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, great article. --Noleander (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I tweaked the title a little (2), but it will need a better title when it's split into smaller sections (1) tomorrow. Moved the pictures (3) and combined the two sections (5) (did you mean sort them together, or just move them under one heading?). I agree that a section on the book's influence would be a great addition (4), but I don't have the time now to research it properly (deadlines at work). As for different editions (6), that's also interesting research that will have to wait (unless somebody else can do it now). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding (5) References vs Further Reading: I suggested combining them into a single list. But that is just my preference, and there are good reasons for leaving them as two lists. --Noleander (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My personal preference is to break them back out, but it isn't a big deal. Protonk (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries. They were never combined. --Noleander (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• Alex Haley needs linking on first mention in the body (taking the example of Malcolm X, which is linked in both the lead and the body).
  • Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Regarding the first block quote in Construction, it describes how Malcolm X "stopped almost as if he was suspended like a marionette", and then how he continued walking. Could some context be given in its introductory paragraph describing the fact that he was walking to begin with (which would add to the power and meaning of the quote)?
  • The source the quote is taken from gives no context of Malcolm's pacing, except that Haley was asking Malcolm questions. However, the quote itself does state, "And that was the beginning, that night, of his walk". — GabeMc (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    • So he started after he stopped? Alright. Apterygial 23:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• "He expended energy to minimize his own voice, signed a contract to limit his authorial discretion nominally in favor of producing what looked like verbatim copy." Are the two parts of this sentence linked? That is, did he sign the contract to "minimize his own voice"? "signing" or "and signed" might then be more appropriate here.
  • Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• I also don't understand the use of "nominally" here; was it "nominally in favor of producing what looked like verbatim copy" or did he nominally "limit his authorial discretion"?
  • Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• "Haley writes that during the last months of Malcolm X's life "uncertainty and confusion" about his views were widespread in Harlem." What is the relevance of Harlem in this case? Why is it important the article tell us about the "uncertainty and confusion" in Harlem in particular?
  • The source, (Andrews 1993, p.152) specifically refers to "uncertainty and confusion" in Harlem, about his views. Harlem was Malcolm's base of operations. — GabeMc (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• "Haley influenced the narrative's direction and tone while remaining faithful to his subjects syntax and diction." Needs possessive apostrophe.
  • Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• The third paragraph in Publication, sales, and critical reception is a bit of a mess, tense-wise. Fremont-Smith and Ward's receptions to the book are framed in present tense, for example, and then Rustin, Newsweek and Nelson's are in past tense. The next three sentences are present, present, past. I think a decision needs to be made about which is best to use.
  • This is my fault. I'll fix it tonight. Protonk (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Protonk (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• "In 1968 film producer Marvin Worth commissioned a screenplay based on The Autobiography of Malcolm X from novelist James Baldwin, who was later joined by screenwriter Arnold Perl, who died in 1971 before the screenplay could be finished." The repetition of "... , who ..." here is slightly clumsy; could it perhaps be re-worded? For example, "In 1968 film producer Marvin Worth commissioned a screenplay based on The Autobiography of Malcolm X from novelist James Baldwin; he was later joined by screenwriter Arnold Perl, who died in 1971 before the screenplay could be finished."
  • Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Not sure of the official ruling on this one, but I believe the ISBNs in Editions need formatting so they link (as in the References section).
  • Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• The "GoodReads book statistics" reference needs more detail.
  • Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• To some extent I share David Fuchs' view (above) that the extensive use of quotes gives the article a disjointed feel; it doesn't tend to flow as a narrative, rather it seems to be in places simply an analysis of the critical commentary. This is not really an actionable point, but it is perhaps worth bearing in mind for future articles. Apterygial 10:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The quote issue is a tough one. If you look through the past revisions of the page you'll see that what quotes remain in the article are significantly pared down from where it stood even before the GA nom (let alone after the RfC). The issue at the core of the article is the debate over the book authorship as it relates to ideas about autobiography, imputed ideas about Malcolm X himself, and the back and forth over how a narrative becomes a published work (or vice versa). Apart from that debate the commentary on the book is fairly pedestrian. Also, among the quotes left on the page there are at least 2-4 which are too good to summarize and too central to remove. I know that isn't really an answer, but it is an idea as to where we are coming from. Protonk (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Support: I have no outstanding concerns. Apterygial 23:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:34, 11 March 2011 [39].

---

Charles Holden

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Charles Holden was an early modernist architect who left a lasting architectural legacy in London. Starting out in the Arts and Crafts Movement at the beginning of the 20th century, he progressively simplified and stripped down his style to its bare elements. He was awarded the Royal Institute of British Architects' highest award, the Royal Gold Medal, in 1936 and declined a knighthood on two occasions. In the 1920s he was one of the principle architects designing the war cemeteries in France and Belgium for the British war dead of the First World War. His largest buildings in London remain prominent examples of the 1930s monumental style, but he is probably best known for and had the longest lasting influence with his stations for London Transport. DavidCane (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional Comment: I originally wanted to use Eitan Karol's definitive biography Charles Holden: Architect as a source, but the book cost £50 when published and no less now on the second hand market. Six months ago I placed an inter-library book request for it, but had given up hoping that a copy might turn up, so finished the article with the information available. Unexpectedly, the book has arrived today (thanks Kent County Library Service and University of Bristol). As might be expected, Karol's book contains a great deal of information on its subject. I will therefore be adding some new information to the less developed sections of the article (Early life, Family, War cemeteries and memorials and Town planning) and possibly more on architectural criticism and his architectural writing. This will mean some additional references being added and some possibly being replaced. I don't expect that this will have any detrimental affect on the condition of the article, whilst the changes are made.--DavidCane (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Earwig's and Coren's tools found no copyvio, a few spotchecks of available sources found no overly close paraphrasing
• "Many of Holden's buildings have been granted listed status, protecting them against demolition and unapproved alteration." - source?
  • None of the sources state this specifically, but List of buildings by Charles Holden (in the See also section) identifies all of his buildings that have been given listed status, with individual references.--DavidCane (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Pevsner or Pevnser?
  • The first.--DavidCane (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Initially, Holden ran the drawing office and worked as the senior design architect under the three Principal Architects" - according to the source, "he was appointed one of the Imperial War Graves Commission's principal architects" alongside the three you mention, not under them
  • Clarified with an extra ref. Hutton & Crawford's "alongside" means he joined Lutyens, Bloomfield, and Baker in that role. Guerst, explains on page 60 of his book that he was promoted after them. --DavidCane (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Why no retrieval dates for Images of England refs?
  • The template does not have a field for this. I have checked when they were added and put in the date they were added manually.--DavidCane (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Standardize formatting for the two Architectural Review refs
  • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Check formatting for Karol
  • Done, I think.--DavidCane (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether or not publisher locations are included Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks.--DavidCane (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. A few external redirects which may lead to link rot; see them with the tool in the upper right corner of this page. --PresN 19:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment Oughn't the ODNB ref to be formatted with {{cite encyclopedia}} rather than {{cite web}}? --Eisfbnore ^talk 20:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

As I have cited the web edition of the ODNB rather than the print version, there is no volume number, page number or edition detail to include. The result is, therefore, exactly the same with the two cite templates. See below:

• Cite encylopedia: Hutton, Charles; Crawford, Alan (October 2007). "Holden, Charles Henry (1875–1960), architect" (Subscription required). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/33927. Retrieved 25 September 2010. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Cite web: Hutton, Charles; Crawford, Alan (October 2007). "Holden, Charles Henry (1875–1960), architect" (Subscription required). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/33927. Retrieved 25 September 2010. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

--DavidCane (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment An interesting article which seems largely comprehensive. A couple of comments:

Early life

• (1842–1918}, seems to be a stray curly bracket
  • Fixed.--DavidCane (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Should "Following the lose of his father's business.." be "Following the loss of his father's business.."?
  • It should. Fixed.--DavidCane (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• We now have articles on quite a few winners of the Soane Medallion it may be worth an article or list
  • I haven't seen a lot on the medallion, I can't even find much on the RIBA web site.--DavidCane (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • For separate discussion.— Rod ^talk 08:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Early career

• For the work on Bristol Central Library you may be interested in Beeson, Anthony (2006). Bristol Central Library and Charles Holden. Bristol: Redcliffe Press. ISBN 1-904537-53-7. which I didn't spot in the reference list
• The comparison with Charles Rennie Mackintosh is currently supported by a subscription only source (ref 5) - you amy want to consider The central library entry at Looking at Buildings
  • That's a sentence I will be getting to shortly. The Karol book I now have, provides some better opinion than Pevsner's.--DavidCane (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

War cemeteries and memorials

• Should the country described in the quote be explained - I would guess France of Belgium but I couldn't find this.
  • Holden was in both France and Belgium. From the context, I think he is using "country" in the sense of landscape or countryside rather than nation.--DavidCane (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• In what was was the war cemetery at Louvencourt "experimental"?
  • The IWGC tried out three different prototype cemetery schemes to see what they would cost to build. Louvencourt was one of these prototypes. They were all too expensive (each war cemetery was originally going to have a chapel, a "war cross" and a "great stone"), so they revised the specifications to eliminate some of the items in the smaller cemeteries and bring the costs down for the ones that followed. I will add some clarification.--DavidCane (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I see this is now dealt with in note 9.— Rod ^talk 08:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

London Transport

• In the paragraph about the UERL HQ, the description of Portland stone cladding as "austere" is unreferenced and could be considered POV without clarifying who made the comment.
  • The OED definition of austere is "severely simple". I think that is a reasonable description of the building's architecture without any POV.--DavidCane (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Fair enough.— Rod ^talk 17:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Generally I found it a very interesting read.— Rod ^talk 21:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • • Support Following the changes made I now think this meets the FA criteria.— Rod ^talk 08:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment (followed by review later): I've read about the war memorial and war cemetery work Holden did, and I'm going to read through this article and leave some thoughts here. We should have a picture somewhere of one of his cemeteries, not just the memorials he did. Carcharoth (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Lead section: In one of the biographies I created recently, someone came along and put the postnomials in a template. The edit is here. The template is {{Post-nominals}}. I'm generally wary of wrapping article prose in templates, but this looked interesting. Should it be standard on biographical articles (this isn't really the right place to ask that), and should it be used on featured articles (I might ask at WT:FAC), and should it be used in this article? The lead paragraph mentions the WWI cemeteries but not the WWI memorials (admittedly, there were far more cemeteries than memorials). Should the WWI memorials be mentioned in the lead or not? In "simplified forms and massing", massing is a technical term here that I stumbled on. Is it possible to have a link or rephrase this?
  • For the reasons you gave, I would be reluctant to use it simply for stylistic purposes. The examples given at WP:INITIAL are full size.--DavidCane (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Early life: It is possible to link Great Lever. Personally, I would then delink Bolton and Lancashire (all three are linked in the infobox). I would also say where St Helens is, as that gives an idea of how far they moved. Is a more specific link for 'draughting' possible? I think linking to 'Manchester' in 'Manchester architect' is overlinking. One general thing from this section - it is not clear exactly what qualifications he gained - can that detail be added?
  • I've linked to Great Lever, but think Bolton and Lancashire still need to be linked.
  • I've addded a note to indicate that St Helens is about 15 miles from Bolton.
  • His draughting classes weren't specific to any one field, although Karol says the class was called "Mechanical Engineering", but it was essentially draughting. I've linked to technical drawing.
  • Holden had no formal architectural qualifications - not uncommon at the time - and received most of his training on the job. Karol indicates that he did a class in Architectural history at the School of Art (grade: Excellent) and classes in "Brickwork and Masonry" and "Building Construction and Drawing" (first class honours in both) at the Manchester Technical School. These were vocational subjects like City & Guilds from which he won a £3 prize for the brickwork and masonry course. He also studied architecture at evening classes for three years at the Royal Academy School when he started working for Adams. I'll be adding a bit about the RA when I make some changes to the Early Career section.--DavidCane (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Family life: you don't link his wife's professions (nurse and midwife) but in the earlier section you linked his father's professions (draper and milliner) and his brother's profession (land surveyor). I would say for consitency, either link all or delink all, unless there is a reason to link them. I also disagree with linking the counties if there is an article on the towns. The link people are most likely to want to follow are the ones to the towns/cities. They can then go from there to the articles on the counties if they want to do so (this applies through the whole article). It might be worth mentioning in the article that Margaret Steadman was 10 years older than him - when they began living together he was 23 and she was 33. I also find the "Norbiton, Surrey (now Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames)" bit confusing. The point there is more that Norbiton was more rural at the time, but was swallowed up by the expansion of London in the early 20th century. What you really need to get across there is what Norbiton was like at the time - were they living in dense suburbia or gentrified country, or a small village? The austere family life and the 'betterment of the World' comment is intriguing. Is anything said anywhere about religion, or is it all from the philosophies encountered in the Manchester days? Is anything more known about the stepson Allan and how old he was? Was he around or grown up? This section ends with 'Charles and Margaret Holden lived at Harmer Green for the rest of their lives'. The rest of the article is all about the architectural career and legacy. It is normal to include a bit about the end of a subject's life in an article such as this. Standard would be his death date (already supplied in the lead and infobox), the location of his death (already in the infobox), possibly the cause of death if known, where he is buried, and whether he was survived by his wife (sorry, his partner - did she inherit despite not being married to him, for example). Also, in the rest of the article she is referred to as Margaret Holdman, though you say they never married? Did she change her name? Was she his common-law wife? I see that the article does say that Margaret died in 1954, but you have to scroll back up the article to find that out).
  • As I indicated in my Additional Comment above , this section is one I am going to expand a bit as I work through Karol's book. The information is a bit scattered, but I can say that most of the Holden's life style was philosophical. Holden had both grown up in the Church of England but found it unfulfilling and moved away from formal religion. Both were associated with the Quakers but not formal members.
  • Allan Steadman did live with the Holden's at Harmer Green and there is an interesting quote from Janet Ashbee about Charles and Margaret making their own clothes and a suit for Allan. What he did in later life Karol does not seem to say.
  • I didn't emphasis that Margaret was older than Charles as this didn't seem particularly important. It can be worked out quite easily from their dates.
  • Margaret pre-deceased him. Their attitude to marriage was that it was an artificial imposition by society. She was generally known as Mrs Holden, as most people did not know that they were not married. Common law marriage does not actually exist in England and the term wasn't used in their day.
  • In earlier drafts, the family life section was at the end of the article, but this seemed out of context, with most of what it contained relating to things that happened earlier in his life.
  • Holden was cremated and his ashes scattered in the Garden of the Friends Meeting House at Hertford. A memorial service was held at St Pancras church in June 1960.
  • Nurse and midwife are commonly recognised terms, but the meanings of draper and milliner are more obscure these days. I linked land surveyor because surveyor is a generic term and there are many specialisms (I'm a Quantity surveyor myself, but know little about the land surveyor's role).
  • I think it is quite normal to link both town and county in articles.--DavidCane (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Skipping ahead, the external links section could do with a bit of tidying. I thought that guidance existed on this, but maybe it doesn't. The best practices I've seen are ones where you tell the reader you are linking to a search rather than a website (the London Transport Museum Photographic Archive link) and where deep linking (the LTM photographic archive sublink) to an image is avoided - that image will have a proper page that can be linked to, such as this one or (for the one you linked to) this one (the hopefully permanent links are the 'Bookmark this page' links at left on that website). For National Portrait Gallery pictures, I would recommend using {{Npg name}} to format the external link and generate the right link. The RIBA link is a search as well, so some annotation for the external link should tell the reader that (is there really no guidance anywhere on this?). I also checked the sister projects, and Commons has a page commons:Charles Holden, as well as a category. Currently the article only links to the category, but if someone was prepared to expand and maintain the Commons page, that would be a good link to have (you can annotate things there where you can't in a category). Nothing found on wikisource.
  • I'll have a look at the external links formatting, though I don't think there is any guidance on this section. I have concentrated on the prose, but more full details on where the links go might be useful.
  • I'm not sure what the preference is on Commons regarding personal articles; it seems more appropriate to link to the category, rather than create an extra page just to give annotations to images.--DavidCane (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• A general point: should the mentions of listed status be capitalised? eg. Grade 1, Grade II, etc.?
  • A good point. They probably should be.--DavidCane (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Early career: I find semi-linking of terms within proper names very distracting. The example here is "King Edward VII Sanatorium". The name is 'King Edward VII Sanatorium', and if you need to link sanatorium, that should be done without interrupting the flow of the name, IMO. Similarly, linking to Cornwall in 'Cornish granite' is a bit much. Better in both cases would be redlinks if articles are needed. For "Dedicated to the memory of King Edward VII", maybe mention he died in 1910, as the design competition was 1909. FWIW, we have a picture of Oscar Wilde's tomb in Paris - if there is no room in the article, that would be something for the list article or for the Commons page (rather than the Commons category).
  • Delinked the two examples. They've probably been there a long time.
  • Clarified the Edward VII naming reason.
  • I haven't included Oscar Wilde's tomb image due to space constraints.--DavidCane (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Another general point - when you quote what critics and others are saying, it is not clear unless the reader burrows around in the references, when these comments are being made. Are they contemporary to Holden, or people commenting closer to our time? I think it is important to distinguish these two main classes of comments (Pevsner and Service are writing in the 1970s, while others such as Karol in 2007, are writing much more recently). I would tend to give date context when mentioning a source by name in the article for the first time.
  • I don't think the distinction needs to be made. It is more normal to show the date in reference at the bottom of the page. If the quote was from someone other than the author of the cited source or at some other time, I have, where possible, indicated where and when the quote originates. --DavidCane (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• War cemeteries and memorials: You could link First World War once somewhere in the article, maybe the first time it appears in this section? I'll come back to this section later, as I have some books on this that might be of use. OK, I've put what I have on the talk page here. I think the only bit that could be added (after I discovered that Stamp misattributed the Royal Artillery Memorial) is the quote from Von Berg - as someone who worked with Holden, I think it would help to give that side of things. It seems that the early history of Holden with the IWGC is not that clear, and I can't suggest much to improve on what the article already says. I think what I will do here is work on List of buildings by Charles Holden and make sure the list of cemeteries is complete and sourced. It is possible that will need renaming in some way, but could the link here at least make clear that the list is not just buildings and also includes cemeteries? It might also be worth mentioning that Pearson, Holden's partner in the architectural firm, worked on the Royal Artillery Memorial.
  • I've linked First World War where first used, though it is arguably a common enough term not to need it.
  • The list of buildings was compiled as I found new items for inclusion. A series of detailed lists is included in Karol's book, so I was going to revise this to add quite a number of smaller projects and unbuilt projects not currently included.
  • The list of cemeteries was compiled by digging around in the Commonwealth War Graves website and is sourced to that already. Karol's book contains a list based on an IWGC original, although he and Guerst both indicate that this was prepared some time after the event and has obvious errors and omissions.--DavidCane (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• London Transport: The 'Day and Night' link is to an image. Is that acceptable? Other than that, this section is really good (as is most of the article). When I encountered the name 'Eric Aumonier' here, I thought it sounded familiar. Is the William Aumonier mentioned earlier a relative? The link behind 'Post-war austerity measures' is disappointing. I had expected an article on post-WWII austerity, but instead got a poor article on austerity.
  • It's not common to link directly to an image, but quite acceptable, I believe.--DavidCane (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Eric Aumonier was William's son.
  • I've changed the austerity link to one that goes to Economic history of the United Kingdom#1945–1959: the post-War era, which is more directly related.--DavidCane (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• University of London: "Others have described it as Stalinist, or as totalitarian due to its great scale." Should the links be to the articles on the -isms (in this case Stalinism), or is this a reference to Stalinist architecture and would that be a better link? I don't know if totalitarianism is also an architectural term, but if it is we don't have an article on it. The Senate House building does remind me of that massive building done in (I think) Romania - do you know the one I mean?
  • I think the use of Stalinist was more to the political meaning of the world. The style of buildings illustrated in the Stalinist architecture article are not really like the Senate House and quite a long way from Holden's undecorated style. The totalitarian usage is probable a reference the building having a similarity to those of Albert Speer in Nazi Germany and a connection between its size and the massive buildings he planned there (see Nazi architecture).
  • The communist era in eastern Europe threw up a number of massive buildings which might be candidates. You may be thinking of the Palace of the Parliament or the Casa Presei Libere in Bucharest, the White House in Moscow or the Palace of Culture and Science in Warsaw.--DavidCane (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Town planning: The postnomials in the lead section include (presumably) 'Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute' (MRTPI). This is not mentioned in the town planning section, but it probably should be. You say "H M Enderby" - should the initials have periods after them?
  • I'll add a note on the RTPI. Karol says when he was elected a member somewhere.
  • Probably, though it's becoming less common in the UK.--DavidCane (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Later life and retirement: it is not clear from the article at what point he retired or reduced his work. The ODNB entry does mention that Margaret became an invalid (and predeceased him). Maybe something could be said of his retirement? But it doesn't say where he was buried, unfortunately, though I do wonder where his money went!
  • Holden retired in 1957, so his retirement was relatively short, though he had been less involved in the running of the practice for some time before then. The house at Harmer Green and its contents were auctioned and £8,400 was left to relatives, friends and staff and £2,000 to charities.--DavidCane (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Recognition and legacy: "The RIBA holds a collection of Holden's personal papers and material from Adams, Holden & Pearson" - is it possible to source this and/or link to a page describing this collection? Also, some of the entries here, such as his being Vice-President of RIBA and a member of the Royal Fine Art Commission, fit uneasily in this section. It depends on whether they were honorary positions recognising him as a doyen, or whether they were roles where he worked hard in the service of his profession and its professional bodies? I'm also thinking that the section is a bit short - there must be more 'legacy' than that? One thing I find that can be mentioned is where obituaries were published. From the ODNB, it seems his obituary was published in The Times on 2 May 1960 - that is something I think is worth mentioning - as having your obituary published in The Times did (and still does) mean something. I also think that linking to an obituary or two is useful for a reader, even if the real meat of a biography comes from the books done later.
  • While the roles certainly required "work" of Holden, it certainly was an honour to be the Vice President of the RIBA and a member of the Royal Fine Art Commission and was recognition of his standing in his field.
  • In an earlier draft there was a legacy section, but I split it up, as I felt it was more relevant to include the narrative with the buildings themselves.
  • There were obituaries in a number of papers and periodicals, including the Manchester Guardian, the Daily Telegraph and the Architectural Review. These could be listed. I have a copy of The Times obituary, but it does not provide anything additional to the other sources, so it is not listed as a source. --DavidCane (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Sources: I noticed the name of Charles Hutton in the sources. Is this the same Charles Hutton who was his assistant? It would be nice if there was some way to mention that, and whether any of those listed in the sources worked with Holden or not.
  • You are correct with Hutton. As far as I can tell, none of the others worked for Holden.--DavidCane (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm done here now. I enjoyed the article very much, and if the quibbles above are cleared up or some reason given why they can't or shouldn't be actioned, I'd be happy to support. Carcharoth (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses to the points I made. Rather than reply above, I'm going to pull out the points I think might still need consideration, and everything else in what I said should be considered resolved or not worth pressing the point, or will be addressed as more is added based on the Karol book (in particular, on his early life and family life, and retirement, and obituaries and memorial service). Anyway, the remaining points are:

(1) I'm still uneasy about the 'massing' word in the lead (possibly you missed that amongst the other things I said).

(2) I hope someone more active at FAC will comment on whether guidance exists for external links formatting.

(3) I'll try and do something with the Commons page at some point (it already exists, so no need to create it). There are some good examples to point to over there to show what I mean, but that's not really vital here.

(4) If linking to an image is acceptable, OK, but the reader should get some warning, as the link looks just like any other link.

(5) "Eric Aumonier was William's son" - this is a bit of human interest that might be worth adding, but maybe not if none of the sources mention it. The bit about Charles Hutton being the co-author of one of the sources is more difficult to work in, so probably not worth it.

(6) It was the Palace of the Parliament that I was thinking of.

Carcharoth (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Striking three of the points above (one was addressed, and I expanded the Commons page and redid the external links myself). I also created an article on the second of the memorials Holden designed, and linked that in to the two articles (the main one and the list). If the small amount of editing I've done around this topic allows, I'd be happy, as I said before, to support, and will do so formally below. Carcharoth (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Support this nomination (see review and discussion above). Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC) For clarity, striking all addressed points above. 03:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Image review - 17 images used in this article - some are on Commons and some are not (this could be a problem in future, so it might be an idea to standardise the location of the images). The ones uploaded by a photographer under a free licence (or released en masse from a project like geograph.org.uk: see File:Belgrave Hospital for Children.jpg) are all fine. One was from Flickr and the licence has been checked by bot - that should probably be double-checked (File:Senate House, University of London.jpg). Public architecture in the UK can be photographed and freely distributed. Distribution of photographs of public architecture in France is less clear, but I don't think it is of concern here due to the nature of the work photographed (a war memorial - see File:NZ Memorial at Buttes 3467 (crop).jpg). That leaves 5 images to check - I'll comment in more depth on these other images below (all five are on Commons, not uploaded locally).

• (1) File:Charles Holden by Benjamin Nelson.jpg - uploaded March 2009 - source and artist information provided on image page. For the record, this is one of the images that were part of the upload from the NPG that caused a fuss a few years ago. It has the warning label it needs to have, so it is fine as far as that goes (those issues are outside the scope of FAC). This is an artwork, and the artist died more than 70 years ago, so this image is fine to be used.
• (2) File:Chapel at King Edward VII Sanatorium, Midhurst.jpg - uploaded August 2010 - source information confirmed, and image page states that the photographer is not known. This image is secondhand from the BMJ. The original publication was in Architectural Review. Ideally, the issue it appeared in there would be checked for a photographer credit, but failing that, it is more than 70 years since publication and no author known, so this one is OK.
  • The "PubMed Central" archive which contains the article breaks the journals into individual PDFs. I have checked first and last PDFs for this edition of the journal here, and there does not appear to be any illustrations credits listed.--DavidCane (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • For this one, ideally you would find the issue of the Architectural Review, as that is more likely to credit the photographer. The BMJ may have republished the photo without properly crediting the photographer. As you've checked in likely places within the BMJ issue, though, that is probably good enough, though if you ever do find that photograph in The Architectural Review, see what they say. Carcharoth (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• (3) and (4) File:BMA Building July 1908 Strand Elevation.png and File:BMA Building July 1908 Agar Street Elevation.png - both uploaded September 2010 - same source information. Image page states that photographer not known, and checking the source, there is no photographer named and no credit. To be absolutely sure, you could check the rest of that issue to make sure the credits weren't provided elsewhere.
  • Same check made on the bits of the journal here, without any credits found.--DavidCane (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • That seems reasonable enough to be sure that no author was named here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• (5) File:Bristol Royal Infirmary Extension, 1912.png - uploaded February 2011 - stated source is a postcard scan in a book published in 2004. Is our copy another scan (directly from the 2004 book), or is it a copy of the Google Books scan of that book? (The link to Google Books provided on the image information page does not work for me.) Presumably the postcard was published in 1912 (can that be confirmed?) Any copyright information is likely to be on the back of the postcard (or is it the indecipherable squiggle under the caption on the postcard?). Either way, I'm not convinced here that the author is unknown. Did you check the 2004 book thoroughly to see if they provided any copyright information?
  • The postcard image was extracted from Google books (I use a proxy server to get access to the US version of Google books). The caption in the book says circa 1912. The illustration acknowledgement for the postcard in the book was just to Bristol Library's collection, not to a publisher.--DavidCane (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • It sounds like you can't reasonably ascertain the identity of the photographer, so the image is probably OK under the upload tag on Commons. If there are ever any problems on Commons, the tag to use here would probably be Template:PD-US-1923-abroad (the same applies to all four of images 2-5). Overall, I think the images are fine, and source and licence tags all check out following the points made above. Carcharoth (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Overall, for these five images, the first one is fine, and the other four rely on the author not being known (if you want the image to be on Commons), or first publication being before 1923 (if you want to upload here under PD-US-1923). I'm not convinced the author is necessarily unknown for all of them, but they were all published before 1923, so at minimum they are OK as far as Wikipedia's image policy goes. Apart from that, I also checked the alt text, and though not a current requirement, the alt text here was excellent, and the captions used within the article were also good, as was the layout. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment — Why isn't the quote in the section "Holden and Architecture" inside a {{quotation}} template? It looks rather odd right now. Eisfbnore ^talk 20:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:MOSQUOTE guidance is to format long quotes using <blockquote>, which is what is used. {{quotation}} is, I think, intended for pull quotes.--DavidCane (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Laser brain 20:44, 8 March 2011 [40].

---

102nd Intelligence Wing

Nominator(s): Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...after three years of work and hundreds of edits to this page, I feel as though the reason that I became a Wikipedia editor is finally good enough to become a Featured Article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose There are many instances of close paraphrasing and plagiarism.
  • 102nd Intelligence Wing#Emblem is a direct copy-paste from this page.
  • Article: "The War Department agreed The Guard should organize aviation squadrons as an organic part of the 18 infantry divisions assigned to the National Guard."
    • Source: "The War Department agreed that the Guard should organize aviation squadrons as an organic part of the 18 infantry divisions assigned to the National Guard."
  • Article: "Within weeks, fifteen World War I veteran pilots were commissioned into the squadron and placed under the command of Captain James K. Knowles."
    • Source: "Within weeks, 15 veteran World War I pilots were commissioned and assigned to the 101st under the command of Capt. James K. Knowles."
  • Much of 102nd Intelligence Wing#101st Squadron section is close-paraphrased from source
    • Article: "In 1940, the 101st was separated from the 26th Infantry Division and in November was ordered into active federal service for intensive training. The 101st’s 25 officers and 133 enlisted men initially remained at Logan until July 31, 1941 when moving to Otis Field at Camp Edwards. Otis Field was named after 1st Lt Frank J. Otis, Jr., MD, a 101st flight surgeon killed in a flying accident in 1938. The 101st participated in the North Carolina maneuvers in the fall of 1941 and returned to Otis on December 6, 1941."
      • Source: "In 1940, the 101st separated from the 26th Division and in November was ordered into active federal service for intensive training. The 25 officers and 133 enlisted men assigned to the 101st remained at home station until July 31, 1941 when the unit moved to Otis Field, Camp Edwards named in honor of 1st Lt. Frank J. Otis, Jr., 101st flight surgeon killed in a flight accident in 1938. The 101st participated in the North Carolina maneuvers in the fall of 1941 and returned to Otis Field on Dec. 6, 1941."
    • Article: "By then, many of its original members had been reassigned during the expansion of the Army Air Forces."
      • Source: "By then many of its original members had been reassigned during the expansion of the Army Air Forces."
  • Article: "From 1995 to 1998 the wing deployed to Iceland for 45 days of air defense duty"
    • Source: "During the years 1995 through 1998 the Wing has deployed to Iceland for 45 days of air defense duty"
  • Article: "In 1999 the wing participated in Operation Northern Watch when it deployed with its F-15s to Turkey to patrol and enforce the no-fly zone north of the 36th Parallel in northern Iraq"
    • Source: "In 1999 the Wing participated in Operation Northern Watch when it deployed with its F-15 Eagle aircraft to Turkey to patrol and enforce the no-fly zone north of the 36th parallel in northern Iraq"
  • Article: "Fire trucks were on hand when the team landed a half-hour later, giving the planes and the pilots the customary ceremonial hose-down for the last time."
    • Source: "Firetrucks were on hand when the team landed a half-hour later, giving the planes and the pilots the customary hose-down for the last time."
  • Article: "On his radio, he called pilot Major Daniel Nash, the pilot who was sharing alert duty, and told him to get ready for a coming alert call. He also told him to suit up and get ready for a scamble call."
    • Source: "On his handheld radio he calls Major Daniel Nash, who along with Duffy is an “alert” pilot on duty at this time, and instructs him to suit up ready for any scramble call"

I appreciate that Kevin Rutherford has spent much time working on the article. However, the close paraphrasing and plagiarism indicate that this article is not ready for FA. Cunard (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Disclosure: I previously encountered the nominator at DYK here, where I pointed out copyright violations and plagiarism in his article. Cunard (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply to Cunard: I really appreciate the work you did on this. I've alerted the coordinators at MILHIST to the problem, in the hope that we never have a copyright problem in articles that pass our A-class review again ... although I want to point out that the article has changed a lot in the last 10 months, and I haven't checked who said what when. - Dank (push to talk) 17:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I haven't saved it yet, but I have fixed all that Cunard has noted above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Kevin, I've seen you make intelligent, insightful comments for a long time, so I can't figure out what's up here. I only had to look at the first link Cunard points out. This seems like obvious POV to me: "Yellow refers to the sun and the excellence required of Air Force personnel." And how could large blocks of copy-pasted text from a unit's self-description be anything other than POV ... and even when it isn't, be perceived that way by reviewers? Facepalm: I see this passed an A-class review last May ... I don't understand how that happened; I need to ask around for how the reviewers are handling these problems nowadays. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I wrote this all mostly years ago, when I was still quite a new editor so a lot of things in that that I wouldn't do now. I had an editor run a review independently (if you want, I can provide the site) and I thought I addressed all the issues. In terms of the POV thing, I think I was more in a rush and copied it since it was in the public domain. I'll go and fix this later on today. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin, I'm sure the sea of opposes must be an unwelcome surprise. It's possible that the problems could all get fixed during the FAC, but it will mean a lot of rewriting, and sometimes it doesn't happen fast enough for FAC. If this fails FAC, I'd recommend going back for a MILHIST peer review to handle all the new material, and if all goes well there I think you can be optimistic about bringing this back to FAC. I see the part that I objected to wasn't in the article 10 months ago when it passed the MILHIST A-class review; we need to add something to the instructions at A-class about being careful about making significant changes before going on to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh, that's life. I do like this process though because it usually allows for me to do a better job when I address issues that need addressing. I do agree with you on the new rules part and I think a lot of this can be tied into recent events when we realized that some of our articles need help. I definitely don't identify with the editor that originally wrong this article in the past and I am more than willing to fix every blaring issue that is out there immediately. Additionally, I did put those things of text in blockquotes for now, but if you think that they just need to be re-written, I can do that as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• I haven't checked the close-paraphrasing concerns raised by the above reviewer, but that's a big red flag and needs to be addressed immediately
• Organization needs work. Several very short paragraphs and subsections that could be merged or expanded as appropriate. "Description" section reads like the alt text for the related image, not as actual prose.
• Tone is a problem in several areas - should always be neutral and encyclopedic. "the unit has consistently excelled"? "rich heritage"?
• WP:OVERLINK - for example, World War I linked twice in quick succession. Also, should be consistent in whether you refer to it as World War I or the First World War
• "The War Department agreed The Guard should organize aviation squadrons as an organic part of the 18 infantry divisions assigned to the National Guard." - appears twice, one after the other
• Needs some general copy-editing for flow, tone and clarity
• Need much more consistency in reference format.
• Book and journal citations need page number(s)
• Several sites are potentially concerning in relation to WP:RS and WP:SPS. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Could you please tell me what those sites are so I could look into it? Thank you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, now for this one. I have fixed the paraphrasing, the overlinkage, and repeating sentence issues. In terms of the organization thing, I feel as though the separate paragraphs would be akward if they were merged up, but I could be quite wrong. The tone issue was just addressed as becomming part of a direct quote as well. If I can grab a few people, I can get the copyediting done within the next day or so. I think the citation issues are due to the fact that this article has citation templates from a time when we had a bit of a transition in doing them, although I don't see anything wrong with them right now. The Air Forces magazine thing will only get a citation if someone has a subscription to it so I feel like that will be an impossible task at the moment. The World Airpower Journal is on every air force unit Wikipedia page and it is a virtual holdover from the time when the article first was created. I really can't address the reliable sources thing until someone notes them because I have a hard time telling them apart sometimes. Otherwise, I feel as though I haven't forgotten anything blaring but you can correct me if I am wrong. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks everyone above. I'm going to address these issues late on today. If the above editors could respond to me, that would make this process a whole heck of a lot easier. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • MILHIST's peer review and A-class review are, and are intended to be, more supportive than FAC. Even though many of the most active FAC reviewers will in fact be pulling for you, and will give you all sorts of information, there are limits on how many fixes they can make before people will start complaining, "Well, I see you fixed that in his article, why didn't you fix it in mine?" So ... if reviewers give you what you need, great, and if not, we should be able to fix everything in a MILHIST review. I apologize that most of the problems mentioned are things I don't generally handle. - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't worry about it, I am used to how things work here so nothing suprises me that much anymore. Almost three and a half years of this produces a great level of apathy sometimes. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Laser brain 20:44, 8 March 2011 [41].

---

Rachel Weisz

Nominator(s): Gduwen (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC); --Gunt50 (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think its information meets the FA requeriments:

1.

• (a) The article is well-written.
• (b) The article is comprehensive for the topic.
• (d);(e) The article is neutral and stable

2.

• (a) The lead summarizes properly the content
• (b) The section heading have an appropiate structure

3. The images featured in the article meet the needed copyright status, are properly tagged and captions meet the requirements

4. The article successfully focuses on the topic

--Gduwen (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose at this time. Article is of sufficient quality for GA, but is not at FA level at this point. Some copy-editing is needed, and there are multiple manual of style issues (particularly overlinking). There are extensive problems with reference formatting - it should be completely consistent, web cites should have publisher and retrieval date information, etc. The article also uses some sites of questionable reliability. You might consider having this article peer reviewed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs, 1 dead external link (the oscars.org search link doesn't work). Several external redirects which may lead to link rot; see them with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The dead link was corrected--Gduwen (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Query: Nominators, what work is being done to address Nikkimaria's concerns? I don't see any movement here. Edits have been made to the article, but it's difficult to me to tell what they are because edit summaries are not being used regularly. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Copy-edits are being corrected, web cites templates have been completed, and IMDb sources have been replaced.--Gduwen (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• During the WP:GAC, I had noted that there were unnecessary redundant links. I see many again now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you give one or two examples of unnecessary redundant links? --Gduwen (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to solve the overlinking issues according to the MoS throughout the article. You should take a look now--Gunt50 (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Laser brain 20:44, 8 March 2011 [42].

---

James E. Boyd (scientist)

Nominator(s): —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a delightfully cited and comprehensive biography. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutral, still leaning oppose because it still needs copy-editing/cleanup. Also, referencing format should be more consistent. Looking better, though - keep up the good work! Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose at this time, although I'm open to revisiting once the below issues are addressed.

• WP:OVERLINK - don't link the same term multiple times, especially in close proximity

• done (I attempted to follow the guideline to the best of my ability) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Better, although there are still some extraneous links - extra occurrences of Rosselot, very general terms like American, etc

• "At the Engineering Experiment Station, Boyd helped spur the organization's mainstay, electronics research and development, generally contracted by the federal government" - phrasing

• done (rephrased) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Is any more information available on his childhood?

• I have been unable to find any additional information about his childhood or his life post-Georgia Tech. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• I was able to find (through much difficulty) the names of his parents and siblings. I was also able to infer where he went to high school (based on being able to find sources stating that his siblings went to school there), but there were no sources that stated explicitly that he went there, so I left it out of the article in case that inference would be considered original research. LaMenta3 (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Several WP:MOS issues - problems with dashes/hyphens, footnotes should consistently appear after punctuation, etc

• done (at least those specific problems, as far as I know) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Footnote placement corrected; however, other MoS issues remain. For example, why does Heisman's record use dashes and Alexander's use hyphens?

• On a related note, nowhere in the article does it explain what these 'records' mean. I happen to know that they refer to wins-losses-draws, but anyone who doesn't follow North American sports won't understand them, and will just see a string of meaningless numbers. There's also potential confusion because you are using 'record' to refer to the simple results obtained, rather than its more common use for the best results ever obtained (as in 'world record' etc). Modest Genius ^talk 18:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• It would be helpful to lay readers to give a sentence about what exactly his thesis was about

• done (I attempted to explain it as plainly as the highly specialized nature of the experiment would allow.) LaMenta3 (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Lots of very short choppy paragraphs - suggest merging or expanding where possible

• done (combined, reorg'd) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• "When forced by Georgia Tech vice president Cherry Emerson to choose between the two organizations, Boyd remained with Georgia Tech but retained his position on Scientific Atlanta's Board of Directors" - she forced him to choose between them and he chose both? This needs to be explained or clarified

• done (attempted to clarify) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• "one such example is his placement of physicist Earl W. McDaniel despite the dislike Joseph Howey, director of the School of Physics, held for McDaniel after an undergraduate picnic prominently featured a keg of beer" - presumably McDaniel was involved in the picnic? Clarify
• "Under his purview" - Howey, McDaniel or Boyd?

• done (Boyd's) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Needs copyediting for clarity and flow
• "she eventually earned two degrees in education and earned the college's highest honor" - repetitive; look for similar phrasing problems.

• done (rm repetition) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• That particular instance is fixed, but others remain - for example, "were developed at the station, as the station did not".

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I'm working on some of these issues now. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've worked a good bit on the specific issues you've raised, although I think it could still use a good copyedit. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Disavian, a quick point about the review process - per the instructions at the top of the FAC page, "nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors" and "Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time." Nikkimaria (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. It's been a while since I've been through FAC. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by "[inconsistent] referencing format" in this instance? I'm not sure what's wrong with it as it stands. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I'm seeing several small errors/inconsistencies in the way references are formatted. For example, ref 29 uses month day, year date formatting, while most of the others use ISO formatting. Ref 12 uses "pp." despite having only one page number listed. Ref 7 has no publisher listed. Ref 14 lacks closing punctuation, and uses the {{citation}} template, where most of the other refs use templates from the cite family. These are just some examples - in general, reference formatting needs careful editing for accuracy and consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay... I looked into these. Ref 29 uses the {{Inflation-fn}} template, which presumably goes to the most recent source for inflation data, and isn't something that is easily reconfigured from month, day, year to ISO. I'm up for suggestions on that one, as it doesn't make sense to change all of the other refs to match the template. I fixed the two or so refs that used pp when it should have used p. Ref 14 now uses {{cite report}} and as such has closing punctuation. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments for now, as I'm not convinced this article is sufficiently well-written.

• There are several one- and two-sentence paragraphs, which should either be merged, expanded, or deleted. The Retirement section is particularly concerning.
• The language is not neutral. Numerous instances of wording that suggests that Boyd is awesome and everyone else sucks:
  • "As president, Boyd was faced with two great issues, which he resolved instead of waiting for a replacement:"

    done (rephrased) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • "Boyd's selection as interim president by Georgia's chancellor was strongly influenced by his ability as both a capable academic administrator"

    done (rephrased) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • "Boyd also championed the establishment of research facilities."

    done (removed) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • "Boyd was also known for his recruitment of faculty capable of both teaching and performing notable research; one such example is his placement of physicist Earl W. McDaniel despite the dislike Joseph Howey, director of the School of Physics, held for McDaniel after an undergraduate picnic prominently featured a keg of beer." Also, how exactly do these sentences have anything to do with each other? Deciding to ignore obvious illegal activity and the preference of a relevant director is not a great example of Boyd's recruiting capabilities.
  • "William H. Row (who had held the position a mere nine months)" How exactly is this relevant?

    done (removed) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Boyd increased both undergraduate and graduate enrollment, faculty, degrees and programs on the campus, sometimes by an order of magnitude." Really awkward phrasing. Orders of magnitude should be discussed only in the context of hard sciences, not undergraduate enrollment.

  • done (removed that) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing this article, and I like all of your suggestions. I have yet to fix the the McDaniel bit to my satisfaction, but have attempted to remove peacock terms wherever you have highlighted them. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I like all of the fixes you've made, good work! I've made an attempt to tweak the McDaniel bit. What do you think? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That does sound better, I like it. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned up. Please read the WP:FAC instructions, do not use done templates, do not amend other editor's posts (add your posts to your own line) and sign your entries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs; 1 dead external link (britannica.com). 1 external redirects which may lead to link rot; see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I found a more recent link for that ESPN ref, let's see if it fixes the redirect. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And I've replaced the dead britannica link with a more detailed journal ref. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comments - a few brief comments.
  • The death category is wrong (1988 instead of 1998).

    Fixed, good catch. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Is ancestry.com a reliable source?

    That particular page looks like it's managed by "Cobb and Cobbs" which seems like a fairly active genealogy project. I suppose I could always email and ask how they got that particular information (wedding date)? Given the nature of the fact being cited and the fact that I haven't found that information anywhere else, I'm satisfied with that particular source. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

    How can you assess the reliability of that site. It looks like a freely hosted site. Can you explain who 'Cobb and Cobbs' are? They say "Welcome to the "Cobb and Cobbs" surname research website, a central meeting place for anyone researching a Cobb genealogical connection." That doesn't inspire me with confidence. Carcharoth (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

    • If you can get past the paywall there's [43] Modest Genius ^talk 23:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
      • That's James Erwin Boyd of Ohio marrying Edythe Pulley Smith. This particular Boyd is James Emory Body of Georgia marrying Elizabeth Reynolds Cobb. I doubt our Boyd's marriage was covered in the NYT. Thank you for looking, though. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Err, whoops. I should read more carefully. Modest Genius ^talk 02:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The obituary of Boyd's mother-in-law (Betty Reynolds Cobb) gives the name of his father-in-law: H. F. Cobb. You could add this to the article (the name is given in full as Hiram Felix Cobb in her article), though I see that he died shortly after his daughter (Boyd's future wife) Elizabeth was born, so maybe not.
    • Hmm... It can't hurt. Added it. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I've just come to this article after reading and reviewing J. Robert Oppenheimer. The contrast in the type and number of sources is not unexpected, but still very noticeable. Clearly there will never be as much written about Boyd as there will be about more famous people, but I'm actually very impressed with what you have managed to do here. I do have concerns though that you may be relying too much on just a few sources. Could you say a bit here about which are the main sources you have used here, and which ones are just used in passing for a sentence or two? A rough idea can be gained from the number of superscripts on each reference, but I'd like to hear direct from you which are the main sources used here.
    • So when I approach a subject related to Georgia Tech, my first instinct is to reach for my copy of Engineering the New South, a work written for Georgia Tech's bicentennial by six historians: ISBN 978-0820307848. It is written (somewhat surprisingly, given its focus on a particular subject) in a very neutral tone and gives footnotes where appropriate. It also gives a larger historical perspective when appropriate; for example they go particularly in depth when discussing (for example) the rise of federally funded research and how it related to the growth of graduate programs nationwide (and obviously, how it impacted Georgia Tech). —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • (para break) The other major source for this article is this pdf from the Georgia Tech Library's archives department. It is apparently written by Dr. James R Stevenson. A few other sources that I used a few times included some coverage of his time as president of University of West Georgia (by Doug Vinson, instructor of journalism at UWG); and a couple GTRI-published websites (one, two) that summarize his tenure as GTRI director. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

      Thanks for the detailed explanation. Carcharoth (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I've not seen the "further information" template used before - is placing it at the end of a section correct?

    A quick perusal of some articles using it show that many use it as a "related to this" link at the top of the section, and a couple use it at the bottom as a "you may also be interested in" link after a block of text. I don't think there are any guidelines, but if a reviewer insists on one perspective or another I'll follow it. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

    I've asked in another FAC as well, so we will see, I suppose. Carcharoth (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  • The lead picture is really poor (a low-quality scan from a book or magazine) - is there no chance at all of getting a better one? I also see it has OTRS permission - I'm not sure whether that has to be double-checked here at FAC (by someone with OTRS permission, which I don't have), or if we take that on 'assume good faith'.

    As far as I can tell, that particular image is from the April 1954 edition of The Research Engineer, a Georgia Tech Research Institute publication. Here's a link, go to the last page on the bottom-right: April 1954 Research Engineer. The OTRS permission is from Kirk Englehardt, GTRI's current Director of Communications. I haven't come across any other images of Boyd. There has to be one somewhere, but I haven't found it. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

    I won't oppose on that basis, but will leave it unresolved and wish you luck in looking. Carcharoth (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I can't be sure (because of the templates at the bottom), but I think this article is only currently linked from about 10 other articles. Which might be enough, but is still rather low. Would you consider finding out how many articles this one is genuinely linked from (i.e. not including links generated by footer templates)? If the number is low, that is again no unexpected, but when the number of incoming links is low, it is important, IMO, to make sure they are maximised and done correctly.

    He's seriously discussed in Georgia Tech Research Institute, University of West Georgia, History of Georgia Tech, and Glen P. Robinson. There are a couple passing references in Neely Nuclear Research Center and Tignall, Georgia. I've just added links to Scientific Atlanta, Bud Carson and Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football. The only big change I'd make at this point would be to include his time as president of Georgia Tech in History of Georgia Tech, as I apparently have not done so. I'm not opposed to linking to him from additional articles, but these are the only ones I've thought of so far. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

    That looks fine. Carcharoth (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Were you unable to find any longer obituaries for him at all? Those would normally say whether his wife survived him or predeceased him, and would name other surviving relatives (including the children). I would also add to the final sentence that he was 91 when he died.

    I have looked high and low and have not found any sort of obituary for him. Not to say that there isn't one, but I don't have LexisNexis access or anything like that. Finding one would probably shed some additional light on his childhood and post-retirement, both of which I'd like to elaborate on. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

    I've re-read the article again, and I'm still impressed by it. I am close to supporting, but would really like to see the retirement section expanded if at all possible. Is there really nothing about what he did in retirement? Could you ask someone who has access to something like LexisNexis? Apart from that, the only quibble I have is that you bring in Rosselot to the main body of the article (in the 'Researcher and entrepreneur' section, without explaining who he is. For me, finding an obituary and a better picture would clinch things. If others think those are not actionable enough, I will probably support, but will hold off until others have given their opinions. Also, you really need to get the ancestry.com source issue sorted. Carcharoth (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

    How do you like the image now? I found the same picture in another document from the same source, and ran it through photoshop to drop a lot of the noise. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Laser brain 04:55, 6 March 2011 [44].

---

Laurie Nash

Nominator(s): Roisterer (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all the criteria for Feature Article status. Laurie Nash was a Test cricketer and leading Australian rules footballers of the 1930s and 40s. The article went through Peer Review in May last year and I believe I have dealt with all the issues raised in that. This is my first attempt at FAC, so hopefully I've got everything right. Roisterer (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: This looks pretty good. If I can find the time to give it a full review I will. Meantime, here are some mainly minor comments on sources:- *Ref 1: suggest extend this to "Miller, Keith in Introduction [or Foreword, or whatever], Wallish, p. iv"

• Ref 4: I imagine that this site is published by Carlton Football Club, and they rather than the web address should be shown as the publisher.

The site is run by Carlton fans so I'm unsure what to do here.

• Ref 20: I'd like a bit more information. Who is "R Smith"? Is this a page from a larger website? If so, how do I get to the home page?

*Ref 28: Ric Findlay is the author, not the publisher, which is "Centre for Tasmanian Historical Studies" *Citations to newspapers should be in a single standard format. At present the formats for ref 37 and 38 are different from those for 42 and 43. There are several similar instances.

I think I have finally got all these citations in the same format.

*Ref 61: I don't think this explanation is required, if you are reflecting the source.

• Ref 106: Bradman Albums need to be listed with other books in References, and a page number added

*Ref 131: Publisher needed *Ref 196 needs a page reference. This should be a short citation since the book details are listed under References*No citations to Cousins (2008); should be listed separately as Further reading (or omitted)

Good spot. I had "Collins" listed for some reason.

*Dito Williams (1986)

Hmm, I had a Williams citation; it must have been removed at some point.

Otherwise sources and citations look good. Incidentally, you say the article was peer-reviewed last May; I can't find the link to the archive of this review on the talk page. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Peer review link is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Laurie Nash/archive1. It's linked from the talk page under the article milestones bit. Jenks24 (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, I should have spotted that. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, I'll get onto these. --Roisterer (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Various small nit-picks from the first half or so of the article... *Why two Test cricket links in the first two paragraphs?

• Tasmania: Typo in "Nash was chosen in the Northern Tasmania side in he annual match...".
• Test debut: "The match was the first to finish in under six hours play." "hours" → "hours'"?
• Bodyline: "English newspaper the News Chronicle stating that the emergence of Nash...". "stating" should be "stated".
• Redundant use of "bowling" in "In the wake of England's tactics of bowling sustained fast short pitched bowling...".
• You don't have to have a Jack Fingleton link here when there's already one in the prior section.
• 1933: Don't think Centre should be capitalized in the second paragraph of the section.
• 1935: "as, in addition to playing at centre half-back and centre half-forward, also successfully played in the ruck." Add "he" before "also". I don't know why "also" is necessary, but that's a different issue.
• If I was to offer one general suggestion, it would be to combine some of the many one-sentence paragraphs in the article, as they can look stubby when compared to some of the longer paragraphs. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm working on it. --Roisterer (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs or dead external links. A few external redirect which may lead to link rot; see them with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Images

• File:RNashColl.jpg appears to be a drawing, not a photo. The Australia PD tag bases status of artistic works on author's date of death, not publication date. Same concern for the cartoons with this tag
• What is the copyright status of signatures in Australia? File:Laurie_Nash_signature.jpg may have the wrong tag, but COM:SIG doesn't include Australia
• The Australia PD tag requires that you "provide information of where the image was first published and who created it." - make sure you do so for all images with this tag
• File:JackDyer.jpg needs a date of publication/creation, and the source link no longer works. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for the moment. In general I like this article, but the prose is not yet up to FA standard. I have only looked in detail at the lead and Early life sections, and have found numerous problems. The rest of the text needs to be gone through carefully, so that similar issues can be picked up and corrected.

• Lead
  • In the first paragraph: "Additionally, a fast bowler and hard hitting lower order batsman, ..." "Additionally" is not a good conjunction with which to link his football and cricket prowess, and the comma is awkward. Suggest reword: "In cricket, Nash was a fast bowler and hard hitting lower order batsman who played two Test matches for Australia. He took..." etc
  • The last part of the first paragraph is overcomplicated. I realise that you are trying to inform non-cricket-minded readers, but perhaps this is spoonfeeding? I would say: "In these matches he took 10 wickets at 12.80 runs per wicket, and scored 30 runs for an innings average of 15."
  • Do we know when Nash Sr played against the MCC tourists? As written, it sounds as there was only one such team, when of course there were many.
  • "...a cricketer, becoming..." is an example of what is known as "noun plus -ing", and should be avoided. Try "...a cricketer, and became both one of..." etc
  • Third paragraph: "and played only two Tests". As this information has been given already, this phrase could be deleted.
  • Fourth paragraph should not commence with "He..."
  • "...rejecting offers of a home posting, stating..." Too many -ing endings in quick succession, needs rephrasing. And "differently from" not "differently than"
  • Delete comma after "publican"
• Early life
  • Too many short paragraphs (five of which begin "Nash" or "Nash's") Some redrafting necessary to improve the prose flow.
  • Second para: the first sentence is of inordinate length and needs breaking up.
  • "Sir Walter Nash and pianist Eileen Joyce were relatives". Of each other, or "related to the family"?
  • "forbid" as past tense? We would normally say "forbade" - is this an Australian English thing?
  • What is the relevance of the last paragraph to this article?

Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: Please do not "strike" my comments as you respond to them. Brief notes of your actions will do. Brianboulton (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Laser brain 15:51, 4 March 2011 [45].

---

Turning Point (2008)

Nominator(s): --WillC 09:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel it is the best article I've written yet and would like to see it become a Featured Article. All comments are welcomed.--WillC 09:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral

• Needs copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow - for example, "The main event for the TNA World Heavyweight Championship between the champion, Sting, and the challenger, A.J. Styles, was the main event"
  • Mistake of my own during my copyedit yesterday. Fixed--WillC 21:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay, but that was only an example - still needs copy-editing.
      • Alright, well I'll look through it and see if I see anything that needs fixing. I'll try to get someone else to look at it as well.--WillC 23:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Okay, I've copyedited the article again and someone else has or is at the moment.--WillC 05:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Multiple MoS fixes needed - for example, some missing hyphens, The Sun should be italicized throughout, etc
  • I haven't wrote an article in around a year. Forgot some of the MOS. This one is fixed.--WillC 21:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• "It was the fourth event under the Turning Point chronology" - you never explain what this means. Is Turning Point a series? A tournament? The article as a whole seems to assume at least some knowledge of TNA on the part of the reader
  • I would feel it is common sense regrading this is an event, that it would be a series. Like talking about "Super Bowl XLV", you wouldn't expect them to have to explain that the Super Bowl is a list of events. And plus that statement pretty much explains that it is a series. It is also hyper-linked for more information.--WillC 21:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Maybe, but surely you wouldn't expect to see "Super Bowl XLV was the forty-fifth event under the Super Bowl chronology"?
      • Well that would be a different story. It is obvious by the title there, but not here.
        • You're right, it's not obvious here - which is why you need to explain things so that people who don't know a lot about TNA can follow the article.
          • It is explained here. I really don't see how it isn't. "It was the fourth event under the Turning Point chronology and first event under the name to take place in November." pretty much explains it is the fourth event in a series of events. What else could it mean?--WillC 23:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Don't link terms in See also that are already linked in the article body. In general, see WP:OVERLINK
  • Only two areas where professional wrestling is linked. One in the lead and one in the see also secton. Point out any other overlinks and I'll fix them.--WillC 21:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Professional wrestling isn't in the see also section. However, Turning Point is. Overlinks include: legit, English language, Spanish language, ring announcer among others.
      • I meant pro wrestling was in the see also template. I must have not been paying attention when I wrote that. Fixed all the overlinks I could find. There were none for the English and Spanish. Now as for the table. According to overlink, tables are exceptions to the rule.--WillC 21:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I know that, and I wasn't looking at the table. English and Spanish are linked in "Event".
          • Not anymore, got those fixed long ago, before I even knew about the comment.--WillC 23:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Ten year Army veteran Sean M. Autrey served as the special guest ring announcer for the encounter" - source?
  • Number 24 covers that statement. Alot of the sources cover more than one sentence.--WillC 21:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Doesn't support "ten year Army veteran" or "special guest ring announcer".
      • Well the ring announcer part is obvious, but I changed sources to fix that. The 10 year apart was announced during the show, refs don't say that, so changed it to retired like is mentioned.
• "with the added stipulation that if Cage lost, he would be forced to join The Main Event Mafia" - source? Several other unsourced statements
  • Like above, sources cover more than one sentence. 21 and 20 cover that, as well as 29. Everything is pretty much sourced. Added 10 new ones before I nominated the article.--WillC 21:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• What makes Prowrestlinghistory.com a reliable source?
  • They get their information from magazines, DVDs, etc. However, they are only covering minor information. Times of matches and the attendance of the event. Been used it other FAs and GAs by WP:PW, namely Lockdown (2008) which I helped pass in 2009 (I'll admit, pretty bad but I plan to fix that article up a bit)--WillC 21:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• This source doesn't talk about TNA, but about pro wrestling in general. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It isn't meant to talk about TNA. It is only meant to talk about how wrestling works. The paragraph it is covering is an agreement through WP:PW and is universal for all wrestling PPVs. Usually it goes unsourced, but for FA I found a ref.--WillC 21:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I'll leave this point open so other reviewers can offer opinions on this. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Alright.--WillC 23:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you for your comments. They mean alot. I'm glad I got someone to look over it so quickly. I'll try to fix all comments you have left or leave. I haven't nominated an article here since January 2009. And I haven't worked on a PPV since this one in 2009--WillC 22:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Eight professional wrestling matches were featured on the event's card, with three including championships." I don't think the sentence is clear. It seems like the meaning is "including three for championships" or something like that.
  • Actually that is what it is supposed to mean. There were eight matches, and three titles were defended at the event, in three different matches.--WillC 02:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I was asked on my talk page to come back and reply here. I just think the wording is more confusing than it needs to be. I've never heard of the phrase "matches ... including championships" before, and I'm sure I'm not along. If "including three for championships" is the true meaning, why not go with that? Or if you want to keep the present structure, go for "with three deciding championships." Either of those would be better than what's there now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Okay, redone.--WillC 12:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• The last sentence of the lead is a fragment. Something appears missing the way it is now. Also, quotes are one of the few things in a lead section that generally should be referenced.
  • Hopefully I fixed it.--WillC 02:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Background: Feels like the order of "featuring Mick Foley through PPV providers" should be reversed.
  • Switched them.--WillC 02:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The word "featuring" was changed to "featured" as part of the switch. I think the grammar was better the other way. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Done--WillC 16:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Storyline: Add "the" to "where on-screen co-owner of TNA"? If you don't want to do this, try removing the commas bracketing Mick Foley's name.
  • Removed commas, makes it simpler.--WillC 02:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Preliminary matches: Hyphen for "ten man"?
• Space needed in "badfall".
  • Done.--WillC 02:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Excess word in "which Young won after a slamming Lethal into the mat...".
  • Removed the "a".--WillC 02:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Main event matches: "This followed later with Style missing a pele kick on Sting". Check the wrestler's name. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Added the "s" to Styles name.--WillC 02:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Giant.--WillC 02:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Here is an image copyright check by Stifle.
• There is one fair use image and four freely-licensed images. All appear compliant. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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