Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 2014

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 13:28, 29 May 2014 [1].


Charlie Murder

edit
Nominator(s): Sven Manguard Wha? 02:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Murder is a side-scrolling action role-playing-beat 'em up video game for the XBLA on the Xbox 360. After I began writing the game, I reached out to the studio and they released sixteen images, which is awesome. This is my first FAC, and it's taken me a while to get good enough at writing articles to feel comfortable taking this step... so please be merciful. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, I meant to leave a message earlier saying this, but I intend on working on this on weekends, where I have large blocks of time to spend on it. I'll spend time on it tomorrow and Sunday. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (spotchecks not done) by Nikkimaria

edit
  • Direct quotes should be cited immediately in the lead
    • Normally yes, although in those cases I thought that the citation was fine where it was. Nonetheless, I've made the modifications. -Sven
  • FN12: author name is inverted. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed, thanks. -Sven

Review from czar

edit
In the interest of transparency: both the nom and I participate in the WikiCup czar ♔ 15:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted (see last FAC instructional bullet). Any questions below are rhetorical: I'm looking for clarification in the article, not an actual answer.

  1. "an army raised by a former band": raised? are they undead? If so, say so. Also how was the army raised by the band member? Vengeance? Accident? Add this
  2. "Players select to play as one of five band members, each of whom uses a different instrument and has different special abilities related to that instrument." The band hasn't been introduced yet, so I don't know what band that is. Are the instruments for attacks? (Say so)
  3. What does a beserker do?
  4. Prose went from talking about ability to talking about roles
  5. "co-op" should be related to "cooperative" (needs to be written for a layman)
  6. so what do the tattoos upgrade?
  7. All in all, this section leaves a lot of questions about how the game is played? There are just two buttons and a bunch of upgrades and you fight? What about bosses and whether co-op makes the game different and what abilities do and how levels differ and so on?
  8. Jargon needs way more clarification overall, and links to relevant pages to read more
  9. "The player-character is killed at the beginning of the game" who?
  10. "The band is tasked": where did the band come from? I thought we were on a single character?
  11. "talk about the band and the game world": is this what they discuss or do they "talk about the game's lore"
  12. multiple cites at the end of a paragraph should mean that all three cites cite everything in the ¶
  13. If you take a look at my edit, quotes are rarely needed where paraphrasing can do
  14. "In April, the game was announced as in development ": announced by whom
  15. "The game was eventually released in August 2013": what happened in-between? Lots of dev details missing here
  16. the dating section needed to be completely reordered—look at the changes
  17. "Silva did all of the game's programming work, while Juett handled its marketing." What game? CM? Dishwasher?
  18. The Reception section uses way too many quotes and not enough paraphrasing. I'm going to hold off on my copyedit of this section until that's addressed since it will rewrite the whole section.
  19. I'd also limit the first ¶ to overall feedback—what reviewers agreed on, what the aggregators said, what awards or nominations it received.
  20. Overall thoughts: The article is really sparse. It might meet FAC standards if the prose shines, but I don't think it meets the basic broad coverage criteria until it covers a whole lot more ground in all of its existing sections (as alluded above)

Good work. Give me a ping when these are all fully addressed and I'll continue. I'm also looking for feedback on the Deathrow FAC, for those interested. czar ♔ 15:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed all of your bullets to numbers, because otherwise, so that when I address them below your signature, it will make keeping track of which response is to which point much easier. I hope you don't mind.
  1. Added.
  2. Addressed in tweak of the characters section.
  3. Addressed in tweak of the characters section.
  4. Addressed in tweak of the characters section.
  5. De-abbreviated and linked.
  6. Addressed in tweak of the characters section.
  7. Got it.
  8. Got it.
  9. Clarified.
  10. By "tasked", I meant that that was the game's plot. I've changed the wording though.
  11. I re-wrote this to be a bit clearer, but the source says "a radio program with callers, talking about the current state of the world and the band itself (GTAstyle)". I'm not sure where you got your quote about the lore from.
  12. Got it.
  13. I think this was addressed.
  14. Done.
  15. See below comment (19:01, 17 May 2014).
  16. I tweaked it a bit more.
  17. <sigh>, yeah, fixed that one.
  18. I've cut the quotes down to three, one per each of the last three photographs. Hopefully this is acceptable.
  19. Done.
  20. See below comment (19:01, 17 May 2014).
I will fill these in as I get to them. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Czar I think that I addressed just about everything that I could. I'm not sure what to do about your point 15. Honestly, I feel that I'm a bit over my head at the moment, and could really use some experienced support in getting it the last 5% over the line, but if that's not possible, I will do what I can. Please let me know your thoughts on the article as it stands. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a dev diary (or something like it) you can use? Still feels a bit skimpy on the basics of the story, especially on the actual software crafting of the game and the non-bureaucratic decisions associated with thatczar ♔ 08:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hahnchen and Tezero

edit
  • Comment - Template:Video game reviews gives quick references to the reviews quoted in the prose, why isn't Hardcore Gamer included? Do you even need the scores in the prose? On the other hand, you quote The Digital Fix and Gaming Nexus, but give no indication of their score. Why have you chosen to use these sources over more established names? Is Metacritic alone insufficient for demonstrating the critical consensus? - hahnchen 14:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article's looking fairly close. Ping me when you've cleaned czar's comments off the table and I'll give mine, as it could be difficult or contradictory to satisfy both—and any further comments we give—simultaneously. Tezero (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review by PresN

edit
  • File:CharlieMurderBoxArt.png - fair-use video game cover, FUR filled out- the image is a bit big for a non-free image though. Please resize to no wider than 250-300 pixels.
  • File:Charlie Murder screenshot 5.png - CC-3.0 Commons screenshot, ticket filed at OTRS by developer
  • File:Charlie Murder screenshot 9.png - CC-3.0 Commons screenshot, ticket filed at OTRS by developer
  • In addition to shrinking the cover, consider moving the images a bit lower in the article, even into the next section for the bottom one- in my screen, they're all jammed up together into the infobox. --PresN 19:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • PresN: Yeah, I didn't upload that. I'm opposed to any use of non-free images on Wikipedia, and refuse to upload new ones. I have resized the one that is there though. As for the image placement, I moved them down, stuck them in a vertically aligned Template:Multiple image, and added a third image back in. It's from the same batch as the other two screenshots, so the license and OTRS ticket are the same. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I empathize with disagreeing with Wikipedia traditions; I've got plenty of those. For this case, I guess I'd recommend you seek out permission from the copyright holder to freely license the cover art, if at all possible. Tezero (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just discovered that I could do that. Expect to see me using it more often, because it's all kinds of awesome. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but without any support for promotion after six weeks or so and little recent commentary, it's time to archive this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 15:40, 28 May 2014 [2].


Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)

edit
Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 30.4-mile Fishing Creek, the largest river in Columbia County, Pennsylvania north of the Susquehanna River. Since the previous FAC, the article has been copyedited by the GOCE, so that should take care of that issue. I have also (as I mentioned in the previous FAC) addressed most of the concerns raised in the first FAC (about a year ago). Well, thanks for commenting and I do hope this passes this time. --Jakob (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding a quick drive-by comment about the lead -- I think the reader would benefit from seeing something about the Native Americans or the first permanent inhabitants near the creek, before jumping into the different industries. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 21:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Jakob (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Mike Cline

The references to "Fishing Creek has a large population of brook trout, rainbow trout, and brown trout" is misleading and not supportable with sources. From sources I can find, Fishing Creek has a small wild (naturally reproducing) population of brook trout (native) in its headwaters and an even smaller population of wild brown trout (non-native) in the headwaters. Most of the river’s trout are "stocked" by either the PA Fish and Game Commission or the Fishing Creek Sportsman Association. The PA Fish and Game Commission identifies Fishing Creek as a "Stocked Stream" not a wild trout stream. The source for the statement: "An 1887 book described Fishing Creek and its tributaries as being 'alive with trout'." Needs a page number (226) and as written mis-characterizes the source some as the source actually says: "The Fishing Creeks and their numerous tributaries were literally alive with trout, if the stories of old residents may be credited." "Were" being the operative word here. By 1887, most of the native brook trout in the northeast were in serious decline and introduced brown and rainbow trout had probably not made serious inroads. I think it is important to identify and distinguish between wild native fish, wild introduced fish and purely stocked fish populations as well as commenting on the decline of native and wild populations.

Here’s a couple of sources to help you get started fixing this section.

[3], [4]

--Mike Cline (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Cline: I have 1) removed the bit about the population being large, 2) added that the fish are stocked, and 3) fixed the "alive with trout" claim. I would also like to thank you for providing me the resources to fix this instead of just dumping comments on this page. --Jakob (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - the content on trout and fishing is not well explained and not really supportable with the sources listed. This statement in the lead: "The creek is one of the highest-quality trout streams in Pennsylvania. It is known for its trout population, which includes brook, brown and rainbow trout;..." conflicts with the information in the conservation plan and doesn't distinguish between wild, native-non-native and stocked fish. Wild native fish (with very low populations) are pretty much restricted to headwater tributaries and the mainstem relies on heavy stocking to maintain any kind of fishing. The link to the "So Many Fish, So Little Time." book is broken and there are no page numbers to specific content. I can find no evidence elsewhere that claims "Fishing Creek" is one of the "highest-quality" trout streams in PA. In articles like this, it is extremely important not to generalize about fish species and populations when in-fact there is a significant environmental relationship between wild, native and non-native and introduced/stocked populations. I would like to see these issues improved significantly before I would support. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from Cullen28

I have concerns with the statement "Nomadic Native Americans reached the area near the mouth of Fishing Creek by 8000 B.C. By 3000 to 2000 B.C., some of them went into the Fishing Creek valley during the winter to hunt deer and bears, and returned to the Susquehanna River in the summer. Around this time, trade routes to the Fishing Creek area were created. The area was not permanently inhabited until 1000 B.C. when some Native American villages were built at the mouth of Fishing Creek." This seems to imply that there was something different about the Native American settlement of this particular creek as opposed to other similar creeks of the wider region. Do the research studies focus on Fishing Creek in the period 3000 to 2000 B.C. as opposed to other similar creeks? Or was the pattern of Native American hunting consistent throughout the wider area? I would like the article to justify any extraordinary claims, or not to make them if there is nothing unusual about the Native American usage of this particular creek. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Although I don't think it's really necessary, I've added a sentence explaining when Native Americans arrived in Pennsylvania for reference. --Jakob (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have concerns about us of the book "Discovering Bloomsburg: A Bicentennial History" published by the Bloomsburg Bicentennial Commission according to Google Books, as a reliable source for academic details of Native American settlements of the area. There is no ISBN number nor even a cover image available on Google Books. Is this a promotional effort by local boosters, or is it a book published with the sort of professional editorial control and a reputation for fact checking that we would expect? The reference now says that the publisher was "Haddon Craftsmen" which was located in Bloomsburg right near the mouth of Fishing Creek. My impression is that "Haddon Craftsmen" was a (now defunct) book printing company and not really a publisher. I would expect that all books used as references would have an ISBN number, unless the book was published before 1970. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: The chapter being used was written by Deeanne Wymer, who is a professor in the relevant subject matter. That should clear up the reliable source issue. --Jakob (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then her authorship should be reflected in the reference. Is William M Ballie the editor then? Please correct accordingly. Does the book have an ISBN number? Please clarify who is the actual publisher. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: I've fixed the author/editor name and added what is (presumably) the actual publisher. There does not appear to be an ISBN though. --Jakob (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to promotion of this article to FA. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
paralleling - I've not seen this used as a verb like this (although very logical) - my inclination would be "running/flowing parallel". If you have seen it used like this and prefer to keep it in, then ok.
Hemlock Creek is a 7.6-mile (12.2 km)-long tributary of Fishing Creek that passes through Hemlock and Madison Townships in Columbia County. - given this sentence is in the tributaries section, you should remove "tributary of Fishing Creek" from it. Also, if Hemlock Creek and Montour Run are not major, it doesn't explain why they have sentences and several others do not.
Can we link watershed?
Should be linked at first mention in body of text as well as once in lead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In 2011, the habitability of upper Fishing Creek and its tributaries were rated on a scale of 1 to 200. - by whom - what scale is this?
Okay - I see it in this source - I still don't see where the rating system comes from but at least it is there. That paper also has some conservation issues worth mentioning and makes a note of lack of trout overall and abundance of algae. Also has some conservation measures listed at end that are worth including. As well as using the term "periodic acidification" which is worth including in the pH section. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The green algae species Tetraspora dominates the stretch - the organism named is a genus not a species - easier to just write "The green alga Tetraspora dominates the stretch".
I meant something like this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Change plural one back to reduce repetition (works ok in plural). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Responding point by point:
  • Paralleling has been changed to running parallel to or flowing parallel to in every location it is used.
  • Hemlock Creek and Montour Run have been removed from the list of major tributaries (though they are kept in the list of other tributaries).
  • Watershed is linked in the lead section.
  • I've added some explanation to the paragraph on habitability ratings.
  • The word 'species' has been removed.
--Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 23:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the remaining wording problems with the algae and also added some info on trout populations and conservation. I am confused as to your comment about information on periodic acidification being found here : I could not find the term in that document. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 20:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pages 13 and 21 and para 3 in the conclusion - CNTRL-F is very useful in these situations.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: I did use cntrl+F - it's episodic acidification not periodic acidification. Anyway, that information is also in the article now. Thanks for pointing out the exact pages though. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 22:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I forgot to mention that watershed is now linked in the body. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 22:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Okay - I am tentatively supporting on comprehensiveness and prose, but there might be other issues raised. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ST11

Wow, this is quite a good article. After a read-through, nothing immediately obvious jumped out at me as needing fixing, and thus I currently support. Only thing of issue is ref 37: I'm not sure that the ref provides enough context for the reader to be able to locate the source. Is there any more info you could provide? StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 37 fixed, thanks for supporting. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 11:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Hamiltonstone. I only read some parts and found a lot of issues, mostly with the quality of prose.

  • The third paragraph of the lead contains a level of detail, delivered in a repetitive style, neither appropriate for the lead. We don't need all these concentrations of ranges. I suggest replacing most of that with something along the lines of "water quality in the catchment is variable, as a result of [whatever causes the variation, if we know]. The creek's pH ranges between 4.9 and 8.5, while the concentration of dissolved oxygen ranges from 5 to 17.5 mg per liter. The creek's average discharge is 615 cubic feet per second (17.4 m3/s); its watershed contains gravel, shale and various loams—in particular the Albrights soil series and the Leck Kill soil."
  • "commonly run dry in the summer. In dry years, they are dry..." Copyedit to eliminate at least one of the repetitions of "dry".
  • "...is of a type known as the Albrights series" apart from being cumbersome prose, it is possibly not technically correct. Are you sure the Albrights series is a type of soil? Soil types in my mind means things like "sandy loam" or "podzol".
  • Thereafter, the soils material is presented in an uninteresting and i would have thought overly detailed fashion. It gives little sense of what this means for the catchment - we can't tell much about what the consequence of their presence might be for the Creek, which is the subject of the article.
  • The prose still needs work. It is somewhat dull and at times disjointed. For example:

"In most places on Fishing Creek, there is not enough dissolved aluminum to be toxic, although some of its tributaries have aluminum concentrations approaching levels lethal to fish. The only tributary of which contains over 100 μg per liter is East Branch Fishing Creek. Fishing Creek itself and all its other tributaries had dissolved aluminum concentrations of less than 70 μg per liter. This concentration is linked to the thawing of soils; aluminum levels in the creek peak in March and April and drop to almost zero in the summer."

"The only tributary of which..." is not a sentence
The tense changes back and forth between the second, third and fourth sentences.
Only a hydrologically-literature reader is going to understand the link between thawing of soils and the Al levels - I certainly couldn't. How come it is thawing of soil and not simply meltwater? And surely soils aren't frozen in Pennsylvania in April, yet that is when the levels peak?
There should be a more engaging and concise way to write the para, regardless of these specifics, and it might make it more clear. For example, the para says "some tributaries" have levels of Al that approach lethal dose for fish. Yet the very next sentence says only one tributary has levels different to all of the others. So why "some"? Are these not the critical levels for fish that we are talking about? In which case, why are they being raised as specific numbers of significance?
  • The short section on dams mentions "Fishing Creek" four times. It also refers to a "212-foot (65 m) concrete dam". My immediate reaction was "holy crap, that is HUGE!". Then it occurred to me that maybe it means 212 feet wide not high. This should be made clear. Regarding comprehensiveness of the article, it should be made clear which if any of these dams is still extant.
  • I am generally a fan of comprehensiveness and detail, but I'm not sure that it is really of any interest what dates hottest, coldest, fasteset, slowest etc flows occur on, eg "The lowest water temperature was on January 10, 2011. The highest temperature occurred on August 3, 2006.". I would only include such details (that make the prose less engaging to read" if they can be linked to events of some other significance. For example, it would be both more interesting and relevant if one were able to write "The lowest water temperature was on January 10, 2011, coninciding with America's coldest winder in xx years" (if indeed there are sources to support such statements).
  • "The highest density of organisms in the watershed occurs at West Creek, where there are between 600 and almost 900 per m". What kind of organisms? If it includes algae or plankton, these numbers can't possibly be correct.
  • " to open a section of Fishing Creek that spans 6,500 feet (1,981.2 m)" - bridges "span" creeks, but i can't understand what creeks span. Is this a reference to a length of the watercourse, or to the breadth of the section of land that is proposed for a reserve? Also, given the rounding of the feet to the nearest hundred, the convert template shouldn't be taking us to within ten centimetres. The section manages to use the word "spans" five times, and I'm not convinced any of those uses is optimal prose or even correct.
  • Commas are being used to separate thousands of acres, but not thousands of years.
  • The retrieval dates in the references need an overhaul to bring them into a single format.
  • Some sources are not adequately referenced, eg current notes 5, 39. They need more details, such as a publisher or an author.

These are not comprehensive comments - i only read some sections. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jakec's response to Hamiltonstone's comments

edit

Responding point by point:

  1. I've replaced that paragraph with the version you suggested.
  2. Copyedited.
  3. Copyedited.
  4. I will have a look at this.
  5. Fishing Creek is now only mentioned once in that section. The dam width has been clarified.
  6. I think that the ranges and possibly averages should be kept in, but I can remove the dates.
  7. It refers to aquatic macroinvertebrates. I've clarified this.
  8. Wording tweaked.
  9. Fixed.
  10. Fixed.

--Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 13:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've further explained the link between thawing soil and high aluminum concentrations. I've also reworded the paragraph on dissolved aluminum and edited out some of the tedious prose in the soils section. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 11:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamiltonstone coming back for another look (excluding the lead, concentrating on substantive text):

  • The text problems begin with the first sentence: "Fishing Creek is 30.4 miles (48.9 km) long". Remember the body text should stand in its own right. The first sentence should be something like "Fishing Creek is a 30.4 miles (48.9 km) long tributary of the Susquehanna River in Columbia County, Pennsylvania in the United States". (as per the lead in this case)
  • "Coles Creek empties into Fishing Creek from the left". Well that depends where you stand. Is there some sort of convention about which way you face when you talk about rivers? I don't know. Shouldn't this just read from the [compass point]? "In Stillwater, Raven Creek empties into Fishing Creek from the northeast", which occurs later in the section, seems to me the correct approach.
  • "passing the Bowman's Bridge". I looked at the citation, which is a map image, and it reads "Bowman Bridge". Why "the" and why the possessive apostrophe?
  • Can you give some more thought to how you are deciding when to wikilink tributary creek names? They are all linked in the lead, then none are linked in the "course" section, but then some (though not others) are linked in the tributaries section. In addition, the article links at least one town name (Bloomsburg) in both lead and the section on the creek's course, despite not doing so for tributaries.
  • In my view, the tributaries section needs to be completely reformatted. I have been bold and done most of what I think it should look like, but if there's some style guide or convention as to why it is not like that, then please feel free to discuss. But the current format is visually unattractive and a very inefficient way of presenting information.
  • Here's where some of the prose problems begin. "The watershed is 85 percent forest and 13 percent farmland. In the upper part of the Fishing Creek watershed, the remaining 2 percent is residential, whereas in the lower part of the watershed, the remaining 2 percent is urban." "watershed" is used three times, and its name is used, when it is probably unnecessary. Here's my attempted fix
  • The list of sub-watersheds is essentially repetition of the list of tributaries (which is hardly surprising), and can probably be deleted.
  • I've done my best with the prose about the Oxbow.
  • The prose in the section on European settlement needs work. Just about every sentence follows the same simple structure, making it repetitive to read, and creating an impression of disjointed facts.
  • If we are going to be given dates about lowest highest flows etc, then the reader needs to be told how long the records have been kept.

That's all I've got time for at the moment, sorry. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I'm not sure it's a good idea to repeat parts of the lead verbatim down in the article, though I did move the length down to the bottom of the course section.
  2. wikt:left bank and wikt:right bank are actual terms, but you are right, compass directions are probably clearer, so I've replaced right bank/left bank terminology with those.
  3. Corrected, must've been a typo.
  4. I've played around with the linking some. All tributaries are linked in the lead and again in the course section. All tributaries in the tributaries section are delinked except for ones that aren't mentioned in the course section.
  5. Your fix of the tributaries section looks much better.
  6. Thanks. That was helpful. I've also removed one further use of the word "watershed" from that section.
  7. I've revamped the subwatershed bit, so it doesn't just repeat the trbutaries list.
  8. Great.
  9. I've done some extra work on that.
  10. It seems that the dates are already in the hydrology section.

--Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 16:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More from Hamiltonstone. Sorry, but I can't shift my oppose. The prose just needs too much work. Every paragraph I look at, there is something that could be significantly better written. The main problems are: needless repetition of words, particularly the name of whatever is the main subject of each paragraph; lack of variation in sentence structure; and lack of economy in the way things are written about. This last point isn't always easy to explain. Examples:

  • "The density of organisms on the main stem of Fishing Creek ranges from slightly over 200 to slightly over 400 organisms per m2" This doesn't need the word organism repeated on the second occasion, because we already know the subject of the sentence.
  • "Another soil series in the drainage basin of Fishing Creek is the Leck Kill-Meckesville-Calvin series. The top 8 inches ..." Could read "The Leck Kill-Meckesville-Calvin series begins with 8 inches..."
  • "Below this level is a subsoil of reddish-brown silt loam that occurs from 8 to 32 inches (20 to 81 cm) below ground" could read "A subsoil of reddish-brown silt loam then occurs from 8 to 32 inches (20 to 81 cm) below ground".

The other substantive issue I see in the hydrology section is the inclusion of unencyclopedic detail. These are highly specific facts that lack any context to give them significance. Most of the problem ones are the specific dates on which there were peaks in data. For example "The total concentration of phosphates at the gauging station near Bloomsburg between 2002 and 2012 ranged from less than 0.031 mg/L to 0.11 mg/L. The highest concentration occurred on May 19, 2009." Not only is that at least the fourth time we have been told about "the gauging station near Bloomsburg between 2002 and 2012", but there is no benefit for the reader in being told all these highest/lowest concentration dates. They don't mean anything, unless we are given the significance of this information. Was it important for some reason that it was on that date? In contrast the concentration ranges can be appropriate because they characterise the river for the reader.

I acknowledge that you got someone at GOCE to give it a workover, and there are many improvements as a result of User:Baffle gab1978's efforts. But they don't get it into FAC territory, in my view anyway. Maybe after another go. Certainly the article has a lot of the underlying facts and research completed. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments

edit

I was asked to comment here by Jakec. I have had a family member hospitalized and do not have a lot of time. That said here are some quick thoughts (not having had time to carefully reread the whole article yet)

  • Commenting on the discussion above, right and left bank is a fairly standard way to describe rivers and their tributaries - I am fine with directions (from the northeast) but would also provide right or left bank information.
  • The article has had a lot of work put into it and a copy edit, but I agree that the prose is still clunky in many places (criteria 1a is usually the hardest for most articles to meet at FAC). A few examples follow:
    • (Lead) "In the past few centuries, the Fishing Creek area has been home to many industries, especially mills and dams." How is a mill or a dam an "industry"?
    • (Lead) "The creek is one of the highest-quality trout streams in Pennsylvania. It is known for its trout population, which includes brook, brown and rainbow trout; it contains many other species of fish." Surely there is a way to avoid three uses of trout in two sentences? Also the lead is supposed to be a summary, not just a few details plucked from the body.
    • (Lead) Stray quotation mark at the end of the lead's last sentence
    • (Course) "In southern Fishing Creek Township, about 1.5 to 2 miles (2.4–3.2 km) south of Stillwater, the creek turns and picks up Huntington Creek, then flows past the communities of Zaners, Forks, and Pealertown while in Fishing Creek township.[10]" Does the sentence really need to mention the township twice? Capitalization should be consistent (Township vs township). Another FA criteria is comprehensiveness - river miles are know (and mostly given in the list of tributaries article though it looks like it has some transcription errors). Why not include them here (and in the whole Course section)?
  • There are more nice photos of the creek on Commons than are used in the article - at the same time at least one image seems superfluous - not sure what the "Map of Fishing Creek in Fishing Creek township" does for the average reader (and again capitalization issues). More later, I should have some free time this evening. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appreciate your involvement Ruhrfisch but I think that after remaining open this long without consensus developing, it's time to put this to bed -- perhaps you can continue to offer Jakob some suggestions on the article talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 15:40, 28 May 2014 [5].


Money in the Bank (2011)

edit
Nominator(s): starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a professional wrestling event by WWE held in 2011. The Wrestling Observer Newsletter rated it Event of the Year, while its main event match between CM Punk and John Cena won Match of the Year. I submitted this article as an FAC in January, but there weren't enough comments. I then submitted for peer review, but there were no comments at all. Hopefully this will receive more attention this time around. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eric Corbett

  • I'm afraid that this article is almost incomprehensible to me, but that's maybe not such a surprise as I'm not a wrestling fan. Nevertheless I do feel that the lead at least ought to be made more accessible. For instance, it twice mentions "ladder matches", without explaining what they are. Is there actual money in the briefcase the wrestlers are fighting over, or is it just a show? If there is money in the briefcase, how much is it?
  • Hi Eric Corbett, thanks for stopping by. There's an entire article which explains ladder matches, would it be a content fork to explain what a ladder match is?
  • Similarly, on your money question, there's actually no money in any briefcase. In the briefcase is a contract for a guaranteed future championship match. That is explained within Money in the Bank ladder match#Concept - again, would it be a content fork to explain within this article?
  • I have Wiki-linked both ladder matches and Money in the Bank ladder matches in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead. starship.paint "YES!" 07:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "WWE held two Money in the Bank ladder matches for the Raw and SmackDown brands". I really have no idea what the relevance of "brands" is in this context.
It's explained right after that - "storyline divisions in which WWE assigned its employees to different programs" - as each wrestler belongs to one brand (Raw or SD) and usually appears on that brand's TV show (also called Raw or SD). starship.paint "YES!" 07:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead contains the phrase "eponymous ladder match", but eponymous is a term applied to places or things named after people, not after inanimate objects such as ladders. Eric Corbett 15:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re-worded. starship.paint "YES!" 07:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I corrected some of the mistakes like the over linking problem.
Thank you for your help, Abhinav0908! starship.paint "YES!" 07:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that a few claims are there that need referencing (eg- The 195000 buys claim)
  • Which claims? Most of the claims in the lead can be found within the body itself, with citations.
  • For 195,000, see the Reception section, citation [25] "WWE Reports 2011 Third Quarter Results" - it's on page 3 of the pdf. starship.paint "YES!" 07:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No matter. You tried and I appreciate it! :) starship.paint "YES!" 07:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ceranthor
Lead
  • Was it presented by Skittles or by Wm. Wrigley Jr Company?
  • I believe it is Skittles. No reliable secondary source, but the primary source from WWE says Skittles presents Money In The Bank tickets | Allstate Arena, Chicago, IL | Jul 17, 2011 at 06:45pm | WWE.com
  • above the ring; which would guarantee the winner a match for the WWE Championship for Raw or the World Heavyweight Championship for SmackDown at any time of their choosing within the next year.[5] - I don't think the semicolon helps. Better to split this into two sentences.
  • Split.
  • The World Heavyweight Championship was also defended on the card - On the card? What does that mean?
  • Changed to "at the event".
Storylines
  • Punk instead labelled Cena as an "ass-kisser" while insulting WWE management (including chairman Vince McMahon and executive John Laurinaitis). - No need for the parentheses.
  • Ok.
Event
  • I haven't added anything to the article yet for this section, Ceranthor. Could you read my explanations and see if there's anything to be added.
  • Brie's face into the mat with her K2 maneuver - It's named here as K2, but the link doesn't mention K2. What's K2? Can you clarify?
  • Reference [4] (WrestleView) calls it a "leg drop/fameasser combo". Would you understand that? It means Kelly drops a leg on her opponent's head which goes face-first onto the mat.
  • Henry gained a two-count - Which is what?
  • One way to win a match is to get the referee to count to three while the opponent's shoulders are on the mat. If the referee only counts to two and not three, it's a two-count, the match continues.
  • and two running splashes for the pinfall victory. - I have no idea what running splashes are.
  • wrapping a chair around Show's ankle and crushing it by jumping on it from the second rope - How can he wrap a chair around someone's ankle? Is this a figure of speech?
  • It's a folding chair. The chair was folded closed around the leg.
  • to perform his signature RKO maneuver, - Which is?
  • Here's another official WWE video. The performer jumps into the air, grabs the opponent's head and forces the opponent to land face-first. Technical term: jumping cutter.
Reception
  • WWE announced that the attendance was 14,815 during the show. - I think attendance totaled would read better
  • "WWE announced that the event's attendance totalled 14,815 during the show." ?
General
  • I think the theme song should be mentioned somewhere in the actual prose of the article.
  • Some of the information in the lead does not appear in the article, ie. the skittles sponsorship and the event's location.
  • All mentioned in the new Background subsection.

More comments after these are resolved. ceranthor 14:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but after remaining open around six weeks this nom appears to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 07:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Lionel Messi

edit
Nominator(s): Abhinav0908 (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Lionel Messi an argentine football player. The article is already a good article and is regularly updated. I am a regular reader of this article and i feel happy with its progress. It is exact and all the data are updated as soon as possible. The records that he holds or if any of his records are broken everything is updated. Even all his goals are updated as he progresses in his career.Abhinav0908 (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Abhinav0908 (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - There has been no significant improvement to this article since it was promoted to GA status. It needs a bit of a rewrite to get the prose up to FA standard, in my opinion. – PeeJay 21:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case please tell me about the sections that need a rewrite. I can work on that.Abhinav0908 (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
until it was again broken by Bojan Krkić in 2007, scoring from a Messi assist - the "it" here doesn't agree with the subject of the previous segment (which was Messi) - would change to "the record"
Messi also proved the "new Maradona" tag was not all hype - Maradona comparison not mentioned before here, so text sounds weird in assuming our famliarity with it.
On 27 February, Messi played in his 100th official match for Barcelona against Valencia CF - this sentence just sits there on its own - needs to be incorporated into a paragraph
The suggested changes have been made you can have a look at them if you wantAbhinav0908 (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better - agree below about duplicate links (I saw quite a few), which need to be removed. Scanned briefly but didn't see dates mentioned below - still check to ensure they all conform in format.
FC Barcelona needs to be linked at first instance.
  • Oppose The article is fairly comprehensive, but nowhere near FA standard. It suffers from WP:WEIGHT issues in certain seasons, can spot WP:LINKROT and many cases of WP:OVERLINK → Guardiola three times for one. The lead does not do a good job of summarising his career. Nothing mentioned about his early life and how he joined Barcelona. It's general one sentence → "In March 2012, Messi made...", yet specific in another "On 23 March 2014," → needs to be consistent. Just because the records and statistics are updated doesn't mean it meets the criteria. Prose must be tightened in some areas. Best for you to withdraw this, get the article checked here, before making another nom. 90.199.41.160 (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The overlink problem regarding guardiola is addressed and i will address other overlink problems as soon as possible.Abhinav0908 (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I solved a lot of overlinking problem today. The rest will be solved as soon as possible.Abhinav0908 (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
F.C. Barcelona is linked now.Abhinav0908 (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all the overlinks i saw in the article, review it again and comment your views on the article.Abhinav0908 (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KyleRGiggs Casliber PeeJay2K3

Closing comment -- While I don't think all the opposing comments are clearly actionable, I can't see this reaching consensus to promote anytime soon, so I'll be archiving it shortly. From my own quick scan I see several statements in the prose section and several items in the award lists that are uncited, and many very short paragraphs and subsections that really should be merged to avoid choppiness in presentation. I suggest that after working on these issues and any others above still outstanding that the article go through a Peer Review before returning to FAC. Cehers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 07:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Cal Ripken, Jr.

edit
Nominator(s): Oriolesfan8 (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Cal Ripken, Jr., Hall of Fame baseball player for the Baltimore Orioles. It has passed a good article review and has already been peer reviewed. As a result, I believe I have done everything I can to it without nominating it to be a featured article. Oriolesfan8 (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All good on the reference front except for ref #172, which is showing up as 404/dead link. You need to find an updated link for that reference or use the internet archive.
References #110, #149 and the one from "The Hardball Times" all redirect to different URLs. These need to be updated.
I would also remove "The Hardball Times" link from the "External Links" section and find a way to use it in the text itself as that could be considered WP:LINKSPAM.
Otherwise, from a reference stand point, well done. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References have been cleaned up and updated. From a reference stand point, everything looks good; Support. A more thorough review will have to come from the baseball buffs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I see two major problems with this article.

  • First, the majority of the article is based on a book written in 1995, six years before he retired. There is no way that a book written in that time period can put his career in proper perspective. It's an okay source for basic facts, but not as the only lens most of his career is filtered through.
  • Second, this article pays no attention to the last twenty years of advances in baseball statistics via sabermetrics. There is much made of batting average and RBIs, which are pretty universally recognized today as having limited utility in evaluating a player's offensive contributions, and no mention at all of runs created, WAR, OPS+, etc. While defensive statistics still lag behind in sophistication, there are several advanced metrics now used to evaluate players such as WAR and zone rating that are likewise ignored. As such, this article is not a comprehensive evaluation of Ripken as a baseball player. Indrian (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the article is backed up by a book written six years before Ripken retired, but the book is only used for basic facts, not to put Ripken's career in perspective. As for sabermetrics, I have a tendency to doubt their usefulness, as do a significant number of baseball fans. Batting average and RBIs are not universally recognized as being limited; besides, they are not the only statistics presented. As for this article being a comprehensive evaluation, I might give more credence to your claim if you knew how to spell Ripken's name. Oriolesfan8 (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, one typo in a post and your true colors emerge. I am not sure why you think petulance and rudeness will help you get your article promoted to feature status, but my guess is that it will not be conducive to achieving your goal. I am also sorry that you have a POV bias against sabermetrics and have therefore chosen to ignore advanced statistical metrics in the article in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Your judgement and that of a "significant number of baseball fans"[8](also Trout-Cabrera MVP debate) on the usefulness of advanced statistical metrics is not important. What is important is their use in reliable sources, which is widespread in the present day. FA-quality articles are required to be well-researched and comprehensive. Unless you have proof that no significant baseball authorities have written about Ripken's career other than in a single book in 1995 or that no significant baseball authorities have examined Ripken's career through the lens of modern baseball statistics, this article has failed to meet those two criteria. Indrian (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was a typo? Oh, sorry. Even if it hadn't been, I probably shouldn't have insulted you like that in the first place, so I hope you will accept my apology. Oriolesfan8 (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on Criteria 1c + 1b. There have been numerous biographies and scholarly articles written on him and this article should reflect that, especially in the Early Life, Personal life and Legacy sections. This article should mention his media image and endorsements. See "Yearning for Yesteryear: Cal Ripken, Jr., The Streak, And the Politics of Nostalgia" and other similar articles. Also,
    • "Ripken is a best-selling author" - what best-selling list was his book on?
    • "Ripken is an accomplished author" - puffery, just state the facts. He co-wrote a couple of books. —maclean (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do the changes I just made satisfy your concerns (if not, tell me what I can do better)? I think that some of the references I have added now back up leaving the word accomplished in. One definition of accomplished is "having many social accomplishments," and with so many books (two bestsellers), Ripken definitely fits that description. I also added in the co-authors to show that Ripken did not do all his writing himself. Oriolesfan8 (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The autobiography peaked at #13 on the NYT Hardcover Non-fiction best-selling list. The other book peaked at #5 on the NYT Children's Chapter Books best-selling list. "is an accomplished author" is still an opinionated judgement - and isn't it redundant with the second part of that sentence now: "is an accomplished author and has written nearly thirty books"? maclean (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't sentences like "His first major league hit came six days later against Dennis Lamp of the Chicago White Sox." and "Aided by Ripken, the Orioles contended for the playoffs until they lost to the Milwaukee Brewers on the final day of the season." link to team season articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Team season articles in these contexts would be both low value links and easter eggs. IMO, bare mentions of other teams should not link to specific season articles. Resolute 23:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 01:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Wisp (Sonic)

edit
Nominator(s): Tezero (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the most obscure subjects for an FAC you're likely to have seen lately: Wisps are aliens that function as power-ups in three Sonic the Hedgehog games – and, in the second, just as a throwback to the first. However, critics have given copious opinions on these critters, and they're only going to get more relevant with time (if Takashi Iizuka can be trusted), so I began building the article from nothing late this March. I've been creating and working solidly on Sonic character articles lately – it's nice that we actually have articles now on some characters whose introductions I'm old enough to remember.

The article passed its GAN while it was on the front page with a DYK, and I've realized that if it passes FAC, I'll be in the running for a Four Award. (Awards aren't a big deal to me, but this one'd be nice to have.) I've addressed comments made at PR and done a few more edits for readability, and I now feel that this fits the FA criteria. Moreover, Pokémon Channel has been promoted so I'm now eligible to nominate. With that out of the way, I'm gonna reach for the star tonight! Tezero (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - I've not properly reviewed the article, but the table is walkthrough level minutiae, and WP:GAMEGUIDE level material. It is a table of in-game power ups, what they do, and in which games they can be found. I can't see how knowing the Violet Void power up which "scales up Sonic's density to black hole-like levels" and is exclusive to the DS game is of any value whatsoever. I'm not sure that Sonic collapses into a singularity, but I've never played the game. - hahnchen 14:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to be actionable. What should I do instead? Collapse? Reduce how much is stated for each Wisp type? Or merge it into the text entirely? (If so, how, given that numerous Wisps are referenced by name elsewhere?) Tezero (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There might be an intermediate solution but realistically per GAMEGUIDE Hannchen is right. For the purposes of the non-video game playing reader, there are three things to take away: 1) Wisps provide various powerups to Sonic, such as X, Y, or Z (you can give examples), 2) They have unique designs and color-coded to help identify what does what, and 3) they - in subsets or in whole - have appears in this list of Sonic games. That all can be said in about a single paragraph. But as said, this is the worst case scenario. There may be a middle ground for this. --MASEM (t) 05:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against the chart as well. I think it would be better to convert to prose, and/or scale back the chart some. (For example, less emphasis on wisps that aren't available in the games - less of all of those red x's. Sergecross73 msg me 10:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still opposing based on notability concerns which have been brought up by other editors below. While the table was the most egregious example of crufty fan-service, it wasn't the only one. Wisps have only appeared in Sonic Colors and Sonic Lost World, articles where they're already covered. The wisps are not the subject of any reliable source, and the article is made up of passing mentions from sources discussing parent subjects. The Kotaku review doesn't even mention the wisps by name, merely calling them power-ups. Given that each game uses the power-ups differently, I'm not sure there's any real coherence to the reception. So the reception to Colors-wisps may be completely different to LostWorld-wisps, which suggests they are better covered in the respective game articles. And the reception itself is just a collection of trivia, Tim Turi's favourite wisp? Steve Thomason's favourite wisp? What about his favourite car from Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed? Or favourite gun in Counter-Strike? - hahnchen 13:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Destructoid article ("eagle powers") is all about them, as is probably at least a full page in the Nintendo Power review. I recall there was at least one other as well that I removed because it only bolstered information in the table, but I can bring that back. Being used differently in the games is a stretch; it's really just that they're more essential in Colors. (There's plenty of overlap between the Wisps anyway.) Moreover, there are comments unrelated to the Wisps' gameplay (e.g. cuteness), and they're going to be in more Sonic games... Tezero (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Going back over it, the article I was thinking of, by Famitsu, is still there. Also, the IGN preview has about 4 paragraphs just on the Wisps (about half its length), this has 4-5 paragraphs (about 2/3), and this is mostly about the Wisps and even references them in the title (though it's unusually stingy with opinions about them). And this one is a full-length article about the Wisps. I didn't even add it because it was redundant to Famitsu; that's how well-documented these critters are. And that's not even counting the sources I just added talking about the Wisps' visual appearance (which is not necessarily tied to specific games and thus couldn't as easily be merged) and gameplay, or the ones I mentioned in the previous paragraph... The fact is, there are now three solid paragraphs of real reception, with additional sources to spare; countless game character articles exist and pass GAN (some even FAC) with less than this, and they should. To FAC coordinators, I hope you'll consider this case for the Wisps' notability and note that hahnchen's other concerns have been addressed. Tezero (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: This candidate has two remaining oppose votes, but neither of their posters seems interested in coming back, one I think has long been fully fixed through other comments, and one that isn't related to quality I also feel I've addressed. It also has five supports, but three came about in a very short time and without any comments to back them. In other words, this article's in a weird position and I'm wondering what you'd recommend I do now. Tezero (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Most of this article is cited to the games themselves (such as Sonic Colors). Games are primary sources and to interpret them directly without a reliable secondary source is original research.—indopug (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are used all the time, including in plenty of FAs. The "cite video game" template allows for simply citing levels, as it's sometimes used here, and I know the article Sonic Adventure does that (yes, it was demoted from GA, but not for that reason). Regardless, if consensus determines that the table has got to go, period, then this citation style will no longer exist in the article. Tezero (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The table is less worrying for me than the Design section, where the Wisps' personalities and other attributes are gleaned from dialogue from the game. It's like writing the character section of the Juliet article based on your interpretations of the original Romeo and Juliet text!—indopug (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The personalities are taken from the manual, which directly states them. I agree that original synthesis of primary-sourced information is OR and not appropriate for Wikipedia, but that's not what this is. Tezero (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The manual is also a primary source. To make myself clear, I wouldn't mind if you quoted just a dialogue or two directly from the game. The issue here is that over two-thirds of the article is based on primary sources such as the games, their manuals, comic books and fans "who don't consider themselves video game journalists". Below you cited Cortana as a precedent for doing so, but that article passed FAC nearly seven years ago. Enforcement of our sourcing and synthesis rules has become significantly stricter since then.—indopug (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The over-two-thirds bit is misleading; only the first paragraph of Creation and characteristics and part of the second, one sentence in Types, and most of Appearances are cited to primary sources. It's that over two-thirds of the sources used are primary, which is because you can generally get more out of an article by IGN or GameSpot than out of one quote from the game. As for SegaNerds, that's an interview; sources for interviews have significantly lower standards for reliability as they consist of the actual words of a related individual rather than paraphrasing. (Can someone in WP:VG back me up on this? I'm sure we have a policy written on it somewhere; I know I heard it in the GAN for Don't Starve.) As for Cortana being old, Arbiter (2009), Flood (2008), and MissingNo. (2009)—the most recent game character articles promoted to FA status—all use game quotes. And there are numerous FAs for comics characters that cite entire issues (e.g. Batman, Anarky). The thing with primary sources is that, while they're not ideal, they're useful for filling in information that's essential to an understanding of a character but that a secondary source isn't likely to think is worth mentioning. (And this isn't necessarily because they think it's insignificant; they may think it's too obvious or it may just not relate to their points.) Tezero (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(←) "they're useful for filling in information ... that a secondary source isn't likely to think is worth mentioning"—I'm not sure I agree with such a liberal interpretation of WP:NOR et al, but even so, surely "filling-in information" doesn't mean you can base "the first paragraph of Creation and characteristics and part of the second, one sentence in Types, and most of Appearances", i.e. quite a chunk of the article, on your interpretation of primary sources?
And yes, it is interpretation. For eg: "antagonist Doctor Eggman builds an amusement park spanning the planets the Wisps live on,[27] under the pretense of making up for past transgressions"—the bolded bit is a highly subjective claim, one that should be backed up by an independent reliable source. Even so, not even any of the quoted dialogues back this "making up for past transgressions" claim either.—indopug (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Found a quote that pretty much directly states it: "This amusement park has been constructed entirely out of a sense of remorse for my past." Please detail any further information you think is original research. Tezero (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just a suggestion, but I feel the "Reception" section might be more informative if it was cleanly divided by game. Colors and to a slightly lesser extent the 3DS version of Lost World were clearly designed around the Wisps, while the Wii U version of Lost World incorporates the Wisps as almost completely optional and sparsely used minigames, as Iizuka has directly stated. These design choices have influenced their mixed reception; for example, Chris Plante of Polygon opined that the Wisps "worked great" in Colors but "generally meant frustration or death" in Lost World Wii U. In general, the Wisps were well-received in Colors and poorly received in Lost World, although of course both games garnered varying degrees of praise and criticism. Finally, the Kotaku review only "praised" the 3DS version of Lost World, and it doesn't offer any positive or negative commentary on the Wisps in particular.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see how that looks when I'm done merging Wisp information into the text. I realize that this FAC is probably going to fail even if every complaint here is addressed, just because of the atmosphere around, but I'd like to get everyone's concerns taken care of anyway. Tezero (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Singora RE: "There's also a strange quirk with the text leaning into the table's personal bubble, but I don't know how to fix that." I've fixed the CSS for you. The table needed a left margin to create space between it and the text. I've used 25px, but you could reduce this to 20px if you want. Singora (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I figured it was the margins, but I couldn't look up any documentation as it's not a template. Tezero (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From CalvinK - Just some points to consider based on above comments.

  • The appearances section doesn't need references, if it is obvious from the game. It might be worthwhile seeing how Grand Theft Auto V has had its plot section written, as I feel this would apply to the "Appearances" section. It may also give you a bit of an insight as to how to write it as I'm a little unsure whether the correct tense is used through that section. Only use references where you have used sources outside of the game to analyse the meaning of text in the game. Calvin (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more in line with the recommendations for articles on actual games, although those too are allowed to cite quotes if they adhere fairly closely to exactly what the quotes say without original analysis. If you look at FAs for game characters (admittedly there are only a few) like Cortana, you'll notice a number of quote citations for plot information. Tezero (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I'd not come across that before. Calvin (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually don't see any inconsistencies in the tenses. How it's laid out now is that the present tense is used for what occurs during the game; the past tense is used for events that took place before the story, as well as real-life information concerning releases of various media. That said, perhaps I'm overlooking something. Tezero (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still disgree that we need to cite every single sentence in the first paragraph of the Creation section.
Types section - "while Violet Void, which scales up Sonic's density to black hole-like levels and causes him to absorb enemies, obstacles, and rings" - that could be described without needing to use the manual's description.
I don't get it; it doesn't use the manual's description. There's a secondary source attached. Tezero (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore me! It just sounded like something that would be described as such in a manual! Calvin (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Appearances section - I would treat this as I would a plot section in a video game article. If it is not going to be contentious information, then I do not see the need to cite the source. WP:V clearly states "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. A lot of information is unlikely to be challenged and to my knowledge has not been challenged yet. Should there be any challenges, you already have a source (albeit a primary source).
This isn't the case in the video game character FAs I've mentioned here, nor is it much of a standard in game character GAs. I prefer to cite plots so that readers can look at where we get the information and view the events in the context of the game, rather than just take our word as law. However, this has been brought up at my FACs and GANs before (although never to an extent such that the citations ended up gone), and I'd like to actually form more of a project consensus on this. I'm taking this to WT:VG now. (No attack on you, of course; I genuinely want to know what the community thinks.) Tezero (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate what you're saying, I have little involvement with WP:VG to be fair. I'm only going by my interpretation of WP:V which states it very clearly. It might be worthwhile seeing what the Wiki Project's opinion is of it - it may end up being something that might need to be discussed further as the policy is pretty clear as to what should be cited. If a plot is fairly linear (like in this case about where the Wisps come from, or the citation for Mother Wisp's name) then there is unlikely to be any challenges to it. If there are, then the user can be directed to the source and if necessary a citation then added. I doubt that would be the case though. We do need to reach some consensus on this though, but I do believe it would be common sense to not require all those citations. Calvin (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
e: An addedndum, really. I've looked at other FA to see how they have done their citations. A close article (in terms of them being minor characters with a featured article is Nikki and Paulo. Just something to bear in mind as Cortana is arguably a major character in the Halo series - especially now Microsoft plan to name their assistant Cortana too. While the Nikki and Paulo article was promoted in 2007, I see no reason as to why it shouldn't remain a featured article. If the rules regarding WP:V are being more heavily scrutinised, I'd quite like to read the discussion where this took place. Calvin (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, @Indopug:/@Hahnchen: have I improved on your oppose-level concerns? Can I go on to striking some of the quote citations per WP:WISP and then getting on to TheTimesAreAChanging's suggestions? Tezero (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've been holding off on this review because I'm not sure whether this article topic meets the notability criteria, and I wanted to see what others thought. (Sorry for bringing this up so late—I didn't know it would go from DYK to FAC so fast...) Shaving off the first-party sources leaves Sonic game reviews mentions, but no dedicated coverage, no articles solely about the topic. The article would be mostly unsourced, and the existing sourcing would be thin and cursory. (It would leave us in a situation like Bulbasaur, who is similarly mentioned a bunch of times but has no dedicated coverage.) I'm not as familiar with how notability conversations go for fictional characters, and you know I'm a fan of your work, Tezero, but I'm curious where the line is drawn on what Sonic characters have WP notability for their own articles before they cross into WT:VG/Archive_103#Espio the Chameleon and Blaze the Cat territory. czar ♔ 01:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've mentioned that before, but IIRC you backed off after I brought up that not a lot of fictional character articles do contain sources that are solely about the topic. (Well, the interview is basically all about Wisps, and the Nintendo Power article's gotta have a good page just on them, but otherwise no.) I mean, really, which Sonic characters would, other than Sonic himself? Perhaps it's the criterion Wikipedia should require, but "other stuff exists" would be a massive understatement at present. Rather, I think this topic's notability is established through frequent significant mentions (though not at the level of the subject of an article) in numerous secondary sources. (I don't mean to sound gruff or to belittle your thoughts; I just wasn't expecting a response of this kind.) Tezero (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this article's notability is dodgy. WP:GNG is clear, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". Further it states that " 'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content", which contradicts Tezero's above defence of using primary sources to "fill in information" not covered by reliable sources.
  • Comment: Sigh... Is there anything I can do to get anyone to support this? Tezero (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Prototime: According to WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." I believe many of this article's use of primary sources support text falling into the "descriptive" category as opposed to the "interpretative" category; many of them are used to support material that is roughly analogous a novel plot summary. But there are some instances where primary sources may start to be interpreted. My concerns include:
    • In Creation and characteristics, first paragraph, second sentence: The descriptor "giant" is subjective; it's best left to the reader to decide whether Mother Wisp is big enough to be considered "giant". I suggest replacing it with "larger", because descriptively, the Mother Wisp is unquestionably larger than the other wisps.
    • In Creation and characteristics, first paragraph, last sentence: I don't recall how phonetic or non-phonetic Tails' translation is, but unless it's blatantly obvious that it's entirely non-phonetic, I'd drop the word "non-phonetic."
    • Also, saying that "most" characters in the game refer to Wisps as aliens is a bit interpretive, because it's a decision to discount Wisps themselves as characters. If Wisps are included as characters, they clearly outnumber all others. Whether each individual Wisp should count as a character isn't something Wikipedia should decide, so to make the sentence descriptive, I suggest dropping the word "most". As an aside, it's not entirely clear in that sentence who "other" is being compared to (Tails?), and "the game" isn't defined so it's ambiguous what game is being referred to (though I presume it's Sonic Colors, given the reference.)
      • "Other" is being compared to the Wisps, not Tails; they don't call themselves aliens. I don't really like using "other" alone, but in this case I suppose it works alright, so I've just stricken "most". Tezero (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Types, last sentence: Saying that Wisps "have general personalities that match their powers" is an original interpretation of the Sonic Colors Manual. The manual somewhat implies that such a match exists, but it doesn't state so directly, and if a primary source is to be used, the sentence should be reworded to drop the personality-to-power connection.
      • A quick skim of the sources and relevant Google search turns up nothing secondary about the Wisps' personalities. How would you recommend I rephrase this to escape the dangerous generalization? Tezero (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Generally following the manual's structure should work; the manual describes the personality traits of individual wisps and then their powers together, and I think you could do the same without saying explicitly that the Wisps "have general personalities that match their powers." So maybe something like this (doesn't need to be exact): "The various types of Wisps have different personalities and powers. For example, Cyan Laser Wisps are energetic and scatterbrained, and they allow Sonic to bounce off surfaces." This better describes what the manual says without interpreting it, and it allows readers to decide whether they think the Wisps' personalities and powers match. The only concern this approach may pose is close paraphrasing, because the adjectives describing the Wisps' powers/personalities and the structure of the sentences would be quite similar to the Sonic Color manual's phrasing and structure. To remedy that concern (per WP:INTEXT), I'd tack on the words "According to the Sonic Colors Manual..." near the beginning of the first sentence that begins to describes the Wisps' powers and personalities. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • One other point: I noticed that the Sonic Colors Manual describes the Wisps' names as "Cyan Wisp" and "Orange Wisp", not as "Cyan Laser Wisp" or "Orange Rocket Wisp". I wouldn't change their names from what is cited in the Manual; instead, I'd recommend that when describing these Wisps' powers, it be mentioned that they transform Sonic into a laser or rocket. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's a weird situation: the Wisps are typically referred to by just their colors (though not always, per the Red Burst quote), while their abilities are often written out longhand. I've combed through the entire article and made changes accordingly. Tezero (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Putting this all together, the text would look something this (doesn't need to be exact): "The various types of Wisps have different personalities and powers. For example, according to the Sonic Colors Manual, Cyan Wisps are energetic and scatterbrained, and they allow Sonic transform into a laser that bounces off surfaces. In contrast, Orange Wisps have fluctuating and explosive emotions, and they allow Sonic to transform into a rocket and rapidly blast into the air." –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded similarly. Tezero (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, as an aside, here's a link to the Sonic Colors Wii Manual from the Sega website to include in the source citation: https://help.sega.com/entries/20893367-Sonic-Colors-Manual-Wii
    • In Appearances, first sentence: The text says that the amusement park "span[s] the planets the Wisps live on" and cites to a Doctor Eggman quote from Sonic Colors. But the citation does not support this part of the sentence, and in fact, I had a different interpretation of Sonic Colors entirely: that the Wisps lived only on Planet Wisp, and only through Doctor Eggman were they transported to other places. I'm not sure which interpretation is correct, but either way it's an interpretation, and it should be cited to a secondary source (or dropped).
      • This quote from Mother Wisp (through Tails) is used later on: "I was so worried when our planets were pulled apart from one another." Should I cite that earlier as well? Tezero (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hm... "our planets" a bit ambiguous, but I think that Mother Wisp's comment in context is clear enough to mostly support the sentence. To make it more descriptive though, I suggest rewriting it to say "spanning the Wisps' planets". I would definitely cite to the Mother Wisp quote to support the sentence. Also, as an aside, I believe that grammatically there shouldn't be comma in the middle of the sentence. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Appearances, fourth sentence: None of the sources cited describe the mind-controlled Wisps using the term "Nega-Wisps", and I'd include one that does.
      • Actually, I didn't remember hearing them called that in the game; I added it because they're referred to that way in various places on the Internet and I figured I'd missed something. Looking over it, though, I can't find any cutscenes that refer to them that way, so I've reworded all of that. (There are no other such cases.) Tezero (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the sources cited in the Appearances section are pieces of character dialogue that don't describe any of what the article says occurs on screen (for example, the whole bit about the black hole is supported by Sonic saying "This might not end well.") Can you cite to a scene in the game directly, as opposed to the associated character dialogue?
I think the idea is to reference a scene by its "name", not necessarily to link the reference to the timecode czar ♔ 19:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of name? Tezero (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does Sonic Colors have a scene selection feature? If so, I'd go with which number in the sequence the scene in question appears as (unless the scene has an actual name). If there is no such feature, I'd suggest clearly describing the scene in relation to its timing in the game--e.g., "Opening cutscene to level [level name/number]". –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such feature as far as I know, and I'm not sure I trust myself to count them accurately. I'll just describe it qualitatively, since it doesn't tie into a specific level. Tezero (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I think you should add scene citations where the dialogue doesn't describe onscreen events that are being described in the article text; where the dialogue does sufficiently support the article text, dialogue citations are fine. (Though come to think of it, it'd be helpful if each dialogue citation had the associated scene mentioned in the citation too, so that readers know which scene the dialogue occurred in. I don't think that's necessary for FA, but it couldn't hurt!) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it for the scenes where the events weren't totally clear from the quotes. Tezero (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great. There are a couple additional sentences that could benefit from scene citations:
  • "Suspicious, Sonic and Tails investigate and rescue two Wisps from Eggman's henchmen Orbot and Cubot." - The cited dialogue doesn't describe the rescue.
  • No dialogue in the game really does. I'm still planning to cull citations that are uncontroversial, per WP:WISP (a conglomeration of opinions from WT:VG), once I'm done with everything else, but this seems controversial to you and I don't know what to put. Tezero (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yacker frees the remaining Wisps, reverts them from their corrupted form," - These two phrases aren't supported by the cited dialogue.
Right, I understand that there isn't any dialogue to support these two phrases; to be clear, I'm suggesting a citation to the scene itself without a dialogue citation.
As for culling citations... I wouldn't recommend it. You're completely correct that not everything requires a citation, but where statements in the article are supported by one or more primary sources, those statements are likely to be challenged in the future on the basis of WP:OR; indeed, many people have already challenged a good number of statements in this review on that basis. By providing a higher number of citations, you can demonstrate more convincingly that the text is descriptive of the primary source rather than interpretive and thus ward off such challenges. (Additionally, the citations are already there, and it looks better to go above and beyond the bare minimum of WP:MINREF anyway.) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they ought to be used. This is not the general consensus of WP:VG, though, so I'm not sure what to think. Nevertheless, I've added locations to both of those you mentioned, as the game has no scene numbering or selecting system or, as far as I know, ways to identify them beyond their locations. Tezero (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just glanced at the discussion on WT:VG, and I must say that I'm dismayed that a couple of the editors believe there is utility in removing source citations, especially primary source citations--which aren't just likely to be challenged, they are virtually guaranteed to be challenged, and many already have been challenged. WP:PRIMARY SOURCE itself says "an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot" -- not "an article about a novel need not cite passages to describe the plot, because the book's plot is so darn obvious that citations are unnecessary". You've put in a lot of hard work in this article, and I appreciate that you seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place: some editors think that practically any reliance on primary sources isn't appropriate under WP:V, and others think that reliance on primary sources is so uncontroversial that citations aren't required and in fact shouldn't be included. I don't see how either of those interpretations square with WP:V and WP:PRIMARY, but one thing that is absolutely, positively crystal clear that no policy encourages, much less requires, someone to remove citations, even if the citations aren't required by WP:MINREF. I'll post something to this effect on WT:VG in a bit. Thanks for addressing the scene citation issue. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this may be just me, but I think simply saying "Area:" instead of "Area/level:" in the citation allows for greater precision. For instance, when you cite to a cutscene, it would read "Area: Cutscene [description]", and if you cite to a level itself instead of a cutscene, the citation would read "Area: Level [level #]" or "Area: [level name] level". –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Area/level" is what's in the citation template. I'm not sure I agree either, although I might be able to get around it by, say, setting the quote to something like this:
(quoted text) ". Area: "Tropical Resort.
That way it'd treat the area as a quoted name. I'm not sure this much is really necessary, though; it seems like a minor stylistic issue best taken up with the template maintainers. Tezero (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, not a big deal. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With these comments in mind, I want to say that overall, it's clear you've put in great effort into making this article work given the available sources, and your effort is certainly appreciated! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get to these tomorrow, as I'm going to bed soon. "Non-phonetic" stuck out to me among them. In the game, Yacker quips something that sounds nothing like "Wisps"; all of the Wisps' speech sounds like typical alien garble. I'm not sure if that's enough justification. Tezero (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that depends on the context; was Tails attempting to translate what Yacker said into English, or was Tails attempting to pronounce the name in the Wisps' own language and butchering it? If it's the latter scenario, and the game makes that scenario crystal clear, "non-phonetic" probably should work. But if there's any doubt, I'd err on the side of caution. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... the first one, I guess. Actually, I'll just get rid of the word. Tezero (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tezero, I took a stab at copyediting the article; the prose was mostly fine already, but there were a couple instances where a comma inappropriately preceded a dependent clause, and a couple places where I trimmed a word or two. Feel free to disagree with the edits. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - The article is well-written and comprehensive without including unnecessary gamecruft. The parts of it supported by primary sources are descriptive of those sources, not interpretive, and thus their use satisfies WP:PRIMARY. Great work Tezero, and thanks for so diligently responding to the feedback in this FAC! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Please note that my support is based on the current thoroughly-cited version of the article; as I have explained more thoroughly above, if primary source citations are removed like some editors have suggested, I fear the article would violate WP:V because the parts of the article currently supported by those sources are highly likely to be challenged in the future on the basis that they interpret, rather than describe, those sources. Having the source citations allows future editors to see the descriptive nature of the article text.) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Although I might have organized "Reception" a bit differently, I can certainly appreciate Tezero's approach, particularly as the Wisps are likely to make future appearances (not that that won't complicate things anyway, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it). As things now stand, Tezero and Prototime have worked diligently to address all complaints, and I believe this article is about as well-sourced and comprehensive as it could possibly be.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Hahnchen: the table's been cut for a while now, and a bit trimming has been done of overly specific material while I addressed other comments. Likewise, @Indopug: per Prototime's comments (which led to his support), mainly those involving specificity with citing scenes, I believe the possible OR aspects have been addressed. Does this information change either of your minds? Tezero (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Maybe it would be a waste of time for me to go on about the prose, as everything remains excellent ever since I reviewed the GAN. The article is very comprehensive as it is and every reference is in a suitable place. From a copy editor's view I can't see any problems, well done Tezero! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The above linked merger proposal has closed in favor of merging this article into the list of Sonic characters. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaving aside the outstanding opposition to promotion, if the article under review is to be merged into another then this FAC is nullified and will be archived. A new nomination (at FLC, not here) would be required if someone wants to try and get the list of characters to Featured Status. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 01:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC) [10].[reply]

American football

edit
Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 02:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about American football or, as we call it in America, football. This is an introductory article on the sport, so it includes all the basics as well as more in-depth coverage. This article includes:

  • A history section, with extensive detail going into the formative days of the sport and its evolution into the top American sport. For comparison to other FA sports articles, this is longer than the history section in the Association football article, and shorter than the one in the Baseball article. The short length relative to the baseball article is primarily due to the broader coverage in the History of American football article, a featured article.
  • An etymology section, which explains why the sport is unambiguously called 'football' in American despite relatively little use of the foot. It also gives common names for the sport in other countries besides the US.
  • A teams and position section, which gives a basic overview of substitution rules, the division of teams into units, and the specialized roles of each player.
  • A rules section, which gives a basic overview of the fundamentals of the game: scoring, field dimensions, timekeeping, advancing the ball, kicking, and officiating.
  • A leagues and tournaments section, which covers the major American leagues, minor American leagues, and international competition. It also gives an overview of the sport's Olympic history and the main obstacles to Olympic entry (namely, lack of international participation and large team sizes).
  • A safety section, covering common health risks and protective measures that have been made to try and combat them.
  • A section on variations (such as Arena football and amateur play) and related sports (namely, Canadian football).

Overall, it provides a basic but comprehensive overview of the sport. I think it meets all criteria, and is of similar or better quality than our other FA sports articles. Toa Nidhiki05 02:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun work on this section now. Toa Nidhiki05 18:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely an improvement. It's rather strictly focused on audience statistics, how it compares to other sports, etc. Are you sure there's nothing to say about actual cultural aspects? For example, what's the perception of football in the US? High school football seems like something that is a minor field of study of it's own. For example, the archetypal jock always seems to be a football player (preferably a quarterback).
Any chance we'll be seeing anything on football and gender roles, btw? I'll admit that there's a gender perspective on just about anything, but I can hardly think of anything that could be considered more masculine in the US than football. Here's a good source with some references to further studies on the subject.[11]
Peter Isotalo 00:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still working on the section, it's not complete yet. :) Toa Nidhiki05 17:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more on US perception of football and masculinity in the sport. Toa Nidhiki05 17:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's what I call improvement. Good work! I'd recommend adding a tad more on the critical aspects of masculinity. I think the quote from USA Today is a great illustration, but its openly disparaging view of non-masculine male behavior could use a little bit of balancing. I might even help you to add a sentence or two based on Smith (2009). The information about popularity and playing outside of North America is very good, but it would be very good to provide some indication about how it actually compares to other sports, especially association football.
Peter Isotalo 15:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I'll see what I can find. As to comparative popularity to soccer, I'm not sure exactly what you mean - are you wanting a comparison within American or a worldwide comparison? The latter might be fairly difficult as no sports really compare to soccer in popularity, and football is often regarded as just an American sport. Toa Nidhiki05 02:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking something like how 45,000 registered German amateur players could be contrasted with the equivalent number of soccer players. You know, stating the obvious about its relative lack of popularity outside of North America. People often know of it, but very few actually play it locally, or watch local teams.
Peter Isotalo 04:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero

edit

Oppose at this time per concerns about completeness, source reliability, neutrality, and cleanliness. These issues can be fixed, in which case I'll give my support if nothing else arises, but it won't be too easy and I really would not feel comfortable with the article passing as is.

  • Elaborate a little on what rugby is like and its ancestral similarities to American football.
  • "Teams and positions" contains an awfully high number of subheaders. I'd merge the level-4 headers into the level-3 ones, considering how short they are.
  • In fact, I think you could probably stick them all under the simple level-2 header, if you wanted, and bullet each of them as is done in "Offices and fouls". Either way, pick something as it looks cluttered as is.
  • Likewise, Merriam-Webster is probably not a reliable source for information about those sub-strains of the game. I'd replace it with an exhaustive source about the history of the game, so that another complaint of mine about the coverage of these versions of football can be addressed:
  • It's too brief.
  • How so? I'll note that the baseball article hardly mentions any variant sports like softball, and soccer only devotes a few paragraphs to it. Aside from Canadian football (which has a rather large section), variants like arena football and indoor football are basically the same game with a smaller playing field (and a few rule changes to fit that), and casual variants have rules that are different from person to person. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other sources whose contextual reliability/appropriateness I question:
  • Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
  • Oxford Dictionaries Online
  • Encyclopedia Britannica Online
  • Sports Know How
  • LiveStrong.com
  • Removed; the bit of information is obvious and has been removed, and for some reason the website - despite having the right url - is linking to an entirely different page now. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section ordering is a little weird; Safety should probably go between Rules and Leagues and tournaments.
  • In Popularity and cultural impact, I'd mention something about football, despite its massive popularity, never having made it to the Olympics besides its "demonstration", whatever that means.
  • Technically, this information is already mentioned in a prior section - leagues and tournaments - where it has a whole paragraph elaborating on this in-depth. Should I just move that to the popularity section? Toa Nidhiki05 23:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "American football is by far the most popular sport" - Debatable. By which metrics is it the most popular sport? If none are given in the source, frame it as the author's opinion.
  • Similarly: "is among the biggest club sporting events in the world" - How so?
  • "professional and college football were the first and third most popular sports" - What was second?
  • Switch the ordering of the UK/other European countries in "Popularity and cultural impact"; it creates a strange contrast to go right from the stigma in the UK to "The sport is also played in..."
  • That whole section should be expanded with information about the sport's evolving popularity in the US over time. The US should definitely have its own paragraph (if not 2+), moreover.
  • Expound on American football's popularity in Japan. I didn't even realize it was a professional sport there; surely there's more to say.

I'll keep this FAC on my watchlist. Tezero (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal due to poor sourcing. A third of the cites are to the official rules themselves (violating WP:NOR), another bunch to the poor-quality For Dummies website, and the rest to the popular press. Barely any scholarly peer-reviewed works feature (a children's book does though). Compare this with the Baseball FA's sources.—indopug (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • How is citing factual assertions about the rules of a sport to the definitive source of rules (namely, rulebooks) original research? I would think they would be the most reliable sources to use, as they are ones declaring the facts on the matter. The baseball article does this with many of its citations.
  • Because they are primary sources, and we shouldn't citing/interpreting them directly if we can help it. And looking at the scholarly Nelson book, we clearly can—why not cite that instead? I'm also curious why uncontroversial statements such as "A football game is played between two teams of 11 players each" requires three citations.—indopug (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The For Dummies books were written by not just one, but two highly credible sources (namely, a football analyst who was a Hall of Fame player and an editor for a football program that is a Hall of Fame voter), and the "children's book" was written by John Madden, a Hall of Fame coach and football analyst. You might not like the publisher or format, but the writers themselves are more than qualified on hte subject matter.
  • How is citing factual assertions to reliable third-party media outlets a bad thing? Are the BBC, ESPN, USA Today, the New York Times, Popular Mechanics, Time Magazine, The Economist, the International Business Times, and Sports Illustrated not reliable enough sources? WP:SOURCES makes it clear that it is perfectly fine to cite to reputed, non-academic publications.
  • Why exactly does an article need to overload itself with scholarly sources when reliable third-parties more than suffice? The featured article critera makes no such requirement - instead, it says it simply needs to be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". And to the contrary, this article does cite from academia when needed - citations 10, 51, and 101 are cited directly to academic sources.
That all aside, I don't really understand how I can make fixes if you don't give direct concerns. Which media outlets I am using are unreliable? What individual media claims should instead be given to academia? Toa Nidhiki05 23:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But I have listed my direct concern—that this article doesn't nearly present "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". (How can it when you admit to not perusing any of the books written on the subject?)
And you've not given me any examples of media outlets I am using that are unreliable for the content cited. And I have read books on the subject - David M. Nelson's fantastic book The Anatomy of a Game is sourced here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And thus you can make fixes—by withdrawing this article from FAC, and rewriting it using scholarly sources. As you've read in WP:SOURCE, "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources". You may also want to read this.
That is not helpful at all. You have not given a reason why any of the 153 internal citations in this article are unreliable, save for a few I have proven are in fact reliable. Toa Nidhiki05 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further, even the sources that exist in the article should be checked whether they are used correctly. For eg, "Concussions are particularly concerning" is cited to a repository of NYT reporting on head injuries. The very strong claim that concussions in American football are a "particular concern" is not backed anywhere (the medical article at the end of the sentence doesn't mention football). And this is just the first thing I happened to check.
See, this is helpful. Giving me a specific source that isn't good allows me to fix it. Just taking a short look at the article and saying "This is crap because it doesn't use as many scholarly sources as I want" doesn't help me improve this at all. Toa Nidhiki05 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, looking at the lead, it's clear that the writing isn't up to par. A most likely reader of this article is somebody who doesn't have a clue about the game. But he is told that "They must advance it at least ten yards in four downs to receive a new set of four downs" without "downs" ever being defined. And then there is tautology (American football evolved in the United States), another unexplained term (snap), easter-egg linking (November 6, 1869) and an acronym out of nowhere (NFL).
Once again, this is more helpful. The terms 'down' and 'snap' are linked - per WP:UNDERLINK, this is an acceptable way to explain technical terms. At the same time I'd be more than willing to define it. Toa Nidhiki05 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear there's simply far too much to be done than is possible within the scope of an FAC.—indopug (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be so certain. I'm pretty much always available to fix these sort of issues. If you'd be willing to do a more thorough source check I'd be more than willing to work to correct them. Toa Nidhiki05 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm siding with Toa Nidhiki05 here. indopug, if you don't have the time to actually detail what you want changed, that's not Toa's problem. Tezero (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indopug is absolutely right about the children's book, though. It has to go, even if it's Madden. The type of sources I'd expect for an FA-level article should cover facts so basic that they've made it into a children's book. So why use the children's book at all? Or is the fact itself dubious? It's a completely unnecessary source of doubt.
And regarding the comparison to baseball, a work like he Meaning of Sports: Why Americans Watch Baseball, Football, and Basketball and What They See When They Do would seem like exactly what this article needs. It's a perfect example of what looks to be a critical, comparative study that could explain the basics of what makes football attractive and how it interacts with US society.
Peter Isotalo 00:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lone fact cited by the Madden book (Walter Camp being the "Father of American football") is minor, but I've now replaced it with two other sources currently in the article (NFL.com and PFRA). Toa Nidhiki05 17:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro is surprisingly easy to read, but honestly I would prefer to have some figures there too (such as how many athletes are registered, how much revenue it generates, how many people watch the Super Bowl). And please, before promoting this clarify or mention or say something about having a game called football but not being played with the feet 99%+ of the time. Nergaal (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input! I'm not sure I can get full registration information for the entire world, because to my knowledge no single source keep track of that number, but would just US numbers suffice? I'd expect to encounter similar problems with revenue (I'd likely have to rely solely on American leagues), but I can get the worldwide Super Bowl viewership numbers fairly easily. As to the last (no foot in football), I'm sure I can find a way to sneak that in. There is already an explanation for the name in the 'etymology' section, I'm sure I can find something to talk about the 'foot' issue. :) Toa Nidhiki05 22:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've added the 'foot' thing to the etymology section, where it explains why the sport has the name it now has. More to come. Toa Nidhiki05 22:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, US figures are fine, since the game is mostly played in the US. The figures are more for people who live outside of US to get a better grasp of the phenomenon there. As for the foot think, I am sure I am not the first person who thought a game named football would be at least non-negligibly played with the feet (like if association football were to be called handball because the keeper can use his hands). Nergaal (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, good, I'll see if I can find those numbers. It appears my edit adding elaboration on the 'foot' bit was reverted though, so I may have to bring that up with the editor who reverted it. Toa Nidhiki05 23:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added the numbers for amateur (college and high school) athletes as well as the NFL's average revenue. Toa Nidhiki05 03:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: It looks like I have only one comment that you haven't yet addressed. I wouldn't say I still oppose this candidacy, but if you fix it I'll take another run-through and, if reasonable, support it. Tezero (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Toa Nidhiki05 00:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry, but with no comments for two weeks and no consensus to promote, this review has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 22:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC) [12].[reply]

History of KFC

edit
Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the history of the KFC restaurant chain. This article was nominated once before and was listed for four months before being failed. It received four Supports and one Oppose. Farrtj (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm surprised this wasn't promoted the last time. I'm leaning towards supporting this well-written history, and just have a couple of minor comments:

  • Is the infobox necessary? It's identical (and hence redundant) to the one in the parent KFC article. Besides, most of its info—current leadership, finances, products etc—isn't relevant to this history article.
I've followed the model of the Burger King sequence of pages. I like it because it links all of the KFC-related pages under a common banner, and provides a very brief but quick sketch of the company. But I'd be willing to debate the issue. Farrtj (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's so for all groups of articles (for eg: the albums/songs/members of a band), but usually the common banner is the template at the bottom. And I understand that it provides an overview, but it is simply not a relevant overview.
If you still prefer to have an infobox, you should make it summarise this article—history of ownership, various firsts, landmarks in turnover/profits/number of stores etc.—indopug (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fond of the infobox. Tom (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's content is quite interesting, but it is under-served by the dull section headers. Try to come up with less-formulaic (they're just the owners KFC) and more descriptive titles, that are sort of like teasers for their contents. If necessary reorganise the sections according to themes in that period of history, such as rising sales, international growth etc. (By this I don't mean rewrite anything, just fiddle around with the section headers around to see if there's a more optimal way to organise the article)
I have reworked some of the titles: let me know what you think. Farrtj (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much better.—indopug (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More photographs wouldn't hurt. There's plenty to choose from—nuggets, tower burgers, the chicken pot pie, the double down and Crispy Strips. This image too.—indopug (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the boycott photo. Will look into adding more food related photos. Farrtj (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have added a Double Down photo. Farrtj (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed this article. I copyedited it and am just taking one last look before I can support. Good work. --John (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John. I appreciate your edits. Farrtj (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Issues were found with spotchecks on the previous review, and I suggested a thorough check was needed; I am disappointed to see that this appears not to have been done. Examples of further problems:
"brought order and efficiency to a chaotic management structure" is quite close to "bringing order and efficiency to a ramshackle management structure"
Done. Tom (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"prevent possible bickering among Sanders' family and franchisees by offering a continuity of leadership and a firm central control" is quite close to "avoid possible bickering among Sanders' family and franchisees by offering a continuity of leadership and a firm central control"
Done. Tom (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"specialized operations proved easier to sell to potential franchisees" is quite close to "specialized operations proved easier to sell to would-be franchisees"
Done. Tom (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Criticised as an unhealthy product" is not supported by the given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tom (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, if you have any further specific complaints I'd be glad to address them. It would just be a shame to see this article fail its FA nomination again just because nobody volunteers to spotcheck the references. Tom (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as I did in the previous FAC. Article reads well and is very comprehensive. I did not spot check the references, but I trust the review above will address them. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – (Comments moved to talk) I see no other issues and I'm happy to support the articles promotion to FA. The nominator's perseverance is something to admire. Cassiantotalk 08:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note I need to see more spotchecks before I can consider promotion. Graham Colm (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further spotchecks and continued issues

  • "sold well but caused "tremendous" operating problems" - I appreciate that you've quoted one word, but actually the whole phrase is identical to the source
Have altered the text to ensure differentiation. Tom (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allowing Sanders' restaurant venture to go forward as "Claudia Sanders Dinner House" and continued his role as goodwill ambassador" is quite close to "continued his salary as goodwill ambassador and allowed the new venture to go forward as "Claudia Sanders Dinner House"
Sorted. Tom (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "PepsiCo switched 1,650 company owned stores to their own soft drinks" - source says 1850
Where did you access the source? I need to check it but I can't remember where I found it (given that I have been working on KFC for two years). Tom (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find the original Giges source to doublecheck, but the NYT states 1,800 company owned outlets at the time, so I'll go along with that. Tom (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It proved to be a costly failure: a $100 million investment in marketing and equipment was undermined by faulty ovens" does not appear to be supported by the given source at all
Have fixed this now. Tom (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This still needs a thorough reworking, and my oppose still stands. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 15:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Larry Doby

edit
Nominator(s): Zepppep, Wizardman 22:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even those who aren't baseball fans know the story of Jackie Robinson, the saga of the first African-American to play in the major leagues. This article is on the second African-American to play in the major leagues, one who had to endure the same hardships as Robinson, yet has largely been forgotten, unfairly so given that both players were Hall of Famers. Larry Doby's career was one of perseverance and determination, not to mention a good number of home runs.

As for why I'm nomming it, after it became a GA, I did multiple top-to bottom rewrites on it in an attempt to bring it here and get it on the main page one day. I believe now it's as good as it will like ever be, and it now meets all FA criteria. Wizardman 22:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that one, looking through the rest of the article since there may be more instances like that. Wizardman 00:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All images are used appropriately, and the first two (the baseball cards) are in the public domain per the Library of Congress, as the copyright was not renewed. The last image is a self-created image by User:Silent Wind of Doom, and is appropriately licensed. Check an image review off the list. Go Phightins! 19:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Looking good generally. I've read down to the end of "Early life", and it is very readable so far. Just a little prose polish needed here and there. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • "He helped the Indians win a franchise-record 111 wins and the AL pennant in 1954 and finished second in the AL Most Valuable Player (MVP) award voting as the season's RBI leader and home run champion for the second time in three seasons. “: “win … wins", “and…and…and"
  • "the first black player to integrate the American League" and later “the first African-American players to win a World Series championship": Not a big deal, but is there any particular reason why we use first black, then African-American? Or is it just for variety?
  • And on this subject, should something about being a pioneering black player be mentioned in the first paragraph? Otherwise, we wait until the second paragraph to make a fairly major point.

Early life:

  • "Doby was born in Camden, South Carolina to David and Etta.": I think it is better if we give their surnames here as well.
  • "He died at the age of 37 from a drowning accident in New York state": A drowning accident? We don’t need all of this here: what about “He drowned in an accident in New York state, aged 37"?
  • Obvious question: why did he not go with his mother?
  • "The first opportunity he had to play organized baseball was while a student at Browning Home-Mather Academy": Perhaps better as “organized baseball came as a student…"?
  • "Richard Dubose, known in local African-American circles for his baseball expertise": Locally, or nationally?
  • "including how he and play mates": Should play mates be one word?
  • "including how he and play mates would use worn down broom handles for bats": I don’t think we really need “would" here; it may be better as “play mates used worn down broom handles".
  • "although he would be living full-time with a friend of his mother's and visit his mother once per week": Again, I’m not a huge fan of the “would" construction here.
  • "Doby lettered in track and was an all-state athlete in baseball": This is pretty meaningless outside North America, so some links, notes or further explanation may be needed.
  • "the team voted in support of Doby to forgo the trip.": Is this better as “the team voted to forgo the trip as a gesture of support for Doby"?
  • "He also enjoyed a brief stint with the Harlem Renaissance": Do we know he enjoyed it? If this is just a synonym for “had", perhaps a more neutral word is needed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Lead and early life done so far. Issues fixed sans the question of why he didn't stay with his mom. After double-checking a few of the book sources none of them gave a reason as to why he didn't live with her. My guess is the divorce had something to do with it, or there was pressure for her not to be a single mother, but that's entirely speculation on my part. Wizardman 21:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Negro leagues’’’:

  • "A Negro league umpire, Henry Moore, advised Newark Eagles' owners Abe and Effa Manley to give Doby a tryout at Hinchliffe Stadium in Paterson. The tryout was successful, and Doby joined the Eagles in 1942 at the age of 17 for $300.": Can we combine these sentences in some way to avoid repeating “tryout"?
  • "Of the games Doby played in, 26 box scores have been found and concluded his batting average was .391.": As written, this states that the box scores worked out his average.
  • "Before serving in the Pacific Theater of World War II, Doby would spend time at Navy sites in Ogden, Utah and San Diego, California" and “While in Hawaii, Doby would meet fellow Navy man and future teammate Mickey Vernon": Again, it is better to avoid the “would" construction.
  • "For one year he was stationed on Ulithi in the Pacific Ocean in 1945": Redundancy?
  • "Doby saw real hope in being a professional baseball player instead of his aspirations to be a teacher and coach.": Something does not quite work here. Instead of his aspirations?
  • "He made the All-Star roster and batted .360 (fourth in the NNL), hit five home runs (fifth) and led the NNL in triples (six).": And…and Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Integration of American League’’’:

  • For the benefit of anyone who may be unfamiliar with this sorry tale, could we briefly explain why the league was not integrated already?
  • "Veeck had already undertaken efforts in hopes of locating a young, talented player from the Negro leagues": Efforts to do what?
  • "The reporter suggested Doby, of whom Veeck had seen play at the Great Lakes Naval Training School."
  • "Unlike Rickey, who declined to pay for the purchasing rights of Robinson with the Kansas City Monarchs": Lost me here…
  • "It would be the only game Doby would start for the remainder of the season. Doby finished the game 1-for-4, recording his first major league hit and RBI in a 5–1 Indians win": Can we explain these numbers?
  • "Said noted former player Rogers Hornsby, after watching Doby play one time in 1947:": I think it is better as “Noted former player Rogers Hornsby said, after watching…"
  • "Doby roomed alone his rookie year, and in some cities, namely Chicago and St. Louis, was not allowed to stay in the same hotels as his white teammates.": This is almost repeating what the earlier long quote says. Do we need both, or can they be combined?
  • I think this section may need a bit more on Jackie Robinson, to give a little more context and for comparison. As your intro here says, Doby was the second black player, but we do not say so in this section, where it would make most sense. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comments so far. I'll try to get to them all in the next couple days, though depending on work I may just sweep through them all over the weekend instead. Wizardman 00:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Negro Leagues and integration done. I'll re-read and try to add a bit more that would fit on Robinson. Wizardman 02:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Indians:

  • This is a very long section. Could it be split up?
  • Can we avoid the over-use of the phrase "spring training" in the first paragraph?
  • "During his early years when Doby was in the dugout often, Doby also credited Indians coach Bill McKechnie, who remained in the dugout while Boudreau would play shortstop, with helping him adjust to the majors and learning the outfield.": Another "would", but this sentence seems quite mangled. Repetition of "dugout" and the phrasing seems off. And where has the "also" come from?
  • Consecutive sentences beginning "During" here, as well.
  • "Doby's presence on the team grew in several categories": This doesn't really make sense.
  • "His game appearances jumped four-fold from one season ago to 121. He hit .301 on the season with 14 home runs and 66 RBIs, and he raised his batting average nearly 20 points in the last 25 games of the regular season from September 1 to October 4.": And this is quite choppy, and reads like sports journalese.
  • "Throughout the regular season Doby was the recipient of racial slurs from opposing teams": Why not "Doby was racially abused..."? That would be tighter.
  • "Doby became an important piece of Cleveland's World Series victory against the Boston Braves": More journalese: "piece"?
  • "In Game 4 on October 9, Doby became the first black player to hit a home run in World Series history when he hit one off the Braves' Johnny Sain.": Would be better as "In Game 4 on October 9, Doby hit the first home run by a black player in World Series history", and I'm not sure we need the name of the pitcher. If you think we really need it, maybe finish "scored against..." or similar.
  • "pitched a complete game in Game 4": Can we avoid "game...Game"?
  • "The photo has been called "a signature moment in the integration of Major League Baseball."": By who?
  • Could we include that photo? If it's not free, I think it would easily fall under FU as it is directly referenced in the article.
  • "Nationally syndicated columnist Grantland Rice argued that without Doby and Gene Bearden, the Indians would have finished in fourth or fifth place.": Perhaps a word about what Bearden did?
  • "but were kept out when members in the community revealed a petition.": This sounds odd. Revealed to who?
  • "Boudreau fined his center fielder": Took me a while to work out who this was!
  • "Upon the conclusion of the season": Wordy. Why not "At the end of the season"?
  • "...Cleveland signed him to a new contract resulting in increased pay.": Why not "he signed a new, more lucrative contract"?
  • "Following the season, Doby was named": A bit too similar to the previous sentence.
  • "Doby's power numbers went down in 1951, hitting 20 home runs and 69 RBIs": Power numbers? And this sentence reads that his numbers hit 20 home runs.
  • "Indians general manager Hank Greenberg reduced Doby's salary despite Doby stating he would not accept a pay cut.[48][49] Doby attributed his lower numbers to tightness in his legs.": And now I'm lost. He just had a pay rise, and now a pay cut. Why? And why would he not accept it? And then why did he accept it? And what have his numbers got to do with this? Not clear at all.
  • In fact, that whole paragraph is a little choppy and hard to follow.
  • "However, despite pre-season conditioning, leg injuries were with him to begin the season's campaign.": More journalese style.
  • "Doby stated he was "not even making any plans to go to Tucson for spring training" leading up to the 1953 season,as he had asked Greenberg and Indians management to pay him at his 1951 salary level, $25,000, which was reduced after the 1952 season.": Missing space after 1953 season, and this remark has no context. What did he mean? Did they pay him? We just go straight into stats without following this up.

Down to the end of that section now, but the prose isn't great around here, and the narrative is getting very choppy. It might be worth checking the rest of the article for similar issues as this part is some way short of FA prose-standards. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • In progress on this section; just dropping a line to note I haven't forgotten, just haven't really been on. Should be fully completed on the 4th. Wizardman 00:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally done here. I'll do another quick run-through of that section as well, since the 1951-53 era or so is rather spotty. I'll look into the image to see if it's PD, hoping it is. If not I might include it; I'm not a fan of adding fair-use images but it is a case where an exception could be made given its importance. Wizardman 17:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latter years:

  • Not a fan of the use of "swept", as it seems jargony, but not a huge issue I suppose.
  • "Doby and the White Sox had swept New York": Do we need "had" here?
  • "The White Sox had won eight straight": A touch of sports journalese here.
  • "In a game on August 20, 1957, against the Washington Senators, Doby helped preserve pitcher Bob Keegan's no-hitter with a backhand catch off a long line drive from Herb Plews, one of "two close calls" for Keegan that game.": Borderline jargon, but I wonder if this actually can be simplified without losing the meaning or making it too cumbersome.
  • "Doby was part of a December 3, 1957, multi-player trade between the White Sox and Baltimore Orioles, but was traded before the 1958 season began": trade...traded
  • "He appeared in 89 games with the Indians that season and had a .289 batting average, and accumulated 13 home runs and 45 RBIs.": and...and
  • "and would be the first black player to play for the Tiger franchise.": why would?
  • "for an "over the waiver price" of $20,000": for a what??
  • "During the same season, Doby was traded to the White Sox, again acquired by Veeck.": I may be missing something, but I can make no sense of this sentence!
  • "Doby fractured an ankle while sliding into third base after hitting a triple during a road game the Padres played against Sacramento, in which Doby was sent to a local hospital in Sacramento before going to Johns Hopkins Hospital for further evaluation.": Can we avoid using "Doby" twice in one sentence?
  • "Doby, hobbled by ankle injuries": Not sure this is encyclopaedic.

Down to the end of MLB career now, but I haven't checked the changes made yet. I'm still finding lots of fiddly little issues, but nothing major. Although, to be honest, more than I would expect by the time it reached FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Issues fixed here. If I have time I'll pre-emptively take another look at the final couple sections, since if the later part of his career is any indication I didn't fine-tune it as much as I did earlier on. Wizardman 02:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Managerial:

  • "He managed five seasons of winter leagues in Venezuela, including Águilas del Zulia during the 1970–71 winter season.": Not quite sure what this means: what did he manage? Teams? The whole league?
  • "When Aspromonte was fired after the 1974 season, the Indians named Frank Robinson the club's player-manager, which stunned Doby.": Why?
  • "At age 53, Doby became the second black manager in the majors.": Begs the question as to who was first?
  • "Veeck hired player-manager Don Kessinger to succeed Doby": Seems pretty obvious, but can we state why? Also, was he explicitly sacked?
  • "Doby's involvement with professional sports was not yet finished, however.": Not sure we need this comment at all. Doesn't add much.
  • "In addition to being named all-state in basketball while in high school and receiving a basketball scholarship at Long Island University and later playing in the American Basketball League": As written, and given its place in the article, this looks like it took place after he retired from baseball.

Second man:

  • "Eleven weeks after the annual tradition of all MLB players wearing jerseys paying homage to Robinson, Scoop Jackson in 2007 wrote": This does not quite make sense. How can it take place after a tradition? Needs re-wording.
  • "Said former teammate Al Rosen": Again, this is better the other way around.

Hall of fame:

  • "Although he was the first to play in MLB, Doby was the last member elected to the Hall of the four players to ever play in both a Negro league and MLB World Series: Doby, Satchel Paige, Monte Irvin, and Willie Mays.": May be better written as "the others being Satchel Paige..." etc

Death and legacy:

  • "Doby underwent a kidney removal operation after a cancerous tumor was detected in 1997": Wordy. Maybe just "Doby had a kidney removed in 1997 after a cancerous tumour was detected"
  • Would the parts around the Indians Hall of Fame be better placed chronologically in the main part of the article?

That's everything for the moment; I'll have a look at the whole article again once these comments and those of Resolute have been addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rest of issues fixed. Only thing I didn't change was the Indians Hall of Fame note, since it's lumped in with various other honors currently and makes sense to me. I can try placing it elsewhere to see if it fits, though. Wizardman 03:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source comment - I suppose this is a relatively minor concern, however since Doby is an American, and thus the article is on an American topic, should dates not be expressed in mdy format as opposed to dmy (per WP:STRONGNAT? Not a hill on which I am willing to die, but a consideration nonetheless. Go Phightins! 00:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The prose is all in mdy format. Since the refs were all consistent I decided not to change them to that format; if that is an issue I can always swap those. Wizardman 00:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TonyTheTiger
Comments from Resolute

I will try to avoid duplicating unresolved comments from above

Lead
  • Factual accuracy on Doby being the second black player in MLB. Moses Fleetwood Walker is often credited as the first, before the color barrier was formalized, and Jackie Robinson, obviously. I would suggest rewording to specify that Doby was the second black MLBer after the color barrier was broken.
  • This is going to seem ridiculously pedantic, but you note in one sentence that Doby accepted a basketball scholarship, and in the next that he became a second baseman in Newark. A potential reader who is not familiar with either sport will not realize we have switched from basketball back to baseball.
  • "He helped the Indians win a franchise-record 111 games and the AL pennant in 1954, finishing second in the AL Most Valuable Player (MVP) award voting as the season's RBI leader and home run champion for the second time in three seasons." - mixed tense. I might reword to "He helped the Indians win a franchise-record 111 games and the AL pennant in 1954, finished second in the AL Most Valuable Player (MVP) award voting and was the AL's RBI leader and home run champion for the second time in three seasons."
    • Also, was Doby both the RBI leader and home run champion twice in three seasons?
  • Note what year he retired as a player.
  • "Doby later served as the second black manager..." - run-on sentence. Also, the basketball piece doesn't fit well in the middle of the two baseball entries. Since you aren't giving years, mention the two baseball jobs in one sentence, and the basketball directorship in another.
Early life
  • "Doby lettered in track and also played, football..." - That comma after played is very awkward and leaves the entire sentence a little off-kilter. As as suggestion for rewording: "Doby was a multi-sport athlete at Patterson's Eastside High school. In addition to baseball and basketball, he was a wide receiver in football and lettered in track."
  • "...where he played with shortstop teammate and future Hall of Famer Monte Irvin." - If he played with Irvin, it is already implied they were teammates. "...where he played with future Hall of Fame shortstop Monte Irvin."
  • When you first mention/link the Negro National League, you should add (NNL) after to put future uses of the acronym in context.
Negro Leagues
  • (Total aside: As a fan of Canadian baseball and Larry Walker, I find that this was also a pseudonym of Doby's to be pretty amazing!)
  • "Of the games Doby played in..." - That cannot be said definitively since you later state that not all box scores are available. I would suggest "In the 26 games where box scores have been found, Doby's batting average was .391", or something similar.
Major League Baseball.
  • I would pipe Commissioner of Baseball down to just Commissioner.
  • It is noted that Veeck asked the AL president for support in getting other players to "rein in their animosity". Do we know if that request was successful?
  • "...but hit 29 home runs and 102 RBIs on the year. He also had 96 walks on the year, third in the AL." - overuse of "on the year.
  • When you note that the White Sox finished sixth in the AL in team home runs, that is hard to put into context because of how many teams are in the AL today. Perhaps specify they were sixth of eight teams in the AL.
  • In the latter years section, you end one paragraph by stating Doby was sold to the White Sox. The next paragraph begins by noting he was traded to the White Sox. Given he was acquired by Veeck again, I take this to mean that he was traded to the Indians?
  • "In 1960, Doby, hobbled by ankle injuries, worked out with the White Sox before the 1960 season but did not earn a roster spot." - Don't need the second instance of "1960".
  • "In late-April..." - Is that hyphen properly placed?
Managerial
  • Why did Frank Robinson's promotion to manager in Cleveland "stun" Doby?
  • Spell out "National Basketball Association" on first use.

Many of the prose concerns Sarastro already mentioned (and I may have duplicated some). Will take a second pass once these are all resolved. Cheers! Resolute 01:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Issues fixed. On the animosity quote, i'm not sure if it was successful immediately. It of course lessened over time, but the gradual change wouldn't feel right thrown in there. Also I confirmed the reference said that Doby was stunned, but it went into no further detail so I just removed it. Wizardman 03:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Looks like you've resolved my initial comments. I do want to take a second pass, and will try to do so soon! Resolute 00:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not convinced the prose is quite there yet. I've copy-edited one section here (feel free to revert anything I've messed up) to give some idea of what might be required. I'm a little pressed for time at the moment, and may not be able to do a full copy-edit myself (although I'll see what I can do), but I think the prose still needs a little work. (Incidentally, did he ever play for LIU: the article seems a little vague around this point) Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a run-through this weekend and try to fine-tune the prose a bit further. Wizardman 11:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, my time's going to be very limited for at least the next few weeks, and after a skim re-read I want to do some more prose polishing to try and bring it up to FA level. Since that's going to take a while due to a combination of the above, I request that this be withdrawn. Wizardman 00:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 15:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Laundry Service

edit
Nominator(s): WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Colombian record artist Shakira's fifth studio album and first English-language studio effort. A monumental point in her career and a highly successful album, I have worked on the article for quite a long time. It received an instant pass for good article, and a few users have recommended me to nominate it for FA. I hope the article is worthy enough. I will try to address issues as soon as they are put forward. Thanks! WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor
  • One external link to correct.
  • Perhaps "Background" and "recording" could be merged into a "Background and recording" since the latter section is a little short.
  • I would recommend that "Music and lyrics" is renamed "Composition".
  • I suggest moving "Accolades" in between "Critical reception" and "Commercial performance".
  • Can you organize the "Personnel" section into two columns?
  • I would replace the couple instances of Nielsen Business Media in the references, since it appears that Prometheus Global Media is the most commonly-listed publisher for Billboard throughout the article.
The Nielsens were added by a bot. They weren't supposed to be there in the first place --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the hard work you've put into the article has certainly paid off! Aside from these minor structural/formatting comments, I have no other issues to raise, and I am very happy to give my support to the nomination! WikiRedactor (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I have addressed the issues. Much appreciated --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:I see you've put a lot of work into the article. I appreciate it. Unfortunately, it's not quite up to FA standards. The writing is not quite brilliant or interesting and far from neutral. All these biased fancruft remarks like "huge success", "huge international success", "performed well", "became hits", "performed moderately". We must only document facts and appropriate critical commentary. I find too many of these throughout the article. Also, beware of awkward wording like "a few critics praised Shakira's vocal talent". Overall, I suggest hooking up with a third-party editor who can fine-tooth comb all the unintentional praises. Good luck and I'll keep watch for improvements.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes. However, I must say that I believe the usage of words like "crossover success" and "international success" is sufficiently backed by the charting information. Moreover, the former just doesn't refer to chart success but rather emphasises on the fact that the album enabled Shakira to enter the market successfully, which too is taken from the sources. Thanks for your input --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- As this review has stalled without achieving consensus to promote, I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 15:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC) [15].[reply]

Far Side Virtual

edit
Nominator(s): Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Far Side Virtual is a strange album. It's experimental and outside the mainstream, but has received (and continues to receive) a glut of critical attention; it's alternately described as inconsequentially goofy or bleakly nihilistic, hinging on people's inability to tell if it's being performed with a straight face or not; and at the end of the day, it's just an album of songs that sound like replicas of circa-2004 MIDI ringtones. I worked on this article a lot last year, digging up a surprising amount about an album that I only had a little interest in. Looking at it again, I feel that the article is as comprehensive as an article about a recent album can be, and that I summarized a broad swath of critical opinions, analyses and interpretations. I think enough time has passed that we have some distance from the release date and I can confidently say that this is ready to be featured. Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few comments:
I can't speak for everyone but I was unfamiliar with the word drone before reading the lead. I'd suggest the full "drone music" instead.
  • Reworded
Farraro's announcement of the album quote probably needs an explanation. Even something simple like saying that (if this is accurate) his press releases were part of his performance, or whatever would be the most accurate. But as it stands alone I don't think it works.
  • There really is no further explanation out there—sources pretty much published the quotes with a "take this as it is" attitude by letting the absurdity of the words stand for themselves. They were certainly "part of" his performance but not in a way that people chose to comment on. It's noteworthy enough that he made what the reader can clearly figure out is a rather nontraditional press release that resonates with the themes discussed later. My hands are tied in terms of talking about it anyway due to lack of sourcing, but its inclusion is important. It would be OR to extrapolate further, to say that the statement was "deliberately absurd," even though that is plainly the case.
Is there any more information about the albums writing or recording?
  • Not really.
I think that overall it needs much more background info other than just saying that it was made on Garage Band. There's a lot of great theory and interpretation but I think you should add much more information (if it is available) on the process and events surrounding its writing and recording. Obviously this isn't an album that was recorded in the traditional sense, and admittedly I don't personally know much about this type of thing. But I think that any other casual reader who is as unfamiliar as I am would also have some difficulty with aspects of the article that may seem overly obvious to people who know a lot about this genre of music.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I clarified a little with Garageband, but there's not much more to say about the album's writing or recording. Properly speaking it was not "recorded," that is, no sound was recorded with a mic, it was all synthesized within audio software. He probably spent a lot of time moving little MIDI notes around on an audio timeline. Not much more to say there. I don't feel like explaining how to use GarageBand is a task for this article, curious people can click through to that page and figure out what kind of software it is. Certainly, the article makes clear that the software makes generic electronic sounds. He was not working with sophisticated technology. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero

edit

I feel bad that this FAC's gotten so little attention. Mine's been up for far less time and, well, hasn't gotten the kind I'd have liked, but attention nonetheless. Anyway, here I go.

  • "electronic album by James Ferraro" - Ambiguous at first glance; electronic music or released in an electronic format? Since I assume it's the former, link to that genre. (Really, though, it's not the best choice of genre, either. I'd side with "experimental music" or "vaporwave".)
  • Changed; when I first wrote the article vaporwave did not yet have its own article, which has thankfully happened in the interim.
  • "and toward a sharply" - "and" may be unnecessary
  • Reworded
  • "corporate muzak and obsolete computer sounds" - Minor, but consider switching the text to just "elevator music"; elevator music is a more well-known term that is roughly correct within Wikipedia's terminology for what articles exist and is close enough, but muzak is certainly more precise in terms of what people say about the album.
  • changed; I put "elevator music" in quotes to indicate that it is not precisely correct. This mainly
  • "Ferraro claimed to have first conceived" - claimed when and in what context - why not "has claimed"? Actually, I'd prefer you just say that that's how he conceived of it, as I don't see any reason to doubt him.
  • Reworded
  • "that covers much of the same sonic and conceptual territory" - A little redundant/obvious. I'd change this construction to "catalysts of an underground electronic music movement called vaporwave."
  • I want to retain this because subsequent vaporwave music tends to be, overall, more sample-based than Far Side Virtual. That would be to say: Far Side Virtual is original music that imitates the style of "muzak," while most vaporwave (especially afte FSV) samples and distorts old muzak tracks.
  • "The album was preceded on the label" - awkward
  • Reworded
  • "Princess Diana" - may want to link to her
  • Done
  • "few would want to purchase a ringtone album" - Seems contradictory given the preceding expanse of the sentence. A set of ringtones, when contrasted with a full album as this idea is, wouldn't be a "ringtone album", would it?
  • You're right, reworded
  • "cleanly produced" - possibly not NPOV
  • Removed
  • "were described as "perversely commonplace,"" - by whom? One reviewer? Ferraro?
  • Clarified
  • "the Skype log-in sound" - sounds slightly informal; what about something like "the log-in jingle for Skype"?
  • I think "log-in sound" would be more formal. Jingle implies a melody, whereas in this case the sound sampled is literally one rising tone.
  • "a Windows shut-down melody" - Are there more than one?
  • There are new Windows shut-down melodies for each version. 98 differs from XP differs from Vista differs from 7 etc. The specific OS identity of the sample in question is not out there but critics have certainly identified that it is one of the Windows melodies.
  • "while retaining—and reappropriating—the form and ethos of noise music" - ...What?
  • Reworded and added a source to back it up. Multiple critics have said that the album is "noise" in the sense that it is meant to capture the noise of the outside world, but that it's not the standard distorted industrial noise associated with "noise music" but a new noise that is cleaner and associated with post-industrial chirpy smartphone sounds. To explain any further would be original research but I think what I've written represents the critical sources fairly, and gives a broad overview without delving into technical explanation that would become OR.
  • "post-modern" - add a link
  • Done
  • "Simon Reynolds said that" - Mention that he's an (English) music critic or something. I've never heard of him.
  • Done
  • "a choice that proved to be polarizing among readers" - Can you elaborate?
  • I feel that the following paragraph elaborates in enough detail. The backlash was likely one picked up by the writers via word of mouth and forum posts. To the degree that the backlash would be represented by a reliable source, it is encapsulated by the fact that the controversy was significant enough that the magazine chose to respond at all.
  • Are Dummy and Hydra Magazine reliable sources?
  • Yes. They're not the very most popular (hence, no Wiki pages about them) but they are indeed reliable about their niche coverage area, which this article falls within.
  • Not sure about the infobox genre choices; "ambient" and "experimental" appear nowhere else in the article.
  • Removed

Tezero (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate the feedback. I myself have been busy with end-of-semester college responsibilities but I hope I've adequately responded to your comments. Please let me know if you have any further comments. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yeah, to answer your question, it looks better. I can't think of anything else, so I'll be happy to congratulate you on a well-written article about a rather niche topic. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm afraid that after remaining open 6 weeks or so this review has stalled without achieving clear consensus to promote, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 09:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC) [16].[reply]

The Doon School

edit
Nominator(s): Drumpits (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a boarding school in India. Education articles from the South Asian region are largely neglected on Wiki, but this one has been a Good Article for quite some time now. It looks ready to become a Featured Article. Probably, the first one from that geographical region. Drumpits (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal

This nom is among OP's first edits, so it's unlikely the article's main contributors know about it. Sadly, he also seems to have gone on a break due to a family emergency.—indopug (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 09:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Roman Empire

edit
Nominator(s): Historian7 (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this article satisfies the requirements to become a featured article. Historian7 (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Welcome to FAC. Per the FAC instructions, have you talked with the major contributors to the article about whether they're available to help? - Dank (push to talk) 19:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article is 126716 characters of readable prose. According to User:The ed17/Good articles by prose size, as of April 19, 2014, it was the 2nd longest of 19,873 good articles. Only 228 of the 19873 (1.147%) GAs were longer than 60KB. Only 8 of 19873 (0.040%) GAs were longer than 100KB. According to User:The ed17/Featured articles by prose size, as of March 15, 2014, only 171 of the 4197 (4.074%) FAs were longer than 60KB. Only 2 of the 4197 (0.048%) FAs were longer than 100KB. This article needs to be pruned back and WP:SPLIT according to WP:SIZE.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 14:06, 09 May 2014 (UTC) [18].[reply]

Economy of Visakhapatnam

edit
Nominator(s): Vin09 (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the economy of a city in the state of Andhra Pradesh Vin09 (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Singora

One word: NO!

I counted ten unsourced paragraphs. Take your time and improve it bit by bit. I'm sure you'll get there in the end. Good luck! Singora (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments There are a few unsourced and uncited claims that need to be addressed, i added one citation though.Abhinav0908 (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Hamiltonstone. This is an article about a very important regional Indian economy, has a good start, and deserves work. But the article has far far too many problems to be considered at FAC. For example:

  • The lead contains facts not covered in the body text.
  • Major facts are unreferenced.
  • There is little detail about large economic developments, such as their history, what some of them do.
  • There are insufficient high-quality references to cover the facts, but in particular to support stronger analysis of the economy. There is not a single scholarly source of any sort.
  • The article does not cover the historical development of the economy, and often lacks information about when key facilities were constructed.
  • The references are not adequately laid out to comply with the Manual of Style (MOS).
  • Other MOS issues are everywhere, such as taking a consistent approach to the use of acronyms, measurements, and punctuation.
  • There is reference, without explanation, to a place called Vizag, and it is in lower case on one occasion, but all uppercase in another.
  • One section refers to the IT industry, but towards the end starts using the expression IT/ITeS, which isn't explained, or linked, and I don't know what it means.
  • The article states "The employment generated by the IT/ITeS industry of the city too increased to 16,988 jobs from 16,000". Not only is 16,000 actually less than the previous number, but the cited source doesn't have the title claimed in the article, and doesn't support the cited fact.

I have done a quick copyedit to remove some of the worst issues, but this will need many weeks of research and writing to reach FA. Best wishes to the editors in that endeavour. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to inadequate research. Vin09, online sources alone are not enough for such an article such as this to meet WP:FA? criteria. I urge you, especially if you are in Vizag/Andhra, to check out your city's public library. You will find any number of scholarly books on the Andhra coastal economy, if not Vizag's economy itself. Then you can write a comprehensive article on the topic, with a proper historical context and everything.—indopug (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Taking a quick glance at the article myself, I can only agree that a great deal of work would be needed to flesh out and polish this to FA standard, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Pls take on board the comments you've received and, having improved the article accordingly, seek a Peer Review before renominating at FAC. Cehers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:05, 7 May 2014 [19].


Slammiversary (2008)

edit
Nominator(s): WillC 00:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an event held in June 2008. It is the sixth anniversary show of TNA's. A man died after the event while cleaning up the arena. I have two PPV articles from 2008 already achieve FA status and I'm trying to get all 12 there. This is my 4th attempt at getting a 2008 event to FA. I tried with Sacrifice 08 a couple of times but it never worked out. I'll be trying with it again after this one, but I figured I might as well try with a new one first. Any comments are appreciated.--WillC 00:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Small fixes

edit
  • Does "After the event..." in the lead deserve its own paragraph? Not sure why it is lumped together with the 'reception' stuff in the lead.
    • Not really about reception, covers all events after the event. The buyrate, things it is remembered for, the reception, and the death of someone. Someone dieing as a result of the event is pretty important but that line pretty much covers are necessary information.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the lead (and in the article) "Six Woman Tag Team match" and in the article "Special Guest Ringside Enforcer", "Tag Team match" and "Ten Woman TNA Knockouts Makeover Battle Royal" -> remove capital letters?
    • They are match types and special titles. They are important and should be capital since that is how they are promoted. I would understand on tag team match, but it is like that to be uniform with all match titles. Plus it looks neater than 10 woman knockout makeover battle royal, special guest ringside enforcer, etc. These were things the events were promoted on. Nash being Special Guest Ringside Enforcer for this match was used later on in the storylines so it was more than just a random unimportant action.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The predominate storyline -> predominant?
  • Reading the reception section, I thought you could afford to expand it a bit more. Mainly more of Keller's comments on the main event.
  • Accident section - "TNA released a statement the next day on behalf of TNA President Dixie Carter." Is mentioning "on behalf of TNA President Dixie Carter" relevant? Also, I think that you would be better off using the quote like in NXT Arrival#Aftermath. "TNA released a statement the next day" -> quote -> "The June 12 episode"... starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the source. Said that was the purpose of the release, was on Carter's behalf and not the promotion. That table distracts too much from the purpose of the section. Makes itself the main point.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately for you and the article, due to the Sun's greedy "pay for reading or read only the first line" policy, that content is no longer verifiable. Click the source if you don't know what I'm talking about. What are you going to do about that? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ahh crap, I guess I'll remove it. I left that over from the previous revision when it passed GA. I figured it was still good. I liked the sun additions, made the articles look more professional. I'll wait and see if I can find the release through someone else. I probably can.--WillC 04:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You explain dark match... the second time it appears in the body, not the first. Should dark match even appear in the lead? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead shouldn't have explanations, it distracts from the purpose of a summary. Dark match was on the card of the event. Promoted? Not really but still took place at the show.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first time "dark match" appears in the body, not the lead, is in the Storylines section. You explained "dark match" later in the Event section. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed that. Removed dark match and switched it with pre-show in the disclaimer. Too much of an explanation for that area. Kept the explanation in the event with the first mention of the term, besides the lead of course.--WillC 07:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath section - first paragraph first line - remove "still"? Also, first paragraph second line isn't sourced - the source is for the first line.
  • Event section - Miscellaneous subsection - "Besides employees who appeared in a wrestling role" sounds totally weird to me. How about "Besides those who wrestled a match"?
  • Event section and Results section - Roode was the next to qualify after bashing a ladder Cage held with a chair and then pinning Cage. and Roode pinned Cage after hitting a ladder Cage held with a chair. - I think that after the "with a chair"s, you should insert "into Cage". It appears that Roode just bashed a ladder. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay lastly, the pictures need improvement. I don't like LAX or Styles' pictures. You could use a better Styles picture, maybe this one. Since there aren't any better LAX pictures, I recommend adding a Petey picture. I think one of this or this will work. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd change the AJ picture if a good one is presented that appears better than the one currently, but using a Williams picture is a no since his match didn't get any build leading up to and was mostly ignored. LAX overrules there since they were the undercard match and thus should be presented over Williams.--WillC 17:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also must consider licenses and the Styles picture above does exactly have the greatest copyright info and appears to not even be on commons, thus causing more problems.--WillC 17:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huh? The Styles pocture is on Commons. It was taken by Tabercil, an admin here (and on Commons) who has a history of taking pro wrestling photos.
      • What do you mean LAX "were the undercard match"? Petey was also in an undercard match, and his match was even longer than LAX's. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was looking at the wrong Styles picture. My bad. Williams match was added to the card right before the event. Really had no build while the LAX match had nearly 2 months of build and thus was more important. I feel it should be presented since it was a main contest, over the X Title match. I changed the Styles picture though.--WillC 17:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just link right to the observer article? It also contains some things missed in the article. --124.178.179.118 (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What?--WillC 04:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm sorry but with no activity for over a month this review has stalled, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:44, 6 May 2014 [20].

Walt Disney

edit
Nominator(s): Forbidden User (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Walt Disney, a founder of Walt Disney Company, and more than that, the founder of a new era of entertainment. Throughout his life, he has made tremendous contributions to the world by providing refreshing forms of entertainment. That's why the page is made. I believe it meets the featured articles criteria, details as follows:

  1. For writing quality,
  • It is very fluently and extensively written, polished by lots of editors, having received great peer reviews.
  • It is well-researched and comprehensive,detailed covering his whole life with abundant evidence.
  • It does not one-sidedly praise Walt Disney for his great achievements, instead it also mentions the fact he is a chain smoker and he had dow:nfalls in career, as well as constructive criticisms towards him. However, it fairly elaborated on the fact, not trying to cover up thses bits of his life.
  1. For style guideline,
  • It has detailed and clear section-headings, as well as an adequately substantial table of contents which is concise, comparable to other encyclopedias. The main way it categorisis its rich contents is by the timeline of his life, and inside are further divisions by the nature of events, etc. I personaaly find it very convenient, especially when trying to find information about a particular period in his life or specific events.
  1. For media, it contains rich images on his life events, which all come from reliable sources without copyright infringement.
  2. For length, it is long as it is extensively written, yet it stays on Walt himself, not going off to his enterprise,Walt Disney Company. It has no nonsense in it, and summarising of vast information is well-done.

I hope this article will be featured, for enhancing the quality of Wikipedia as well as honouring this great creator of a world of imaginations.Forbidden User (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so, you guys wanna say that I couldnt nominate a page as FA unless I am a major contributor? And btw, this is nothing spammy, Im serious in this, so do not leave spams calling meaningful words 'spams'Forbidden User (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's generally how FAC works, yes; you should've really read the criteria beforehand. If you intend to nominate an article at FAC which you have had no prior interest in, then you could have at least let the major contributors know. Then it would have been up to the delegates to allow it. For all you know, the major contributors may have been intending to bring Disney to FAC themselves. Cassiantotalk 14:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I think I should inform them on the talk page and let them get their preparation or perhaps improvements needed. I think there will be a decision soon. However, please do leave comments for us to improve! Forbidden User (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you open a peer review in that case. Cassiantotalk 17:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JJ98 please leave some comments on how to improve the page. I fell that it will help not only this article, but wikipedia as a whole!Forbidden User (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I want look as William Hanna and Joseph Barbera as an FA example. I would suggest to add a WP:Good article, but it isn't since there are few ciation needed tags and several paragraphs like "1955–1966: Theme parks and beyond" and "Legacy: 1967–present" are unsorced. JJ98 (Talk) 07:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. We will take this into account. Good luck editing!Forbidden User (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way,Cassianto, advice taken. Thanks a lot!Forbidden User (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:44, 6 May 2014 [21].

Miley Cyrus

edit
Nominator(s): Shane Cyrus (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
General comments I probably won't have time to do a full review, but a glance out of curiosity reveals (no pretentions at completeness, I did not read the whole article)
  • Especially in the lede, the paragraphs seem long and blocky, and therefore a barrier to reading. This might not make a difference to her fans, but still.
  • I see at least one instance of a non-US usage, "hospitalised". Note that there are other problems with that sentence.
Good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I added the US usage term to the sentence and corrected it. As for the lede, I divided it to 3 paragraphs. Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, suggest withdrawal
  1. OP is not one of the major contributors to the article. Have they been informed of this FAC?
    Me, not having been a major contributor doesn't excuse the article's great work Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As it says at the FAC instructions page, "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination."—indopug (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    indopug is right. I made that mistake back in 2008 when I, not understanding the difference between GA and FA status, put Pokémon Diamond and Pearl up at FAC, even though I'd barely edited it. Needless to say, I was scolded and the candidacy failed. With that said, I think this article could very well pass. Tezero (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though, Me regularly editing the article but not being shown in that list, Top 6 editors of the article have already been informed. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The peer review OP mentions, suggesting that it contributing to "very high standards", was closed in three days without a single response.
    PR isn't necessary to nominate an article for FA, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. References 181–191 are bare URLs. References are inconsistently formatted throughout.
     Done Bare urls fixed Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not done Refs continue to be inconsistently formatted.—indopug (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The personal-life section is full of short, stubby paragraphs.
     Done Now combined to form one para Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WP:RECENTISM, as seen from the almost day-to-day journal of her life in the last paragraph of the Bangerz section.
    No recentism found Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Estimates of her wealth through the years do not deserve a section of their own.—indopug (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Not a section now Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Indopug. Serious concerns over the lack of preparation this article has gone through (and misrepresentation of such by the nominator) as well as the lack of discussion with those who have done the majority of the work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The bare urls you are blaming me to misrepresent were added after the nomination. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continue as Indopug hasn't raised any points as how this article shouldn't be featured. It sounds like "I Don't Like It". Even if you do not like the person, you can't stop their article to get featured. As for the concerns raised by Indopug, the valid ones are resolved. Shane Cyrus (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the PR, the nominator can close it any time and it is still valid, see [[22]], the discussion also was inactive, If there are no concerns raised, opposition holds no value. I think the concerns Indopug raised were fantastic and he could be a superb reviewer. Hey Indopug, please become the reviewer. Shane Cyrus (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning towards support: The prose looks fine, and I disagree with the charges of recentism; 2013–now has been the biggest period in Cyrus' career in years in both publicity and activity. I will note, however, that not all of the sources are completely formatted; many of them are missing authors and accessdates. Tezero (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I do think all of them have authors and accesdates, however, Which? do you think do not have authors and accessdates? Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, for example, the Pink News citation (237) should list Scott Roberts as the author, while Entertainment Wise (242) needs an accessdate. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Done fixed. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'll support; it looks like the sources without authors listed genuinely don't have them. I'm not well acquainted with pop music/fashion-related articles, so I can't speak to their reliability, but everything else looks to be in good shape. Tezero (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess this article is now ready to get reviewed and promoted. Shane Cyrus (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose – Completely agree with Indopug's points and I would also like that it has extremely poor sourcing for a BLP (see footnotes like Justjared), reads like a diary entry, looks like a teenager's slam book and fails WP:FA? in very possible way. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, this comment of yours isn't supported by any guideline at all.
  •  Done Indopug's points are resolved and justjared has been deleted.
  • Doesn't fail FA and doesn't read like a diary. Not sufficient criteria for strong oppose. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Listen Shane Cyrus, your overall attitude and belittling all the reviewer's comments all through out this nomination is extremely non-cooperative. You might think this article is FA worthy, however it does not pass WP:FA?, neither than brilliant, professional writing, nor has a cohesive prose writing to merit a professional encyclopedia entry. Coupled with your ignorant views, my oppose still strongly stands, whether you like it or not. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Why was the peer review closed in less than two days when it received zero feedback from the other major contributors? I'm getting an impression that article was nominated only for the sake of awarding fan-favourite content, and poorly sourced, I must say.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said to Indopug, PR's aren't necessary for nominations. Please suggest ifany poor sources are found. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would definitely not use People or Us Weekly (in fact, I also stated this in the GAN), E! has medium-level credibility. Hollywood Reporter isn't so bad. Not sure what to say about Access Hollywood. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is there any particular reason this article has both a section on her dating life while the same info is also being stated in the "life and career" section? I recommend one or the other, but not both. Also, Mirror (aka Daily Mirror) is a tabloid that shouldn't be used. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From now on, response will only be given to comments supported by guidelines. You can't remove everything in an article. Personal Life is an important section and it shall remain with Life and caareer. Both sections convey different topics. Shane Cyrus (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing nomination: This nom is taking over my life. I don't want any haters, I'm no one's enemy. Cyrus has too many haters for her article to ever get featured now. Sorry, if I caused problems to anyone! :( Shane Cyrus (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/May_2014&oldid=610633984"