Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2007

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Archived nominations

October 2007

edit
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 17:45, 27 October 2007.

Condoleezza Rice

edit
previous FAC

This FAC was submitted unsigned by Godiego (talk · contribs), who also submitted Noam Chomsky simultaneously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now - lots of stubby paras, a cite needed tag in the lead, and the lead should be a bit larger and have at least some salient personal details or career pre-washington. Once these are addressed, I'll keep looking. The prose doesn't look too bad really a first glance. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I only skimmed the article for now, but I saw a lot of problems. Here they are...
    • Please use named refs to reduce the number of refrences that you have. 162 and 163 are the same and 50/51 are duplicated too...may be more
    • All citations, even websites, need a publisher listed
    • Don't include (English) in the citation; that is the default language on this wikipedia and should not be specified
    • Be consistent on the formatting of newspapers/magazines. You can use {{Citation}} and specify newspaper= to have the newspaper names be italicized; right now some are italicized and some are not
    • Make sure full dates are wikilinked in the references
    • References 39, 40, and 41 are not formatted properly
    • Why are some, but not all, of the newspaper articles listed separately in the References section? Their listings in the footnotes appear to have all of the information, so it doesn't need to be duplicated.
    • The primary sources section should be included in the main part of the article as Bibliography or Works so that it highlights the fact that she wrote them.
    • The Further Reading section should be pared; Ideally, many of these should be used as sources, but only a few need to be mentioned as Further Reading
    • The external links section should probably not include the last two links
    • The trivia section needs to be removed or incorporated into other parts of the article
    • When wikilinking a full date, the year should also be wikilinked, not just the month/day combination
    • Not all month/day combinations are wikilinked.
    • The citation needed tags must be addressed.
    • A great many of the paragraphs in this article begin with "On such-and-such-date..." or "In month-year..." This needs to be varied more so that it does not seem so much like a calendar.

Karanacs 15:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose. Blatant POV. as Hamas captured a popular majority in Palestine yet supported Islamist terror, and influential countries including Saudi Arabia and Egypt maintained non-democratic systems with U.S. support. Her policies and strong diplomatic style gained her recognition as a powerful leader by mainstream media. Any well experienced Wikipedian knows that this is introduction isn't acceptable. CG 19:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The personal interests section is a trivia section under a different name. KnightLago 14:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 17:45, 27 October 2007.

Noam Chomsky

edit
previous FAC
FARC
Former featured article, been on main page. Update at WP:FFA if repromoted.

Former featured article. Impressive, detailed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godiego (talk • contribs) 12:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, for now. There are still tags requesting sources for whole sections of this article, and I feel the article is stylistically awkward (e.g. point form for Chomsky's political views versus full text elsewhere). Also, the article is imabalanced interms of content - the two largest sections (Contributions to psychology and Chomsky's influence in other fields) concern Chomsky's influence outside his own fields, which suggests a need to add more description of his own work. Remarkably, there's no section that specifically deals with his media and foreign policy analysis (these shouldn't be lumped in with his policitial views). Chomsky is more than worthy of a Featured Article, but this article isn't so worthy at the moment. Pinkville 13:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious and firm oppose A BLP article with cleanup banners and large uncited passages like this one wouldn't even pass as a GA (cleanup banners are quick-fails), much less FA. VanTucky Talk 01:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Aside from the obvious problems previously mentioned:
  • Criticisms contains only a {{See}}; no summary style at all.
  • Bibliography better suited to a list, with a {{main}} and selected significant works detailed here? I don't know the subject, so this may be just my opinion. Carre 14:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Metroid Prime

edit

Self-nomination. I've been editing this article since February 2006 (before I even owned a GameCube!), organizing the information already there, adding references, creating sections such as development and reception, and doing every possible move to improve the article: Wikiproject Assessment, GA nomination (passed), and peer review. And now seems the article is good enough for trying the FA status. igordebraga ≠ 01:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
    • The intro should focus more on critical and commercial reception, rather than the supposed 'ire of fans'. -   Done
    • In the peer review, you mention sales in Japan being low. Any chance of some info about that in the article? -   Done
    • The gameplay section needs to be more detailed. It doesn't adequately explain the differences and similarities between Metroid Prime and earlier Metroid games. Someone who has not played the Metroid games won't know that jumping is key to moving around the levels, or that each power-up unlocks a new area. Try to imagine how someone who doesn't play video games at all would read the article. -  Done, although you can say what else is "missing"
    • The critical reaction section is not detailed enough. They liked the graphics... what was so good about them? -   Done but make your requests if needed.

--Nydas(Talk) 07:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More needs to be said about why the critics liked it. For example, Eurogamer stated it preferred the crumbling, root-encrusted levels of Metroid Prime to the 'prefabricated gnome-ridden grottos in Halo'id=4515. Well done finding the Japan sales figures, although it would be even better if these could be backed up with sources explaining Japan's dislike of FPS's.--Nydas(Talk) 19:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some expansion in Reception, but couldn't think of anything else related to Japan. igordebraga ≠ 23:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reception section still isn't big enough. What the critics liked about the graphics, sound and gameplay should have at least a paragraph each.--Nydas(Talk) 14:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added some more explanation, but I don't know how to add detail without coming to cruft. An idea could be analyzing many selected reviews, but the contents of them are so similar (I read at least 7 to write the Reception) that the current format is OK. igordebraga ≠ 22:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.
    • I think that these sentences should be rewritten, shortened or split into several sentences. Long sentences are more difficult to read, and thus are less "engaging" and "brilliant".
      • The protagonist Samus must travel through the world searching for power-ups that enable her to reach previously inaccessible areas—such as the Varia Suit, that takes away damage caused by heat—and twelve Chozo Artifacts that will open the path to the Phazon meteor impact crater; the Chozo had scattered and hidden these artifacts to prevent the way from being accidentally opened. -   Done
      • Finally, Samus infiltrates the Phazon Mines, a mining and research complex that is the center of the Space Pirates' Tallon IV operations, and obtains the Phazon Suit and the last of the Chozo Artifacts, allowing her to enter the Impact Crater, where the Chozo have sealed off Metroid Prime. -   Done
    • Also, please note that the current images are currently mostly illustrative (= their omission is not detrimental to the understanding of the article) in stead of explanatory (=their presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic). Consequently, it is not in accordance with Fair use criteria #3(a) (minimal use) and #8 (significance). Either these images are removed or new images, with a good caption, are used to replace them. Sijo Ripa 12:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lead alone suggests the prose needs work:
  • Using "Nintendo" three times in the first sentence feels slightly clumsy (although hard to avoid, I admit); could you rephrase or possibly remove the one in front of Gamecube? Not much of a problem though.
  • It is the first 3D Metroid game - surely should be "was" since it has a first-person sequel, no?
  • It was also the first Metroid game to be released since Super Metroid, which was released nearly eight years earlier (this applies to North America only; in all other markets, it was released after Metroid Fusion). - seems pretty clumsy. "released" is used twice, "metroid" is used twice, "also" is probably redundant, parentheses go into excessive detail for lead.
  • the three part - hyphenate.
  • The title was later bundled with the GameCube in 2004. - doesn't fit into the paragraph, all the other sentences deal with the storyline. Also slightly unclear what it means: was it sold with every Gamecube, or bought as a special deal or what?
  • Just skimming down to the bottom, the references include some full dates which should be wikilinked and a missing accessdate or two.
There's good, but needs some work. Trebor 19:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support needs more images. One in the plot section and one in the legacy section would do. User:Krator (t c) 11:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional images are not necessary to obtain FA status... Images are only necessary when they are indeed necessary to explain something. The three current images are sufficient in my opinion. Otherwise, a violation of the fair use criteria could occur. Sijo Ripa 14:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added an image to the Legacy section (since illustrating how MPPinball remakes the game is a nice addition), but couldn't think of anything to the Plot one. igordebraga ≠ 17:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added one to Development section (though comments are welcome if you want to change it) igordebraga ≠ 17:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article has definitely been worked on when I last passed it for GA status, but I feel that it lacks the comprehensiveness and "brilliant" prose that FA criteria so desires. Some specific points:
    • For the reception part, although it's not required, some quotations from the reviewers about criticisms or innovations should be added. These kinds of quotations can really emphasize the issues brought up. For example, what did critics say about the "unusual control system"? What did they feel about "the lack of focus on the plot"? Additions like these can really help the "brilliance of the prose. --   Done with criticisms, since the favorable parts don't need more detail - based on the reaction secion of F-Zero GX
    • The plot section should also be cited a little, if possible. If there is dialogue in the video game, you can use it to cite the plot section. Halo: Combat Evolved presents a good example of this. -- the game has no dialogue, and the Scan logs provide backstory, not game events.
    • The sentence about the differences in plot with the Brazilian version could use some change. "then-distributor" should be replaced with a more formal wording, such as "former distributor." --   Done
    • If possible, you might want to talk more about the soundtrack to the video game. -- what else can be added, specially considering the cruft policy?

All in all, it's a good essentially A-class article, but it needs some touching up before it can reach FA. bibliomaniac15 23:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any other writing issues? igordebraga ≠ 12:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No changed to Yes Leranedo 07:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Not too badly written, but it would be good to get someone else to go through it for sprucing up. It was easy to find things like:

  • Spot the wrong punctuation in this caption: "Samus facing a Flying Pirate; the enemy is surrounded by a crosshair, also shown are radar (top left), mini-map (top right), current beam (lower right), and current visor (lower left)." -   Done
  • Read MOS on when and when not to insert a final period in captions: "Samus' Morph Ball form, changing the view to a third-person camera." -   Done
  • Winding snake: "Throughout the game, Samus must find and collect many different items, ranging from weapons, to upgrades of her Power Suit, to items that grant additional abilities, such as the Morph Ball, allowing her to roll into narrow passages and drop energy bombs, and the Grapple Beam, which latches onto special hooks." -   Done
  • Ambiguous sentence: "Prime was considered different from previous Metroid games by making extensive use of storyline." Making use was how it was considered? Stubby para. -   Done Tony (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are a few places that need grammar work, and there are a lot of places that are vague, and some of the writing is wimpy:

  • "It is the first Metroid game to address the absence of the previous game's power-ups. Samus starts with them, but they are all lost during an explosion in the Space Pirate's ship.[8]" The absence of the previous game's power-ups? Confusing. The second sentence is ungainly. --   Done but make a suggestion if the change isn't enough
  • "searches for enemy weaknesses and starts some mechanisms." Some mechanisms? vague -   Done
  • "Some sources...set the game as happening after Super Metroid." Set the game as happening? Awkward and reword "some sources" (just say the name of the source, don't be weasely.) -   Done
  • "Allegedly," Even if it is cited, the sentence is weak. -   Done
  • Nintendo Power gives the game a perfect score? This strikes me as biased, since the magazine and game are produced by the same company, no?
  • "(see speedrun for more information)" Make these stage directions exit stage left. -   Done
  • "Prime was followed by three games in the same first-person style" Passive voice here leads to a pretty wishy-washy statement. The game was followed by three others in the same style? Better to put the manufacturer/developer as the subject of the sentence, and don't be vague. I assume the games did not just 'follow', there must have been some development. Make the first sentence in every paragraph strong to draw readers in! -   Done
  • "The second sequel is Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, released on August 27, 2007 for Nintendo's Wii. Corruption was revealed to close the Prime series,[51] and introduces new hunters and characters." Simply telling us there was a sequel is not good enough. "introduces new hunters and characters" vague -   Done
  • "usage of sound effects" seems awkward. -   Done
  • "a cold, mountainous location divided into an ancient Chozo ruin, some Space Pirate research labs..." some space pirate research labs? Too informal -   Done

Remember that just because the grammar gets fixed doesn't mean that the prose is engaging. I feel that the prose is pretty good, and a few fixes I mentioned above can make it better. But I didn't feel drawn into the article, most of the prose is pretty bland. The second major issue is the coverage. There are a lot of places that need expansion, for example in the legacy section. This section should elaborate more on why the game has such a legacy, and how the game features influenced later features. Make the connection more strongly, and elaborate. The description so far seems minimal. This is just a sample of the many issues, it will probably take some work to develop the article further. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 17:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added games compared to Metroid Prime in legacy. Warn me of more prose issues. igordebraga ≠ 00:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making those changes. It's good to see editors working hard to polish the prose. The examples I pointed out are simply that-examples. There are a lot of other spots that need work, and I don't feel it is necessary to point out each and every one. However, one major area that needs improvement is the the lead sentences. You marked my comment as "done" but clearly these sentences need work. The passive voice is a pretty weak writing style, though sometimes it's ok to use it. But a great many of the paragraphs in this article start off with the weak passive voice, such as:

  • "Three versions of Prime were released..."
  • "During the European translation, some of the logs were removed ..."
  • "Prime was considered different from previous Metroid games for its extensive use of storyline..."
  • "Prime was met with positive reception..."
  • "Prime was also included in several lists..."
  • "Three other Metroid games in the same first-person style were released after Prime..."
  • "Some later first-person shooters were also compared..."

The passive voice is generally weak, because it de-emphasizes or eliminates the subject of the sentence, which is just the kind of thing article readers want to know about. The sentence below, however, is in the active voice, which means that it is much more engaging (though it still needs some work).

  • "Throughout the game, Samus must find and collect many different items, ranging from weapons, to upgrades of her Power Suit and items that grant additional abilities."

Thanks for working hard on my suggestions, and I think with some thorough rewriting it can turn out to be a great article. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Done" was for that specific phrase. But   Done with all those passive voice examples you added, tweaked the active voice example; anything else, well, I'll try to improve. igordebraga ≠ 00:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment I fail to see why the Japanese transliteration of the title is necessary in the opening paragraph. As the game is of American origin and released first in America, the fact that it was published by a Japanese company doesn't seem to qualify the article as being about a Japanese topic. Add to that the fact that foreign terms are discouraged in Wikipedia and I think the transliteration needs to go before this can reach FA status. - Chardish 19:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Coffee

edit
previous FAC

Self-nom:This article has been improved since its past two FA nominations. It is currently at GA status. --Jude. 22:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Basic criteria met?:
1a. Well written?
  • "and flavor develops" - should be "and the flavor develops"  Done
  • "current opinion consensus" - redundant just say "current consensus"  Done
  • "but early forms date" - due to previous use of the word early, it should read "but earliest forms of the word date" (I thought "of the word" should be added for clarity)  Done
  • "Britain had temporarily cut off" - remove had   Done
  • "When the fermentation is finished the beans" - put a comma after "finished"  Done
  • "current train of though" - "current train of thought"   Done
1b. Comprehensive?
  • I would include a brief description (a couple phrases or a sentence) of what sun cultivation is.  Done
  • "though "whole-bean" coffee that is ground at home is becoming more popular." This statement is just kind of floating out there without qualification. Is this becoming more popular in Switzerland? Ghana? the Dominican Republic? Also what is more popular? 5 percent more? 10 percent? 80 percent? Another point - this statement will become dated quickly, so it should clarified when this true, like "During the 2000s home grinding became more popular in North America". Also there is no reference for this assertion.
  • I couldn't find any reference for its "growing popularity", so I changed it to read "...though "whole-bean" coffee can be ground at home." Is that all right?--Jude. 21:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the bottom of the subheading "Preparation", I thought it might be good to quickly mention the bottled ice-coffees that are popular in North America (most notably Starbucks frappuccinos)  Done
1c. Factually accurate? In particular the references look fantastic.
1d. Neutral? Yes
1e. Stable? Yes
2. Complies with Manual of style and relevant WikiProjects?:
2a. Concise lead section? Yes
2b. Hierarchical headings? Yes
2c. Well-structured table of contents? Yes
2d. Consistently-formatted inline citations? Yes
3. Properly placed, captioned and/or rationalized images?: Yes
4. Appropriate length?: Yes

When these issues are addressed, note the changes here and notify me on my talk page. Thank you for your work so far. — Esprit15d 13:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I agree, that infobox should be added and you should probably get some proofreading done. - Mgm|(talk) 18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - great read, comprehensive and tightly written. I only noted a couple of minor things and neither are deal-breakers. In the last big of preparation I didn't see any mention of iced coffee. Also there are concerns in Australia that coffee can be an environmental weed in the northern part of the country though I guess that can go in the biology article. But anyway, yer there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added iced coffee to the preparation section, and I think the fact that it may be regarded as a weed would fit better in the biology article. Thanks for your support! Cheers, Jude. 23:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's a lot of interesting content here; however, some sections seem inadequate and poorly referenced, especially preparation, for which the major reference is a self-published FAQ. Many popular coffee drinks aren't even mentioned, most obviously cappuccino. The lead needs some expansion to summarise all aspects of the subject; at the moment it doesn't even mention caffeine. Much of the article also feels extremely American centric from a European viewpoint, and the US is hardly known for the quality of its coffee! Espresso Addict 01:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a number of references to the preparation section and also added a section on presentation of the coffee, which includes cappuccino. What else needs to be done? --Jude. 18:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, that is an improvement. The preparation section still feels to me very thin compared with the others. I would have thought it might benefit from splitting into subsections for grinding, 'brewing' (see note below), and presentation, with presentation perhaps being a top-level heading, and the sections for 'brewing' & presentation need significant expansion. All the common ways in which coffee is drunk should at least be name checked. By the way, 'brew', at least in UK English usage, is never used for coffee! With the possible exception of Turkish coffee, it's an inaccurate description of the preparation process. The article needs a careful combing through for American usages such as 'French press' (for cafetière) and 'drip' (for filter or more rarely percolator); they at least need explaining at first mention. As a minor point, why is tea a related drink in the info box? They're no more related than coffee and any other hot drink. There are many other minor points (eg unreferenced and vague statements) which would prevent me from supporting this article's promotion at this time. Espresso Addict 19:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I expanded the "methods" in the preparation section and placed "presentation" in its own subsection. What specifically needs to be expanded or needs to mentioned? As far as name-checking common ways of drinking coffee, what would you call "the common ways in which coffee is drunk"? Because I assume that it would vary depending on location. If you tell me specific ways of drinking it that need to be mentioned, I can add them, though. What word would you use instead of "brew"? I could just refer to them as ways or methods of making coffee, if that's any better. And I removed tea from the infobox. --Jude. 21:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Very good job indeed, with a small caveat. Call me picky, but I do not particularly like the mentioning of company and brand names (Starbucks in this case) in the articles, where it is not utterly necessary. Even though the share of the company in the US market for canned coffee is indeed notable, it is more suitable (if necessary at all) for 'Canned coffee' or 'Economics of coffee' article imo, and certainly doesn't contribute to a worldwide coverage of the subject. I don't have anything against Starbucks, it just stands out as non-essential and possibly advertising. Not nice. --Gimlei (talk to me) 07:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the mention of Starbucks. --Jude. 17:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ookay, I finally got down to reading the article more thoroughly, and I have to admit it does have quite a lot of room for improvement. Here are some of my points:
  • Lead:
  • I am not a native speaker, but in order to create the beverage coffee. doesn't sound right to me, correct me if this is just me.  Done
  • banned in Ottoman Turkey - can we expand this maybe just in a couple of words, why was it banned?  Done
  • Can we get the references for the forecasts?  Done
  • Health studies need be referenced as well.  Done
  • Etymology:
  • Can we get references for the dates please?  Done
  • Roasting:
  • The 2nd paragraph doesn't flow well to my taste - copyedit would be veeery handy.  Done
  • Decaffeination - expand a little, how is it done and why?  Done
  • Preparation:
  • used for certain types of coffee - which types?  Done
  • The sentence with 'The most common grinds are...' also doesn't flow imho.  Done
  • 'Canned coffee is a beverage' - what kind of beverage? Is it just regular espresso or americano brewed and put into cans, or something else?  Done
  • Social aspects:
  • 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' is repeated twice - replacing the section mentioning with 'Church' or simply 'organisation' should be sufficient.  Done
  • Economics:
  • The last sentence doesn't make any point - needs to be either expanded, moved or deleted altogether.  Done
  • Generally:
  • There is very little information on the varieties and blends of coffees - maybe some information from the Coffee varietals article can be incorporated here.  Done
  • Some parts of the article are poorly referenced. There is a very valid fact tag outstanding, and generally facts need be sourced better. Also, for existing book references, it is necessary to provide page numbers - i.e. ref 15.
  • I refuse to support the nomination without a proper copyedit - there are typos (mostly missing spaces between references and following text), and some paragraphs just don't flow: word repetition, sentences without proper endings, etc. I will give examples further below. A native speaker would of course be best, unfortunately my knowledge of English is not adequate for the purpose.
I am watching the page and would be very happy to see the issues addressed. It's a very good article already as it is, thanks for your work! --Gimlei (talk to me) 15:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'd agree about leaving Starbucks off the page - it's a pretty notable worldwide coffee chain and integral to any discussion about franchised coffee outlets. However, it ain't a deal breaker for me.
I could not agree more that in a discussion about franchised coffee outlets, Starbucks is absolutely vital. However, the discussion here is about coffee and the various coffee beverages, not coffee shops. If you really really insist, I guess we could incorporate it somewhere into the article, but I'd rather leave it out. --Gimlei (talk to me) 06:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only mentioned it with bottled coffee drinks because Starbucks is the only major retailer of bottled coffee in the US, but I don't want to give the appearance of advertising for any particular brand. (or of US-centrism, for that matter)--Jude. 21:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the objection due to just the refs, or do you think that there is too much detail in the lead? WP:LEAD does say that the lead "should be carefully sourced as appropriate". For instance, the line "Today, coffee is one of the most popular beverages worldwide." needs to be sourced because it is a statistic, but it isn't an overly detailed statement; it provides context. There are facts that I can take out, such as the "6.7 million tons" of coffee and the specific economics figures, if that sort of thing is the issue. --Jude. 23:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the lead is a summary, the detail will be in the body, which is then where the refs will go. Do agree that sometimes this won't work. For this article, the info on color and roasting of beans is a detail that should be in the body, it doesn't summarize anything. Most of the second para is a how-to/how-its-done. On the medical stuff, as this is in the body too, the lead stmt on it would be summary and the ref in the body with the detail. You could probably add some more summary to the lead too. Sumoeagle179 11:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cut down on the description in the lead, particularly on the processing part. I cut down the medical information to one sentence, which remains referenced, since I was told to reference it earlier in this review. The caffeine statistic, the economics claim, and the popularity statistic are referenced, since they're all data and statistics, which have to be cited whenever they appear. I left the two sentences about the origin of coffee and its spread to Europe and the Americas referenced, but I can remove them if you insist. I also changed the lead to three paragraphs rather than four. Cheers, Jude. 13:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Poorly written indeed. The lead is a microcosm of problems throughout.

  • The information under the quite attractive top image is useless and/or redundant. Hot beverage: really? Colour: dark brown? Manufacturer: varied? Get rid of it and put the 800 AD into the main text.  Done
    • Final period inconsistent in incomplete-sentence captions. MOS says don't use the period.  Done
  • "Widely-consumed"—not a good start: see MOS on hyphens. And "commonly-grown".  Done
  • the beans (first sentence).  Done
  • "Ethiopia. From Ethiopia".  Done
  • "beans ... beans ... beans ... beans ... beans ..."—and are the "berries" different? It's confusing and repetitive.  Done
  • "surrounding" environment: unclear—isn't the environment always "surrounding". Do you mean "immediately surrounding"? Be specific, though.  Done
  • "It was banned in Ottoman Turkey in the 17th century for political reasons and was associated with rebellious political activities in Europe." A comma would aid the readers after "reasons", wouldn't it?  Done
  • Ideas poorly integrated into sentence: "The health effects of coffee are disputed and many studies have examined the relationship between coffee consumption and certain medical conditions."  Done
  • "The majority of all caffeine consumed worldwide comes from coffee." That's like saying "the majority of water".  Done Tony (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No

  • Does not fulfill 1a. Well written among others.
  • "The majority of all caffeine consumed worldwide comes from coffee." That's one hell of a claim. "In some countries, this figure is as high as 85%." That's in some countries, not worldwide. Seems like whoever wrote this part had agendas.  Done
  • "and the seeds—usually called beans—are ferm" should be "and the seeds, usually called beans, are ferm..." Overuse of hyphens in certain areas. Ridiculous.  Done
  • Not ready. Learnedo 22:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, these were examples of why the whole piece needs the attention of copy-editors throughout. Don't just fix these examples, and the big green ticks impress no one, and if they make the nominator feel good, that's a bad signal. Tony (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page is currently being copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. I didn't intend to upset or offend you with the tick marks, and if I did, I apologise. --Jude. 18:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 04:16, 23 October 2007.

James Milner

edit

self-nomination I first discovered this article like this and I’ve been trying to expand it for the last couple of months. It’s already an A-Class article, had 2 PR and I’ve checked all areas of the FA criteria and IMO it covers them. I’ve been told that the fact the subject being so young is not an issue in terms of getting it to featured status, obviously it will be in terms of keeping it there. Buc 09:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  1. any reason why first name of author in ref 19 is in caps?
  2. please choose between BBC or BBC sport e.g. ref 15 versus ref 18.
  3. any reason why icnetwork is italicised in refs 46 and 49 but icnewcastle in refs 40 etc. is not? There are other obvious examples; basically, why are some site names italicised and the majority isn't?
  4. any reason why some ref site names have .com/.co.uk etc. but others don't?
  5. any reason why some ref site names are wikilinked (BBC, the FA), but some that can be wikilinked are not? (soccernet, sky sports)
  6. correct me if i'm wrong, but "Leeds also insisted that he would not be sold, the chairman of the team at the time even referred to him as "the future of Leeds"." -- any grammatical issues?
    That is, in fact, wrong. Fixed. --carelesshx talk 20:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Chensiyuan 03:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. please ensure that wp:date is complied with -- re: wikilinking months/days. I'm actually not 100% sure if all months/days should be wikilinked though, but it seems to be the case.
  8. "Milner has a good discipline record; he has been booked only 15 times in his career and has never been sent off." -- I don't disagree with the conclusion that he has a good record, but i can imagine people objecting to this inference...
  9. spelling: should it be play-off or playoff? Chensiyuan 13:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The "style of play section" really reads like a collection of random statements in some parts. The prose should flow better. Take a closer look at the thematic organisation -- you're saying, in the following order:
    1. He's unselfish and provides assists
    2. He is bored when not playing (but which professional isn't? What's the point of saying this?)
    3. He can pass but cannot defend
    4. He takes setpieces
    5. He reads the game well
    6. He has pace
    7. He can pass (second time passing is mentioned but done several sentences later)
    8. He is seldom booked
    9. He is praised for his pace (second time pace is mentioned but done several sentences later)
    10. He has a good work ethic
    11. Wayne Rooney taking pressure off him
    12. Skysports rating. Do you see where I'm coming from? Chensiyuan 14:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not the best person to deal with this. But the article has just had a copyedit. I guess this section was neglected. Tried to impoved at little though. I've tried to link a few of the sentences together and I've moved a few of them around. Where I can't find a link I've started a new paragraph. Buc 14:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved stuff from Woodym555
  • Oppose Although solicited through my talk page, i haven't edited the article in the past so don't feel there is a conflict of interest. I have a few comments mainly regarding citations actually. (which is why it is oppose for now):
  • Milner believed the chance to play with Smith worked as a learning curve because he had done what Milner was aspiring to do — to come through the Academy and play for first team. This is confusing. How about: Milner believed the chance to play with Smith worked as a learning curve because Smith had done what Milner aspired to do — to come through the Academy and play for the first team.
  • The first line of the Leeds United section is copied verbatim from [2].
  • However, financial problems eventually forced them to sell him to Newcastle United after accepting an offer of £3,600,000. The two don't follow, perhaps: However, financial problems eventually forced them to sell him to Newcastle United for an initial price of £3,600,000. The final total paid was £5,000,000 after a certain number of appearances for the new club.
    • Fixed
  • This was in a qualification game against Wales during the 2007 European Under-21 Championship. England won the match 2–0 Change to This was in a 2007 European Under-21 Championship group game against Wales which England won 2–0. I presume that is what it is meant to say, i cant be sure because it is unreferenced. The link goes to a Switzerland game in which he scored: [3]
    • Changed ref. Don't know how or why I put the Switzerland game in. Buc 06:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That reference should be moved to the comment about the England/Swiss game in the Newcastle section.
      •   Done
  • First European goal. The reference says that he scored not that it was his first goal in Europe. [4]
  • Personally i despise the accent in début, hardly English is it? Perhaps i am just a philistine...

All in all have a check of the references and make sure they actually say what you want them to say. Woodym555 22:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed now I hope Buc 15:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Chesiyuan brings up some pertinent concerns. The quality and flow of the prose is not perfect. The constant use of 'however, also despite,' sometimes all in the same sentence multiple times really degrades the quality of the prose. Per 1a "Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard. This article simply isn't brilliantly written. I will have a look at again and see if i can have a go at fixing some of the problems. Until the prose is improved (at least until Chesiyuan's concerns are met) i cannot wholeheartedly support its promotion. Woodym555 13:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem with using however, also and despite? Buc 18:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with using them occasionally (note emphasis). Yet, when it is used repeatedly in the same paragraph, it gets repetitive and shows underlying problems with the prose. It simply doesn't flow well and it certainly isn't engaging. Again, i will have a look when i can and see what i can do. Woodym555 19:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment however this FA proceeds, serious kudos to Buc who's been the powerhouse behind this article's massive improvements. --Dweller 12:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Have had it in mind to review for some time, but only now got round to it. Sorry. Great article that's improved immeasurably. I like what you've done with the two boxed quotes. Minor niggle, that I think a rose-tinted-spectacles comment from a nn kids' team coach might be given undue prominence, but doesn't detract from this being an FA quality article. Caveat - I know very little about photo licensing and I urge someone who understands the issue to confirm that all of the pix are properly licensed. --Dweller 09:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • "...four major national clubs ..." - Swindon major? I'd opt for something like "four English professional clubs". Major is VERY subjective.
  • "He once held the record for the youngest player ever to score in the Premier League, as well as second youngest player ever to play in the Premier League." is then repeated pretty much straight away in the next paragraph. Is there any need to have it in both places?
  • "impressed many reporters", "impressed several reporters" - in same para, makes for poor reading.
  • "promising displays" - POV unless you can quote it.
  • "Tottenham Hotspur, Aston Villa and Everton all expressed an interest in him,[7] but Milner rejected Tottenham's offer because they were based too far from his family home." - did he therefore not reject Villa or Everton?
  • "fiasco" - POV.
  • "so some have doubted..." - reword something like "which has led some to doubt..."
  • Order citations numerically.
  • "... as well as taking the ball past defenders. He therefore does not score many goals,..." - that doesn't work for me. If he takes balls past defenders it's not a logical conclusion to state that he won't score many goals.
  • Place [50] per WP:CITE.
  • "He currently has an overall player rating of 6.6 out of 10 by SkySports.com." - this needs explanation for the non-expert (which is important for FAC). Is 6.6 good? What does it represent? How is it calculated?

These need to be sorted out before FAC can be supported. The Rambling Man 10:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose --> Neutral: there's no denying the amount of hard work gone into this article but making it satisfy criterion 1a is ever difficult for plenty of people. The difficulty of meeting 1a could be partly attributed to Milner's young age (cf. an older and more accomplished footballer where there's a ton of material to work and organise around), but as suggested by users here and elsewhere, one of the solutions is to cut out the more trivial bits and at the same time still show exactly why Milner's life is a compelling read. Chensiyuan 10:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there's something about this article that doesn't allow me to support its FA candidature. The flow of the article is strange in too many parts. Just some e.g.:

    • "He has since established himself in the Newcastle first team and has now made over a hundred appearances for them. He creates scoring chances and does not score many goals. Outside of football he is an easygoing person who rarely speaks to the media." -- we all know the lead is a summary, but this is really taking it too literally.
    • "Milner himself said he would like to join Villa because of the probability of being a regular starter, but admitted that his future was beyond his control.[29] Milner was generally seen as a positive signing in what was a disappointing season for Villa.[30]" -- don't see the connection between the second and first sentence even if i read both in the context of the paragraph they belong to.
    • ditto the first and second paragraph of "Return to Newcastle United". In fact the whole section seems to be one-sentence summaries after another of his 2005-2007 milestones but nothing more. It's symptomatic of the whole article really.
    • really too much usage of "he states" "he believes" "he is described as" etc. throughout the article

  Doing... another copyedit requested Buc 20:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Ok I've improved the flow of the article now but I still need more information on other issues raised. Buc 20:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. His earliest memory of Leeds is watching them win the FA Youth Cup in 1993.[3] He also showed talent in cricket and played for the Yorkshire Schools team, --> also what?
  1. Milner believed the chance to play with Smith worked as a learning curve because Smith had done what Milner aspired to do — to come through the Academy and play for the first team.[3] Making good progress at the academy, he was taken on as a trainee after leaving school. He remarked that he had to pinch himself playing alongside first team players such as David Batty and Olivier Dacourt, but also said he did not want to get excited and think that he "had already made it".[2] He continued to improve his skills with the youth team, playing for the Republic of Ireland at Under-14 level and England at Under-15 and Under-17 levels.[1][5] He helped England win the 2002 Under-17 Nationwide summer tournament against Italy, Czech Republic and Brazil, with a goal against the latter.[6] --> after referece number 3, it's "he" all the way. Not right.
  1. He has also established himself in the England under-21 side --> what does this mean?

Just some examples. Manderiko 16:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Doing... another copyedit requested Buc 20:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Ok I've improved the flow of the article now but I still need more information on other issues raised. Buc 20:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We all know the lead is a summary, but this is really taking it too literally.
    • Need more information on what exactly the problem is.

It’s a bit of a mess now so I’m just to summaries outstanding issues.

  • Really too much usage of "he states" "he believes" "he is described as" etc. throughout the article
    • Need more information on what exactly the problem is.
      • Not very elegant writing. You can toss "confirmed" into the mix too. The point is, this being a potential FA, i.e. the very best of Wikipedia, the writing's got to be impressive. Right now, it's good, readable and sound, but not setting the sort of standard an FA should set. Looking at some of the other FAs on sports personalities, the biographies truly come alive because the prose is such a joy to read, and the organisation and selection of content are pivotal to that too. The long and short of it is meeting criteria 1a. To be fair this article has undergone plenty of copyediting but if you read the various advice on how to satisfy 1a you'd realise it's one of the most difficult tasks to meet. Chensiyuan 02:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You'll have to give me an example of what would work for you. Clearly you can see something I can't because I've proof read it many times as well as compering it to current FA. How about if I put them all in quotes and put "he said" instead?Buc 07:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • “He also showed talent in cricket and played for the Yorkshire Schools team” also what?
    • Don’t really understand this question. I’ve removed the “also” but I don’t know if that’s really what you meant.
  • "He has also established himself in the England under-21 side" what does this mean?
    • I’ve rephrased it but again don’t know if that’s really what you meant.
  • "Just some examples."
    • Ok if you let me know what the other issues are I’m happy to fix them.
  • The flow of the article should be ok now but I’m not really an expert on that sort of thing so you might want to check it.

Buc 14:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "At Under-17 level he helped England win the 2002 Under-17 Nationwide summer tournament against Italy, Czech Republic and Brazil, with a goal against the latter." -- this sentence is clumsy (no need to repeat under-17); "latter" may not be the best word to use in this context; the national teams cannot be wikilinked? Anyway, the prose has improved, so kudos to those who helped with that aspect. I will change my vote above... Manderiko 15:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the start of the 2003–04 season, Milner was sent on a month-long loan to Division Two side Swindon Town to gain experience as a first team player, which he saw as a valuable experience." -- did he think it was a valuable experience before, or after the stint? I do not think the sentence makes it clear. Manderiko 15:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both fixed Buc 18:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Ballboy links to a disambiguation page which is confusing for the non-expert reader.
  • "...his main role to the team ..." - role in the team or contribution to the team?
    • Added "in"
  • "He does not however score many goals." - well, you've already said what his main contribution is so why "however..." - frankly this sentence is not needed in the lead.
    • Removed
  • Why link Republic of Ireland to Republic of Ireland#Sport and not the national football team? I know it's under 14s only but surely more relevant...
  • Peter Taylor links to a disambiguation page.
    • Fixed
  • "...things changed ..." - things?
    • Not sure what you want here but I've changed it to "the situation"
  • [25] is incorrectly placed.
    • ******Moved
  • "Although Roeder also praised the way Milner had handled the failure of the Villa transfer, he himself was criticised for the way he had handled the negotiations with Villa, he refused to apologise for this however. He also confirmed that he would play Milner in "plenty of games". This proved to be the case, as Milner started the season playing regularly in the first team and remained a starter for the entire season." not cited.
    • Moved ref
  • "sub-par" - strange word. Is it a direct quote?
    • No. I didn't add this so I don't know why it's there. Removed as it seems a bit redundent.

The Rambling Man 07:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed in some way Buc 07:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose (again) -- the emergence of new problems and the re-emergence of old problems have prompted a change of mind:
    • please explain why his family being season ticket holders satisfies wp:lead vis-a-vis "summarizing the most important points"?
    • "However, his father insisted that he still attend college once a week to keep up with his education." -- there is a redundancy amongst one of the italicised in my opinion.
    • "He represented England at level Under-20 at the 2003 World Youth Championship." -- most times "level" does not precede "under" in this article.
    • "However, Leeds United's fortunes were different as they struggled in the league. The team received a lot of negative attention from the media and several first team players were sold. However, Milner believed that experiencing this made him emotionally stronger and taught him how to deal with team problems." -- just an e.g. of excessive "however"s in this article; back to back ones are not particularly elegant (there is another :however" a couple lines later again; "despite", "also" and "confirmed" are also used rather gratuitously in this article).
    • "As well not making a Milner regular in the Newcastle side, Souness also controversially remarked that the club would not win "with a team of James Milners"." -- as well as, and also?
    • "Although Milner's response to this statement was reported as "mature", he did confirm that he was frustrated at not being used as a starter for most of the season.[21][22] Despite playing less at club level, Milner did score his first goal for the England Under-21 side during the 2004–05 season." -- why the sudden migration to "did"?
    • "This, as well as the fact that Villa had a lack of transfer funds, in addition to O'Leary leaving the club, meant a deal regarding signing Milner permanently, appeared unlikely." -- clumsy.
    • "A moved to Villa appeared to have been agreed, but at the last moment Newcastle recalled Milner and the talks broke down." -- obvious error.
    • "Newcastle's players and manager Glenn Roeder reacted positively to Milner's return, at the start of the 2006–07 season." -- not a very conventional way of stating things.
    • "On 1 January 2007 he scored his first goal for Newcastle, of the season." -- obvious error.
    • "Also during the season, Milner displayed his ability to play comfortably on awayway the field by scoring and setting up goals with both feet from both sides." -- obvious error.
    • "After Milner's performance in this Championship it was rumoured that he would make his full England debut in a friendly against Germany, but in the end he was to included in the squad for the match." -- obvious error.
    • "It also allows him to pass the ball to teammates making forward runs, from a range of positions on the field. This awareness has also given him the confidence to take on defenders." -- also, also, also.
    • All this, without first mentioning 1a. of FA criteria is still not satisfied, viz. brilliant prose. Chensiyuan 13:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed

  • I'm going to contest that right off: "He supported Leeds United from a young age and was a season ticket holders at the club."; "This, the fact that Villa had a lack of transfer funds and O'Leary leaving the club, meant a deal regarding signing Milner permanently, appeared unlikely." Could comb through for more but it's late here. Chensiyuan 15:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Poorly written. Please find a copy-editor who's unfamiliar with the text.

  • It's already had about 5. Buc 17:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "James Philip Milner (born 4 January 1986, Wortley, West Yorkshire) is an English footballer who plays as a winger and left-sided midfielder, for the English club Newcastle United." Just run past me why the comma is appropriate in the opening sentence.   Done
  • "long distance running"—Hyphen required; it's even pipe-linked to an article with the hyphen.   Done
  • He "was a season ticket holder at the club"? Is that notable enough to have right at the top?
  • "Milner began his career at Leeds United, by joining the Leeds United academy in 1996." Another errant comma.   Done
  • "his first appearance for the first team"—Ungainly rep.
  • "While at Leeds United, Milner spent some time on loan at Swindon Town to gain first team experience"—Last three words won't be clear to non-experts. Remove "some".
  • "At Under-17 level he helped"—Comma would be easier for our readers, as you've used elsewhere in this context. Tony (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Milner with Leeds during the 2002–03 season."—This caption is not a full sentence: see MOS on captions.   Done
  • "The final total paid was £5,000,000 after a certain number of appearances"—Don't we know how many?
  • "Warm-up" image: you couldn't sharpen it and add saturation, could you? Software for doing this is commonplace.
  • "and his teammates and is regarded is being fairly quick"—A gem. Tony (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - but one minor point. I would change the set-out of the article possibly too:
1 Early life
2 Career
2.1 Leeds United
2.2 Newcastle United
2.3 Aston Villa
2.4 Return to Newcastle United
3 Style of play
4 Career statistics
5 References
6 External links

Basically so that all the club names are on the same level - I think it looks better like that. Davnel03 18:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't want to do that because he only went on loan to Aston Villa. Buc 19:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now Great content and I admire the hard work that's gone into this article. The prose really needs some work though. I see that the article has gone under the copy editing knife quite a few times, and a lot of the problems have been fixed. However, I think one major issue which detracts from the readability are the unwieldy subordinate clauses, examples of which I have italicized below:
  • "he did confirm that he was frustrated at not being used as a starter for most of the season."
  • "As well as not making Milner a regular in the Newcastle side, Souness controversially remarked..."
  • "a clause in Newcastle's purchase of Nolberto Solano from Aston Villa resulted in Milner being loaned to Villa for the rest of the season."
  • "Leeds' eventual relegation to the Championship led to speculation over Milner's future at the club, despite having signed a five-year deal with Leeds the previous year."

Do you get what I mean about the subordinate clauses? Another problem is run-ons, such as:

  • "In a match against Chelsea a month later, Milner scored again using a first touch of the ball that was described as "a beauty" and allowed him to avoid a tackle from Chelsea defender, Marcel Desailly, this created a yard of space for him to deliver a curling shot a goal from 18 yards away" And I don't quite understand "using a first touch of the ball"
  • "At the start of the 2003–04 season, Milner was sent on a month-long loan to Division Two side Swindon Town to gain experience as a first team player, which, prior to the stint, he saw as an experience which would be valuable to him progressing as a player." Again, this is unwieldy. Although the grammatical structures may be technically correct, some of them are very long and unwieldy. Rewording some of these structures would improved readability immensely. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 20:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Adam Clayton

edit

Disclaimer: This is a self-nomination. The article has achieved GA status and has undergone peer review. Concerns may not be addressed for a few hours, I apologize for that. Thank you! Neranei (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments, the article is a good start but needs really a lot of work before it reaches FA states I am afraid. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is quite small. Now that does not have to be a problem, but in this case I really have the impression much more could be said. An example: the section about the solo projects is very limited (I am sure a lot more information is available just about the Mission:Impossible soundtrack, which actually was a big success for him and Larry). The article leaves the reader with many questions, that would have to be addressed in a comprehensive article, e.g.:
      • Why did just Adam and Larry work together on the MI track?
      • By who exactly was he influenced?
      • Did others follow his style?
      • How big really is his contribution to the songs by the band?
      • Why does he prefer those specific guitars?
      • etc..
    • When reading the intro, I have the feeling it just mentions random things that are not necessarily the most important ones. For example, why mention the IVor Novello award which was only a nomination (for the band even, not for Clayton personally) that they did not win. Surely there must be more important stuff to tell the readers in the lead of the article.
    • The awards section mainly deals with awards by the band, not by Clayton.
    • The Musical equipment section is largely unreferenced and not very informative.
    • The links in the "see also" section are trivial. If you must, mention somewhere in the text he is on a stamp, but I do not think articles like "List of people on stamps of Ireland" can be seen as further reading material for an article like this.
    • Perhaps the article can be expanded with a short sample of his bass playing?
    • Some more images would also be nice (e.g. Clayton closeup, clayton together with the band)
    • The references seem biased toward online referencing. The band U2 has been the topic of many books and even scientific articles. Much more information can probably be added if those are used as sources.

Oppose—1a, 2a,

Now, that's just in the very short lead. Tony (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the rest of the article? Tony (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There's almost no context at all. The article skips ahead from hiring a manager to the second album. Didn't Clayton perform on Boy? The whole article is like this, bouncing around the years without mentioning what happened in between. I realize that Clayton is a bassist, but he still probably had some influence on U2's body of work. As mentioned above me, this article also has some pretty awkward prose (especially the second paragraph of the body). And why isn't "solo projects" merged with "biography"? Teemu08 18:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Marcus Trescothick

edit

After a long period of work, and comparisons with other FA cricket articles on Collingwood and Pietersen, both Mdcollins and I believe it is ready for FA. One possible issue may be inclusion of specific details, or the omission of some. There is some info on the talk page that was removed that those who wish to comment may wish to see. We look forward to any points made and will work to address them as quick as possible. Please check back to see what we have done about your points! SGGH speak! 16:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove this from Good article nominations page if you want this to be a FAC Buc 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Isn't "home town" just one word?  Done
  • "technique, saying "he does not need" comma before quote I don't understand why this is a problem, could you show me what you mean?
  • "and his international debut in an One-day International" firstly it's "a" not "an". Also this doesn't quite sound right, is there a word missing? made his First-class debut for Somerset in 1993, and his international debut in a One-day International (ODI) against Zimbabwe is the full sentence, which I think makes sense
  • "He was often mocked by his Under-19 team mates for wearing an England blazer after his matches;" I think "His Under-19 team mates for wearing an England blazer after his matches often mocked him;" would be better. I think the first one sounds better, but I will wait for more opinions
  • "the Pakistan opener Imran Nazir was caught by Ashley Giles" I think "Ashley Giles caught the Pakistan opener Imran Nazir" would be better.   Done
  • "Trescothick was largely outshone by Michael Vaughan" I think "Michael Vaughan largely outshined Trescothick" would be better.   Done
  • "Trescothick stated that he will see how" change "will" to "would"   Done
  • Section titles sound very informal I personally feel they fit well, but will await other input
  • "Trescothick was indeed named" "indeed" is redundent.  Done

Buc 20:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why the two indents in the 2004 and 2005, the Ashes section?
Comment - it seemed a long quotation, and broke up the paragraphs, the quote being by Trescothick himself. Does it go against the MOS, or anything that you are aware of? –MDCollins (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "England were poor against Sri Lanka" POV
Referenced   Done –MDCollins (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trescothick was largely outshone" "England were largely outplayed" why largely?
removed 'largely'   Done –MDCollins (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The hardest thing for me has been the pitches" even as a cricket fan I don't understand this. Lose the quotation mark and rephare it with something allow the lines of "Trescothick said that..."
I've found the full quote which makes more sense - I can't seem to word it any better. Does it help?? –MDCollins (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "few weeks.." two full stops
changed to ellipsis.   Done–MDCollins (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stats seem a bit excessive.
comment but no more so than other cricket FACs such as Adam Gilchrist, Paul Collingwood, and it certainly doesn't over balance the length of the article. Is it a major problem?–MDCollins (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buc 21:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Buc, I hope you don't mind my chipping in on a couple of them, I have taken care of the others. SGGH speak! 23:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I like what I see. Tony the Marine 23:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments re Buc:
      • "home town" is two words in my dictionary... (I've reverted change for a minute)
      • Gower link - tried to reword to avoid comma - better?
      • International debut sentence makes sense to me
      • "His Under-19 team mates for wearing an England blazer after his matches often mocked him;" - don't think that reads well at all as the verb is in the wrong place. Makes it sound German.
      • Section titles: I added those because 2001&ndash2002, Summer 2003, just sounded boring and when looking at the TOC don't really describe what is in the section. Comments?
    • Again, thanks for the comments. Feel free to come back and discuss them with us, and bring any others to the table that you might find!. –MDCollins (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC) (co-nom)[reply]

Comment Definitely not "His Under-19 team mates for wearing an England blazer after his matches often mocked him."! May not be grammatically incorrect, but would be very unusual use of the English language. I've got a suspicion that was generated by Microsoft Word's grammar checker trying to avoid the passive voice - you need to be very careful about using that grammar checker: it knows all the rules, but it's not very clever.

Try "His Under-19 team mates often mocked him for wearing an England blazer after his matches" or "His Under-19 team mates often mocked him after matches for wearing an England blazer." depending on which is the case.4u1e 11:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)   Done SGGH speak! 16:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Further comment: Outshined?! Outshone was correct. Word was objecting to the use of the passive voice in the original phrase, which is easily fixed by writing it as: "Michael Vaughan largely outshone Trescothick." (Although I hope you have a reference for that, because it could be seen as a bit pov ;-)). Regarding use of the passive voice, while it is best to avoid it, you might want to keep it occasionally, because the article is about Trescothick. "Trescothick was outshone by Vaughn" is a statement about Trescothick, while "Vaughn outshone Trescothick" is a statement about Vaughn. Something to consider. 4u1e 11:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further further comment: "made his First-class debut for Somerset in 1993, and his international debut in a One-day International (ODI) against Zimbabwe is the full sentence". Try removing the comma after 1993, it's not needed, as far as I know. 4u1e 11:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think it flows better with the comma in because it provides pause for breath, seperates two topics slightly and preceeds a but/however, but that is just me lets see what others say. SGGH speak! 16:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify, I've got no objection to the comma myself, and (having brushed up on use of commas this afternoon!) you're right: it is technically correct to have it, although it could be left out as the meaning is clear without it. 4u1e 17:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

I'll do a proper review when I get the time. But initially, "His Under-19 team mates for wearing an England blazer after his matches often mocked him" is a crazy suggestion, it's Word's grammar checker gone mad. That, and the obsession of removing the passive voice somewhat detract from the review. I'll be back. The Rambling Man 07:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, some more extensive notes...
  • "One-day" or "One-Day" - consistency required.   Done [and corrected back to meet WP:CRIC guidelines (One-day) –MDCollins (talk)]
  • "...He lives in Taunton, but Trescothick also owns..." - surname redundant...  Done
  • "...rather unsurprising..." - PoV.   Done
  • "Personal life and early career" section is a bit strange to read - you talk about his life and achievements outside sport before heading right back to the early days of amateur cricket. Just doesn't feel right.   Done I have moved the latter section into the one below, i will see what mdcollins thinks of this move
  • "rewarded with a Somerset contract in 1993." needs citation.   Done
  • "...exceptional run-accumulation..." - strange phrase, not good for non-experts.   Done
  • Numbers less than 10 should be written out, so "...eight fifties and two centuries..." etc.   Done I think I have all of them
  • "...century-maker ..." - bit peacock.   Done
  • "However, Trescothick was awarded the NBC Denis Compton Award for the most promising young county player in the 1996 and 1997 seasons." needs citation.  Done
  • Have you linked somewhere in the text to batting average and bowling average?   Done bowling average is linked in the infobox, it isnt really mentioned in the prose to link from, batting average is also in the infobox but i have linked it at first mention in the text too
  • Use the en-dash for series results, so 4–1 not 4-1.   Done
  • Citations should be in numerical order so [40][11] should be [11][40].  DoneI didn't know that, but I think I have them all
  • "..woeful.." - PoV.   Done
  • "...fine series..." according to whom?   Done changed to successful, hope that is suitable, plus 60 is a very successful average
  • "Trescothick was "rested" for the controversial winter tour of Zimbabwe..."
    • Why controversial?
    • Why is "rested" in quotes?   Done - expanded for background. If it is too much of others and not enough Tresco, please edit. –MDCollins (talk)
  • "outstanding" - PoV.   Done
  • "Trescothick was named as one of the five Wisden Cricketers of the Year for his achievements in 2005, and, with the rest of the English team, was awarded an MBE in the 2006 New Year honours list." - needs citation.   Done
  • ...orchestrated by..." sounds sinister - deliberately so?   Done - yes it was deliberate, but can't back it up so removed.
  • "2002–3 Ashes series" or "2002–03 Ashes series" (I'd go latter). Also for series in the records section.   Done
  • "...rich domestic form..." bit peacock again.   Done
  • "...one or two low scores..." - encyclopaedic?  Done it was a bit daft now that an older section of text had been previously removed
  • Hints of over-wikilinking (Strauss is linked five times, for example).
  • "1 / 4" in ODI career performance table - spaces, none of the others do...  Done
Here ends my comments after my first run-through the article. Hope they're helpful. The Rambling Man 15:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - will get onto these a bit later/tomorrow. Nothing looks controvesial so will just address. Any suggestions for the personal life/pre-Somerset section? Couldn't see how to split any other way without really short sections. –MDCollins (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had ago as I commented above. See what you think! I have taken careof many of them, but not all. Some I have left for Mdcollins simply because he wrote that section and it would be presumptious of me to change it myself when he is right here. SGGH speak! 09:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SGGH and Rambling Man. I've addressed the rest (about to do the overlinking). Rambling Man, if you've time for another read, it'd be much appreciated. I'm not particularly happy with the section headings, they are a bit POV (I made them!!), but just dates gets really boring. Any ideas/tips folks?–MDCollins (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
break
...which was why Personal life and early cricket career (ie. pre-somerset) was linked together, before you moved it :-). It kept the cricket-in-family bit together too... –MDCollins (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was just trying it. Can move it back if you like :) SGGH speak! 13:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we leave the sections as they are, but move the Personal life to after domestic recovery, before Career records? Might need to touch up the prose a tiny bit. Parents names could go into Personal life section again if it is moved. I'm going to check if he is an only child. If you agree, feel free to go ahead, as I'm off to work. –MDCollins (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the other FA articles have personal life at the start. I think personally that it is better at the start, but perhaps expand it slightly, or recombine them? SGGH speak! 16:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged them back, the opening section is now 'Early years and personal life'. I thought about expansion, but the article is long enough and it would detract from the more important text. –MDCollins (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hey, good work on my comments. I do have reservations on a couple of section titles, namely "Continued success in 2003 and 2004" and "Glorious form leading to Ashes success, 2005". But that aside, it's a fine article. The Rambling Man 13:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the pov of that 2nd one and have tinkered with a couple of alternatives. SGGH speak! 13:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's quite good. Needs a final sift-through to weed out many little issues.

  • The upper-case initials look a little awkward. Can you check them? Lower-case preferable if it doesn't go against established practice in the area. "... his First-class debut for Somerset in 1993, and was a regular for seven years before his international debut in a One-day International (ODI) against Zimbabwe in July 2000. His Test match debut came ...". Check MOS.
first-class was wrong in this case, and has been corrected. Test match, and One-day International are established practice with Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket.
  • until a "stress-related illness" threatened his career—begs questions of why the quotes are used.
Was a quote, but the reference had been moved. Have now re-referenced it.
  • "He lives in Taunton, but also owns property in Barbados,"—why "but"?
Changed.
  • "As well as Tresco, Trescothick is also nicknamed Banger"—Reword.
Done
  • "Trescothick did not really get a chance to shine in the 2003 World Cup, because England did not qualify for the knock-out stages."—"Really" is unencyclopedic.
Removed.

Tony (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments dealt with, thanks. –MDCollins (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Ron Paul

edit

This article has grown from a relatively obscure one with little information to one of the most well-written and well-sourced on Wikipedia. It has already achieved A-Class status, and as far as I can tell it meets all the criteria for a featured article. - Prezboy1 15:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the Ron Paul article I think would be a great candidate for the featured article Gang14 15:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions:
    • Is this article stable enough (per 1e) to be featured?
    • What are the implications of featuring a current candidate for political office? I'm aware that products have been featured, but seeing as Paul has a committed and well organized Internet campaign, is there a potential issue of Wikipedia being used for as a form of advertising or promoting Paul's candidacy? I'm not saying that this necessarily disqualifies Ron Paul from featured status, but rather that this is something to be cautious about, especially in light of the NPOV concerns that continue to surface on the talk page.
    • Over the past few months, a lot of information has been added as various editors have attempted to achieve balance. The result has been a meticulously sourced and very detailed article. But per criterion 4, at 94kb, is the article a little long? ---Proper tea is theft 17:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ron Paul as FAC.
    • I think we can still work somewhat on stability (the truces are taking shape), length (some can be trimmed, but much of the 94K is the footnotes), writing (some dryness can be enlivened), and citations (some can be made more reliable or subsumed). Current candidacy is IMHO irrelevant. Not only has Obama been featured forever, but Wes Clark has been featured since March when he was an entirely viable candidate (some think he still is). Neutrally stated, Paul, Clark, and Obama, via lifetime and campaign activity, are notable enough to attract much larger cadres of editors from across the board than the other candidates, thus promoting more community-neutral and more readily featured articles. FAC merely reflects and accepts this fact, but does not prohibit anyone from improving or recommending any other "candidates". John J. Bulten 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And look who's in line ahead of us by 11 days. John J. Bulten 17:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, how about that. As the nominator of that FAC, I've been fighting this very battle. I've argued as strongly as I can that her being a candidate shouldn't disqualify the article from FA consideration, but I haven't had much success changing doubters' minds. Wasted Time R 18:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note I didn't outright oppose on these grounds, but I thought it should at least be mentioned. As we know, Ron Paul has a pretty committed core of online supporters (YouTube subscribers, MySpace friends, online poll voters and, apparently, Wikipedia editors), and I'm not sure how to feel about them using Wikipedia to get their message out (and let's be honest, that's exactly what's going on here). On the other hand, if those supporters improve an article, making it more useful (and I do feel that you have improved it; it's a lot easier on the eyes these days), then why shouldn't it become a featured article, as long as the article doesn't become an non-neutral advertisement? --Proper tea is theft 19:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Unless you have specific examples where this has occurred on a regular basis, I don't think it's a reason to elevate the article to featured status or not (that this may happen and people may use the article in some way to "get their message out.") It's already on Wikipedia, already there for anyone to see, and for supporters or non-supporters to edit. Yes, there has been pro-Paul commentary vandalism inserted, but so many people watch the article that it gets taken care of immediately. If the article is good enough to have FAC status, whether someone is "getting their message out" should be irrelevant to the candidacy of the article; the same applies to the above HRC article. I would say the biggest problem on the article has not been any Paul supporter(s), but the sockpuppetry of BenB4, who certainly would not qualify as a Paul supporter.--Gloriamarie 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I think this page is relatively well done. One of my big pet peeves is the overuse of citations, especially back to back citations for relatively minor statements. Check the example below:
    • His family owned a dairy farm in the small town, which lies just outside of Pittsburgh.[35][36][37][38]
    • This is directly from the article. I haven't even checked the sources because before I do that I have to ask, why? Why are four sources necessary to know that his family once owned a dairy farm? This citation overuse makes the article hard to read and choppy in some places. Also, why should we expect a reader to go digging through multiple citations. From my experience, the majority of these multiple citing statements only have one (or zero) actual citations that verify the text. I won't support this article (or any article) until this is taken care of. Turtlescrubber 21:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Turtle, this morning I was just thinking about how to trim footnotes. I added the last two of those because someone questioned other facts mentioned in that section. They can be redistributed, along with a bunch of others, which I will be working on. Many are just added to be trigger-happy. John J. Bulten 21:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I think a lot of this is left over from the sockpuppetry of BenB4. He would fight over the smallest detail not having a citation; at one point, he even tried to say that Paul could not be considered libertarian and could not be referred to as such in the opening paragraph, as just one example of that nonsense. To prevent his ceaseless fighting on the talk page, many editors inserted extra citations to small details. This is something that can be easily worked on.--Gloriamarie 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    • "Having pledged never to raise taxes,[8][9] he would abolish the federal income tax[9][10] and reduce government spending by sharply lowering taxes and abolishing most federal agencies;[9][11] he states he has never approved an unbalanced budget." That's a logical fallacy. Lowering taxes won't reduce government spending.
    • The paragraph on his college education doesn't say what he majored in. That might be worth mentioning.
    • "He has not signed up for a Congressional pension for the same reason." What reason is this referring to?
    • "His speech, 35 "Questions That Won't Be Asked About Iraq",[94] was translated and published in German, French, Russian, Italian, and Swiss publications before the Iraq War began." "published in publications" sounds pretty odd, but I can't think of a better way of phrasing this.--Carabinieri 19:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lead section has some pro-Paul skewing that needs to be fixed:
    • Saying that he "placed third in the 1988 presidential election" is true but potentially quite misleading. He only got 0.5% of the vote and was not a factor in the race at any point. Readers might think he played a comparable role to other recent third-place finishers such as Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, John Anderson, or George Wallace, all of whom did have an effect.
    • Statements such as "Paul has generated strong support on the Internet[16] and is the top presidential candidate Internet search term as measured by Hitwise,[17] Alexa,[18] and Technorati.[19]" need to be tempered by the observation that all things libertarian are heavily overrepresented on the Internet compared to the general population. If you doubt this observation, do a Google on <libertarians overrepresented on internet>.
    • The final sentence "While he places in the top tier in Republican straw polls[30] and fundraising receipts,[31] he polls lower among phone samples of Republican voters.[32][33][34]" is kind of an understatement, don't you think? He polls vastly lower among random samples of Republican voters, and is currently not in the top tier of Republican candidates. This needs to be said.
    • Once you do that, the statement "against what they see as a purposeful marginalization by the media" will make some sense. Right now it doesn't.
    • One impressive attribute of Paul's campaign is his fundraising results (almost beat McCain in the last quarter), yet this goes unmentioned. I think this is more meritorious of inclusion than some of these dubious Internet metrics.
    • Other than that, the biographical and political positions parts of the lead section seem okay to me. Wasted Time R 19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Thanks Wasted! I don't think the rest of the editors will stand long for your idea that the Internet's libertarian slant is directly appropriate for the lead of this article, but I tried to slip it in as "generated strong support from the Internet's notably liberty-minded populace". John J. Bulten 22:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Better, but ... "with 0.5%" should be "with 0.5% of the vote". More importantly, you're still burying the lede, as they say in the newspaper business, by sticking "he polls significantly lower among phone samples of Republican voters" at the end. You need to say first that he has commanded only 2 - 5% support (or whatever his range has been) in polls (not the obfuscratory "phone samples") over the course of 2007, which does not place him in the top tier of GOP candidates. Then you can explain that despite this, he has this heavy following in online metrics, impressive fundraising, blah blah. Look at Raul's Razor - "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie." Right now, it's very clear that the author of this lead section is pro-Paul. And hint: it's Raul who ultimately judges if you get promoted to FA or not. Wasted Time R 02:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, two new comments about the lead section: The parenthesized "(ob/gyn)" is unnecessary here. The "at the same time as the Vietnam War" location is awkward; why not just say 1963-1965, or mid-1960s. Wasted Time R 02:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Worked this; "ob/gyn" is an abbreviation properly named on first cite and used 5x in article; Vietnam War was a compromise (mention war but not give war hero status), for which I've tried another phrasing now. But as for polls, remember (1) we mostly thought the Internet boom and the straw polls were the lead; (2) favoring one valid form of poll over another is POV; (3) favoring one negative measurement in a sea of other valid positive measurements is UW (I moved it up to second though); (4) stating one poll number alone in lead may be cherry-picking (I have now also decided to cut the YouTube and debate poll counts). The text has reflected that his top-tier straw-poll and fundraising results are as equally measurable as his lower-tier phone-poll results. John J. Bulten 08:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You say that his phone poll results do not place him in the top tier of candidates; however, in recent Gallup polls he placed within the statistical margin of error to Romney. The fact is, he's done well in state straw polls and on the Internet and is starting to place better in Gallup polls, etc, and there are numerous sources now to back this up. Why not mention these in the opening? It's a summary of the presidential campaign.--Gloriamarie 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, I ...
            • These are not "two valid forms of polls". Straw polls, internet polls, YouTube counts, etc. are self-selecting samples that are useless as predictors of election results. Only regular conventional demographically-adjusted random sampling polls do that. Yes, there are troubles with those kinds of polls too, but most of the time they give reasonably accurate predictions, certainly regarding top-tier versus lower-tier finishers. What the straw/internet/YouTube measurements do indicate is the level of enthusiasm for a candidate among his or her supporters, and here Paul excels. That's interesting, but at the end of the day it doesn't tell you if the person is going to win. If our electoral system weighted votes by the enthusiasm with which the voter is casting the vote, it's possible that Ron Paul and Barack Obama would be in the lead. But it doesn't and they aren't. The good news is that in three months we can dispense with all this; we'll be having real caucus and primary results and delegate counts and we'll be able to report those. Wasted Time R 12:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Proper tea is theft, who trimmed this (libertarian-leaning Internet John J. Bulten 08:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)) back from the lead. It is mentioned in the article, so affirming the web's Libertarian leaning is properly placed in the Internet section and properly provides the tempering needed. John J. Bulten 22:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • "self-selecting samples that are useless as predictors of election results." Actually, the actual voting for primaries and the presidential election are self-selecting (people decide themselves whether they will register and vote or not), so this is not something that's the same as a scientific study of something that's inherently not self-selecting, such as sleeping habits or history of disease or something to that effect. --Gloriamarie 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • ... officially give up on this one. Put in whatever metrics you like. Say he's in the top tier. Say he's actually the leader. Then in a few months you can write, "Ron Paul would have won the XYZ primary except that the wrong people selected themselves to vote." Wasted Time R 20:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • New comment - References. There's inconsistency in the cite formats. A bunch have non-wlinked dates, such as 2007-06-10, when they need to be [[2007-06-10]], so that they get rendered according to the reader's "my preferences" settings and locales. Another bunch of references don't have "Retrieved" dates. Publisher names (Wall Street Journal, CNN, Lew Rockwell, etc.) should be wikilinked. A few citations are just too threadbare altogether: "^ The Liberty Committee. Retrieved on 24 June 2007." or "^ "ABC analysis of "The Ron Paul Effect"". Wasted Time R 03:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • New comment - Body of article, random comments.
    • What unit(s) was he in, in the Air Force?
    • "M.D." is used before it's introduced as an abbreviation. I would bag it altogether, and say the kids also became doctors.
    • "After the election, Paul had a coin business,[49] began his own think tank, the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, published an investment newsletter,[46] and continued his medical practice until he returned to Congress.[16][49]" What years for each of these? This is an eight-year span.
    • Paul says he won't run as a third party or independent candidate if he loses the GOP nom. [6] This should be included in the presidential campaign section, because unlike 1988, if he ran this time he could quite possibly have an effect on the general election.
    • In general I think the article's pretty good, although I haven't given it a full close read. Wasted Time R 04:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "They also have at least eighteen grandchildren" sounds very awkward - this "at least" phrase is usually used about children of figures like Mick Jagger or Rod Stewart, where the "illegitimate" count is unknown even to the subject.
      • Done: there had been a pregnancy rumor, but we can wait for it. John J. Bulten 09:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as the coin business, investment newsletter, etc.-- I added all those in at different times from different sources. There's little information about him in those days because he wasn't a public figure after he left Congress and before he ran for president in 1988. Perhaps eventually, years and details can be added, but for now, we're lucky to have those tidbits.--Gloriamarie 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's a question - is this guy the most successful libertarian political figure in U.S. history? Meaning, won the most elections of the most magnitude while having and acting upon reasonably pure libertarian views? If true, that's a real accomplishment and deserves mentioning in the lead. Of course, he's done it as a GOP instead of LP candidate, but still ... To me, the most interesting section of the whole article is "Relationship with district", which explains how he keeps winning congressional elections when most avowed libertarians can't get 2% of the vote for dogcatcher ... Wasted Time R 04:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's not a libertarian disguised as a Republican, or using the Republican banner to get elected - he is essentially an old-line conservative Republican with old-line libertarian views. I think there's a subtle difference, and that may account for his repeated re-election. That, and the fact that he delivered all of the babies in the district. Tvoz |talk 06:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This whole question of what he is, and how he intersects with strains of both Libertarian and Republican thought, and how he has attained his level of popularity and congressional electoral success, is to me the most interesting question to examine in the article. There's a well-written Reason Magazine article "Is He Good for the Libertarians?" that addresses a lot of this - some of its observations should be worked into the article. (An earlier Reason article/interview by the same author already is cited.) I'd also like to see some analysis by a political scientist or other academic, if they exist yet (try Google Books and Google Scholar). Wasted Time R 12:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are good notes; yes, that would be very interesting info to add.--Gloriamarie 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — I'm a big supporter of Ron Paul, but I don't think the article is likely to be stable enough in the future to warrant FA status. Editors are going to have to repeatedly update it in order to keep track of his actions in the current presidential campaign, and I think that would unfortunately violate the stability conditions. I'd vote for it after the election, however. JKBrooks85 00:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have promoted articles in the past of politicians in office or gaining office. Tony Blair comes to my mind. The stability requirement mostly goes for this: is there any significant edit wars and is the entire format and contents being changed completely in hours or minutes? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have in mind to synchronize the campaign summary with the campaign article so that the summary will not invite frequent change even though the subarticle will. The rest is stable. From my unexperienced perspective, the mostly amicable debate (including a WP:BRD) has been below the "war" level for awhile. John J. Bulten 08:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for the moment Oppose Is there not a NPOV dispute going on right now on the article's talk page? I think one person even asked someone else not to put up a NPOV tag. KnightLago
    • There is no NPOV dispute, although there was a brief attempt to reopen the same one as last month. In response I asked Photouploaded, "Would you mind if we used your version here and no POV tag until we get this settled? And would you mind interacting with Talk:Ron_Paul#My_pro-life_summary?" to which Photouploaded replied, "Yes, I will." Photo seems to support the current sentence on Paul's pro-life position (now slightly edited from Photo's latest version); it had undergone regular tweaking, but I have reviewed the whole debate and know of no objections that would arise against the current text. John J. Bulten 08:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: needs work - these are just some of the areas needing work. I don't have time to do a line by line edit - but someone needs to. The prose is not in as good shape as it should be. Some of it is quite list-y, even though done in horizontal prose form - made worse by the fact that some paragraphs have way too many sentences that start with "He". See 2nd graf of "Legislation" and much of "Political positions", for example. Rewriting those areas with this in mind would help. A few specific points at this time that jumped out at me:
    • (And I agree with the fine-toothed comb idea; the first overhaul I did was essentially for style and logic, and I wasn't yet comfortable enough trying to wordsmith at the same time and achieve really compelling writing. But I am now.) -jjb
  • 1 Intro: "and its 22nd district, 1976 – 1977 and 1979 – 1985" should be written out something like "and before that the 22nd district, from 1976 to 1977 and again from 1979 to 1985" Same comment elsewhere in the article regarding writing out range of dates.
    • No change besides spacing: I had reviewed WP:MOS#En_dashes, which implies that when wording does not demand from-to, the en dash is preferred. However, I had the spacing rules wrong and have fixed that. John J. Bulten 09:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 "he served in the U.S. Air Force as a flight surgeon at the same time as the Vietnam War." - maybe say where he was based, and "in the Vietnam War era" or just list the years - "at the same time as the Vietnam War" is awkward and the meaning doesn't come across.
    • Try it now. -jjb
  • 3 next sentence in intro, take out "also" - "Ron Paul placed third..." and actually I think it would be better to say "Ron Paul placed a distant third" - you don't want to imply that he was actually in the running as a viable third party candidate when he got one half of one percent of the votes.
    • Done -jjb
  • 4 There have been many arguments on the talk page, as I recall, about how to present his pro-life stance - I think having it in the lede is absolutely necessary, but I'm not sure that the import of his legislation that life begins at conception is clear enough in the lede. And I am very concerned about whether consensus has actually been reached on how to present his pro-life stance, and that it will remain clearly stated and stable - I recall numerous arguments on talk that abortion isn't really an issue in the forefront right now, or that he sees it as a states' rights issue only and I vehemently disagree with those characterizations - it is one of the top social issues of our time, and his position needs to be abundantly clear here, because he does have a strenuous position about it. To be clear: my concern about stability here is not because it's an ongoing campaign and by definition there will be updates needed - I think featured article status can be given to articles like that - my concern is that there has been disagreement among editors of the article about if and how to include this matter - and perhaps about other items - and I would want assurances that the editors have reached consensus and are in agreement with the text now and again as it stands after the revisions that will be needed as a result of this review if you go ahead with the FA candidacy.
    • Agree that more editors should chip in on whether we've reached the best compromise. I don't see any concerns, reviewing their prior comments. -jjb
  • 5 "Family section", particularly the graf about his children, should be re-written - it's choppy in part and then has an overly long clause about Rand which would lend itself to being a separate sentence or at least set off by a semicolon. And this: "They also have at least eighteen grandchildren " - at least? I think someone should find out exactly how many grandchildren he has, and say so. This sounds like "one of his children has, I don't know, maybe 3 or 4 kids". In an encyclopedia?
    • Done -jjb
  • 6 same section - the citation (now numbered 23, US News & World Reports "10 things you didn't know...") does not support the text regarding why he didn't get federal student loans for his children or why he plans to not take his pension - it is OR as presented.
  • 7 in "Military Service" section, date ranges should be expressed in words - as "from 1961 to 1961"
    • No change, see #1 above. -jjb
  • 8 in the newsletter discussion: "guest writer" - that should be "ghost", despite what the rather biased source used says. The piece was written in Paul's name - not over some guest writer's name - it was attributed to him. That's what a ghost writer does which is even your wikilink - a guest writer is when someone stands in for a regular writer, with attribution. Paul claims that he had not actually written the words that went out over his name, giving the appearance that they were his words. That's not a guest writer which implies that that guest's name appears, and using the word "guest" minimizes the impact of having the newsletter look as though Ron Paul was making those comments - which is why this is notable.
    • Also, the article's quote of the NYT Magazine assessment of this episode is very selective. The NYT Magazine piece also says: "But his response to the accusations was not transparent. When Morris called on him to release the rest of his newsletters, he would not. He remains touchy about it." Some of this should be included too. Wasted Time R 19:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Last night I attempted to insert Paul's direct explanation quotes, along with Texas Monthly saying a similar thing as you quote (he should have come forward sooner), but it has been replaced with a shorter version that seems decent at this time. I may re-insert the one sentence.--Gloriamarie 20:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9 2nd graf of "Relationship with district" seems to be stuck in there as if it had no other place to go - doesn't seem to be about his relationship with this district. I wouldn't mind a different heading altogether in fact.
    • Please clarify why, looks good to me. -jjb
  • 10 "Paul is a potential nominee of both parties independently of the Republican National Convention's nomination." - should it be "independent"?
    • Done -jjb
      • Disagree. "independently" answers the question of how he is a nominee. Words that answer "how" are adverbs. "Independently" is an adverb, and so should be used in preference to "independent", which is an adjective. Unimaginative Username 03:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, of course not all adverbs end in "-ly", but according to the dictionary, "independent" is an adjective, and "independently" is an adverb. Using more complex definitions of adj/adv yields the same result. Adjectives "modify a noun or pronoun". "Ron Paul", "Candidate", and "candidacy" are nouns, so Paul can be independent, or be an independent candidate, or have an independent candidacy. But in the sentence in question, "independent(ly)" modifies "is" - He is a potential nominee - How is he a potential nominee? He is, independently of what happens here or there. But no, this isn't the most important point in the debate over this article, and yes, I do need to get a life :) Cheers, Unimaginative Username 00:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, I started this, so I'll jump back in and say that if people are stumbling on a sentence, as I did, then regardless of whether it is grammatically correct, the sentence should probably be re-cast. How about: Paul is a potential nominee of both parties, whether or not he receives the Republican nomination. Is that what is being said here? Tvoz |talk 01:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like that! (The suggestion, and the underlying philosophy of composition as well). Congratulations on cutting the Gordian Knot! Unimaginative Username 04:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Wish they were all that easy to fix. John, what do you think? Tvoz |talk 05:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11 "Actions in Congress" - only one "action" and what is an action anyway? Don't get why this paragraph is a separate sub-section.
  • 12 "Political positions" - "along with his medical degree" hangs there and sounds silly. Use a few more words to explain what you mean.
    • Done -jjb
  • 13 "Political positions" This sentence assumes that people know what the policy currently means: "He supports revising enforcement of the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which he calls "decent", to focus on disruptive behavior and include members with heterosexual as well as homosexual behavior issues." Use a few more words to explain - what does "focus on disruptive behavior" mean and how is that different from current policy? Can't tell in this sentence.
  • 14 "Political positions" section in particular is very listy, and relies too heavily on video and audio clips of the candidate and position papers by him stating his positions. Many items are not footnoted - how are those positions verified? An example is "birthright citizenship" - and there are many others. Wikilinking them doesn't confirm that they are Ron Paul's positions. Also, can you supplement the citations you do have with sources who analyze and synthesize his positions on various topics, rather than just a clip of him saying the words? Why he takes those positions would be much more valuable than just lists of the positions. As for the listy-ness - the graf on economic issues in this section is better than the others in that it takes the time to explain a few of his positions, rather than just listing them. Also - You Tube posts are not the most reliable sources, in terms of having assurance that they will remain posted. So I'd suggest going more from print sources in any case.
  • 15 "Political positions" - he is pro-life and against federal death penalty - what does he think about states' death penalties?
  • 16 "Books authored" - fill in missing information - ISBNs, publishers, etc.
  • 17 Would like to see more neutral third party sources overall. And the references all should be checked for relevance, whether they support the text, are they reliable sources, etc.
  • 18 I see almost nothing about how the media have attempted to marginalize his success - that is a major part of his story, but it's barely here. The under-reporting of his successes; incorrect assumptions about whether the Internet support is real; suggestions that online polls and texting replies are done multiple times by fewer individuals which is untrue; mis-reporting of numbers of in-person supporters he has at rallies; general treatment at the debates; etc. This from intro: "Supporters "guard [his] image against what they see as a purposeful marginalization by the media",[5][6] and cite his victories in five out of the first six 2008 GOP debate sponsors' own online and phone text polls to argue he deserves more mainstream recognition.[7][8] While he places in the top tier in Republican straw polls and fundraising receipts,[9] he polls significantly lower among phone samples of Republican voters.[10][11]" is not expanded upon in the article below (unless I missed it) and should have been.
  • 19 Also, there are areas with statistics that are overly dry and sleep-inducing. Consider relegating the statistics to footnotes and using prose to talk about, for example, not just how his debate performance was rated, but what he said in the debates if notable - where he got into exchanges with other candidates, etc. We don't get a feel for this guy - it's too dry. For example - campaign finances - reads like an annual report. He raised $5Mil in the 3rd quarter - this is way beyond anyone's expectations - anaylysis from third party reliable sources about why it happened, what it means? Not spin from the campaign or from blogs - actual analysis if there is any.
  • 20 In general, I think the article could be more balanced - I didn't notice any criticism of Ron Paul, for example, other than the newsletter - and that's been spun into a positive somehow. Not looking for a "controversies" section, mind you - I would want critical material worked into the text where appropriate - but reading this article one would think that he has spent 10 terms in Congress and two presidential campaigns without critique.
    • Please name some criticisms and controversies that we can reliably source. We do have his anti-Mother-Teresa position in there somewhere. But it's hard to criticize a guy who holds so firm to his convictions. Thanks! And let me reaffirm, I continue to respect your professional input and look forward to your contributions; I'm especially interested in how your viewpoint may not have been heard in the past. John J. Bulten 09:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that research is your job. I'm pointing out, as I believe was mentioned somewhere above, that this article reads like it was written by supporters rather than by neutral editors, and that the distinct lack of anything critical only feeds into that perception. Perhaps it will be easier to find critical analysis if his standing rises - but for this article to be taken seriously as a featured article candidate, you need more than an homage, and I'm looking for more depth too. Tvoz |talk 18:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some ideas of what are considered to be notable criticisms that should be included and are not regarding Ron Paul could be helpful (from any editor). In Barack Obama's article, I found only a few sentences critical of him, and I believe this is exceeded by Paul's article. I did have some information in the article at one time how he upset his fellow Republicans so much by not going with their party-line votes, but I believe it was cut out at one point in a space-saving measure. Would including that help?--Gloriamarie 20:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't his former aide Dondero claim that Paul's vote for the Afghanistan military intervention was motivated by political self-preservation, instead of principle? Maybe there's something there worth including, but I don't know anything further about it. Wasted Time R 19:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would Dondero really be the best person to quote as far as criticism goes? He was fired, and he doesn't seem like the most reliable source even if he hadn't been.--Gloriamarie 20:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are just initial thoughts - I think the article needs a good deal of work at this point before being featured. Take a look at, say, Barack Obama or even Diane Keaton for featured articles that have well-written prose. This one has come a long way, but I don't think it's there yet. Tvoz |talk 05:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, 1c and 2, lots of elbow grease, spit and polish needed before this article is FAC-ready. Mainly, extensive work is needed on the referencing and reference formatting; I left sample edits. There are missing publishers, missing dates, missing accessdates, misidentified sources (for example cite news vs. cite books), full dates aren't wikified in references resulting in inconsistent date formatting, and more importantly, I found blog posts. I also left sample edits for MOS cleanup needed; overlinking, image captions, incorrect date linking (month-year combos aren't linked, they don't trigger date preferences), etc. The external link farm could be pruned per WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOT. Some legislation is italicized, some isn't; which is it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Sandy, I appreciated your detailed concerns on the Clinton article and look forward to working with you here. Since I am still learning WP style, please be patient as I review your links and work the stylistic details in. Do you have any content concerns, since these style concerns are easily alleviated? John J. Bulten 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except for some signs on the freeway, I had never heard of Ron Paul before seeing this article, so I can't comment on balance or comprehensiveness. I will check the quality of the prose and check for NPOV after cleanup is complete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I note the offensive newsletter comments published under Paul's name have been relegated to footnotes again, folded under an innocuous date heading. Can you tell that Paul is polling 4% in the lead as has been there for months? No, that's been scrubbed. I'm very unhappy about the POV-pushing by supporters, but what can I do about the whitewashing? 1of3 18:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1of, you are making false statements. Several offensive comments were retained in text as providing a sufficient taste of them, while only the repetitive and more objectionable racisms were footnoted, as would be proper for any article which needs to list a string of offensive text. (I also intend to re-reference the controversy in a "criticisms" section, which will address your whitewash concern.) Paul has not been 4% for months, he's been consistently climbing 1% every month or two, so 4% would be misleading and "never above 4%" certainly POV. John J. Bulten 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You admitted that the most offensive comments were moved to footnotes, so how is that false? Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball, so we don't extrapolate trends. If he makes 5%, I'm sure it will be in the article the next day, as it should be. Those problems have been addressed, but there are still issues with "top tier" as described on article talk, so I'm not withdrawing my opposition. 1of3 13:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1of3 is a suspected sock, so I will not be speaking directly to him again and I feel free to revert his edits. To say "the" offenses were relegated is to say none were not relegated, which is false. I believe on the polling dispute the consensus should be to avoid all highly fluctuating stats in lead (including 32,000 YouTube subscribers, 5 of 6 debate victories, etc.). John J. Bulten 16:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am surprised that the editors of this page are nominating it for FAC. The first few sentences of the lead will change almost constantly (polling figures?). Can we not wait until the election is over, at least? Then the article will gain a measure of stability and perhaps a month of hindsight. :) Awadewit | talk 23:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think that this article would make make an excellent FAC. As a minor editor here and there and a longtime wikipedia user I've found this article to be an incredible resource, smartly put together, dovetailed off into subarticles in a logical fashion and it's incredibly well cited. Not only that but in the political season, when the need for information on these candidates is high, I've found that Wikipedia articles like this one are actually the most authoritative and definitive information source about the candidates- far broader and more in-depth then the candidates' own websites! Barack Obama's article is another outstanding example as well- and lastly, as another commenter pointed out, if an article like this was featured it would bring thousands of new visitors to wikipedia and create hundreds of new editors and contributors. Yet another reason for FAC, and another reason why I support it. Celerityfm 10:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Hugh Grant

edit

Self-nomination. I found this article as a pedestrian, minimal, and very inadequate summary of the subject. I wrote the article in its entirety as it appears today on October 6, 2007. This includes a detailed overview of Grant's movies and screen personae (with accompanying images), his attitude towards acting and movie stardom, views of his peers, tense relationships with British media, and personal details about his early life, education, interests, scandals, etc. Having thoroughly researched all available public information about Grant, the biography is heavily sourced (with no citations of tabloid or gossipy magazines, except when documenting their attitude towards the star), documents a popular cultural figure intelligently, and is the most complete overview of his life available online. Given that Grant has been one of the foremost movie stars of his time (and is venturing on a new phase of writing and directing) and because this article is well-written, cogent and informative, I'm nominating it to be a featured article. It is one of my first major contributions to wikipedia and the article has not been reviewed earlier, but I still believe it is worth the nomination. I will be glad to make recommended edits. Thanks! Busillis 02:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. You've put a lot of work into this, well done. It is a very solid article, however I have a few major concerns and some minor.
Thanks for the comments. I have revised the article a lot - removing unnecessary quotes, paraphrasing many others and making it a more balanced and smoother read. Let me know what you think.Busillis
    • POV concern. I'll focus on the intro but my comments apply overall. There's too much complimentary information without the counterweight of some criticism. e.g. the attributes charisma, roguish charm, sharp tongue, and quick wit seem very arbitrary. The only criticism in the intro is "His infamous grumpiness,[14] political incorrectness, and unwillingness to be a prototype genial celebrity..." a sentence which ends by partially negating them "...have done little to diminish his worldwide popularity" Even the "Media hostility" section, which could be classified as criticism spends most of its time justifying Grant's stance. Also no examples of criticism of his acting as far as I can see and I have no doubt at least one prominent movie critic has issues - I'm not judging him here, I'm saying it would be remarkable for an actor to have universal praise from every major critic for everything they've ever done.
      • Very important point. Three major changes: I have added a lot of critical statements to go with the praise in the section called "Movies". Plus, there's now a "critical review" section with issues raised against his acting. I've also edited the Media hostility section (which is now combined with the small section on celebrity) so that now it is mainly about Grant's own hostile attitude toward the media. All his defensive quotes have been removed, with just one statement at the bottom. The section is now pretty critical of Grant, imo. I disagree about the intro though. When Grant is introduced on talk shows, written about in profiles or generally talked about, the three thing that always come up are his charisma, charm and wit. It was so on Oprah. And his latest Vogue profile started as such: "Hugh Grant, he of the debonair wit and raffish charm." When these characteristics are associated as much with a person as they are with Grant, they cease to be arbitrary and become part of his image esp. because movie stars are personality-driven public figures. Anyone who has read or seen his interviews would find it impossible to argue that he isn't witty, plus his performances too are famous for the dry, wry British wit he brings to them. Same goes with charm - he has been known for so long to be a charming leading man that it is sort of a conventionally held notion. So, I think it is fair to say that he is known for these traits. I have rephrased the end of the intro though, removing the clause you mentioned. Busillis
    • Sport section - sports are emboldened.
    • Too much of the article is made up of quotes. e.g. the paragraph beginning "According to him, he "fell into being a successful actor truly by mistake."[59]" is 296 words, of which 203 are in quotations. Using quotations in this way is perfectly acceptable, however in my opinion when a paragraph is 69% quotes and not original text, that's too far. There's also readability issues. Many are not required, e.g. the sentence "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno had him booked for the same week and "despite his arrest, Hugh Grant kept his appointment to appear on Jay's show."[145] -- No reason you could not say "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno had him booked for the same week and despite his arrest, Grant went ahead with the interview." [or the equivalent of]. Also "fine and funny (Amazon) turn" is not a great citation.
      •   Done I have removed a lot of unnecessary quotes and added more original text. The Tonight show quote is used because it is from a former employee's book and thereby confirms that Grant was booked for his appearance before the arrest. I have specified the employee's name now. The only sections with heavy emphasis on quotes are Light comedy, work ethic and personality sections. And that's because we know mostly about his personality and working style mostly from people around him. Since he is a living celebrity with no objective biographies published about him, it is hard to write about these areas of his life with authoritative original statements. When it comes to his early life, ancestry, and some others sections, I have used a minimal amount of quotes. Anyway, I've still paraphrased as much as I could - have a look. Busillis
    • Some cquote's, some blockquotes and some large quote boxes. Try standardising a bit. Overuse also perhaps? e.g. 2 in one short section ("Notoriously selective actor").
      •   Done All large quote boxes are now removed. For consistency, all cquotes are Grant's words whereas blockquotes represent others' opinions and observations. Busillis
    • Libel lawsuits section. Undue emphasis given to quotations. e.g. bold "highly defamatory".
    • Uses of dashes as punctuation with no requirement for them.
    • No such position as Prime Minister of Great Britain, it's PM of GB and NI. British Prime Minister would be better if you were just avoiding the long title. No need for The Rt Hon. in front of Tony Blair.
    • Ext. links - why are the two BBC stories especially noteworthy?
      • One is an interview where Grant answers some FAQ about him. The second was about his involvement in a high-profile charity event - I have removed this one as it seems unnecessary. Busillis
    • Something I learned from a recent FAC I was working on - don't link unnecessary terms. Some examples: editor, publication titles (unless somehow significant to the incident), London, UK, US. 2nd paragraph of "Distinguished ancestry" is a sea of blue. And try to trim "Grant was born at Hammersmith Hospital in Hammersmith, London, Middlesex, England.!!"
    • Also overlinking (i.e. one term linked multiple times) e.g. Four Weddings and a Funeral (6) Julia Roberts (2) Sense and Sensibility (2) Elizabeth Hurley (3). Just a few examples, you might need to check for others.
    • General writing cleanup. e.g. isn't > is not. Mark83 14:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I think this is very very good. Something that you may want to work in, he was cast as Gilderoy Lockhart in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets but had to drop out due to a scheduling conflict. [7] Gran2 10:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I left that out (along with other projects he has turned down) because of length issues. The one thing I do think the article could do more of with are pictures, especially since I have now even removed the blue quote boxes. Let me know what you think of the revised article as it stands now! Busillis
  • Oppose. This reads more like a magazine article than an encyclopedia to me. Other issues:
    • There are still POV issues.
      • The intro sentence in the lead focuses more on his personal characteristics than his acting.
      • The heading titles are a little too descriptive, making them seem POV (i.e., "formidable" work ethic
      • "beguiling" FWAAF
  • The lead does not appear to summarize the article
  • Do not include external links in the body of the article; they should be in the External links section or not at all.
  • Is it necessary to include so much information on his ancestry? I think it might be a little distracting, and should be trimmed and merged with the next section.
    • Need a citation for Jamie Grant's occupation, especially since he is described as "successful"
    • I think some words are wikilinked that don't need to be -- pub, revue, thespian
    • I think you should mention his movies and then include the sections on light comedy and mystique
    • Need a citation after the quote of "professionally misanthropic mystique" in the first sentence of the section with the same name.
    • Need citations for first paragraph of europuddings phase
    • I think there are too many long quotations. Some of them could be paraphrased and incorporated into the article better. The methods for the quotation display is also not consistent
    • Don't bold words like "Europuddings"
    • Need a citation for the quote about "Determindely offbeat film"
    • Since you have the references for the quotes, you don't need to include the newspaper that they came from in paranetheses
    • Need a citation for the quote by Philip French about Grant's range
    • Don't start a section (Filmmaker) with a quotation.
    • Make sure all full dates are wikilinked, as well as month/date pairs without a year.
    • The section titled Athlete seems more trivia-y, and should probably be pared.
    • Summarize the Awards article in text in that section. At least talk about the main awards he had won, including the Golden Globe. I've never seen the Awards section as you have put it here (but I don't read a lot of actor articles), and I think it is highly distracting. Just mention the awards and leave off the Preceded by/succeeded by
    • Newspaper names in the citations should be italicized -- you can use {{citation|newspaper=}}

Karanacs 17:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Yasser Arafat

edit
previous FAC withdrawn

The article on Yasser Arafat is very comprehensive, extremely informative, surprisingly fair and well-written. The article is currently rated as an A-class article (didn't deserve it at first). However, the article has doubled in size by expansion from when it was rated an A-class article and the improvements (referencing, cutting-down on external links, copyediting, establishing NPOV) have been made since then. As far as I can see there are two obstacles in the way. They are not major, however they should be addressed. --Al Ameer son 06:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first is the lack of images
  • Support Comment - yes, good treatment of a controversial figure. First piece I've read in ages that didn't paint him as either a saint or a devil. Otherwise:
  1. Intifada: you need to explain somewhere what an intifada is.
Done. I stated the Intifada's literal translation and that its usually defined as a rebellion. --Al Ameer son 23:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Bit clunky: Arafat engaged in continuous fighting with Israeli forces as well as attacks on Israeli civilians in the name of Palestinian self-determination. Perhaps: Arafat continuously fought with Israeli forces and attacked Israeli civilians in the name of Palestinian self-determination
I used the latter.--Al Ameer son 23:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Over euphemistic: In late 2004, after an extended period of confinement in his Ramallah compound at the behest of the Israeli government. Perhaps: In late 2004, after effectively being confined within his Ramallah compound for over two years by Israeli Defense Forces.
I used the latter. --Al Ameer son 23:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Slight expansion: perhaps include some detail of the political landscape in the Middle East; Anglo-French hegemony (Sykes-Picot agreement); Anglo-French adventurism (1956 Suez Crisis); the need for "strong men" to restore Arab dignity etc.
I really don't know where to put this information in the article nor do I know how I will state it or how much space it will take. If you can figure where to put it, I'll gladly add it to the article as well as the Balfour Declaration. However, I hope it is under a mutual understanding that this is background info and it shouldn't require much text. --Al Ameer son 23:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps at the end of Birth and childhood? It only needs a couple of sentences to explain the post-colonial background he grew up in. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 00:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added the basic causes and results of the Arab Revolt, the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration and its influence on the Middle East. No more three or four sentences. The 1956 Suez Crisis is already addressed in the Education and 1948 Arab-Israeli War subsection and the concept of "strong men" needed to restore Arab dignity is highlighted in the Battle of Karameh subsection. --Al Ameer son 20:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Trivial stuff: a couple of days/months need wikilinking; (of burial) either refuse a request or ignore a wish; U.S. Navy > US Navy (consistency with other abbreviations); vomitted > vomited; Estripeau, needs initials or first name; Quran > Qur'an ; Al Hayat > Al-Hayat.
All has been done except the date linking. Its on the way though. --Al Ameer son 23:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Date linking has been done and I just want to make sure that when you link months, are you supposed to link the particular year that comes after the month? The surgeon's name is Christian Estripeau and his statement has been referenced. --Al Ameer son 20:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:
    • "The majority of Palestinian, Arab and Islamic people – regardless of political ideology or faction – viewed him as a heroic freedom fighter and martyr who symbolized the national aspirations of his people.[6] However, most Israelis have described him as an unrepentant terrorist.[7]" Those statements are not at all supported by the sources they are referenced to.
Observation The first statement is supported by a section embedded in the BBC article. The second one is a reasonable paraphrase, though would be better written as many Israelis saw him as an unrepentant terrorist. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 07:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It isn't at all supported by it. That section gives the opinions of some Palestinians, no non-Palestinian Arabs or Muslims. And how are we supposed to know that these 15 or so people are representative for Palestinians, Arabs or Muslims in general? The article concerning the Israeli views only supports the claim that he was unpopular in Israel, no more. Besides, I think for a claim like "most Israelis believe..." or "most Arabs believe", we need more than the picture given by a BBC correspondant. A claim like that requires empirical data like surveys for example, especially if you consider the controversial nature of this topic.--Carabinieri 14:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Chuckle] I see where you're coming from but doubt that that is available anywhere. However, the Washington Post's obituary Nov 10, 2004 provides this: He was reviled by many Israelis, who saw in him a modern-day Hitler and revered by many Arabs, who loved him for restoring their shattered sense of honor.... To the Palestinians, for whom he forged an identity as a distinct people striving for national liberation, he was larger than life -- though hardly universally adored.
The reference states that the 15 out of 15 Palestinians surveyed/questioned/asked did view him as a freedom fighter and symbol of the national aspirations of the Palestinian people (not exact words of course). Other references also from the BBC that include random Palestinian views on him include this one [8] Even the leaders of rival organizations, Hamas and PIJ viewed him as their rightful leader, "steadfast when it came to the big and crucial issues in Camp David". PFLP spokesman Ahmad Sa'adat who says he and his organization differed with Arafat on many issues but claims "[Arafat] was distinguished for his sacrifice in the service of our national cause". Palestinian leaders are quoted here.[9]. The Arab opinion is varied (I assume) and the Islamic world I guess you can say is too broad, so these statements could be removed until they are specifically referenced. --Al Ameer son 19:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Later in his career, Arafat engaged in a series of negotiations with the government of Israel to end the decades-long war between the two sides" It's unclear what two sides this is referring to. The Palestinians are not mentioned immediately before this sentence.
I revised. "Later in his career, Arafat engaged in a series of negotiations with the government of Israel to end the decades-long war between that country and the Palestinians." If you think its still not there please fix it. --Al Ameer son 23:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 1947, Arafat enrolled in the University of King Fuad I and graduated in 1950 with a passing grade." Is it possible to graduate with a failing grade?
Removed "with a passing grade" --Al Ameer son 23:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question I read this as a pass degree, as against an honors degree. Did you happen to know what he got?--ROGER DAVIES TALK 07:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aburish states Arafat "graduated with a pass grade". Thats all I know. I can look more into it if needed.
    • "However, during this period in his life he became an Arab nationalist and began procuring weapons to be smuggled into the former British Mandate of Palestine, for use by irregulars in the Arab Higher Committee and the Holy War Army militias." However? How does this contradict this statement contradict the one preceding it?
The statement preceding it, (He later claimed to have sought a better understanding of Judaism and Zionism by engaging in discussions with Jews and reading publications by Theodor Herzl and other prominent Zionists.) contradicts with the ideology of Arab nationalism which claims Zionism is a form of colonialism. --Al Ameer son 23:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Fatah was allocated 33 of 105 seats of the PLO Executive Committee while the remaining 57 were left for several other guerrilla factions" Huh? 33+57=90
You're right that is strange. I have the book right in front of me, Aburish states,

"He accepted Hammouda's suggestion that Fatah should join the PLO as a member organization in the name of national unity, but not before Fatah was given 33 seats on the Palestine National Council, out of a total of 105 seats and 57 allocated to all the guerilla groups."

Perhaps those 90 seats were allocated to armed groups and the remaining 15 were given to political parties without armed branches or did not take part in any combat or guerrilla activity. --Al Ameer son 23:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Prior to the couple's marriage in 1991, Arafat adopted fifty Palestinian war orphans.[63]" What couple? The context of this sentence is really odd.
Cleared up --Al Ameer son 23:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Arafat narrowly escaped death again on April 7, 1992, when his aircraft crash-landed in the Libyan Desert during a sandstorm. The pilot and several passengers were killed; Arafat suffered broken bones and other injuries.[65]" The source says "Libyan desert", so I don't think it's necessarily referring to the Libyan Desert, but only to any desert in Libya. Further, the source claims that "two pilots and engineer" were killed, not the "pilot and several passengers". The source also says that Arafat was "bruised and shaken", not that he "suffered broken bones and other injuries". Come on! This is the third statement I've checked the source on and the third time the source didn't match the article.
I really apologize, I blame myself for not checking references placed by other users. Never really thought of it. This particular statement has been taken care of though. I really appreciate you taking up your time to look into references. --Al Ameer son 23:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Arafat's ability to adapt to new tactical and political situations was perhaps tested by the rise of the Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad organizations, Islamist groups espousing rejectionist opposition to Israel and employing new tactics such as suicide bombing, often intentionally targeting non-military targets, such as malls and movie theaters, to increase the psychological damage" This isn't at all a new tactic employed by the Hamas and the Islamists. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades linked to Arafat did this too.--Carabinieri 21:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades came into being during the Second Intifada, years after the founding of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. --Al Ameer son 23:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that the article currently sounds like suicide bombing civilian targets is something that Arafat was forced to deal with by Hamas even though he employed this tactic himself.--Carabinieri 14:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you can say his financial support for a sub-group of his Fatah organization is "employing this tactic himself". However this is still an allegation made by the Israeli and American government. If you read the Israeli FM ref you provided below it is very clear that is quite opinionated. I used the Israeli Foreign Minsitry reference you provided, not to prove that Arafat was involved in terrorist activity during the Second Intifada time period, but that the Israeli government claimed he did and that they found documents as evidence for it. However he publicly condemned these actions. We could back the allegation that he didn't necessarily support suicide bombings but he provided funds (not disputed) for the Fatah sub-groups that did. We can also include that he could indeed halt attacks by the Al-aqsa group, as commanders of the group have stated that they would respect any of Arafat's calls and decisions. --Al Ameer son 00:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, the paragraph on Arafat's possible support of terrorism is unbalanced. Even the pro-Palestinian Human Rights Watch has accused Arafat of "disturbing indifference to, if not possible support for, Palestinian attacks on civilians" ([10]). The Israeli Foreign Ministry even comes to the conclusion that "Yasser Arafat was personally involved in the planning and execution of terror attacks. He encouraged them ideologically, authorized them financially and personally headed the Fatah Al Aqsa Brigades organization." ([11]). And, finally, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy claims that "PA funding of terrorism is well documented, both from the seized documents and from the millions spent on arms purchases".([12])--Carabinieri 22:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Observation The intro says Arafat continuously ... attacked Israeli civilians in the name of Palestinian self-determination this is not in dispute. Otherwise, neither the Israeli Foreign Ministry nor the Washington Institute on Near East Policy(Guardian story) is an impartial source. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 07:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the European Union is?!--Carabinieri 14:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is ever truly impartial, but at least the EU isn't perceived as being joined at the hip to Israel in the way that America sometimes/often is. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used the Israeli Foreign Ministry ref that Carabinieri provided with an apparently dead link provided by the IDF website to acutely cite the preceding text. This statement and other information on Arafat's role in terrorism carried out by Palestinians more detailed in the Terrorist activities and Relations with militant groups sections. --Al Ameer son 00:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, all kinds of cleanup needed before even looking at the prose. There is some very strange use of bolding and italics in the refs. See WP:MOSBOLD, WP:ITALICS and WP:CITE/ES; I left sample edits. See WP:MOSNUM and WP:UNITS on non-breaking hard spaces (sample edits left). Month-day combos should be wikilinked so date preferences will work, and date parameters should be linked in citations so they will display in a format consistent with the accessdate parameter (see sample edits). Pls see WP:MSH on caps in section headings; I fixed one. Prose should be audited for redundancy (see Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s exercises), example: During the 1962–1966 period, ... There is some overlinking; see WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT. Common words known to most English-speaking people, like roadblock and police, need not be linked; this detracts from high-value links which provide context, further information or definitions. Check spelling out versus using digits on numbers per WP:MOSNUM, for example: Over three hundred-thirty people were killed and many more wounded. (This occurs throughout; by the way, that number needs a citation.) The article succumbs to WP:PROSELINE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm editing the refs right now based on your sample edits. If I find date linking issues other than the references I'll fix them. The heading was a mistake by me and I know the rules on that. I can't believe I missed it. Common words that have been overlinked will be fixed. --Al Ameer son 00:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot to mention size: the readable prose size is 55KB. See WP:SIZE on guidelines on readable prose, 30–50KB. There are many sections which veer away from the bio of Arafat and could be better summarized to/from dauther articles, such as Fatah involvement in Lebanese Civil War and Jordan. The article could be trimmed to a tighter focus on Arafat bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, I think I could trim the text on Christian-PLO/LNM clashing. Do you see anything else in particular that needs to be pruned. --Al Ameer son 01:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished editing the reference and redundant links throughout the article and now I'll start working on the prose. However after I read the article again I've come to the conclusion that the article can be reduced to a minimum of 90KB or somewhere in the high 80s. Maybe not even that. However I don't think that will get in the way of it being a featured article though. The Barack Obama article is 111KB and Gerald Ford is 110KB; both are featured articles. --Al Ameer son 23:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:SIZE; both Barack Obama and Gerald Ford are within the 30 to 50 KB guidelines on readable prose size (their overall size is larger than Arafat because of citations). Arafat is still at 55KB readable prose and could be trimmed; WP:SIZE is not looking at overall size, it's looking at prose size. I'm traveling and will review further when I'm home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to inform you that I have addressed most of the issues you brought up about the Yasser Arafat article.

  1. Bold an and italic text in the references have been removed.
  2. I did not see any problems with month-date linking however I spotted and linked several month-year combos. Dates have been linked in citations.
  3. The capitalization in the heading you spotted was the only case of unnecessary caps in headings.
  4. I have fixed the overlinking problems.
  5. The issue of spelling out large numbers is defined as necessary for digits that are spelled in over two words. a thousand, twenty-eight, eleven, eighteen, one-hundred, etc. For numbers that were composed of three words I wrote the digits.
  6. I have removed several dates that weren't needed in the article and I tried to curb as much redundancy in the article as I could. --Al Ameer son 17:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Using "Notes" as a section for both precise citations of sources and a list of said sources makes it very difficult to get an overview of the references. It's sooo much easier if the notes are written in shorthand, at least for print sources, instead of providing all the details of the sources in the footnote itself. And I can't stress enough how utterly pointless and frustrating the use of citation templates are, especially in massive and frequently edited articles like this. They add gargantuan swathes of code that exacerbates editing, especially for newbies and editors who aren't all that fond of code to begin with, with only the very minute upside of placing (often arbitrary) details in correct (but also arbitrary) order. Peter Isotalo 10:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Cillian Murphy

edit

This is a self-nomination. I've brought this article successfully through GA and WikiProject Biography A-class reviews and a peer review, each time improving it, and I feel the article is ready for FAC. I've worked pretty exhaustively to meet the FA criteria. Thanks for your consideration. --Melty girl 19:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Well-written, well-cited, and comprehensive. My only problems are that 1) many of the references for web sites don't have access dates (these are not an incredibly big deal, but should be included whenever possible- IMDb pages can change), though all of the refs are formatted properly otherwise; and 2) I don't think three fair-use images are needed for the same section- no, three images aren't a lot, but they're also bunched so closely together as to make all three unnecessary. Of course, in terms of the big picture, these are very small issues- and ones that others could clearly make arguments against- that would not detract me from supporting a great article. -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only in the case of extremely stable reference sites like IMDb did I not document access dates, but I certainly could do so if reviewers feel it's crucial. About the images, if I had to remove one, it would be the Red Eye image, but like you say, I'll wait to see how other reviewers feel about this issue, because I feel that all three do elaborate on the prose and show three different and important aspects of Murphy's acting career. Thanks! --Melty girl 21:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object The article may be GA, but it isn't up to FA standards yet. Adoring fansite language such as "notable for his blue eyes" is simply absurd, and needs to have an inline citation (who has said his eyes are notable, in general and in comparison to his other attributes?). Also, the article has an extra requirement to meet in that it is a biography of a living person. In it s current incarnation, the article blatantly violates the strictures of the BLP in multiple places. Example: it fails to reliably attribute the statement that "has no desire" to live in Hollywood. Not providing an inline citation to passages that assert the opinion of a living person is a most egregious error. VanTucky Talk 22:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that this article is not up to FA standards, but you only offer two ways in which it isn't, and you're only half-accurate in your criticisms. The half that's accurate is easily fixed, and for the other half I will demonstrate how you are in error. I'll tackle your second criticism first.
  1.   Doing...   Done You raise two instances of assertions that aren't inline-cited. Well, both the assertions in question are in the lead section. Your criticism makes me question whether you carefully read the entire article beyond the lead, because if you do, you will find that not only is the body of the article exceptionally well-sourced, but that both disputed assertions are verified, just not in the lead section. There are multiple inline citations to support both facts you dispute. Here's why: the section on WP:LEAD regarding citations in the lead is dispute, and I went with the style of not inserting citations in the lead for facts that are cited below. So that means two things: first, that your criticism re inline citations is only valid for the lead (as a careful read would quickly reveal), meaning that there is no systemic problem with the article, AND second, that this is easily remedied. In the instance of the two assertions you dispute, I have now inserted ample citations, and I will continue to add citations for everything mentioned in the lead Y -- it's easy to do, because they are all expanded upon below (as per other parts of WP:LEAD), all cited.
  2.   Done You accuse the article of having "adoring fansite language" but only offer one example (also from the lead), and your example is a misquote. The article said Murphy is "noted for his distinctive blue eyes," not that he is "notable" for them, and that's a crucial distinction: it is amply verifiable that critics and other have consistently "noted" him for his eyes, and that's a very different thing from the voice of the article declaring him to be "notable" for his eyes. Still, the fact that you confused the words made me think that the language could be clearer, so I changed the phrase to, "He is often noted by critics for chameleonic performances in diverse roles, as well as his distinctive blue eyes." I think this makes it clear who's doing the noting -- and it is easily verifiable (as I noted above, I've added citations) since most of the articles and reviews about him mention his big blue eyes, if not say outright that he is famous for his eyes. Many of the critics not only remark on the startling nature of Murphy's eyes, but how he uses them as an actor, and there are several quotes about this in the "Acting career" section. Actors' eyes are not just a mark of beauty, they're part of their instrument as artists, so it is not a frivolous thing to mention for an actor, especially a leading man. Would it be inappropriate to say that Paul Newman is famous for his "distinctive blue eyes"? I don't think so. Newman may be much more famous than Cillian Murphy is, but nonetheless, of the things that Cillian Murphy is noted for by critics and the industry, his eyes are definitely at the top of the list. It's so pervasive that it's absolutely verifiable -- check out the sources I've added. Or for that matter, simply read the titles of the articles in the References section!
I ask you respectfully to please read the entire article carefully and bring any other such "fansite" phraseology or missing citations to my attention, because I would be happy to address them, and because I honestly believe that you have wrongly attributed issues in the lead to the whole article when that simply is not accurate. In the meantime, I will finish up moving up duplicate citations to the lead. Y Thanks. --Melty girl 02:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must also note that Jake Gyllenhaal and Eric Bana, both FA articles for living persons, are written in the aforementioned style of leaving the lead sections largely citation-free. --Melty girl 06:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC) ... and FA John Frusciante's lead has only one citation too! --Melty girl 04:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done The citation issue has been resolved slightly differently due to other reviewers' input, still keeping your concerns in mind. (See below... if you ever honor the FA guidelines and return, that is.) --Melty girl 17:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support The article definitely meets all WP:FACR: it is well written with a great professional sounding prose, includes everything significant on the actor with a huge number of diverse references with inline citations. There are no POV issues whatsoever and no ongoing edit wars as I can see from the history. The lead highlights the major points and is of appropriate length compared to the rest of the article. No problems about the headings or table of contents. Non-free images are not overused and all have well written fair use rationales. The article is entirely focused and does not drown the reader in unnecessary detail.
Thank you for considering the article carefully against WP:FACR. I also really appreciate your giving the whole article a thorough read -- it was frustrating to be accused of not providing inline citations by the previous reviewer when the article has 90+ distinct references. I'll respond to your suggestions below. --Melty girl 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have some minor comments and suggestions:
  • There are some words that trouble me but it could be just me since I am not a native. One in particular is "near miss", I think this is used when a negative situation is narrowly avoided but I cannot relate to how it is used in "after a near miss with the music industry...". Perhaps a different wording could make this clearer?
Murphy nearly made it in the music industry, but missed the mark. In a way, perhaps the phrase "near miss" here is too POV, because maybe it casts the music industry in a negative light -- as you said that you interpreted it. Murphy has said that in hindsight he is glad he didn't make it in music, because he thinks the music industry is more cutthroat than the film industry, and perhaps that opinion influenced how I wrote the sentence. A replacement doesn't quickly come to mind, but I will give it some thought over the next few days. Please let me know if there are any other phrases that similarly give you pause. (Melty girl 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
 Y I spoke to a few people about this issue and they did not feel that "near miss" has a negative connotation. Also, I turned up this, [13], which includes the definition, "an attempt that falls just short of success," and that's precisely what's intended here. I think the usage is actually fine. (Melty girl 03:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Yes you are right. In the link you gave, I believe the first meaning is the more common one and that was the one that I was familiar with as a non-native. But again that is my shortcoming and not the article's so I also think now that it is fine the way it is. --Kudret abiTalk 23:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But Murphy's best known roles are as villains in two 2005 blockbusters: the Scarecrow in Batman Begins, and Jackson Rippner in the thriller Red Eye." Here I think it creates asymmetry when you specify the genre for one film but not the other.
 Y I inserted "superhero film." (Melty girl 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • "His father, Brendan, works for the Irish Department of Education and his mother is a French teacher." This is also asymmetric, I am not sure why his father's name is included but not his mothers, is it because it's not known?
Yes, I have been unable to find his mother's name anywhere. I could only find his father's name in one article. I figured in the interest of being encyclopedic, it should be included along with his siblings' names even though it is asymmetric. (Melty girl 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I agree, since these are factual information they should be in an encyclopedic article. I was just curious that's all :) --Kudret abiTalk 23:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Murphy attended the Catholic school Presentation Brothers College, Cork, where he did well academically, though he was not keen on sport, a major part of life at PBC." maybe better to say "Presentation Brothers College in Cork" and also introduce the acronym PBC right after, since you use it later in the text.
 Y I replaced the acronym "PBC" with "the school." (Melty girl 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • About the image captions, the roles "Pig" and "Kitten" appear in quotes but Jackson Rippner does not, so perhaps better to make these consistent.
The reason that "Pig" and "Kitten" are in quotation marks is because they are not the characters' given names (Darren and Patrick, respectively), they are nicknames. When you see the roles listed/discussed, especially the transgendered "Kitten" role, it is often put in quotation marks, in the manner I have it written in the filmography: Patrick "Kitten" Braden. Given this information, do you think there's a way that I could make this distinction more apparent? Or should I just drop the quotation marks outside the filmography? (Melty girl 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
 Y I believe I've solved this one by specifying the characters' given names alongside the nicknames in quotation marks. (Melty girl 03:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Great! I was actually thinking of suggesting that but you came up with the fix faster. --Kudret abiTalk 23:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The acronym IRA appears a few times but I think it sometimes appears as I.R.A. with the dots, so maybe these can be made consistent too.
 Y Thanks for catching that! (Melty girl 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Finally, I recommend a wikilink for the phrase "indie film".
 Y Done. (Melty girl 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I also had a look at the objections and comments provided by the earlier reviewers, and although they provide useful guidelines and suggestions that can be taken into account to improve the article, none of them point out any violation of WP:FACR. I therefore recommend that this fine article be promoted to FA status. --Kudret abiTalk 22:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Melty girl once again for this fine article and also considering all of my humble suggestions and attending to them promptly. I hope that your efforts are rewarded and the article receives its well deserved FA status soon.--Kudret abiTalk 23:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why, thank you! And thanks again for your review and very helpful copyediting suggestions! --Melty girl 23:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a fan of citations in the lead either, but the policy is disputed, and I felt like the second reviewer's seeming failure to read beyond the lead -- because how else can you say that an article with 90+ inline citations isn't sourced? and reading further would have yielded the relevant citations -- left me with no choice but to add citations to the lead. Anyway, thank you for your support. --Melty girl 16:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Citations in the lead have been cut back down to near pre-FA levels. See below for further discussion and solution. --Melty girl 03:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "They did not sign the contract, partly because Pádraig was still in secondary school, so their parents did not approve, and partly because the contract offered little money and would have ceded the rights to Murphy's compositions to the record label" "Murphy's" is ambiguous here. Is it referring to Cillian or Pádraig? --Carabinieri 09:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Murphy's" refers to Cillian. As per WP:NAMES in the MoS, throughout I refer to the subject of the article by surname and to his brother by first name: "To disambiguate between siblings or other well-known relatives with the same surname, use the surname of the article header to indicate that person, and use first names or complete names to indicate siblings or others." This means that Pádraig would never be referrred to by just his last name, so "Murphy's" cannot refer to him. I don't see a way to further disambiguate without using Cillian's first name, which would violate the MoS. Do you have an alternate suggestion? (By the way, I'll just note that the songs may well have been co-written by his brother, but I cannot verify that, probably because there are no articles on the web about their band [or available recordings]. That means that all the articles that refer to the band are articles about the famous sibling, so the tiny subset of those that actually mention the contract's copyright issues refer to the songs as solely Cillian's... which they very well might have been, of course, and that's all that's verifiable anyway.) --Melty girl 15:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NAMES: "After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only", "May", not "must". In this case I think the best solution might be to use the first and the last name. There also wouldn't be much harm in only using Murphy's first name.--Carabinieri 00:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's an important distinction, "may". I've observed editors being so strict about using surname only for the subject, not first name, so it's good that you point that out. Still, the instruction on disambiguating siblings with the same last name, which is the issue here, does not qualify things with "may": it straightforwardly instructs us to use only surname for the subject, and to use the first name or first-last for the sibling. This is a style common in the press, not just Wikipedia, so many readers are familiar with it. In this article, Cillian is firmly the subject of this article, is the "he" of almost every sentence, and is the only person ever directly referred to as being a Murphy. By the time the reader gets to the sentence in question, Cillian has been referred to ten times as "Murphy," and his relatives have always been referred to by first name only, never as "Murphy." So I think suddenly referring to Cillian by his full name or first name right there would be a stylistic departure that would only add awkwardness to the phrase, and would be very likely to be copyedited soon by another editor. So let's see what you think of this alternate strategy (the changes are in italics):

In his late teens and early twenties, Murphy worked toward a career as a rock musician, playing guitar in several bands alongside his brother Pádraig. The Beatles-obsessed pair named their most successful band The Sons of Mr. Greengenes, after a 1969 song by another idol, Frank Zappa. Murphy sang and played guitar. He has said the band "specialised in wacky lyrics and endless guitar solos." In 1996, The Sons of Mr. Greengenes were offered a five-album record deal by Acid Jazz Records. They did not sign the contract, partly because Murphy's brother was still in secondary school, so their parents did not approve, and partly because the contract offered little money and would have ceded the rights to Murphy's compositions to the record label.

I think it's now very clear here who "Murphy" is. What do you think? --Melty girl 02:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that sounds good.--Carabinieri 00:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Excellent. Thanks! --Melty girl 02:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until has had a thorough copyedit. Other suggestions:
    • Do not put a footnote for his name in the lead; you can put it in the body of the article if needed, but that is really distracting. I would even recommend that you incorporate the pronunciation in the body of the article rather than as a note, but only if you can cite it. (Discussion of this point continues below, under the reviewer's subsequent comment.)
    • Overall, I think you should trim the citations in the lead. If these facts are adequately cited in the body of the article then you don't need 7 citations in the lead as well for his "distinctive blue eyes". (Discussion of this point continues below, under the reviewer's subsequent comment.)
    • The article needs major copyediting. I made a first pass at the Early life and music section, but there is lots more work to be done. Many of the sentences are written with more informal language, and some of them are quite convoluted. (Discussion of this point continues below, under the reviewer's subsequent comment.)
    • After you've introduced a person, refer to them only by their surname (Kiernan instead of Pat Kiernan) (Discussion of this point continues below, under the reviewer's subsequent comment.)
    • There are too many wikilinks in the early work section. Keep the ones for productions, people, and places, and lose the ones that are more for vocabulary purposes.
  Done --Melty girl 05:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This looks better, but I'd still remove the wikilinks to short films and sleeper hits. I don't think they provide much value beyond offering a definition. Karanacs 18:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done --Melty girl 02:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been through a GA, peer and A-class review, so it's already had a great deal of copyediting. It would be very helpful if you could be more specific about the things that you feel need addressing in terms of the language. Could you please cite examples of "convoluted" sentences and explain why they seem off to you? I don't have time until later to fully address your other comments, but I certainly will do so later today or early tomorrow. For now, I will ask clarifying questions. First, for your second and fourth comments, you contradict two other reviewers above -- I ask your guidance in how I can meet everyone's demands. The lead used to have very few citations, because everything was cited below, but I got an "Object" for that (see above). Likewise, another reviewer contradicts you, pointing out that WP policy states that one "may" refer to a person by their surname upon subsequent mentions, but that you do not have to; in this case, for a non-famous person, I felt it might be more helpful for the reader to see their whole name again lest they forget who Kiernan was. Last, one more clarifying question; can you point to Wiki policy for your first instruction re the pronunciation footnote? Also, please see FA article Jake Gyllenhaal for an example of a pronunciation footnote. I thank that this type of information more befits a footnote, not prose in the article, but certainly, the mispronunciation is so common that it can't be left out entirely. OK, thanks for the review, and I will return with a more detailed response very soon... Melty girl 17:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I just took a quick look at your copyedits in the "Early life" section, and sorry to say it, but I'm a bit baffled. In some cases, you actually weakened the sentences with repetition and at least one grammatical error, or you altered sentences that were perfectly fine for no apparent reason. You broke down a connection of meaning between two sentences, and in at least one case, you changed the factual information and made things less accurate, and I have no idea why -- he was working as a rock musician, so why do you want to change this to "musical interests"? It's factually weaker. What on earth can the copyediting objection be to stating that he was working as a rock musician? Anyway, I will have to return to this later, but you've left me rather concerned. --Melty girl 17:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For pronunciation, I am following the lead of J.K. Rowling. I really think that having a footnote in the middle of the person's name on the first line of the lead is distracting. If you insist on the footnote, put it in the body of the article instead when you first begin discussing him. Karanacs 21:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done I asked above that you produce a WP policy for this point, but you have not done so. Therefore, I must note that this seems to be your personal preference, rather than a community value (much less a WP:FACR issue), and I think it's relevant to point out this distinction. None of the other FA, GA or peer reviewers had a problem with this footnote. Nonetheless, I will engage your concern and explore a simpler compromise.
Your example, J.K. Rowling (which is not FA, btw), does not really apply, because there is a whole stand-alone section on her name, and that's not appropriate in this case -- there isn't material beyond the correct pronunciation of "Cillian" that would justify a stand-alone section. Further, your suggestion that the pronunciation information should go in the body of the article rather than the lead contradicts the practice of many bio articles with pronunciation info that I've seen -- here are but a few examples: Jackie Chan, Karen Dotrice, Satyajit Ray, John Frusciante, Jake Gyllenhaal (all FA). Clearly, many WP editors hold that pronunciation info should be in the lead section, and I believe the reasoning is that when readers first encounter the subject's name, they should know how to properly pronounce it in as they read on. I think you would have to acknowledge that pronunciation info is perfectly acceptable in the lead. So that leaves us with your objection with placing the footnote between the first and last names. Therefore, I've implemented this alternate solution: I've simply moved the footnote past his last name so it doesn't interrupt. I think this satisfactorily addresses your concern about the footnote's placement being distracting. (BTW, I seem to be coming down with a cold and am crashing early tonight, so I can't address much else until tomorrow.)--Melty girl 05:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, moving the footnote satisfies my main objection, which was that it was distracting. Karanacs 18:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for naming convention, the section does say that you "may" address someone by surname, but then immediately goes on to explain when to use another form of reference. Karanacs 21:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done I'm not clear on what you mean here, and you are in conflict with another reviewer. But I think you already made the edits you wanted, right? --Melty girl 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the number of lead citations, you can easily address my objections and the objections above by having one citation instead of seven for the notability of his eyes. That way you have a citation but it isn't too distracting. Karanacs 21:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done I still feel like I'm getting conflicting responses about citations in the lead, but I've culled them back down almost exactly to where they were before this FA review began. I left it at two citations for items where it is asserted that multiple sources exist, and I also left in the new citations for the things which the disappeared objector above says must be cited as per WP:BLP (even though the citations are also there in the body of the article). Even so, you will still find the citations in the lead 95% cut, and I believe that all concerns on regarding this issue are now satisfied. --Melty girl 06:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! Karanacs 18:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update Because of a long debate over the "distinctive blue eyes" clause, another reviewer inserted two additional citations. See below and the article's talk page for details... --Melty girl 05:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For copyediting, I'll address what I changed as examples for improvements needing to be made throughout the article.
  • from eldest brother to three siblings: a brother, Pádraig, and two sisters, Sile and Orla to eldest of four children, with a younger brother, Pádraig, and two sisters, Sile and Orla. because the original wording makes it seem as if he could have sisters older than him (he is the eldest brother; is their an elder sister?), and I got rid of the colon, mainly because I don't like colons.
  Done Your interpretation of this sentence is extreme, and your personal dislike of colons is not a valid reason to make a copyedit of a sentence that is grammatically correct, especially when your change opts for a weaker prepositional phrase and you've added the superfluous word "younger." I have changed the wording to a third alternative, the tighter sentence, "Born in Douglas, County Cork in Ireland, Cillian Murphy is eldest sibling to a brother, Pádraig, and two sisters, Sile and Orla." The grammar is correct. --Melty girl 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • from Not only are his parents educators, but his aunts and uncles are also teachers, to Many of his aunts and uncles are also teachers, because the article just mentioned that his parents were teachers, so that seemed repetitive. I wasn't sure from the text if all of his aunts and uncles were teachers or just some of them, hence the many.
  Not done Your copyedit is inferior. First, "Not only are his parents educators..." builds the narrative, emphasizes an important point, connects the first sentence to the second for the reader. The point is that he comes from a family of educators, but chose something different. Your change eliminates this narrative conceit -- and with no need and nothing engaging put in its place. The original version is not overly repetitive -- it served to quickly make a point in but six words, and it is part of the narrative flow of the paragraph, which goes on to say that music is the other thing that runs in the family. Second, "many of" is a guess on your part: the cited source reads, "Murphy is from a line of educationalists: his mother and father are teachers, as are his aunts and uncles, as was his grandfather." The source doesn't say that only some of his aunts and uncles are teachers, but that's what your insertion of "many of" implies. We must go with the source. Therefore, because there was no copyediting problem in the first place, and because your change had weaker prose and veered from the source, I have reverted your change. --Melty girl 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • from But it was there that Murphy got his first taste of performing, when at 16, to There Murphy was first exposed to performing, when because the sentence has no need to begin with a conjuncion, and "got his first taste of" seemed quite informal to me.
  Done Once again, your edit is weak and nonspecific. You wrote, "There Murphy was first exposed to performing...", which is an awkward, inaccurate phrase. Whose performing was he exposed to? I daresay, he probably was first exposed to performing as a very young child watching TV! The point here is that this is when he first performed for others, and your sentence does not say this. Your edit is not correct. Now, back the phrase you eliminated: the reason it starts with the conjunction "But..." is because the previous sentence states a way in which Murphy did not enjoy school and this new sentence is going to tell of something positive that happened for him at school. Using "But..." is the most economical way to shape the narrative and seque from one idea to the next. I am fine with using "There..." though, if you prefer it. I must correct you, however, on the assertion that saying "he got his first taste of performing" is too informal. It is not slang, and I would guess it is a very old metaphor, since taste is central to human experience. Dictionary.com's definition #4 of the noun "taste" states: "a brief experience of something; "he got a taste of life on the wild side". This usage is perfectly acceptable AND it gets across the point that Murphy was doing the performing. Therefore, I have reverted your changes to this sentence, other than the "There". --Melty girl 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • from Murphy sang and played guitar. He has said the band "specialised to Murphy sang and played guitar in the band, which he described as "specialise[ing] because a) this not emphasizes that he sang and played in the band, and changed the bland "said" to "descrived"
  Done I have no idea what you're talking about in your explanation of your edit, because your writing here is so garbled, but I've looked at the edit in question. What you did was connect two sentences into one sentence, with no change in the meaning of either clause, and this combining is a perfectly fine idea. The problem is that you changed the verb (from "described" to "said") when you didn't need to, and this repeats the same wording of three sentences before. Also, you changed the tense from past perfect to past, and this required you to adjust the quotation with brackets and is a subtly inaccurate usage anyway. Therefore, I restored the original verb and the original tense, but kept the sentences combined. In summary, combining the sentences was a fine idea, but once again, your change created a problem where no real problem had existed in the first place. --Melty girl 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • from partly because Murphy's brother was still in secondary school, so their parents did not approve, and partly to partly due to the displeasure of their parents because Murphy's brother was still in secondary school, and partly because the original sounded very awkward to me
  Not done Once again, I think the original reads more clearly than your change. And the original reads perfectly fine and has no copyediting mistakes -- but even so, if your change truly tightened the phrasing, I would welcome it. But it doesn't -- it's a more confusing read, introducing a longer phase where two shorter, clearer ones had been. Reverted, until such time as a superior option is proposed. --Melty girl 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Your change didn't shorten this sentence (it simply flipped the phrases around), but since Erik felt it was awkward too, and his criticism was that it was too long, I broke the sentence in two. I think you'll find it improved now. --Melty girl 05:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the next paragraph, several sentences began with "Also", so I rewrote the transitions enough to vary those.
  Done There were only two incidences of "also", so only one needed removing to end the repetition. Your first edit, from "Also in 1996" to "That same year" is OK. But you removed BOTH "also"s, and one of them was crucial, because it was in a list of two sentences which gave exposition to another sentence. Here's the restored wording: "...but he failed his first year exams because, as he put it, he had "no ambitions to do it." Not only was he busy with his band, but he has admitted that he knew within days after starting at UCC that law was the wrong fit for his artistic personality. Also, after seeing Corcadorca's stage production of A Clockwork Orange, directed by Kiernan, acting had begun to pique his interest." This "Also," is needed for specifying that the third reason why he failed law school is about to be presented. AND using "Also" here is not a problem of repetition because you already eliminated the only other "also." Therefore, I reinserted it. --Melty girl 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change noted Erik disagreed with the change to That same year, and I agreed with him, so Also in 1996 was restored. To avoid the repetition of "also" that you didn't like, I then changed the second Also to Furthermore, which does the intended linking better. --Melty girl 05:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • from his primary motivation then was to party and meet women rather than to start an acting career to Murphy, his primary motivation was not to begin an acting career, but to party and meet women. because the latter version seemed to flow better.
  Not done Once again, your edit is not better, and there was no copyediting problem in the first place. Your change states a negative first -- "his primary motivation was not" -- and that is simply more awkward for a reader. The original phrase was fine and reads better. Reverted. --Melty girl 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like either the original or second version of this "began to transition away from working as a rock musician, about which he later ". "Transition away from" is redundant, anhd it doesn't flow well, but I agree that the new version isn't much better.
  Not done Why did you implement a change that you admit was poor? And what is the copyediting problem with the phrase "began to transition away from working as a rock musician" anyway? You don't specify, and I don't see a problem with it whatsoever. More troubling, your wording change alters the factual meaning of the sentence. The point is that he was working as a rock musician, but he began to spend time acting. Why water down the fact that he was a working musician to say that he had "musical interests"? There is no logic for such a change. And you also broke the sentence in two, even though the two ideas were directly related, with the opening phrase introducing the quote. Reverted. --Melty girl 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I think the article often uses too many words (often more informal words) to get its point across. The prose could definitely be tightened. Karanacs 21:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It pains and worries me to say this, but due to the off-the-mark edits that you've made to the article (you yourself admit that one of the edits is poor), due to the inaccurate grammatical assessments you've made in many of the examples above, and due to the numerous errors in your writing on this very page, I don't have complete confidence in your assessment that the article's prose has serious copyediting problems. You are, of course, welcome to your opinion (and your opposition), and certainly I am not infallible. I value the review process -- I've engaged each reviewer from B-class to GA to peer review to the article's current A-class status to this FA candidacy. Each step of the way, reviewers have helped improve the article in ways that I was not able to effect on my own. My record of collaborating with others is clear. But my allegiance is to the quality of the article, and your assessment seems at least partially off-the-mark. I do not know what you're referring to in this final paragraph, and I've seen that even while you made some valid points in this review (links, citations, etc.), your insights about the prose seem rather ill-informed. So, if you want to give me specific examples of where the prose is too "wordy" or too "informal", I certainly will discuss examples with you. But if you don't have any specifics to offer with this final pronouncement that the article needs tightening, I'm at a loss for where to make changes. I honestly think the writing in this article is commensurate with other actor FAs, and that the majority of the copyedits you've made thus far have been either wrong or so minor as to be unnecessary. Please support your argument with specifics. Thank you. --Melty girl 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I feel this meets all criteria to a high standard. It's well structured, has a very good flow, and covers all major points comprehensively but without delving into irrelevant detail. It's very well supported by quotes in relation to Murphy and his work, and is well sourced. Like all articles it should continue to evolve, especially in view of the fact that Murphy is a current performer, but I think it is already at the required standard, and compares well with other FA's for entertainers/performers/actors. Well done. Rossrs 11:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. --Melty girl 16:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, sourcing needs attention. About.com is not a reliable source; anyone can write for them, and there is no fact checking or editorial oversight. IMDb is not a reliable source, all websources need last accessdate. All sources should be verified for reliability. Pls see WP:MOSBOLD and fix throughout. I'm not convinced the prose is FA quality (concur with VanTucky about unencyclopedic phrases like "rave review" and don't know what a "near miss with the music industry" is or why it's in the lead), but the sources need attention first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You raise several issues, and I'll respond to them below, one by one. In several cases, I ask for clarification. Thanks. --Melty girl 23:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say, "All sources should be verified for WP:RS", your statement seems to target the entire article as unreliably sourced. I'm very familiar with WP:RS, and I have already worked for months on verifying all the sources for every single statement of fact in the article. I think the onus is on you to point to specific problems. If you see any other particular citations that you question (in addition to the specific things you did already mention), I'd be happy to respond. Otherwise, I must respond to the general suggestion that I verify all sources for reliability that I've already done that, and all that remains is to debate said reliability of specific publications with editors like you. OK, on to that very task...
  •   Done About.com was used for only one citation, and I've removed it.
  •   Done IMDb issue #1. I thought that IMDb is considered a reliable source for filmographies, and that is by far the primary thing I used it for here. (There is NO biographical information sourced to IMDb, unlike FA Eric Bana.) In contrast to my article, many other FA actor articles (i.e. Jake Gyllenhaal, Angelina Jolie, Eric Bana) don't offer ANY sources to verify which films the actors made. Do you mean to suggest that IMDb cannot even be used as filmography verification? And would you then suggest that I remove all citations for verifying filmography like the aforementioned FAs do? Or do you mean to say that I must find an individual magazine article or movie sales site to verify every film that Murphy has made? And what alternate source would you allow as reliable for information such as whether a film was English/Irish language, etc.? Please advise as to what your intention is here regarding sourcing for which movies Murphy made. You confirmed below that IMDb is acceptable for filmography references.
  • IMDb issue #2. One IMDb citation is for the soundtrack listing for the indie film Disco Pigs, because the soundtrack itself was not released. This citation was used to verify the fact that Murphy composed and performed a track for the film. If IMDb must be eliminated as you assert, I will likely have to cite the film itself as the source. The closing credits list it with all the other music, and the film is a published piece of media that can be viewed by people the world over for verification. But I thought it preferable to list an online resource where one existed, so I used IMDb. Would you hold the film itself preferable to this IMDb page as a source?
Follow-up question Now that you have confirmed that IMDb as acceptable for filmography, the question remains: do you consider this one citation to be filmography-related and thus reliable?
  •   Done IMDb issue #3. In one case, I used IMDb for box office information. What alternative source would you find acceptably reliable? JayHenry replaced this one instance with Variety.
  •   Done IMDb issue #4. The last thing I used IMDb for: awards references where I could not find an alternative. Do you feel that IMDb is too unreliable to use as a source for awards information? Again, I must point out that other FAs do not offer any sources whatsoever for awards information, and this article is therefore more carefully sourced. Please advise. All IMDb awards citations have been replaced.
  •   Done You say that all sources need last access dates. Well, the only references to web pages in this article that don't give access dates are to extremely stable reference sites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, where the pages have been where they are for years and will be there for years. To me, it seemed unnecessarily long and not particularly helpful to provide the access dates in these cases, and WP:CITE does not say that access dates are required. Can you please point me to the Wikipedia policy that requires last access dates for all web citations? If it must be done, I can certainly add them, but I'm not yet convinced that it's helpful or necessary in all cases. I still don't interpret WP:CITE as requiring web access dates, but it was easier to just add them for all web sources, so I did.
  • Continued below You say, "Pls see WP:MOSBOLD and fix throughout." I am familiar with these rules, and do not know what problems you refer to; no other editors who've participated in the many reviews this article has had has caught any mistakes regarding these very fundamental style rules. So would you kindly be more specific as to what style violations you see? I'd be happy to fix whatever we've all missed.
  •   Done Prose issues. You say you agree with VanTucky on this, but I must point out that in one case, he misquoted the article, and that his other issues have been addressed already. OK, back to your specific concerns. You mentioned two phrases you found problematic. In the first case, I changed "rave review" to "review." On to the more complicated instance of "After a near miss with the music industry...". You question why it's in the lead, but I think it should be clear why, as per WP:LEAD, if you read the section "Early life and music," which details his work as a rock musician. As for the phrasing, I have reduced it to more simple language: "After turning down a record deal..." OK, that covers your specific concerns with the prose; I'd appreciate your bringing any others to my attention.
  • I would not say you had addressed my issues, you simply attacked them. So what if I said "notable for" instead of what is exactly in the text? The point is: mentioning his baby blues in the first sentence is the kind of informal language and information that stinks of a fan site. The FA-class Eric Bana article is good example of what you should and should not be including. That bio sticks to his career and accomplishments in a serious way, rather than reading as a star-struck adoration. VanTucky Talk 23:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really saying that you should be exempt from reading the text accurately when you oppose it? Misquoting the article as the basis for opposition leaves you open for criticism, as does saying two things weren't inline cited when they were. I did not "simply attack" you; I took the time to clearly elucidate a complex response, which both incorporated some of your suggestions with many time-consuming edits to the article, and outlined reasons for where I disagreed with you. Yet for weeks you neglected to return to finish the review process you started, and now you still haven't engaged with my response to your review. Your assertion now that I simply attacked you seems like a violation of WP:FAITH, and is belied by what I took the time to carefully write above. It would have honored the process if you had engaged in the discussion that I attempted to have with you weeks ago with my above Paul Newman's eyes example. Instead, you finally return to accuse me of attacking you. Everything I wrote included supporting reasons based in the text, whether you agreed with my perspective or not. My stating that I disagree with you and my attempt to point out errors on your part, does not constitute an attack -- and what about where I made changes to the article based on your comments? I did engage with your ideas and I did address some of them by making changes, but you are ignoring those facts here.
Of what you say here about the eyes phrase... you are welcome to assert that mentioning his eyes in the first sentence (it's the second, BTW) is informal language. But I am free to point out that the article does not state, "Cillian Murphy is notable for his gorgeous baby blues," which would be POV and informal. It says, in perfectly formal language and with ample verification, "He is often noted by critics for chameleonic performances in diverse roles, as well as his distinctive blue eyes." You are welcome to say that this reads as star-struck; I stick by my belief that those editors who believe that any language to do with physical attributes of performers must be stricken from an article, no matter how it is written, are in denial of how the entertainment industry works in the real world or how performers use their bodies in their art, and thus do Wikipedia a disservice. It is a classic failing of Wikipedia that an article on Britney Spears can't even engage with the fact that her career is built on her perceived sex appeal -- this whole huge, verifiable social reality is ignored, and WP is not the better for it. And in the case of this article, critics' years of focusing on Cillian Murphy's eyes is mentioned in the lead because it's what he's known for (WP:MOSBIO) and his eyes are mentioned throughout the article (WP:LEAD) in quotes from The New Yorker on down. Are David Denby and Manohla Dargis fansite-ish to write about how Murphy's eyes figure in his work, work in which his body is his instrument? Why is it "informal" to acknowledge the reality that almost every single article about the actor dwells on his eyes, if not states outright that he is famous for them? Why should this encyclopedia omit one of the things that the actor is best known for? Because many editors have a kneejerk response against acknowledging the role of looks in acting and fame? --Melty girl 00:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back for second look; I typed five sentences, and now there's about ten times that amount. No, IMDb is not a reliable source for things like box office figures; it can be used to cite filmography. It's not clear to me that Mania.com is a reliable source either (hard to get through all the ads); more info on reliable sources can be found at WP:V#Sources. (Do you really want to use something like this as a source?) Regarding WP:MOSBOLD, the article has entire lines about awards won bolded. I can't find any guidelines that contradict WP:MOSBOLD, although Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers does suggest bolding the word Won (I'm not sure that's a style guideline, though). They also, suggest, however, a format for filmography which isn't used here. Do you see the example at the bottom of WP:CITE with accessdates? Why would you leave off accessdates of cites with changing information like IMDb? There is some overlinking of words commonly known to most English speakers, for example hero; pls review throughout per WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT. (I'll be traveling until next Tuesday, so won't be able to check back until then.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many of your previous concerns have now been addressed, as noted above. There is also a pending clarifying question above. I've responded to your new comments below. --Melty girl 07:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Done About your two new reliability issues... JayHenry provided an alternative citation for Mania.com, so I removed the Mania.com citation. Like Playboy, SuicideGirls.com does credible interviews; but anyway, JayHenry provided an alternative for that one citation, so that's resolved too.
  • See below for conclusion I believe your reading of WP:MOSBOLD is incorrect in regard to the awards list showing wins in bold. The first two paragraphs of the policy cover prose and headings, neither of which applies here, since this is clearly a list. The final paragraph of the policy offers exceptions to the rule against using bold for emphasis, and one of the three exceptions is for definition lists. I would submit that because this is a list, not prose, this latter rule is more appropriate to apply in this case, meaning that my use of bold is just fine. The same awards list format is in use elsewhere, most notably in the FA Diane Keaton, and I simply don't think it violates WP:MOSBOLD. I would appreciate it if you would please read the policy again and then respond to the argument I've made here about list formats (please don't dismiss this without giving a reason). (Additionally, I want to note that there is no set awards format or suggested format from the WikiProject, and that a significant number of the subgroup of actor/filmmaker FAs with awards sections use different list and table formats. See Diane Keaton, Abbas Kiarostami, Satyajit Ray, Bette Davis, Angelina Jolie, Henry Fonda, Miranda Otto.)
  • I am aware of my WikiProject's suggested filmography table format. Actually, back on August 4th, I attempted to initiate discussion about this on the WikiProject's talk page:

The project page now suggests that Filmography lists should be in tables. I just want to register my dissent. I feel that tables take up a lot of space on the page; lists are more compact. Additionally, not all actors appear only in films. Some appear in features, shorts, videos, TV shows and plays. Putting all of that in one table is rather unwieldy; I prefer separate, more compact lists in one Stage and Screen Roles section. I'm all for working toward consensus on a list format, but I'm not pro-table in all cases. Anyone with me?

(Unfortunately, no one responded.) I feel strongly that it's more reader-friendly to separate Murphy's many shorts from his feature film work in two compact lists rather than to put them all in a big table together. And as you noted, the WikiProject's suggestion is not really an official style guideline anyway.
  •   Done As noted above, all web sources now have access dates.
  •   Done I removed the wikilinks on "hero," "villain," and many, many other such words. (If you feel I have missed any stragglers, it would be great if you'd simply remove them, since that kind of minor edit would probably would take less time to do than returning here to ask me to do it. Thanks.)
  • New comment I'm still traveling and won't be able to thoroughly review for a few more days. From subsequent comments here, it sounds like you've gotten most of it (thanks JayHenry and Ceoil!). It's unfortunate that no Project has dealt with how to present awards lists, but no, I don't agree with your interpretation of WP:MOSBOLD. This is the example they give of a list; you are using bolding not as a list but for emphasis, to highlight an entire line (rather than enumerating points in a list), which looks chunky and unprofessional. If you used the recommendation per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, and highlighted only the word "Won", it wouldn't look quite as unprofessional. Bold fonts for emphasis are usually ugly, and emphasis is usually provided by WP:ITALICS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done I see it as a list format, with wins in bold -- and I didn't invent the list format. I took the format from other articles, including the FA Diane Keaton, among others. But it's not important enough to be a stumbling block to FA, so I've changed it.

Oppose - I'm going to have to Echo Vantucky here. The addition of the sentence that he is "noted by critics for his distinctive blue eyes" isn't encyclopedic language. Firstly, I don't see anything notable about his blue eyes. Why is he notable for his blue eyes? What makes them notable? What makes them "distinctive"? This is very odd phrasing. The Eric Bana article doesn't say that he's "notable for his distinctive brown eyes" does it? I'm sure I could find a few reviews of Bana's mentioning his brown eyes. The article could for instance mention that specific people SAY that he is noted for his "distinctive blue eyes", quoting them directly, but otherwise it won't work. There are other major problems with the article but at this point that needs to be fixed before anything else, then perhaps we could discuss the other aspects of the article. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude, but it seems like you read VanTucky's criticism, not the article, when you say, "The article could for instance mention that specific people SAY that he is noted for his "distinctive blue eyes", quoting them directly, but otherwise it won't work." Well, shall I count all these quotes in the article for you? Here they are: director Christopher Nolan says his eyes are "extraordinary" and that they affected how he shot Batman Begins. New York Times critic Manohla Dargis talks about how his ice-cold "baby blues" help make him a "picture perfect villain." New Yorker critic David Denby says that he has "attained his mystique as an actor by staring at people with baby-blue eyes." Scotland on Sunday says he has a "doe-eyed sensitivity." And I could add so many more quotes to the article -- if it would help, I could write a paragraph about the trend, citing 20+ articles AND give his reaction from when he's been asked how he feels about the press talking about his eyes so much. I thought that that would be overkill though -- I think enough quotes are already there, though somehow you missed them. Please read the article more thoroughly. And read the titles of the articles about him in the References section and you'll see the eyes trend there too.
Despite this oversight, I will take a stab at answering the questions you raise:
  1. "Why is he notable for his blue eyes?" The article doesn't say he is "notable" for his blue eyes -- please refer to the article, not VanTucky's misquote. The lead section actually says (emphasis mine), "He is often noted by critics for ... his distinctive blue eyes." In other words, the sentence reports the fact that the press is constantly writing about the actor's eyes. The article goes on to discuss how he has been noted for both their general appearance and how he uses them as an actor. So, "why" say in the lead that the press constantly says this about him (to rephase your question in a way that's accurate to the text)? Because it is something significant that he is well-known for (WP:MOSBIO).
  2. "What makes them [his eyes] notable?" Again, the article does not say that his eyes are notable. It asserts that critics often talk about his eyes, and that this is one of the attributes he is most well-known for. It does not say that people should note his eyes, and it does not say that his eyes are beautiful. It says that critics often discuss his unusual blue eyes, and documents that as a verifiable trend. He is an actor, and eyes are something that actors use in their craft; additionally, lead actors are often famous for their physical attributes.
  3. "What makes them 'distinctive'?" Now this is the closest thing I've seen to someone concerned about this issue actually grappling with the language as it's written. Why use the word "distinctive"? While I firmly believe that the critics' (and a director's) focus on his eyes merits mention as per WP:MOSBIO and to accurately summarize the content of the article as per WP:LEAD, I'm not 100% sure "distinctive" is the best adjective to get the idea across. I do like it though, I must say. I think something along the lines of "unusual" is called for. The phrase needs to get across what the subject of the sentence -- the critics -- keep saying about his eyes. They usually say things like "unusual," "big," "enormous," "startling," "scary," "intense", etc. I feel "distinctive" or "unusual" are less POV than the other options, and get the idea across that there's something out-of-the-ordinary that the critics feel is worth mentioning so often. I suppose the simplest way to say it would be to remove all adjectives and merely say "He is often noted by critics for ... his eyes," but I think that would be a little strange. The point is if you do any reading about him, you will find this theme that his eyes something big he's known for.
  4. Why doesn't Eric Bana's lead mention his brown eyes? That's really besides the point. More to the point, is Paul Newman often noted by the press for his blue eyes and how they affected his performances? Yes. Was Frank Sinatra often noted for his blue eyes? Yes. Was Ann Miller often noted for her long legs and how she prominently showcased them when dancing? Yes. The woman was best known for her legs, and that's something that should be included in an encyclopedia, even though it's about her body. It's not POV, it's a verifiable thing, and speaks to her place in film history, whether you like her legs or not. Do most film writers discuss Cillian Murphy's eyes? Yes. Is it something that the press refers to him as being famous for? Yes. Does the article in question mention how his eyes figure in his performances and how he was cast? Yes, many times, and could do so more if necessary. Is it appropriate to discuss what a performer is best known for, even if it relates to physical attributes? I would say, yes, depending on how it is written. I think that in this case of this article's lead, it is clear who is doing the noting: the press is doing the noting, not the voice of the encyclopedia. And that's the crucial distinction. --Melty girl 04:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence in question states "He is often noted by critics for chameleonic performances in diverse roles,[2][3] as well as his distinctive blue eyes.[4][5]" This phrasing makes it seem like his blue eyes ARE distinctive. Where did the term "distinctive blue eyes" even come from? It's not in either one of the sources cited and is thus also Original research. If you can find a specific person who uses the wording "distinctive blue eyes" then you could quote them directly and attribute it to them, otherwise not only do I see no need for the phrasing "distinctive blue eyes", I also see no relevancy to it. What % of the critics mention his eye color? Is he actually "often" noted for his eyes? How Often? This also seems to be a weasel word as it's far too vague. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forgot to mention that I edited the sentence as per your criticism above. It now reads, "He is often noted by critics for chameleonic performances in diverse roles, as well as for his distinctive blue eyes."
Wow. You don't even address the fact that you said above that no one in the article remarks on his eyes, and then I pointed you toward all the cited examples that are right there in the article, but you still maintain it's original research! What more can I do, if reading the article to you doesn't show you it's not original research to say that critics often discuss his eyes? The exact phrase "Distinctive blue eyes" need not be quoted directly; it's a paraphrase or summing up of what critics and directors have noted about the actor, just as so many other phrases in articles are. If there are 20 feature stories that discuss the unusual quality of his eyes, do they all need to use the exact phrase "distinctive blue eyes" to support the supposition? NO! As far as percentage of critics that mention his eye color, I'll tell you that it's very high, as evidenced right in the quotes I used and the referenced articles, but at this point, I doubt you'll accept the evidence that's right there. I can't believe that I spent so much the time writing what I wrote to you above, and you still ask me "Is he actually 'often' noted for his eyes?" That's what I've been saying and demonstrating! I could put in twenty citations for it, but I get asked to remove them when I provide more. If you actually read this entire FAC page and view the history of the article, you'll see that at one point I put in seven citations for this. All I can do at this point is repeat myself that you should read the article carefully and read the material in the References section. What else can I do except continue to point to what's there on the page and in the sources? It's one thing to discuss what the language should be; it's quite another to say that sourced material is original research. Wow. I'd put a full list of cited quotes on his eyes here, but I don't know if its presence would even be acknowledged. --Melty girl 04:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. If you're going to use terms such as "distinctive" to refer to a bodypart then you probably need to quote it directly. Otherwise get rid of the word "distinctive" and just say "blue eyes". 2. The word "often" itself is vague and is considered a Weasel word for that. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, with all due respect to everyone involved, I think we're being a bit unfair to Melty Girl. Mentioning Cillian Murphy's blue eyes is about as controversial as mentioning the yellowness of bananas. You would harshly criticize somebody for not doing their homework on something that's not a pop-culture topic, and yet I don't think you're doing your homework here. Melty Girl is right, he's really well known for those blue eyes, they are incredibly and obviously distinctive, and more importantly, many of her sources support the claim. There's absolutely no good reason that this be stricken from the lead. It is, indeed, his most distinctive physical characteristic; removing the mention would be akin to removing mention of Charlie Chaplin's moustache. I ask people to kindly show a little bit of deference to the editor who has done the research. Especially since, in this case, she's quite right. --JayHenry 04:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not advocating striking it from the lead, only putting it in proper context without weasel words. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would you rewrite it? I see no problem with the word "distinctive" and if they weren't distinctive there would be no need to mention them at all. In any case Meltygirl has linked to 2 sources in regards to the eyes. Also, taking into account that the lead is meant to be a summary of the article, within the article director Christopher Nolan is quoted as saying his eyes are "extraordinary" and that he looked for opportunities to film them in close-up. Also have a look at the references. There are articles used with titles "Cillian Murphy more to offer than pale blue eyes" and "The steely blue-eyed charm of Cillian Murphy". His eyes are definitely discussed as being something notable. "Often" could perhaps be dropped. It is kind of weaselish depending on how it's used, and in a lot of articles it's used unsupported. In this case it is supported, but it isn't vital that it be retained. It seems to me that too much is being made of two words that are used with reasonable justification. If it was rewritten without the "often", would that be satisfactory? Rossrs 21:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the weasel words, and the fact that "distinctive" isn't mentioned once in any of those sources. If the "Often" is removed then it says that he is noted by critics for his distinctive blue eyes? What critics? How many of them? I would get rid of the word "distinctive" and rephrase the sentence to perhaps at least partially quote someone discussing his eyes. I would also move the sentence mentioning his eyes to perhaps the second paragraph. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word "distinctive" doesn't need to be used specifically by any of the critics etc, because as a word it paraphrases/summarises the fact that his eyes are often discussed or mentioned. "Distinctive" is a generic word. The very fact that his eyes get mentioned at all is because they are distinctive/notable/unusual/uncommon etc. If they weren't distinctive they wouldn't be mentioned. Also WP:LEAD is intended to summarize points contained in the article, so to get into more than a general reference to his eyes in the lead would be inappropriate. To quote anyone in the lead in regards to his eyes, would be horrendously POV in my opinion, because of all the critics or commentators who have mentioned his eyes in one way or another, how can we choose one phrase or quote as definitive? There are two compelling quotes in the article to support the mention of the eyes in the lead - one linking it to his "mystique" and the other describing them as "extraordinary". Surely "distinctive" is a suitable way to paraphrase. Rossrs 12:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update Following this discussion, JayHenry kindly documented the overwhelming nature of the press's focus on Murphy's eyes at the article's talk page. He used Nexis and turned up 128 reliable press mentions focusing on Murphy's eyes and offered 50 specific quotations. The evidence is overwhelming, and another editor chimed in there to agree with leaving the eyes mention in. Wikidudeman, are you now willing to let go of your suggestion that this isn't either sourced or significant? --Melty girl 06:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This satisfies the FA criteria. The objection about the eyes is patently unreasonable. Quibbling over such a minor detail is exactly the sort of thing that makes so few editors want to participate at FAC. The statement is attributed to The New Yorker, not some fan site, The New Yorker. I'm sorry, but when The New Yorker says that an actor has attained his mystique by staring at people with his baby-blue eyes, then it's perfectly reasonable to paraphrase that as distinctive. --JayHenry 01:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, but even more so for your reasonable attitude and acknowledgment of the sourced material and for restoring a bit of my faith in the community. Whatever the outcome, I'm enormously grateful for your recognizing that I have done my homework where this subject is concerned, amidst a rather disheartening and often unproductive (for the article) process. --Melty girl 17:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this nomination has been productive, even if you didn't hear what you wanted to hear, I think that this information provided could be properly used to improve the article, Even if you disagree with it. It's important to remember that some of the editors that you are arguing so harshly against have a lot of experience with Featured Articles, including myself. I think that simply dismissing our input simply because you disagree with it would only hurt the article, not help it. As Sandy has mentioned above, There are issues with Reliable sources, As I and Vantucky have mentioned, there are issues of Tone and Weasel words. There also seem to be issues with citations not matching the statements that they are being cited for. The article is clearly GA criteria, but I think that these things need to be improved before it can be Featured Article material. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about the process often being productive -- I was frustrated when I wrote that. Much of this process has been productive, even as it's been frustrating. I'm not looking for people to agree with me on everything -- I'm looking for people to engage with the article as written and engage with what I've actually said here. But surely you can understand my frustration with people who misquote the article, who say there are no citations when there are, who say that the article needs "serious copyediting" without being able to produce valid examples, or who say I'm attacking them when I've actually taken action at their prompting but also dared to disagree with them. It was very frustrating to be told by you that the article has "major problems" but have none of them specified, because there's no action I can take on that and no discussion that I can have with you about that. That feels unproductive. I must commend you for sticking around after making criticisms, but it was frustrating when I responded to your comments in detail but didn't receive the same courtesy from you. Perhaps it was just a misunderstanding, but when I recopied out all my sources to point them out for you, and you still said that the eyes phrase was original research, I felt at a complete loss. I have no idea why you are saying that; when critic David Denby says (to cite but one example) that Cillian Murphy has attained his mystique as an actor via his baby blue eyes, how is that not a valid source for saying that critics remark on his eyes? It is also extremely frustrating to dither over ONE phrase and have that be extrapolated into the whole article supposedly having a tone problem -- but how come no other examples of a tone problem have been cited on this page? (OK, there was one other specific -- I had referred to an 8 out of 10 star film review as a "rave review"; it seemed like an accurate characterization to me, but I deleted it nonetheless.) If you could cite multiple examples of a tone problem, then maybe it would feel reasonable that the whole article was painted with this brush -- but you have only mentioned ONE phrase, and the same goes for the other editor you cite. So that seems out-of-proportion and feels unproductive -- and sorry, but you can't use reviewers' "experience" to justify cavalier exaggeration, oppose-and-run reviewing, or nonspecific criticism that's unactionable. You guys are not senior editors. --Melty girl 02:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't have time to argue about this so I'm just going to Support it's nomination. I still think that the odd paraphrasing and weasel words need to go though and other improvments made, but I'll support the FA nomination. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support and for working through this process. --Melty girl 07:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Read this during the week, and though the phrase "distinctive blue eyes" would usually bother me, and though I'm a straight male, it's worth mentioning in the the second sentence of this article. Well done. Ceoil 09:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Melty girl 17:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A few suggestions (from Erik):
  • In the lead section, change "hero" to "protagonist", as his character was not a hero in the conventional sense
Actually, I think a character who comes to the rescue of two female characters to save the day in the final act of a movie is absolutely a hero "in the conventional sense". Also, I'm using "hero" to contrast directly with "villain" in the next sentence. I don't think this should be changed. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Can "2007 saw..." be rephrased? It seems too personified for an encyclopedia.
I was trying to use variation in the prose so it's not a boring read. It's formal language. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • In "Early life and music", can his birth date be placed in the first sentence for the sake of completeness?
WP:MOSBIO says birthdate goes in the lead sentence, and I don't think it is appropriate or necessary to repeat his birthdate twice in the article. None of the FA bios that I've looked at do this -- they all use the same format I've used here. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • "Not only are his parents educators, but his aunts and uncles are also teachers, as was his grandfather." This seems like an awkwardly-written sentence -- is it necessary at all? Did education running in the family do anything for Murphy? I can understand the musicianship influence later.
The point is that he veered from the family path. Should that point be stated more explicitly? About the sentence's structure, it is grammatically proper and is comprised of three clear short phrases. It is not brilliant writing (to quote the FA criteria) to make every sentence structured exactly the same way. Variation in the phrasing, even when correct, seems to trigger you. I'm a firm believer that WP writing can be as interesting as magazine writing while still upholding the standards of an enyclopedia. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • "There, Murphy got his first taste of performing..." This use of slang may not be clear to the entire readership; I suggest more specific and neutral wording.
This is NOT slang or non-neutral. It is one of the definitions of "taste" in the dictionary, and is an old usage -- please see the above discussion about this. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • "They did not sign the contract, partly because Murphy's brother was still in secondary school, so their parents did not approve, and partly because the contract offered little money and would have ceded the rights to Murphy's compositions to the record label." This is a run-on sentence. Can you break it up into two or three sentences for easier reading?
  Done Grammatically, this is NOT a run-on sentence -- it is simply a LONG, grammatically correct sentence. I have, however, broken it in two, since you are not the only one to feel it is too long. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • "That same year" -- since it's a new paragraph, you may want to repeat the year (which I assume is 1996) to re-establish context
  Done That's what it used to read until a reviewer above changed it! And I had it that way for the very reason you state. I've changed it back. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • "Also, after seeing Corcadorca's stage production..." Remove "Also", the sentence is fine without it.
  Done Actually, the reader needs to know that they're about to hear another reason why he failed law school. I've changed it to "Furthermore". See above discussion for full explanation. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • "Murphy hounded Pat Kiernan..." More slang which may not be clear to all; can alternative phrasing be pursued?
This is not slang. The verb "hound" means to pursue: "to hunt or track with hounds, or as a hound does; pursue." WP does not need to be dumbed down. This is a very concise way to express the idea, and is perfectly correct. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • "...his first agent caught a performance..." Replace slang with clearer phrasing.
This is not slang either. Catch is a word with many formal definitions, among them "to see or attend: to catch a show." (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • "...his acting career began to take off." See above.
This is not slang. It is concise and correct. If you can propose an alternative that is not unnecessarily long and belabored, please do, but this phrase is correct and highly familiar to use regarding entertainment careers. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • "Murphy's onscreen performance as "Pig"..." You may want to mention Disco Pigs again, as it is a paragraph after its last mention with a whole paragraph in between discussing other aspects of his career.
  Done (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • I would suggest not citing IMDb for the awards -- just find separate citations for Best Newcomer and Best Male Breakthrough Performance.
  Done All IMDb awards citations have been replaced. (Unluckily, that meant losing one of his wins, because the page for that year was faulty on the film festival's web site!) (Melty girl 00:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • "In late 2005 (early 2006 in Europe)..." Is the statement in parentheses necessary?
The idea is to not be American-centric, particularly since this is an international topic, and most of the world didn't get the film until 2006. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • "...and won the Irish Film and Television Academy Best Actor Award." Can you make this a separate sentence?
The new sentence would be a bit stubby. It's correct as it is. The sentence is about awards for a role, and states, "He was nominated for X and won X." Not sure why it is a must to break up the idea. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  Done I took out the parenthetical clause that preceded the clause you mentioned (it was about Joaquin Phoenix's Globe win). Now the sentence is shorter, and my guess is that you'll like it better. (Melty girl 04:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • "In 2006 (2007 in North America)..." Again, is the statement in parentheses necessary?
Same reasoning. The movie came out a full year later in North America. Why not speak globally? (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • The section "New roles and the future" does not seem very static-sounding -- by 2010, the content will have to be shifted. Can the section heading(s) be re-adjusted to be more "timeless"?
Actually, the section will be needed until Murphy retires, which may not happen for 30-50 years, so that's pretty static in terms of the section's title. As for shifting content, that's a given. For example, right now, he's shooting Hippie Hippie Shake, but in 2010, that movie will be a known quantity, and thus will have to be written about differently, and new films will shift it up the page. This kind of shifting content is a given for any encyclopedia that includes living persons. By 2010, the lead paragraph itself may have changed, because he might be known best for some big role from 2009 -- and that's just fine. Because the works in the "New roles" section are mostly unseen and not much written about yet, there isn't a better title for the section; the overriding theme about the work in this section is its newness. In one to two years, there will probably be an additional section above the "New roles" section, but the section itself will be needed so long as he is a working artist. Therefore, I think the section is entirely appropriate. The section's content cannot be static until Murphy stops working, but the title certainly can. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • "...and Liam Neeson, and looks up to the latter..." Re-word to say, "...and Liam Neeson, looking up to the latter..." so the "and" doesn't have to be used.
  Done (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • I feel that the "Awards and nominations" section may be too long and have too much undue weight. There's an overabundance of nominations that did not pan out, considering he's only won four out of 23 listed nominations. Can this be trimmed down at all?
  Done I have trimmed it down again. The list is now one-third shorter than it was this FAC began, and the last two subsections have been combined. I am loathe to trim it any further, because nominations are meaningful to careers, and this encyclopedia should be encyclopedic -- if we reduce any further, IMDb and fansites will offer overwhelmingly more info than WP. (Melty girl 00:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Let me know if there's any issues with any of my suggestions! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS! --Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support due to suggestions above being addressed -- I understand the reasons for suggestions not implemented. Otherwise, this article is well-referenced, well-cited, and comprehensive. I am happy to give it my support, and I hope that it can continue improving in the course of Murphy's career! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing such a careful read of the article and offering so many suggestions. And thanks for your support. --Melty girl 22:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and a heroic turn as a 1920s Irish revolutionary" - I understand that you've already addressed this, and that it refers to his turn as a heroic character; however, at first glance it seems to read as comment on the brilliance of his performance. Addition: actually, having read a summary of that film's plot, it is unclear what is meant here. Does it refer to the quality of his performance? Because if it doesn't, that may violate WP:NPOV for some.
  • In the lead, instead of "London stage", I suggest delinking London (placing elsewhere), and wikilinking the entire phrase to West End theatre (the play was at the Ambassadors in the West End).
  • Section title, New roles and the future - suggest rename to Recent roles and the future as it discusses projects which are perhaps not quite recent enough to be classified as "new" and adds slight future-proofing to the content.
  • "In April 2007 (mid-summer in North America), he starred as a physicist-astronaut charged with reigniting the sun in the 2007 sci-fi movie Sunshine." - suggest rewording; at first glance, it's not clear that it's meant that the film was released in April elsewhere, then the US in June. Also suggest removing duplicate "2007" from the end of that sentence.
  • Jane - suggest full link to Jane magazine to combat potential confusion. I'm in two minds whether the quoted comment from Murphy (saying he'd most like to "make out with" Maggie Gyllenhaal) is too much of a triviality for inclusion, but hey, who wants every article to be dry and lifeless?!
Hope these help. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate

edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a well-written article about a very well-documented rivalry in college football. It has already passed the GA standards and I think it lives up to FA. Saget53 19:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have all of the "To do lists" on the talk page been completed yet? Wikidudeman (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a primary editor of this article, I added those. At the moment, the todo list consists of online articles I found that were somewhat related to the subject, and generic suggestions to expand the article (added March 12, 2007). Since I added those suggestions the entire article has seen significant expansion (diff). As to whether or not the article needs more expansion... well, it wouldn't hurt it; however, most of the literature on the topic (and therefore, most of the rivalry) is focused around the sport of (American) football. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I make this !vote without prejudice as I recognize the potential that this article has to be quickly improved to FA quality. Overall, this article is pretty stable, thorough and well-sourced, however I see several really big things wrong with this article that are holding it back from my full support. They're completely fixable, however, and I'm willing to help out if I get the chance, to fix these and other, much smaller, pickier problems that probably exist but I didn't pick up on in my quick look at the article.
    1. The lead needs to be expanded. I think three paragraphs is the generally-accepted length for FA-quality articles.
    2. The lead states: "The two schools, in essence, are not only competing in athletics but are also competing for government and private funding, potential students, and amongst other things academic recognition in the State of Georgia and the United States," however, this is not really expanded upon in the article. Anything mentioned in the lead needs to be mentioned again and discussed in more detail in the main body of the article. Once this is done, the citation that is currently in the lead can be moved to that portion in the body, as citations are generally not needed in the leads of well-developed articles.
    3. The lead also states: "The academic and geographic divergence of the two institutions polarizes the state of Georgia into two fairly large fan bases." While the article discusses in depth the rivalry as is pertains to the schools themselves and the students/alumni of those schools, the lead is the only place that mentions the polarization of the general public, particularly among those who never went to the schools or have family members associated with the schools. Again, the lead should never mention anything that isn't discussed later in the article. I would suggest removing it entirely, but the general public interest aspect of the rivalry is somewhat important to the subject as a whole.
    4. The first two paragraphs of the History section are choppy and kind of confusing. The second paragraph doesn't coherently flesh out the thing with the colors. Was it a coincidence that a Tech student vote selected old gold as a school color, or was it a response to the comment by Herty? It also isn't made completely clear that old gold was removed as an official UGA color in response to its use by Tech as a proverbial middle finger (it's implied, and anyone familiar with the rivalry would know this to be the case, but it's not really clear).
    5. There are a few claims/statements made throughout the article that don't have attached citations. The ones I immediately caught were:
      • The first paragraph in Traditions has no citations at all.
      • Also in Traditions: "Many fans of the respective institutions refuse to even partake in clothing, food, or other materials of their rival's school colors. Examples include Georgia fans refusing to eat mustard or Georgia Tech fans refusing to use red pens."
      • Many statistics in Sports go uncited including the football and basketball records, the statistics about the basketball games at the Omni versus the home court advantage statistics, as well as some historical notes made throughout.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Mumia Abu-Jamal

edit

previous FAC

The criticisms from the second FAC have been taken on board and suggested improvements implemented to the extent that this is presented again for candidacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BiasThug (talk • contribs) 11:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user who nominated this has now been blocked indefinitely. Oppose per WP:SNOWBALL. Karanacs 15:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It actually looks fairly well-written. --Hemlock Martinis 07:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, and I'd agree. On that basis does it mean you're in favour of granting FA status to it, then?IchiNiSan 09:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree that edits made by sockpuppeteers through multiple accounts should not be recognised? Setting up an enormous number of sockpuppets is not the way to go about evading blocks.
If I was a tedious prick who delighted to act the schoolmaster, I might. But that would be in another life, however. :-D—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.230.26.43 (talk • contribs)
You are supposed to demonstrate a willingness to reform and adhere to policies and guidelines. Simply returning to the same pages and inserting the same material without an admission of guilt or remorse, and persisting in showing the same pattern of behaviour, will not win you any friends. If your other disguise(s) is (are) not blocked, then you need to contribute responsibly and contribute to discussions sensibly and civilly for a long while to regain the trust of the community. DrKiernan 12:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What did you get your doctorate in? Talking down to people??—Preceding unsigned comment added by IchiNiSan (talk • contribs)
Looking at the sock's contributions, it's DavidYork71 for sure. During previous DY71 sock infestations, standard practise has been to revert all activities - this page should be shut down. If an established and reputable editor wants to renominate, they should go for it. --Merbabu 10:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hidden comments

Three suggestions for improvement:

  1. Criterion 2b: stubby sections should be amalgamated.
    •   Done I wouldn't say that stacked up, as we see as many and even more short or even 'stubby' (sub)sections in, for example, Truthiness - which happens to be the mainpage feature article for tomorrow. As a measure of appeasement I have amalgamated the majority of subsections under 'Life as a prisoner'. The smallest subsection in the article is now the one titled 'Controversion of prosecution witnesses', which comes immediately after 'Prosecution witnesses at trial' in the lengthy Arrest&Trial section. IchiNiSan 23:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Criterion 3: three images (map, chair, panther) missing source information; copyright of the mural.
    • The MAP has been 'released into the public domain by the copyright holder' and has since been linked to by 23 other articles/templates on WP. The PANTHER logo has a detailed fair use rationale also making the compelling point that it belonged to an organisation defunct since the 1970s and therefore a copyright owner wouldn't be surviving or identifiable as well as there being no value in the logo to protect any more. The CHAIR is a 'public domain US Government work'. All this can be seen on the description page for each image. So I'd be striking the querying of images through as a non-issue.IchiNiSan 17:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the map has been 'released into the public domain by the copyright holder', then who is the copyright holder? We are not told. Some images from 1887 are still in copyright (unpublished corporate authorship copyright term=120 years from date of creation), so an image from 1970 could easily still be copyrighted. The chair is not proven to be 'public domain US Government work', as I said: no source is given, so how can we know?
    •   Not done Which three are you referring to? I see fair use rationales have been employed on image description pages where use/copyright issues were raised at the time of the GA review. GA was subsequently passed. Re photographs of public murals: precedent for their informational placement in Wikipedia can be seen, for example, at Northern Irish murals or by the great many available on Wikimedia Commons - simply too many of them to be proposing that the Bristol Mumia Abu-Jamal mural image is one that presents as a novel case or an exception to the general tolerance of their use across a number of WP articles.IchiNiSan 23:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of those articles are FA, whereas an NI article that is an FA does not use murals for the very reason I have outlined.[14] DrKiernan 09:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •   Done All four named images now suppressed from display.
  1. Criterion 4 and 1c: trim the external links by removing sites duplicated in the notes and references.
  •   Done Trimmed of duplications down to a bare handful of five. I have left danielfaulkner.com notwithstanding quite a few existing references are to the fact summary and trial transcripts found there.IchiNiSan 23:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My oppose remains even with the three points addressed. It is up to the FA director to determine whether my oppose is valid. DrKiernan 12:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much more desirable to be optimally effective in hating someone than to be focused on building featured content for the encylopaedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by IchiNiSan (talk • contribs)
  • These additional reasons for my oppose were not addressed from the last FA.
    • Please wikilink full years (that's the exception to the wikilinking policy), so it would be July 18, 1971 instead of July 18, 1971).
    • THe paragraph on his marriages and children is not straightforward; It needs to be expanded and mention when the children were bron, and when he was married to each, if possible. Is Jamal the son of one of those wifes? Was Lateefa the daughter of one of those wives?
      •   Done Years of birth supplied and all parentages clarified.
    • The prose needs work overall. For example,
      • Many of the sentences begin the same way; the first paragraph of the early years section has lots of sentences that start with "He", for example. Try to vary, if possible.
        •   Done He-this-he-that monotony has been broken up and varied.
      • Many sentences are short and stubby.
        •   Done Short sentences are good. They are direct. They work. Just like this. I see many longer sentences too. Overall now, I do not see any issue with 'stubbiness'.
      • There are too many one-sentence paragraphs.
        •   Done Now I only see one which is the last para under 'physical evidence', and one which describes the French plaintes put in December last year and yet to be resolved. That's not too many.
        • The entire section titled Character witness is one sentence. The section below that has a two-sentence paragraph, and three one-sentence paragraphs. Karanacs 18:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't include (see...) in the body of the article. Use a see also section at the end of the article, or incorporate the term into the sentence.
      •   Done Removed.
    • Be consistent with your citations. See info about Robert Chobert in controversion of prosecution witnesses section and the section following.
      •   Done Cite templates have been used as extensively as possible.
    • I think the article needs to be reorganized. The section on the arrest and trial does not flow well.
      •   Done There has been some reorganising by way of combining smaller paras and recent expansions. Look at the table of contents and you'll see it has a logical overall structure with the article telling a story that has not yet reached its end on some important fronts.
    • Short quotations should not be offset, but should be part of the paragraph, per WP:QUOTE.
      •   Done OK, sure. His one-word supposed 1992 confession has been moved back inline. Note also, however, that a short quote can be highly significant when it is the only thing a person has said about an important subject (like whether you killed someone) for a lenghthening period of time.
        • Not done. There are 4 very short quotations, either one line or one and a half, which are currently offset and need to be moved back inline. Karanacs 18:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          •   Done, per Sbacle
    • Need a citation directly after the quotes by Abu-Jamal in last paragraph of physical evidence section
      •   Done Um, every quote by him has some manner of citation.
    • Almost all of the images are on the right, and that makes the article look off a little. Can you vary the placement more, please?
      •   Done 5 at left, 8 at right now.
    • External links should not be in the body of the article, but should be in the external links section
    • Citations need to be properly formatted, including the author, date, access date, and publisher. Dates need to be appropriately wikilinked.
      •   Done Dates are wikilinked. All known fields in cite templates have been completed with the exception of access date, which I won't be supplying because I find it not valuable in establishing verifiability of the content and we know there's no rule or policy which requires this in any case or to any degree as mandatory or even desirable for Featured Articles. Plenty FAs do without it.
        • Citations are not properly formatted. All citations must have a publisher, and many of these do not. Karanacs 18:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Definitely   Done now
        • Also, many of these do not have their dates wikilinked. Please see the documentation for the cite templates as well, accessdate is considered a required field. Accessdate is necessary in case the content is taken off the web; with the date is was accessed we may be able to still retrieve that content from sources such as the wayback machine. Karanacs 18:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          •   Done Accessdates present for all webcites.
    • Use named references <ref name=mynamehere>citation text or template</ref> then subsequently call <ref name=mynamehere/> That will clean up the references section a lot so you don't have so many duplicates.
      •   Done
    • The external links section needs to be shortened.
      •   Done Culled of links that were already cited somewhere in refs.
      • While this is better, I believe the list is still too long. Please see WP:EL; it might help you decide where further to trim. Karanacs 18:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs 14:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

        • Now   Done. Culled right down to a handful having biographical relevance. 5, in fact - his writings repository, a collection of local newspaper articles, freemumia.com, mumia.org, and his Myspace homepage.

In summary, the whole list of concerns had already been addressed before reapproaching the FAC as we see clearly described in the nominating comment. Did you not check and verify it so before re-presenting the entire list again unedited ?IchiNiSan 17:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While parts of the requested changes were addressed, not all of them were. Please be civil and assume good faith in your edit summaries and comments. Karanacs 18:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words and in all good faith and with civility, the answer then is no, you didn't.

More comments...

  • After the initial reference to a person, subsequent references should use their last name (unless they have the same last name as someone else in the article). SeeWP:MOSBIO#Subsequent_uses_of_names
    • No, not should but may. Precisely "After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only". All you are precluded from is using surname-only to make the -first- reference to a person.
  • Why is hospital bed in italics in the heading?
    •   Done Gone.
  • You need a citation directly after the long quote from Pate.
    •   Done
  • Are there no images of signs made for people who don't believe he is innocent? I wonder if the numerous Free Mumia, etc images in the article are POV if no alternate ones appear.

Karanacs 18:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)**The picture of Daniel Faulkner (which is included in the top half of the article) is the sign carried by people who don't believe him innocent, including those associated with the Fraternal Order or Police.[reply]

    • As it stands there's no mural, and be mindful that the 'Free Mumia' stencil image is balanced by the 'copkiller' graffito that's been scrawled under it, while the image of the biographical subject is balance in an appropriate place further down by an image of the person he's been convicted of killing. So I see balance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
    • Also we could say that the image of the German Freygang concert and the Barcelona street banners is balance by images of the man (Tom Ridge) who signed the first two death warrants and the man who has pledged to sign a third (Ed Rendell). Also, it's fair to say that as a mass political movement 'Free Mumia' is several times larger than 'Fry Mumia' and things should ideally be represented in due proportion to their occurrence in actual life.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Update: Full dates (including the ones in citations) have been wikified, and short quotes brought inline as per recommendations above. By the way, I think you meant to refer User:Karanacs to WP:MOSQUOTE, not WP:QUOTE, as the latter has been rejected as a guideline. The {{cquote}} template has been removed from the article as per the MOS guideline. Still working on other concerns mentioned above. Sbacle 20:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a bow!

Ok, so everything's been compromised, altered, and ticked off. Are we done with all the negatives and the criticism and ready to make a judgement on quality? Come forward.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NewLabourNewLies (talk • contribs)

It is suspected that NewLabourNewLies is yet another sock of BiasThug. Jeffpw 14:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the talk page mannerisms, it's User:DavidYork71 for sure - and thus I presume BiasThug too. --Merbabu 10:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Violin Concerto (Mendelssohn)

edit

This has been a good article since May and I am just curious to see whether it could become a featured article. My biggest concern is that the article is somewhat shorter than the usual length for a Featured Article, but for a piece of classical music, it is not easy to write very much without becoming overly descriptive and subjective. Centy – reply• contribs – 09:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not necessarily concerned about the article length, provided it's comprehensive. Do you feel you have exhausted all avenues of information, without getting too trivial? However, the lead is far too short. WP:LEAD suggests 1-2 paragraphs, not 1-2 sentences. I'd suggest a first paragraph dealing with history and description, and a second based on the Analysis and Details paragraphs, to get you started. It needs to be "capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article". J.Winklethorpe talk 10:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, it was just that the section looks very isolated at the moment. The WP:CM MOS seems clear on the issue, and I'm supposing that this isn't a big enough orchestra to qualify for the suggested expanded list? Do please look into the page numbers issue when you can, though. J.Winklethorpe talk 08:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agree with J.Winklethorpe that the lead needs further work. I'd also like more information in the body of the article, especially on inspiration/influences, contemporary and subsequent criticism, and how the concerto fits into the modern repertoire eg how often is it performed now? A section on recordings would be a useful addition eg how many times has it been recorded?, what are the key recordings? Further short musical quotations would also be interesting, as would more illustration -- is it possible, for example, to source a fair-use image of a modern orchestra/soloist playing the concerto and/or of the original score? Espresso Addict 01:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will see what source material I dig up on contemporary reaction to back up the claim it was very well received instantly. I'm desperately trying to find as well a source that openly states the slow movement was inspired from Bach. With the lead, I was wondering if some other editor could simply copy and reword stuff out of the article to make into 1-2 paragraphs. I mean there's not further research required, just ability to manipulate words that sound different from what I've already written in the article. Centy – reply• contribs – 22:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes needed Actually fix (singular). The body of the article seems easily to pass WP:WIAFA criteria. I see none of the obvious MOS nitpicks that many people hang up on, indeed the writing seems to be of the compelling/briliant standard FA demands. The referencing is impecable, and that is often the biggest problem I find with articles when I review them. The images seem to be appropriate. Having said all of that, the lead looks like it could use some expansion. A proper lead should really fully summarize the article, and this one does not seem to adequately summarize the analysis and legacy sections. The lead itself also seems to suffer from a few organization problems; it is a single paragraph and it seems that while being expanded, it could be split into more appropriate separate paragraphs. For example, the first paragraph could introduce the piece and give a brief summary of the history section; the second paragraph could give a summary of the musical aspects of the piece, and the legacy section could perhaps occupy a third paragraph. That would be a better example of the "article in minature" that WP:LEAD seems to ask for. Other than cleaning up the lead, this is a great article and once the lead is fixed, it should be featureable easily. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done All done (except adding an influences section - already mentioned Mendelssohn influenced by his first piano concerto. Would add a Bach reference to the slow movement but slightly tenuous. Far more influenced by his Songs Without Words which has already been mentioned). Centy – reply• contribs – 14:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until fixed—Not bad, but just in the lead I found perilous statements:
    • "Although the concerto has three movements in a standard fast–slow–fast structure and each movement followed a traditional form"—which is it to be: present or past tense?
      • Fixed
    • "Some of the distinctive aspects of the concerto include the immediate entrance of the violin and the linking of the three movements." Remove "Some of". By "immediate entrance", you mean right at the opening? Better explicate for non-experts. "Linking of the three movements"? How? Thematically? If so, this is typical, so why is this a distinctive feature here?
      • Fixed.
    • I've removed two instances of "very", which is usually very redundant.
    • "quickly became one of the most important violin concertos of all time"—importance is not generally framed as coming or going like this.
      • Fixed
    • "still remains"—one is redundant. So is "Today".
      • Fixed
    • How do you know that it's the first to be learnt? Unsupported statement.
      • See link to Strings Magazine
    • "It has been recorded by virtually all professional violinists"—Really? Are you sure?
      • I meant top violinists, ie. those who you would find in regularly recording for CD. However, I've reworded the sentence.

Further down, just a quick look reveals a spaced en dash that should be unspaced (see MOS). No it shouldn't, read MOS:MUSIC and "Generic movement titles" "fourteen bar transitional passage"—MOS suggests a hyphen, and it would be easier on non-experts to insert one. " Following this concerto, it would also be very rare for a composer to leave a cadenza unwritten and left for the soloist to improvise." Reference 10 for this statement has no page number—just a whole book. Happy searching. See comments above, already noted

And lots more. Bring others on board to collaborate. Not yet good enough. Tony (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colloaboration is not something that happens often on classical music article unfortuantely. Centy – reply• contribs – 13:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The writing is generally pretty good, a few places are fantastic, other places are disappointing. Content does not feel that comprehensive, some places need expansion. Specifically:
  • "and soon became regarded as one of the most greatest violin concertos of all time" one of the "most greatest"?
  • "and usually one of the first Romantic era concerto they learn." (concertos?)
  • "Following his appointment in 1835 to principal conductor of the Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra,[4] Mendelssohn named his childhood friend Ferdinand David as the orchestra's concertmaster.[5] The work's origins derive from this professional collaboration. " A weak opening, not compelling.
  • "However, the concerto took another six years to complete" unnecessary "however"
  • "During this time though, Mendelssohn and David kept up a regular correspondence" "though" seems weak here.
  • The instrumentation section needs to be either rolled into another section or expanded. Rather than a sterile description of the instrumentation, tell us how this ensemble compares to a typical chamber orchestra, or why this selection of instruments is special, or how it is appropriate for this piece etc. Or was this ensemble just the standard, with no particular reason at all? Extremely short sections should not stand by themselves, they should be incorporated in some other bigger section.
  • "where the music builds up to the cadenza, which Mendelssohn wrote himself" I know what you are getting at in that a cadenza is usually improvised, but many readers will wonder "didn't Mendelssohn write the whole thing?" Point out that this is unusual.
  • "The work has developed a reputation as an essential work for all aspiring violin virtuosi to conquer,[15] which means the concerto is virtually ubiquitous in the discography of concert violinists including many violinists, such as Eugène Ysaÿe, who were only active at the very dawn of recorded sound and of whom very little recorded music exists" Big run on, and get rid of "conquer." It's a concerto, not a foreign country.
  • Rather than just a mechanical description of the layout of the symphony (which has been done rather well, actually) try to expand on how each movement/theme/repeat in a minor key/passage adds some depth of meaning to the work. For example, what musical purpose does the cadenza serve? (eg it shows off the skills of the musician, it adds a thrilling musical theme, its tempo speeding up makes it more exciting, building the tension etc.)
"Distinctive aspects of the concerto include the immediate entrance of the violin at the beginning of the work and the linking of the three movements with each movement immediately following the previous one." Again I understand what you mean here. But the average reader reads it thinking "don't all the instruments start playing at the beginning of the song? How is that unusual? Don't the movements always follow one right after the other?" Reword it to explain how this structure is unique.

A little more work needed to bring this one up, but I enjoyed reading it. Thanks. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 20:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rejoinders to nominator's responses to my issues, plus a sample of others—easy to find—that rule out eligibility for promotion:
    • "Colloaboration is not something that happens often on classical music article unfortuantely." Well, that's unfortunate for this nomination. It requires collaboration, and such is vital, usually, to WP's process.
    • Wild statement in lead supported by "link to Strings Magazine". OK, I hit the link, which looks rather commercial, and it starts with "“It has been butchered and malplayed by so many people, it’s time somebody pleaded the composer’s case,” declares violinist Vincent Skowronski. “This is not a soccer match or a hockey game. It’s a very nice piece of music to play.” This is not an authoritative reference. You cannot make broad, sweeping claims in the lead based on it.
    • Your fix of another wild claim in the lead: "Many of the top professional violinists ..."—better now, but remove the two redundant words.
    • The concerto "has" three movements? Ungainly expression.
    • "the concerto was innovative"—I don't see this justified in the body of the article.
    • "... the beginning of which gives me no peace."—Period after the closing quotation mark. See MOS.
    • "When it was finally completed, it was first performed in Leipzig"—Finally ... first?
    • "During this time though,"—Informal. Try "However, during ...". Tony (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Japan Airlines

edit

I nominate Japan Airlines as a FA because this is a well established article, providing information to air commuters and air junkies all the base information to Japan Airlines. This article is in a neutral state and is quite stable for the moment. It is neat and attractive article and should be considered as a featured article on Wikipedia. Aflumpire 05:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has some things that need to be attended to. It has a notice for additional citations for verification still. Also the refs do not extend all through the article. In the section Services-inflight entertainment and beyond there are simple links to external sites that might be converted to refs.--Sandahl 01:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: I cannot in good faith vote yes to this article as 1) there is a {{Refimprove|date=June 2007}} tag on it 2) What is their net income and net revenue 3) Numerous others that I don't have the time to mention at this moment. Learnedo 20:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: Article is undercited, and most citations are not formatted properly. I find some strange text, such as where it says Japan Airlines is the largest in Asia in the lead, then the next sentence tells us it's the largest in Japan. Doesn't this necessarily follow? Large potions of this article are made of lists and hard to read. Captions need to be improved, per Wikipedia:Captions. Pagrashtak 21:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Object
    • List in the intro is not good.
    • "..has the largest fleet of Boeing 747s in the world (approximately 76, as of March 2005)" I've two problems with this, first "approximately" is not satisfactory and second the data is over two years old.
    • "IATA's Operational Safety Audit for its safety practices.[3]" There's a few words missing is there there not?
    • Companies should be refered to as singular, e.g. bought their first jet > bought its first jet.
    • In the "Deregulated era" history section - three sentences are about 1997 and they drag on - also... also...
    • No need for "Previously operated" section sentence to have a bullet point. Also consider whether the section above requires bullet points.
    • "In the future, Japan Airlines is looking forward to the possibility of ordering 747-8 aircraft." This is uncited. Also clumbsy language - Should be something like JAL is considering ordering the Boeing 747-8.
    • "The average age of Japan Airlines fleet is 12.1 years, as of April 2006.[8]" -- again could be more up to date.
    • Overlinking, especially numerous links of aircraft types.
    • Numerous direct web links, i.e. not in <ref></ref>
    • Pictures in no sort of order. The three pics are all in the history section but are all modern aircraft. No pics in the fleet section.Mark83 13:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 04:16, 23 October 2007.

December to Dismember (2006)

edit

This article has gone through Peer review, see here and after a lot of work mainly by myself and other WP:PW members, it passed Good Article status. I think the article has a realistic chance of passing FA. If there are any minor errors you notice, please inform me underneath where I will fix them. Thanks, Davnel03 16:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)z[reply]

Oppose Hold nomination, until improval Davnel, dont take this personally, cuz you are a real help in WP:PW, and you have helped a lot in the development of many articles. I just think that this article needs a little more to be FA. Here's a list:

In-Universe

  • The article has in-universe statements, and others that are not in the same paragraph, or even in the same sentence. (ex. As Holly was making his way to the ring, however, SmackDown! superstar Bobby Lashley kayfabe attacked Holly and signed the contract himself to gain the sixth and final place in the Extreme Elimination Chamber.[15]) If we put aside these statemtnes, then the article is completely In-Universe. See WP:FICT, as it clearly states that an article should be written in an "out-of-universe perspective".
  • Some may be considered in-universe, but I have tried to make it outer-universe by using words like "kayfabe, legitimately, booked etc." I could put the word "kayfabe" in every single sentence (after all, its all booked by the creative team before hand) - however it would start to become repetitive and just bore the reader with the same word in every single sentence. Am I right? Davnel03 18:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the article Shelton Benjamin for a great way on writing an article out-of-universe. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 18:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know how to write articles out of universe. In my opinion this article is quite out of universe. How do you think it passed GA? Any article that is currently in-universe will not pass GA (a problem that has held The Undertaker article back). Davnel03 18:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sadly disagree. When it says something like "MNM performed the Snapshot on Jeff and looked set to win. Matt, however, broke the pinfall and performed a double neckbreaker on MNM. ", you are not stating that this was booked before; you are stating that Matt, out of pure skill, broke the pinfall, without MNM knowing. - Most of the writing in this article is like this. Like I said, go to Shelton Benjamin. This article is outstanding in out-universe material. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 19:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is written is a recap of what happened in the ring, attributing any specific move, anything beyond who won the match to booking or pre-planning is "Original Research", we don't know if the Hardys & MNM sat down and came up with the layout, we don't know how much was determined by someone else and we don't know what portion was improvised in the ring - stating anything other than what was seen in the ring is original research and should be left out. I'm sorry but you've gone off the deep end here, either that or you assume that every non-wrestling fan is a moron and have to have the "this is scripted" line hammered home every 3 words. MPJ-DK 14:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not saying I want the whole article to have it's sentences beginning with "The outcome was booked...", etc; but the article must at least not be completely out of universe. The only out-of-universe sentences in the Event section are: After the match, Sabu was shown kayfabe injured backstage and unable to compete in the Extreme Elimination Chamber match.; In a conversation with Big Show before he made his way to the ring, he revealed that for the first-time in his professional career he was not motivated to give the promo; The article must at least have all in-ring action, explained as out-of universe. And, we can't just assume that everyone who reads the article knows how professional wrestling is worked out, and we also can't assume they all are smarks. PS. The WWE always have their matches pre-planned. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 15:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have a reliable source there for the use of "always" and maybe a breakdown of just how much level of detail these matches are planned in? I'll need to see a source on those statements before they carry any weight. MPJ-DK 15:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just read the lead section on the Professional wrestling page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex94 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see... THAT is your answer? Referring to an unsourced Wikipedia page to back up your "always" and level of planning? I'm sorry I'm going to stop arguing now because it's obvious you're not reading what I'm writing here and I'd rather spend my time productively than trying to play "make you get the point" MPJ-DK 17:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I stand mistaken - you refer to a section that says nothing about WWE or anyone else for that matter pre-planning a match beyond determining the winner. *shakes head* futile task, I give thee up. MPJ-DK 17:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, I didn't see that the page was unsourced, but it still is common knowledge that WWE's professional wrestling is completely booked. I can recall three releases of the wrestler Teddy Hart, because he liked improvising his match, instead of someone telling him every single move he had to do. Use logic; if matches weren't completely booked, the time rate wouldn't be known, and a PPV can go on for more or less time then it should be, which has never been the case (except for December to Dismember (2006)) Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 17:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Common knowledge don't cut it on Wikipedia (weren't YOU talking about reliable sources?), them saying that the match has "7 minutes" or "22 minutes" could just as easily explain why they tend to have PPVs at a certain length. Comments from a guy who is extremely prone to lying don't cut it. Reliable source stating that it's always planned and to what degree of detail it's planned in. Otherwise it's "original research" to say what the Hardy boys were or were not booked to do, it's only possible to recap what they did - not the origin of the match.MPJ-DK 17:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I know common knowledge doesn't cut it on wikipedia. And it is not original research to say it was planned, because or it was planned by the Creative Team, or it was planned by him all along. The point I am trying to make is, when Jeff Hardy was on the matt, and Joey Mercury was pinning him: why didn't Joey Mercury stop the pin?, because he knew Matt was going to break the pinfall. This is obvious, but when a non-wrestling fan reads the article, they would assume it is all real, because of the way it is written. This is something that had to be changed in the Shelton Benjamin article, and it is written greatly now. I am not saying that the word "booked" or "kayfabe" should be written at the beginning of every sentence, but at least something should imply that it isn't real. I have been pushing to have a wiki-box on the beginning of every page, that says: "The following occurences are kayfabe and have been written to recap the events. If you are not knowlegable on the subject, please read Professional wrestling, but I was turned down. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 18:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • There you go again with your original research, we can't for sure state anything other than the winners of the match were planned - for all we know they improvised the bit you're referring to since something else didn't go according to plan, the point is we don't know. You've got this "in universe" issue up the wrong way, I mean in articles on Star Wars does it keep repeating "the story was written that Luke would swing the light saber"? It was part of the script that Darth Vader was Luke's father?? Does it say that? Because that's basically what you're saying this article should do. MPJ-DK 06:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you were saying a few days ago that this is a very good ago, now your saying it's completely in-universe. If this article was in-universe it wouldn't of passed GA! Also, how can I improve the "Event" section by integregating words like "kayfabe", "booked" etc. It's very difficult, along with making it sound perfect. Davnel03 19:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of people overlook things when they review articles. And I do think the article is great, it just needs an outer-universe take on things. Read Shelton Benjamin. It can give you examples like: "They continued to feud (in storyline)...", "Benjamin was booked to be moved to the RAW brand; "Shawn Michaels was scripted to give Benjamin a speech to get him "psyched""... Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 19:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those examples don't help me. Examples of how I could change things in the "Event" section would help me improve the article. Davnel03 19:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Words

  • You must avoid weasel words, because there are some in this article (ex. At this time, Van Dam was seen by some as the top candidate to win the Extreme Elimination Chamber.) Plus, the reference you gave to this particular sentence is not a RELIABLE SOURCE.
  • SEE BELOW COMMENT ON RELIABILITY OF WRESTLEVIEW.COM. Davnel03 18:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read it. It still does not address WP:Weasel. Read WP:Weasel to understand why you can't use statements like: "Van Dam was seen by some..." Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 18:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any ideas on how I could change it so it doesn't sound as weasley? Davnel03 18:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you can't change this sentence and make it sound less weasley. The weasel words and their sentences must be removed. [WP:Weasel]] states you can't use words like "some people", they also give a great example: "So, some people say that Montreal is the best city in the world - Who are these people? When, where and why did they say that? What kind of bias might they have? How many is some? Consider the radically different answers these questions might have and what the average reader would make of them, and you might understand just how fundamentally lacking this statement about what-some-people-say is." Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 19:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, after having thorougly read the source, it says Van Dam was a top-candidate to win the match. I've changed the sentence to say Van Dam was booked to win the Elimination Chamber. I've done that based on the source. Davnel03 19:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • This is not a reliable source. You have no idea if Van Dam was booked to win or not, so do not keep this sentence in the article. And this was just an example. There are more sentences like this in the article, and I advise you have them deleted. I know WWE wont just announce on their site that Van Dam was going to win, but they changed their mind. But because of this reality, you can't just write this on the page. If Van Dam eventually mentions this in an autobiography or interview, then you can use that source. But, any wrestling fansite like wrestleview, is not acceptable. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 19:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the WrestleView article, it was reported by The Wrestling Observer (one of the most reliable wrestling sources). Davnel03 19:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to get to that. I was going to tell you [and I am telling you now] to get the statement from TWO itself, and then you can call it a reliable source. Also, now that you have changed the sentence, it no longer is a Weasel Statement, it now is Speculation Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 19:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find anything on TWO that proves that is true, so I've removed that point. Davnel03 20:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling Moves

  • Wrestling moves shouldn't be portrayed like they are in these sentences: (Burke pinned Mamaluke after hitting an Elijah Experience on him.; After the match, Terkay hit Maritato with a Musclebuster.) They should be portrayed like this: Burke pinned Mamaluke after sweeping him off his feet with an Elijah Experience. After the match, Terkay performed the Musclebuster on Mamaluke. Because pro wrestling is entertaiment and not real fighting, the moves should be accompanied by "performed" instead of "hit".
  • I'd like to have more opinions on that before I make drastic changes. Nothing against the comment, you may well be 100% correct, but want more opinions on that particular point. Davnel03 18:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this point, as it sounds like it is real; IOT, it sounds in-universe. The Hybrid T/C 18:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed many references of "hit" to "performed", see here. Davnel03 18:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • disagree they describe what happened - and to say "it's real", well it is, as in he performed the professional wrestling move "XX" - unless you imply it was a stunt double or CGI or something then Burke did hit the "Elijah Experience" on him, that did happen. I'm not saying performed is wrong, but I'm also not saying that it's wrong to say "hit a move" now and again. MPJ-DK 15:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but the sentences still read extremely poorly in this form. Only wrestling fans are familiar with these constructions and they tend remind the rest of us of poorly-formed English. Even though slang has its own place in language, we must consider the readership. JHMM13(Disc) 16:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced Statements

  • Some statements are unreferenced. The one that I especially noticed, was "The Hardys had just teamed up for the first time since 2001 on ECW when they defeated Tony Mamaluke and Little Guido Maritato." The reason for this is, that this is an un-true statement, as they faced Sylvester Terkai and Elijah Burke for the first time since 2001, on ECW on SciFi. I remember this match, because it was Elijah and Terkai's first match on SciFi, and they lost.
  • Nope they took on the FBI, see here. Added ref. Davnel03 18:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely my bad. Sorry about that. But still, sentences still need referencing in this article. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 18:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation

  • After the match, Sabu was shown kayfabe injured backstage and unable to compete in the Extreme Elimination Chamber match. His place was taken by Hardcore Holly. In reality, however, Sabu had heat on him backstage and was said to be disinterested at TV tapings. Rumors evolved stating that WWE viewed Sabu as being "useless" in normal matches and that he could only perform in matches that included "stunts and tables and they [WWE] don't respect him because of that." This was reportedly part of the reason he had been squashed by Umaga on an episode of RAW a few weeks earlier. Vince McMahon wanted to put Holly in the match, so Lashley would have more heels to overcome. Heyman was legitimately unhappy with the decision, saying that Sabu's high-flying wrestling would be "the ideal showcase" inside the Extreme Elimination Chamber. - I believe this statement because I choose to, after seeing it on most wrestling sites, but it still is speculating, because WWE never announced [or announces] the reasons of things going on in the broadcasts.
  • SEE BELOW.

Reliable Sources

  • I don't think wrestleview.com is a "Reliable Source", and mostly that's the site which is most linked on this page. I may be wrong though. Cheers, Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 15:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a problem. I believe it is a reliable source if the event in question did come true. WWE.com always stay in kayfabe, and they rarely ever go outside of kayfabe, hence why I have had to use other "not so reliable" sources. If I completely used sources from WWE.com, the Sabu issue could not be talked about. Also, the real reason for Paul Heyman quitting WWE was never revealed on their official website. I believe it is a reliable source looking back at past things, but would I use it on superstar articles? Definite no. PPV's I believe are different, we know what happened is true, and I believe WrestleView.com (in this context) is a reliable source. Davnel03 18:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was my point. The Sabu issue should not be talked about in this article, as this article is about the event. The only explanation you should add for Sabu not being in the main event is: "Sabu did not appear in the main event, because he was (kayfabe) injured and unable to compete". And adding comments that Paul Heyman and Vince McMahon said, that you have no idea if it's true or not, as facts, is just speculating. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 18:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, WWE.com stays COMPLETELY in kayfabe. And these comments are backed up by sources, reliable or not. As for the Sabu thing, aren't featured articles meant to be detailed as well as giving background information on related events? Davnel03 18:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the Sabu issue is appropriate for the article, as it affected the main event of the night and led to Heyman leaving WWE. While I don't necessarily agree with the reliableness of WrestleView, I agree with Davnel that that sort of information is not going to be found on WWE.com. In fact, WWE.com is a primary source and should only be trusted for event results and title reigns. The best solution, of course, would be a book source, but that doesn't exist yet. Another option as an interview by Heyman or Sabu, but I can't recall seeing either of those either. Nikki311 19:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of this Nikki, that statement should be removed from the article, until a Reliable Source exists. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 19:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, because if that was not in the article, the article would be failed as it fails to cover one of the major issues (which is a must for FA). Davnel03 19:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you looked through The Wrestling Observer's archives? There has to be something about it in there. I would be shocked if there wasn't. Nikki311 19:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geez, never thought about that! I'll look through now. Davnel03 19:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, there isn't anything in there. As you probably know, they do newsletters every day of the week, which are not available to the general public, but (I guess) the webmasters of wrestling-related websites are allowed to have copies of the newsletters. Davnel03 20:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go to this link: Wrestling Observer Newsletter Search; If you search for Sabu, and you check the articles from Oct 1 2006-Dec 31 2006, it has absoulutely no article about Sabu having heat backstage. So, this is just OR Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 20:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it is not (book source that is also used in the section of the article.) Davnel03 20:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I read your link. It just states that Sabu was taken out of the main event, and Hardcore Holly replaced him. It does not state in any way, that it was because of backstage heat, and that wwe didnt respect his talent, because he was only useful in hardcore matches. That is what is OR. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 21:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You obviously haven't read the source. It also states why McMahon wanted Holly in the match, and why Heyman wanted Sabu in the match. Davnel03 21:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did read it. And it does state that, but hat is not the point. The article says: In reality, however, Sabu had heat on him backstage and was said to be disinterested at TV tapings. Rumors evolved stating that WWE viewed Sabu as being "useless" in normal matches and that he could only perform in matches that included "stunts and tables and they [WWE] don't respect him because of that." This was reportedly part of the reason he had been squashed by Umaga on an episode of RAW a few weeks earlier. - This is not something expressed in the reference you gave. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 21:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, which is covered by the WRESTLEVIEW source. I'm off for the night. Davnel03 21:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already explained before, that Wrestleview is not a reliable source. If you do not rid the article of speculation like this, it cannot make FA (It is still a wonder how it made GA). Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 21:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing - possible solution/compromise

  • Okay. I've been trying to think of a solution to this giant mess, and I think I have one. Perhaps you can mention that instead of being a fact, it was widely rumored that Sabu's release was because of backstage heat; then, the wrestleview source would work because it is supporting the rumor. I know we usually try to avoid rumors, but it was reported by practically every rumor site. Another part to this is to cut down on some of the wrestleview sources elsewhere in the article. I found an article by the Chicago Sun-Times that talks about Big Show being in physical pain. That would eliminate two wrestleviw sources right there. Here's another article from the CST that talks about Heyman being fired and Show's pain. I hope this helps. I'm going to continue to look for sources to replace the wrestleview ones, and if nobody likes this compromise, then I'll try and formulate another one. Nikki311 21:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That could work. Just get the sources to all those rumors. The Chronic 03:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Internet Explorer

edit

The Internet Explorer Article is a very informative article that cites reliable sources. The article is not biased and in a stable state since reorganization and updates on future software and current market share. Previous nominations can be found here and here AFUSCO 14:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 01:32, 14 October 2007.

Dorothy Parker

edit

self-nomination - I've been putting in a fair amount of work trying to get this up to GA standards but in looking at it I think it may meet FA standards. Otto4711 14:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although improved lately, I think this article still needs more work. Right now it is mostly a collection of names, dates, and trivia. There is very little about what she actually wrote and created. Nothing about the genres she worked in, the groundbreaking short fiction Parker penned. There is also a lot of fat: why is the section on Harlan Ellison considerably longer than that of the Algonquin Round Table years? It also has nothing about her life in New York City and Hollywood. I've kicked into this article over the past two years (I took the birthplace plaque photo), but it needs more work on her life as a writer, less as a personality, in my opinion. --K72ndst 02:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say there's too much about her as a person and not enough about her as a writer, but you also say there's nothing about her life in NYC and Hollywood. Aside from the fact that I disagree that there's nothing about her life, these critiques seem contradictory. If you want less about her as a personality, how does adding more detail about her personal life help with that? Also, the Round Table years section is several paragraphs long and the bit on Ellison is about four sentences. Otto4711 18:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it needs work. It says very little about her short stories, and nothing about her verse. (One cannot tell, for example, that You Might as Well Live is a quote from Parker.)
  • At a minimum, it needs a bibliography of Parker's work, at least the books published in her lifetime and the Portable Dorothy Parker. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have made close to 70 changes to this article in the past week, which must be some kind of record. However, the article is still lacking what I stated earlier. You are merely creating a list of facts. You are not giving the reader any sense, at all, of what she was actually writing about or talking about. This is because you are using biographies and not looking at what Parker was writing. In no instance is there a substantial amount of coverage of what the themes, style, and language used by Parker. It is talking around it. The Ernest Hemingway article stands head and shoulders above this article because there is depth in the Wiki article about what he wrote about, not just the dates of when his books came out. To clarify what I said previously, the New York and Hollywood years were totally different time periods for Parker, and to have the article state what she was writing in these eras is significant. Right now this article is just boiling down a couple of biographies and skipping over the meat and potatoes of what it should contain: her writing. And am I alone here in saying that 25 changes a day by one user is excessive? --K72ndst 03:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would hope you're alone in saying it when a number of those changes are things like catching typos or fixing punctuation. Who cares how many changes a day get made if the article's better as an end result? What a silly criticism!
  • And maybe you could, I dunno, contribute to the article if you have the material that talks about the things you want it to talk about? Otto4711 03:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have to wonder how you expect me or anyone to write about what Parker "was actually writing about or talking about" by "looking at what Parker was writing." That would be original research. Otto4711 04:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a help. But it would be better still to consult the substantial body of literary criticism on Parker, starting with the introduction to the Portable Parker. Arthur F. Kinney's Dorothy Parker and Rhonda Pettit's A Gendered Collision: sentimentalism and modernism in Dorothy Parker’s poetry and fiction are book-length; there are lots of articles.
    WP:OR prohibits invention and fannish burbling, rightly. This does not mean, however, that we can, or should, limit ourselves to "Our Author published X, Y, and Z." We can and should explain to the reader why Dorothy Parker is interesting. Look at Fyodor Dostoyevsky, which probably should be an FA. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see a few things that should be fixed. Karanacs 20:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some words are wikilinked that really don't need to be. Among those are urban and dynasty.
  •   Done Let me know if there are others.
  • She should not be referred to by her first name in the article. After the first references to her name, she should be referred to as Parker.
  •   Done
This is not done. Search for Dorothy on the page and you'll find the ones that need to be changed. Karanacs 15:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are not good transitions between the sentences. The first paragraph in Early life just seems like a collection of unrelated facts.
  • All quotes need a citation
  • Some paragraphs have no citations, or just one in the beginning. There should especially be citations for those statements describing her work or writing style so that they are not confused with original research.
  • Headings should not start with "The"
  •   Done although I don't see what the big deal is.
I'm not sure either, but it is part of the MOS.

Karanacs 20:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what PMAnderson wrote above, and am happy that someone finally brought up the literary criticism books by professors Kinney and Pettit. This would not be original research to include what literary critiques there are of Parker's work. It would make for a better article. Parker deserves as good an article as Mark Twain and John Steinbeck have. Both have summaries of what they wrote about, not just names/dates/trivia. And to the user who asked me to "contribute"... I already wrote 33,000 words about Parker in my book, A Journey into Dorothy Parker's New York. --K72ndst 23:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you probably have some excellent research material on hand. I don't and have no idea what if any I might be able to access at any time in the future so if the lack of lit crit is going to keep this from being a FA then it might as well be closed now. Otto4711 23:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problems:
    • "travelling"—surely it should be in US English.
    • "Parker survived three marriages (two to the same man) and several suicide attempts, but grew increasingly dependent on alcohol." Why "but"?
    • ""wisecracker,"—No, logical punctuation is required throughout, despite what Anderson will say. See MOS.
    • "mid-1930s"
    • "her parents got her back to their Manhattan apartment shortly after Labor Day so she could be called a true New Yorker."—Huh?
    • Stubby sentence, so why not join to the subsequent sentence with a semicolon? "Her father died in 1913. Following his death, she played piano at a dancing school to earn a living[10] while she worked on her verse."
    • Stubby paragraphing: end of "Early life" and elsewhere.
    • Ellipsis dots need to be properly spaced.
    • No final period for captions that aren't real sentences.
    • What does "suble" mean? See info page of audio clip. So who does own the copyright?

Needs a proper copy-edit throughout.

Tony (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a copyedit; but not for these trivialities. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 01:32, 14 October 2007.

Clonaid

edit
previous FAC withdrawn

I hereby nominate this article for Featured Article status in hopes of making it appear on the 5th anniversary of the Clonaid claim on December 27, 2007.Kmarinas86 06:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Prior to the previous nom being withdrawn, there were two opposes for prose concerns, with some very good advice to seek a copyedit. There appears to have been no attempt to resolve these concerns, and so a brief read reveals plenty of prose problems. Please consider taking a more measured approach to bringing this to FAC. J.Winklethorpe talk 07:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • After receiving many comments like these, I am sure that the cause of my bad prose is systematic (even pathological) in nature. It has almost become a way of thinking for me. It's difficult to stop it.Kmarinas86 20:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes needed. Gave the first paragraph a small copyedit. However, I've spotted a few issues:
  • "Florida attorney Bernard Siegel tried to appoint a different guardian for Eve and threatened to sue Clonaid." This rasies several questions? Who was Eve's original guardian? Why would Siegel want to sue Clonaid? The sentence needs more context.
Fixed. different→special.Kmarinas86 03:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Reason given and cited.Kmarinas86 03:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A terminology dispute over whether Clonaid is really a company or just a project name led to accusations that that the whole Clonaid project was a sham." Sounds awkward (the change in tense in the middle of the sentence doesn't help). Accusations by whom? Who disputed the terminology?
Fixed. I hope.Kmarinas86 03:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add more comments soon. CloudNine 22:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs 19:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 01:32, 14 October 2007.

Nintendo DS

edit

This article is well written and formatted in an orderly fashion. It features a comprehensive overview of the Nintendo's system that is both factually accurate and written in a neutral stance. The article has also been stable for a while now, with only minor tweaks or edits taking place. Is in accordance the F/A Criteria and could potentially be a great FA. - Zomic13 05:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object. More inline citations are needed.Kmarinas86 21:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 01:32, 14 October 2007.

Dream Days at the Hotel Existence

edit

This was collaborated on multiple times by WikiProject Powderfinger, and I believe it now meets the FA criteria. Passed GA here. Suggestions welcome, changes will be implemented. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 02:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as GA contributor. This page was scrutinised to achieve GA, however has undergone a great deal of improvement since and I believe it now exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. --lincalinca 02:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing
    I think that abbreviations like "TV" should be avoided as we shouldn't assume them to be understood worldwide.
      Done (TV anyway, I'll check other abbrevs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 03:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues with being "well written" with a some oddly constructed sentences. Needs a copyedit to tighten the text and rewrite the convoluted sentences eg:
  • "announced that the album would be titled Dream Days at the Hotel Existence, and would be produced by Rob Schnapf (producer for Beck, amongst others)" --> "announced the album's title as Dream Days at the Hotel Existance with production by Rob Schnapf, known for his work with Beck and The Vines."
  • "The album was not recorded in Australia at Melbourne's Sing Sing studios, where Powderfinger's previous albums had been recorded." --> "Unlike Powderfinger's previous albums Melbourne's Sing Sing studios were not used for recording."
  • "On 12 June 2007 Powderfinger announced that their nationwide tour would be entitled the Across the Great Divide Tour and would be a co-headline tour with fellow Australian rock group Silverchair, who also had recently reformed after a three year hiatus. " --> "Powderfinger announced the Across the Great Divide nationwide tour on 12 June 2007 with co-headline Australian rock group Silverchair, also reformed after a three year hiatus. "
  • Comprehensive/factual
  • There is no note as to what the change for "Black Tears" was for the album release.
  • That's because none has been made public. I'll try to dig up what the specific actual changes were, but as far as I'm aware, because the court case is even now still continuing, I don't believe there's a chance the specifics will be areigned even now. --lincalinca 10:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure that's correct. The SMH (13/06/2007, p.3) says that it dealt with "death of a Palm Island man, Mulrunji Doomadgee." and MX (21/06/2007) says that this section was changed to "an island watch-house bed, a black man's lying dead". Perhaps the review - Rolling Stone Australia; Jul2007 Issue 667, p96-96 - may help.
  • According to the Sunday Times(Perth); 03/06/2007, "The band opted to remove the lyrics relating to Mr Doomadgee. The band members said they hoped to release the original version of the song in the future. Lead singer Bernard Fanning said he was not angry about having to change his lyrics, but lamented the lack of Australian musicians willing to challenge the status quo."Peripitus (Talk) 11:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead the comment that the article received "critical acclaim" is inconsistant with the description later in the sentence of "consistent" and "distinctly Australian", which are hardly acclimations. This assertion is also not supported later in the text so the lead is not summarising the article. Later on the album is noted as a "dull album" which is far short of acclaim.
  • For an Australian reviewer to call an album "distinctly Australian" is considered a compliment, or a citation of acclaim. Perhaps for one whose understanding of Australian music is not great it may not be, but being an album reviewermyself, and reading almost every album review I can get my hands on, I use this, and believe it to be consistent, that this is an affectionate comment. As to "consistent", consistency is desired as a musician, though maybe not for the general public, but again, as a reviewer, to call something consistent is almost the greatest praise one can give. It means you believe it doesn't descent in quality at any point. There are reviews considering the album somewhat dull, but the articles read (and if this isn't expressed in our's, it needs to be adjusted) that those who consier the album as "dull" were generally positive reviews, but with little gripes. From a scoring perspective, I couldn't find a review that gave under 3 stars, which is something of a rarity. --lincalinca 10:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I can see, although the reviews are not generally negative the best you could say is that they are "mixed". Wiktionary defines critical acclaim as Exceptionally good reviews from all or most critics. which this album has not received - Peripitus (Talk) 22:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Apart from that a good read and not far from the standard - Peripitus (Talk) 08:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments' - looks promising...some prose issues...more to come. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Powderfinger toured and then spent three years on hiatus. - gah! --> ? had a three year hiatus? (not "on hiatus")

  • In the Cover art section - is para 3 talking about the front or back cover? Whichever one it is, the para should be added to the para it refers to.

The prose needs quite a bit of work. It is quite repetitive and clunky in places and I'm trying to smoothe it out to support the nom which I can't do yet.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose:
  • I believe this article fails criterion 1a as the prose is not of professional standard. The entire article could use some new eyes for grammar, redundancy, and choppy 2-sentence paragraphs. It also needs to be reviewed for weasel words, i.e. Following the huge success..., ...Famous session pianist Benmont Tench.[10], etc. Perhaps submit to the League of Copyeditors.
    • I understand what you're saying here, though the term "famous" isn't a matter of subject, it's an objective adjective (lol) when used appropriately. The subjectivity may be as to whether this is accurate or not, though the greater majority of the album reviews make note of his Tench's fame. As to the term "huge success", I guess we can remove that, but it falls into the same bracket (though, admittedly more weakly, than the Tench descriptor). --lincalinca 10:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates are inconsistent - please choose one method throughout. For example, in one sentence alone: A second single "I Don't Remember", was aired on radio on 9 July 2007.[4] and was released as a CD single on August 12, 2007.[5]
Maybe there is a misunderstanding. What I am seeing is "9 July 2007", and then "August 12, 2007". Choose a consistent format in writing dates throughout, i.e. choose either day/month/year as in 9 July 2007, or month/day/year as in August 12, 2007. ♫ Cricket02 14:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref.# 1 is a commercial site that focuses on selling CDs, and these types are sites are not generally considered reliable. Is there no other reliable source that could be used for a simple release date? And for that matter it is something that could be cited within the infobox, if at all, rather than in the lead.
    • Thanks for noting this, I'll get a better ref. However, as a general rule, we don't place refs in the infobox. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sales sites are not reliable for providing an equal and balanced representation of the quality or the content of an album, but their reliability need not be questioned relating to rock hard facts, such as release dates, track listings and (if provided) track times. Scarcely are these facts going to be brought into question and if so, what would be gained by questioning the reliability of this piece of information? We can get another ref, but I don't see the validity of the need to. --lincalinca 10:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even think you need a reference for this at all, especially not in the lead as it is something that is not likely to be challenged. ♫ Cricket02 14:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all refs state a publisher. If the publisher is a website, please state it, i.e. Triple J (2007), New Powderfinger Album Details, retrieved on July 9, 2007 - abc.net.au would be added to |publisher= parameter. Please review throughout.

And please don't mark any of these "done". That should be left to the reviewer to determine if their issues have been addressed or not. Thanks and good luck. ♫ Cricket02 06:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Your reference to using the "done" tick is valid, though generally one will indicate that they've completed a task by indicating it's done, then if the reviewer is satisfied, they then strike it to indicate they agree that it is a satisfactory completion. --lincalinca 10:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 01:32, 14 October 2007.

Impossible Princess

edit

The article about Kylie Minogue's 1998 album is currently listed as a Good Article. It recently went through a peer review and a copy-edit. -- Underneath-it-All 00:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • At first Minogue had a hard time embracing her past, looking back on it as a time of pain and confused embarrassment.[12] Confronting her past and her embarrassment helped her improve her confidence. Little too much repetition.
  • After a set of lyrics were completed, she would record a quick, one-take vocal demo and then evaluate the song's potential.[7] What's a one-take vocal demo?
  • Maybe some mention of the Intimate and Live tour outside the singles section, considering that was a concert tour promoting the album. Maybe some mention of any other concerts/tours supporting the release of the album.

Otherwise it looks good. Recurring dreams 08:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes to the sentences based on your suggestions above. -- Underneath-it-All 19:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Then I support. Recurring dreams 10:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All 02:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Minor oppose — The article seems fine overall. The one concern I had is that it never explains why the album was a commercial disappointment. Based on all of the positive acclaim it should have done better. So why didn't it? (I could speculate, but I'd rather read the facts.) There also seems to be little or nothing about U.S. sales. Was it never exported outside of a handful of countries? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The album was never released in North America because Minogue did not have a distribution deal there. -- Underneath-it-All 20:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, to be clear: I think these needs to be covered in the article in order to satisfy the "comprehensiveness" criteria for an FA. — RJH (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is stated in the critical response section in a quote from a Billboard review, but I am not sure where to insert this detail. -- Underneath-it-All 22:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 01:32, 14 October 2007.

Donald Bradman

edit

One of the great Australian icons, greatest batsman of all time, article looks good, surely his time has come. ---Dyslexicbudgie 12:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Don't have time to review it properly right now but I noticed the following just from scanning it.

  • Section about his Batting technique what about his fielding and Bowling?
  • popular culture section has the look of a triva section
  • Table and chart overlapping in stats section
  • A lot of notes not entered right
  • Can't read Graph of Test averages above 50
  • Section titles should not stat with "The" or the name of the subject
  • "See also" links should say "Main article"
  • Why does the Bodyline section start with a quote?

Buc 21:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 01:32, 14 October 2007.

Hillary Rodham Clinton

edit

Self-nomination, but previously urged by several others, such as User:Vimalkalyan [15] and User:Turtlescrubber [16]. This article has current WP:GA status, acquired in June 2007. Its basic structure has been in place for much longer than that. It has recently been upgraded in several areas to meet FA levels, such as in the consistency of its cite formats. The article is reasonably stable given its subject, and I believe more stable than most of the articles for other major 2008 presidential candidates. Wasted Time R 03:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

— BQZip01 — talk 16:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Well, not being as well versed in FA requirements as User:BQZip01, I still think that this article is FA worthy as it is one of the best political articles on wikipedia. User Wasted Time R is really pushing this one forward and methodically taking this article to the FA level. I am confident that any problems that do arise (see above) will be swiftly dealt with. I give my full support to moving this article to FA status. Turtlescrubber 16:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate support. The article is generally quite impressive, though it meets some criteria better than others.

  • 1a: The article is fairly well written, but perhaps by necessity addresses many unconnected topics one after another, making it hard to say that it is truly "engaging". In the longer sections "first term", "second term" and "presidential campaign of 2008" there are places where my eyes start to glaze over.
  • 1b: The article is quite comprehensive. Whenever missing information was pointed out in the last talk archive, the deficiency was addressed... unless it was there already.
  • 1c: 264 references! You've raised the bar.
  • 1d: Neutrality is hard to be sure about, but any bias is not extreme. Certain Wikilinked terms such as "cottage industry" and "boogeyman" perhaps seem out of place and might be taken to disparage opposition unfairly.
    •   Done The "bogeyman" term is in common political usage, refers to figures of both parties, and is used in the article cited. You are right that the "cottage industry" term and claim was not cited; I have added one, that uses that term and validates the point being made here. Wasted Time R 01:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1e: Seems stable.
  • 2a: Lead is fairly good, but doesn't summarize the "first term" section at all.
  • 2b: The overall organization is fairly good.
  • 2c: Reference formats seem good.
  • 3: Images seem a bit sparse, but perhaps the need for a good fair use rationale limits potential additions.
    •   Remark: You ain't kiddin'! I would love to have some better images, especially from her infamous 1970s/1980s fashionally-challenged era. Nada. And we have it lucky, with her being a government figure. There are plenty of articles on entertainment world figures — Natalie Portman is a good example — where the articles have never had a single good photo of the subject. Wasted Time R 01:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4: The summary style isn't perfectly consistent. The "Presidential campaign of 2008" section is more than a summary, for instance when it starts talking about polling results in six states, etc. The "Awards and Honors" section has no summary at all, not even a number of awards or most prominent award.
    •   Done I've added a summary to the 'Awards and Honors' section. Regarding the 'Presidential campaign' section, I've moved some of the detail out into the separate campaign article. However, note that the "first six states" polling information is a summary of the poll graphs found in the campaign article. Wasted Time R 13:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last but not least: I think that in light of campaign finance issues and just plain fairness, that it would be wrong to run one candidate as a feature article close to an upcoming election but not others. A clear, consistent policy on the topic may be necessary to protect Wikipedia's reputation and tax-exempt status. Mike Serfas 01:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the FAC process is separate from the "Today's Featured Article" schedule. So promotion to FA doesn't mean the article will be on the Main Page anytime soon necesarily. Also, I personally wouldn't call say it is "close" to the election. It's still 13 months away. We can still have our own article quality standards without being politicized. -Fsotrain09 17:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying her article shouldn't be featured or even that it shouldn't appear on the Main Page soon afterward. (Still, don't forget that she hasn't won the primaries yet!) But my main concern is that maybe her article is featured on the main page shortly, but her opponent's article becomes featured later and ends up on the Main Page the day before the November election. In any case I think that Wikimedia should decide on a consistent, legally safe policy on candidate Main Page articles now (even if it is to intentionally disregard the issue), so as to avoid any allegations of partisanship or censorship that might arise if someone felt that he had to change the "Today's Featured Article" schedule at the last moment. Mike Serfas 20:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think it is well written, but given that she is a political candidate some care must be given to avoid any potential issues of partisanship and might fall under the Equal Time Rule, for example, during Ronald Reagan's political campaigns, if a station aired one of his films, it would have been required to offer equal time to Mr. Reagan's opponents. Arzel 04:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Equal-time rule refers explicitly to radio and television broadcasts, and may not even extend to cable television.[17] I fail to see how it could possibly extend to websites. And even if it did, I think Wikipedia would be considered a "documentary" and be exempt. The issue of Reagan's films, and now Fred Thompson's Law & Order episodes, lies in the context of entertainment programming. Wasted Time R 11:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't claim that it does, only that it be made clear beforehand that it doesn't. For the most part it does read as a documentary, however there are also some of her political platform issues regarding her presidential election that might be viewed as promotion of an individual candidate. I'm just saying that WP should be careful so close to the primary elections and the presidential elections. Arzel 22:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Equal Time" doesn't apply, and shouldn't - it would be hard to provide an entry for a Taxpayer Party candidate as long as the Hillary Rodham Clinton article. My main concern is that the Wikimedia Foundation is a 501(c) public charity prohibited from political activity. I'm not a lawyer, but by all accounts I've heard the decision on how much political activity of what kind is acceptable before an organization loses its status can be quite arbitrary, based on vague criteria, of which campaigning for a specific candidate at election time is one of the most severely interpreted. An ancillary concern is that if Wikipedia gives one side of the political divide enough ammunition, it could find itself a handy target. If an anti-Wikipedia sentiment is allowed to gain traction it could become virtually impossible to eradicate, leading to a continuous stream of real vandalism - not just schoolkids blanking pages, but serious efforts by trained adults - as well as professional legal attacks and smear campaigning. For these reasons and simply as a matter of reputation, Wikipedia must ensure that its featuring of candidates on the Main Page is not perceived as biased. Mike Serfas 07:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I find the article well written and sourced, plus the dedication that Wasted Time R has put into covering and fixing whatever concerns have araisen is outstanding. I srongley suggest that editors who vote oppose on an FAC, to take into consideration a reconsideration of their vote once their concerns have been taken care. I have often noticed cases where an oppose vote has reamined even after concerns have been taken care of and the reason for the oppose no longer exsists. I believe that this practice is unfair to the nominator (and I'm not directingthis comment to anyone in particular). Tony the Marine 18:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 1a, the prose is regrettable. Here's a sample passage:

  • Examinations of the May 1993 firings of the White House Travel Office employees, an affair that sometimes became known as "Travelgate", began with charges that the White House had used alleged financial improprieties in the Travel Office operation to give the business to Arkansas friends of theirs; over the years the investigation focused more and more on whether Hillary Clinton had orchestrated the firings and whether she made true statements regarding her role in them to investigating authorities.
  • Any chance this article will get the kind of *thorough* examination at FAC that was given Ronald Reagan? Rhetorical question. Much work needed on the prose, and the sourcing should be at least at the same level demanded of Reagan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is both grammatical and unambiguous. It does not ring well, and "the business" is, while clear in context, unidiomatic; but I would not expect the nominator to be able to figure out what Sandy's objection is, or how to address it. I'm not sure which of the possible improvements Sandy wants myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reworded the Whitewater etc section a bit to try to address what I think might be objections to the way it was phrased. I'm also not sure what you're getting at, Sandy, regarding the prose, so more specifics would be very helpful. (And not all of us were involved or are familiar with the Reagan FAC, so I hope whatever happened there will not have an impact on what happens here, other than to assure featured quality all around.) Tvoz |talk 23:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • SandyGeorgia is right that the sourcing level for the Whitewater and other investigations section is a little low. Partly this is because I did a lot of work on some of the specific articles for those investigations, and hoped that the sourcing inside them would suffice, but that's not the way it works. I will add citings as necessary. Wasted Time R 23:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - nearly there. The only thing letting the article down is issue with prose. It is a bit choppy both in terms of clauses and paragraphs - I've gone about massaging it a bit but I'll list some things I think need a bit of tinkering from the main contributor. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subsection Second term has a few stubby paras that should be combined -snetence 1 and the last para. Try and make it into some larger paras, either by combining or expanding/deleting.
In the lead, why not have the exact date in began her career as a lawyer in the 1970s ? It looks sloppy and there would be no added length by having exact date.
The Clintons had lost their late-1970s investment in the Whitewater Development Corporation;[126] at the same time, Clinton partners in that investment, Jim and Susan McDougal, operated Madison Guaranty, a savings and loan institution that retained the legal services of Rose Law Firm and which later failed. - this sentence lost me a bit - "their partners" for "Clinton partners"? and as written it doesn't clarify why it was controversial.

Anyway, have a go at these and I'll see if I can find some more. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the two short paragraphs in 'Second term', they don't combine well with anything else. I agree that too many short paragraphs is generally not good, but there are occasions where they encapsulate a particular subject or point well, and after all that's what a paragraph is supposed to do. Wasted Time R 18:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding '1970s', I reworded the intro to avoid that. Wasted Time R 18:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reworked Whitewater section with these comments in mind. Tvoz |talk 18:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tvoz. I have added some explanations to the Whitewater part to try to make clearer what the allegations actually were. It's hard, because I'm trying to keep a narrow focus on the Hillary issues, and not the sometimes-connected, sometimes-separate Bill issues ... trying to fully understand Whitewater will give anyone a headache, which is partly why the Whitewater (controversy) article is so messed up ... but that's a target for another day. Wasted Time R 18:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see almost the opposite issue with the prose in some sections--several complex compounded sentences in a row. It's somewhat difficult to follow the train of thought in sections like "Lewinsky scandal", for instance. Of course, the explanations for things like the impeachment are complex, but there is probably still room for improvement in readability. Some more idiomatic phrasing, if possible, would also help. But everything else looks good. -Fsotrain09 14:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reworked Lewinsky section to improve clarity (I hope). Tvoz |talk 18:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The section is much clearer, thanks. I've just got one question about the statement "Overall, her public approval ratings in the wake of the revelations shot upward to 70 percent, the highest they had been." 'Had been' since the start of the first presidential term? Since Bill Clinton had been in political office? I assume its the former, but stating that would be better. -Fsotrain09 08:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's the highest they'd ever been and changed it as such, based on another reference (also added) which says her approval "peaked" then at 71%. Tvoz |talk 08:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While it is well sourced, it is heavily unbalanced towards supporting her, when it should be NPOV. I would like to see a "criticism" or "controversy", seeing as she is a highly controversial figure. Carbon Monoxide 23:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. It would help if you could point out what controversy or criticism you think is missing. To name a few things the article does cover: changing her name just to help her husband get elected, her work for a radical law firm, her work for an ultra-establishment law firm, her failing a bar exam and never telling anyone, her being on the Wal-mart board of directors and never speaking out about their anti-labor practices, Tammy Wynnette and baking cookies, her spectacular profits from cattle futures, Whitewater billing records that mysteriously reappeared, Travelgate (where she came as close as you can come to being indicted without actually being indicted), Filegate, grand jury testimony, staying married to Bill after Monica, carpetbagging in New York, and the Norman Hsu fundraising episode. What else would you like included? Wasted Time R 23:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll abstain for the time being. Better then I thought on that part, though. Carbon Monoxide 23:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second look, and answering some earlier questions. Throughout seven FACs, every word on Reagan was scrutinized and every possible excuse was drug up to keep it from being featured. Let's see the same kind of review here, to assure FA quality. For example, there were repeated objections that the Reagan—a two-term President and according to polls one of the most highly regarded Presidents—article was bloated and too long, so it had to be cut down constantly to conform to WP:SIZE guidelines (specifically, text favorable to him was repeatedly asked to be cut). This article is 10% larger than Reagan on readable prose and exceeds prose size recommendations at WP:SIZE. The article is overlinked to the point of impeding readability; pls see WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT. Words commonly known to most English-speaking readers need not be linked, the same word should not be linked several times in the same section, and too many blue links to irrelevant terms dilute the high-value links and make the article hard to read (for example, surely most Wiki readers know what a salmon is and don't need to detour there when reading about Clinton). Unnecessary listiness in Political positions should be converted to prose. There are still copyedit issues; with just a quick scan of the prose, one can easily find redundancies and informal prose (Clinton has served on five Senate committees with nine subcommittee assignments in all), strange formatting (in the bulleted list right below that, switch in tense at ... replacing an earlier assignment from 2001 on the Committee on Budget), and some focus on reducing peacock terms and stating criticism factually is apparent from only a quick glance ("investigating the health issues faced by 9/11 first responders, eventually earning the praise and union endorsement of New York City's Uniformed Fire Officers Association and the Uniformed Firefighters Association for her 2006 re-election bid.[168]" —there is no mention of praise in that citation, in fact, there is only one statement by a firefighter which doesn't seem to warrant the word "praise"). From the other direction, there's also favorable spin on controversial items; notice the wording "which, years later while she was First Lady, was suppressed at the request of the White House and became the subject of mystery).[19]" Mystery sounds like a very favorable spin on controversy, deception, or whatever words the source actually uses, and it's a Clinton-friendly source. Again, scholarly sources were demanded for the Reagan article, and certainly there are more scholarly analyses on the hidden thesis than MSNBC news. Please run through the entire article again to tighten up the prose, ce, remove peacock terms, eliminate overlinking, and trim up the size to conform to WP:SIZE; there are plenty of daughter articles where text can be trimmed to (for example, there's an article for her Presidential campaign, this article is a bio and need not go into so much detail, that's one example only). This article should at least be held to the same standard the Reagan article was on size, sourcing, prose, balance, and criticism, not run through FAC on fan support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • SandyGeorgia, thank you for your detailed, specific comments, which I and others will be addressing. But to a couple of your general points: I have no idea why Ronald Reagan had such a hard time at FAC. If it's because people were punishing the article because they didn't like Reagan's politics, then shame on them. But that's no reason to treat another FAC with the same incivility. And I have no idea why you think this FAC is being "run through on fan support"; so far there are only three supporters and the FAC seems headed to failure. Wasted Time R 15:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I doubt we need be concerned this article will be treated with the same incivility that Reagan was treated with; that trend usually runs one direction only. My point is that scholarly sources, following size guidelines, and due weight to criticism were demanded of Reagan just as they should be demanded of Clinton. Clinton, because of the nature of Wiki, will not receive the strident review Reagan did. That's no reason to let a less than stellar article slide through. This article can benefit from the level of scrutiny that was given Reagan's article: the same demands about scholarly sources, balance, and bloated size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quick reply on one point to SandyGeorgia (haven't looked at the rest in depth yet): the footnote currently numbered 169, not 168, is the one that has the praise and later support of the firefighters' unions, and that correct reference has been at the end of that sentence since I posted it. I can see about moving it closer to the word "praise" - but it The praise is indeed in that reference and I think is an important point, so I don't think that critique was valid. Tvoz |talk 20:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And this highlights why we really shouldn't use sources like Newsday.com (Bill Moyers et al) for a bio that has easily accessible, numerous more scholarly and less biased sources; it smacks of cherrypicking to use a specific word. If you're going to use something like Newsday, why not balance it with the equivalent article at Newsmax, which pointed out that it was a hastily arranged event, designed to exclude the rank and file who didn't support Clinton? The NY Times used the "praise" word, while obliquely highlighting that the rank and file officers were missing in action. Using a one-sided report from a biased outlet like Newday.com isn't what this level of bio should be using (admittedly, the NY Times slants as well, but at least they mentioned the missing rank and file). The Times article is available online; there's no need to use an inferior source just to put forward the "praise" word, when other sources acknowledge that the rank and file were not happy.[18] [19] If you're going to run sources like Newsday, balance them with sources like Newsmax. Better yet, eliminate the peacockery (there were "issues") and use the highest-quality sources available. And mention the rank and file issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • SandyGeorgia, your attempt to paint The New York Times as a biased, pro-Clinton source is laughable. What single media figure caused the Clintons the most grief during their time in the White House? Jeff Gerth. Who did Gerth work for? The New York Times. How many times are Gerth articles or the Gerth co-authored book referenced in this article? At least 20. Wasted Time R 00:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • SandyGeorgia, you are off-base in a couple of respects here. First, Newsday.com is just the website the original cite was at; the story in question was from the AP. Second, Newsmax didn't even have a reporter there; their "story" just quotes from the New York Times story and then analyzes/spins it against Hillary. That's pretty lame. I'm willing to use a Newsmax story as a cite if it appears some real reporting went into it, just like I will (and have) used Fox News, Washington Times, New York Post, etc. But a lot of Newsmax stories are just either AP rehashes or partisan hack attacks. Wasted Time R 02:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Finally, I see no evidence that the endorsement event was "designed to exclude the rank and file who didn't support Clinton." All we know is that it was a low-key event with not many present. The rest is speculation. I've added the NYT cite you found, but otherwise I don't see any change on this being warranted. If you can find a story with some real facts and investigation that says the rank-and-file still hated Hillary but the union leadership chose to be politically expedient and endorse her anyway (which might well be the case for all I know, union leaderships have been known to become out of touch with who they represent), then we can revisit this. Wasted Time R 03:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Further on your media bias kick, I do not accept your denigration of Bill Dedman's report on the Hillary Wellesey thesis matter. He's a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter, whose account of the whole affair makes clear that the Clinton White House were paranoid idiots for suppressing the thesis in the first place. I don't know of any "scholarly" treatments of the thesis yet, and I see nothing wrong with relying upon Dedman's story. Wasted Time R 04:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • SandyGeorgia - can we try to look at this article on its own merits and not compare it to whatever happened at the Reagan FAC? Maybe they were right, maybe they were wrong - but it sounds like this article is being held to a standard that you objected to on Reagan, but now are going to insist on - I'm not sure why. Specific suggestions about this article will be much more useful than general comments about standards - as I said earlier, some of us know nothing about what went on there, and shouldn't have to. And I do object to your characterization of cherrypicking, or suggesting that I used that source (AP, not Newsday, as Wasted said - are they "inferior" too?), "just to put forward the praise word". That is an unwarranted and unfounded accusation (as was your earlier claim that "there is no mention of praise" in the source provided) - I'm more than happy to also include the NYT reference and others if they are found to be relevant. (I don't have a problem with there being "too many" references.) This article has more than its share of negative material about Hillary Clinton, some of which is a stretch in my opinion - and the passage about the booing incident is a case in point - on its own it was without context and seemed to be there just to say something negative - Gerth's speculation as to the reason for the booing is just that, speculation by someone with a POV about the subject. So balancing it with information about the firefighters' unions' later support is appropriate. As for scholarship - Hillary's story is ongoing and much more recent than Reagan's - look at the dates of some of the scholarly books about Reagan - they are written after some time passed and perspective on his life and career was gained. You're not going to find the same number of scholarly treatments of events that have just happened or are unfolding, so we have to rely on newspaper accounts and the like. (You mention that you're sure there are scholarly references to the masters thesis matter - do you know of any?) Wasted is right that we have a broad range here - the Washington Times and Wall Street Journal, to name two, are hardly part of some kind of liberal pro-Clinton fan group. We are quite aware of the need for neutrality and also fairness - and that no more means cramming in whatever negative things that can be found as loading up fluff. Finally, on specifics - "mystery" has been replaced, and many wikilinks removed - still working on that. You mention peacockery but I don't know what you're referring to when you point to '(there were "issues")' as an example - could you be more specific please? Tvoz |talk 05:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • A couple of other follow-ups on SandyGeorgia's specifics. The two problems with the committees description have been fixed; thanks for pointing them out. You say that we should go through the whole article to find more of these ... alas, having worked on this article forever, I can't "see" faults like these well; that's why it's great when others point them out. However, regarding your issue "Unnecessary listiness in Political positions should be converted to prose," I have to disagree. Unlike biographical sections, this section is about the presentation of a variety of data points, and thus lends itself to lists or tables. Indeed I've just changed the political spectrum analyses to be a list as well. It's much easier to assimilate the data that way. Wasted Time R 10:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Coming back to SandyGeorgia's desire for scholarly sources, there has been a lot of such work published regarding Hillary as First Lady and the gender/sociological/communications-related implications of her role. The article's 'Cultural and political image' section now references several such works. Wasted Time R 21:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on size Does this really need to be 133K? That's bigger in total size than articles on two-term presidents. Granted most if it is in refs, which brings up another point. Does this really need 248 refs? There are so many it makes it hard to read the prose. Rlevse 16:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding both your and SandyGeorgia's comments about the size. I measure the readable prose size as 58K, excluding any of the prose in footnotes. Using WP:SIZE's "rule of thumb" guidelines, this falls into the high end of the "May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)" range. My feeling is that this "eventually" depends upon what happens in this election cycle. If she gets elected President, then obviously the whole article will have to be drastically reshaped, with summary sections made for everything in order to make room to cover her presidency. If she doesn't get elected, and remains a Senator, then it's possible the article can keep its current structure, with possibly just the Senate section being spun off into a daughter article.
    • Regarding the large number of references, yes they are a pain — they drive up the apparent article size, they cause slow rendering of the article in Firefox browsers, they make the edit view of the article horrible to look at ... but what else to do? I used to avoid the {{cite}} template for citations, since it is horribly verbose and chews up space, but I had to convert to it for FA. I tried leaving out references for things that were covered in daughter articles, but someone above complained about that. As I read WP:BLP and other guidelines, everything's gotta get sourced. If there are specific places where you think the references are excessive, let us know. Wasted Time R 17:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt all 248 refs are truly needed.Rlevse 17:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wasted, I look at readable prose size per WP:SIZE, which does not include refs and other overhead. And Reagan was forced to toe the 30–50KB readable prose limit, because a rush of editors wanted the nice things said about him by reliable sources removed, while they wanted more criticism (usually by non-reliable sources) included. Balance and neutrality are equally at issue here. With good daughter articles available, surely you can find a way to keep Hillary within the guidelines that applied to what polls and reliable sources described as a very popular President, by trimming about 10%. The way to avoid a big chunk of different references is to use a few high-quality sources (like scholarly books, where you only need to cite the page number in each note, the book once in the Source section), rather than giving the appearance of cherry picking by use of marginal sources like Newsday.com. A lot of individual cite templates really chunk up the overall size, while relying on book sources can chop as much as 10KB off of your size, and result in a more balanced, scholarly article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, if you look at the References more closely you will see that I've used lots of book references, just as you describe. The three books most heavily used are Bernstein's biography, the Gerth-Van Natta biography, and the Roger Morris Clintons biography. I think it's safe to say that Hillary isn't a fan of any of them, especially the last two. I've also used Hillary's autobiography in places for simple biographical facts and for her perspective on events; being quite self-serving (as are almost all autobiographies), it isn't reliable for much else. Wasted Time R 03:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Wasted, you do not have to use cite templates for FA; I don't know who gave you that idea. I didn't, and I won't, because they chunk up the article size something awful. Of course, now that you've converted them, you're kinda stuck, but if I had my druthers, I'd ask someone to write a script that un-cite templates so we could knock 10 to 20 KB off of every FA that used them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you tell me! ;-( There aren't many tasks I've hated more than rewriting all those refs into cite template format. Ugh. Live and learn ... Wasted Time R 03:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could subst the templated references.--165.173.137.96 16:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Template_substitution#Templates_that_should_not_be_substitutedKmarinas86 04:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly had that impression when you were reviewing Barack Obama's FA status in January, Sandy - I don't recall anything being said about not having to use the cite templates then. Perhaps I missed it. An advantage of the cite template of course is its rendering refs in a consistent manner throughout an article and across articles. I am also not sure why there is so much concern about size - I don't want articles to be unwieldy, but in this environment space is much less of a concern than it is in paper. Tvoz |talk 05:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has to do with style; one must ask themselves "what is the most efficient way to word this"? More often than not, a looong article contains prose that can be edited/condensed to help a reader get more out of the piece in less time.DMCer 07:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I totally agree with that - cutting out the fat and tightening prose is important; my problem with an over-concern about space is about cutting out content for the goal of shorter articles, not about editing for conciseness which I wholeheartedly support. Tvoz |talk 20:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query As Clinton is currently running for president, I feel that this article is inherently unstable. If she were to win.... Perhaps FAC would be best reserved for a less tumultuous time in her life? Awadewit | talk 01:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost all of the presidential campaign happenings go into the daughter article Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, not here. This will continue to be true until late into the general election next year, assuming she gets the nomination. If she does get elected president, then you are right, the article will have to be significantly restructed. But that is over a year away. If you have followed this article's recent history, you'll know that all the editing has been to improve the article overall; the changes in the article to follow currently happening events has been limited to a few additions to the 'Senate second term' section and one addition to the presidential campaign section. Wasted Time R 02:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think if we are saying things like "If she does get elected, the article will have to be significantly restructured", then we should wait, at least until after presidential election. Awadewit | talk 18:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Any of the presidential candidates' articles would have to be significantly restructured, if they get elected next year. So what you're saying is that over the next 13 months, none of the most highly visible, frequently read articles in Wikipedia can be marked as being of the best quality possible? That seems kind of lame. And by the way, don't look now, but Barack Obama is already FA. Do you propose to start an immediate FAR to strip it? Wasted Time R 19:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is exactly what I am saying - I don't think articles can be featured when they are constantly changing or will obviously change in the future. It is one thing to say that all FAs should continue to improve their language or to include new scholarship, but those are much smaller changes than what is happening or would happen to the Clinton article. I'm sure my views are a lot more extreme than others - I happen to think that articles on people should not be featured until they are dead and there is real scholarship written on them and their legacy is clearer. However, as I am pretty sure that this view is a minority one, I have simply suggested that we await the outcome of the election. If Clinton is not elected, we are on firmer ground saying that her article won't have to be completely rewritten. If she is elected, well, waiting seems like the most respectful thing to do. Otherwise, the article will essentially just be news. Since FAs are supposed to be stable and Clinton's article will undoubtedly be dynamic (in the best way), I just thought that waiting seemed wise. I am not going to oppose based on this. I just think that it is something the editors and reviewers should consider. I was surprised that the article had been nominated. I would not have thought that the Clinton editors would have wanted to nominate the article yet. Awadewit | talk 19:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a lot of work for FA, not there yet. Compare this article with FA of Gerald Ford. The Clinton article is more of a newspaper than an encyclopedia. There are some negative things that are not in the article that should be if it's a balanced newspaper. There are a lot of things that aren't encyclopedic that are in there. The long text about her first and second term as Senator seem almost like a campaign ad and not a biography that will last decades, like the Ford one will probably do. For equal time, look at Lyndon B. Johnson's article. Like Ford, it is timeless unlike Clinton. I don't want to get into a shouting match because every sentence in the Clinton article, someone wrote and will violently defend. Due to her presidential campaign, there is edit warring. This disqualifies it for FA. Note that not having a FA doesn't mean we hate her or that she is bad. The article on Jesus is not a FA. If we make it a FA and she becomes president (very likely), it will be very difficult to substantially change. Then we will have a 2nd rate article permanently in wikipedia--it will never reach the standard of the Ford and Johnson articles. For this reason, let's keep it a GA and don't memorialize a bad version unworthy for posterity.Mrs.EasterBunny 23:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much for your comments. First response: I'd like to know specifically what "negative things" are not in the article. I've tried to include every negative thing that is of some significance and passes WP:BLP muster ... so I'm very interested in knowing what's missing. Wasted Time R 23:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also note your statement, "Due to her presidential campaign, there is edit warring. This disqualifies it for FA." First, there hasn't been much of any edit warring about her campaign. Second, all sorts of hot subjects have become FA; you really think Israel and Pakistan, to pick just two, never see edit battles? Wasted Time R 18:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I realise that I have no account here, but I feel I must oppose this nomination on the grounds that an FAC is supposed to be stable, as in not prone to major changes. Hillary is currently a presidential candidate, meaning that the page - no matter how well it is currently cited - will be subject to radical changes in information as the monthes go by and the election aproaches. I would suggest trying again after the election, until then though, I recommend that this nom be pulled. 129.108.206.192 18:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You look suspiciously like a sock — nobody makes their first-ever edit talking about FAC stability criteria. Wasted Time R 19:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, you are incorrect that the article will be subject to radical changes over the next 13 months. Only 5% or less of the article pertains to her running for president; the vast majority covers her life before the campaign, and will be stable. Most of her presidential campaign developments are covered in Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, not here. Wasted Time R 18:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because I have no user name does not mean I have not editted here before; there are a large nomber of ISP adresses for the Net, and not all have been used here. I have contributed here before, mostly in an "if anyone wants my opinion, we/you should ____" capacity. As for the points you rasie: I admit that most of the article will remain stable; what concerns me are the hardcore democratic party followers who will attempt to make Hillary look better than she is and the equally large number of republicans who will attempt to do the exact opposite. Most of that will proabably happen elsewhere (you mentioned other pages which I am sure have seen election vandalism even though the vote is still a year away); however, I still beleive that even with the other pages this one will not remain stable for the 13 monthes it will take the U.S. to complete the election cycle. Now as I noted, I have no account here, nor do I have any desire to create one (friends of mine have created accounts here and had trouble editting in peace, or so they say), and I respect the fact my two cents on the matter may be swept aside since there is no user name to go with the comments (that usually happens anyway, so I won;t feel bad if I see a repeat preformance here). All I wanted to do was to point out the fact that FA class articles are supposed to be stable, but due to circumstances beyond your control I do not feel this one will be stable until December of next year. 129.108.206.192 23:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, like all controversy will stop if she becomes president (or not), right...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Under what circumstances will Israel and Pakistan remain stable? Because nothing ever happens in those parts of the world? What about Big Bang or Planetary habitability, it's not like any new discoveries are being made in cosmology, right? What about Lost (TV series), it's not like the final seasons of that series are going to change anything, eh? What about Gwen Stefani, she's planning an early retirement so that nobody has to update her article? Or the Chicago Bears, they are dropping out of the NFL? And none of these subjects have any supporters or detractors with strong feelings, right! None of them have ever seen an edit war! Your model of "stability" is unsupported by existing examples of FA articles, which all of these are. Wasted Time R 00:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle. That is to say, many of these points are trivial, but others should be fixed, and will improve the article. When that is done, it will certainly be better than the average article we promote, which is all we should reasonably require.
I trust there will be no more commentary of the form: Ronald Reagan got mauled, so this should; it is too easy to mistake that for WP:POINT. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose FA status for an article that is not an FA article I will support when it is FA quality. This article is full of fluff, even though it is very long and a result of a lot of hard work from many people. It doesn't qualify because of edit warring, it's just that one side has been very persistent (look the the edit histories) and the other editors just give up. The talk page archives are full of examples. The article is full of campaign material. Granted, Hillary is a reasonably good candidate is no reason to let FA requirements side.

For example, the article said she helped get funding for the WTC. Look at the reference (#185). It is a speech at a dedication. Of course, they are going to say nice things about the senior politicians. What reliable sources do we have that prove that if Hillary had a stroke and was in a coma that NY wouldn't have gotten the money? OTOH, some editor looked hard to find that reference so it's proof of hard work. Yet, hard work is not a reason for FA.

That's just one example. There are probably a hundred other similar examples of why it shouldn't be an FA.

Another example is around reference 113 (numbers change as edits are added but usually not too much). The sentence seems to imply that the Hillary health care plan caused a large Republican win. That's piecing together several references to imply a conclusion that no political commentator has made. The result is POV. I don't know whose POV or even if it was an intended POV, but not FA material.

Now, look at the Bill Clinton article. That is a much better article and even that is not an FA. It summarizes major and pertinent legislation, not fluff like the WTC comment in Hillary.

This is a splendid opportunity to improve the Hillary article. If we want to keep the fluff but make it a FA, then we could split off into sub-articles. The goal should should be to make it like an encyclopedic biography, not a press release bio.

Wasted Time R and Tvoz has edited this a lot. This is not directed at you. Congratulations for your effort. Maybe it's the nature of the beast (presidential candidate) that makes this a hard article to write for FA status as we are tempted to include a lot of info and delete out a lot of info, etc. 7F 20:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

  • If we want this to be an FA, let's organize a FA task force on the talk page. It can be done but will require weeks of hard work. I only cited 2 references as problems above but I these were the first 2 that I looked at randomly. So 100% of the citations I looked up have a problem. Hardly FA material. Let's withdraw this FA and get to work adding and pruning. We can keep the pruned material in sub-articles, if desired.7F 20:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As below, I do not agree that this FAC should be withdrawn - we are making progress, working in a collaborative manner, and what's needed are specific suggestions here, not a task force. Tvoz |talk 20:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7F, thank you for you two specific comments. The article is correct in these matters, but I agree these specific citations and explanations could be stronger; I will fix them up this evening. Wasted Time R 20:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though 7F was a disruptive sock, there was some merit in these two specific comments, and I have now strengthened the wording and/or citing in both places. Wasted Time R 04:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Summary of concensus
Wasted Time R and Tvoz are the only big supporters of the FA. Tony the Marine also makes a supporting comment. Most everybody else either opposes it or has suggestions for improvement to make it get to FA status. The concensus is not to make it an FA.
So let's stop any potential fighting, end the FA, and listen to the concensus. Let's start a concentrated effort to make it FA status and revisit the issue in 6 months, sooner if progress is faster. I will begin the FA Task Force on the talk page now. 7F 20:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but I think this comment is out of line - the process is ongoing, there have been suggestions made and met, and there is no need to interrupt it. You seem to be new here - or at least you are editing under a new name - so it might be a good idea to sit back and wait for the process to unfold rather than trying to stop it. Tvoz |talk 20:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7F, beyond what Tvoz said, you would have more credibility if you knew how to spell "consensus". Wasted Time R 20:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::::My idea is a good compromise. Several editors vote "no FA". You and Wasted Time R are vocal proponents of FA with the marine guy also for FA. My idea is to say let's work together to make it an FA using the newly formed FA Task Force. If you don't want to participate in the FA Task Force, nobody is forcing you to do so. This way we get the FA but get a FA-worthy article rather than falsely award it FA status (but we don't kill it like the oppose voters are heading). Who you should be fighting for is article improvement, not just the FA stamp of approval. I nominate Wasted Time R to be Chief Copy Editor (and spellchecker) for the FA Task Force. 7F 20:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out comments by and to sockpuppet of banned user attempting to evade his ban. Tvoz |talk 21:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed strike outs to make it more legible.UTAFA 22:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC) I find it very incivil for so many sock accusations (at least 2) against people others don't like. I am not voting on this issue. UTAFA 23:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with who people like, UTAFA, it has to do with a person who has been banned coming back on under a sockpuppet name - perhaps more than one - and posting here in interruption of this ongoing process. I have stricken the comments of that sock again, and ask you to leave them stricken. Tvoz |talk 00:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out UTAFA was the same dumbass. Turtlescrubber 03:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. I've made a suggestion on the discussion page of this article. If this article is going to be featured on the front page, it needs some work. MD12752 04:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, welcome back. Turtlescrubber 04:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:The comment was "Under the first lady section, traditional duties, the second paragraph is totally unsupported by any references. If this is a good article, this is an example of not a good paragraph."

True enough. This will freak out Rlevse above, who thinks there are already too much references in the article, but I will try to add them. Wasted Time R 04:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done We had them there and they fell off somewhere down the road - I reinstated the references. Thanks for pointing it out. Tvoz |talk 05:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*More work needs done to improve article We should look globally at each section. For examaple, the section of her 2nd senate term. It list the follow in sentence form, of course.

1. supported a February 2007 non-binding Senate resolution against it, which failed to gain cloture.
2. voted in favor of a war spending bill that required President Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within a certain deadline
3. called on the Iraqi Parliament to replace Nouri al-Maliki as Prime Minister of Iraq
4. Clinton voted against a Senate resolution condemning personal attacks on Petraeus, which passed 72-25.
5. called on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign
6. Clinton vowed to introduce legislation to statutorily expand this timeframe (Goodyear v. Ledbetter).
7. Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, Clinton cast a number of votes in support of the bill
8. high approval ratings

IMHO, that's a poor summary of her 2nd Senate term. It misses the essence of her term. I remember a lot more of what happened during her second term and the one's listed are not even the highlights. MD12752 06:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you "remember" the second term so clearly (it began all of 10 months ago!), perhaps you could share with us what the "highlights" were. Wasted Time R 12:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's coming within a matter of minutes as it has happened on another page. The people who are bent on getting a featured article star (for what? for show?) accuse me of being a sock. If they really wanted to improve an article, they would work on the article, not accuse others. My ideas speak for themselves. Those that have no ideas merely attack by saying "he's a sock!". A constructive person would focus on the message, which is article improvement. MD12752 07:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out the third iteration (7F, UTAFA, MD12752) in 24 hours of sockpuppet posting in evasion of ban. Tvoz |talk 16:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because the lead should mention her being a witch. No, actually, that's just a vanity link of mine for those with a sense of humour. Rest assured that, as one of 50,000 Ron Paul supporters, I will be happy to use only valid, well-precedented stall tactics to slow or prevent FA status. Agree that the level of nitpickiness should be at least that of the Reagan and Paul articles. So let's see. I won't be reading more than a couple of sections at a time for health reasons, but I may continue this list on-off as time permits.

  • Prose quality: enh. First sentence contains redundant "is"; lead contains "United States" 5x (3 in first graf) instead of "U.S." after 1st; being married to president and being first lady is pretty redundant; many from-to periods would be better served with en dashes; "Hillary Rodham" 1x should be "she" to preclude confusion; check for consistent omission or inclusion of Harvard comma (in graf 2, add after "moving to Arkansas", or delete after "welfare of children"); trim "the events of the Lewinsky scandal"; "first First Lady" should be recast; "woman elected Senator" should be "female Senator" unless you're PC; "initially supported .. including voting for" has no true referent for "including".
    • Fixed the duplicate "is". Disagree on the "U.S." introductions, especially when at the end of an "of the" target. Ditto the en dashes; this and the "U.S." seem too terse for me, like this is a Who's Who entry, when it's not. "Hillary Rodham" use is intentional; she's that name for the first five sections of the article, readers better get used to it. "moving to Arkansas" isn't part of a series but rather the first part of a compound clause with "marrying Bill Clinton", so the serial comma yes or no isn't at issue. "the events of" removed. Nothing wrong with "first First Lady", the different capitalization makes it easy to parse. "female Senator" change made. Changed "including" to "which included", but not sure it fixes anything. Wasted Time R 02:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weasel wording (apologies if any consensus language doesn't carry the ball): "active in a number of organizations"; more prominent "than many before her" (what happened to "new kind of FL"?); "failed to gain approval by" (instead of "was rejected by" or "failed in"); "but she did succeed in helping establish" (instead of "but she helped establish"-- and did she?); "among other things" (What?!? Good writers hate "things"-- I see HRC also "patched things up" with Wynette); "several other investigations" (What?!?); "state of her marriage"; "considerable public discussion"; "supported some foreign, opposed most domestic", and what happened after "initially"?
    • My approach to lead sections, echoed by User:BQZip01/FA Tips, is that they are just summaries of what the article is going to contain. They are not self-sustaining Wikipedia mini-articles. Thus, they do not need footnotes. And, they are allowed to speak in generalities (weasel words if you will), as long as the body of the article supports the generalities with specificity. I do not want to get too specific in the lead, or it will get too long and grind to a halt. But I will look at some of your wording issues; I agree the "things" here is bad. Wasted Time R 23:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wording: changed "many before her" to "almost any before her". "Failed to gain approval" can't be replaced by your suggestions because the health care plan never actually went to a vote. Changed to "she helped establish"; body of article gives cites verifying this. The agreedly hideous "among other things" replaced by the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which was her other major policy accomplishment. (The "patched things up" in the Wynette footnote is a bit colloquial but okay by me.) Later opposition to Iraq War added. Wasted Time R 02:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectivity: being named an "influential lawyer" is not leadworthy as she is not notable for her lawyering (only slightly during Watergate) but for her offices. Since when are "major initiatives" first-lady-driven, and shouldn't that be explained in lead because abnormal, or that text dropped? "Moving to New York" was quite more abrupt than the lead's gloss would imply. "Long described as a polarizing figure" should have a very old footnote (and the lead should have several others too, a few would not distract). Straw polls should be mentioned, because Obama leads her 9-8 at this moment. Really, the whole lead doesn't give one any impetus to find out more about her-- just like her life.
    • Well, she was noteworthy for being an attorney, by virtue of her work for Arkansas' most influential law firm, her chairing the LSC, her leading the ABA initiative, her being a political power in the incestuous Arkansas political/business/legal nexus, and her being on several corporate boards. The phrase "she took a more prominent position in policy matters than many before her. Her major initiative ..." answers your question about "major initiatives". Will look at "Moving to New York". Regarding footnotes, see above; there is a whole section near the end that supports the polarization statement. Regarding straw polls, they are a self-selecting sample and thus generally meaningless for predicting election outcomes. Every legitimate demographic poll has her well ahead. Wasted Time R 23:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding "Moving to New York," I think that is an abrupt locution; indeed a previous editor tried to rearrange it to smooth it out and put the "New York" by "Senator", but I restored this, because as you say in real life this sort of did drop from the sky. Anyway the body of the article discusses the carpetbagger issue, and the subarticle on the 2000 New York Senate race (what twists and turns - I've worked on it but not quite done it justice yet) covers it even more. Wasted Time R 03:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fact check: Really, attracted "national attention" as the first student to speak at commencement, really? --Or was it instead because she criticized a senator to his face, as the article adds inconsistently? Lead implies she didn't lawyer before 1975, article contradicts. And just how was she involved with SCHIP, for those who don't bother to look?
    • Very good point on the national attention/Wellesley address; I need to work on this, and strengthen the citing in the body on this. Lead says she began to lawyer after 1973, not sure why you read 1975. Regarding SCHIP, the article body - still trying to economize on space - says she was the co-major force on it, along with Ted Kennedy, which was my distillation of [20], an AP article that has the best explanation of what she did on this that I've seen. Wasted Time R 03:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That Section 2 title, "Marriage and family, law career and First Lady of Arkansas", is dead in the water; it's ugly and not even parallel ("Ladyship" would be parallel, but doesn't work either). Similarly sections 3 and 5, FL and Senator, are not parallel to the others.
    • I know the section 2 title isn't great, but the others that have been tried are worse. Almost every FL article has a "Marriage and family" section in it, so I was trying to incorporate that here too. Then I wanted to capture her professional career, as well as her political position. You're right that it isn't quite parallel, but it does convey the contents. I disagree on the other point - "First Lady of the United States" and "United States Senator" are parallel titles, even if the titles take different grammatical forms. Wasted Time R 03:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize if any think me incivil but the one-liners just seem to roll out when HRC's smell approaches. Feel free to retaliate over at "my" article within equal bounds of incivility. I'm afraid that the remainder of this article may just go downhill from there, reading something like Living History, of which I can't do more than a paragraph at once. Wasted Time R, thank you for working tirelessly so far, but you're not near done. Tvoz, thank you as well, your edits are helpful from what I've seen. But please rest assured that I can separate my revulsion to HRC personally from my literary criticism of mediocre prose; I intend to be a friendly sparring partner for as long as I can muster the energy. Though I might contribute here on noncontroversial style issues, I don't believe I will succeed in unknotting every other problem, so will just rant here. I hope this suffices to demonstrate that, if the remainder follows the same trend, this is not a feature article by a long stretch. John J. Bulten 20:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, John, I'd feel better about your comments if you hadn't started the last paragraph the way you did - personal feelings about the subject shouldn't be playing a role here - phrases like "HRC's smell" don't convince me you're really just looking at the prose, but I'm interested in specific objective comments in any case, and would ask you to try not to "rant" as it isn't all that helpful. As for Ron Paul, I did some work over there a while back (in the vicinity of 150 edits on main page and talk) and found that it was nearly impossible to keep the piece neutral - any critical material was removed or spun to such a degree that I cut back my editing there, finding it too frustrating. I'm hopeful that this has improved and I will be taking a look at the FAC - but not to "retaliate", and, I hope, with civil comments. Tvoz |talk 02:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After being deleted by another party, I am repeating my valid criticisms without the jokes, so it will seem much dryer. I have now been accused of trolling, but could find nothing which applied except "(mis)used as an ad hominem attack against someone whose viewpoints and input cannot otherwise be silenced". If anyone can point to specific examples where I provoke vehemence or bait argument, I'm all ears. (I'd also like that policy on wholesale deletion on talk pages of what is 90% valid criticism and 10% jokes.) But I think I've made my intent pretty plain and unequivocal: pointing out reasons this is not an FAC article. If there's hidden intent, it's hidden from me too, please advise. If you'd give me time (by not deleting my valid criticisms), I'd even be able to go through and at least do the unobjectionable grammar and condensation stuff. P.S. When asked, Wasted preferred I unload here rather than on the HRC talk page. So here is (most of) the deleted text:

Tvoz, yes, I'm very thankful for your Ron Paul work. For "smell" read "aroma". But as you can tell, my goal is to convince the audience that I'm sincere about just looking at the prose, in fact, so much so that I can freely mention my bias as well. Everyone is biased, it's important to be able to admit it. I will also admit that looking for valid criticisms while entertaining my animus is quite therapeutic; there will be strong language, but I mean it quite sincerely. But if you have anything that you feel is still nonneutral about Ron Paul, I'm all ears and will entertain any reasonable argument. Here's some more (reasonable arguments) with my wife getting into the act too:

  • WP:LEAD says that leads are essentially self-sustaining mini-articles: "it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article"; "create a concise intro that works as a stand-alone article". FNs are not strictly necessary, but for items that (for proper context) need more explanation than the brief clauses, FNs should be used. Relative emphasis (in both lead and body) should reflect relative importance per reliable sources. "The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article." And all notable controversies should appear in lead; hinting at them is insufficient. This will all take awhile.
  • And excuse me, straw polls are real people really voting. Every poll type has its bias, so dismissing one type as "meaningless" is nonneutral. Wasted, did you review my link?
    • As I said in my Ron Paul FAC comments, straw polls measure enthusiasm for a candidate among the candidate's supporters, but as self-selecting samples are useless as electoral predictors. The good news is that in three months we'll have real caucus and primary results and delegate counts, and can report that rather than polls. Wasted Time R 15:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After intro, the lead's org is: lawyer, First Lady, senator. Senator is shortest in lead but longest in article. Also there is no summary in lead of anything in sections 6-10, as one would expect. This gives undue weight to her most innocent years.
    • The lead does mention her campaign and her polarizing character, which are covered in sections 6-10. Since she's never been charged with a crime, much less convicted, all her years are innocent. Wasted Time R 15:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink American in sidebar because everything else is linked.
  • Technically "United States Senator from New York" is redundant; but that might be sustainable.
  • "attracted national attention .. when she became the first student" is stretching it; the only real national attention is Life, and as I said that's for a different reason than the lead states. Please resolve the contradiction.
  • "first female partner of Rose" is not noteworthy; she'd have to be a female partner somewhere sooner or later.
You miss the point - she was the first woman to become a partner at Rose. A "venerable" Southern law firm, giving a full partnership to a woman for the first time in their history - that is notable. Not that this was her first partnership. Tvoz |talk 08:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tvoz. Rose was a staid, very establishment firm, and her being even hired faced internal resistance. Defintely notable. Wasted Time R 15:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a number of organizations concerned" and "several corporate board" are completely unhelpful; even a single example in each case would be better (e.g. Wal-Mart). But even board of Wal-Mart is only borderline noteworthy.
  • "first First Lady" actually appears in the article text 6 times! Rephrase several or all. There are way too many "first"s here and some variety is needed.
  • Section 1: I do like the idea of footnote 1, so you might get away with leaving footnotes out of the lead, because it would be untoward for footnote 1 to break up the bold name in the first graf.
  • Comma after "Methodist family" to mirror that after "Chicago".
  • Her father should be "Sr." if that's what he is. "Small but successful" is amateur writing. Mother was a homemaker, so what? Change "Her father" to "Rodham's father". "Hugh Jr.", yes or no? Trim "Hillary Rodham" in next graf.
No, follow the wikilink: her father was Hugh Ellsworth Rodham, her brother is Hugh Edwin Rodham. Not Sr. or Jr. "Small but successful" is perfectly clear - what is "amateur" about it? Mother was homemaker is accurate - is it the word "homemaker" that you don't like, or do you think it's just not important who her mother was and what she did? Perhaps it's making a point that she didn't follow in her mother's footsteps - like Al Gore, whose mother was a lawyer. By the way, Dennis Kucinich's mother was a homemaker too. And Bill Clinton's was a nurse. Walter Mondale's was a schoolteacher. John Edwards' had an antique shop and was a postal worker. Ron Paul's is a mystery but his father had an eighth-grade education. So what? A biography has these details. Tvoz |talk 08:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hillary is possibly Native American? Too many wasted words on nationality!
Probably could be shortened, but take a look at what we've dealt with in the archives and the article's history - there are editors who insisted on detailed genealogy, objecting to anything shorter. This didn't get there by itself, and we'll have to see what will fly. Tvoz |talk 08:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Fsotrain's comments below. I'm open to taking the "possibly Native American" out, but I think the rest should stay. Wasted Time R 15:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who cares if she earned Brownie points or was a National Merit Finalist?! Who cares about weaselly "many activities at church and at her public school" and "a variety of sports"-- my two-year-old does all that, except for the school being public! Delete Brownie if she was a Girl Scout; delete Girl Scout if she did nothing more notable than "earning awards" (duh); delete student council if you don't know she ever held an office; and delete National Merit if she didn't get the scholarship! Even I can pad my resume better than that! BTW I hope to revisit this resume-padding issue often.
You're wrong - being a National Merit finalist as compared to semifinalist is noteworthy and not resume padding. As for sports, see below - Ron Paul's sports don't bother you, Hillary's do. Objective? Tvoz |talk 08:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a resumé, therefore charges of padding are irrelevant. This is a biography. It describes a person's life. If person X leads a commonplace 1950s American suburban life, that tells you something about X. And like Tvoz said, being a National Merit finalist is a real achievement. Wasted Time R 15:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could spend 3 sentences on Goldwater and it'd be more interesting than the current text.
I have no idea what your point is. The point in the article is that she was raised in a politically conservative family and worked for Goldwater when she was young - and her politics evolved. Not interesting to you? So what? Tvoz |talk 08:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I take it she graduated Maine South? Specifying would be nice.
Sure, but I think it's self-evident, since she was redistricted there and the next thing we know she's at Wellseley who tend to want high school graduates. Why waste words on this? I'll look at it, if no one else has. Tvoz |talk 08:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First sentence another excellent wordiness example. Should become "and graduated in 1965" in previous graf, and "Rodham majored in political science at Wellesley College": savings of six words. What does "became active in politics" mean? If it means what happens in the next clause, it is redundant. Seems "Civil Rights" should be lowercase. "Subsequently" is redundant. Moving MLK meeting to "early life" would be nice if one had any detail. By the way I'm saving fact-checking, such as whether she really met MLK, for a later edition. "Affected by the death" means what? If it means what happens in the next clause, it is redundant.
    • Did some of your wording shortenings, but we have to say she entered Wellesley in 1965, because not everyone goes to college directly after high school. Actually ACRM is all initcapped, per its article, so I changed that. Moving the MLK meeting to early life means pulling in a whole level of detail about the effect that Methodist youth minister Donald Jones had on her; I'm up for it if you are. For the meeting, see Gerth & Van Natta pp. 20-21 for corraboration. Wasted Time R 15:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does one strike, at a college? Who struck? Faculty? If not, it was not a strike but a sit-in. What, not attending classes is a strike? No, that's truancy. And she got "moderate changes" out of it? What kind of resume inflation is this?
Wrong again - not a sit-in at all - read the source. Anyone who went to college in the 1960s understands how one strikes at a college - I did it several times, over several years. I changed the wikilink and target to "student strike" - you can go there and read how one strikes at a college. And it's not truancy either - truancy actually is not a concept on the college level - it refers to compulsory education, which college is not. "Moderate changes" is explained in the words that follow it - and I don't see how this is this resume padding. She organized the strike - the source clearly says and the article reflects, that she accomplished something with the strike - moderate, achievable change was her goal. Tvoz |talk 08:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the "Wellesley College Government"? I refuse to believe she was president of an entity so named, lowercase "g" or not.
It's a shame you don't bother to check your facts at all, and just shoot. Try looking at this one. Oh, guess you're wrong again. Or you can continue to refuse to believe whatever you like. Tvoz |talk 08:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did she need to understand her "switch to the Democratic Party" if it hadn't happened yet? All I see is step down from Young Republicans, then support McCarthy, then all of a sudden she's got a voter registration switch she needs to understand. Make the words say what she actually did; she apparently hadn't formally switched anything yet. Not to mention that interning at a Republican Conference makes no sense for understanding a switch to Democrat. There is no discussion of why attending Republican events would make one understand Democrats, which suggests a POV conclusion that Republicans are repulsive in themselves. Then she finally does decide to leave the Republicans. "she was upset over .. what Rodham perceived": obviously, change "Rodham" to "she".
    • She was going back and forth - back then she viewed herself as "a mind conservative and a heart liberal" (Bernstein p. 50). I'll work more on this portion to see if I can improve it; it's difficult to capture the essence of the switch in the limited space involved, maybe a footnote is appropriate. She has another quote about "I didn't leave the Republicans, the Republicans left me," which is a common sentiment among people who switch parties. Wasted Time R 16:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stemming from the demands of some students, she became": "Student demand made her" is shorter. "Its" commencement address.
  • Whose "response" to her criticism of Brooke was worthy of Life? Was it the students' ovation? That doesn't sound like a response to "part of her speech". Oh, and what did Brooke say and how was he criticized? And who is Irv? Should I know him, does he have national attention or just a national broadcast? That whole clause is just an attempt to sustain this "national recognition". 5 minutes of fame is nothing. Do you know anyone who, on discovering Hillary in Arkansas or as First-Lady-candidate, said, "Oh yeah, that student who criticized Senator Brooke" or "that first-ever Wellesley student commencement speaker"?
  • "Worked her way across Alaska" sounds more like Lewis and Clark. "Washing dishes" is noteworthy?! I've washed dishes, where's my WP article?! And what is sliming salmon? If it's in the link to salmon which was deleted, perhaps it should've linked from the word "sliming". She shut her employer down overnight. And whatever that accomplished, and why she was or wasn't fired for whistleblowing, would be nice to know. That whole sentence is bathos.
Maybe she should have managed the college coffee shop instead - see Ron Paul, where you apparently have no problem with the notability of his college employment. Tvoz |talk 08:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Alaska thing is significant in that it shows a side of her adventurous character - she was hitchhiking some of the time, with a friend. Yes, she did get fired, I will include that, space be damned. The sliming salmon is a standard bit in her TV appearances, like on Letterman; she says it was the best preparation for life in Washington that she ever had. I was previously working on finding or writing a good wlink for it, then some other FAC commented said we had to yank all these wlinks out. Such is the whipsaw. Wasted Time R 16:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice how the Living History footnotes have a statistical clustering the closer you are to page 1? Looks like someone tried to make it through but had the same impression I did. This suggests the source was not used critically but conveniently. Dropping some of the early-page references and bringing in later pages would dispel this suggestion. How many hundred pages did she write, and the FNs stop at the 300s? Am I wrong?
    • I used Living History as a source mostly for earlyish life details, many of which were first revealed there. The further along you get, the less useful it is as a source; like just about all political autobiographies, it becomes self-serving and full of partial omissions. I don't see what's wrong with what I did; if you look at Bernstein and Gerth/Van Natta's footnoting of Living History, they follow the same pattern as well. Wasted Time R 16:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In short, we either continue pointing out the language, or we abandon the quest. That means either you run around from site to site looking for all the fixes and thinking you've solved the problem of mediocrity with more mediocrity, or you don't because we don't object to the rest of it and you think you've solved it because we've shut up. But rather than either, we're hopeful you get our message: this is not going to work for you at this time. John J. Bulten 04:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC) John J. Bulten 06:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And wouldn't you know, I even started a condensation edit in good faith, but had a power outage and lost an hour or two of work. Wasted Time. Ah well, will try later. John J. Bulten 07:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that you don't apply these same standards to Ron Paul, John - for example, your disdain about HRC's sports activities in her younger days, yet no problem with Ron Paul's running track? You reject her washing dishes but have no problem with his selling lemonade? I have trouble taking these comments seriously if you don't apply your standards with equal vigor to an article about a candidate you state here that you are supporting. But we're not writing an article about a candidate, and you shouldn't be either - these are biographies of notable individuals, and we're covering their entire lives and careers,including some material that may seem mundane, but that hopes to give a full picture of the person, whether you find her likeable, or with an aroma, or anything else. I'm sorry, but you are being too partisan here. Some of your comments are well-taken, for sure - none of us thinks this article is perfect. But I daresay you don't have a clue about who I for one am supporting in this election - you're not going to find it in my edits in this article or in the other political ones I edit across party lines. I made some comments on the Ron Paul FAC before seeing all of this here - I didn't share with the editors what my personal opinion of Ron Paul is, and it is not relevant. But your personal opinion is coloring all of your comments here, and that makes it hard for me to determine how objective they really are. I added a few specific replies above interspersed with your comments - not comprehensively at all, just a few things I see now. No comment next to one of yours probably means I haven't looked into it yet- it's very late, and I've had enough. Unfortunately you made it clear in your last paragraph that you cannot be satisfied with any number of fixes that are done - your rather insulting "solved the problem of mediocrity with more mediocrity" before even seeing any changes that are made says it all, and I think it might be best all around if you go with abandoning your quest, as you suggest - it is apparently not possible for you to be satisfied with a neutral article about a subject you so abhor, so I don't see the point in trying to satisfy you. I'll look at the comments you;ve made, because I want this article to be improved and would like to see it reach featured status. I am not at all sure that you think it is even possible for any article about Hillary Clinton to be FA status, so I don't see much point in continuing the dialogue. If you want to, and can do it objectively, we can improve the piece. If you can't, then you've made your point, I'm sure it will be duly noted by those who make the determination of what articles are FA, and the chips will fall where they fall. Meanwhile - I'd recommend that you take a closer look at Ron Paul because it needs work. And not a single comment that I made there - not one - was in retaliation (as you put it, and which illustrates your mindset on this). I genuinely want that article improved, I've worked on it, and I'm trying to build an encyclopedia which contains articles about subjects I love, subjects I hate, subjects I don't give a shit about - it's not about me. I'm not speaking for anyone else here, and probably don't represent their viewpoints. But after spending a few hours on "your" article, trying to be constructive and coming here and seeing this - well, I'm pretty disgusted and disappointed and I'm sharing it. Tvoz |talk 08:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, please let me apologize for the mediocrity comment, as I did not intend it (consciously) as affirming that mediocrity was certain, only likely-- but the comment did imply mediocrity was certain, so it was immoderate. However I am all for the values of encyclopedia-building, equal vigor, and genuine improvement. But we must acknowledge that we do all have bias, and we do choose which items we work on and which we pass over, and that does affect which items get chosen for FA. That is, the idea of neutrality is more nuanced than many realize. I will elaborate another time, but suffice for this point that the presidential race reflects a spiritual war which I am fighting full-throttle; and that alone is good evidence that when I emit unintentional insults it is time to tone it down. As for the consistency issues, I will clarify: my disdain is for the vagueness of "variety of sports", so airy as to say nothing-- as compared with Paul's very specific activities. It's also for the exceedingly choppy and self-serving "bathos" sentence which doesn't tell me (1) why is she in Alaska, (2) why is she working (if education costs, say so), (3) why she has jobs "across" the state in one summer, (4) why shutting down the plant is notable in terms of what it achieved for her and the plant afterward, (5) what sort of picture I should draw from these bare details as provided (good complainer or bad complainer), and (6) what is sliming salmon. Remember I'm approaching this article as a first impression, though I do have a couple HRC facts under my belt. I know that much may be explained in the links, but most of these questions should be in the main text. Note I didn't argue for deleting the whole sentence; I could even grant that dishwashing in McKinley Park is a bit noteworthy. The issue is that that sentence has zero clarity. Mentioning Paul's lemonade sales briefly, purposed for college fundraising (a purpose neglected by HRC's editors), or the coffee-shop stint, showing his college interest (HRC's college interests do appear-- all political-- but the former Brownie points and "many church activities" are the vagueness I'm thinking of): those kinds of placements are much more lacking at present in HRC's piece. Please keep my comments in the context of the fact that everyone who takes any FAC action on either article does so because of personal bent, and I decided to showcase my bias rather than hide it. As I've said, I'll try to edit what I can of HRC noncontroversially, but I won't have the stomach or time to research what many of the resolutions should be. But I do have the time to compile them when they can be received as genuine concerns that reasonable people would recognize as FA blocks, especially to new readers. But I apologize for contributing to your disgust and disappointment at comments not directed at you in any way. Sure, someday an HRC FA is theoretically possible, but keep in mind, I'm only up to college graduation and I've already accumulated that many textual issues? What will come of her controversial years when I really have meat to lay into? I'm a sequential guy, and this clunky Alaska stuff is just the tip of the iceberg. John J. Bulten 10:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where to begin? And I have limited time today and tomorrow. But just a general remark - Wikipedia editors face an impossible whipsaw in certain kinds of stylistic choices. For example, the "variety of sports" language came in a while back when somebody objected to the specific sports she played being listed out. Many of the other usages that John J. Bulten objects to are the results of past compromises, past shortenings, etc. If the article were done exactly as John J. desires, other serious editors would find all sorts of faults with it. In the real world, eventually the author(s) and the house editors come to some sort of meeting of the minds, the work gets published, and that's it. Here, the whipsawing never ends. Wasted Time R 13:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize whipsaw capacity, which is why I said, "Apologies if any consensus language doesn't carry the ball." Listing the one or two sports she played most often "and other sports" is perfectly moderate. "Variety" doesn't say anything.
But in general having taken a step back I've decided that this course of action is most in line with my purpose as stated consistently: (1) read through and just list the most egregious, obfuscatory, intractable, or biased texts (while indicating just how much the remainder of the text is as equally bug-ridden (programming term) as the grafs I've done in detail); (2) post a list of significant points that are being given too much or too little weight, IMHO; (3) make a good-faith edit, but only to noncontroversial text, i.e., only deleting what a conservative condenser would find redundant, without touching on what might invoke editorial judgment; (4) leave it to you guys having made my case, unless I have fresh insights. I might add that I just found God and Hillary Clinton by Paul Kengor is being published this month; I have a print interview (Evangelical Press News) where the author says, "She seems a sincere Christian and has been since childhood [but] a major theme of the book is the total disconnect between her faith and her stridency on abortion." But I'll hold off on inserting editorial judgments (such as that cite) until I finish the tasks above and the smoke clears. John J. Bulten 01:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnic origin (section break)

Comment The more I think about it, the more I think the references to and labelling of her ethnic origins should be reduced. Not every bit of her ancestry is that historically notable. English probably is, because of the association with Methodism. John J. Bulten is right, space is wasted, but IMHO its shakily verifiable pandering to the various groups, which is worse. I don't mean the primary editors deliberately did that; this is just one of the ways the article has been used by both her supporters and opponents. But at least remove her from the numerous "X-American" categories, because that really looks like ethnic boosterism. -Fsotrain09 09:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's common biographical information to outline the ancestral origins of a famous person, what their occupations were, what their ethnic backgrounds were, etc. I don't think any pandering or boosterism is involved. I don't care about the categories one way or another. Wasted Time R 13:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 01:32, 14 October 2007.

Chicxulub Crater

edit

Um. Yeah. Putting this up for FAC; article on one of the more important craters on earth. David Fuchs (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. I think the article is much improved with the changes David Fuchs has incorporated, and now complies more carefully with the WP:MOS. I'm not familiar enough with the topic to have an opinion on its comprehensiveness, though, so I'll remain neutral. Karanacs 14:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There are several problems that need to be fixed. Karanacs 14:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Some paragraphs are completely without sources. Please find sources for the facts included.
    • Extinction of the dinosaurs section starts with "This timing", but you have not discussed the timing in the body of the article yet.
    • The second paragraph of the extinction of the dinosaurs section does not read well.
    • I would reformat the article to begin with Discovery, then impact, then dinosaurs
    • There are a few instances where a specific measurement in kilometers is not translated into standard units.
    • Who issued the September 2007 report?
    • You don't have to separate your Notes and references here, since you are not citing specific page numbers. You could combine them into one section. With the additional sources, this looks much better as is :) Karanacs 17:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need a fair use rationale for the image of the quartz
Karanacs 14:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a slew of new sources; added the fair use rationale; moved around the article bits for added flow; changed/added km/mi conversions, reworded the awkward sentences. I think that it's easier just to leave the notes and references the way they are. David Fuchs (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Couldn't this wait more than a week for the Peer Review to finish? There are a number of suggestions there for improvement, but no reply. This article has nothing relating to the type of impactor, and some of the other PR comments have not been addressed. — RJH (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see the PR comments. Of all the peer review's I've submitted, this is the first one where I've gotten actual human feedback. David Fuchs (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be an obstacle, but I felt that those should be addressed for the article to meet the FA comprehensiveness requirement, &c. — RJH (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now The article is starting to look a little bit better. One thing I am looking for in an article like this is a more detailed description of the geology of the crater. Yes, there is some geology information included, but it is in a sort of narrative telling more the story of the discovery rather than a full, comprehensive review of the geology/stratigraphy of the region and the actual "structure." Checking Hildebrand's 1991 Geology paper, I found some things that probably should go in its own dedicated geology section:
  • They describe the crater as being in a thick carbonate sequence, and that shock-produced CO2 might have caused greenhouse warming.
  • They describe andesitic igneous rocks and glass interbedded with/by breccias that contain evidence of shock-metamorphism.
  • They describe the ejecta blanket, and isotope analysis of tektites is similar to those of tektites from other K/T boundry ejecta.
  • Could use one or more geology type digrams like the one from the Hildebrand paper.
A few general things:
  • "The crater was discovered by Glen Penfield, a geophysicist who had been working in the Yucatán while looking for oil..." it still doesn't say when. Even if you say it later, the intro still needs to have it.
  • The diagram does not actually mark the center of the impact.
  • Caption should say why the sinkholes are important, since the map labels them. Map has no scale, esp important because the map shows two different zoom levels. I do like the fact that it shows both a mapped and unmapped image.
  • "At the same time, Florentine Moras, a Haitan professor, discovered a unique geographic feature on Haiti, which at the time of the Cretaceous was underwater." What was the unique feature? A complete sentence should not be vague. Consider: "...Florentine Moras, a Haitan professor, discovered a (volcanic ridge? impact trough? series of disturbed strata?) on Haiti, which at the time of the Cretaceous..." BTW this is cited as Morás in the notes, but I don't see his name anywhere in the references section.
  • "Hildebrand and Boynton also reported their findings to an international petroleum geological conference in 1981" but history section starts off by saying that graduate student Hildebrand was working in the region in 1990. I think one reason I'm a little uncomfortable with this section (not just this sentence) is because it seems like the frame of reference of the narrative keeps switching back and forth. Instead of telling the story from the frame of reference of the Hildebrand team (which almost feels a bit like POV from the standpoint of Hildebrand) you could go strictly chronologically.
Much improved, I now find the prose in Discovery section a lot more engaging! Jeff Dahl 17:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Geological tests show that this impact structure..." In the intro, should probably mention what specific tests were used. For example, something along the lines of: "Presence of shocked quartz in the impact crater, isotope analysis of impact-related tektites, and magnetic and gravity field anomalies in the region show that this impact structure..."
How does their presence date the crater? Presence of tektites and shocked quartz indicate that there was impact, but how about the date? I think this would be done by isotope analysis, stratigraphy etc. and probably should mention in intro. Intro should still be a little more comprehensive, such as mentioning the size of the meteor. Intro doesn't mention anything in the origins section either. Jeff Dahl 17:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Looking much better, maybe someone from Wikiproject Geology can also have a look through. Jeff Dahl 23:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it is a good start, but I think it still needs to be more thorough. A really good geological drawing (showing those things that geology people are interested in, but readable by non-specialists) would help immensely. Jeff Dahl 19:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll get cracking. As for the image questions, I'll probably have to make my own to effect the changes you want, so that'll take some time. David Fuchs (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: Is there a free copy of the Hildebrand paper online? The source was added by someone else, and the site given requires a subscription. David Fuchs (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that there is a free copy of this article available online. This journal is available for download for subscribers, so I suppose I could email you a copy. If you have access to a University library, or sometimes even a public library will have subscriptions to a lot of journals. There is probably at least one review article out there too, which might be worth checking.Jeff Dahl 03:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing that would help immensely would be a picture of the iridium layer. I know I have seen these floating around out there; in core samples the iridium layer is a pretty distinct layer that looks good in a photo. Not essential, but would help a lot and should be available somewhere. I know the geology map is a tough one, but essential in an article about a geological formation. Jeff Dahl 17:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm a neophyte when it comes to image stuff. Could you take a look at the NASA one and see if I can modify that version? It would make adding the changes much simpler than doing it from scratch. David Fuchs (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a scale bar and dot to the NASA map to indicate the town of Chicxulub/the center of the crater would help. If you check out the Hildebrand paper (if you request I can send you a copy by email) you can see what I mean about the geological diagrams. Though these specific diagrams are copyrighted, they could be used as an example from which to draw new, free diagrams using information from this and other sources. I know this is difficult, and if it is too hard to put up a geo map, at least a more complete summary needs to be in the article of the information about the geology of the region. Jeff Dahl 18:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm going to assume I can modify the NASA map if I still attribute. If you send me the Hildebrand paper, I'll get cracking on Geology. :) David Fuchs (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

↔Ok, I've added in my new image. David Fuchs (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The main image is much better. But I am still not convinced that the coverage is thorough. Checking this website I felt I got a better treatment of the impact site, especially with their diagrams and an animation. But here's an idea: there is an email address listed at the very bottom of that page to get permission to use the images. It is possible that these folks, who are associated in some way with the NASA space imagery center, may be willing to give one or more of these images a suitable license so we can use them here. Especially valuable would be the image "Chicxulub structure" and the animation. One thing I learned from that website not covered here is how the sinkholes were actually formed. I just think it needs more. Jeff Dahl 20:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 01:32, 14 October 2007.

Imperial (board game)

edit

Has gone through peer review and appears ready for FAC nomination. Captain Zyrain 11:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The article looks good, but it needs a lot of work. I have several questions and comments.
    • The article should provide more sources.
      • "History and development": for translation and export data. Also for it "is frequently seen".
      • "Gameplay": while it may be a bit redundant, a reference to the manual and/or the official or other reliable websites, magazines or books would be a good idea. The reader should know where the info comes from - it's reassuring to know 100% sure it's from the manual. Statements like "Military units move in a similar manner as in Diplomacy" should also be sourced, in order to be verifiable and to avoid OR. Especially, the strategy section needs to be sourced, as it seems to exceed the normal manual content (perhaps it doesn't, but then again the reader must be sure).
      • "Historical accuracy". Almost the whole section is OR. For instance, the mentioning of Lenin's view on capitalism and war in relation to the game is OR. If a notable and reliable source makes a comparison between Lenin's view and the game, it can and should be included. Another example is the comparison with real military plans of that time. Also, Wikipedia cannot be used as source, let alone to advance a position.
    • The sources should also have a dated retrieval so that the reader knows how long it has been since the link has been checked.
    • Several sections are incomplete or missing:
      • "History and Development". Should be expanded. Does the game have an (original) German name? Has it been translated into other languages than English? If yes, how is called there? Do rules differ between languages or countries? Has it been exported to other countries than the US? What company publishes the game? Does the same company does this in other countries (e.g. the US) or did they give the rights to another company? (the infobox mentions this info partially (Rio Grande Games, Eggert-Spiele), but it should be mentioned in the text also with more detail as it is currently unclear how these companies are related to each other.) How did the creator created his work? Did he have particular sources of inspirations or early thoughts and conversations about it? (Creators often discuss this in interviews) How long did it take to develop? The variants section speaks a decades of play-testing: this testing should be part of the history and development section. I would also put the FAQs in this section, as it is a part of the (post-)development of the game.
      • "Reception". For instance, how many games are sold? How much where? What kind of reviews did it get? Also, it is a good idea to put prices or recommendations (such as the Spiel de Jahre recommendation) in such a section.
    • Other comments can be made, but I've have no more time at the moment. I'll try to help you further in the coming days. Anyway, good work and keep it up :) Sijo Ripa 23:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Already made a few changes and added some citation requests, but here are some thoughts. Started at the bottom of the article and worked my way up. Apologies about the slightly weird order.
  • I'm pretty certain that every single instance of Imperial should be italicized as per MoS:T. This isn't chess; even older classics like Risk are italicized.
  • The FAQs section doesn't really say anything surprising; errata and FAQs being issued after the release of a game is common. Now, if something amazing and shocking was revealed in the errata (like, say, a major misprint), that'd be one thing, but as it stands, this can just go in EL.
  • "The mechanics of the game mirror the actual mobilization plans of the great powers." Uh... while maybe they *can* mirror the mobilization plans, that's hardly forced; England can do a totally ahistorical invasion of Scandinavia and St. Petersburg, and the French can send their troops on a grand railroad tour of the French countryside. I considered changing this to "The mechanics of the game reflect the technological capabilities of the day," except even that isn't true, since in reality, taxing your populace or paying off investors doesn't prevent your armies from moving. Um... best to back off the crazy claims here, and stick with "it's a board game." The section is still a little silly, as the Schlieffen Plan called for the conquest of France, which really isn't actually that helpful in game.
  • "Once all eight bonds have been sold, the investors contribute no further funds to those nations and typically begin a cycle of taxing and landing on investor as often as possible in order to drain their treasuries. As Lenin notes..." This is a really bad comparison, as in reality, countries don't magically run out of bonds to sell. Just look at the recent request to raise the debt limit here in the U.S.
  • "An example of the shifting loyalties of countries (represented in Imperial by the changing ownership of flags) took place in WWI when Italy turned on its allies." Italy turned thanks to promises of territorial gain, not a change in sinister banker masters. The Rothchilds and so on were probably quite helpful for *stopping* many wars with "Come on! We're invested in both of you guys!" Also, shifting loyalities isn't a particularly noteworthy point.
  • "It mirrors the course of history in that the imperial powers" This seems to be saying that the imperial powers didn't fight each other until all the "unclaimed" territory was conquered? This is blatantly false - see Anglo–Spanish War (1585), Seven Years' War, the Carribean and Indian theatres of the American Revolutionary War, etc., etc.
  • The first paragraph of the "vs. History" section: You're comparing a Marxist with a Marxist-Leninist philosopher here. It's not a surprise they both agree that capitalism was the cause of WWI. This view, however, is hardly universal; personally I'd say that rampant nationalism + stupidity is a far better explanation, as WWI made 0 economic sense. Furthermore, I'm not even certain I agree with you that the game really reflects this gritty, winner-take-all attitude. Maybe my experience with the game is different than yours, but it's not at all uncommon for players to be invested in 4, 5, or even all 6 powers, meaning that they just want powers to quietly leave each other alone. And as noted, invading other countries homelands isn't really helpful, and the most helpful things to do with a country are often to simply sit back, build up its internal factories, and tax it, not attempt to go on a world domination spree. I see this game as a much more abstract "spheres of influence" type deal, and it frankly plays a lot more pacifistically with give-and-take compared to, say, Diplomacy (which is all about ruthless domination). I'm certainly not imagining bloody WWI battles, but rather territorial squabbles about fishing rights. Now, I'm not demanding that my OR about how bankers quietly divvied up nations in smoking rooms prevented nasty wars to be put into the article, but the reverse view doesn't seem much more appropriate...
  • Is the Swiss Bank variant that notable? It's a forum thread, and it has no replies, but it doesn't look locked. Okay, it's by the creator of the game, but still, this strikes me as pretty bad turnout.
  • The strategy section needs references.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 01:32, 14 October 2007.

A Beautiful Mind (film)

edit

Self-nomination. I have been working on this article for the past month and I believe that is now up to featured status. It has been passed the Good article nomination and has had a peer review. The Filmaker 20:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments The writing throughout the article could be much improved. Almost makes me want to oppose. Here are some examples:
    • The article overuses temporal adverbs, such as "eventually" and "later", that are almost never necessary. A lot of times, the presence of these words also break up the flow of the writing. For example: "Grazer immediately purchased the rights to the film. He eventually brought the project to Ron Howard, who had scheduling conflicts and was forced to pass." Remove eventually, combine the sentences, and use a better transition to get: "Grazer immediately purchased the rights to the film and brought the project to Ron Howard; he had scheduling conflicts, however, and was forced to pass." "Later" implies a temporal comparison (with "earlier"). However, in a lot of cases, there's nothing to compare against ("Grazer later said that many...", "Bayer later stated that he approached...", "It was later released nationally...", "The filmmakers later stated that the film...", etc.). "Later" contributes nothing to those sentences.
    • Sentences within paragraphs should flow logically into each other. Take, for example, the second paragraph of Production. The first three sentences focus on Goldman and his creative vision for the story. Ok, fine. Then, suddenly, the fourth sentence reads: "Howard agreed to direct the film based only on the first draft." There was no earlier mention of a "first draft", nor any mention of Howard's decision-making process, so we readers are thrown out of sorts. Also, the previous paragraph states that "Grazer was forced to make a decision and chose Howard." There's a disconnect there. See also the last paragraph in production ("The film was shot 90% chronologically.[6] Three separate trips were made to the Princeton University campus. During filming, Howard decided that Nash's delusions should always first be introduced audibly and then visually..."). Reads like a list.
    • The Historical accuracy section needs a lot of work, and at the moment, reads like a random collection of facts. It also suffers from an overuse of the passive voice ("Around the time of the Oscar nominations, Nash was accused of being anti-semitic." By whom??? "It is true that his handlers, both from faculty and administration, had to introduce him to assistants and strangers." What?). "The film has been criticized for its inaccurate portrayal of Nash's life and schizophrenia as well as for the over-simplified representation of the Nash equilibrium." Topic sentence, so we expect to gain more insight into all three areas. Instead, there's nothing more about the portrayal of schizophrenia and the Nash equilibrium. So what are those two doing in the topic sentence? "The film's more major departures from Nash's life and the Nasar biography include that Nash's hallucinations were exclusively auditory, and not both visual and auditory as shown in the film." Very awkward sentence. "Nash also had an illegitimate son in Boston- although his son from Boston plays a part in the movie, as a nurse who manhandles Nash in the hospital." What is going on here?
  • Other random comments:
    • "Grazer then met with a number of screenwriters, mostly consisting of "serious dramatists", but he chose Akiva Goldsman instead, because of his strong passion and desire for the project." If "serious dramatists" is a quotation, it needs a citation. Also, this sentence implies that Akiva Goldsman is not a "serious dramatist" (whatever that may mean); are you sure this is what you intended?
    • "Roger Ebert gave the film four stars (his highest rating) in the Chicago Sun-Times review and gave it thumbs up, along with Richard Roeper on Ebert & Roeper who also stated "this is one of the very best films of the year." Two sentences awkwardly smashed into one.
    • "A running discussion between the director and the composer was the concept of high level mathematics being less about numbers and solutions, and more akin to a kaleidoscope, in that the ideas evolve and change." A bit nonsensical, especially with the passive voice.
    • When you're transitioning into a quotation, please remember to punctuate correctly. For example, this requires a comma after Howard: "After the first screening of the film, Horner told Howard "I see changes occurring like fast moving weather systems." 69.202.63.165 16:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for several reasons:
  • The lead section fails to provide a concise overview of the article, most notably that there is no mention of Production (a large enough section).
  • Lack of specific fair use rationale for the image used in the Plot section. We can see Crowe as Nash in the film poster at the top of the article, so the image in Plot is redundant.
  • Coming back to the image use, I'm not sure if the image in Production has sufficient rationale, either. Per WP:FU, the image only identifies members of the cast (who could or should be viewable on their respective Wikipedia articles), and it does not meet the criteria for how film and television screen shots should be included.
  • Release section lacks sufficient critical reaction for the film. You quote Ebert and Roeper saying that this is a great film, but it's never explained why it's so great. I made this suggestion during the peer review, which was not met -- there needs to be more critical reaction about the film as a film, such as commentary on the direction, the scripting, and the casting.
  • Another glaring omission is the lack of academic studies in regard to this film, another suggestion which I had made during this article's peer review. Here are a few of the studies available to provide some academic insight into the film to render this article more encyclopedic:
  • Mendick, Heather (May 2005). "A beautiful myth? The gendering of being/doing 'good at maths'". Gender and Education. 17 (2): 203–219. doi:10.1080/0954025042000301465.
  • Rosenstock, Jason (June 2003). "Beyond A Beautiful Mind: Film Choices for Teaching Schizophrenia". Academic Psychiatry. 27: 117–122.
  • Bhagar, Harpriya A. (September 2005). "Should cinema be used for medical student education in psychiatry?". Medical Education. 39 (9): 972–973. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02252.x.
  • Keltner, Norman L. (April 2007). "A Beautiful Mind". Perspectives in Psychiatric Care. 43 (2): 110–111. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6163.2007.00112.x.
  • I did add the following sentence and a citation "The mathematics in the film were well praised by the mathematics community, including the real John Nash." as this was all I was able to find at the time. The original link you provided featured links that appeared to pertain more to the film, than to academics, obviously I was wrong. The Filmaker 14:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are just the major suggestions that I have, and the article may need some copy-editing as well. However, the above suggestions are more pressing concerns if this article is supposed to be the finest that Wikipedia has to offer about the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The very first sentence of the lede says it is a biographical film about Nash, contrary to a link given in the article (under "historical accuracy") [21], which explains that "this [film] is not a biopic...it never pretended to be a biopic. It always wanted to be a human journey, based on someone, inspired by someone's life." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.178.7 (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering the same names and basic events are used, and "Inspired by" is shown in the film's previews (and I believe in the film as well), it is technically a biopic, however the filmmakers felt that the accuracy shown did not have to be to the degree of most biopics. The Filmaker 13:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is your POV, and it is fine for you to hold that view, but it should not be expressed as fact in the very first sentence of your article. Many people would dispute your assertion of this film as "biopic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.178.7 (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not there yet. I've copy-edited the opening, to find that the integration of the ideas into the sentences is often awkward or not entirely logical. And things like "who had scheduling conflicts and was forced to pass"—far too informal—don't impress. Need to find someone else to copy-edit the whole text. Tony 14:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object; article does not flow coherently. The plot summary seems a bit on the long side, and goes into excruciating detail at some points (was the final scene of the movie so important that it merits such a detailed description?). The criticisms of the movie and its factual accuracy read like a laundry list, without any logical flow from one sentence to the next. The final section on DVD releases seems overly short, out of place, and reads like an afterthought. The article starts off well, but starts degrading through the plot summary until the end. I'd suggest peer review, but even when referring to peer review was a popular option, hardly anybody commented, so I suspect that would be pointless in this case. Johnleemk | Talk 02:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 01:32, 14 October 2007.

1991 Sacramento hostage crisis

edit

A very detailed article of an historic event in U.S. history, nicely divided into relevant sections with the help of other users. It was written over a long period, and meets the style guidelines. Self-nomination. Coolgamer 20:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of the references have went off-line. Most of the information that is not from web pages is from local news, books, videos, etc. and will be included as soon as possible. Coolgamer 21:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: because of the lack of references. As a suggestion, for the references that have gone off-line, you may want to check out archive.org. See if there's any archived versions floating around. Drewcifer 00:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object primarily due to lack of references and citations. This article does not meet style guidelines as you claim. In particular, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) is not followed, I see a book title that is not italicized, terms like "flash-bang" are introduced with no explanation or link (at least say "flash-bang grenade") and the lead needs to be expanded. A few things in the article are either poorly worded or unclear: in the "Entry" section, the first paragraph refers to a "twenty year old male hostage" (should be "twenty-year-old") that is shot in the leg, and the next paragraph refers back to this "elderly hostage". This is elderly now? Non-free images lack article-specific rationale. Pagrashtak 14:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mistakes noted, looks like that elderly one was put in by another user and I missed it. Reformatting and clarifying. Coolgamer 20:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found and restored old sources, fixed most formatting complaints. Started work on attaching footnotes. Coolgamer 21:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose lack of references, poor writing style (VERY informal), etc. This article needs to just be taken off this list at this time. While the subject is certainly more offbeat (and interesting) than other dry topics, it needs work. I recommend getting a peer review from someone and then going through GAC. Furthermore, the following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Person, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid capitalizing words in section headings unless they are proper nouns or the first word of the heading.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • apparently
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
— BQZip01 — talk 22:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 01:32, 14 October 2007.

Salvia divinorum

edit

I'm nominating this article because it's a very well-written and comprehensive article about a very esoteric drug that's entering the public eye. (Salvia is being considered for CSA scheduling; shows and articles about salvia have been popping up in the media more frequently in the last few months.) It's well-referenced and has undergone 2 peer reviews (which were not productive since nobody besides automatons left any criticisms). Jolb 20:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. [For the sake of full disclosure, I should mention that I have worked on this article in the past.] My objections are:
    1. The first and last paragraphs of the section "Legal status" are unreferenced and contain weasel terms (e.g. "some politicians...").
  Done. Took care of that. That was a pretty glaring problem with the page, thank you. Jolb 17:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    1. The article should have separate "Chemistry" and "Pharmacology" sections. In the Pharmacology section, more on CNS effects of stimulating κ-opioid receptors (Why do κ-opioid receptor agonists have hallucinogenic effects?)
    2. Although not contingent to my support, I'd like to see more about the ethnobotany of S. divinorum (see the papers written by Valdés, particularly "Ethnopharmacology of ska Mariá Pastora").
    3. An "External links" section containing links to useful, broad resources for readers (e.g. Erowid).
External links are quite controversial, ESPECIALLY erowid. Erowid is a sore spot for many wikipedians since it's not one central body of work, it's a collection of different works gathered from some really good scientific sources and some really terrible, unreliable stuff. Very little of the good work on there can't be found on more reputable sites (reputable in that they don't have instructions for cooking meth) like Google Scholar or Pubmed. So I don't think linking to Erowid is a good idea for a featured article. Also, I don't feel we absolutely need an external links section since a ton of information is already linked in our references, but a few external links (under 10) might be nice. Jolb 17:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    1. Criterion 1a: I find myself tripping over the prose at times. Examples:
      1. "Contrasting studies suggests no overall consensus so far with regard to the long-term effects of Salvia divinorum on mood."
      2. "The relatively recent emergence of Salvia divinorum in modern Western culture in comparison to its long continuing traditions of indigenous use elsewhere contrasts widely differing attitudes on the subject."
      3. "News media has taken an escalating interest in Salvia divinorum - particularly in the United States - where an increasing number of newspaper reports have been published and television news stories broadcast."
  Done. I fixed all the errors you pointed out and I will correct any other awkward grammar I find.Jolb 17:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't let the number of objections put forward by me put you off. I have worked on this article and am familiar with the subject so I'm being picky. It's a very good article (excellently referenced) and I think it will become Featured without too much work. Hope this helps. --Oldak Quill 23:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 01:32, 14 October 2007.

Auckland

edit

I think this article should be nominated because it is an 'A-Class' Geography article that is well-written, meets the Featured Article Criteria and is one of the best articles of New Zealand topic-related pages. (♠Murchy♠) 22:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. I'm a regular editor of this page, and I think it's an okay article, probably somewhere between A and B class as the differing ratings on its talk page suggest. But that's a long way short of FA standard. There are patchy citations, listy sections on Sports and Famous Sites, an inaccurate map in the infobox (partly my own work), and so on. The nominator has also concurrently put it forward as a Good Article candidate. I think it needs to complete that process before it deserves consideration here. -- Avenue 01:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Avenue. I'm also a regular editor of this article. This article is nowhere near ready for FAC. I note that the nominator has never edited the article, and their only edit to the talk page is today. I doubt their ability to improve the article to meet the likely criticisms from this process. I suggest this FAC be withdrawn.-gadfium 04:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - Nobody in New Zealand likes Aucklanders, so I may be biased. ;) Seriosuly though, the article is a long way off so that'll be an oppose. Spawn Man 04:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was simultaneously nominated for WP:FAC, WP:GAN, and WP:PR, at the same time. I have recently finished my GA review of the article, and it does not meet the GA criteria, so I highly doubt it would meet the FA criteria. My full GA review can be viewed here. Dr. Cash 05:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has failed it's GA nomination. I'll remove it from this list as an inappropriate nomination.-gadfium 05:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. We were told that pretty clearly. Can we withdraw this now? Ingolfson 10:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 02:59, 8 October 2007.

Resveratrol

edit

I'm nominating this article to FAC. This article has improved greatly in the past few months and was promoted to GA status about a month ago. Please add some input about the article. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a great base to work on, but the lead is too short. Go be one with WP:LEAD and all of it's goodly advice. Two to three properly developed cohesive paragraphs are ideal. Short stubby paragraphs throughout lead to poor prose flow, and even without reading thoroughly indicate there are more significant prose issues lurking. To the greatest extent possible paragraphs should represent a cohesive idea. Short paragraphs either need to be expanded, merged, or eliminated as not important enough. Unless a survey of the sources shows that the article covers all important facets of the topic, the article probably needs to be expanded a bit to be comprehensive. Carefully prioritize what facets are most important and allocate space based on that. - Taxman Talk 05:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Do you have any other suggestions for improving the prose? Wikidudeman (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, once you implement the above. :) - Taxman Talk 03:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be able to implement them anytime soon. I guess it isn't ready for FA afterall, however I can use this opportunity to get as much input as I can so that I can improve it until next time I decide to nominate it. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well the next best thing after the above is done is to find a really good copyeditor willing to go over the article carefully. That's not always easy, and also see if you can't interest other people from the Wikiproject medicine as well. - Taxman Talk 16:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm going to withdrawal this FAC nomination. Please leave some notes on the talk page of the article to further help me improve it. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 02:59, 8 October 2007.

Leonardo da Vinci

edit

self-nom This is an essential article which was once of FA status, but lost it. It has now been entirely worked over by an achitectural historian, with much other valuable input and discussion. It has gained a more detailed and better balnced biography and a broad description of the history and development of Leonardo's paintings,(his greatest claim to fame, but previously ignored in the article).Amandajm 06:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment First few bodies of text in the Florence — Leonardo's artistic and social background section do not cite sources. Please add sources. The same is needed for the entire Leonardo’s painting section. 48 references is a bit on the low end for such a large article, so I think you should add sources, wherever necessary, throughout the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were about 65 references. Many of the authors were cited several times.   DoneThere are now a great many more. However, I wish to point out that dozens of inline citations are complete unecessary unless the material being presented is likely to be challenged. eg. that Leonardo was charged and aquitted with sodomy needs appropriate ciation. That he was employed making a large statue for the Duke of Milan is not likely to be challenged, as long as the writer of the article has consulted a large number of reliable books.
  • Oppose - At a quick glance, there's several problems - Images are scattered all over the place and very distracting;
response, images are placed, for the most part alternately as per wiki style, with images carefully arranged in order to look inwards rather than outwards on the page.

Image captions are uniformative, occasionally consisting of two or three words;

reply. The images have the title of the work. Almost every image relates directly to the text that is nearest to it. The text and the images are integrated, not random.

There are one sentence paragraphs ...

There are several one sentence paragraphs. They occur within the biography at a time when there are no records of Leonardo's life with the exception of two totally unrelated but chronologically consecutive events. There are also a number of one-line quotations by different people about Leonardo's genius.

and overall, the article looks in bad shape for a person who's supposed to be one of the most influencial ever.

Nonsense. He had fame, not influence. Leonardo was an influential painter, as was his younger contemporary, Michelangelo. He wasn't influential in any other field. His work remained unpublished and with little influence, with the exception of a few inventions that passed into industry without acknowledgement. Many years after his death, his work on anatomy was published for art students.

This of course, is all at a quick glance, but I'm sure I'll find more stuff when I looked more thouroughly tomorrow - It's really alte now, so I'm gonna head off, but I'll be back tomorrow with more detail. Cheers, Spawn Man 11:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think you just showed the "How not to reply to an opposer on FAC" side of things. As I said, it's late and I didn't go into specifics. Who knows? I could've come back in the morning feeling that the article was indeed FA worthy, but due to your highly defensive responses, I doubt that'll happen now. In regard to influence, I meant now, not at the time he was alive. Plus I was refering to a poll I read where he was in the top 10 of most influencial people of the last 2,000 years. IMO, one sentence paragraphs are not acceptable. This is explained in Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Headers_and_paragraphs, which says they should be minimised, but not to make another paragraph overly long. Considering the amount there are and the fact they'd not be making any other paragrpah overly long if they were merged, I'd suggest you take a look at what you can achieve before morning etc... The image placement can slide for now, but some of the captions are so unimformative. They don't give dates or extra information. A good caption can really make an article great. As I said, it's late right now, so I'll drop by in the morning with a list of stuff. Don't freak out, you'll have more stuff to do. :) Cheers, Spawn Man 12:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Spawn Man, I'm a 60 year old mother of four adults, whose been a teacher all my life. I'm not interested in playing stupid power games. I can't be bothered with smart put-downs like "Hmm, I think you just showed the "How not to reply to an opposer on FAC" side of things." I'm of the opinion that a little power can equate with a great deal of self-importance. If you leave messages that are rude and ignorant in tone, then don't expect others to dance to your tune, out of fear that you have the power to give them a "bad mark"!
A large number of people have collaborated on the article, and most aspects of it have remained the same for months. These are not stupid people, these people who have contributed and diligently protected it from vandalism. There are a lot of people who have an interest in making the article as good as possible, and whose assessment is very different to yours. These are the people that you stand to offend, not simply by making suggestions for improvement, but by being rude, arrogant and dismissive of the work of others. Have you got any idea how rude it is to dismiss something "at a quick glance"? Why should anybody give a stuff whether you come back to look at it or not?
Concerning Polls, they are almost always directed at the ignorant. Leonardo da Vinci was indeed very influential as an artist. But regardless of what the ordinary person in the street might think, outside the realm of painting, his influence was small. Most of his scientific work remained hidden and unknown until it had been surpassed by others. Michelangelo had far more clout. He influenced painting to a degree comparative to Leonardo, but he also revolutionised sculpture, and greatly influenced architecture.
Can I suggest that we ought to have a reviewer here who has some expertise in the field of Art History?
Incidentally, I have expanded a number of the picture captions, at your suggestion, despite the rude manner in which it was made. Amandajm 16:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you win; I can't really be bothered arguing with you when you're obviously on the defensive. Would you rather I made suggestions at all? Frankly, I fail to see where I 1) Was rude. 2) Was ignorant. 3) Called you or others stupid (Judging by your remark - "These are not stupid people"). 4) Was arrogant. 5) Was dismissive of your work. And sincerly, I'm a little offended by your remarks "Concerning polls, they are almost always directed at the ignorant" & "Can I suggest that we ought to have a reviewer here who has some expertise in the field of Art History?" - This implies that I'm ignorant and that my opinion is not good enough. If you want art historians to comment on articles, there's always Citizendium; besides, do you really know I don't have experience in art history? You must have a different view on the phrase "At a glance" - It was late, I saw this FAC, decided to comment, pointed out the obvious things and was going to return today to provide a full and detailed suggestion rationale. I fail to see how this is dismissive as I stated my intentions of coming back in the morning, giving you a general thrust of what my concerns would be at that time. I'm sorry if you felt that I was commenting on your character, but please know, I was only commenting on the content of the article.
If you feel the urge, please do call me ignorant and dismissive and arogant. If it allows me to get on with the job at hand which is commenting on an FAC, which I've done many times before and many ti8mes after, I'll gladly accept it. You've got a completely wrong take on me Amandajm; although my feelings are hurt, it's annoying to myself that I've had to spend all this time defending myself against your hurtful remarks when I could have been discussing article faults with you in a civilised manner. I'll pay it no mind, and let's get on with the job shall we?
Reply Why spend you time defending yourself, when "Sorry for my rudeness." can be said in four words, and clear the air entirely? I'm now going to take a look at you suggestions.Amandajm 06:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, first off, I'm glad you followed my advice and expanded the captions - they'rre really starting to get there. However, I was thinking along the lines of adding dates to the painting, if the date is known. It just adds that extra detail which featured articles have. Anyway, I'll make a list of problems which will make it easier for you to tick off as you go:
1) Captions - Looking good, but I'd love to see them with dates if they can be added.
2) There are too many opening paragraphs. Try to merge them or cut off content which is already in the main body of the article - For example, the first three paragraphs could easily be merged as they encompass a similar subject from Vinci's carreer.
3) The openings to the second and third paragraphs sound too similar. "The illegitimate son of a notary, Messer Piero, and a peasant girl, Caterina, Leonardo had..." & "Born near Vinci in the region of Florence, Leonardo was...". If you merged the two, you could eliminate this repetition of the "Born in yada yada, Leo was" or "Son of yada yada, Leo had".
4) In the fifth opening paragraph (Ideally there should be 2-4 opening paras, not 6), the text "Nevertheless these few works, together with his notebooks, which contain drawings, scientific diagrams, and his thoughts on the nature of painting, comprise an unmatched contribution to later generations of artists." needs to be sourced as it is making a claim.
Response I have just expanded the intro, since it has been criticised for being too short! Can't please everyone! I'll try to incorporate your suggestions.
  Done
5) The image of the Mona Lisa is in an aesthetically bad position. For one of his most famous works, it's sitting there just below the opening in no-man's land with no text by it and below the info-box. This is kinda bad placement and should be moved somewhere else. Maybe you can get rid of some of the other pictures to make room (An article doesn't need to be crammed with every picture there is simply because you can. As the saying goes; less is more... :)
Response. I would prefer to illustrate ever work that is actually discussed, which is not all of them by any means. Point is, he's one of the world's most famous painters. The aim is to show his "painterly journey" so to speak. With a different topic, illustrations would not be vital, but in an art article they are.
The article also needs to illustrate some of his other interests (anatomy etc) and preferably some bographical material where available (not much). The section on Florence has some general pics about the influences in that city.
6) There are too many one sentence paragraphs or short paras in the article - They are in the sections "Early life, 1452–1466", lots and lots in "Verrocchio's workshop, 1466–1476", "Old age", one shortish one in "Personal life", a one sentence paragraph in "Journals", another one sentence para in "Scientific studies", "Anatomy" & the opening to "List of Leonardo's paintings". One sentence paragraphs are a deal breaker; while shorter paragraphs are not great, they're not as completely non-negotiable as one sentence paragraphs. These really need to be merged, deleted or expanded. Don't be afraid to merge paragraphs to save the citations or to make paragraphs quicker to read. For example the para "Although Verrocchio appears to have run an efficient and prolific workshop, few paintings can be ascertained as coming from his hand. And on one of those, according to Vasari, Leonardo collaborated." could quite easily be merged to the lower one as they both relate to one another and could be rewritten to flow easily.
  Done
7) The text "At this time Leonardo wrote an often-quoted letter to Ludovico, describing the many marvellous and diverse things that he could achieve in the field of engineering and informing the Lord that he could also paint." in "Professional life, 1476–1519" needs a source, as well as the sentence "In 1495 the bronze was used for cannons to defend the city from invasion under Charles VIII." further in the same section.
  Done
8) In the "Old age" section, there's a large protion of uncited material - "next to the king's residence at the royal Chateau Amboise. It was here that he spent the last three years of his life. The King granted Leonardo and his entourage generous pensions: the surviving document lists 1,000 écus for the artist, 400 for Count Francesco Melzi, (his pupil, named as "apprentice"), and 100 for Salaino ("servant"). In 1518 Salaino left Leonardo and returned to Milan, where he eventually perished in a duel." It all needs a source, as text this big needs to have come from somewhere. Also, the quote further down in the same section "Some twenty years after Leonardo's death, François was reported by the goldsmith and sculptor Benevenuto Cellini as saying: No man ever lived who had learned as much about sculpture, painting, and architecture, but still more that he was a very great philosopher." also needs a source.
Reply I don't know who wrote this. I don't have the sources.
Very likely in the Autobiography - link to online text at his article. Johnbod 22:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9)In the "Assistants and pupils" section, "...nicknamed Salai or il Salaino ("The little devil), was described by Giorgio Vasari as "a graceful and beautiful youth with fine curly hair, in which Leonardo greatly delighted"." needs a source.
Reply Vasari is mentioned in an early paragraph as a 16th century biographer. he is well known, linked to an article and quoted frequently.
Can link to Vite, which links to online text. Johnbod 22:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further down "The Mona Lisa was bequeathed to Salaino by Leonardo, and in Salaino's own will it was assessed at the high value of £200,000." needs a source too. All this uncited material is problematic too.
Reply' I don't have the source of these figures. Prob. same editor who also wrote about the pensions.
10) Both of the opening paragraphs in "Leonardo’s painting" are unsourced! That's two whole paragrpahs unsourced! An article should aim to be 80%-100% sourced, but this article has sufficiantly less.
Reply These are very general statements of the type that every High school art teacher makes. They are a broad summary of every book that has ever been written, and not a direct quote from anything.
11) The paragraph starting with the sentence "Leonardo chose to paint an apocryphal moment of the infancy of Christ when the Infant..." in "Paintings of the 1480s" needs sourcing.
  Done
12) "The most famous painting the 1490s is Last Supper, also painted in Milan. The painting represents the last meal shared by Jesus with his disciples before his capture and death. It shows, specifically the moment when Jesus has said "one of you will betray me."" in the "Paintings of the 1490s" section needs sourcing - Who said it's the most famous painting in the 1490s? Further down the section there's a paragraph starting with "When finished, the painting was acclaimed as a masterpiece of design and characterisation...", that opening sentence alone needs a source (Who acclaimed it?), let alone the rest of the paragraph.
Reply It should read "Leonardo's most famous painting of the 1490s..." As for who acclaimed the painting- everyone who ever saw it!
OK! Vasari will do.
RE Referencing. This nit-picking problem is caused by the non-acceptance that an entire section, of several paragraph, may be drawn from a single source. I could simply cite the same three authors after almost every single sentence, because they all provided similar information and statements to the effect that "On unveiling the painting was hailed as the greatest work in Milan and perhaps the world". The easiest way to reference this stuff is simply to put all the references for which agreed and totally non-contentious material is taken, at the foot of each section, but it seems that this wont do.
If there are two paragraphs about a given painting, and two references at the end of the last paragraph, then all the info, is drawn from, and agreed on by those sources.
13) There is two external links in the "Journals" section - No external links should be in the main text. Also, there's yet more unsourced text; two paragraphs infact.
Response They're not mine. Will do
14) There's more unsourced text in "Anatomy" (2 paragraphs...).
15) In the section "Engineering and inventions", the sentence "On January 3, 1496 he unsuccessfully tested a flying machine he had constructed." definitely needs sourcing.
Reply Don't know where this comes from. I'll search.
16) "Leonardo, the "Legend"", "Vasari's "Lives"" & "List of Leonardo's paintings" all have tonnes of uncited text.
Reply So introducing a paragraph with "Giorgio Vasari, in his "Lives of the Artists", in its enlarged edition of 1568...." isn't called a citation?
Link (disamed) to Vite, which links to the full online text (in Italian). Johnbod 22:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list of Leonardo's painting, unless otherwise cited, refers repeatedly to the research of a single scholar who is otherwise fully cited and whose details are given in full in the bibliography.
  DoneI think this is dealt with the problem
17) I'm not too keen on the whole "listy" element of the lower sections ("On Leonardo's genius",
  Done It definitely looks better.
"List of Leonardo's paintings") You could easily turn this into prose paragraphs, which would definitely be a lot better. Listy areas should be avoided.
Response. I believe that for clarity's sake, this is best left as a list, even though it is essentially a list that provides additional info. Now that the previous section is no longer all broken up into little bits, the list form of this section is no longer competeing and distractive.
18) I'm really not keen on the famous painting The Last Supper being waaay down in the "See also" section. Move it to the text sections up above as it's much more important than other pieces in the main body of the article (Much like the problem with the mona lisa picture.)
Reply, I'll rejig them somehow.
19) "Notes" should be "Footnotes".
Response is there a way, and is it advisable to separate those things which are fotenotes and those which are citations?
20) The picture of Ginevra de Benci looks really out of place way down in the "Further Reading" section - it makes the article look crammed full of pictures that you're willing to put them anywhere; the see also section, footnotes sections, in mid air after the opening... etc etc.
Yeah, She's a sulky-faced bitch! She really wouldn't be happy wherever she was!
21) The whole "External links" section needs cleaninf up (For example, there's one link which reads - ", Leonardo da Vinci fingerprint reconstructed"; note the comma before the actual writing.)
Oh not that bloody fingerprint again.... it probably belongs to the Fat Friar or the Bloody Baron
So overall, you've got a tonne of work to do. The main areas of problems are: Image placement. Uncited text - there's a lot of it! Small paragraphs. External links in the text. Listy elements. I'd also suggest getting a good copyeditor to go through the whole article (I'd suggest User:Circeus; he's really good. I really mean one of the best...), as most of the problems up there are without going too deep into the actual prose and sentence structure. So before you start defending/attacking, please note that I just want to be able to comment on the FAC and make Vinci into a great article. In fact, a featured article. It's not good enough now, but if you follow most of the points up there, it'll be featured in no time. Well, that's just my arrogant, ignorant, dismissive, not art historian experienced opinion anyway... Regards, :) Spawn Man 04:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KK, I'll write back when you've done some more. As I said, I don't feel I was rude; but I've already said that & won't again. I'll address some points: "I have just expanded the intro, since it has been criticised for being too short! Can't please everyone! I'll try to incorporate your suggestions." - I wasn't saying cvut it down completely, rather rewrite it and merge.  Done For expressing all his works - This is not needed; an article link is all that's needed, but what I'm really trying to get at is the fact that famous paintings such as the mona lisa and last supper, are both in peculiar palces in the article where they could be much better utilized. In regard to "It should read "Leonardo's most famous painting of the 1490s..." As for who acclaimed the painting- everyone who ever saw it!" -   DoneStill, this really needs a source otherwise it's just heresay. "There is some material here that I had nothing to do with. It can be hard to track down source unde those circumstances." - Yup, happens a lot with me. I rewrite an article and keep some of the stuff which sounds good; however usually I can't find a source and in the end, I delete it and replace it with something else. Heart breaking, but the article benefits. "So introducing a paragraph with "Giorgio Vasari, in his "Lives of the Artists", in its enlarged edition of 1568...." isn't called a citation?" Not in my view; that's either a reference to a book which needs to be cited so we can make sure the text isn't false, or either it's a harvard reference.  Done You can't have both harvard and footnote style references in an article, so it'd have to be changed anyway. But, I think it's a reference to a reference, so yes, it still does need a source. I see you've deleted some of the quotes further down the article; although this is better, you've left one which sticks out like a sore thumb.  Done(deleted) I'd suggest depleting that quote as well like you've done with the others or bring back the other quotes, but suppliment them with more text this time so they don't look listy. In regard to leo's paintings; yes this'd look better as a list on second thought, but it definitely needs tidying up (It looks a bit shambly...). "is there a way, and is it advisable to separate those things which are fotenotes and those which are citations?" - Yes there is. However, I'm no formatting whiz. The copyeditor User:Circeus used it when rewriting one of my articles, so you could potentially ask him if he divulge his secrets with you. It's something to do with formatting the reflist template or soemthing... "She's a sulky-faced bitch! She really wouldn't be happy wherever she was!" - I'd suggest deleting her then; she's not with any accompanying text and only serves to clutter the article. Anyway, as I said, I'll report back when more's been done. Thanks for attempting to remain civil again (Despite the accusations of being rude - no idea where this came from...); it's appreciated. Now I've got my own work and family to get along with. Cheers Amanda (Again, I presume it's Amanda...). :) Spawn Man 07:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I just haven't got time to read this response right now, but I will. Just to let you knw, I had previous;ly tried to edit this page with all my relevant changes , lost it all, and had to go away and do real life things. There is something I can't find now...
Thank you for drawing to my attention the exagerated statement in the intro. As I have said, Leonardo was not more influential as an artist than Michelangelo was. But within his lifetime, he had the advantage of popularity. He was charming and lovable. He was always followed by a flock of students, while Mick was a solitary man. Anyway, it is changed. Still unreferenced, but changed. Amandajm 10:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Not all the issues raised here have been addressed yet, but most of them have, including rearrangement of pics and better placement of sulky Ginevra, deletion of half external links, refs found for other people's edits (but not all of them) not to mention tireless Graham's blitz on references.
Reply - Okay, well I'll start striking off when more stuff is done. I'm a bit confused however as you say you've cited some stuff, but they're still uncited. I'd suggest not putting {{done}} anywhere and instead let me put it there when I feel it's done. That way I can keep track of what is officially done and what you say you've done but it's still debated k? There is still one too many paragraphs in the opening section - I'd suggest merging paras 1 & 2 together. Other than that, there's still a lot of work to do - keep at it and please, the uncited material is a very big problem. That needs undivided attention - all the cosmetic stuff doesn't matter anywhere near as much as that. Cheers, Spawn Man 05:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment Does anyone else think it's weird to have the French and Italian flags given for birth/death in the infobox? Italy wouldn't exist as a country for what, another 300 years? And while France did exist then, that's not its contemporary flag. I guess the counterargument is that the familiar modern flags help readers situate the locations, but to me they give a seriously misleading impression. Not a formal object, just a thought! 4u1e 13:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I agree entirely! But people love their little colouful symbols and stick them in wherever possible.... and a lot of people have invested in this article so I try not to tread on all their toes. The fact that I have just deleted half the external links, or moved them over to the page about Little Lenny's personal life is enough to cause grief! And trivia! Did you know they found his finger print on a painting? And it proves conclusively that he picked his nose with his left hand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandajm (talk • contribs) 13:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a thought, why not replace with:
That would be rather less of an anachronism, and would keep the flags. 4u1e 16:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The info-box is not obligatory at all in any FA, as all information therein should be contained in the first paragraph of the lead. The Italian flag is certainly meaninless too in this situation, I can assure you that Leonardo was not waving it at football matches while singing "L'Inno di Mameli". In my opinion it needs to go. Giano 06:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think all info-boxes should be banned at FA level, but that is probably a personal view. Johnbod 22:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Q. Are we agreed that it should go then? I hate the blinking things? Will there be outrage if we remove it? Amandajm 12:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:You seem to have nominated a lot of pages recently claiming they are written by architectural or art historians. I find this concerning as I see no well known architectural historians in the history. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia has to be beyond reproach in its claims - I would like to know who these people are and their proven qualifications (or list of publications) to be so termed. If these facts are not available I don't think the claim of qualified authorship should be made. I have commented in full on only one of your nominations as I feel you should concentrate on one page at a time. Multiple nominations are discouraged. Giano 13:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, considering she suggested I shouldn't give my opinion above as I wasn't an art historian - as I said, if you want experts, go to Citizendium... Spawn Man 05:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Spawn Man, I have responded positively to your opinions, regardless of having a beef at you for your manner. Get over it!
        • Giano, I was rather rude to you, about....was it a year ago?... because I mistakenly associated you with some unpleasantness by another editor. I always welcome any suggestions you make or help you might give. I have taken your advice about removing most of the nominations and I will definitely take a look at your comments before putting up another FAC.... so, get on with it!
Amanda, may I remind you to remain civil without comments such as "Get over it!" & "...so, get on with it!"? It only shows you're not coping under the stress of the FAC. Personally, there's too much work to be done on this article right now - you should withdraw and come back after everything's been fixed. Just now you've said that some of the dates are wrong; that is another major issue and will take major fixing. Especially if the text with incorrect dates was cited, therefore suggesting that either your citations were wrong or the person who added them lied about what they said. But that's just my view - don't think of it as being defeated if you withdraw your nom. But as I said, there's simply waay too much work to be done. Cheers, Spawn Man 02:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response just to repeat it- I know that from time to time dates are changed by a smart vandal. It can be very hard to identify as vandalism when it happens.
The other problem is that dates differ. The dates that I have, for the death of Leonardo's apprentice Salai differ by two year, 1523 and 1525. He is variously reported to have been murdered, or to have died in a duel, to have died of a sword wound or a gunshot wound. I can source all these statements. Take your pick!
The other problem is that I am continually trying to source things that other people have written. The dates and wording of my sources may differ slightly from theirs. However, I am loathe to just chuck out material that adds to the article, whether or not I can locate the source.
There are problems of interpretation. For example, my translation of Vite says Verrocchio was "embarrassed", while the earlier translation, available online, says he was "angry". I have cited my source, but it's also important to have the online source given as a link, because of its accessibility.
We are dealing with event that happened 500 years ago. They were not all recorded, and new information comes to light all the time. Leonardo was quite mobile during most of his life. So if one writes that in a certain year he was in Florence working on a project, and that in the same year, he was in Milan working on a project, the two are not mutually exclusive.


Comments Oppose

  • "Returning to Florence in 1500, he entered the services of Cesare Borgia," A source I have to hand, Worldly Goods by Lisa Jardine, says he was employed by Cesare in 1502, and then the Soderini in Florence in 1503, which included his failed project to divert the Arno.
    • Response, I have just been through most of this article and compared it with a source that cites documentary evidence for every date that it gives. I have discovered that several dates are out by one or two years. I can't explain the reason. I don't know whether a sorce has been in error but wonder if it's a smarter than average vandal. There has been someone around specifically changing dates in that manner.
      • Dates my sources say 1502 for Cesare Borgi. Don't know where the 1500 date came from.
  • "In 1495 the bronze was used for cannons to defend the city" Jardine says it was diverted to Duke Ercole d'Este of Ferrara for cannons in 1494. Could you check your source on these, please. It's certainly possible that the bronze was diverted in 1494, and the cannons used in 1495, for example.
Reply The bronze was allocated to d'Este on 17th November 1494, with only 30 shopping days left till Christmas....
  • Please give page numbers for references.
    • It's too long. The article has over 150 references apart from footnotes.
  • "Verrocchio, overwhelmed by the sweetness of the angel’s expression, its moist eyes and lustrous curls, put down his brush and never painted again" is referenced to Vasari. An online translation of Vasari gives "he managed it so well that Lionardo's angel was better than Andrea's figures, which was the cause of Andrea's never touching colours again, being angry that a boy should know more than he." Please look into your source.
    • Response My translation says that he was ashamed, rather than angry. The flowery language has gone...
  • "From 1513 to 1516, Leonardo lived in Rome, where Raphael and Michelangelo were both active at the time. In Florence, he was part of a committee formed to relocate, against the artist’s will, Michelangelo’s statue of David." The version of Vasari I used above confirms he was in Rome, makes no mention of him being in Florence, and appears to have no mention of the statue, although it says "There was great illfeeling between him and Michael Angelo Buonarroti" Again, please look into your source.
    • Response Located a source. It was Michelangelo not Vasari.
  • I haven't examined the 6 other uses of Vasari as reference.

J.Winklethorpe talk 23:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more quibbles with the Vasari refs:
  • "Vasari also tells us that in his last days, Leonardo sent for a priest to make his confession and to receive the Holy Sacrament." My version of Vasari says "At last, having become old, he lay ill for many months, and seeing himself near death, he set himself to study the holy Christian religion, and though he could not stand, desired to leave his bed with thc help of his friends and servants to receive the Holy Sacrament." Sent for a priest vs went to a priest. It's a small matter, but the article should not be leaving the source material. Does yours say different?
Mine says that "although he could not stand up, supported by his friends and servants he received the Blessed Sacrament from his bed." One thing is for sure- he didn't go to the priest, the priest came to him. I don't feel inclined to reword this. It is plain that the decision to study religion, to repent and to take the sacrament were Leonardo's decision. I don't imagine that some priest just stumbled up his stairs carrying the Communion vessels uninvited. If the priest was in Leonardo's home, he was there as the guest of Leonardo.
OK, your version makes it clear that he remained in his room, whereas mine could be taken either way. Resolved. J.Winklethorpe talk 11:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leonardo was commissioned to make a centrepiece (a mechanical lion)[13] for the peace talks between the French king and Pope Leo X in Bologna." Again, the version I have says "In his time the King of France came to Milan, and Lionardo was entreated to make something strange for his reception..." So Milan, not Bologna, and nothing about peace talks.
ReplyThis is one of the numerous passages that have been written by someone else that I have tried to source. Vasari mentions the King and the Lion. I have not sourced the "Peace Talks". Maybe you would like to assist? I only have access to my own library and can't get into many relevant websites without travelling to the university.
Unfortunately, no matter who wrote the passage, it needs to be verifiably correct. I suspect my resources for sourcing things are less than yours. My concern is that, even with the small number of things I have been able to check, a lot of issues have appeared. J.Winklethorpe talk 11:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Peace Talks between Leo X and Francois I were in Bologna, in 1515. [22]
OK so the true story on this one seems to be that no one really knows when the thing was first used. Leonardo doesn't describe it. One person who describes it, or something modelled on it, in detail, was Mickel Angel-babe Bunny-ratty Jnr, would you believe?
Re:Vasari, one of the leetle problems is that he writes in the most haphazard way possible, as in: The king went to Milan. Leonardo made the lion. Milan was where Leonardo met Salai. Salai was a pretty boy with golden curls. He taught him painting. ...These things are all in the same paragraph, regardless of chronological order. It's as if Vasari just drops things in whenever he thinks of them. Salai had been with Leonardo since 1491!
OK, so there's disagreement in the sources. You have two choices: Leave out the passage, or give the reader the conflicting options. You appear to have chosen to leave it out. J.Winklethorpe talk 22:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Actually, Vasari gives the same description, so I'll go with the vasari description and use the other reference as evidence that we don't really know what event it was constructed for.
More re Vasari It's acknowledged that Vasari's manner of dropping in disconnected info can be problematical. It's as if, having mentioned Milan, he suddenly remembers Salai. It doesn't matter if what you want is an entertaining read, but if you are trying to get a chronology, then it can be disconcerting, every time he takes a jump backwards in history. We just have to keep remembering that Vasari wasn't subject to any sort of discipline in writing his biographies; he was not constrained to be systematic. So he puts in various stories, as they come to him. Amandajm 07:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "François was reported by the goldsmith and sculptor Benevenuto Cellini as saying: "No man ever lived who had learned as much about sculpture, painting, and architecture, but still more that he was a very great philosopher." whereas the actual source says "According to the sculptor Benvenuto Cellini, the king believed that no other man "knew as much as Leonardo. . . in the spheres of painting, sculpture and architecture" and "that he was a very great philosopher" as well." Again, it's minor, but what is presented as a direct quote is actually two quotes slightly modified.
ReplyI didn't write this. I have searched for a source in order to be able to cite it. I imagine, since it is a direct quote, that the editor who wrote it had access to a fuller version than I am able to locate.
It's an online source, given in the article. That's why I was able to quote it to you just now. What the article gives as a direct quote is in fact fashioned from two quotes. J.Winklethorpe talk 11:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The quotation was in the article, unsourced. I searched for a source and the only one that I located was the one that I added. I could not find the total, undivided original. I gave the source that I had, as indiction that, infact,, Cellini did say that the King said words to that effect. Presumably the original editor had an entire quotation. I'm not prepared to remove the entire quotation, which is of more value than the one broken into pieces by another party! That seems ridiculous, since the citation that I have given indicates that the whole exists, even if it hasn't fully quoted it. Particluarly as the source that breaks it into sections has considerable lessened the force of the statement about him being a philosopher. However, this was the best citation I could come up with.
Meanwhile, my search turned up another source which quotes the entire statement, more accurately. However, the quotation differs in wording, because it is obviously translated by someone else, and the English is more clumsy. But I have gone with the clumsy version, because at least it is complete.
A direct quote supported by a source. Perfect. Just to address your first comments about finding the source: In my opinion, replacing the quote if you couldn't verify it is exactly what you should have done. Presumptions about prior editors just aren't safe. Hence the dates issue. J.Winklethorpe talk 22:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm concerned by what you found regarding the dates used in the article, in addition to things like the article misplacing him in Florence (and possibly in Bologna).
Reply He was def-I-night-ly in Bologna.... and he couldn't mistake it, even with his eyes shut....and if you think he could, then you've never smelt the drains in Bologna...
Checked

Here's where I am: a check of basic facts, and one of the available sources, revealed significant errors in the article. Inline references lack page numbers, so it is difficult to check them. I cannot say with confidence that this article meets FA criteria 1c, and so I am opposing until my concerns are allayed. J.Winklethorpe talk 09:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose, I'm afraid, needs work as per above, especially with the inline citing. I recommend a tour round Peer review and/or GA review for detailed help and tips, before the article is returned to FAC.

I also have prose concerns: the grammar ("As a painter, Salaino’s work is generally considered to be of less artistic merit than others among Leonardo's pupils...") and some awkward constructions ("But its artist was also denounced for the fact that it was no sooner finished than it began to fall off the wall") need attention.

rewrote this 06 Oct

More seriously, so does the paragraph structure, which is sometimes quite desultory. A paragraph needs a topic. The professional and encyclopedic paragraph structure is one that starts with a general statement or broad brushstroke (to be technical, a "topic sentence") and goes on to develop it. If the first sentence is instead disconnected from the rest, as in for instance the paragraphs beginning "In a Quattrocento workshop...", "It is assumed that Leonardo had his own workshop in Florence between 1476 and 1481..." (especially that one, which immediately goes on to a charge of sodomy—do please re-arrange!),

Response, Try leaving the sodomy charge out and we'll have a LBW war break out again. (I'm sure it's not LBW but I can't think what it is...)

"Leonardo commenced his apprenticeship with Verrocchio in 1466...", then coherence and forward movement suffer. Some such paragraphs can probably be simply re-arranged, while others need to go back to the drawing-board altogether. It doesn't help that there are many short paragraphs.

Response, Yes, you have put your finger on a problem. A lot of citable biographical information comes in short sentences that say: In 1476 blah happened. In 1480 blah happened and in 1485 Leonardo went to Blahdeblah.
One either has to chose between one-sentence paragraphs or longer, disjointed paragraphs. The other possibility is to write longer paragraphs with a pertinent opening sentence followed by several sentences of unsupported waffle. Which approach do you recommend as being the best? Tell you what! We'll make it a cooperative effort! I'll provide the leading sentence, a date, and a citation, and LCdB can write the waffle!
Response Please check again and make suggestions 06 Oct

Leonardo's young pupil da Oreno/Salai/Salaino needs particular attention: he appears in two different sections, and his role in Leonardo's life is not well introduced until the end of the second one ("Leonardo's most intimate relationships were with his pupils Salai and Melzi").

Changed this 06 Oct

The tone tends to be a little too personal IMO. Example: it's good to supply the various nicknames under which the handsome pupil Gian Giacomo Caprotti da Oreno was known (Salai, il Salaino); but it's not good to refer to him familiarly by varying nicknames in the text.

Response Will fix
Salai changed them all to Salai, because he painted under that name. 06 Oct

An incidental detail: is the François/Cellini quote ("No man ever lived who had learned as much about sculpture, painting, and architecture, but still more that he was a very great philosopher") syntactically incoherent in the original also? (And can we have a cite for it?)

Response I'm loathe to delete this, but I haven't as yet found the source. There are several little problems like this, including dates, which I have had trouble with and have marked as "cn" in the hope someone might come up with something.
Fixed 06 Oct


Being normally ignorant, i. e. rather vaguely informed about the subject, I've done what little I could to assist, in the shape of a light copyedit, changing many headings per WP:MOS and conservatively removing low-value or repeated links to common concepts (tank, Jesus, drawing, bird, cow, monkey, bear, Rome, Turkey...), per WP:CONTEXT. The article could probably in fact generally do with higher link density, but those links are not the good kind. Please see edit summaries for other changes and requests.

Agree, I never link that sort of stuff. I'll check it through for more pertinent links.


Bishonen | talk 19:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the input I'm working on it. Amandajm 12:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 02:59, 8 October 2007.

Expo 67

edit

I believe this article, which is currently a GA-class article, meets the criteria for a FA-class article. It is stable, well written, and has good usage of imagery.--Abebenjoe 18:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I added the caption to the offending image...the Expo 67 poster designed by Marsil Caron Barkes & Associates?--Abebenjoe 02:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I believe the ""References and notes" sections needs to be split, and it seems to me that the footnotes are heavy on a handful of sources. The "Pavilions" participating countries list could be reformatted, and perhaps the countries could be linked. has it been peer reviewed? There seem to be a few locations of poor grammar and pointless information. For example, "The final crowds started to depart" and "A fireworks display went on for an hour". The copy is also heavy in the passive voice. --Kmsiever 15:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 02:59, 8 October 2007.

Mumia Abu-Jamal

edit

previous FAC

Recently promoted to be an A-class article. Next step to FA - this nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AboveTheClub (talk • contribs) 11:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Activist, Father, Broadcaster, Convict, Author.
An African-American journalist convicted of murdering a police officer and imprisoned in Pennsylvania since 1981. He has so far survived two death warrants, three changes of counsel, and the judge who ordered his execution and who also recommended denying his petition for a retrial. Will we ever hear from the him being crossexamined in the witness box about his claim of innocence? Will there be a final victory for the international movement dedicated to achieving his release or for those who most want to see him silenced forever? And which witnesses are -you- willing to believe?—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])


  • Comment. Haven't read through the article, but there's a lot of irrelevant wikilinks. "Murder, arrest, and trial" has the following words linked: shoot, kill, evidence, prosecution, jury, trial, assault, back, wound, face, death, gunshot wound, custody, cartridge, hospital, injury, (and so on). Only link what is relevant.-Wafulz 20:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed some of these but do also consider that schoolchildren read these articles and the links help them to understand things such as the meaning and significance of legal terms such as assault and prosecution. Those whose first language is not English may also benefit from the hyperlinking of terms of which you or I may surmise "who wouldn't know what -that- is".AboveTheClub 13:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand- I agree with the edit you made to remove some links.-Wafulz 15:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article needs a lot of work to meet the WP:MOS guidelines. Karanacs 15:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with Wafulz: there are way too many wikilinks. The MOS recommends that fewer than 10% of the words be wikilinked. In the lead, there are 270 words. I counted only distinct links (so Black Panther Party counts as 3 words and 1 link), and found that there are over 33 links in the lead. This is extremely distracting.
    • Please wikilink full years (that's the exception to the wikilinking policy), so it would be July 18, 1971 instead of July 18, 1971).
    • THe paragraph on his marriages and children is not straightforward; It needs to be expanded and mention when the children were bron, and when he was married to each, if possible. Is Jamal the son of one of those wifes? Was Lateefa the daughter of one of those wives?
    • The prose needs work overall. For example,
      • Many of the sentences begin the same way; the first paragraph of the early years section has lots of sentences that start with "He", for example. Try to vary, if possible.
      • Many sentences are short and stubby.
      • There are too many one-sentence paragraphs.
    • Don't include (see...) in the body of the article. Use a see also section at the end of the article, or incorporate the term into the sentence.
    • Be consistent with your citations. See info about Robert Chobert in controversion of prosecution witnesses section and the section following.
    • I think the article needs to be reorganized. The section on the arrest and trial does not flow well.
    • Short quotations should not be offset, but should be part of the paragraph, per WP:QUOTE.
    • Need a citation directly after the quotes by Abu-Jamal in last paragraph of physical evidence section
    • Almost all of the images are on the right, and that makes the article look off a little. Can you vary the placement more, please?
    • Many of the sections are very short and should be combined.
    • External links should not be in the body of the article, but should be in the external links section
    • Citations need to be properly formatted, including the author, date, access date, and publisher. Dates need to be appropriately wikilinked.
    • Use named references <ref name=mynamehere>citation text or template</ref> then subsequently call <ref name=mynamehere/> That will clean up the references section a lot so you don't have so many duplicates.
    • The external links section needs to be shortened.

Karanacs 15:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 02:59, 8 October 2007.

Netpbm format

edit

The PBM format is a great invention. It is so much easier than GIF, PNG, or the BMP file format and fun to play with. You really get your work done quickly with it. The article, whoever wrote it, describes it perfectly and should be featured as article of the day on the main page. Roman Czyborra 20:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has failed, yes, why? That needs to be explained. Who developed the system? Individual developers? A company? What were its origins? What are its failings? It is not comprehensive. (By the way, you have registered your support, you don't need to repeat it. You can use : to indent a comment or use *) Woodym555 21:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16-bit formats are doomed to fail because of byte order problems and because one prefers to use typable ASCII instead of binary. Your other question is justified and I have called Jef to ask him for details on this. I will add them once he answers. Thanks for the instruction. Cheers: Roman Czyborra 21:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Attribution. Pagrashtak 23:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion, I read all three of them. I haven't found anything that would disqualify the three reliable sources this article is citing or any reason that would prevent Netpbm format from being a featured article. So please elaborate your exact problem with it. Roman Czyborra 11:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one source for this article: http://netpbm.sourceforge.net/doc/index.html . The links are just subpages of this. Even on this page it states: It should be noted that this format is egregiously inefficient. It is highly redundant, while containing a lot of information that the human eye can't even discern. Furthermore, the format allows very little information about the image besides basic color, which means you may have to couple a file in this format with other independent information to get any decent use out of it. I dont notice any comment about this in the wiki article. There are no WP:FOOTNOTES in the article at the moment. No sentences/paragraphs are cited. Look at X Window System for an example of a Featured computing article with footnotes. This does not compare. Woodym555 12:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that you've turned the external links into a reference section (presumedly as a result of reading the appropriate policy/guideline), this article actually has a reference. Now the next step is to expand the reference section with reliable secondary sources and cite using footnotes. Other problems: The article name (now Netpbm format) is not mentioned in the lead; this is confusing. Avoid second-person pronouns, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Pagrashtak 13:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'd recommend looking at other featured articles for comparison of length, use of sources, etc. Even look over reviews for some previous FA candidates that have really been grilled to see the difficulty of achieving FA status. Consider putting this article up for peer review or expert review so that it can be expanded upon. --Midnightdreary 18:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - example scaled PBM image is incorrect (anti-aliased) and "extended to" commentary wrong. scruss 15:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 02:59, 8 October 2007.

Herpes zoster

edit

Article is about a fairly common disease that is a consequence of getting chicken pox earlier in life. Cleaned up to meet all of the standards of a medical article. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Needs work - the photo shows a very small outbreak. This image might be better. Acct4 17:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So please tell me what needs work? And I'm not going to spend a microsecond dealing with Wiki-lawyering on images. If someone wants to do it, so be it, but there is a group of people who constantly revert images. BTW, most outbreaks are small.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am sorry that you see my recommendation to change from a photo which could be confused with that of a rope burn as wikilawyering. I would gladly change to support if you were to replace the image. I am unfamiliar with the group of which you speak. Acct4 14:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You misunderstood me. I don't want to waste the time finding a new image because the amount of wiki-lawyering that goes on with images. I did not think what you were asking was Wiki-lawyering even slightly. My problem is finding a new image is so difficult, I'd be challenged. Sorry if I came across wrong. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - really sorry but I do think this'll get through and I can see a support coming once comprehensivess and then prose dealt with - alot of my general medicine is very rusty - had to look here to jog my memory...
A few lines on HZ ophthalmicus and the ear one, and Ramsay Hunt syndrome is needed.
needs some morbidity and mortality stuff - the page above is US focussed so some from elsewhere'd be cool too.
The link between immunosuppression and proneness to shingles needs expanding.
The article needs a history section where the stuff on historical terms and st anthonys fire needs to go and be expanded on. All stuff in lead should be in article body and more of it.
Can you point me to an article about a virus that has a history section? I'm not sure that there is a good history. I deleted the St. Anthony Fire, because it really is trivia, and is unnecessary in this article. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Virus maybe not, but schizophrenia (a clinical condition) does...are there no references to HZ/shingles in history whatsoever? I think the evolution (gah! that word again!) of common understanding of topics is fascinating and integral to how we understand them, plus all the funny names are cool. Anyway that's how I see it in psych articles..but, if there are none there are none.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure what you mean and I'm being dense. When I think of history, I think of the progression of a disease or patient information. But I'm beginning to think that a "history of the study of Herpes zoster" or something like that is required. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, wouldn't be big enough. what I mean is a short section (1-2 paras) where any classical/medieval refs/names/ideas on origins would go, and the St Anthony's fire bit. Schizophrenia has a history bit though this is more detailed. I'm sure TB has or should have one too. it wouldn't be big or notable enough for its own article. Should also put in who discovered it and/or isolated virus etc. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prose ain't too bad. though the very first sentence is a bit icky and could do with a rewrite but I stared at it for a bit and nothing popped out. I think the comprehensiveness stuff needs to be addressed before the prose gets looked at in detail but I'll look once this stuff done —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Needs a copy-edit. Lead inadequate. Here are random examples.

Comment You suggest that shingles can be triggered by "severe emotional stress". This is not supported by the reference you provide. Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly why we go through this process. Missed that. But there are so many review articles of zoster, I basically had to choose one. Added it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks good enough. Minor fixes:
        • stick to one spelling of Aciclovir. or Acyclovir.
        • "Chicken pox virus can remain dormant for decades, and does so inside the ganglion of the spinal cord." ---> Chicken pox virus can remain dormant for decades inside the ganglion of the spinal cord. ?
        • Wouldn't it be better to incorporate the 4 images in the gallery at the bottom of the article into the article body, say in the "Signs and symptoms" section? - TwoOars (Rev) 20:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 02:59, 8 October 2007.

Eva Perón

edit

A Good Article for some time, and rated "A-class" within WikiProject Argentina. I believe the article to be a decent introduction/backgrounder resource. Should it be featured? -Fsotrain09 19:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. There are some WP:MOS violations detailed below, and the prose also needs to be tightened quite a bit.
    • Do not wikilink single years. Only full dates are now wikilinked
    • Per WP:MOSBIO, after the first time the article mentions her name it should then refer to her by her surname (Peron), not her first name or full name.
    • Measurements should be given in both standard and metric units.
    • It isn't necessary to wikilink words like "impoverished" or "stigmatized" The only wikilinked articles now have direct or explanatory relevance.
    • Per WP:QUOTE, quotations of more than one line should make a note of the author in the body of the article.
    • Some paragraphs do not have sources, and some quotations do not have sources.
    • don't need multiple wikilinks to the same thing (such as Buenos Aires) Delinked.
    • I think there are too many long quotations from the source books. These should instead be summarized and paraphrased in the article unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. Also, quotations should not begin a section.
    • I don't think you need so much biographical information on Juan Peron in this article; people who are interested in him can follow the wikilink to his article.
    • The See Also section should not include links that are already in the body of the article. The section is gone for now.
    • Use named refs for your citations so that you can reduce the number of citations. <ref name=mynamehere>citation text or template</ref> and then later <ref name=mynamehere/>
    • Are the items listed in the references section used as notes in the article? If so, they should be in the footnotes; if not, they are External links.
    • I recommend that you split your citations into Footnotes and References. The full citation for a book would be in the References section, and the footnote would have the following: Fraser and Navarro (1980, 1996), p. 143.</ref>
Karanacs 16:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 02:59, 8 October 2007.

Vincent-Marie Viénot de Vaublanc

edit

This a wonderful article. Moreover this article is already a featured article in french Aymeric78 15:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The article has paragraphs with only one sentence in it. The prose quality is hindered by the excessive use of proseline. Many footnotes are missing as well. This will take much time to fix.
    As for prose problems, it was easy to find one, but the more I looked it was harder to find more problems:
    • On 8 August 1792, ill at ease and shocked by the course of events, Vaublanc delivered a speech before the Assembly, in which he defended, vigorously, and courageously, against the lively opposition of the Jacobins who dominated the Assembly and of the man in the street, General La Fayette, who stood accused of violating the Constitution
  • On the good side:
    • The section A counterrevolutionary activist under the Directory (1795-1799) has excellent prose.
  • The article does not meet the Good Article criteria, but please do strive for higher standards.Kmarinas86 05:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to insufficient number of citations, some prose issues, and random {{main}} in the middle of sections. Karanacs 15:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment' The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
    • 1. Context - see Template:Biography
    • 2. Characterization - appearance, age, gender, educational level, vocation or occupation, financial status, marital status, social status, cultural background, hobbies, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ambitions, motivations, personality, what the biography refers to as used in the given context.
    • 3. Explanation - deeper meaning and background.
    • 4. Compare and contrast - how it relates to other topics, if appropriate.
    • 5. Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism. need to compare to other royalty, if appropriate.
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), honour (B) (American: honor), sabre (B) (American: saber), defence (B) (American: defense), recognise (B) (American: recognize), isation (B) (American: ization), counterattack (A) (British: counter-attack).
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SriMesh | talk 06:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 02:59, 8 October 2007.

Blue Velvet

edit

Myself, and various other editors have spend quite a while working on this article and I would like some comments and suggestions in order to get it to FA status. Cheers, Malverne 15:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The "References" section is not really references, but instead a trivia list, which still has a {{toomuchtrivia}} tag on it. And contrary to what it says, it's not just a list of film references, but TV, music, video game junk, etc. I doubt it will get to FA with this section still in it. You later have another "References" section, that actually has references for the article. Wasted Time R 05:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object If you want comments to get it to FA status you should ask editors who are interested in films or place a request at WP:PR. As mentioned above you have a trivia section (two actually) and the influence section has many [citation needed] tags. M3tal H3ad 09:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This FA request has been made by a sock of a twice indefinitely banned/blocked user User:Jackp, who returned as User:Angel2001. --Stephen 1-800-STEVE 04:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 02:59, 8 October 2007.

Final Fantasy Tactics

edit

Self nomination. Currently a Good Article. Article has been given proper citations as with other Featured Final Fantasy game articles. Images have also been given fair use rationales. Formatting is addressed. No glaring grammar mistakes. So I hope for a Featured. — Blue。 07:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Not suitably comprehensive. Lacks any indication of sales figures, and the reception section is lacking. In 1998, IGN and the online guys did not have the influence and precedence that they do now, it could do with some print reviews. There should be some indication of the Japanese reception, which normally boils down to some choice Famitsu quotes. - hahnchen 00:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a bunch of print magazines that cover the game on WP:VG/M. You might want to get into touch with the people who have the mags. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-4 14:49
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 05:47, 3 October 2007.

Melodifestivalen

edit

previous FAC

The last time I nominated this for FA, it simply wasn't ready. A peer review since then yielded nothing but bot suggestions. The last FAC failed for two reasons: untidy prose and overuse of fair-use images. I've thoroughly copyedited the article (ideally I would have had someone else do this, but interest was lacking) and reduced the number of FU images to two. I think the article now meets the criteria. Comments are welcome. Thanks. Chwech 19:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, anyone? Seriously, it's been nearly two weeks—this is very frustrating. Chwech 18:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is tagged as under copyedit. I suggest it comes back when that's done. --Dweller 07:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I wasn't expecting that when I nominated it, I'll leave a message with Raul. Thanks. Chwech 20:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/October_2007&oldid=167472412"