Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2012

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Archived nominations

October 2012

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 by GrahamColm 11:09, 27 October 2012 [1].

Jon Huntsman, Jr.

edit
Nominator(s): Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 04:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have put a lot of work into this article and it meets all criteria. The article is about the former Governor of Utah and US Ambassador to Singapore and China, and most recently a 2012 candidate for Republican nominee for President. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 04:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest a more enticing nom. So who is he anyway? Obviously he's notable or he wouldn't have an article. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 18:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Source for 2006 Cato Institute eval? Added
  • Source for "largest budget in the state's history"? Added
  • Source for children? Added
  • Source for Distinguished Eagle Scout Award? Check for other material missing citations Added
  • In citations, be consistent in what is wikilinked when, what is italicized when, etc
  • Web sources should consistently include publishers
  • FN4: who uploaded this image?
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Replaced
  • Be consistent in when you include access dates
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for newspapers
  • FN18 and similar: formatting
  • Fn21: formatting
  • Several titles use hyphens when they should use endashes
  • FN41: formatting

Oppose and stopping - citations/sourcing needs significant work before review can proceed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jesse V.

Comment about 15 duplicated links, the first of which occurs in the second para of the lead Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:04, 21 October 2012 [2].

Government Hooker

edit
Nominator(s): ðάπι (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Born This Way, the second studio album of American recording artist Lady Gaga, was released worldwide on May 23, 2011. The album produced varying responses from music commentators, and many felt that the album was subpar from Gaga's previous efforts. However, a number of tracks on the album were praised, including "Government Hooker", a song that many of her fans proclaim to being Gaga at her best. This article has been nominated two times, and though it failed to meet the criteria, the feedback was comprehensive and helpful. There wasn't much to fix this time around, so now I believe the article satisfies the FA criteria. Hopefully the third time is the charm. —DAP388 (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: File:John F. Kennedy, White House photo portrait, looking up.jpg is fine but has a redlink template and a redlink related image, they should be fixed or removed. The other images are fine. "Appearances and live performances" has a single paragraph of 3 lines, it should be expanded or merged into another section. I did not see any further things to point. Cambalachero (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I merged the "appearances and live performances" section with the reception section. As for the Kennedy image, I do not know how to remove the redlink. Hopefully this isn't a huge issue, but if this will hinder the article from satisfying the FA criteria, then perhaps I can choose another image of Kennedy.—DAP388 (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On its most recent FAC outing, the article received substantial comments from three editors, all of which it seems were addressed, although in one case an oppose was left unchanged. It would be helpful if those editors could indicate the extent to which they have remaining concerns. Have they been alerted to the article's resubmission here? Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editors have been notified. Again, I apologize for the late reply. —DAP388 (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Avoid saying that a song has influences of another genre when the source does not specify it. Critics may notice elements, but the song may not have necessarily been influenced by the genre(s). Otherwise it could be considered OR.
  • "Its themes relate to female sexual empowerment, expressed as a metaphor for the supposed relationship between actress Marilyn Monroe and United States president John F. Kennedy." - Ambiguous. What is expressed as a metaphor to their relationship. And I would recommend "former United States president" or "late United States president". Obama is the current president.
  • In the background section, I find the title of the song is mentioned in awkward places and sounds repetitive. Try variety (eg. the song, it, etc.)
  • I don't think "of 'Government Hooker'" is necessary here, "Gaga wrote the lyrics of "Government Hooker" shortly after first hearing the beat." - it's redundant.
  • "Shadow noticed Van Der Veen's thick, distinctive Dutch accent while he was browsing through the lyrics." - this is a bit unclear. What do you mean by "browsing through the lyrics" and how does it help Shadow notice Peter's accent?
  • I can't find a source that says that this song is dance-pop. I see a source saying just "dance" (no pun intended), but no "dance-pop".
  • Awkwardly worded: "'Government Hooker' begins when Gaga sings in a melodramatic, operatic fashion" – (1) the "begins when Gaga sings" is weird and odd wording; (2) is "fashion" the right word here?
  • "with the lyrics" - could be replaced with a colon, which would be nicer
  • "generally applauded" does not work very well. "Applaud" means to have great praise and to acclaim, so using "generally" alongside is a bit strange. Try "generally praised". It's milder wording.
  • You could go without saying "Government Hooker" twice in the second paragraph of Reception. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 16:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 05:36, 16 October 2012 [3].

Ted Kennedy (ice hockey)

edit
Nominator(s): Heroman26 (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all the criteria for a FA. Well-written, with a neutral POV, and excellent encyclopedic vocabulary. Many references are added and pictures are of great quality. Right now it's rated as Start-Class... Heroman26 (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should be withdrawn – As far as I can see, the nominator has not done any work on the article. User:BashBrannigan appears to be the primary contributor for this page. If this editor does not give approval for an FAC attempt, I think one of the directors should withdraw this per the instructions, which state that primary contributors should nominate articles. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded for withdraw: As Giants2008 states, the nominator is not the primary contributor to the article. Further, there is no indication that any discussion took place between the nominator and the primary contributor. The nominator is unlikely to be familiar enough with the intricacies of the article to successfully navigate the FLC process. While not always necessary, this article has also been fast tracked to FLC; it has not gone through WP:GAN or WP:PR. – Nurmsook! talk... 01:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although the nominator didn't contact me, I did appreciate the fact that it was thought good enough to be nominated. I can give my approval to the article being nominated and would be willing to do work on it. However, I would also defer to the above two editors if they feel the article would be better served by going through peer review first. Thanks, BashBrannigan (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - have to agree with the previous recommendations for withdrawal, some quick general pointers:

  • While lead statements normally don't need citations, extraordinary praises and statements of opinion should be cited immediately, even in the lead. See "He was an essential contributor to the Maple Leafs becoming the National Hockey League's first dynasty", "He has been called the quintessential Maple Leaf and by some the greatest player in the team's history." and similar statements.
  • The second lead para describing his youth and background seems slightly too detailed in comparison with the rest of the lead. Detailed descriptions of his family situation are better left to the main text.
  • Why does "Ted "Teeder" Kennedy was born December 12, 1925, in the small village of Humberstone,[1][2] Ontario,[3][4] which in 1970 was amalgamated into the city of Port Colborne.[5][6]" need 6 sources? Several other occurrences of multiple citations for relatively common statements throughout the main text - needs a complete check.
  • Avoid slightly PoV-ish phrases like "[Although young], Kennedy was successful ...", "In [only] his second NHL season, Kennedy finished 1944–45 regular season ..." and similar. Just state the facts as neutral as possible and let the reader judge.
  • Retirement (and a few other sections) has a lot of one-sentence paras. Try to merge those into larger themes with a more narrative, less listy structure.
  • Focus - from an admittedly quick read the article seems to loose focus (the player Ted Kennedy) sometimes and strays into history of Canadian ice hockey or of his team. Statements not related to the article topic should only be included, when needed as background information to increase reader's understanding of the main topic. A lot of team internal development information could be trimmed without loosing information about Ted.

The article certainly has some very good content, but would benefit from more preparation before a FA-nom. GermanJoe (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 08:44, 14 October 2012 [4].

Red Dress (song)

edit
Nominator(s): Till 05:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I fancy the song, it was critically acclaimed and is one of the group's most well-known songs. The article is well-written and supported by high-quality sources, and appears to meet WP:FAC. Till 05:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

  • File:RedDressCD1Cover.jpg needs source and copyright information
  • File:RedDressSample.ogg: how long is the original (source) recording?

Source review

Comment: I have given this a bit of a peer review, as PR is not working too well at present. There is work to be done on the prose:

Lead
  • "It contains a sample of "Landslide", recorded by Tony Clarke." I'm not sure what this means; was a section of a different song incorporated into "Red Dress"? Is "sample" pop jargon for "short extract"? In any event it should be "from", not "of". And you should clarify that "Landslide" refers to a song.
    • Changed "of" to "from", and also changed to "a recording by Tony Clarke". I'm not comfortable calling it a song because there isn't a source that states this. Till
  • You have "top-five" and "top-ten" (with hyphens), but "top twenty" (without hyphen). My advice is ditch the hyphens
  • Last line: "amongst" → "among"
Development
  • I can't see any "development" information in the section, which is all about the song's production. Normally in song articles there is information about how/why the song came to be written, why the particular theme was chosen, etc. That sort of stuff seems missing here.
    • I have changed the title of the section, but honestly finding information for a British song from 2005 is such a pain. I'll go through Highbeam to see if there are any undiscovered archived articles. Till
Release
  • Can you clarify if my understanding of the first paragraph is correct? Mutya Buena left the Sugababes after the group had recorded the Taller in More Ways album. A new version of the album (not a "re-release" of the old) was then recorded, with Amelle Berrabah as a vocalist in three songs, including "Red Dress". If this is the case, the prose needs to be clearer; it is somewhat confused at the moment.
  • Can you further explain " which replaced the group's 2005 single "Push the Button" from the UK chart summit"? I am completely baffled at the moment, particularly as the following quotation talks of being "knocked off number one".
  • This is an article about a British group and should use British, not American, spelling. I see "favorable"; there may be others.
  • B-side or b-side?
  • Jimmy Draper's comment is more reception than release information. Likewise: "Red Dress was featured on the soundtrack for the 2006 film, It's a Boy Girl Thing." This is not really release information; perhaps tag it on to the video section.
    • The song being featured on a soundtrack is sort of release information. It would be awkward to see it in the music video section. Till
Critical reception
  • I suggest that you write some kind of introductory summary to the section, rather than going straight to the reviewers' comments. Try to avoid the cliché "mixed reviews" - although in this case it seems that nearly all comments were positive. Was Mueller te only unimpressed critic?
Chart performance
  • "sales of 18,210" - is that "sales for the week of 18,120?
    • 18,210 copies sold in the first week. Till
  • "highest debut"; do you mean "highest-ranked debut"?
  • "Taller in More Ways become the first album by the Sugababes to spawn three top five hits in the UK, following "Push the Button" and "Ugly" which peaked at numbers one and three, respectively." Needs rephrasing; it was "Red Dress" that followed the two songs you mention into the top five.
  • "It spent ten weeks on the chart..." You need to define "it"
  • That intrusive hyphen again - "top-ten", "top-twenty", "top-forty"
  • It may be better to use numerics for double-figure numbers, e.g. "41" in place of "number forty-one", 61, 22 etc. You woul need to check for consistency through the article
Music video
  • First paragraph needs some reordering. The quote from the website, which anticipates the video being made, should come before the sentences dealing with the making and issue of the video, and Royes's subsequent death.
    • Changed around. Till
  • "Former" (in this sense) means first of two, not three. Suggest: "the first of whom is wearing a black mask".
Live performances
  • "according to Craig Hope of Chronicle Live, "came amid a sea of manic applause" - requires the word "it" before the quote
  • Say what "indig02" is. In the link article the "i" is lower case
  • "Whilst" is rarely used now, and is generally deprecated in prose. Use "while". And begin the "My favourite outfit..." quotation with quote marks.
  • "It was performed at the 2008 Oxygen Festival..." Again you need to clarify "it" - the previous sentence is not about the song.

I've not looked at other aspects, but that's enough to be getting on with. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for commenting. Till 03:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The prose generally seems rather wooden to me, and after almost three weeks at FAC I shouldn't be seeing this kind of thing in the lead: "'Red Dress' is considered one of the group's signature songs and among their most-well known singles". And I frankly find sentences such as "The keyboards were provided by Powell, Higgins, Tim 'Rolf' Larcombe and Jon Shave, of which the former two also completed the programming" to be incomprehensible at best. Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 00:43, 13 October 2012 [5].

Terms of Endearment (The X-Files)

edit
Nominator(s): Bruce Campbell (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with the Shirley MacLaine film, "Terms of Endearment" is a later series episode of the X-Files, featuring a guest appearance by a cult b-movie actor. Hopefully another article in a long series of featured material from the X-Files wikiproject, I believe the article meets the criteria for an FA. The article is a current GA, was promoted to an A-Class article, underwent a peer review and has been under seen by numerous editors. Bruce Campbell (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One major concern—the "Reviews" mixes contemporary reviews with retrospective ones. It's important that we separate these to get an idea how a work has received over time. Compare with the FA Triangle (The X-Files).—indopug (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Moved around some of the reviews so they're sorted in more of a chronological manner, now has seperate sections for Initial reception and later reception. Bruce Campbell (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll try to chip in with a more-thorough review and copy-edit later, but it looks mostly good.—indopug (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job. (and can't help but laugh at how appropriate is the name of the user nominating this...) igordebraga ≠ 04:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from TBrandley moved to talk

Addressed comments from Cliff smith moved to talk

  • Support. I reviewed this article both at GA and for its A-Class review, and have watched it progress along the way. I believe it's the first FA nom by its nominator so if one of the delegates would like source spotchecks performed, I have most of these sources available to check. GRAPPLE X 14:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Technical) oppose (just because I don't want this overlooked): File:Aleister Crowley, Golden Dawn.jpg needs proper sourcing information. We don't know where it comes from, who the author is (probably not the subject) and thus whether its country of origin is the US or the UK, or whether it was published before 1923. File:Bruce Campbell 2011.jpg and File:RobertPatrickOct09.jpg could preferably do with a personality rights tag &ndasj; see File:David Duchovny 2011 Shankbone.JPG) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since all File:Aleister Crowley, Golden Dawn.jpg is supporting is a quote, the image can either easily be removed or replaced with one of the other ones from here, but they all seem to have the same issue. I've removed it here. Bruce Campbell (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do about the Bruce Campbell and Robert Patrick files, either I'll replace them with more valid ones or work out the personality tags. Bruce Campbell (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added personality rights tags to the images in question. Both are simply being used as an accompaniment to discussion of uncontroversial roles they've acted so I'm happy enough there's no actual issue with personality rights in using them. Crowley could go if it's problematic, there's probably room for another free file to replace it if necessary. GRAPPLE X 14:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the Crowley one with another free version. Granted, it's not as spooky as the others, but it is him.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid File:Aleister Crowley, Ceylon 1901.jpg has the same problems – OK, so we've got "Ceylon, 1901" but no author or how the uploader has got the file - what book or website. Either would be enough to render the file potentially non-free. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright; with this edit, the article now features no image of Crowley and now uses one of Chris Carter, the man who greenlit the episode. There are tons of images of Crowley in commons but they all have the same dubious sourcing problems evidently. That particular image has previously been utilized in featured content so I'm fairly sure that all image concerns have been addressed. Bruce Campbell (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(undent): Indeed, now clear - it's another in the personality-rights boat, but that is purely advisory and not a requirement. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added a personality rights tag to the Carter image for consistency. GRAPPLE X 20:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - I'm not convinced the prose is of FA standard. I see fused participles:-

  • "with Seghers writing that...
  • "with The X-Files being called "the other drama Fox ordered that spring""

There is lack of flow:-

  • Along with numerous episodes of the series, "Terms of Endearment" takes a heavy influence from horror films, and features gothic imagery and themes. Along with Rosemary's Baby, the episode contains references to the 1972 film The Exorcist and the 1981 film The Evil Dead." Along with...Along with

This is vague and almost meaningless:-

  • "The X-Files producer Paul Rabwin was involved with the effects presented within the episode."

This is grammatically incorrect:-

  • "Owens reported that because of the dislike people had in the character he was playing..."

These are just examples. I would like to see more work on the prose and spotchecks before I consider closing the nomination. Graham Colm (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I agree with Graham, the prose falls short of the standard required of an FA. A few examples:
  • "The first five seasons of the series were generally filmed in Vancouver ...". How do you "generally" film?
  • "... however, production during the show's sixth season took place in Los Angeles, California." Misuse of the word "however".
  • "Along with most of the season, 'Terms of Endearment' was filmed there." The best one can say about that is that it's very awkward.
  • "In order to make the scene frightening, producer John Shiban noted that the film crew made 'a big deal out of the eyes'." No, that isn't why Shiban noted anything.
  • "By the time Weinsider is defeated, the audience is lead to identify with him partially." Have none of the supporters actually read this article?
  • Reviews of the episode were mixed from critics upon its first broadcast.". Semi-literate at best.
  • "Years following the episode's originally broadcast, critical reception was more positive." What on Earth does that mean?
  • "Owens reported that because of the dislike people had in the character he was playing ...". You don't have dislike in, you have dislike 'of.
  • "The character had a severe disbelief in the paranormal". How can a disbelief be severe?
  • "... having her child stand-in for a child-demon was a conflict of her faith." No, it was in conflict with her faith.

I want to stress that these are just a few examples, and that simply fixing these will not change my vote. The whole article needs work. Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this a copy-edit later tonight. However, I'd like to say, comments like "semi-literate" and just generally trashing the supporters and nominator is not called for. Tone down the insults, and just give the examples. If there is one thing in this world that bothers me more than anything on Wikipedia, it is editors who believe that only they are the masters of the English language, and insult others over small grammatical errors (yeah, in the big scheme of things, these are rather easy things to fix). This has been peer-reviewed, copy-edited, and passed several other checkpoints, so its not as if we threw this out of no where.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hey stop this. I see no insults or trashing. These are valid comments on the prose, not on the nominator or the other reviewers. Graham Colm (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may say whatever you like Gen. Quon, but I stand by my comment. If these are "rather easy things to fix" then why haven't you fixed them before now? Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about my post, I just felt the criticism was a little sharp, and a mere "fix the prose" with examples would have worked better. Consider me being quiet about it now. I'll help to fix it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not rush the copy edit, I see new errors occurring, "while the performance given by guest actor Bruce Campbell attracting most of the positive reception". This nomination is not going to be closed today! Graham Colm (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Graham and Malleus. A few examples follow:
  • "According to Amann, the initial draft for the episode was "heavier on pure shock value and lighter of humor and human interest".[5] Originally, Laura Weinsider was supposed to give birth to a serpent rather than a demon baby. In addition, the story was initially more "linear", as reported by Amann.[5] The original draft called for the devil to unsuccessfully seek a human baby, leading to the murder of his wife." > repetition: "initial draft", "originally", "initially", "original draft". "Was supposed to" could be rephrased
  • "The writers felt that this draft of the story model had a certain "inevitability" to it." > rephrase "writers felt", which is "this", what is a "story model"?
  • "This is not the first occasion that the series has drawn influence from Crowley; a highschool from the episode "Die Hand Die Verletzt" was named after him as well." > avoid using "this" as an unqualified pronoun; rephrase "drawn influence"; "highschool" should be "high school"
  • "The episode marked the first time a cast member had to withdraw mid-production for religious reasons." > rephrase "episode marked the first time"
  • "She stated that, although the fact that The X-Files was her favorite show, she was a devout Catholic and having her child stand-in for a child-demon was a conflict of her faith" > awkward with "that" "that"
  • "Director Rob Bowman assured her that the dilemma was understood" > passive; who understood the dilemma?
  • "Campbell's casting was inspired by this series of events" > haven't a clue what this means
  • "Several of the creative forces behind the failed Brisco County, Jr. later found a career working on The X-Files," > creative forces found a career?
  • "One of the major themes of the episode revolves around the horrors of child birth." > a theme can't revolve around something


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 22:39, 4 October 2012 [6].

Hyderabad, India

edit
Nominator(s): Omer123hussain (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it fulfills FA criteria, it had been peer reviewed, passed through guild of copy editors and exclusively copy edited by multiple established editors. It is currently a GA and was earlier nominated for FA which was withdrawn by the advice of reviewers for more improvement. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Should {{portal|India|Hyderabad}} be added to See also?
  • In Economy, List of tourist attractions in Hyderabad in the see also template looks off-topic as well as, shouldn't Software industry in Andhra Pradesh be in the article of AP rather then in Hyderabad?
As s/w industry in Hyderabad was merged to form Software industry in Andhra Pradesh, and maximum of 90-95% of those listed companies are in Hyderabad , thus it is reasonable to apply it in Hyderabad article.
  • Osmania University is linked twice in a single section
Done
  • Captions in most of the images is pretty poor and somewhere there is just the name kept. Per WP:CAPTION, please expand them (but not too much).
Done
  • In Sister Cities, the table is too big compared to the content. Like Delhi, please make it more compact
Done
  • In demographics, since there are not many records, please change {{India census population|title=Hyderabad Population -> to -> {{India census population|state=|title=Hyderabad Population
  • Many images lack WP:ALT and few require to be improved.
Done
Done

TheSpecialUser TSU 17:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the earlier FAC it was advised to merge the Etymology section as it contains few sentences only, and there is nothing much about the city etymology to expand the section as it was founded in 1591, as a new city beside the Golconda and earlier to it the place was just a forest without any settlement. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - 2 problems and 2 nitpicks

  • File:Falaknuma 1900.jpg - "Author unknown" and pd-old-100 do not work for a photo taken in 1900 (the author could have lived well beyond 1912). The CC-3.0. tag doesn't help to solve the problem (assuming the uploader is not the original author). For copyright notice of the source website "The British Library Board" see [7]. - needs some research or removal.
  • File:Hyderabad India map attempt 1.svg - Open Street Map uses CC-BY-SA 2.0, not 3.0.
  • File:Hyderabad india .jpg - lacks author info. If no author can be specified, it's still better to add "Author unknown". Done
  • Other images look OK, though some of the pd-self images could use explicit author and source info for clarity.
  • Suggest to use summary templates, when adding image information to commons for better structure. GermanJoe (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the Falaknama image as suggested.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm always keen to see FAs developed on major geographical locations, but seeing a fair few issues here, from detailed to broader issues. This from just a cursory glance:

  • "Hyderabad state was split from Hyderabad and added into 3 states." One thing cannot be added into three things. Perhaps H state was divided amongst 3 states? Also, should not numerals below ten be spelt out per MOS? Further, if the state was split from Hyderabad (city), that implies the city is no longer part of a state at all. Then, later in the para, sentences get out of chronological order.
Sorry for the confusion there. The statement was erroneous. Changed to the following, "On 1 November 1956, the states of India were reorganised by language group. Hyderabad state ceased to exist; it was split into three parts which were added to Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh."--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maharashtra and Karnataka were named so only in 1960 and 1973. I recommend adding a "what is now" before Maharashtra.—indopug (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Golconda and the Hyderabad styles are two branches of the Deccani school of painting.[154] The Golconda style that originated in 16th century during Qutb Shahi sultans..." There seem to be one too many "the"s in first sentence, two too few in the second sentence, and I'm not clear whether what is meant is "during the reign of the Qutb Shahi sultans", or something else.
It now reads, "The Golconda and Hyderabad styles are branches of the Deccani painting. The Golconda style that was developed during the 16th century is an insightful native style..."--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hyderabad is twinned with neighboring Secunderabad, separated through Hussain Sagar lake." Not according to the list of twinned cities at the end of the article. And the use of "through" here appears incorrect. Actually, another problem is that this sentence appears to be in completely the wrong section of the article, as it is about administrative units, but is in the "neighbourhood and landmarks" section??
The "twinning" here refers to Twin cities (geographical proximity), such as Minneapolis and St Paul.
Is separated "by" ok?
Mentioning Secundrabad is probably ok in this section; however, mention of GHMC is not needed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Central Hyderabad, bisected by the Musi River, is the city nucleus." Well, yes, the centre is pretty much always the nucleus. and the article has just repeated the information about the river's place (albeit in a slightly different way) twice in two paras.
Removed the nucleus bit. Please have a look at the second paragraph now.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hyderabad is known as the "City of Pearls" due to the presence of pearls trading industry." should be "Hyderabad is known as the "City of Pearls" due to the presence of a pearl trading industry." But in any case better writing might be, eg, "Hyderabad is known as the "City of Pearls" due to its role in the pearl trade." or, better again, eg, "Hyderabad is known as the "City of Pearls" due to its role in the trade of those precious jewels."
Done by Omer.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under climate, there are two sentences about rainfall, separated by one about sunshine, and in the process the article switches from mm to cm for the rainfall measurement.
Yeah, bad mistake. Tried to fix. Please have a look. --Dwaipayan (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure where to start with the "administration" section.
  • It is hard to understand the local government stuff. We are never told what the GHMC's actual responsibilities are. The HMDA is wierd: it has jurisdiction over an area ten times that of Hyderabad, but its name says "metropolitan". This requires some sort of explanation. And how does one distinguish its activities from those of GHMC? Is it elected? How? Or is it actually run by the GHMC?
We have tried to change th etext, and expand the function of these agencies. Does it read more lucid and understandable now?--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (HMWSSB)" is writen out in full, and with acronym, and with wikilink, twice in one section. I think there's a fair bit of other overlinking of organisations in the article.
  • Although the HMWSSB acronym is used, there's a bunch of other acronyms provided, both here and in the transport section, that are never actually used. If the article doesn't use the acronym, it shouldn't provide it.
Removed many acronyms that were not subsequently used in the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the bit about police, it is explained that the H city police have jurisdiction over a smaller area than the whole city, the rest being covered by the "Cyberabad Police Commissionerate". This is the first mention of cyberabad, yet it appears to somehow represent a significant part of the city. What/ where is it??
The main contributor made some changes, and I also helped him. Please have a look.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Andhra Pradesh Legislature Assembly". Do you mean the "Andhra Pradesh Legislature"? "Legislative assembly" refers to one of teh two houses of such a bicameral system. "Legislature assembly" is unknown. This incorrect term is used at least twice, including with a wikilink...to the article with the correct term...
Changed accordingly.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Muslims have large presence across the city," should be "Muslims have a large presence across the city,", but it still isn't great wording.
Changed to , "In Hyderabad, Hindus form the majority of the population. Muslims, although present throughout the city, predominate in and around the Old City.". Is it ok? Or, is it inappropriate use of although?--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "slums" subsection suggests the need for a general copyedit and prose improvement, with overly frequent repetition of the word/phrase "slums / in the slums / of the slums", even though we have been told that these are the subject of the the section.
Removed some "slum"s.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "comprises a broad repertoire of spice, rice, wheat and meat dishes." I don't think there can be a "spice dish". Something else is always the base, such as rice, wheat or meat. What was meant? "Spiced rice, what and meat dishes"? Or some other text about spices?
Changed to, " It comprises a broad repertoire of rice, wheat and meat dishes, and the skilled use of various spices.". Is it more easily understandable?--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hyderabadi cuisine is highly influenced by Mughals and partially by French,[164] Arabic, Turkish and Irani influences along with native Telugu and Marathwada cuisines employ rice, wheat, spices and meat to great effect, bringing a unique taste to Hyderabadi dishes" - is not a sentence.
Yeah, again horrible mistake.Fixed, removed repetitive part (same information already provided in this section).--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference list has some references appearing with bullets, and it isn't clear what they relate to. Are they legacies of an earlier referencing system?
Yes, you are correct in guessing that the bullets are the legacy of an earlier reference system. Although uncommon, it is ok per MoS to group references in this way (sorry I could not find out where in MoS read this). Indeed one reviewer in earlier reviews suggested to use grouping of references, and that is why we did not un-group those bulleted references. Do you suggest we ungroup them?--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at this stage (other editors may have a view) - for now just concentrate on consistency of format (see note below). hamiltonstone (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referencing is inconsistent. Compare bullet afer note 85 with footnote 128 - however, most seem pretty good, and I'm wondering if this is related only to the bulleted refs?
Hmmm, Don't know how that mistake persisted. Anyway, corrected this particular example. May be you are correct in suggesting that the anomalies may be in the bulleted references, as those are relatively older (and perhaps untouched to a large extent) references. We will look at the all the bulleted references. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did take a look at the bullet-references, and made some corrections/changes. Please have a look. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found "labor" and "neighboring" but "colour" - consistency of English spelling US / UK?
We follow UK English. Still some US English may linger due to multiple editors editing the article, and due to the fact that we missed those during scrutiny.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, ran a script to get rid of US English. All usual spelling mistakes are now corrected. Only one noted instance of US English that remains is the use of center (instead of the UK spelling centre) in the "see also" section at the beginning of the Education section, where an article is directly linked, and the name of that article uses "center" instead of "centre".--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is just a sample. I see many of the kinds of issues I have raised were mentioned at the last FAC. Looks like there's still work to be done, sorry. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very thanks for your time and review, As english is not my native language, for which I might have done prose and grammar mistakes somewhere, which i will correct very soon, Today I made some corrections as per your advice, remaining we will fix very soon. Regards :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for the excellent review. As Omer mentioned above, we tend to do peculiar mistakes (such as unorthodox use of "the"!) as English is not our first language. We hoped that the GoCE copyedit would help a lot in getting rid of such mistakes. The copyedit indeed has helped a lot in improving the article. Please continue to review, Omer has really given a great deal of effort behind this article :) Thanks again, regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 22:39, 4 October 2012 [8].

Sinistar: Unleashed

edit
Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because i have rewritten it from scratch will all information available, so i think it is comprehensive enough. Additionally, it has been reviewed at GAN (finally becoming a good article) and i consider that all the cirteria has been met. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize myself. I have been very busy and then unable to properly follow this nomination. I will take care of all concerns as soon as possible. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as I said in my additional comments in the GA review:
  • The reception section uses only a handful of sources: it scraped the GA "broad" criterion and is no where near FAC's "comprehensive". Very few reviews of this game can apparently be sourced via the internet, but a much greater volume of reviews in contemporary print magazines can be seen to exist. One way or another a broader selection of these would need to be sourced if this is ever to pass FAC.
  • The prose isn't up to FA standard, especially when explaining the in-game elements. It needs to be copy edited by someone both good at writing and probably familiar with subject matter. Someone who hasn't played the game can only grasp the very basic gist of what the "Distilled Evil", "Sporg", "mining ships", "bio-mechanical machine", "jumpgate" and so forth is all about. bridies (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Bridies regarding the sourcing. I can help you out with the PC Zone review if you drop me an email. - hahnchen 17:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thirded on the sourcing- IGN was a two-bit website in 1999, not a wing of a massive media conglomerate. I've given the article a run-through copyedit for grammar (note for future reference that "considered" is not a synonym for "said", and that something cannot be "comprised by" its parts- it "comprises" the parts, and it's such an easy word to misuse that you're better off not using it at all (I don't). I didn't work on bettering the usage of in-game terms, though, besides breaking up long sentences, so you still need that (not to mention my copyediting isn't quite up to FA standards.) --PresN 18:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness

  • It seems to be a reliable source for what it seems, although i doubt its reliability. I will make another check. PD. Metacritic uses the site to make their score. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update In their about us page, they state this: "Once a commercial web site and now a respected game blog, Avault remains a refuge from much of the industry’s compromised reporting and biased reviews." Also, IGN has several of their reviews store in their their website. Metacritic includes the site when aggregating their score [9]. I guess that it should be enough. — ΛΧΣ21™ 14:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 22:39, 4 October 2012 [10].

Juwan Howard

edit
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after a very lengthy WP:PR this summer, I think the article is among the finest and most complete on Wikipedia. It is exemplary of what a basketball biography should be like, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum This still needs some work:

All the above from the only section I've looked at so far, Freshman year. Malleus Fatuorum 14:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 22:39, 4 October 2012 [11].

Lisbon Appointment

edit
Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In 1963, Britain's Duncan Sandys horrified Roy Welensky of Federal Rhodesia and Nyasaland by telling him "we British have lost the will to govern." Julian Greenfield, one of Welensky's ministers, snapped back "But we haven't." Amidst the wildly accelerated constitutional landslide associated with the Wind of Change, a significant headache for Britain was the significant white population in south-central Africa, who were far from ready to stop running their own affairs.

Rhodesia ultimately issued its Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) on 11 November 1965, but UDI was preceded by an international quarrel over whether Rhodesia had to right to appoint its own foreign representation. Previous British legislation appeared to allow it in Rhodesia's eyes, but Whitehall disputed this. Ostracised by Britain for its staunch refusal to adapt to the new world of the 1960s, Rhodesia threw in its lot with Portugal, and announced its intention to open an independent representative mission in Lisbon in June 1965. Britain tried to stop this, but proved helpless to do so, and the office opened in September. It remained until 1975, when Portugal's post-Carnation Revolution government closed it.

This had a largely unproductive peer review recently, but I still feel it is ready for FAC. I feel that the prose is of a high standard, that a neutral point of view is maintained, that the huge amount of necessary background is explained thoroughly without excessive detail, and that sourcing is at the level required. Images are used appropriately, I believe, without dominating the article.

Overall, I think this article provides a comprehensive overview of the Lisbon Appointment, which I personally find interesting as a less obvious parallel to UDI. The Portuguese link helped Rhodesia hugely during the UDI era, both economically and militarily, and the Lisbon office played no small part in this. I hope you find it interesting too.

Please note if you leave comments that unavoidable career commitments will severely restrict my ability to see them for most of each week. I am around on Wikipedia on Fridays and Saturdays (Jerusalem time, presently UTC+3). I would appreciate if administrators would also take this into account. Here is a link to see when I was last about. Thanks, —Cliftonian (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Per MOS, dates should not use "th" at the end, see section "Britain despatches", uses "cabled back on the 18th..."
My understanding was always that this only referred to "18 November" rather than "18th November". This article uses this correctly throughout. Where the month is omitted, "18th" rather than "18" is surely correct? "cabled back on the 18 accepting Hughes' visit" is, so far as I know, incorrect. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with whatever the consensus is on this, I don't think that it is enough to hold up the article. GregJackP Boomer! 16:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, thanks. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In above section heading, "despatches" is misspelled.
No it isn't. "Despatch" is an acceptable British-style alternative for "dispatch" that is commonly used in Commonwealth versions of English. This article in particular uses South African English. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No alt text for coat of arms image.
That's part of a template rather than the article, and the template doesn't appear to have an alt text parameter. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick image check showed proper licensing.
Lekker stuff. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I get a chance, I'll look at it in more detail later. GregJackP Boomer! 16:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review so far, it is appreciated. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

Please note that I've reorganised the background section a bit and added about an extra paragraph, giving more explanation about Britain's shift in policy c. 1957–1963. You might want to run over this again. Sorry for any inconvenience, and thanks again. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The new paragraph is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 11:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Dank. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for journals and publishers for newspapers
Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Online sources" should either all include location or none
Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is Salisbury?
It was renamed Harare in 1982, on Zimbabwe's second birthday. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected it from the book. Thanks for the source review Nikkimaria. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's still invalid: ISBN 0-86919-083-4 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum — click for error message; it's an invalid checksum (the last digit). Even correcting the digit still produces no results on Google or Worldcat. It could be printed wrong, but it seems like it is not a properly assigned ISBN. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have the book in front of me. The exact wording is:
ISBN 0 86919 083 4 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: invalid character
M. O. COLLINS (PVT) LTD
Victoria Street, Salisbury, Rhodesia.
April 1978
Possibly a misprint, but otherwise I am at a loss. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've no doubt that it's printed that way. But it's simply wrong. That never, ever, will be a valid ISBN, as the math is wrong. It's a typo on their part. Things were not done by machine then. The purpose of including the ISBN in the cite is to enable looking it up, and it won't ever be found in a computer search on that. Someone may reprint this someday, which would result in a valid ISBN being assigned, but in the mean time, I'd be inclined to omit it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then let's do that. I'm sorry if I somehow offended you with my tone, as that was not my intention. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you cut it and looked back here. I wasn't offended, just being clear that it's busted. Reminder; it's also in use in Shangani Patrol. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers buddy. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to all, particularly administrators: I will be off Wikipedia between 23 September and 5 October because of work commitments, and will not be available to answer queries and so on. I would appreciate if everybody would take this into account. I would particularly appreciate if this nomination would not be closed prematurely before 5 October due to perceived inaction on my part. I always endeavour to resolve issues as soon as I can, as I'm sure some of you know, and I look forward to jumping straight back into this as soon as I get back. Thanks all, and have a great couple weeks. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, Graham, but did I not ask for this to be kept open while I was away? I just got back this minute and saw that the nomination had been closed this morning. I suppose it's academic in any case as nobody seems to want to comment on this, but I'm still rather miffed, frankly. But hey-ho. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I kept it open until late last night. I closed it not "due to perceived inaction on [your] part", but because of total inaction – there have been no comments or reviews for nearly a month. Because there were no further points for you to address, I decided that a few hours would make little difference. Were it not for your request, I would have closed the nomination much earlier. Graham Colm (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Thank you for the explanation, Graham. I'm sorry for flying off the handle at you like that. I'll keep on working on the article and perhaps nominate it again later. I hope you're well, and have a great weekend. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 22:39, 4 October 2012 [12].

Altes Stadthaus, Berlin

edit
Nominator(s): Thine Antique Pen 11:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I wish it to be promoted to a Featured Article. Article became a DYK on 18 July 2012, and later became a GA on 22 July 2012. It is a translation of Altes Stadthaus (Berlin) on the German Wikipedia, where it is a FA. Thanks! Thine Antique Pen 11:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick comment
There are already issues in the lead: "in Berlin is a former administrative building for the government of Berlin, currently used by the Senate of Berlin." three times "Berlin", is not really "perfect English". How about "is a former ... for the government of Berlin, currently used by the city's Senate."--Kürbis (✔) 10:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Similar: "During World War II the building was damaged by Allied bombings, and more severely in the Battle of Berlin in the final months of the war. " During... and more severely in the final months of the Battle of Berlin".--Kürbis (✔) 10:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
River Spree - river Spree--Kürbis (✔) 10:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A pronounciation of the title would be nice--Kürbis (✔) 10:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awful grammar, eg "including vases and 29 larger than life allegorical representations of the civic virtues and of Greek deities"--Kürbis (✔) 10:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - copyedited Thine Antique Pen (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or "Hoffmann created a monumental building with five courtyards, in the words of the author of a 1914 monograph on him, in order to".
Overall I don't think it meets criteria 1a. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment - for non-German readers the double ss character is meaningless. I'd suggest recasting those for en.wiki, particularly the ones in the lead, so as to make it more readable. Or alternatively provide a translation of the street name - though I think simply substituting ss for the existing names would be fine. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - There are problems with references 18 and 20: (Harv error: link to #CITEREFAlexanderplatzReferat_.C3.96ffentlichkeitsarbeitErnst_.26_Sohn1994 doesn't point to any citation. Harv error: link to #CITEREFF.C3.B6rderung_der_Wissenschaften1961 doesn't point to any citation.). Graham Colm (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Avoid sandwiching text between images
  • Map needs to be slightly bigger
  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Karte_berlin_stadthaus3.png: what source(s) were used to create this image?
  • File:Altes_Stadthaus_Zeichnung_Hoffmann_Front.PNG needs page number and US PD tag; same with File:Altes_Stadthaus_Zeichnung_Hoffmann_Seite.PNG, File:Altes_Stadthaus_Zeichnung_Hoffmann_Grundriss_2.png.
I'm a bit concerned about File:Karte berlin stadthaus3.png where the map is based solely (according to the documentation) on a copyrighted Google maps source. Its a suitably complex map. Nikkimaria, what do you think? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably the best online source that I could find for it. The uploader is inactive on commons. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I the absence of any other source it looks like a derivative work of the copyrighted Google maps version. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it could, as the map was uploaded in 2006, and Google Maps was created in 2005. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 22:39, 4 October 2012 [13].

Joseph Massino

edit
Nominator(s): Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first New York Mafia boss to turn state's evidence, and I think it could be Wikipedia's first Mafia FA if it passes. Recently passed GA and a peer review closed without notice. On the latter I noted a couple things I had wanted to find out more on, but I'm pretty sure I've got just about everything in this that could be verified. Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments hopefully to kickstart a more thorough review. These comments relate to the lead:

  • "served as the boss of the Bonanno crime family" - I wonder if "served" is the appropriate verb here. It sounds like he was doing a public service. "Acted as" might be better.
    • "Acted" actually might be iffy because there's such a thing as "acting boss" - someone who carries out the day-to-day work of running the family if the boss is in jail. I'll just put "was."
  • "from 1991 to 2004" → "from 1991 until 2004" (to make sense of the rest of the sentence)
  • On a point of arithmetic, arranging the murders of " first a trio of rebel captains, then his rival Dominic Napolitano" amounts to four, not two murders.
    • The main thing was it was two events. Not sure exactly what wording I could use to properly show this.
  • "Imprisioned" does not exist. I expect you meant "imprisoned", but in this context the proper usage is "in prison"
  • There is an awkward "as" repeat in "Massino became known as "The Last Don" as..." Suggest replace the second "as" with a comma.
  • "In July 2004 Massino was finally convicted..." As he had a previous racketeering conviction the word "finally" is not appropriate.
  • What are "made men"? Mob jargon for superior hoodlums, no doubt, but it's not a term readily understood in the UK
    • People who have been formally initiated into a crime family. A bit of a long explanation, perhaps. Should I just link it?
  • "He was also facing the death penalty for another murder case..." Had he been convicted? If so I suggest change the last word to "conviction"; otherwise, make it "in", not "for"
  • "but after agreeing to testify..." Expand a little, e.g.: "but after agreeing to testify against his former associates..."
  • The word "instead" is awkward and unnecessary.

I have not looked at the rest of the prose, but a quick glance reveals the use on occasions of very short single-sentence paragraphs which can affect the smooth reading of the prose. Another thing: I see inconsistency in the use of both single and double quote marks, e.g. Anthony "Bruno" Indelicato and (same paragraph) 'Brasco'. Check thoughout, and be consistent (double quote marks are normal.

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 19:02, 4 October 2012 [14].

Going, Going, Gone (Grey's Anatomy)

edit
Nominator(s): TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following my successful nominations of both "Give Peace a Chance" (Grey's Anatomy) and Sadie Harris, I present "Going, Going, Gone" (Grey's Anatomy). As the season nine premiere of the medical drama Grey's Anatomy, the episode featured the death of Mark Sloan. The article was recently classified as good, and after extensive work on this article both as a draft on my computer during the summer and more recently in mainspace, I am confident that the article satisfies the criteria. Thank you in advance for your time, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I think it's way too soon for it to be nominated. The episode aired five days ago. I think some analysis of the episode's context in the season is needed, which would come with later episodes. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Analysis of the episode's context in the season is not usually given. See Give Peace a Chance (Grey's Anatomy). This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the article's production and reception. No more critical reviews need to be added, as it gives a large amount. Nothing is missing, and lots of production information was released in the summer. Please consider striking your oppose. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I have developed tons of Grey's Anatomy episodes, and new production information is always released around the same day, or prior to the episode. It is never given later than a week. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But what about the episode's influence and development of multiple episode story arcs? Or long term critical analysis that points it out to be one of the best in the season, something of the like? I guess it's more of a fundamental oppose, since I think it's a bit too soon to be nominating something. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Based on experience, the typical Grey's Anatomy episode critics do not release this type of information. These things would be nice, but with all the episodes I've done, I've never seen that type of analysis for an episode. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Prose comments

Addressed comments from TBrandley moved to talk

Oppose per HurricaneHink. Further, apart from a plot summary and a collection of quotes from reviewers, all that's there is three paragraphs of "production". One of those paragraphs is about Twitter photos being uploaded and then taken down. This is just about GA-worthy; for FA, there needs to be more in-depth analysis about themes, character development, symbolism etc. For eg: check out the X-Files WikiProject. They have dozens of episode-GAs like this, but only submit fully fleshed-out articles to FAC.—indopug (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Give Peace a Chance (Grey's Anatomy). As long as an article is as comprehensive as can be, it meets the FA criteria. If there is no information about themes and character development, there's obviously nothing I can do about this. This article is actually more comprehensive than Give Peace a Chance, so please consider striking your oppose. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the "Give Peace" FAC, it's clear that a few basic, tough questions weren't asked, but that's completely irrelevant here.
"As long as an article is as comprehensive as can be, it meets the FA criteria." – this is not true. If a topic is so obscure that there is literally no scholarly attention paid to it, its Wikipedia article cannot possibly "exemplify our very best work".
In this particular case, the situation is made worse by the fact that you haven't waited at all for potential sources to emerge—interviews of cast and crew, retrospectives of the season, DVD commentaries, books about the show etc.—indopug (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that you and I disagree as to whether all articles, theoretically, could be FAs. When a subject is not given more than a description in the sources about it, than naturally our "best work" on that subject would also be purely descriptive. It is as good as we can make it, under the construes of our own policies and guidelines. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indopug, I don't know if you read my above comments, but I have dealt time and time again with GA episodes; those sort of analyses are not released for individual episodes, but the series in whole. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat myself, 'If a topic is so obscure that there is literally no scholarly attention paid to it, its Wikipedia article cannot possibly "exemplify our very best work".' This article is not only lacking in analyses, but even the production section has little information of value beyond what you'd get at the IMDb page (dates, songs, cast members); compare with the X-Files article above this at the FAC queue.—indopug (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no FA criteria for scholarly coverage. Short articles on fairly obscure topics (not saying this one is) can and have become FAs. Miss Meyers, for example, is half the size of this article. If something is not in the sources then we could not consider asking for it an actionable oppose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indopug, you're wrong about this. Any article can become a FA. If the article is "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", than it qualifies for FA. All of the sources available for this topic are used, so it meets the criteria. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I normally agree with Crisco, I don't agree with the statement that "If something is not in the sources then we could not consider asking for it an actionable oppose": in instances where the sources don't cover significant aspects of the topic of the article, the article isn't comprehensive. I've written several GA and A class articles which I don't think can be developed to FA status due to either gaps in the available information, or the sources not going into sufficient detail. Nick-D (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FA? 1b as currently phrased seems to suggest comprehensiveness covering the subject and not covering the sources. Generally I (personally) consider comprehensive dealing with the literature regarding the subject; a comprehensive article, under that definition, is one that reflects what is in the sources. Comprehensiveness of the subject could be a sticking point over things (some lost to history) that are not in the sources or perhaps even recorded. Admittedly I wouldn't nominate G. Kruger for FA, but I'm considering Loetoeng Kasaroeng as it's reflective of what material there is on it.
The time frame, which you point out below, is a different story — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry, but I don't think that an article written about a TV episode can be considered to be comprehensive (FA criteria 1b) less than a week after the episode first aired, especially when its the first episode in a season. While I take the nominator's point that individual episodes from TV series such as this rarely receive long-term analysis (which does raise questions in my mind about their individual notability, to be frank), I think that indopug's comment that there is likely to be further, and potentially substantial, coverage of the episode in the future to be convincing (especially as the current sources are news stories and reviews), as is Hurricanehink's comment that the episode can't be placed in the context of the series at present. Nick-D (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 20:41, 2 October 2012 [15].

Dudley Clarke

edit
Nominator(s): Errant (chat!) 21:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Clarke is a sadly overlooked figure; he quietly revolutionised military deception for the Allies during WW2, the files on his activities locked till well into the 70s (and even later, in some cases). I am nominating this article for Featured status to obtain the highest level of scrutiny Wikipedia can offer. It is the first FAC in what I hope to be a series on deception during the war. The research for this has been immense (and also fun) but I am now confident it covers the entirety of his life, as it is exists on record. What I need help with is making sure the article exhibits the very best prose and style. This is my first FAC so please be a little gentle with me :) Errant (chat!) 21:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Welcome to FAC. I noticed this article wasn't tagged for WP:Milhist ... if there are any other military history articles you're working on that aren't tagged, I'll be happy to do it.
  • We prefer consistency on Second World War vs. World War II, and similarly for World War I. BritEng articles tend to go with Second World War and First World War, but I don't have a preference.- Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "spent the rest of the war learning to fly; first in Reading and then Egypt.": We use commas here instead of semicolons or colons ... I see there are more of these later on.
  • "First, Tony Simonds (with whom he worked on intelligence in the region) and, later, John Dill and Archibald Wavell.": sentence fragment.
  • ✓ reworked --Errant (chat!) 23:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he formulated the idea for commando raids into France – the early stages of the British Commandos.": I think I'd prefer something more specific, like "planned" or "proposed" or whatever his role was. Also, in what way is this the early stages? Same people, same modus operandi, same unit?
    • ✓ This is a little more difficult. He proposed the idea and was then "volunteered" to help organise it. The raiding parties eventually became the British Commandos, but that is way outside the scope of this article as his involvement ended soon after the first rads. See what you think of the new version --Errant (chat!) 23:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The following year he established 'A' Force; the eponymous department which would define his legacy": I may be missing something, but doesn't this work without the "eponymous"? (And watch the semicolon, as before.)
  • "Once the department has taken root": ... had taken root.
  • Otherwise, so far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at the end of the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and don't use templates like {{done-t}} on FAC pages ... WP:FAC transcludes all the pages, so templates can put WP:FAC over the limit. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the greatest deceiver of World War 2": Where does the quote come from?
  • "nearby military present at Aldershot, including the new Royal Flying Corps.": What was he exposed to at Aldershot other than the RFC? - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Army mostly - but also the military establishment. And I think there was a naval contingent there at some point too (might be about the same time). Aldershot is a big military "hub". Sources are non-specific, just say that he was influenced by the glitz/glamour of the uniforms. So I've added something about that. Pointing out the RFC being located there ties to his later decision to join them from the RA. --Errant (chat!) 09:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. "In 1923 he reformed the Royal Artillery Officers Dramatic Club": Were they naughty? I assumed not, and went with "re-formed".
  • See WP:ALLCAPS; capitalize the first letter only, except in acronyms and initialisms. Instead of "TORCH", write "Operation Torch" (and link on first occurrence of course). - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more point, and I'm done: "whilst", "amongst": Just be aware that there's an issue here, and many writers prefer "while" and "among" even in BritEng. "whilst" in particular has a slightly pompous and comical feel for some non-Brit readers, and AmEng style guides universally recommend against these two words. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I confess to not being a fan of "while" over "whilst" :) But I'm happy to replace the word "whilst" with "while" to meet style conventions. I don't think there is a use of "amongst" in the article. --Errant (chat!) 09:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review - spotchecks not done

  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Molnari or Molinari?
  • Don't provide full bibliographic info in both Bibliography and References
  • No citations to Hastings
  • Cruickshank: closing quotes in wrong place
  • Be consistent in whether you provide location for newspapers. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers! I Think I addressed all these points. Excellent catch on the Molinari reference (making a note to self about checking references copied from other articles) --Errant (chat!) 16:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth emailed me to say he will be leaving some comments here later today :) --Errant (chat!) 14:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Errant. I'll copy over my notes now. Carcharoth (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (version reviewed)from Carcharoth (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Starting at the end of the article... I was wondering what the point of the 'see also' section is? Normally, the ideal at FAC is for these to be integrated into the article, and it seems this can be done here (see below). Unless there is a reason this link has been kept here?
  • The precise date of gazetting of all the awards listed in that section near the end are available. Certainly the year and level of the Legion of Merit (1946, Officer) should be provided. When I Googled it, I went from this to this to this. That last one (from the London Gazette) is the one that I'd cite, if your current source doesn't give the details.
  • However, rather than list the awards, I think they should be integrated into the text, with any listing being done in the infobox (the OBE is missing from the infobox, though that may be deliberate). I also went and looked up the pages in the London Gazette for the awards. His OBE is here. His CBE is here. His Order of the Bath is here. One more minor quibble about the wording: rather than "several British and American awards", why not "three British awards and one American award"?
  • In the lead, some of the language is a touch overdone: "under the shadow of", "As the First World War dawned", "had a first taste". There are some traces of this in the main text as well: "sprang up", "first taste", "just in time". Also, is there a reason why the following in the lead doesn't have links? "British Commandos, the Special Air Service and the U.S. Rangers".
    • Is this a serious issue? I tried to keep the writing formal, but interesting :) (also: ✓ fixed the links) --Errant (chat!) 09:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll offer an opinion if you want it: there are probably better metaphors for wars than "dawning". Having a "first taste" of disinformation seems a little off. In "Chanak Crisis sprang up", my problem isn't so much with "sprang up" as that most readers won't know what you're saying; it might be good to add something like "a threatened Turkish attack on British and French troops". The others seem like a matter of personal preference ... which everyone's entitled to have, of course. - Dank (push to talk) 20:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The man who would grow up" - should be 'boy' not 'man'.
  • This bit: "Soon afterwards he accompanied their first raid into France, although with express orders to remain in the boat, and was almost shot in the ear." appears to be Operation Collar (linked in 'see also'). Is there a reason the exact date is not given and the article not linked? I can see there are contradictions between "a slight wound" and "almost shot in the ear", but those contradictions should be addressed and resolved, if possible, for FAC.
  • In the '1943: Barclay' section, the word 'phase' is used instead of the correct 'faze', see here.
  • These bits: "He then took a job at Conservative Central Office" - what year?; "He also served as a director of Securicor for a while." - this is too vague to be useful. Both bits also appear to be unsourced - it is unclear what source these two items are from.
  • In the 'After the war' section, the link to 'Michael Howard' is to the wrong one. Should be to Michael Howard (historian). This is a serious error in linking - suggest all links are carefully checked to see if they are correct. The original edit introducing this link is here.
    • ✓ fixed. Ugh, I do have a note about Howard's article link on my desk (as he is important to the topic), but this one I missed. Checked the other links this morning, but will keep checking them to be sure :) --Errant (chat!) 09:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • End section: 'middle class origins' needs a hyphen for 'middle-class', ditto for "upper class establishment". Dates needed for Nina and the Sussex woman, and also a link for Weisban (possibly Wiesbaden?). It is not at all clear where this Weisban is! Do you sources give more details?
    • ✓ the hyphens. I will check on Weisban in the sources - no dates for the relationships, they are discussed in the context of him not marrying, and rest on several comments from people who knew him. But Holt makes no mention of dates IIRC. --Errant (chat!) 09:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • ✓ It was Wiesbaden, my error. Thanks for catching it. I was also misremembering the dates - Holt mentions one exact year and one vague date (late 1920s). Best I can find :) --Errant (chat!) 23:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the books section, "pp. XXX" should be "XXX pp." (the former is used to refer to pages within a book, the latter to number of pages in a book). I believe this is the convention, but you may want to double-check this.
  • I found two additional snippets of information in the London Gazette: (i) Address at death is here. He was living in Dolphin Square. (ii) He was mentioned in despatches, see here.
  • That mentioned in dispatches, I found while searching the records of the National Archives, where I also found the following: (i) Medal card here. (ii) WWI service records here. (iii) Three WW2 records here (the mentioned in despatches and two of his three awards). Not all those will be useful, but it might be worth putting them in the external links in some form.

Apart from that, the article was excellent. I enjoyed reading Clarke's story, and the writing is really good. Very much brings it to life. I'm looking forward to reading more about deception strategies during WW2. Carcharoth (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review & the compliment! Comments are in-line, if I haven't commented then I'll be working on fixing the issue over the next day or so :) Holt is the main source for this; his book is exhaustive in detail, so where he doesn't note dates there likely is not record or information about this. --Errant (chat!) 09:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 20:41, 2 October 2012 [16].

Maus

edit
Nominator(s): Curly Turkey (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has been a GA for a number of months and the book is considered a key work in its medium. —Curly Turkey (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN32: page(s)?
Done. Whoops—misnamed parameter. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN139: formatting
Done. {{sfn}} should have been {{sfnm}}. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explanatory notes should go before citations
Done—but is there a reason for this?. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Besides convention, in this instance you include footnote citations on the explanatory notes, which had the reader jumping up instead of down. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check italicization of publications in Works cited
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of Works cited
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hammarlund, Johnston: publisher?
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reibmann: missing editor's last name
Done. Misnamed parameter. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weschler: should use piped link for magazine
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check formatting of quotes within quotes and titles within titles.
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Frans_Masereel_-_Passionate_Journey_-_two_pages.jpg needs US PD tag
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Maus_volume_2_page_50_panels_3-4.jpg needs to explicitly identify the copyright holder; same with File:Art_Spiegelman_-_Maus_(1972)_page_1_panel_3.jpg and File:Maus_page_103_panel_2_HITLER_DID_IT.jpg
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Maus.jpg: suggest expanding purpose of use.
Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As I wrote on talk (Talk:Maus/Archive 1#Comprehensiveness_quibble) more could be added on reception in Poland, but I understand that requires a Polish speaker to look at the sources. I will try to find some time in the future to see if I can help. For now, I think the article is almost comprehensive, but a little bit more could be added. It probably fits our general standards, so I am not going to object to featuring it as it is, but I cannot support it until I have looked some more into the comprehensiveness of the Polish coverage. PS. I would like to hear what FA copyeditors think about the possibly weasel formulations like "Some commentators..." and "Some critic..." (in the Criticism section)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I've asked at WikiProject Poland for help, but got no response. To be honest, I have to wonder just what would be missing in its Polish coverage at this point.
  2. I'd assumed that the "some commentators" and "some critics" were implied to be the commentators and critics in the sources provided. I don't want it to be an issue, so I've gone and named the names from the sources. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed dead link (the Hraveys site has redone the way they do their URLs---I imagine this will affect a lot refs in a lot of comics articles). Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Overview" section it is clunky saying "including his second wife, Mala. He had remarried after Anja's 1968 suicide." Vladek's "loved ones" leaves the detail for a better later explanation. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this better? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first part of that change you performed in the linked diff is perfect. The second part, not so much. The sentence is awkward: "Vladek has remarried to a woman called Mala since the suicide of Art's mother, Anja, in 1968." Why at this point do we need to tell the reader who Vladek is married to? Is Mala in the synopsis at this point because she helps Art get Vladek to spill the story? There is a sentence, "Art wants to get Vladek to recount his Holocaust experience"; we could follow that with something about the presence of "Vladek's second wife Mala" and whether she helps. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Art's mother's suicide and and Vladek's remarriage are all first presented on the first page of Chapter One. Art stops by his father's house and is greeted by Vladek and Mala. It reads:
(panel 2, caption) "He had aged a lot since I saw him last. My mother's suicide and his two heart attacks had taken their toll."
(panel 3, Vladek) "Mala! Look who's here! Artie!"
(panle 3, caption) "He was remarried. Mala knew my parents in Poland before the war."
This is before we learn why Art has come to visit. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are we restricted from arranging the elements of the synopsis to better suit the flow of information? Or must we stay in lockstep with the chronology of the literature? I think we can massage it a little bit in order to create a brief and readable summary. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it doesn't have to "stay in lockstep with the chronology"---it wasn't originally, when I had that information in the "Overview" section, which I thought was the best place to put it, setting up the general background. Mala appears throughout the book, and Anja's suicide keeps popping up, too.
To be honest,I don't really see what the problem was in the first place. If you could give me a more concrete example of what you think would be better, maybe I could see more clearly. Curly Turkey (gobble)
How about this suggestion? As an adult, Spiegelman visits his father, Vladek, from whom he had been estranged. Art wants to get Vladek to recount his Holocaust experience. Vladek's second wife Mala leaves them alone to talk. Vladek tells Art of his time in Częstochowa, Poland, describing how in 1937 he came to marry his first wife, Anja, and join her wealthy family in Sosnowiec to become a manufacturer. I hope that conveys a sense of what I was looking for. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I think I'd like to get a second opinion on that. Anja's suicide comes up over and over in the book and is an important part of its background—right from page one of Chapter 1. I think it would be a mistake to de-emphasize it. Also, Mala doesn't really "leave them alone" to talk. All we know from the book is that, after dinner (which is mentioned but not depicted), Art and Vladek get together to talk. (gobble) 03:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 20:41, 2 October 2012 [17].

Debora Green

edit
Nominator(s): A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time at FAC, so I apologize in advance for any small bobbles. Debora Green is an American woman convicted of murdering two of her children by setting fire to the family home. The article has had a GA review and a thorough copyediting, and I think it's ready for the next step. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Cautious supportComment on comprehensiveness and prose - assuming good faith on review of all possible sources. Am not familiar with topic so cannot exclude issues others bring up. looking promising. I read through this earlier on my android. One thing that struck me - is there any more detail anywhere on Green's psychological profile or discussion of it? Also the aftermath, is there any discussion of whether she has any relationship with her daughter? Are there any other analyses of the story not yet covered or included? much betterCasliber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • See here for a diff of the changes I've made today. In addition to some minor cleanup tweaks that happened to get caught today, here's what I've done to address your comments:
      • I've added a discussion of what various sources say about her psychology. I'm hoping to find one more source to add, but for the moment this is all that's available.
      • I can find no reliable sources discussing Green's current relationship with her daughter, beyond a mention that Kate attended a 2005 hearing regarding Green's request for a new trial. I suspect this is by design and that Kate is not much enamored of the press these days, though I have a few feelers out just in case I've missed a mention.
      • The only other notable analysis of the Green case I've been able to locate discussed it in the context of bioterrorism; I've added that to the "In media" section. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 17:51, 2 October 2012 [18].

Meth mouth

edit
Nominator(s): Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most notorious side effects of methamphetamine abuse is the horrible things it can do to your teeth. The picture we have in the article is actually somewhat mild compared to what's out there. I've been working on this article off and on for a few months, and I think it's ready to run the FAC gauntlet. I received significant assistance from a number of users while preparing this article; I'm particularly thankful for the work of MathewTownsend, J Milburn, Acdixon, and Axl. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • Dozenist's image doesn't have EXIF data, but his later ones do and, considering the age of the file, quite acceptable.
I'm going to ping a Commons admin to look at Psychonaught's deleted images. I don't see any evidence that this is a copyvio, but I note that the editor has previously uploaded incompatibly licensed images before. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

Support on prose and images. Short but reads well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for the quick review. I'll let you know when I find another good image to add. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The peer review process closed before I finished my comments. However MathewTownsend alluded to my main concern now. The guideline WP:MEDMOS recommends a format for medical articles. The article lacks any information on "Prognosis", "Epidemiology" or "History". I know that Mark Arsten has looked for sources. No doubt he would argue that the absence of sources makes these points "not actionable". While that may be true, the criteria require that the article is "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details". Indeed there is so much missing information that I question the validity of GA status. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ok, I see your point here--I certainly would like to have more information on this. You're right about my perspective, in that I don't think that this is an actionable oppose. I think that 1b and 1c of WP:WIAFA must be taken together to some extent, and I think this passes by virtue of being as thorough as possible, given the available sourcing. Also, I apologize for closing the PR abruptly, I had mistakenly assumed that you had finished your review (my fault). Mark Arsten (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Oppose - agree with Axl's points. Not enough reliance on WP:MEDRS and too much on newspaper articles. Doesn't follow WP:MEDMOS. A good peer review might have helped, but it was closed just as it was getting started. I wonder if enough info on "meth mouth" exists, whether the condition is restricted to the use of methamphetamine or also occurs with the use of similar drugs, whether the catchy name and startling pic is responsible for the coverage it has received (e.g. it's use on a billboard advert) rather than the fact that the condition is restricted to methamphetamine users. Why is there is so little concrete info available about the condition if it's such a pressing public health and fiscal problem? MathewTownsend (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/October_2012&oldid=525815195"