Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2005

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Archived nominations

Opus Dei

edit

This is partially --very partially-- self nom because there are many others who helped in writing this article. From what I've read in the Talk Page, the article swung from an edit war last year to a stalemate, then a short NPOV issue last April due to some overenthusiastic newbies, and since May, a time of harmony and peace when NPOV rules were quoted, ratios established, and details worked on. It has grown since then. It has been under Peer Review since September 9: Peer Review of Opus Dei article And changes have been made based on the feedback. Please see Talk Page as well, for it contains many explanations on why the article appears as it is. Thomas S. Major 05:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Carnildo. My friend, R Davidson, removed all the images with copyright problems (those not uploaded by Walter). I suppose you can already remove your objection? Thomas S. Major 11:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: In line references should be footnoted. I am too suspicious of the copyright status of many images in the article. In many places the text does not flow, and is hard to follow, eg: "The teachings of Opus Dei, and of other Catholic organizations and saints, on the universal call to holiness and apostolate were made a most central doctrine of the Second Vatican Council" I know what it means (I think) how many non Catholics would? Its all very convoluted and "Catholic" much of the page needs to be rewritten in more readable prose. The enormous reference section! has the author used all of these books? Giano | talk 07:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Giano. I just checked what my friend, R Davidson, did. He corrected that long sentence by taking out the reference to other Catholic orgs and saints. He also made the universal call more understandable. I thank him of course, but I disagree that the phrase universal call to holiness is not understandable. It has a link. I suppose that is the system that is being followed by this encyclopedia. Anyway, thanks, Davidson, for the move to improve the text.
Some other editors placed the books that are in the bibliography. I suppose they read those books before they placed them there. I've read most of them myself.
I also checked out the other feature articles. So far I've seen several which do not have any footnotes. I suppose it is not a must for a featured article to have footnotes. This article has 52 ref links. The one of People's Republic of China, a featured article, has 4. The one of John Major does not have any, and it has quite a number of quotes. :) Thomas S. Major 11:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not necessary to have footnotes, but the external links contained within the text, should not be there. They should be footnoted and then referenced at the bottom of the page. There is more than just the one corrected sentence what about "This family, of which St. Josemaría was the head and the "first vocation," had to find a legal structure that fits its foundational idea or charism, according to Catholic theology" To a non catholic this is probably meaningless. If a sentence has to be analysed, then it needs to be changed. These sentences occur time and time again in this page. I don't doubt the authors have read the huge reference section, but were they actually used to source this article? Giano | talk 22:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that there might be books there that do not belong to the study, e.g. the Hanssen book. I will remove it and look for others that have to be removed. I will also look for texts which are not immediately intelligible.
A far as I know Turabian and other Manuals of Style and of thesis writing do not require that only books used to source the article are placed in the bibliography, if by source you mean actually quoted or referred to in the text.
As regards your statement: "It is not necessary to have footnotes, but the external links contained within the text, should not be there. They should be footnoted and then referenced at the bottom of the page." The statement echoes with some authority, and I respect that. But could I just know if it is a rule in Wikipedia? Where can that be found? Thanks for your help. Thomas S. Major 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The footnote question has been answered far more eloquently than I could lower down the page by Bishonen. Regarding the reference section. Which books were or were not used to source this article? Why were books included in the references which were not used in the first instance? Giano | talk 11:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out Wikipedia:Cite sources and it answers some of the questions. Please see below my reply to Bishonen. Thanks. :)Thomas S. Major 00:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I placed most of the images in the article except the ones mentioned by Carnildo. I did not contribute much in the text. I replaced:
    1. The image Image:EscrivaJ.jpg with another image which has been granted GFDL license from the copyright holder.
IMO the article should be "Catholic". Because it is under the categories of Roman Catholic Church, Roman Catholic prelatures, Roman Catholic history, Catholic doctrine and Catholic theology and doctrines. The article will be strange if it is not Catholic. Walter Ching 08:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the Catholic Encyclopedia. When we write about the Roman Catholic Church, we do it from a neutral point of view and in a manner that is accessible to all readers.--Eloquence* 02:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Eloquence. Giano | talk 09:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your comments and I assume good faith. I would like to ask both of you --and the others -- to read the NPOV tutorial rules, so we can understand each other.
"Wikipedia should report all major points of views; however, it should do so in proportion to the credibility of the experts holding the various theses.
One measure of a view's importance is the credibility of the experts who hold that view. What makes an expert credible? Some criteria include:
  • the reputation of the expert, the reputation of the tradition within which he or she works, the reputation of the group or institution for which the expert works
  • whether the expert uses the common methods of the field or completely different ones
  • whether the expert has or has not failed to respond to criticisms
  • whether the expert has reputable supporters of his or her claims
  • whether the expert's point of view belongs in a different article (e.g. evolution vs. creationism)
In other words, an idea's popularity alone does not determine its importance." (Italics mine)
Kindly read the Talk Page of Opus where the editors have discussed (based on Wikipedia method of consensus) who the reputable, credible experts are in this field who use the common methods of the field. If both of you can mention other credible experts on the field, then all of us will listen, and then we can work out a consensus based on the above rules. If we agree that their credible expertise is above the following experts who support each other: John Paul II, Benedict XVI, John Allen, V. Messori, James V. Schall, Bryan R. Wilson, Dr. Kliever, St. Josemaria himself, and the Catholic leaders whose testimonies are found in a separate article, then I suppose we will just have to decide to give them more space than these people, and change the whole tone of this article. R Davidson 14:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
May I add to the list of Davidson--Prof. Philip Jenkins, a Protestant Scholar. Thomas S. Major 05:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I totally support this article, as I said in the Peer Review. This is perhaps the single best, short, comprehensive and neutral article on the subject that one can find. And so I understand why there are so many references, a copious bibliography worthy of a serious encyclopedia and serious theological science, as I said before. That is why I also understand if the references are in another page, anyway as Thomas Major explained there are 52 reference links throughout the article! I beg to disagree with Giano that the text does not flow, the text is convoluted. I am sorry, but as I said in the Peer Review, this article has a rational framework. It is logical and I like it. Arturo Cruz 14:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor object on technical grounds. External links should be moved from main body to appopriate section and linked with footnotes with main body. I am also not happy with ALL 'bibliography and external links' being apparently moved to a subarticle - definetly the sources for the article should be present in it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Piotrus. Yes! I plan to propose that a part of the bibliography at least a basic core appear in the main article. Thanks again! :) Thomas S. Major 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I know that this article has taken great pains to avoid the cliched "what is and what is not true about Opus Dei in 'The Da Vinci Code'" route. However, has it gone far? The book is mentioned once in the whole article; even though Opus Dei's portrayal in the book is surely the gravest crisis to have afflicted the group for a long time. Should there be more Da Vinci Code stuff in there? eg A section about the reaction to the book, the group's reaction, the public's, the Vatican's etc? Just a thought. Batmanand 22:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There was a section on it before. But some editors took it away. I copy their exchange below: Thomas S. Major 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the removal of the section regarding The DaVinci Code as mostly irrelevant to the purpose of portraying Opus Dei and as more accurate belonging with a discussion of the book itself. Its being a work of fiction means that any and all claims and allegations included within are made to further the plot of the novel, not as a form of attack or commentary on any organization.

A mention of the reference and responses thereto are appropriate, but any further indepth discussion ought to take place on the page for the novel itself, where claims of its veracity can be placed into proper context.

--Agamemnon2 13:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That section does not belong here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are three red-links in the introduction to the article. Red-links aren't forbidden in FAs, but I'd prefer to at least not have any in the introductory paragraphs. Pburka 01:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They were not there when I nominated it. Somebody who tried to help, added them. I'll fix that. Thomas S. Major 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly object. There are very serious issues of NPOV and structure. There are many unhelpful headings like "Opus Dei and the Catholic Church's first purpose" and "Response: Sociology of religion and Christ-centered theology". Sub-articles are not consistently pointed out; e.g., Opus Dei and the Cult Issue: Allegations and Responses (an entirely unacceptable title for a sub-article, by the way) is clearly pointed out under its section header, other sub-articles are mentioned briefly in the flow of the text. The structure makes it very difficult to find specific facts, e.g. Opus Dei's business activities.
The NPOV problems go deeper than that, and will be very difficult to fix. They are fundamentally related to the way the prose is written, both about Opus Dei and its critics. The article very frequently transitions from attributing an opinion to stating it as fact. Just a few quotes: "For example, to push his conclusions, he makes absurd assumptions: priests go to seminary only to improve their lot." — "The world is a gift of God, a place where one can --and should!-- become a saint" — "members use aggressive recruitment methods" — "Thus, mainline scientists reject as 'unscholarly'"
There are two problems with this. It comes across as POV, even if it is intended to be a continuation of a prior attributed opinion, and it blurs the line between what is attributed and what the person or source actually said. In the extreme cases, we find entire paragraphs like this:
Jesus Christ single-mindedly focused his entire life on saving all souls to please his Father. While he loved his mother, he left her in favor of his divine mission. For this, he showered affection on people, but also issued many threats out of love for them: against easy-going and fruitless Christians, against infidelity, etc. While he searched for friends and clearly spoke the truth, he allowed them to freely do whatever they wanted--including rejecting him. He also told his disciples, "As the Father has sent me so do I send you." To glorify God and sanctify men, Christ enjoyed pleasures and pleasantries with them, and he also voluntarily practiced mortification of the flesh: fasting, sleeping on the ground, and allowing himself to be tortured and crucified. He taught that his disciple should “renounce himself, take up his cross daily and follow me.”
This is just one example of the article quietly adopting a POV, rather than presenting it, and utterly unacceptable in terms of NPOV.
Beyond that, there are various smaller NPOV issues both in the main article and the sub-articles. I'm not sure to what extent the sub-articles should be commented on, but the cult article in particular is a mess. Compare, for example, the first and second image caption in this revision. The main article basically traces all modern criticism to early theological criticism, and does not present this stance with a counterpoint. The notion that secular criticism results from the prelature's actual activities cannot be so easily dismissed.
To conclude, the article needs to be restructured, and the writing needs to be substantially edited to make it NPOV. As it concerns an organization that very much operates in real world business and politics, the theological writing needs to be toned down, and the structure must allow easy access to key information about OD's acitvities. The line between fact and opinion should never be blurry; opinions need to be clearly and precisely attributed, and facts need to be backed up with citations.--Eloquence* 02:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to discuss this well with you and I assume good faith in all of your comments. (Please also see my comments above re the issue on the "Catholic" tendency of the article}. I would just like to say that I do not agree with Eloquence's comments:
I believe that this article follows the NPOV policies:
"Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of debates. Of course, one might well doubt that this can be done at all without somehow subtly implying or insinuating that one position is correct. But experienced academics, polemical writers, and rhetoricians are well-attuned to bias, both their own and others', so that they can usually spot a description of a debate that tends to favor one side. If they so choose, with some creativity, they can usually remove that bias.
Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. To give such undue weight to the lesser held view may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."
These policies say that editors should "represent" disputes. As far as I can understand it, it does not say that the text should quote something verbatim to turn them into facts. If this is the case, won't it turn the whole Wikipedia into a mere interconnection of quotes?
In my opinion, his examples show that he has not read much of the reference links or reference materials and is merely submitting his opinion --very personal to my mind--on those examples. It his own personal POV that "There are two problems with this. It comes across as POV, even if it is intended to be a continuation of a prior attributed opinion, and it blurs the line between what is attributed and what the person or source actually said." For example the line "members use aggressive methods" is almost taken verbatim from ODAN website; "The world is a gift of God, a place where one can --and should!-- become a saint" is found in the writings of the bishops; the paragraph on Jesus Christ like the whole section on teachings is a summary of doctrine contained in the writings of Escriva. Perhaps yes the tone of that paragraph on Jesus Christ can be improved, but I don't think that presenting a short reply to the accusations leveled against OD is POV. If so then the paragraph of ODAN's accusations are POV.
I'd also like to understand more about the unhelpfulness of the section titles. In general, I'd like to listen more to understand the strong objection. R Davidson 14:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just say that I appreciate the detailed objection of Eloquence, and I am grateful he is bringing out his personal opinion. As regards what he says: the article "transitions from attributing an opinion to stating it as fact." Somehow this was mentioned by Zantastic and I saw that the problem is this: Some sentences, for one reason or another, do not have the phrase like "critics say" or "supporters say". Thus the main issue is writing method, rather than NPOV (with this I agree with Kevin Marshall). If these phrases are linked to all the sentences of a particular proponent or writer, then the article will sound monotonous, or sound like a sing song. In general I think Wikipedia readers can distinguish that a second or third sentence of an author still belongs to the author. For example: the second sentence of Introvigne "Thus, mainline scientists reject as 'unscholarly'" is almost a paraphrase of a statement from CESNUR of which Introvigne is the Director.
I do think that the article is merely "representing disputes," summarizing positions as Wikipedia wants articles to do. But yes, things can be improved. The statement "For example, to push his conclusions, he makes absurd assumptions" can also be drawn by reading the article of Schall, but maybe it could be better phrased. I will re-read the article and study how to improve it.
As regards the business activities of Opus Dei, these are contained in the "conspiracy theories of Walsh" under the sub-section on Secularity, humility, privacy vs. secrecy to pursue power. Some of the editors in fact wanted to remove any mention of Walsh because he is considered by many as a "dubious source". He is a writer for tabloid-level newspapers. And according to Wikipedia, and I quote:
Title: Dubious Sources "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews nor perform original research. Hence, anything we include should have been covered in the records, reportage, research, or studies of others. In many, if not most, cases there should be several corroborating sources available should someone wish to consult them. Sources should be unimpeachable relative to the claims made; outlandish claims beg strong sources."
Somebody placed Walsh again into the text just recently, perhaps to improve NPOV. However, that move is a substantial change which should have been discussed first in the Talk Page. Perhaps you can join in when this issue is brought up there. Thomas S. Major 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just placed the phrase "supporters say" in three parts of the Opus Dei cult-responses. E.g.
Opus Dei's Christ-centeredness, supporters say, urges Christians to live like Christ in everything, even if their behaviour "clashes" with a "paganized environment". [3] Supporters say that the cult-like behavior described by the anti-cult groups was the behavior of Jesus Christ: He single-mindedly focused his entire life on saving all souls to please his Father...
I hope this npoving is enough for that part, as it was for Zantastik and Rama. Thomas S. Major 03:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


It was not enough for me, actually. This article, along with some other related articles, fails to meet NPOV standards, and I think Eloquence's statement makes the nature of its problems perfectly clear. For instance, simply adding "supporters say," into the following sentence does not make it npov.
Opus Dei's Christ-centeredness, supporters say, urges Christians to live like Christ in everything, even if their behaviour "clashes" with a "paganized environment".
After all, is Opus Dei "Christ-centered" at all? What is the nature of "Christ-centeredness?" Would different people have different definitions of this term? I'm sorry, but this article has a ways to go before deserving featured status. --Zantastik talk 14:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that by "is enough for that part, as it was for Zantastik and Rama", Thomas S. Major is refering to the end of [[1]] ("I would assume that you think that I have already addressed your NPOV concerns if I don't hear from you before 0900 UTC. Then I will remove the NPOV tag"); it is correct that I did not react to this at the moment, but I have always been a rather distant observer of the situations here, and I was busy with other articles (and even real life things, can you believe that :p). So my silence there should not be interpreted as a full and inconditional approval of the state of the article at the moment. Actually, I still think that there is room for improvements, and I think that recent edits were going in the right direction. Rama 14:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rama and Zantastik, for responding. The Christ-centeredness is discussed in a subsection above that. Let's see what we can do about your comment...:) Thomas S. Major 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also placed this for the cult critics: "Critics say the following: Opus Dei members use aggressive recruitment methods: love bombing and issuing threats of condemnation. New recruits lack "informed consent.""
Thank you, Eloquence, for bringing up your points. They are helping keep the creative juices running to improve NPOV in this article. Like Davidson, I am interested to understand more your objection. E.g. "The main article basically traces all modern criticism to early theological criticism, and does not present this stance with a counterpoint. The notion that secular criticism results from the prelature's actual activities cannot be so easily dismissed." I am not that intelligent really. I need a bit more of an explanation. Thanks. :) Thomas S. Major 04:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. I have similar complaints to those listed by Eloquence above. The sub-pages are a huge mess--I don't think a single one of them is nicely formatted. And they're thrown about the main article rather randomly. As Eloquence also pointed out, attributions aren't always clear. However, overall I don't think the POV problems are too bad. I think if the format and subpages were more clear, the page wouldn't have POV problems. But when a subpage is devoted just to positive comments, it looks like non-NPOV, even if there's stuff in the main article or on another subpage balancing a positive comment.Kevin M Marshall 14:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do to make the format and subpages more clear. I just have a small question: is this article going to be judged as well based on its sub-pages? If yes, I will make sure that we do a better job in the subpages. If not, whew, what a relief that will be! Thanks for your comments. :) Thomas S. Major 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I won't speak for anyone else, but unless the subpages are improved considerably I won't support the article. I'll see what I can do to help out with the article.Kevin M Marshall 02:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is going on here The Italian Inquistion has arrived. It seems we now have yet another editor User: Baboyako making their first ever edit here [2]. User: Bonrussell also made his first edit here; and this editor too is hardly an "old hand either" Edits of Arturo Cruz. I am beginning to grow suspicious here, very suspicious indeed. I hope one or two of our friends here do not need to go to confession 11:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC). [Comment by Giano]
I told my friends a few days ago that I proposed this article for feature article status and they started to act. I've just told them to back off. Sorry about that. :( Thomas S. Major 00:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support: I took part in writing this article. I believe it "reports all major points of the views in proportion to the credibility of the experts holding the various theses." (NPOV policy) If one looks at the extensive bibliography, the proportions and the structure of the article reflect existing scholarship: a great deal of literature on theology, some juridical studies, historical and sociological literature, and some cult and anti-Opus Dei issues. The article also reflects the contents of the monographs.
Anybody who wants to propose changes to the structure of the article should read these books written by credible experts. If calculus, econometrics, molecular biology are not for amateurs, a fortiori dogmatic, moral and ascetical theology, Church history, general history, sociology of religion, and canon law are not. Marax 09:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I have three problems with this article. (1.) POV. This is the big one. I agree with Eloquence that this is a skewed and partisan account, told much too much from the inside, rather than encyclopedically. The defender above who quotes ""Wikipedia should report all major points of views" from the NPOV tutorial, in defence of the article's present state (I'm sorry, but with the interleaved comments I find if impossible to tell who quotes it) shows a misunderstanding. The key word in that quote is report. To report is not to repeat, still less to endorse. To report is to report neutrally, with attribution. It's not merely Wikipedia as a whole that needs to be balanced and neutral, as some of the arguments above seem to suggest, it's each article. And while in a well-written text it can be possible to tell whether an attributed expert is also responsible for the views in the next few sentences, it requires rhetorical skills to make it so. Please listen to the people here who are telling you in good faith that some attributions aren't in fact clear: the judge of clarity is the reader, not the author. A minor point: please refer consistently to the founder as Escrivá, rather than as St. Josemaría, unless his canonisation is the point at issue. (2.) Prose. I'm afraid there are also some problems of less than brilliant prose, especially with the attributions, which read as if they were fitted awkwardly (reluctantly?) into what was originally a smooth text. Please try to formulate the whole thing with the attributions as an integral part, rather than putting them in as alien speed bumps. Too may short paragraphs, also. (3.) Footnotes/inline references. The reader too often has no way of knowing which work in the bibliography is being used to reference a particular point. I dislike footnotes and try to avoid the need for them in my own articles, but when the sourcing situation is this complex, they are necessary. Please don't ask whether any Wikipedia policy explicitly requires this or that form of reference; instead ask your common sense: "How can I make the sourcing unambiguously clear to the reader?" Because the purpose of the reference policies is to ensure such clarity. The answer in this article is that you need either footnotes or a prohibitive amount of parenthetic inline references; in other words, you need footnotes. Some articles with a simpler source situation don't need them, that's why there's no hard and fast rule. Summary. I realise that my objections may be a bit abstract, especially no. 2), so I've just now edited the section "A personal prelature of the Catholic Church" to give an example of changes both for 1), NPOV, and 2), better flow, please take a look. I'm sorry I couldn't at the same time illustrate 3), what footnotes are required: that's unfortunately impossible, since the problem with the present sourcing is precisely that it doesn't give me enough information. The italics for quotes I left alone (although they're non-standard), as I've no plans for going over the rest of the article — too much work, which I realise is pretty likely to get reverted anyway. Bishonen | talk 11:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tutorial, Bishonen! I will take your example into account when I try to rewrite the article to make it more encyclopedic and have more flow. I made a slight change to your version, but it has been useful. Thomas S. Major 02:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I see the point. In reality there were many in-text references with dates and pages.But they were removed as a way of cutting the bulk of the text. I will try to bring them back.

I will also work on inserting footnotes. However, I found this in the Wikipedia:Cite sources:

"On the other hand, in-text references can be very useful if there is a long list of references and it is not clear which one the reader should consult for more information on a specific topic. In-text citations can also be valuable if there is doubt or disagreement on some point—you can parenthetically indicate exactly what source made a particular claim. (Articles that involve strong opposing viewpoints may need to have numerous in-text citations for this reason.)

Footnotes are sometimes useful for relevant text that would distract from the main point if embedded in the main text, yet are helpful in explaining a point in greater detail. Such footnotes can be especially helpful for later fact-checkers, to ensure that the article text is well-supported. Thus, using footnotes to provide useful clarifying information outside the main point is fine where this is needed.

Footnotes can also be used to simply cite sources, and there are some styles which do so. However, citations using numbered footnotes are controversial in Wikipedia. The current MediaWiki software does not support footnotes very well. In particular, automatic numbering of footnotes conflicts with a common editing practice of bare URLs in single square brackets and the same footnote cannot be used multiple times with automatic numbering, rather a new number and note has to be used. In contrast, the software is currently quite sufficient to support the parenthetical author citation format suggested above."

  • Object per Bishonen and Eloquence. This article was clearly written from a pro-Opus Dei POV. The criticisms of OD aren't mentioned in the intro except as an afterthought given a sentence in the final paragraph. Also from the intro: Opus Dei offers the faithful the "necessary training" to attain "sanctity or inner union with God". St Josemaria is often referred to as "St. Josemaria", when he should be known as "Escriva" — when first introduced, St Josemaria should be "St Josemaria Escriva", then "Escriva" from then on until we get to the Canonisation bit (by the way, have a gold spelling star). The "message" of OD is aggressively put forth, when it should at most gain a mere mention. OD is even referred to as "the Work"; such a phrase is often used by those doing "the Work" (whatever that may be) in various religions, sects, and cults, but never by those who are not. The "criticisms" section does not enlighten one to criticisms, I fear, but to "misunderstandings". The article attempts to argue — putting the words into the mouth of a weasel — that OD is a "sign of contradiction". I recommend someone with no relationship towards OD, the Catholic Church, or any anti-cult group take a look at the article and pare it down as much as they can.
I'm also concerned about the attempts at balance. When criticisms are included at all, they and Opus Dei are not discussed objectively. Rather, we have what news organisations laughingly describe as "balance": "Person X says the critics are wrong, but critics say they're not", or vice versa.

The neutrality policy states:

"NPOV policy means that we say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z." Thomas S. Major 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one particular POV is treated as a monolithic "Catholic people's" POV — this is a serious issue, bringing as it does memories of "can we trust them to follow their countries issues over what the Bishop of Rome says?" and all that. For example: "on the other hand, Catholics say that this accusation is a slur on their bishops." I have never said such a thing, and am not certain that I would — am I not Catholic? This section has other problems: it concludes that critics are wrong, and its English is awkward (take a look at the progression of "however"-equivalents).
You are right. I will correct the weasel statements! Thanks. Thomas S. Major 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the Catholic/Opus Dei POV, please read R Davidson's exchange with Eloquence regarding the Catholic tone of the article. That is the key to understand the neutrality of this article. That has to be resolved first before we can talk about NPOV here. Thanks for your comments. Thomas S. Major 00:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object – Notwithstanding POV issues (I won't check for that for now), the page has serious style problems. 1) Too many subheadings; The ToC is granulated and bloated. 2) Inline links to be converted to footnote style like we have for other featured articles 3) Placement of left-aligned images which shift headings to the right. That is to say: please don't start a paragraph with a left-aligned image, also do not float left-images so that the headings of the following paragraph are moved. 4) References not formatted properly. Please see recent featured articles such as Economy of India on how to format correctly. 5) Page size indicates that a summary is needed. Use the summary style. 6) No external links? 7) The page has a lot of quotes, this needs to be reduced and made into an objective summary. 8) Needs a copyedit. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article lingers a little too long on some of the more "sensational" criticisms. On the other hand I noticed two media pieces in the last fortnight that cited this piece as an important source (both Australian), and one of them called it called it even-handed, so what do I know? Re the comment that a long piece on Opus Dei should contain at most a brief mention of its aims, I can't help thinking that would be rather as if the article on General Motors were to contain no more than a brief mention that it sells cars. Asoane 20:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. I didn't even get past the lead before I came across sentences like this one: "Built on the idea that Christians attain great joy from an awareness of being children of God, Opus Dei teaches them about their personal freedom and responsibility in pursuing the first purpose of the Catholic Church: sanctity or inner union with God." This is Opus Dei-propaganda, plain and simple. It might not be illicit, but it's inherently POV. Most of the article reads like some sort of brochure or pamphlet. It's simply not even close to being NPOV and at times barely encyclopedic. It's bristling with more or less subtle religious peacock terms, and obviously irrelevant publicity images like this don't exactly help. / Peter Isotalo 22:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, jiy. I will study what I can do about your comments. Thanks again. :) Thomas S. Major 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the Catholic/Opus Dei POV, kindly read R Davidson's exchange with Eloquence regarding the Catholic tone of the article. That is the key to understand the neutrality of this article. That has to be resolved first before we can talk about NPOV here. The editors resolved in the Talk Page that the images should be proportionate to the credible experts view. Thanks for your comments. Thomas S. Major 00:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. I agree with your comments above: (a) policy we should give more credence to credible sources, and (b) the Pope is a credible source. However, your conclusion is incorrect. The Pope's views may be given more credence, sure, but that doesn't mean you're supposed to write from the Pope's point of view. Please re-read the NPOV page, and when you're finished there move on to WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK. Neither the weasel or peacock pages are official policy, but they're important guidelines to help people attain a NPOV, and should be followed by any article that wants FA status. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mark. Sorry I was too much in a hurry I was not able to answer you properly. Yes I totally agree with you as regards weasel and peacock terms. Will also work on that :) Thomas S. Major 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million for all your comments: I see we still have a lot of work to do

Thanks a million for all those who spent some time to give detailed ways of improving this article to achieve feature article status. I am truly grateful, and I appreciate your efforts.

It is clear from the comments that this article has to do a lot of work in terms of attributions, footnotes, formatting, copyediting, style, flow, etc. etc. etc.

I just need your help to resolving once and for all the basic issue raised by my friend R Davidson as regards neutrality. It's an issue which will continue to hound this article if it is not resolved.

The basic issue is how this article is implementing the following NPOV policies:

"We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. To give such undue weight to the lesser held view may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."

From Jimbo:

"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts"
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

From the NPOV tutorial:

"Wikipedia should report all major points of views; however, it should do so in proportion to the credibility of the experts holding the various theses.
One measure of a view's importance is the credibility of the experts who hold that view. What makes an expert credible? Some criteria include:
  • the reputation of the expert, the reputation of the tradition within which he or she works, the reputation of the group or institution for which the expert works
  • whether the expert uses the common methods of the field or completely different ones
  • whether the expert has or has not failed to respond to criticisms
  • whether the expert has reputable supporters of his or her claims
  • whether the expert's point of view belongs in a different article (e.g. evolution vs. creationism)
In other words, an idea's popularity alone does not determine its importance."

Right now the editors are one in saying that the majority position is held by the following credible experts: reputable investigative journalists who studied Opus Dei: (John Allen, V. Messori, Thierry, West), theologians and philosophers: (James V. Schall, Fuenmayor, Rodriguez, Ocariz, et al), Sociology of religion scholars: (atheist Bryan R. Wilson, protestant Dr. Kliever and Jenkins), Catholic officials (John Paul II, Benedict XVI, JPI, bishops, etc.) ,St. Josemaria himself (JE=OD according to Samuel Howard and other scholars), and other Catholic leaders, and non-Catholic leaders (I intend to collect these as well in a separate sub-page).

According to the editors, the view of these experts and their credibility and expertise has an overwhelming and lopsided advantage over the other positions in terms of their view on Opus Dei, and thus most of their views are quoted or reported, giving what some people said is a "Catholic" tone to the article, or a “Pope’s point of view,” even if some of the sources are atheists or Protestants.

Should the editors change their opinion on who has the expertise? Are there other experts on these subject who should be given the majority position? That's basically the question of my friend, Davidson. And we still do not have a clear answer.

I need your help to resolve this basic issue. Of course, we can also assume that "silence means consent." But I'd prefer a clearer "outside" opinion on this.

Needless to say, I see the great need to address the other important issues brought up here to improve the article. Thanks again for your help. Thomas S. Major 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Houston, Texas

edit
You may be looking for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Houston, Texas/Archive1 or Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Houston, Texas/archive2, see here for corrections to old archives made in November 2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have had nothing to do with the writing of this article at all. I was simply thumbing through Wikipedia and discovered this nicely written article, which looks to me to be very close to FA status. Grutness...wha? 02:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Although I added a picture, cleaned the formatting and added some external links, this is not a self nomination. Very good article with extensive references. For some reason it was in some cleanup category from September 2004! Diamonds in the rough, eh? TreveXtalk 00:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree completely:
Umberto Eco's studies on Superman and James Bond (1988:211-256, 315-362) as myths of a static good-and-evil world view, should be mentioned as very early and lucid examples of a combination of semiotic and political analysis.
"Bad taste" products such as pornography and horror fiction, says for instance Andrew Ross (1989:231), draw their popular appeal precisely from their expressions of disrespect for the imposed lessons of educated taste. They are expressions of social resentment on the part of groups which have been subordinated and excluded by todays "civilized society".
Although these are not discussed at great length in the article, they are still important elements in and of themselves. As well as relating to particular discussions on "bad taste products" and constructed world-views, the pictures serve to illustrate that even components of "low culture" such as comic books and horror fiction are worthy of scholarly attention and discussion under the rubric of popular culture studies. This is a relatively recent development (Mukerji & Schudson 1991). I will adjust the fair use rationales to further emphasise this point. TreveXtalk 13:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Superman" and "horror fiction" are referred to briefly in the article. However, "Superman comic number 14" and "A Dark Night's Dreaming: Contemporary American Horror Fiction" are not directly discussed in the article. This second part is what's needed to meet the fair use requirement of "use for criticism, comment, or scholarship". --Carnildo 20:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about popular culture, it is about the theory of popular culture. The absence of these words does not suggest any holes in this article's coverage. An article on literary theory might discuss the major movements in such theory: phenomenology, hermeneutics, reception theory, structuralism, semiotics, post-structuralism etc. Likewise, this article is an overview of the discourse of popular culture studies.
To dismiss this article as uncomprehensive because it misses out these 'keywords' is rather like dismissing a literary theory article because it fails to mention Charles Dickens, or, for that matter, fantasy fiction. The point is that these articles discuss theory which can be applied to a broad range of output within those artistic/cultural fields. They may not mention each genre exhaustively but this does not mean that the theories discussed cannot be validly applied in different contexts than those mentioned in the articles.
The words 'anime' and 'fandom' are never mentioned once in the 512-page tome Rethinking Popular Culture: Contemporary Perspectives in Cultural Studies, which would appear to be a pretty standard work on the subject.
'Science fiction' is mentioned twice (pgs 6, 238), once in the context of new theoretical approaches to the study of culture no longer excluding topics such as romance novels, science fiction, TV soap operas etc, and once in relation to the production and distribution of cultural items, specifically that coverage in book review columns is more important to the success of literary novels than to detective or science fiction. This article deals with the former using other examples and the latter (appearing in an essay entitled Processing fads and fashions) is probably out of the scope of an encyclopedia article. Sport is covered in an essay entitled Sport and social class. It is not, however, mentioned anywhere else in the book, including the instroduction, which would suggest that a discussion of sport is not an essential prerequisite for a discussion of popular culture studies.
Anyway, Google Print has stopped working for some reason but I think you get my point. TreveXtalk 09:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation, I feel better about this article seeing that you seem to know a few things about the subject. I am withdrawing my objection, but I am not supporting. Yes, the article is probably fairly comprehensive and similar or better to Britannica/Encarta standard - but I think we can do better then that. Wiki is not paper and we should be able to give a comprehensive review even of the 'fringe' aspects of the popular culture. Google Scholar search on "popular culture studies"+1)"anime"=8 2) game=67 3) fandom=18 4) fantasy=71 5) science-fiction=36 6) sport=36 7) fan= 61. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Schiavo

edit

"Standard heading such as self-nom": Self-nomination per permission from Mark:

UPDATE: I reduced the size from 84Kb to 80 KB 79KB 46 KB in one small set of edits. We're making progress, and it would be sin to stop here.--GordonWatts 13:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He made the promise that it would be OK to renominate after a few weeks: discussed here and referenced, but here, Worldtraveller says in edit comments to "see FAC instructions - move old nomination to an archive, make fresh nomination; please don't re-insert old nomination discussion."

I took WT up on his offer, and, since I don't edit much in Terri Schiavo any more, I am more objective, and the edit war has disappeared, removing the last of the problems.

Renominate.

Remember, this vote is about the article, not controversial "I'm right a lot" Gordon:

Either vote for Terri or against her, but in the end, let's not have any hard feelings, OK?

--GordonWatts 12:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. Bad faith nomination. Few, if any, of the objections from the last nomination have been amended, least of all the ones concerning article size. / Peter Isotalo 13:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments: My renom is not in bad faith; I'm not trying to "get revenge" on anybody, and my nomination, whether successful or not, will not harm anybody, so it is not in bad faith. If you carefully look at the links I provided, you will see that many, many objections were addressed. Maybe not all of them were addressed to your satisfaction, but we all tried our best.--GordonWatts 14:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's still hopelessly crufty and preoccupied with insignificant details relevant only to the truly obsessed. And what's up with section titles like "Notable court cases in the Terri Schiavo saga"? Definetly not serious material. And what's up with section titles like "Notable court cases in the Terri Schiavo saga"? Definetly not serious material. The article isn't stable either. Considering how hotly disputed the topic is, I'd like to see some relative peace and quiet for at least a few months and I can really recommend to those who are the most active with the article to try editing articles on completely different subjects for a change. Obsessing this much about one very narrow subject is hardly going to lessen the amount of disputes. / Peter Isotalo 19:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I went to special trouble today here to both fix the ref section AGAIN! and also avoid all "vanity" links -even to the point of not citing sources, and explain here why I am so stressed out (for reasons unrelated to Wikipedia). Yes, Peter, I want a totally stable article, but, like "consensus," this is an ideal -that is NEVER achieved in heaven. (Are we in heaven? No.) I moved the legal section to a sub-article to reduce the main article size, so I do not understand your objection here. "And what's up with section titles like "Notable court cases in the Terri Schiavo saga"? Definetly not serious material." Yes, of course the legal sage is important. Why should it not be? Also, if you don't like my title, then change it; I am not married to this title, and you are able to fix this "minor" problem, so I don't see why you don't. "Obsessing this much about one very narrow subject..." I'm not 'obsessing," but merely spending the proper time to fix all the important details -which is a "good" thing.--GordonWatts 20:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Object. Agree with above comments. In addition, why is this article being brought back for a vote so soon? Yes, the article was somewhat stable for the last week, but as has been stated before (endlessly stated), the article should be allowed to sit a month or two to show everyone how stable it is. The last four edits on the article are all rvs--this would indicate it is still not stable.--Alabamaboy 13:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In addition, why is this article being brought back for a vote so soon? " I'm taking a Wikibreak, and will not be around for a while. I wanted to do something positive to get the ball rolling before I went on break. Your objections are well meant and thoughtful, as I recall in the past, and have some merit, but I disagree, AlabamaBoy, on the emphasis you have assigned to waiting.--GordonWatts 14:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. for the same reasons as before. GordonWatts, we do not vote "for Terri or against her", we are talking about an article. Rama 13:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object – 1) its *not* stable. Look at the history of reverts between Sep 13 and 20. 2) 87 kb. I told you to reduce the page size. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for all the reasons above and more. The page size seems excessive (I thought we'd pared it down already!) and one caption does not follow the standards of Wikipedia:Captions. Johnleemk | Talk 14:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. If you read all the links provided, you will see that Mark really did say it would be OK to renominate in a couple of weeks -and we see the page has experienced actual improvement in many areas; if you don't focus in on a few areas in need of improvement, then you can see the many strong areas of the article, which we had fixed.--GordonWatts 14:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I'd like to see the article made more concise and the readibility improved. The introduction should be much stronger and more of a summary (too many details in the intro right now). I also agree with other comments that the article should be more stable before being nominated. Carbonite | Talk 14:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thx 4 your feedback, C; We had a slightly better intro, which is still preserved in the Chinese and Spanish wiki articles on Schiavo, but it was tossed out a while back after my 4-3 vote was forgotten or overridden on that matter. Since, as I've said, I'm taking a wiki break (too much time online! -not from any hard feelings or anything), I am editing there much less; We have a new crew of replacement editors (Marskell and admin Taxman). FuelWagon, Ann, and Patsw are all regular editors, very familiar with the ins and outs and still edit there regularily. If you'd like to help out, you are more than welcome. I've done the best I can with it as far as I can see. Thanks again for the feedback, even if it is not quite what I wanted.--GordonWatts 14:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object To be clear, this is a too-hasty nomination but it is not bad faith. I have discussed with Gordon extensively and edited myself—this is earnest and good faith, he is just pushing it forward too soon. Stability is almost there but length has still not been addressed. I agree completely with comment on intro. In fact, I think the second and third paragraph should be reduced to a single sentence. There are other parts which could similarly be made more readable. Marskell 15:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. As above objectors. Why was this renominated with outstanding objections clearly unaddressed? In this light, nominator appears to lack understanding of requirements to be made a featured article. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Christopher, you raise good points. See the below in comments.--GordonWatts 21:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is the same length as it has always been. Thus, how you can claim that the objection that the article is too long has been addressed is beyond me. When the page is smaller, perhaps around 40-50 KB, renominate; until then, people will continue to object. If you keep renominating without fixing these problems, which have repeatedly been pointed out to you, you're just wasting your time. BTW, if you wish to reference the previous nominations it might be useful to link to them. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "article is the same length ...how you can claim that the objection that the article is too long has been addressed is beyond me." I thought that when Mark scratched out the length objection and when I agreed, that this was sufficient proof, but apparently consensus disagrees, so I will try to address it; "BTW, if you wish to reference the previous nominations it might be useful to link to them." If you click on the links in that little paragraph below (the one I created especially for your concerns), it will lead you to links from both of the archives; I promise you. The sentence begins: "Comments: User:Christopherparham raises some good points..." Also, it has other links, and is best read chronologically, clicking on each link as you read.--GordonWatts 12:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: User:Christopherparham raises some good points. Since it is the primary responsibility of the nominator to try and address them, here goes.

Here, an Aug. 26, 2005 nomination for Terri Schiavo, a stable article, was narrowly defeated by what looks to be a 6-11 or 7-10 margin, and it had problems, but Mark, the FA-editor says here that we fixed most of them, and suggest renominating in a few weeks. However, here, when it was renominated on Sept. 05, 2005, a few weeks later, after all his concerns were addressed, and then re-nominated, as Mark had suggested, it was rejected by Mark, who has the authority to make decisions: He went with concensus, instead of the policy, which (as others have repeatedly explained to me) states that he has the absolute power to promote if the actionable objections are addressed.

Since I addressed ALL of Mark's concerns (see below), this nom was a shoe in -a given -a certain to pass nomination.

However, since then, the edit war on that page (the only problem outstanding on my list) has calmed down, making it reeligible. Since he's a good editor, admin, bureaucrat, and have made many contributions, I expect he'll keep his word here -after an uncertain delay as his discretion.

However, was "my list" really the "correct list?"

Let's take a closer look at this diff. The speaker is Mark, aka Raul654, the FA editor, and, while he may not address *every* concern on your list, he was very representative of the groups views, and took me to town on many problems:

Mark says, in relevant part: "Object strongly. Here's the short list of what's wrong with the article: TOCright breaks the manual of style, the TOC (with its 37 sections) is quite overwhelming, the article has no introduction, it has no references section to complement the inline linking, it has a see also section (which should be converted to prose, inserted into the article, and the section deleted), every image used in the article is fair use, and it's 80 kilobytes long and should be shortened and/or broken into subarticles. →Raul654 04:34, August 26, 2005 (UTC)"

and

"OK, I've gone ahead and fixed most of the problems. However, the article still needs references (specifically, it has plenty of html commented references; people need to uncomment them into some acceptable inline style, and compile them into a references section) and add copyleft images. →Raul654 02:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)"

In plain English, that means that the only problems at his last pass then were "references' (which I built from scratch) and images (which I fixed in large part but not completely -by personally driving to Terri Schiavo's grave and taking pictures and GNU releasing them under GFDL).

Now, Mark thinks the article size is not too long, and I agree. Also, there are a few Fair Use pics in the article, but does this create a problem? Well, recently the September 10 Featured Article about Scientology had a picture here which is definitely Fair Use. (So, we see that a few Fair Use photos are acceptable if that's the best you can do -and it is.)

So, the only lingering problem was the recent, brief edit war. It is long over, the page has calmed way down, and so much so that I have "retired" and am now on a "wiki-break," and feel like an old man, being worked to death.

While I think all your concerns were addresses (assuming Mark correctly represented you and did a good job as FA-editor), then the page is ready for FA-status, but that raises another question: Why did I have to show you all this, when it is clearly in the archives of the 1st and 2nd failed nomination??

Thx!--GordonWatts 21:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"was narrowly defeated by what looks to be a 6-11 or 7-10 margin" - You don't seem to get it - if it had a hundred support votes, all it takes is one ectionable objection which is not properly addressed, and the FAC will fail.
"Since I addressed ALL of Mark's concerns (see below), this nom was a shoe in -a given -a certain to pass nomination." - Raul does not make unilateral decisions for or against promotion, he makes the decision based on the discussion for the FAC. Even if you fixed everything he points out, if editor A makes an actionable objection that Raul feels is not properly acted on, then the FAC will fail.
"Now, Mark thinks the article size is not too long, and I agree." - First, everybody thinks the article is too long. That you agree, yet still brought it to FAC, only betrays either your continued ignorance of the Criteria (and of wikipedia policies and community norms), or exposes what in essence is a bad faith nomination.
By the way, Object per all above. Though the nominator has good intentions, this article will not be ready until there is a complete overhaul by the nominator in line with the repeated objections raised throughout the past three FACs, or a different group of editors begin editing the article in line with the Criteria. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jeffrey, as I mention below, another editor is actively working on getting the article length reduced and clutter removed; I may help out, but I've over-worked myself; I thought the length was not an issue, and that's why I renominated, but I will see what I can do to fix this.
  • Object: this article is entirely over-detailed, not just in the verbatim extracts from the various court cases but also in the inclusion of such details as the name of the church where the Schiavo's married (ask yourself, is this really encyclopaedic?). In fact, it reads more like a chapter from a book on contentious medical cases rather than an encyclopaedia entry. I also note that the Fair Use tag for the lead image contains the phrase "use of this photo is not reccommended (sic) for articles", so why is it in this one? Indeed, why is it here at all if it should not be used in articles?. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Filiocht, We are working to reduce the length. Marskell, one of the newer editors is making good progress. I would help out mre, but I have over-worked myself in the past, and need time to rest a little, but I will help out if/when I can to get the article smaller -if I can find things that take up extra space -and delete (or shorten) them. You are welcome to help out, but it may be eye strain, lol.--GordonWatts 12:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nominated 26th August, 5th September and now on the 21st September. Not excatly what I understand as a 'few weeks'... While I do realise there is no fixed time between a failed FAC and a renom, there was virtually no time between the first two, and jusat ten days between the second and this one. Wouldn't it be better to wait until people relax and also give the article time to _prove_ that it is indeed stable? WegianWarrior 09:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • WegianWarrior, see my answer to AlabamaBoy: I am going on (am on) wiki-break to address "real life" responsibilities, and want to get the process going before I leave. We are working on the length issue too.--GordonWatts 12:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, would it not make more sence to finish working on the lenght issue, take your wiki-break (we all need those from time to time) and then nominated it? That would also give the article time to prove stable? Anyhow, it is your choice to push it so soon after the last failed nomination, but I still don't think it was the best idea. Enjoy your wikibreak =) WegianWarrior 09:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Too long and too much frivolous detail. This objection was brought up so many times before that saying previous objections have been dealt with is specious. The article also fails to give an overview of the importance of the case and what effects or impact it had on anything. The details of the case and day by day events need to be shrunk to less than half of what the article currently has and only detail important enough to be kept at all should be moved off to subarticles. Since that is directly in the criteria, and it has been pointed out so many times, ignoring that does border on bad faith. How long do we need to have this sit here before we remove it? Gordon, if the most important objections are not adressed, the article does not meet the criteria and will not be promoted. Please lets remove this nomination and not have more fuss over it. - Taxman Talk 12:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still borderline too long, but the bigger issue is the lack of balance in the article. It fails to cover the various topics in relation to their importance, which is key for an article in proper summary style as the criteria call for. It still lacks overview and impact discussion. For ex I don't think anywhere it mentions the attention the case brought to living wills/medical powers of attorney, except the link to your article which is innapropriate by the way. The only link of yours that is proper is one that covers important legal information covered nowhere else. I'll let other editors decide if that article is important enough, but the others have to go. Sorry, but as we told you, properly summarizing this article will take some time. - Taxman Talk 23:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I get the picture: "Consensus" thinks this Terri is too long, and, as I speak, I am reviewing what can be cut out of the article. However, I did not nominate in bad faith. See Marskell's comment on that order; Further, Mark, the FA-editor (who will no doubt take heat for his statements) did indeed edit here that he was scratching out this statement: "it's 80 kilobytes long and should be shortened and/or broken into subarticles," meaninig it was OK by him, and then, he went on to say here "so if/when this nom fails, it might be a good idea to renominate it again in a couple weeks." That supports my claim that the article was not perceived to be too long, and that I acted in good faith; Nonetheless, Marskell and I are working on reducing the length to address your objection.
    • That being said, thank you for your work on the article; if you have time (and I know you are busy), your continued help wouold be appreciated.--GordonWatts 12:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So now you see the picture? Why not the 23 other times people told you it was too long and therefore didn't meet the criteria? Even if he did scratch that out (and that is weak evidence that he doesn't think it is too long anymore), 2 or so editors thinking it is not too long and 20 thinking it is outweighs that. More than that, even one reasonable, actionable objection can keep an article from being featured. There must be consensus that the article meets the criteria, and not some percentage of rough consensus--full consensus is typically needed. So leaning on this one thing that Mark said is very weak. Also, when he said a few weeks, that is not a blanket endorsement to apply if the major objections to the article have not been fixed. Summarizing an article is not easy and it is not really possible for it to meet the stability criteria for a while after that. That's why so many people kept telling you not to renominate the article until it had been summarized and then still wait a bit. All these things added up mean that if the nomination wasn't in bad faith, you were unreasonably leaning on very weak reasons to renominate and being rude to the multiple editors that had valid objections that were ignored. So this nomination should be removed. - Taxman Talk 13:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the whole, I agree in principle with you Taxman, but given recent history on RfA, I'd suggest that this nomination should be allowed to run its course. Who knows, it may even produce a salutary lesson in how consensus emerges on Wikipedia. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I just noticed a lot of "hidden comments" that make the article look larger than it really is: <!--(Page 4 of 10 of Judge Greer's Order, 2nd Paragraph)--> -- a LOT of them -this might make the article look 5-10% larger than it reallt appears to the reader, the main point of importance. (We assume that it will load fast, even with extra HTML hidden comments.)--GordonWatts 13:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC) UPDATE: I reduced the size from 84Kb to 80 KB 79KB 46 KB in one small set of edits. We're making progress, and it would be sin to stop here.--GordonWatts 13:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I applaud such efforts, I remain skeptical on the practicability of paring down the article in time for this nomination to succeed (although I do not endorse scrapping this nomination, as per Filiocht's comment). I recall around the last time, we made excellent progress, reaching about 50 or 60kb before people began accusing us of destroying the article and the consensus it reached. I feel this article is in a bit of a quandary. You see, it has to meet two (in this case) opposing criteria: ample length, and sufficient stability/consensus on the article's current state. However, the only way to satisfy the whims of every editor involved is to bloat the article beyond a reasonable size. To reduce it would lead to condemnation because detail X is not included, as occurred in the last nomination. (This conundrum reminds me of the messy Ashlee Simpson business, where one or two ardent Ashlee fans destabilised the article after it was pared due to comments on FAC, leading to not one but two major arbitration cases. Hopefully this article doesn't go so far.) Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see both conditions fulfilled, but alas, it seems the only way to pare down the article will be to ruffle the feathers of a sufficient number to block this FAC. Johnleemk | Talk 14:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the good analysis: Excellent point here, John: I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't: Notice that I've reduced it from 84 to 80 and then to 79 Kilobyters today (and now to 46 Kb), which addresses concern "A" -the length, but in a traditional catch 22, I might be accused of "destabilizing" the article, thus missing concern "B" --the stability issue. OK, I'm still making progress. Everybody can go take a lunck break now and relax.--GordonWatts 14:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not in a catch-22, you were well informed of the fact that the article needed to be summarized and that it would take a while to reach stability and high quality after that. That's why you were told so many times to wait longer before nominating again. As it is the article suffers from some pretty severe issues. - Taxman Talk 23:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't say that the length was really addressed. When a 500 lb person loses 50 lbs, they're still not considered to be fit. Yes, reducing the size of the article is an improvement, but there's still plenty more cutting that needs to be done. There's too much in the article right now, especially since there are multiple sub-articles to deal with many of the details. Carbonite | Talk 14:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Frankly, it makes me sad to be harsh while GordonWatts obviously works a great deal to improve the article, but I think it is important to understand that by saying "reduce the size", we do not mean "cut a few things here and there". For me, and apparently for some other contributors here, the point is that the article should be a summary of the whole affair, a condensed text. What we see here is just a collection of random facts taken here and there, without any global understanding of the whole topic. It is the very nature of the articele which is at odds with the status of featured article, and a complete re-work of it is, I fear, necessary before it achieves a featurable status. Rama 15:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Interim Update
        • OK, thank you for the kind words, Rama. Now, I did even more copyedit, and read the entire article, word-for-word (except the "reference section, which I wrote from scratch) --I conclude that every bit of "extra stuff" has been removed, and the article appears to be now 46KB (was 84 KB), and the only way to further reduce article size would be to remove stuff to sub-article.
        • Any suggestions?
        • Also, when looking through the article, I will again make an honest disclaimer: I think that several links (compilations, reference, advocacy, articles) go back to papers I once managed: Three of them are extras which can easily be replaced, if someone feels that I added links that were not of good quality (vanity links) -one is a reference to a court action, and it is one where no other news media showed up -it is (I think) irreplaceable -unless someone can find news coverage elsewhere of that item. I would not touch those sections, as they seem to have been accepted over the months by the other regular editors, but I am telling you to be honest.
        • That being said, if anyone has any ideas on moving stuff to sub-articles, I will be glad to hear it. (I personally would jam the article to FA status to set a new standard for article length: 79 or 80 KB is OK -but that's just my feeling here, that this would be OK. All the same, the article length is now 46 Kb; Everybody happy?) I may look again at the sub-article thing, but now, I'm going to take a break. Remember: I'm on a wiki-break and didn't expect to go into 3rd overtime.--GordonWatts 15:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The move to split everything in to sub-articles was a touch unilateral. I certainly cannot change my vote as stability becomes an issue—other editors may not like it and while I knocked 5+ off myself this really required some talk discussion. Two things, since you are not responding on talk there Gordon:

  • Cutting an article in half is NOT a minor edit. I guess some people get in the habit of hitting minor for everything but you should avoid it.
  • 33 edits is impossible for others to wade through. Featured article requests are indeed a way to promote rapid improvement but having at it willy-nilly for three hours and then asking "everyone happy?" is just not the way to go. Marskell 18:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer Yes, it was unilateral, but I did not make any "substantive" changes, except to shorten things by replacing "words" with numbers (eg blah blah for 2 years...) and use of abbreviations (eg blah blah said Terri couldn't do this blah blah). Therefore, the "split" did not affect the stability. "Cutting an article in half is NOT a minor edit." Yes, it was, since the substance stayed the same. "33 edits is impossible for others to wade through. Featured article requests are indeed a way to promote rapid improvement but having at it willy-nilly for three hours and then asking "everyone happy?" is just not the way to go." No; 33 edits = 15 minutes (or less) if you have a fast connection. Page through the history. OK, I answered all your questions, and I made constructive improvements, so the "5 edit/day" aggreement can be waived under that exception. Your move. PS: Thanks for your assistance.--GordonWatts 18:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No no no. You've taken an established article and moved 40% of it to a side. This is not minor. It simply isn't. It shouldn't have even been done without discussion on talk, especially given how touchy this article is.

And 33 edits = 15 minutes indicates a lack of forethought more than a fast connection. The whole point of our agreement was to think about every change made. To put this in perspective, I was editing while you were: I read the full article and made two dozen minors in one edit—much easier for the next person coming along. Of course the edit conflict killed the changes. Marskell 18:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"and moved 40% of it to a side" 43.0378% to be (almost) exact (34/79=43%+change). "This is not minor." It is if the substance is not changed. It was not. It shouldn't have even been done without discussion on talk" It was discussed in talk: This talk, not the Talk:Terri Schiavo, which has been dormant and vacant for a little bit; The "Talk" said to reduce size, presumably by a split. This was the only way to do it without removing stuff and starting World War III. "especially given how touchy this article is" -or because the article is touchy, I acted to preserve the work done in the past. "think about every change made." I did. I think fast. If you don't believe me, then try and find even one error in my last several day's edits. OK? "two dozen minors in one edit—much easier for the next person coming along" I did one section at a time, to keep from overloading my brain. "Of course the edit conflict killed the changes" oh, and to preserve my changes, save your work; Even though they looked lost, you can hit "back" and get your work, copy it into Microsoft Word, save it, and introduce it later --or save it to Word (and spell-check it like I do) before you hit "save page."
PS: The job got done; I am sorry if you lost some work; please save your work next time. Did I do OK, all the same?--GordonWatts 18:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The massive reduction in article size was certainly needed and may prove to be very beneficial long-term. However, so many changes were made that this article can not possibly become an FA on this nomination. Other editors are undoubtedly going to spend time re-adding text that was moved out. In short, this article is currently as unstable as an article can be.

Unless there are objections, I suggest closing this nomination and letting the article stabilize over the next month or two. Discussion on how to improve the article should move to the talk page. I believe this will give the article its best chance at becoming a Featured Article. Carbonite | Talk 18:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Other editors are undoubtedly going to spend time re-adding text that was moved out" No text was lost. I merely moved it, and, in its place, added a small section summarizing the court cases. To add text would duplicate unnecessarily. Since no sustentative change was made, the article is stable, but I'd prefer someone review my work. "Discussion on how to improve the article should move to the talk page." We are quite happy, thus no major improvements are needed, which leads me to my last point: Unless there are objections, I suggest closing this nomination and letting the article stabilize over the next month or two." I object: I think the article is stable, except for one minor thing: Uncertainty on the reliability of the work Marskell and I did in reducing it; If others can review our work, that would offer confidence in the accuracy, hence stability. "I believe this [your suggestion to wait] will give the article its best chance at becoming a Featured Article." I disagree with your premise, because the underlying theory on which it was based (e.g., that things needed to be added to the article) was flawed, but thank you for the kind words. So, would someone please step up to the plate and do their part, namely a review of our work? (If we did not err, then the stability was not affected.)--GordonWatts 19:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you or I think anything needs to be added to the article is basically irrelevant. Whenever an article goes through such a major change, it remains unstable for a period of time. Unstable articles are not suitable for being promoted to Featured Article.
There's really two ways to proceed on this:
  1. Continue to argue that the article should be promoted on this nomination. With the unstability of the article and amount of opposition, this just isn't going to happen. However, continuing to press the issue does have the potential to generate enough ill will that the article's future chances are harmed. This needs to be avoided.
  2. Let the nomination close and move discussion to the article talk page. Let other editors improve the article for a reasonable length of time (a month or two sounds about right). When the article is stable (no major changes for a while), find someone uninvolved with editing the article will nominate as a FAC. The objections at this point should be much easier to address.
Carbonite | Talk 19:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I may not agree with consensus, but I will accept it, in this case too. Now, I would like to point out that:
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Terri_Schiavo
is not updated to the most current version of this page -that is:
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo
So, not all may have heard that the article split; and, some may agree with my assertion of stability, and change consensus. I am willing to let the nomination proceed as is, and accept the results of a few more days' discussion, with the hopes that our consensus can be actioned by Mark, in whatever way he deems appropriate. You don't mind letting this new development get reviewed do you, Carbonite? Your suggestions are for me to wait, and you seem thoughtful and reasonable, but I ask you to wait a few days before the hastily passed action one way or another. Is that cool?--GordonWatts 19:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to remove the nomination, nor will I demand that anyone else do so. My comments were advice and you're quite free to ignore it if you wish. However I would suggest that you remember what you hopefully learned from your RfA: Pushing the issue often ends up working against you. I'll leave you with a pertinent quote "The chief cause of failure and unhappiness is trading what you want most for what you want now." Carbonite | Talk 19:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; this was essentially my concern.
[Note: Marskell was agreeing with Carbonie here, apparently, but I posted between their 2 posts.--GordonWatts 19:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)][reply]
Gordon, by "killed the changes" I meant they had become redundant. I do of course do a copy before saving. As for whether it's a minor, you are wrong. Wikipedia:Minor edit: "A major edit is basically something that makes the entry worth relooking at for somebody who wants to watch the article rather closely." Splitting 43% of it absolutely qualifies. It made me want to re-look at it and I can't imagine that wouldn't be true of anyone else who watches it. Put another way, you want people to change their votes based on the changes—how could they be minor? In any case, we have to wait and see if other involved editors approve of the split. And Carbonite is right—move it back to talk there. Marskell 19:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Simply look at the last version before I touched it, page through the history diffs, and if no error exists, then pass it. PS: Please note the "sub-article" is the exact information that was in the main article, except I had to make sure full names were used when introducing characters. In other words, the split was claen. "It made me want to re-look" Good; That's what I am requesting: A review of our work.--GordonWatts 19:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article looks vastly better with the edits and the spinning off of the sections into their own article. The lead is also much improved. I think this article is on the right track. That said, I think the editing cut out something important. The article seems to be missing a section on the falling out between Michael and her parents. This missing section, which would come after the section titled "Rehabilitation efforts and the malpractice suit," is needed. I can't believe I'm saying to add to the article, but it needs this section to be complete. Otherwise, this is now a very good article. The key, though, will be to see if the article remains stable for a time (I believe, though, that using the subarticles will help the stability issue). If it can remain stable for a week, I will vote to support it.--Alabamaboy 20:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Under the text move guidelines (a proposed policy), I am moving text from the Terri Schiavo article to the two related talk pages (this one and the "regular" talk page. Here is the text removed from that page: [3]

  • Watts, Gordon W. "Living Wills: Unexpected Weaknesses." The Register, 11 April 2005. [4] [5]

Edit summary:

Current revision GordonWatts (Talk | contribs) Removing links that would give the appearance of impropriety and biased conflict of interest related to vanity links

PS: I give credit to Taxman for reminding me of my responsibilities here: "The only link of yours that is proper is one that covers important legal information covered nowhere else. I'll let other editors decide if that article is important enough, but the others have to go...- Taxman Talk 23:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

--GordonWatts 00:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object, article clearly not stable: Of the last ten edits at the time of voting, five is described in the edit summary as a revert. I'm begining to wonder if this article will ever be stable enought to be an FA. WegianWarrior 09:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment': my object above still stands but more so given the reversions that are going on. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article talk page is terrorized by FuelWagon who has upset the progress I made; Please do not blame me or punish me for it; I have worked tirelessly to improve the article, and he has messed up the references section and made many edits against Wikipedia:Cite_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, when he removed references, which were approved here regarding adding of controversial links that were needed to cite sources -and also continues to argue about article length here in this page's talk -even when all consensus says he is wrong. REASON: The reason the page is unstable is due to ONE SINGLE editor, FuelWagon, and the reason he is allowed to violate consensus is because ALL YOU simply do nothing to stop him, and you do not file a RfC or participate in talk. Mark and others think that progress is being made, but if we fail, it will be because YOU did nothing; I have done all I can: I am an editor -not a "miracle worker."--GordonWatts 01:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are thinking about this in entirely the wrong terms. You are not being blamed or punished. The article simply does not meet the FA criteria and will not until it is properly summarized (addresses the points in relation the their importance) and stable. That will not happen soon, even without the current dispute. No one said getting articles to featured status was easy, but currently the article is in a terrible state (in any of the recent versions) in regards to meeting the FA criteria. If you let this nomination be removed as it should have long ago (and likely would have been if not for your combative edit warring to put it back last time), then the article can proceed on to improve. FAC is not the place to resolve an editing dispute. - Taxman Talk 13:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree completely. Last week I suggested [6] that the best course of action would be to remove the nomination and let the article stabilize. Of course this suggestion was met with strong resistance from Gordon. This really is the best way to move forward since no progress has been or will be made on this particular nomination. Carbonite | Talk 13:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Re.: Edit wars You may think that lack of edit wars prove stability, and that edit wars are bad. (To some extent, this is true.) However, consider this: Do we have any edit wars in articles like Underwater Basket Weaving (if there is such an article)? No! You know why? Nobody cares about this mundane, obscure stuff. In Terri Schiavo's case, the edit wars, while bad, are reflective of the high level of interest in the issue: A "good" thing.--GordonWatts 05:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC assistance requested re FuelWagon's disruption here, where he argues with →Raul654

Since we all are complaining about the article length (and some of us are complaining about FuelWagon's disruption here), I was wondering if some brave admin would either co-opt with me for a RfC re: FuelWagon --or take action to keep him from de-stabilising the Terri Schiavo page. I just barely get it fixed when he keeps messing up the references section, taking out approved references to cite our sources; As we discussed in talk, I removed all links that look like vanity links except those approved by the resident Admin, Taxman.

So, will someone assist me in combating this editorial vandalism here by the argumentive FuelWagon. (I do not mean this is disrespect; I too wanted the article length to stay the same, but I am man enough to comply with consensus here.) Thx.--GordonWatts 03:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, and I didn't approve any links darn it. Stop misrepresenting me. I said only a link covering important legal information should be allowed to stay, and that I would let others decided if it was important. It seems like people dispute the article contains anything truly important. - Taxman Talk 13:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brief Clarification to Taxman: I never said you approved of any specific links. All the same, the one link of mine that I tried to tie down and keep was indeed the only reporting of the Terri's Law Oral Arg. hearing in Lakeland: I know: I was there. So, it is for this reason that I assert that this link qualifies as needed by your good descriptions.--GordonWatts 02:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It seems like people dispute the article contains anything truly important." Yes, but we will beat the deletionists incorperated: Teamwork -and Faith.--GordonWatts 02:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - lacks coherent timeline (10 year gap where everything happens), not stable, I fear that The Register will reappear as a source. Buried comments in the source are also troubling. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "lacks coherent timeline (10 year gap where everything happens" Comment: You can't have your cake and eat it too. (American Idiom: You can't have both things; Choose one or the other.) If you shorten the article, it will arbitrarily make a time-gap (which is covered in the sub-article). If, on the other hand, you choose to report *all* the facts, the article length will be about 80 Kb. "not stable" Some "edit warriors" are not stable, and need to be disciplined; The article is like a lake: Large fluctuations in wind temperature result in only small changes in water temperature: The lake (and, by extension, the article) is relatively stable. "I fear that The Register will reappear as a source." That is not my fault: I have removed ALL "Register" sources from the visible comments: If others chose to put them in, you will have to accept the consensus: "Consensus" does not always go our way, but if we are mature, we accept that: You must accept that too. "Buried comments in the source are also troubling." Huh? What comments? I removed ALL of them, and only put a few back in to notify others that I had removed the links to my paper, The Register. What would you like me to do? Lie about it? Be silent and not up-front? Put the sources in NON-hidden sections for the public viewing? Please clarify, Hipocrite - «Talk», or, otherwise, I will discount this particular criticism. Since it is my responsibility to answer critics, however, I hope that I have answered them all.--GordonWatts 00:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article can be shortened without cutting relevent facts. It takes at least two to edit war, and one of those is you. The Register remains in hidden comments. It is a non-notable, non-reputable source. I'd like you to stop pushing your newspaper into the body of articles. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Register remains in hidden comments.I think it should be treated like any other source, but I will agree to your compromise; BTW, thank you for not wanting to remove it altogether as some are: It should remain for future generations as we need to cite our sources. "I'd like you to stop pushing your newspaper into the body of articles." Done, according to your wishes. "It is a non-notable, non-reputable source." Hold on a sec: I asked you on the Terri board:Do you think I lied about the news report of that Oral Argument hearing? By the way, a reporter need not be notable -none of us reporters are usually notable, but we still produce reliable news coverage. In what way is my news coverage unreliable or false? Here are links to the news stories in question:
        • #{{note|OralArgNewsStory}} From Staff Reports. (Watts, Gordon W., Editor-in-Chief) "Lakeland Appeals Court holds Oral Arguments for Terri's Law," The Register, June 14 2004 link mirror link
        • #{{note|QuoWarranto}} Ford, Cheryl, R.N. "News Coverage of Terri Schiavo's family's challenge to Mike Schiavo's guardianship," The Register, June 16 2004 link mirror link
        • I await your answer to my question. Thank you for your time.--GordonWatts 22:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an edit war that was ongoing, so it can't be a featured article till this is sorted out, however: I can see one or two sentence paragraphs in several sections. This doesn't look too good. I don't really think a footnote in the lead section is such a good idea: this material should be covered in the main section and readers should read on to find out more info. I feel that the structure is not clear - someone should look into making this a lot clearer. - 203.134.166.99 03:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grace Note, is that you at this Australian IP address? Well, whomever you are, thank you for your input, but instead of talking about problems, why don't you try to help us with solutions (or, if you already are and have, THANK YOU for your assistance here).--GordonWatts 03:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • One solution: (1) Block anyone and everyone who's monkeying up & disrupting the article; (2) Fix it; (3) Feature it; (4) Relax and smile!--GordonWatts 03:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy in Love

edit

Support Detailed information on this hit song with chart performances, music video and influences.

**"the song also raised eyebrows"
**"Knowles began shopping for beats"
**"hungover from a night of partying"
 **"it would either flop horribly or take off"
 **"Unfortunately for Beyoncé" (conveys a point of view)
 **Two sentences that begin with "Internationally speaking" and one "domestically speaking" are awkward at best but references to the "domestic market" assume the reader to be American. Obviously the reference is to the American market - so that's what it should say. Rossrs 09:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Canildo, I've added info on that image. Rossrs, I've toned down the "fanzine", and I've added samples of the song (This is the first time I've ever added a sample, so I'm not sure if I did it right - if I didn't please let me know). And Evil Monkey, I'm not sure where I would find references, as most of the stuff I wrote was from TV/Radio/Magzine interviews that don't have an online counterpart. But I'll be looking for some. OmegaWikipedia 14:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • References don't need to be online. If stuff is coming from TV shows etc then provide airing date and time, channel etc. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Evil Monkey, I can't remember random shows from two years ago, but I do remember that Beyonce has talked about it on her live DVD and the DVD single of the song. I've added them as references. Is that ok now? OmegaWikipedia 11:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • OmegaWikipedia - the article looks a lot better and I appreciate the way you've responded to the various comments here. When I have a bit more time over the next couple of days, I'll go back over the article and give it a copyedit. You know, with regards to references you can always work backwards. Try doing a Google search on Beyonce or the song. She's got to have about a zillion hits, pick some of the more credible sites and go back through them. Then you should find good quality references that you can cite, plus you'll probably find more info that can be used in the article. Then anything remaining that needs a source, and which you can't find a source for - you can delete, and all you've done is improve the article. Some type of review comments or quotes from critics would be a good addition, and give the article a bit more "authority", so if you try searching on some of the more legitimate music sites such as Rolling Stone, NME, Melody Maker, Billboard etc, you're sure to get some good stuff. That's just a suggestion but once you start sifting through sites like that, it's amazing how much good info you can find, and your reference problem will be solved. Some of these sites also link to magazine articles and interviews etc, once again useful source material. Rossrs 12:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Rossrs. I was able to find two more sources for the article. I've also followed your suggestion on including comments from critics, and I've added a section detailing their thoughts. Is there anything else that needs attention. OmegaWikipedia 20:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support The critical comments made all the difference - nicely done. I went through the article and copyedited it. I don't consider the changes I've made to be major, but I did delete some minor things that I thought weren't needed, but I also added a couple of points. Well, you can see what I've done in the edit history. Have changed my vote to support. Rossrs 11:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks Rossrs :) OmegaWikipedia 12:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support It deserves to be a featured article. Ruennsheng 08:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, please add the html links from the text as complete citations the reference section so that a record of who wrote the artcile, what it was called and who published it is available if the site goes down or the page is moved.--nixie 23:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Besides what nixie said above (see Wikipedia:Footnotes for guidelines on how to do this), a few more things that need to be fixed.
    1. Copyedit for proper terminology and conciseness (eg. "a rap performance by Jay-Z" should be "a guest rap from Jay-Z" or "a guest rapped verse from Jay-Z").
That can be done
    1. Header is too short for article this long. It should be at least another paragraph long, telling us why this song is notable. Mention the Chi-Lites by name in the header when referring to the sample (which uses the bass and drums as well as the horns); your average reader will not know "Are You My Woman" is a Chi-Lites song.
Well the reason for the song's importance is seen in the first section and the critical response section, but I think I kind of get what you're getting at.
You can take a look at Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Headings for more information. --FuriousFreddy 04:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Do not bold chart positions (unencyclopediaic and POV). This goes for other articles as well.
Have to disagree with this one too. I know you mentioned the other articles, but it is pretty commonplace, and it's not really POV, I think. A #1 should be emphasized just like the entries here who emphasize different Olympic winners in different degrees.
It's POV, because it implies "oh, look! We got a number one hit! Yay!" (which is also unencyclopediaic). It looks, for lack of a better term, "fannish", and is only common among the articles on pop stars written by their fans. Your average Wikipedia user should be able to realize that you can't do any better than a #1 hit.--FuriousFreddy 04:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll take a look
    1. Three samples of one song is overkill. Only one 20 second or less sample of the record should be used.
Disagree here again. LOL Maybe I should stop right now. With all the disagreeing you'll probably end up opposing anyway. If this were something like "Naughty Girl" or "Me, Myself, and I" then I'd agree. But "Crazy In Love" is well known for its rap and its sample usage, so I feel those need a sample too.
I'm surprised the users who push fair use haven't raised an issue about that. It just looks a bit "extra". No one else has said anything, so I'll ease up on this. BTW, so long as these minor issues are improved, I will support the article; it's very good. --FuriousFreddy 04:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Don't leave elements of the infobox empty. If you don't know the exact day the song was recorded, a year will suffice.
Nothing's blank now.
Be careful about blanking other users' comments. Let them do that; in some cases, it could be seen as vandalism. --FuriousFreddy 04:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    1. For that matter, avoid using the infobox templete, and use just the code, so that Beyonce and Jay-Z's single chronologies can be listed seperately.
Is the Jay-Z chronology right though? He's also releasing so many singles and I dont remember their exact order.
According to the Jay-Z discography, "Crazy in Love" was preceeded by "La-La-La (Excuse Me Again)" and followed by "Beware of the Boys"
    1. More pictures (screen captures from the music video, alternate single covers from overseas, a screen capture from a live performance, etc) would help break up the monotony of non-illustrated text for a visitor. At least two more pictures should be added, although I will not oppose the article if no pictures are added.
I believe theres only one single cover, but more pics and live performances can be added.

--FuriousFreddy 01:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In addtion, as per current edits (wow; that was fast)...I don't think music video directors should be listed in the infobox for two reasons:
Hehe, I'm just fast like that :p
  1. "Music video directo" is too long to fit in the infobox.
  2. "Director" by itself looks odd without any attribution to what the director directed. Leaving it out, or mentioning it in a production credits list of some sort, will suffice
Well, I have to disagree with this. I'd prefer Video Director but apparently some people have issues with two words being in caps next to each other. But I think nowadays the music video director is key to a single, and theres no way it should be left out the single box.
"Video director" should work fine. "Director" makes it look like the music video director directed the song. --FuriousFreddy 04:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, songwriters should be listed by their official ASCAP or BMI names, not by any stage names or nicknames (this refers solely to Jay-Z here). The article should reflect what it says in the album liner notes (which should also state where the song was recorded, an fact of intrest for inclusion).

I have to disagree with this one too. I thought about this, but I think it'd be best to leave it as Jay-Z. You and I both know who Shawn Carter is and he's probably not the best example, but for lesser known acts who use stage names, I can see people getting confused and wondering if an artist who was on the record had helped with co-writing it or not.
Pipe the link; somebody might learn something new. It's not a big deal, though; the article can live without it. --FuriousFreddy 04:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OmegaWikipedia 02:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC) --FuriousFreddy 01:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, the comment about the song's vidoe being "one of the best of the year" needs attribution. Otherwise, it is POV. Some of the language in the article still needs to be toned down ("outstanding success", more elegant vocal style", and such). The bit about Harrison being hungover the day he wrote the song needs attribution. --FuriousFreddy 11:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think it is comprehensive and very detailed that it truly deserves to be a FA. What FuriousFreddy does not realise is that it is not only this song which are bold texted when the song is number one. Other songs like "We Belong Together" by Mariah Carey or any other number one hit songs are bold texted as well. It is not "fannish" as FuriousFreddy says. It is to emphasise the achievement of the artist throughout their chart period, not POV. Other hit songs are like that as well. It is objective and straight to the fact. What else would you expect? The song did reach number one. Furthermore, the article do need the link for evidence that it is correct of that the article has been said. Otherwise, the article itself might get accused for over-exaggeration saying it is too much of a "fansite". So a link to the article will directly tell us that some statements which are too good or bad to be true is correct by providing evidence. Thirdly, we are working on the pictures but we don't need it too much to emphasise the song. I think the article we have right now is sufficent. So, I think FuriousFreddy should realise that this is how the music single article and other popstars articles are like. It is not "fansite" but objective and telling the fact. I think this article is encyclopedic. FuriousFreddy should look at more single articles before making ridiculous statements. Person22 04:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It is to emphasise the achievement of the artist throughout their chart period". That is a textbook example of what POV is, we do not emphasize or place person on a pedestal for recording #1 hits. As I said before, the other singles articles should not be bolding chart positions either. Do not bash comments by other users, especially over something like bolding text on pages. FInally, you can't support an article twice. --FuriousFreddy 03:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Too many samples. If you're going to claim fair use, you need to limit it to one sample of 30 seconds/10% of the track or less. --Carnildo 07:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé Knowles

edit

Support She deserves to be in the featured article because this shows her accomplishment, life and success during her solo music career. If there is anything I need to fix, let me know.

Destiny's Child

edit

Support The Supergroup band Destiny's Child deserves to be in the featured articles for their great achievement in music! They have comprehensive articles and also very detailed profiles. They also are not complicated. They write to the point about this band very well. -Person22 03:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Not well organized: the "fashion" section is a joke, as is the endorsements and products and filmography (both of which seem better suited to the individual members' articles). Discography and Awards need a summary here and a pointer to the main article. The section heading "Final Destiny and the Future" sounds like advertising, not an encyclopedia. "Records and Facts" needs to be incorporated into the rest of the article. Needs references, preferably with inline citations. The article is in general not very well-written (lots of passive voice, for example), and there are a lot of one sentence paragraphs. Tuf-Kat 04:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, then. What do we need to do to improve this article? Furthermore, the endorsements and the fasion shows proof that they have accomplished and supported by helping that company, so it is vital. How can we improve? What can we fix?
      • I think his comment is pretty clear about what needs to be done - remove the passive voice, condense the one sentence paragraphs, add inline citations, 'etc. →Raul654 04:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue with the fashion section that is that it's marketing speak. I've read it and have no idea what it's about. Apparently, one or more members of Destiny's Child, in collaboration with some other people, did something involving some kind of company that does something related to fashion. That's all I can get out of it. What is "infrastructure for licensing and brand management"? They brought "trend-setting style and a creative take on fashion to stylish women everywhere" -- please! I know oodles of stylish women, none of whom would be caught dead wearing anything promoted by trash like Destiny's Child. Cite your opinions to whoever holds them. And the endorsements appear to be specific to each individual, so why list them here instead of in their articles? Tuf-Kat 04:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks great OmegaWikipedia 06:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object
    1. The image Image:Destinyschild.jpg is of much higher resolution than is needed. It should be reduced to a size of 480 pixels or smaller to comply with fair-use requirements.
    2. The image Image:DestinyFulfilled-photo.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but does not indicate the source or copyright holder. Without those, it's impossible to claim fair use. Further, the image seems to be unneccesary to the article, and should be removed. (the image appears to have been cropped from the Destiny Fulfilled album cover, Image:DestinyFulfilled.jpg, and therefore can not be classed as fair use, and should be removed for that reason. Rossrs 14:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    3. The last quarter of the article is lists of various sorts. Most of these should be removed or worked into the prose.
    4. I can't be sure about this because of how many lists there are at the end, but there don't appear to be any references.
    --Carnildo 07:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I agree with the previous criticisms relating to the lack of references, image copyrights and writing style. There are errors throughout the article that could easily be fixed and just look careless. Simple things like using capital letters for "Destiny's Child" and in song titles. "Fanzine" type language is a problem - for example "supergroup" is not a real word and it appears in two sentences in a row. "Independent Women ...raced up the charts and spent an astounding 11 weeks... is another example. Stevie Wonder and Al Green should not be referred to as "Soul legend"(s). This type of language needs to be removed. Be consistent in use of the members' names. Kelly Rowland is referred to as "Kelly" and as "Rowland" for example. Standard format should be either full name or surname only, never just the first name. Lead paragraph is far too brief and should be a synopsis of the article. "Final Destiny and The Future" is a very cheesy non encyclopedic heading. The "Fashion" section - completely meaningless. If it needs to be there at least explain why it's there. It reads like a publicity blurb - its style is totally different to the rest of the article, and needs to be reworded or removed. The "Records and Facts" section is a bit like a "Trivia" section, something to be avoided. Any facts worth keeping need to be absorbed into the article, and the section deleted. Having said all that, there are some very good things about the article, so take heart, but a lot of work is required to get it up to FA standard. Rossrs 13:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Supergroup" is a perfectly-good term in several scientific fields, including mathematics and theoretical physics. It's just that this isn't science. --Carnildo 17:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Supergroup is a perfectly valid word in music too. See Supergroup (bands). I don't see how Destiny's Child could qualify as one, though. Tuf-Kat 19:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I stand (somewhat) corrected. "Supergroup" is a word. When I go to work tomorrow, I'll aim to use it in a sentence at least once, if I can somehow steer the conversation to theoretical physics, which I'm sure I'll manage. Perhaps I should have said "Destiny's Child is not a supergroup". Perhaps if they'd been salvaged from the remnants of a bunch of other old bands, maybe. OK, somebody calling them a "supergroup", and me calling them not, are both examples of POV, and more than a good enough reason to excise the word from the article. Rossrs 11:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refer to Peer Review, and welcome back with the article to FAC when it fits the FAC criteria. Bishonen | talk 23:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refer to Peer Revew as per Bishonen. I put a "cleanup" tag on the article, and discovered it was an FAC when I clicked the talk page to stay why it needs cleaning up: This article reads like a fan page, has no cohesive style, is improperly formatted, and is hard-to-read.. --FuriousFreddy 00:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Megatokyo

edit

Re-Nomination. I think everything covered in the previous nomination has been taken care of, particularly added content to the plot section and revision of the criticism. Nifboy 06:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Pamri • Talk 06:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Looks promising, but it's still very much a fan guide. The sections "Availability", "The departure of Rodney Caston", "Forums" and "Megagear" serve little or no encyclopedic function and need to to be merged into more appropriate sections. The section "Characters" is far too short; super-brief summaries like these are not compensated by large sub-articles. / Peter Isotalo 11:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We (or someone) resized the Characters section to a smaller one, now you told us to expand it? UNBELIVEABLE! Just kidding, I was wonder what we can add to the characters section. I do not know what to merge MegaGear and Forums with (MegaGear is a seperate site and the forum is part of Megatokyo), and the sections "Availability" I believe can be expand. The "Departure of Rodney Caston" is pretty improtant, so I don't know how to change/merge with. Thanks for your feedback.--Kiba 20:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At least make "The Departure of Rodey Caston a sub-section of something. An entire main section on just this is too crufty. As for the characters, first rule is: don't make a list. It needs to be an easily read text summary of the most important characters. This means you only have to briefly mention the most important characters and describe their general characteristics. "Forums" and Megagear" are both fan-related subjects. Fan activities are always secondary to descriptions of the actual object of fandom and should be limited, or you'll find yourself stuck in yet more cruft. / Peter Isotalo 09:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The fourth paragraph of the plot section covers nearly all the major characters (Piro and Largo are covered in the first). The Characters section is only still there to highlight the sub-article, I think. Nifboy 05:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest removing it altogether. The sub-article can be linked at the end. I'm eagerly expecting some sort of change in all the fancruft-sections. It's still written partially like a promotion. Just look at the beginning of the section "Availability":
All strips are available free of charge from Megatokyo.com or can be purchased in book form, which is published by Dark Horse Comics. As of April 3rd 2005, three volumes are available for purchase. At one point Studio Ironcat published a book compilation of strips that are now included in Volume One.
Stuff like this can be covered in the lead. It doesn't need a separate section with super-detailed publising info.
Peter Isotalo 13:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very good article on an interesting subject.--Alabamaboy 23:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Zach (Sound Off) 21:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I'd like to see this placed in some sort of artisic context. I'm told that it's written and drawn in manga style and then further down Megatokyo has evolved into a far more manga-influenced webcomic. Is it? What sort of manga? It's like saying 'written and drawn in comic style' - really doesn't narrow it down a lot. I mean presumably, if it's so heavily based on manga as to warrent a comment in the first sentence and then again further down, some one could mention some *titles* that they think have influenced it? Or the creator will have commented on some of his inspirations? Or at least what kinda manga, or some authors, if specifics can't be managed? To me, the overall style and especially the rendering seems much more firmly rooted in the 'webcomic genre' - at the minute the only cross reference is to PvP, and that's an aside rather than an attempt to locate the subject within its field. Finally, I think the head needs rewriting. It's not any kind of summary of the article, being mostly history lawyering, and completely fails to mention what the comic is about. Oh, and the article doesn't link Tokyo, which I think is funny. --zippedmartin 18:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • On "Artistic Context": Titles wouldn't help. Just to give an example, Ping is constantly considered a ripoff of Chii of Chobits, but Fred hadn't even heard of Chobits when he introduced Ping. The archetype is just that prominent in all of anime/manga (Oh, and Tokyo is linked in the very first sentence of the plot section). Nifboy 19:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nifboy on this issue. If I can see what Megatokyo is really about.... It a pardoy webcomic mixed with comedy and romance. "Manga styles" is subjective but the author defintely have more infulence from japanese comic and anime rather than webcomic.--Kiba 20:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What archetype? I can assue you that clamp-style artwork is not common to all anime/manga. To make myself clear here:
  • Fix the head. Two short paragraphs followed by a spoiler warning (aka. stop-reading-now sign) isn't good enough, see Wikipedia:Lead section.
  • Give some, any, room to discussion of the visual style, even if you don't want to be comparative. It's ridiculous to have an article about a comic that only concerns itself with plot elements, bar a paragraph in the disjointed 'Criticism and praise' section.
Nice and actionable? --zippedmartin 22:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Um...what wrong with it?--Kiba 22:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberpunk

edit

Self-nom, though I'm not too emotionally invested in it. ;) This article was nominated to FAC several months ago, and back then everyone including myself voted against it. I think the intervening edits, by myself and others, have addressed our objections pretty well. I put the article up for peer review, and the only comment it gathered was about fair use rationales for the images, which I researched and provided. Overall, I think the article is useful and not too fannish; if people raise good solid objections, I won't be too dismayed. Anville 11:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral for now, but the paragraph on the #Protagonist is fannish and a bit naive to literary terminology, and there is a little wiki-itis shown in all the agglutination of "types of this, types of that, types of the other" appended to it. ("Wiki-itis" is when "anyone can edit" means that people start appending examples rather than developing discussion. It's the infamous "Famous comedies" stuck into the middle of Comedy.) Also, it's interesting that the rationale for the adoption of "punk" isn't included anywhere. It only deserves a sentence, but the early practitioners picked up the sole universal of punkrock: anti-corporate sentiment. There seems, withal, to be a lot of appeasement of various editors with special interests, and there isn't a strong thesis that orders all the information. Geogre 13:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I haven't been involved in this article (although I did just make a minor edit.) I'm not sure what Geogre's complaint is in reference to; perhaps it has been fixed up after he made his remarks? In any case, this seems to be a very well-written article, admirably organized. I'm not sure if Geogre is correct in his assesment that the "punk" in cyberpunk implies an "anti-corporate" sentiment -- indeed, many of cyberpunks early fans and writers had strongly libertarian leanings AFAIK. Again, AFAIK, the word "punk" was chosen mostly for its suggestion of abrasiveness and rebellion against the then-current utopianism of science fiction -- i.e., the "punk" of cyberpunk referred mostly to the writers themselves, who saw themselves as "punks" in contrast to establishment writers. I don't think discussion of this point needs to appear in the article, partly because it is just speculation, and also because the actual politics of cyberpunk are admirably addressed in an NPOV manner. Sdedeo 21:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did try to clean up the "protagonist" paragraph, as per Geogre's remarks. (And thanks for your edit!) Anville 08:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. First off, I just want to say I think this is a very good choice for an FAC. It's an article that represents modern pop culture very well. However, it has some problems:
    • The lead is much too short for such a big article.
    • Small paragraphs and very long quotes make it harder to read. The paragraphs need to be looked over and the quotes need to be summarized and then italicized so they are easily distinguished from the text. Most of these quotes can be summarized by the editors.
    • Merge all the information about cyberpunk in games, movies, music fashion etc. One section with sub-section should do.
    • If possible, I would like a picture to go right at the top next to the lead. No squabbling about which pic it should be, though. Consensus and compromise is the way to go.
  • I'll help out with this, so don't despair. / --Peter Isotalo 13:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see another brain getting involved here. I think you've raised some pretty good points, and I'll take stabs at addressing them. Of the pictures currently in the article, I personally think Image:Lain-hacker-small.jpg would go best with the lead, but Image:Ghostintheshell.jpg is pretty good too. Hmmm, Image:TrinityMatrixCharacter.jpg might go well alongside Nicola Nixon's comment about "gender politics" (which we can paraphrase). Maybe someone can dig up a sexy still of Major Motoko Kusanagi to complement it? Anville 16:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer images of female characters that focus on something other than sexy appearance. / Peter Isotalo 12:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree! However, the sex appeal of cyberpunk heroines is a subject of legitimate scholarly interest — at least two of the sources the article cites right now (Nixon and Brians) comment on it. I didn't mean to say that we should dress up the article to appeal to the teenage male demographic, but rather that we could easily find fair-use pictures which illustrate a point made in several of our sources. The idea is that somebody sees a picture of Trinity and a picture of Kusanagi, and then they read Gibson's description of Molly the razorgirl, and they ask themselves, "Why are all the cyberpunk women like that?" My apologies for miscommunications. Anville 15:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Book cover of Neuromancer plz. I note we have a reprint cover up already on that article, what were earlier ones like? Sticking Lain as head image would be like illustrating an article on Restoration comedy with a pic of Sheridan. --zippedmartin 14:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have a copy of Neuromancer with (what I think is) the original cover. I can take a photo and upload it, would that be acceptable? I also have many of Mr. Gibson's other books, if photos need be taken of them. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 20:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
That would be great. Anville 09:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...would a scan be better quality than a photo? I'm not particularly experienced with these things. I'll scan/photograph the covers of a few other cyberpunk books as well. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 02:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Scan probably preferable. If needed, google should help you find various guides that might be of use. Then see Wikipedia:Image use policy for the wikip side of things (most of which you no doubt know, {{Book cover}} is what you'll want). --zippedmartin 18:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the best picture I've found so far. (Ha ha only serious.) Anville 15:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just great. --PopUpPirate 11:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. I've read this a couple of times now, and have a feeling of vauge disquiet about the structure and tone of the article as a whole, but am having trouble thinking of how I could actually go about fixing that. First off, I think the back-links to detective fiction and the New Wave movement really need to be mentioned in the head (as well as further down where they are now). Then the head puts Blade Runner (1982) and The Matrix (1999) in the same breath, which is more than slightly confusing, and this kinda chronological soup continues through the article - read the current games section for instance. Everthing feels rather tick-listy rather than discursive, I think more effort needs to be made to bring all these different strands together in a sensible manner. Finally, anime coverage jumps straight in at Kōkaku Kidōtai in 1995 (with the no mention of the manga), cyberpunk had a big influence on the OVAs of the 80s from AIC, Madhouse etc and that needs to get a footnote somewhere. The Encyc. of Science Fiction has a good 3 columns on cyberpunk, I'll check through later see if it has anything fun that the current article lacks. --zippedmartin 17:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm responsible for the Blade Runner/Matrix bunching, but the point I was trying to make here is to list two of the most popular cyberpunk-influenced films out there. They're there because they're very popular and have most likely reached a far wider audience than any other film, book or game out there. If you have better candidates, just add them. I've tried looking the article over and done what I can when it comes to copyediting, but I'm a bit stuck when it comes to section 3 and onwards, so please don't hesitate to butt in and try to touch stuff up. / Peter Isotalo 16:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that both those films were important in popularising this sorta scifi, I just think that mixing something that was made before the word 'cyberpunk' was ever thought of, and something that used elements when the idea had already been part of the mainstream for ten years is somewhat confusing for a casual reader. Anyway, I have a revision of the film/tv section I'll get round to finishing/saving this evening. Probably. :D --zippedmartin 22:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Object - Damn - I so very much wanted to support this article. The lead section and the first two sections, Style and History, are simply brilliant (although the history is incomplete; zippedmartin's explanation above cover's this). Also, the Literature and Film and TV sections seem too short to me. Please expand. --mav
  • Strong Support --- This is better than some featured articles, deserves to be in. Ruennsheng 02:30 (UTC)
  • Would like to support, but a few issues remain:
    • "While this gritty, hard-bitten style was hailed as revolutionary during cyberpunk's early days, later observers concluded that, literarily speaking, most cyberpunk narrative techniques were less innovative than those of the New Wave, twenty years earlier. Primary exponents of the field include William Gibson, Bruce Sterling, John Shirley and Rudy Rucker. The term became widespread in the 1980s and remains current today." - confused... are we talking about the primary exponents of New Wave or Cyberpunk literature?
    • "Witness the series 8 Man (1963), about a human-turned-cyborg who fights an endless struggle against his lawless world." - witness the series?! Copyedit this, please!!!
    • "(One can always aggrandize the cyberpunk genre by retroactively "claiming" earlier works to be members, or at least vital precursors; consider The Six Million Dollar Man or Fritz Lang's Metropolis. Indeed, one could even aggrandize postcyberpunk, by laying claim to optimistic fantasies like Tron.)" - reads like an essay, seems to be someone waxing lyrical about their favourite topic (sorry if that is you)... needs to be less POV.
    • "Indeed, this focus upon the social impact of network technology has led some commentators to feel that the television series leans more toward being a product of the postcyberpunk period." - which commentators?
    • "While the first movie was extremely successful, earning $456 million worldwide and beating Star Wars: The Phantom Menace for special-effects Oscars, viewers continue to debate the quality of the sequels." - can we have some expansion on why they are debating this?
    • Lastly, we have numbered references, only there is no corresponding notes section! Please number the references in the right order... - 211.30.179.151 12:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Highway 66

edit

self-nom. I feel this article does a great job in both discussing the highway and its impact on people and vice-versa. It keeps both the aspects which have become standard for articles on highways (e.g., route infobox and related routes) as well as discussing how the highway was created, evolved, and eventually decommissioned and the impact that all of this has had on the people traveling on it and popular culture. Rt66lt 03:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the copyright issue. I had personally taken the photo and didn't know there was a specific template that needed to be used. Also, a map is on the way, courtesy of SPUI. Thanks.Rt66lt 14:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The second paragraph of the lead needs work. It says that politics and publicity made it famous, but the rest of the paragraph doesn't support that. The lead should explain how 66 had iconic significance for so many people, and should give the year it opened. The first pic is too big -- it squishes the TOC an awful lot. Section headings should follow normal rules of capitalization -- only proper nouns and the first word. It needs a thorough copyedit (The following year... would officially disband in 1976. for example, is in dire need of changes), then the next sentence refers to something Avery "claimed", but I don't see where he ever said why traffic would grow on the highway. The paragraph about GIs after World War 2 doesn't make much sense to me -- it seems to imply that soldiers used the road to return home after the war, but since the war was not fought in North America, I don't see how they could have. It claims there are several novels about Route 66, but only gives the one example and doesn't explain why that one is so important. Tuf-Kat 04:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote opening line of the second paragraph, removed parts of it. Picture has been moved to the History section. Section headings have been fixed (thanks to SPUI), removed Avery's claim and the returning GIs has been removed (the intent, I believe (I didn't write it) was that after the war, they would return to Route 66 to go to California, which was often the case according to the references, but I simply wrote about vacationers in general). Removed "several novels" about Route 66. Rt66lt 01:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, the article is really very interesting but in needs a good copyedit. From the lead on the phrasing is awkward and there are there are places where the tense changes - and probably shouldn't, particularly in the Early 20th Century American pop culture section. Other minor things include the capitalisation of section heading where they should be in lowercase; a map, which although not necessary, would make a useful addition; and some of the items listed in the see also section would probably make interesting additions to the text rahter than in appearing in a list where they have no context, anything that already appears in the text shouldn't be on the list.--nixie 05:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalization of section headings (along with shortening of titles) has been done and I moved most of the "see also" list into the article and discussed them. Currently, only the "List of cities on US 66" remains, removed rest. Rt66lt 01:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'U.S. Highway 66 or Route 66 was and is the most famous road in the U.S. Highway system and quite possibly the most famous and storied highway in the world.'

Why clutter the opening clause with 'was and is'? Why not just 'is'? What's a 'storied' highway? Why use both 'road' and 'highway'? (Better: 'Highway 66 is the most famous highway in the United States, and possibly in the world.') And why not name the article simply 'Route 66'? Much neater. Have you read the criteria for FAs? Tony 14:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Highway 66 is the official name of the road; Route 66 is generic. The article was originally titled "Route 66", but was changed. There is a lengthy discussion of this on Talk:U.S. Highway 66.Rt66lt 14:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote mentioned section. Currently reads "Route 66 was a highway in the US highway system." Sorry, I see no way to retitle the article and keep it standard with the other highway articles.Rt66lt 01:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object – the prose does not have an encyclopedic tone in some places: But it became more than a highway. It was a major migratory path west, arguably the "Oregon Trail" of the automobile era.; many Americans enjoy Route 66 nostalgia 2) Route 66 sign should be placed below, in the first section. 3) No route map. 4) Headings too wordy (it should be as terse as possible) and should be in small casing. 5) Business, Bypass, Optional, and Alternate US 66? Plz explain 6) Plz go through Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units (8 point) regarding the units and use of the &nbsp; 7) Claims such as arguably the "Oregon Trail" ; possibly the most famous and storied highway in the world references needed to support this. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "Oregon Trail" and the "nostalgia" statments from the article. I had moved the sign picture to the Revival section, but moved it to top of "History". Retitled most of the headings. Retitled the Business, etc. to "Bannered Routes" and gave a definition. Fixed the spacing on measurements. Rt66lt 01:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have went through and cleaned up prose and unencyclopedic statements. I think I got all of it, but I will re-read the article again tomorrow, after I've been away from it to give me a new look at it.Rt66lt 01:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not satisfied with the cleanup: It was a major migratory path west. It would give livelihoods to... should be edited to Route 66 was a major migratory path west, and helped improve the economy of towns along the route.... And what is meant by "decommissioning" of a highway? Is the highway abandoned completely? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks to recent minor changes, this is now a great article. --PopUpPirate 09:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful Object Well, I just tore through the entire article changing it to one, single tense, changing spellings, etc. I don't really think this article is stable enough yet to be a FA. It might be a good idea to flesh stuff out a bit more. --Matt Yeager 06:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benzene

edit

This a nomination, but most certainly not a self-nom. I know little about chemistry, even less about benzene, however I stumbled across this article totally by accident (I pressed Random Article!) and , having read it through, feel this article has just about everything I could want in an article about an element/molecule/chemical. It has the "sciency" stuff (I know, sounds like a bad shampoo advert), the history, uses, methods of extraction, health risks, reactions, and has a reasonable set of references and external links. Although admittedly it has no photos, there are images, and at least there are no copyright issues. It is stable, uncontroversial and not too long. My one reseravtion is the shoryt lead, but I do not think that is enough not to nominate it. Finally (and I know this is not part of the FAC criteria, but I think it is worth mentioning still), the Chemistry section of FA is a little... anaemic. It currently has 8 articles. Let's make it 9 with this excellent example of how science on Wikipedia SHOULD be done. Batmanand 09:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magneto (comics)

edit

self-nom, article seems worthy of being a featured article to me. zen master T 08:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it wasn't written by snooty english majors doesn't mean it's poorly written. And lack of references seems like a poor excuse to deny something fa status but I digress. zen master T 18:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually references are a requirement ( see featured article criteria). Without them, the article can't be verified. - Mgm|(talk) 20:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zen, instead of being combative, why don't you read the above instructions here: What is a Featured article; and address the objections? =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care that much about this particular FAC nom, I just think the current FAC policy is biased against certain subjects and is too formal/red tape oriented, among other, separate issues. zen master T 06:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there this requirement for references? A comic book character article isn't likely to have many direct references (except the original source material). And the majority of reference sections I've seen do not point to free sources so why is there this glaring hypocrisy that separately requires only free images? Is the goal to control what people are reading with the reference sections (regardless of whether the sources are free or not [of course])? zen master T 21:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
References are required because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. See WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NOR, and Wikipedia:What is a featured article for more information. I see no hypocracy about requiring free images but not free references: the images are directly included in the article, while the reference material isn't. --Carnildo 21:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Citations are more than enough evidence, the points needing referencing are lost by the time readers get to the reference section and the reference section really just seems like a "book of the month" club for that particular subject. Reference sections should be a sub page of every article perhaps (size concerns). I am somewhat familiar with wikipedia policy but they kind of don't make sense. If free images are preferred over non-free then to be consistent free source content should be preferred over non-free? Why make it easier for people to buy books from amazon.com if a goal or preference is for free content sources? Does it even make sense for a comic book character article to have references? zen master T 21:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zen-master, please take a positive attitude to the reviews; far from being written by 'snooty English majors', they are bona fide attempts to maximise Wikipedia's readability and value. We like plain, crisp, easy-to-read text that flows smoothly and has authority. It's not about intellectual snobbery. Tony 07:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I nominated the article on a whim while grumpy after an edit war so it was bound to happen like this. I think my point is why are there such specific/strict wiki criteria for featured articles when, for example, something seemingly just as important, the AfD process, is almost totally determined on a case by case basis. Can featured article status also be determined more on a case by case basis? Is the requirement of a reference section not as applicable to an article on a comic book character? zen master T 08:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you take a look at the list of featured articles you can see loads of different topics have been covered. Any possible bias to topics is caused by what people prefer to work on. References are just as necessary for articles on comic book characters as other articles. We need them to back up what's said in the article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any serious literary works (this does not include fanguides and fictional canon) should be referenced for an FAC. If no such works exists, I would recommend FAC:ing higher-level articles instead. In this instance X-Men or simply comic book would be appropriate. Particularly the latter is in an absolutely unacceptable state for a top-level article. Wikipedia gains little or nothing from focusing the attention of the average reader on more in-depth coverage of heavily over-represented subjects that concern themselves almost exclusively with the hobbies of young, white, mainly American and/or Western European males. / Peter Isotalo 14:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; too focused on Magneto as a real person in the fictional Marvel universe, but needs to include information on Magneto as a fictional character in the real world. My suggestion is to retool the article away from a fannish fictional history of the character to an objective overview of the character's development in Marvel comic books. For example, devote a different section to Magneto's development under each of the major writers and/or artists who used the character extensively. Concentrate not only on the narrative ("Magneto killed this guy"; "Magneto became a good guy"); discuss Magneto's personality and character development under different creators. The character's biography will thus still be there, but it'll be presented in a real-world context that a non-fan will appreciate. As for sources, I'd wager they exist. There are all sorts of critical analyses of animation available; there's bound to be some stuff on comic books. Good luck. BrianSmithson 11:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Sarkozy

edit

(Partial self-nomination, wrote some of it.) I think it's now rather complete. David.Monniaux 20:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: the article sort of looks a little bit austere with only one image; obviously it will be difficult to gather Free ones, yet I wonder whether some special effort could be made in this direction. Rama 21:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've already asked Sarkozy's party for other photographs, they didn't answer. I suspect they don't know ho to handle requests like that. Perhaps now that we've had a full-page article cited on the front page of Le Monde they'll pay attention if I make another request.
As for taking the photos ourselves, this is obviously difficult: people like Sarkozy are always surrounded by journalists, photographers, policemen, security guards etc. Unless you're accredited as a journalist (which is near impossible for us, because the criterion for a journalism card is basically being a paid employee of a news source), it's only through sheer luck that we could do it (as Anthere did for Jean-Pierre Raffarin). David.Monniaux 05:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Undistinguished prose at best, including misspellings ('cozy'), unevenness of register, and redundant wording ('he felt inferior in relation to his wealthy classmates'—just 'to' would do). Stop/start paragraphing at the top. Tony 11:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Needs good copyedit. I would suggest to place it in peer review so that editors can comment on the prose. After that is done, this article will be excellent and worthy of FA. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copyediting done. David.Monniaux 05:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you say 'done', I immediately wonder how simple it was. A quick look at random revealed that it's far from 'done': 'professing Catholic'—not idiomatic English; no hyphens after -ly adverbs; the heading 'Ambition for the future' should be two words, not four; one-sentence paragraphing is a problem, at the start and in a number of other sections; check the logic of the hierarchical headings—and why a three-line section at one point? See if you can get someone else to look through it thoroughly—it needs a fresh pair of eyes. Tony 06:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I think this article is not really NPOV. It doesn't give an impression of Sarkozy's personal style and how it is reflected by the press. It should be stated already in the head that Sarkozy's opponenents see him as populist, careerist and activist. Some anecdotes or citations illustrating these points could make the article much more fun and interesting to read. Example of citations: "Each morning when I am shaving, I think about it" (the 2007 presidential pool), "One should wash that city out with a kärcher" (the suburb of Courneuve after the death of a young boy), "I am ruling the only cabinet which works also on sunday". One should also mention that for months the French press has been making the main titles with the quarrels between Sarkozy and Chirac, often ignoring major European or world-wide news. One could also cite some press title like "Sarkommence" from Liberation. IMHO, this could improve very much the article. Vb 08:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to work on that, but I'm afraid that discussing a person's style is fraught with POV. Sarkozy's opponents claim that, though he shows himself everywhere, he actually does little with real long-lasting impact; but should we fill entire sections with such claims? David.Monniaux 19:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to improve the article a bit in this direction but I am not French and not specialist in the French politics and also not very fluent in English. I therefore cannot help you more than this. However I am ready to support this article if it gets less boring. I think the biographical details may be interesting but a discussion of the image of Sarkozy in the French press and of his particular style is very important. Sarkozy is a controversial character and this should be brought more clearly to the front. Of course the price to pay is to risk non NPOV. Yes indeed. But political correctness is not the goal of WP and is not NPOV either. An easy first step would be to expand the quotation section. Vb12:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus

edit

After a good session at Peer Review, I feel that this article is ready for FAC. While I have worked on Belarusian related articles before, I was asked to edit the main Belarus page. I took the user up on the suggestion and made significant improvements to the article (Diffs [8]). While I worked with two great editors at Peer Review, I welcome others comments as well. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

    • Comment
Considering the size of the country - This article has a large and expansive scope and I feel it adequately begins to address the lives and people of the land. Nice anthropological work Zscout! 69.161.109.170 07:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It needs thorough editing. I've gone through the first section making numerous small changes. The bit about the name of the country is very messy—so much information, scripts, 'Lacusa', transliteration—and could be simplified and shifted down to introduce the next section on the origin of the name. As is, the impact of the opening is compromised. Tony 09:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Poorly written and poorly organised. The opening needs to prepare the reader for the topic, but contains messy information about the name in a number of languages, or it did before I moved that stuff to the second section. The first section now needs more relevant, quality information, and most of the 'Name' section below it needs to be binned, or savagely pruned. Who cares about what people call the country in other languages, except perhaps for Belarussan and English? The history jumps from 1994 until 1986; wasn't the Soviet experience worth talking about? It's very densely linked, so I've removed the low-value years, which won't help the reader at all. I haven't read the rest, but already I oppose the nomination. Tony 14:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted some of the changes, because India (an FA), has information about the name. I believe it is important, since not only Belarus has more than one official language, people would want to know why this country got it's current name. Plus, it is significant, since Belarus was called Byelorussia, and we have to note that someone will take offense to that. I did add information that Belarus was a founding member of the UN, in 1945, but nothing significant stood out of my mind of what happened in Belarus since after the war but before Chernobyl, unless you want to make a very, very minor note that JFK's assassin lived in Minsk. As for the interwiki links, I might get rid of duplicates. However, I believe some of the things you put in the article as i-notes were insulting. Zach (Sound Off) 20:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC) While I put some changes back in, what you done to the article, IMHO, caused more hurt than good for the article. Zach (Sound Off) 20:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I see nothing worth mentioning that would sway my vote to oppose. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm changing my vote to Strongly oppose. The main author has reverted my recent work on the opening, so that typos (e.g., 'though' rather than 'through'), grammatical errors (countries mixed up with nationalities in a list), other stylistic problems, and inappropriate organisation of information are back again. Most reviewers don't bother to roll up their sleeves and try to improve the articles they oppose; I do, and if you don't want my help, I'll just go through picking out example after example of why this article is substandard, to support the case that it should not be considered for promotion to FA status (at the moment, it would be an embarrassment). I note the following statement at the top of the page: 'you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised'. By the way, I don't care what you interpret or misinterpret in the article on India, or Belgium, or any other country: if it's poorly done here, it doesn't bear comparison. Tony 00:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added some of your stuff back in, but as I mentioned in the edit summaries, some of the information I cannot provide because it does not exist, like who selected Suskhvich to be the first leader. But, while I welcome the grammar errors, the gutting of the lead was what caused me to revert. But I am also adding back the useful information you have provided. Zach (Sound Off) 00:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, let's get down to work. First, some random examples of what you've reverted after my numerous improvements to the opening sections.
    • 'The area of Belarus was settled by the Slavs'—It wasn't called 'Belarus' in those days; I'd fixed this nicely.
    • 'the 6th and the 8th century'—one or two of them?
    • 'caused the state to be impacted gravely'—nice one.
    • 'Belarus first declared their independence'—one country or several?
    • 'which still dominate the country today'—they don't just still dominate it, they still dominate it today, do they?
    • 'the invasion of the Mongols into Rus'—invasion into?
    • 'which was headed by under one monarch'—hello?
    • 'Belarus being officially called the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic during the Soviet-era'—um....
    • 'Byelorussia and Ukrainian Soviet republics and the Soviet Union'—couple of things wrong here.
    • 'upon the issuing of May Constitution, Europe's first modern codified national constitution, which abolished all subdivisions of the states and were merged into the Kingdom of Poland'—illiterate.

I must stress that these are only a small number of examples of the poor writing that pervades most sentences. I'm not dealing yet with what can only be described as an obsession with names and titles in the opening and the first section, including the information about informal surveys conducted by some obscure website to see which version of the name of the country was used on a majority of websites. This, before we've been informed of the major issues in summary, bird's-eye fashion, so we know just a little about the subject we're going to read about. This is where you need to engage the readers in your topic, convince them that it's worth reading on, not make them wade through endless names for the country in various languages at various historical times, complete with cyrillic script and transliterations, nested in a forest of parentheses. If you have to have this name stuff, it goes much further down, sequestered into its own section to warn off the majority of readers who won't want to wade through it. It can't possibly qualify. Tony 00:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a few folks copyediting the article. As for the names, like I said before, it is important. People need to know that when they see Byelorussia on the Internet, they need to know that it is an informal name for Belarus and is considered offensive to some. Plus, I included the informal survery in, since it was linked to the article before I even touched it. I thought it would be interesting to present in the article what name was used the most and used the least. Zach (Sound Off) 06:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well keep going—there's lots to do. I hope someone's writing about the Soviet period. The section on Ecomony needs considerable work. Tony 07:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to find out more information about the Soviet-period, and I am finding out a little bit more on Belarus trading with the European Union. I also could write about the use (or delay of use) of the Russian rouble. Zach (Sound Off) 13:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly as the Soviet experience must have partly shaped Belarus as it now is. Some important matters may be:

    • to describe succinctly the Stalinist system in political and economic terms, as it applied throughout the Russian empire, with brief references to historical milestones within the period (the death of Stalin being one of them);
    • to describe how this may have applied in Belarus in particular, bearing in mind its economic strengths and weaknesses;
    • to describe how Belarus dealt with the fall of the centralised economy and Russian control: how is this still felt in the country?

These are major issues, don't you think? Tony 15:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, these are major issues that shoudl be dealt with, though I cannot promise on what else could be added. While Belarus did undergo an overhaul after the Wehrmacht left, I just do not know how much. As for the centralized economy, Belarus still uses that now, but Belarus was one of the last republics to leave the USSR. Though, IMHO, Russia still plays a key factor in Belarusian affairs, since Putin and Lukashenko usually meet each other a lot and have a good friendship. Zach (Sound Off) 22:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tony, to give you a heads up, the article is 33kb big now. I am now getting warnings about the article is too large. If you wish, I can reformat the whole History of Belarus and add the fine details that you request. While I want to add as much as I can to please you, but I do not want to make the article too big for anyone. Zach (Sound Off) 23:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at Zach's request, I've gone through and copyedited the article as best I can. Could those pointing to spelling/grammatical errors in the text please check to see if they're still there (and if I've introduced any new ones!)? Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll go through it later today. With respect to the Soviet period 'black hole' in this article, this is kind of information that would be of great value to some readers, is probably not easily findable on the net, and will give a deeper picture of the country today (and wouldn't hardly count as 'original research'). Is there any foreign investment in the country, given that it has apparently been slow to open up to capitalism? Is there resistance to attempts to internationalise the economy? (I'm sure this can be done in a NPOV way.) People considering doing business there might end up going to Wikipedia: now that would count toward's W's 'unique presence on the Internet', as stated in the criteria. We want to know about this. Tony 00:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a huge secret that Belarus is going back to the Soviet-era, and many websites on both sides of the fence state the same thing. While the information is hard to come by, it will not count as original research if it has been published on the Net or in another source. If I made it up, then it would be original research. As for the foreign investment, I have read that some McDonalds are in there, but many of the industries are nationalized, such as the Belarus Tractor Factory. NPOV is not a problem, since (surprisingly) most people when coming to my articles about Belarus mention the grammar issues, not POV issues. Sorry about the earlier reverting and misunderstanding Tony. Zach (Sound Off) 00:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS It's not about pleasing me, but the readers. The section on government, which needs massaging, starts 'Belarus is a republic governed by a President.' Then we learn that there's a parliament. The caption about national dress implies that what you see is the only national dress. Is this the case? Tony 01:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reworded the first part of the government and fixed the caption of the photo. The dress is not the only one that can be worn in Belarus, but during various cultural and ceremonial events, there will be people dressed like that in some way. Zach (Sound Off) 01:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More on the basic structure of goverment, please. Can the President veto legislation, and can the veto be overriden by the legislature? Is the current president the inaugural holder of that office? Surely each chamber by itself can't create laws: that's what it says currently. What is the process for changing the constitution (two-thirds majority in both houses, possibly)? Surely the Consititutional Court isn't a 'sub-court' ....? Does the upper house have no choice but to confirm judicial nominations (not 'appointments', please) by the President.

These are basic matters that readers deserve to find when they go to Wikipedia after hearing of some crisis in Belarus's government. Tony 03:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also happened to write the article Constitution of Belarus. While I do not know much about the governmental functions, but from what I seen, if Luka wants something done, he will decree it. Even if it is important like national symbols, he institutes them via decree. While Lukashenko is the first and only elected head of state, there was a guy before him that served from 1991-1994 at the position of Speaker of the Supreme Soviet. Zach (Sound Off) 03:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added some of the information you wanted in above, and some was already there in the history section. However, I am at 34kb now and my edits are not saving at all. Zach (Sound Off) 04:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edits that don't save are a general problem at the moment, unrelated to the size of an article. Check whether they are in fact saved, even if you get the notice that they haven't. The suggested size of 32 kb is only a guideline. Many country articles exceed this. More history is needed (Soviet period), and I don't think it matters it you go over, even up to 40 if absolutely necessary. Tony 09:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At least 40 gives me some type of benchmark to reach for, since Australia is about 40kb. Zach (Sound Off) 17:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, after seeing oppositions from above. Article is well written in many ways, but needs some more work. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the claims in the Economy section require referencing. I've made a few changes where it was looking a little POV. I still think the lead:
    • requires a few sentences at the end of the paragraph, giving a bird's-eye view of the topic
    • should have only very brief mention of the name, in English and Belarussian only, without the cyrillic script (leave that for the articles in cyrillic, since here, it complicates matters for the reader, where we want to captivate them)
    • should be followed by a briefer section on the history of the name of the country.

Nice job on the Soviet period. Tony 09:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Which particular claims do you think need citing? As for the name part, I was asked to expand it earlier at this FAC. Even with a short statement about the name, people will still ask who started it, when did it start and other things. What else are you suggesting for the lead? Zach (Sound Off) 06:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • One more thing, as for the "birds-eye view," did you want it at the economy article and what do you want me to say in it? Usally, if the section is going to sound like a lead, then it should be at the head of the section. Zach (Sound Off) 06:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stroke order

edit

A shortish yet complete article on an unusual and interesting topic. Largely a self-nom. Well illustrated, well laid out, and well written (if I may say so). One potential objection may be that there are only three references, but they are well-known and highly respected sources, and much of the information presented in the article is common knowledge (to those who are familiar with Chinese characters). Exploding Boy 21:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object, information is laid out nicely, but the article is just too short, IMHO. Phoenix2 22:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shortness is not really a valid objection in this case. If you'll take a look at Wikipedia:What is a featured article, point 2 states that "[a featured article should cover] the topic in its entirety, and . . . not neglect any major facts or details," while point 5 states that "[a featured article] should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." This article both covers the topic in its entirety and is of appropriate length for the subject matter. In other words, the questions really are "is the subject of sufficient importance to be covered in some detail" and "does the article cover the subject in sufficient detail". The answer to both is yes. Exploding Boy 22:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentObject How did the stroking come to be? What was the previous writing system before it and what advantages did it have over it? Just not comprehensive enough, unfortunately. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Quite well written, although I'll suggest a few minor changes to the language when the article has been extended. Tony 01:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. This is not comprehensive. What about - comparison with other systems of writing? Is standard stroke order unheard of elsewhere? I seem to recall stroke order is used in various input methods for CJK. Additionally, the lead section should be a summary of the article, not what it is at present. Morwen - Talk 08:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Not comprehensive. To the authors'/collaborators' credit however, I must say the illustrations in the article are really great. Phils 11:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't say I'm not disappointed, but (and this comment isn't just sour grapes) I disagree with the comments posted, and it seems to me that some voters are not thoroughly reading articles before voting on them. But anyway. Another time. Exploding Boy 02:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The examples in the Stroke order rules section would be much clearer if they showed each stroke being added in order (presumably only possible with an image). The right uptick in the Types of strokes section doesn't show what the stroke looks like. How do the rules make writing easier? Why is stroke order of more importance is brush-writing (presumably as opposed to pen writing)? Mark1 05:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. And what about Chinese character? Turning the focus on the top-level article instead of a very specific sub-article would be far more enlightening to those who want to learn about Chinese characters. I might add that it barely mentions stroke order and does so in the rather oddly named section "Orthography". / Peter Isotalo 06:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Excuse me for butting in here, since I'm not an experienced reviewer of Wikipedia articles, I won't venture an opinion on whether this article is suitable or not, but since one of the criteria mentioned is not being part of an ongoing edit war, and since the other reviewers don't know who User:Exploding Boy is, I'd like to point out that my experience is that any and every article edited by User:Exploding Boy is part of an ongoing edit war. I've detailed my complaints at the talk page of the stroke order article. --DannyWilde 03:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is, of course, both inappropriate for discussion here and absolute nonsense. As can be plainly seen, the recent issue at Stroke order seems to have stemmed from a misunderstanding. At any rate, it's a moot point since the article has be soundly rejected as an FA candidate and since I've agreed to work on it further and have in fact actively solicited input from DannyWilde. This proposal should really be retired from voting, since it's not going to go anywhere from here anyway. Exploding Boy 06:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: Right now, the article is missing important aspects: for example, what is the correct stroke direction? This is no trivial desicion, as for example the ノ in 文: should it be written from bottom left to top right, or from top right to bottom left? My lecturer told me it should be from bottom left to top right, yet the stroke is confusingly called Right diagonal stroke in the article. Another objection is the given Dots and minor strokes last rule next to the stroke order image of 火, which shows the dots written as first. Exceptions are bad for an example. --Abdull 15:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh My Goddess!

edit

Self nom: I think article qualifies to be a FAC, there is always room for improvement but lack of suggetions in peer review suggests this is perfect. So hence a FAC. --Cool Cat Talk 03:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Support -- Your images are all fair use, but that can't helped. More importanatly though, I didn't see a reference section. If you can get one or two references on the page you will have my full support. TomStar81 03:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object
    • No references.
    • Most of the article is lists. Is is really necessary to have an episode listing and soundtrack listing?
    • No fair use rationale on any of the images.
    • The placement of the {{Spoken Wikipedia}} template looks pretty bad on this end. Is it supposed to be at the top like that?
    • It's also rather short when you look at it sans the list content. Is there anything about this anime besides the name and story that could be written about? Has it had an impact on anime in general? -- Bobdoe (Talk) 04:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It has been around for over a decade under different titles. I'll include those references (so as not to make this original research, help is welcome :)). I am not sure where the spoken wikipedia template supposed to be at. People place it on different locations. So I am inclined to believe there isnt a rule. Where do you think it will look best? --Cool Cat Talk 04:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok both sountrack and epuside list tables are gone. --Cool Cat Talk 14:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, first with the breakdown of text to list ratio I would suggest that this might be better on featured lists or it needs the content restructured. Second the text that is there is fannish and the grammar needs work. The story section is the only substantive block of text and after reading it I only have a vague idea about the story of this anime, it reads like a confused review rather than a summary of the plot and presents fan opinion as fact and an example:
Belldandy is one of the most recognized characters in anime, (really?) and is considered the inspiration to dozens of demure magical characters (like whom?). The series is well-loved by fans for several reasons: its artwork is generally recognized as beautiful without any of the characters being victims of gratuitous fanservice, and the storylines balance screwball comedy with sweet romance that never gets saccharine (sounds like it came from a fan site rather than an encyclopedia).
--nixie 04:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did not write it I merely added stuff, I need ideas to improve it ;) --Cool Cat Talk 04:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The article consists of an extremely brief lead, a story recap, a crufty naming discussion (only fans care about these kind of details) and then some lists of episodes, characters and songs from the soundtrack. It has virtually no information about how the subject relates to other anime, why it's popular, it's cultural influences, etc. This needs to go back to the drawing board and (hopefully) return with severely shortened lists, preferably none at all, much shorter story recap and a serious in-depth article. / Peter Isotalo 13:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how to expand the article in that direction without jumping into original research. --Cool Cat Talk 11:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, it's okay to make observations of the obvious as long as you don't make subjective judgements. I'm sure you can find quotes made by the makers of the series about influences and such in interviews and the likes. / Peter Isotalo 18:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Pretty much agree with exactly what Peter said. The article lacks the depth of research needed for a FA. Two websites and two links to the sound track don't come close. FA's should be well written, meaning almost entirely prose. The lists need to be moved off to separte list articles and linked to in the appropriate place. Then replace them with prose reflecting what about the list is important to the topic. You say no comments in PR mean its perfect, but it also can be that people see the article has no chance to be a FA in the current state and don't want to be rude, or people just don't happen to get to that article. Either or both appear to be the case here. - Taxman Talk 14:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that was wishfull thinking on my part. Take a look at the progress. I am rewriting most of the story section. I needed coments from people to improve the article that is all, if I can make it a FA in the process, its not a loss. Peer review is dead. :P --Cool Cat Talk 15:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review is not dead, there are just not enough reviewers to get to all the listings and some don't get many comments. Some do though, if you look at the page. If you think peer review is dead, the real question is how many listings have you reviewed and offered suggestions on what it needs to be a FA? Of course, first you need to spend time knowing the criteria and how they are applied. Anyway keep improving the article, but FA status doesn't appear in the cards anytime soon. - Taxman Talk 17:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The recent AIC version? TBS and affiliates, in post-midnight timeslot like most anime for older guys. [9] You want japanese reviews or english? The 'fan' reception was lukewarm, from where I'm sitting. --zippedmartin 14:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. However I was saying the article should say that. This article is currently written from the point of view of a Western anime fan, which is not really appropriate for an international project. It needs more info about its original context. Morwen - Talk 16:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree completely, see comments below, but was replying here so coolcat and others had the answer with the question. Have dug up some interesting ratings stuff from Newtype too, page 159 of the 2005.07 issue, ratings table: 4.04-4.10 - 2.6; 4.11-4.17 - 2.4; 4.18-4.24 - 2.2; 4.25-5.01 - 1.9; 5.02-5.08 - 1.5. In perspective, lower than shounen stuff (Bleach gets between 3.8 and 4.7), and way less than the big hitters (Sazae-san 18.3-22.3), but on par for this kinda (post-midnight seinen) thing, Monster 's 2.5-3.6, Mahoraba 's 1.2-2.1. What's actually interesting is the huge tail off in viewers - supports my impression that there were a lot of very high expectations that weren't fulfilled by the slow meandering through the weaker early stories of the manga rather than skipping forward to where Fujishima gets up to speed. I'd be writing all this into the article rather than here... but there's nowhere to put it, execept under the dreaded 'plot' section. --zippedmartin 17:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how do you suggest we add that to the article? :) --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I sympathise that peer review got you nowhere, but this is the *last* anime article I'd want to hold up as a template of how to do things.

  • Article needs a proper head. Take out the fallicy about it being a shōjo manga (it's in Afternoon ffs...) and then read Wikipedia:Lead_section - needs to be a summary of the article not a (misleading) definition.
  • Manga cover pls (fair use), at the top. I can do this later propably.
  • Something about the animators. Why is it all anime articles are giant plot summaries and lists of seiyuu and ep titles? ja:合田浩章 (Gōda Hiroaki) is a big part of this series and the article manages to not even mention him.
  • Some kind of references for the few bits of the article that aren't plot summary or lists-of-stuff would be nice. And then hunt for more actual information to put in the article.
  • The whole plot section. Write one summary common to the original and the adaptations there, a couple of paragraphs long, and relegate the rest to where it won't be frightening off poor readers who've only had a single sentence head to prepare them for pages of plot. Going straight from lead to Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow. is ridiculous, write the spoilers out of it.
  • Other stuff. Lots of other stuff. Like, bug me on my talk if you need help on anything specific. --zippedmartin 14:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to answer to all of your points. The plot section is almost completely gone as this article has grown too large to be broken into smaller pieces (its something about 66 additional articles now). Anything else you want done? --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. As much as I'd like to see this featured, it is far cry from FAC standards. The lead is too short, references are non-existing, Soundtracks is a stub section, Oh My Goddess! (TV) can probably have the episode summaries moved to the separate articles (and they are missing from 1x12 onward anyway). I'd like to see something more about how the series was invented and how it influenced other anime and international otaku fandom - it is, after all, one of the best well known anime/manga series. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    All done, thats 24 new articles for TV and 5 for ova plus one for the movie. Although this leaves little on the article. Recently added cast section. As much as I want to write about how this serries influenced anime and manga world, I sadly lack the knowledge to do so. You seem to know what you are talking about, I kindly ask you enlighted us. :) --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    As much as I wish, I know little beyond the fact that it did. It seems to be one of the best well-known anime series - this should be described. I am sure some Googling would provide useful information, unfortunately, I don't have time to do so myself.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object it's far from what a FAC should be: Why is this manga important or popular ? How popular it is, anyway? Something like criticism or professional reviews, how it influenced the anime genre, etc. It currently just tells the plot. bogdan 15:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know why it is important. If I write criticism myself its going to be original research. I do not have any access to professional reviews. The reviews I have my hands on only explains the manga for a paragraph and those are comercial ones which just cover the first episodes plot. I can only write about things I know and knowledge I can acquire. Insisting on something I cannot acquire is wrong. --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Southeastern Anatolia Project

edit

Self nom: Article gives knowlege about the project with graphs and stuff. Hence FAC --Cool Cat Talk 03:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object until it is copyedited and some of the pictures are removed. I know you asked me to help me, but I didn't know it was for FA. Acetic'Acid 03:22, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
I can expand the topics though I need to now what to write about. I do want to keep it at reasonable technicality. I could not find any good airborn picture of the dams aside from one satelite image. --Cool Cat Talk 05:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Not very close to a FA either. Please spend some time getting familiar with the FA criteria and how they are applied to other articles. If you need to know what to write about, do some good research on the topic. Find the best sources available. Anything less than 6 or 7 good sources and some citations for the most important or contentious points means we don't have any idea if the article is factually accurate. - Taxman Talk 14:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Looks generally disorganised. The article moves straight from a short summary to a large graph of cotton yields. The acronym USDA is used without explanation. There appears to be a neutrality dispute as well. Compare with other FA's such as Kylie Minogue. Dmn € Դմն 23:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John III of Portugal

edit

Partial self-nom. After the Biography Collaboration I think it is now a fine article. Underwent countless improvements on language issues, image problems and the content itself. Gameiro 00:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, well-referenced, fine lead and apparently complete (can't vouch for accuracy). Minor issue: Under Inquisition Pope links to the current one. Could someone find out who was Pope at the time. The text isn't very clear whether the Inquisitor was appointed in 1515, 1536 or a completely different year. - Mgm|(talk) 09:39, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Kudos to the collaborators, but this still needs some work. It seems to be missing a fairly large section. The article goes straight from outlining his life to discussing the declining state of Portugal during the later part of his reign. Where is the description of the nation's condition during the early part of his reign? The writing also needs improvement. Trade is not generally described as being "intense" and scholarships are not generally "attributed." The article also has some formatting problems. There are far too many one sentence paragraphs, and the images are poorly arranged. The article fails to use the standard footnote style for the quotations and other in text references. - SimonP 17:53, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • FA's use different reference styles I don't see anything wrong with current system.
  • There is a section John_III_of_Portugal#The_Portuguese_Empire_under_John_III, I think this can be solved with just a bit rearranging of existing sections. - Mgm|(talk) 18:49, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral I will support if SimonP's objections are met. This should probably be archived as a FAiled FAC considering its been a month. I hope to see this one up again. I don't think there is anytrhing wrong with the images or references though. Falphin 15:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with minor issue. It would be nice to see the lead be organized into three summary paragraphs. While it may or may not be complete it is just a bunch of 2 sentence paragraphs which doest not follow Wikipedia:Lead. Newbie222 17:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The João III article is a mess. The first thing it needs is for someone to get the Paulo Braga biography and use it for the facts. Get those straight first. Then go on to the other stuff. The statement that the head of the Inquisition always came from the royal family is dead wrong, for example. Where did the writer get that howler?

Warez

edit

Self-Nom (I've edited this on more than one occaision but not all content is mine.) This article has been used on several occaisions as a reference for media publications. The article is quite in depth but I know its missing stuff, I'd like to hear what objections are out there so as to get this up to snuff... If the media likes it we damn well better make sure its done right!  ALKIVAR™  07:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object – reasons
    • No images, a screenshot of a popular site or program perhaps?, a diagram depicting the bootlegging process?
      • Taken care of now.
    • Just one references. Would like more references
      • Filled in some additional references I was too lazy to add before.
    • Inline references not correctly formatted. See Bhutan for an example.
      • Is the new inline reference format correct?
    • often based in mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand and Russia I would like to see a reference for these countries.
      • See the references, in particular the BSA Global Piracy Report for 2004 or 2005.
    • ISO (in this case, an image file intended for a writable DVD). (it can also be written on a CD)
      • This is correct as written. It specifically mentions that in this case the ISO is referring to a DVD image not a CD image. CD based Vid rips are typically in VCD format or DivX which may or may not be released in a CD burnable ISO image.
    • It should be more of prose than bulletted text.
      • Working on this.
    • Sections such as legality etc are too small.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 10:03, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Significant concerns about the faulty, awkward prose. POV may be a problem in parts ('Even worse,' with respect to piracy—let's stand back and just provide the fact in this instance, unless you want to specify whose interests are at issue.) Pointillistic paragraphing towards the end. Tony 14:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. "Common wisdom" sentences (such as the mention of China, HK, Russia as powerhouses of piracy), unsourced, sweeping POV claims ("The software piracy "scene" typically isn't profit based, most members of the warez community openly detest and campaign against those making a profit from copytheft."), poor structure and formatting (use of bold and lists) make this article unfit for FA status. Also, it is not comprehensive. Some very important topics recieve little coverage (especially, as mentionned above, "Legality"). Phils 14:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • One, common wisdom is usually right. Two, it has been sourced now. As for the rest the listing is being worked on , but I cant think of a way to express the arguments pro and con in any clearer way than that list. And I will soon be working on the Legality section... Is there anything else you think needs work?  ALKIVAR™  22:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Bad style throughout. Poor grammar and phrasing, every section title is Unnecessarily Capitalized, generally hard to read. RSpeer 05:36, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Grammar and phrasing has been worked on, all section capitalization is fixed as of this point in time.  ALKIVAR™  22:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry - though it has improved, there are still style problems that are hard to quantify. Parts of the article come across as using pretentiously inflated language. Some examples:
        • "profit-orientated" to mean "profit-oriented"
        • Excessive passive voice, like "File verification is accomplished" and "thus the need for an efficient system of handling files was apparent" (which incidentally conflicts in tense with the phrase before it, too)
        • Empty words, like in "This method also creates the facility of downloading..."
        • Confused language, like using "RAR file extension" to mean "RAR file format"
In your comment the same language inflation shows through, when you used "as of this point in time" to mean "now". The article isn't bad, it just isn't one of Wikipedia's best. RSpeer 00:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refer to peer review. Big time. I looked through the article, and it is a mess (grammar, and in some cases incomplete sentences). Some of the listed references are questionable as well. Pentawing 23:26, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I went through and cleaned up much of the wording and grammar. Nevertheless, I am not sure of the accuracy or comprehensiveness of the content. My vote still stands. Pentawing 01:13, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

A Million Random Digits with 100,000 Normal Deviates

edit

A very important book in the history of computing and statistics based on Monte Carlo methods. The article is well written and has a high quality picture which gives a sense of what the article is about. Klonimus 03:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. Too short:
    • I see where the "million random digits" comes from, but what about the "100,000 normal deviates"?
      • 100,000 numbers distrubuted under a normal distribution
    • How high-quality are the random numbers? What tests were used to determine randomness?
    • More detail is needed on the generating system: what did the electronic simulation of the roulette wheel consist of, what computer was used, and what was the computer's part in the whole thing?
      • It collected data from the roulette wheel
        • What, did they have a guy spinning a roulette wheel a million times and manually writting down each number as it came up? Or was there a contraption that detected which slot the ball landed in, and there was a non-human spinning it a million times? If so, how could they ensure that the robotic precision of, well, a robot, wouldn't interfere with the randomness of the numbers? Are there pictures of this wheel anywhere? Fieari 06:06, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • The article says that the book was the largest table of random numbers ever produced. What was the typical table size for earlier books?
      • 10,000 digits or less, the largest table up to that time period was 100,000 digits
    • How much did the book cost to produce?
    • How much did the book cost to buy?
    • How many copies were sold?
    • Who was the typical buyer?
      • Researches, and sleepless people.
    • Which machines were the punch cards for? Was it the standard IBM card, or another format? Or multiple formats?
      • IBM punch format, other machines could read it or required a simple conversions routine,
    • Do we have an article on books of random numbers as a whole? If we do, this needs to link there. If we don't, one is needed.
    • --Carnildo 04:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: too short (Carnildo objecting for that same reason, that's a new one). A good start, but you're gonna need to stretch it out to at least about three times this length to meet a bare minimum of what people will be willing to consider featured quality. This is only two paragraphs so far. Everyking 04:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is too short and is missing a lot of information. Much of the information can be obtained from the introduction of the book (linked to from the page), the rest can be obtained from the "Short history" reference I put on there. I'm happy to add to it and turn it into a good article, but I haven't done it yet. Of Carnildo's questions, the only ones which simply cannot be answered in general are how much it cost to produce, how many copies were sold, and who was the typical buyer (the data for that information just isn't out there, I happen to know). The rest are very easy to answer and would be required for a featured article.--Fastfission 05:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sevenpenny seizure. The book of tables was an important 20th century work in the field of statistics and random numbers. The article needs to explain, in greater depth, why it was an important 20th century work in the field of statistics and random etc. Which important projects would otherwise have been impossible without it? Which machines, which computers, which devices were built with this book? How important was it, really? The impression I get from reading the Tom Jennings link - and who is Tom Jennings? - is that it is a little curiosity, and amusing thing to have on one's coffee table but hardly even notable as an individual Wikipedia entry, let alone a featured article. If it is to remain, could we have an ISBN and author details (presumably "The RAND Corporation", but was there a foreword). Did you know that it's still on sale? [10] Well, you know now. The top review in the non-featured section is priceless; the reviewer drolly complains about the non-random nature of the numbers printed in the outer lower margins of the page. How were the digits determined? The article skims over that bit. "an electronic simulation of a roulette wheel attached to a computer" confuses me; "attached" in particular. -Ashley Pomeroy 23:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Mathematics can come across as quite dull and difficult to understand for a lot of readers, and this article isn't hardly going to spark any major popular interest, no matter how important the book is. If you really want people to get interested in math, improve any number of higher-lever articles like logarithm, statistics and equation. Or why not take on a real challange, like mathematics? / Peter Isotalo 18:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The word table is used a lot but it is never explained what exactly it means in this context. Is it a Table (database), Table (information), Mathematical table, or something else? There is also no precise definition within the first few sentences that addresses what this book is about—the reader shouldn't have to guess based on the book's title alone. It should say something like "blah blah is a book that lists tables of random numbers generated from blah blah..." Random numbers is also linked to twice within the article. —jiy (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Guerre

edit

This is a self-nomination of an article that has been nominated and failed before (see old discussion). I believe all the objections expressed at the time have now been met. AxelBoldt 23:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Well-written and documented. Phils 13:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Wikipedia, being as it is editable by anyone, needs to go to extra lengths to support its information, and that includes inline references, which this article lacks. For every, or at least most facts presented, there should be an immediate link to a reference supporting that information, so someone researching the topic can easily determine whether or not the wiki is accurate at that time or not (such as in the case of stumbling across vandalism). Fieari 21:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
The reference for the historical information is the book by Davis; I wrote that in a later section, but maybe it's better to write it at the beginning? AxelBoldt 00:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know of no autoritative reference publication, online or not, that explicitly backs every statement with an inline reference. This would mean about 30-50 inline references per page (on A4/US letter paper). Phils 11:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Phils - the requirement is for citations "where appropriate", which in my interpretation (as featured article director) means that statistics, quotations, judgements, disputed/controversial facts, 'etc; it does not mean you need a citation for every statement. →Raul654 21:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Johnson

edit

Self nom. Profile of Ohio's lieutenant governor, potentially the next governor considering the investigations surrounding Bob Taft and others in Ohio government. Detailed, has photos, bibliography. PedanticallySpeaking 15:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is your objection based on information you have on the status of Ohio's copyright claims? PedanticallySpeaking 17:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Featured status is determined by the quality of the article itself, not by other factors such as notability. Everyking 04:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The featured article in my opinion should be well written and have relevance to someone. My input was based on how the author/submitter presented it as topical to politics in Ohio today. While the article is well researched, it isn't featured article material. Stu 12:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not topical? Johnson is the number two official in the State of Ohio. By virture of his office he is notable. It is irrelevant that impeachment is not likely or that Johnson is not presently a candidate for governor. If anything should happen to Taft, politically, medically, or something else, Johnson would become governor. These factors, as Everyking points out, are not relevant to what makes a featured article. PedanticallySpeaking 17:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Taft's troubles aside, I disagree with you on Johnson's importance and the "urgency" that accompanies this article. Stu 02:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, but will change to support once Carnildo's copyright concerns are addressed. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind Stu's objections--if he's claiming that Johnson isn't notable enough to have an article, that's clearly false, and this article is clearly of feature-caliber, so I'm not sure that his objection is in any way actionable. The photo licences are a legitimate concern, however. We can't assume that Ohio releases its photos into the public domain. Honestly, the claimed photos aren't necessary to the article; they could probably be removed without harming it too much. Aside from the photo issues, this is excellent work. Meelar (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My objection to the article is that while Johnson is second in line to Taft, such an impending shift is not as likely as user:PedanticallySpeaking claims it to be in his nom. Had the nom been made when Taft's ethics charges were news, then yes, this would have been more topical, however, given the current political climate in Ohio, Johnson's chances at being named Governor are slim to none barring an act of God. I've never disputed the research quality, but I do feel that the article overly long. Now, as for the photographs, I think that the face shot is perfectly fine for the purpose of the article. I do have an issue with the swearing-in image, because the source isn't listed. I do agree with Meelar that the article could run without the images withour any problem. Stu 02:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, OK. I'll freely admit, I consider the actual statement made in the nom to be of very minor importance. I'm not sure what PedanticallySpeaking should do to improve the article and gain your support. Is it actionable? As far as length is concerned, it's only 39 kb. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll give some support - well written and researched as Meelar said. However, like one or two other of PedanticallySpeaking's former featured article candidates, there had been problems with image copyright issues. I'll support this well-written piece of work, but we should probably clean up the images quickly. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support - as soon as the issue with the images is sorted out, will change to support. Article is well written, thorough, and PedanticallySpeaking once again provides extensive references. I strongly feel the article should be judged on its own merits, and if a subject merits an article, that article should be eligible for consideration regardless of concerns about being topical etc. Rossrs 15:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the problem with the images and copyrights can be worked out. It is a great article and well written. If I understood Stu (above) correctly, I feel that it is nonsense to say an article is too informative for the attention it has in real life because the goal is to get articles as complete and sharp as possible without bias. If I misunderstood Stu, I apologize and shall revoke my comments about Stu's opinion, however, I would keep my support for this article. It truly is a great article: nicely researched (such a long list of references! :) ), great format, easy to read, factually complete, I have no reason to object or stay neutral. I did notice, however, that the External Links portion was very short with only one link. However, I cannot consider this a negative thing because I do not know about the supply of quality links regarding Bruce Johnson--one link may be all that is out there. --Lan56 17:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The article seems extremely POV to me. For example, in the lead is this sentence: "If the Coingate investigations of Governor Taft and others in state government force Taft from office, Johnson would become governor in his place." At this time, few objective political observers in Ohio or elsewhere think that the scandal will force Taft from office. In addition to these POV issues, the article's prose is not the best I've seen. While it is okay, the language and tone of the article read more as a summary of Johnson's career than as an article about his life and career. --Alabamaboy 02:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • All photos were removed from this article today. 66.213.119.98 14:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen

edit

Nominating hydrogen for my 1000th edit. Toothpaste 06:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Toothpaste, congrats on your 1000th edit. I really like this article, and hope that the nomination succeeds. A few opening comments:
    • Table at top: 'colorless' is a funny epithet above that brown, tube-like thing.
    • Query question marks against 'magnetic ordering'.
    • You might consider engaging more readers at the start by elaborating just a little on 'Scientists are now researching new methods for hydrogen production.' Perhaps point out hydrogen's potential as a partial solution to greenhouse?
    • The level of explanation of terms is a little inconsistent. Your (now deleted) first sentence in 'Hydrogen atom' was a bit simplistic, yet then you hit us with 'Coulomb force' and 'spectral lines' a sentence later. I know they're linked, but since the text is not overly long, you might consider glossing a few of the terms that lend themselves to brief, less technical explanation, leaving those that cannot be simply explained as links. This might encourage more non-chemists to stay engaged throughout.
    • The sections 'Notable characteristics' (which is a misnomer, I think) and 'Hydrogen atom' (which is stubby), might be conflated under the heading 'Basic features'. Both sections currently start by talking about the same thing from slightly different angles.

Well done indeed! Tony 08:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think that might be a mistake in the photo, perhaps, since the photo of helium looks like the exact same thing. I consulted all the books I used in helping to write the article on the magnetic ordering, but there was no information. I fixed your other three comments, though. Thank you for helping out. Toothpaste 09:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Everything it should be. Doesn't need an image under "Appearance" but not critical --PopUpPirate 11:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object for the moment. Lots of good content but there are some points I'd like to see addressed:
    • What's a lifting gas? Term is used in intro but not explained.
    • I think the intro could summarise more of the article content.
    • Intro gives a slightly different etymology to the history section
    • The explanation of the hydrogen spectrum seems a bit unclear and slightly inaccurate to me.
    • You say that in space H exists as individual atoms - true, but they can be huge clouds of individual atoms; see H I region and H II region, which probably should be linked to.
    • powering the universe - not really correct. Hydrogen fusion powers stars.
    • Applications section is mostly list, which should be converted to prose.
    • The ground state energy level of the electron in a Hydrogen atom is 13.6 eV, which is equivalent to an ultraviolet photon of roughly 92 nm. - I understand what this means, but then I've got a PhD in the study of astronomical spectra - not sure a layman would understand this. The following paragraph is a bit patronisingly written in my opinion.
      • Just to add to this, could be worth mentioning in this bit that when the average photon energy in the early universe dropped below 13.6eV, hydrogen recombined and the previously opaque universe became transparent. Incidentally the wavelength is 91.2nm. Worldtraveller 10:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of the stuff in the 'see also' section should be discussed in this article. Generally it's considered that see also sections are redundant, as anything mentioned in them should be discussed in the main article.
    • General suggestion - you could give the equations for the proton-proton cycle and the CNO cycle, they're quite simple, and informative I would think. Also, an image of an H II region and/or Jupiter could be quite nice and illustrative. Worldtraveller 15:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I'm not sure 'introduction' is synonymous with 'summary'. It should prepare the reader for the more detailed information to come, and allow her to navigate more easily through the article. It may define the scope, or may not. Tony 15:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, the terms are not synonymous - I should have said 'lead section' instead of 'intro' - sloppy conflation on my part. WP:LS states that The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Worldtraveller 16:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Not at all comprehensive, and includes significantly dubious material. Paracelsus story is, at best, an unverifiable legend; is it really plausible that he was the first to use acids on metals? Hydrogen is not difficult to produce in large quantities -- the economics may be difficult, but not the process. The energy levels/quantum mechanics section is simplified to the point of meaninglessness, and conflates early quantum theory with later quantum mechanics. Fuel cell use goes back at least forty years, apparently predating significant alternative fuel proposals. Chemical reactivity of molecular hydrogen is at least as significant a factor in absence of atmospheric hydrogen as light molecular weight. Most conspicuous omission is discussion of nuclear fusion power generation research. Problems with tone of article, which mixes high-school level writing with more appropriately rigorous discussions. Monicasdude 16:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The above editor has objected to dozens of FACs and, as far as I can tell, has never cast a supporting vote. He's of course free to do this, but I note this here so that Raul can take this into consideration in a close vote. This editor is pleased to impose elite science journal standards on others even while his own prose falls far short of those heights, and is pleased also to make cracks like the "high-school level writing" gibe above just to give an extra twist of the knife along with his incessant no votes. This sort of thing is just an unnecessary downer and really I just feel his votes should be discounted until he can get past all this self-vaunting at others' expense. JDG 06:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The above editor has spent an inordinate amount of time posting malicious nonsense aimed in my direction after no other editors supported his position in an edit war he started with me. I haven't objected to "dozens of FACs" -- I've posted on less than two dozen. I think that this article -- like too many recent candidates -- fails the comprehensiveness standard, and falls far short of the "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work" standard. I make no apology for saying that articles on scientific topics here should be held to a higher standard of rigor than high school science texts; I think that point should hardly need to be stated. Monicasdude 23:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The above editor now has five or so fellow editors diverting their time and attention to an RfC with one purpose: to get him to pause, reflect on his bullying ways and change them so that even more time and attention isn't sunk into the endless tussles, dustups, conflagrations and kabuki dances he kicks up literally everywhere he goes. So far these efforts have been approximately as effective as a guy with no arms throwing jello shots at an 80 foot tall titanium-hulled robot remotely controlled by an evil mastermind in an Arctic bunker, but we keep on keepin on. Wish us luck, gentle colleagues. JDG 01:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your frustration at JDG's tone, but there's no choice but to address his/her comments as best as possible; if any of them are unreasonable, they should be fairly easy to debunk in a few sentences. Maybe JDG has a few valid points (I don't know). I say this as a supporter of this nomination. Tony 07:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whose frustration at my tone?? Are you trying to say my frustration at Monicasdude's tone? JDG 16:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got the names wrong; yeah. your frustration at Monic's tone. Tony 03:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk vending

edit

This article is just awesome. 24.54.208.177 03:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. Too Many Images. The section in the center with nothing but images is ... not very encyclopedic. Text, please! --FOo 05:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Too many images. Putting off for those who have narrow band connections. Use the <gallery> tag sparingly =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC) 1) ToC granulated: too many headings. 2) Are bulk vending machines only available in the US? 3) Inline formatting of references is incorrectly done. Take a look at some recently Featured articles for how this has been done. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The image Image:6way.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but since it's quite easy for a Wikipedian to create a free-license image to replace it, there's no reason to use it. --Carnildo 07:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Get rid of the watermarked images. Like Carnildo said, just take some pictures of vending machines. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The lead is too short, there are too many lists, the article reads like a promotion for the upsides of bulk vending and it contains the section "Miscellaneous tips", which is a very obvious usage guide. / Peter Isotalo 06:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppossum. After the second sentence of the main body it becomes entirely US-centric. The article has a very informal, fannish style. I get the impression that the writer is enthusiastic, probably quite knowledgeable in the field, which are not always positive attributes when writing for an encyclopedia. A good encyclopedia writer should be a skilled researcher and a talented writer, not a specialist. He should be able to take the words of several specialists and turn them into encyclopaedic-quality writing; this page reads like unprocessed crude oil rather than high-quality petrol. In particular, it has led in this case to lots of bald assertions and formulations along the lines of "the consensus seems to be" and "it is generally regarded", because the writer - being a specialist - has not sourced and cited things which he believes to be self-evident. The 'Business opportunities' section seems libellous. The numerous instances of current prices will be a nightmare to keep up-to-date. Certainly, the wealth of detail is interesting, and I envisage this being forwarded around people's email inboxes for the photograph of a machine's internals alone, but it's not of encyclopaedic standard. Given the fact that it reads like the work of one man, I doubt it will ever be of encyclopaedic standard. Certainly not featured article standard. The picture of a laundromat doesn't seem to have a bulk vending machine in it; and the caption mentions 'quarters', what are they? -Ashley Pomeroy 23:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you hang out on the Yahoo vending boards long enough, you'll understand the reasons for putting "it is generally regarded," "the consensus seems to be," etc. These guys can't agree on anything, and they usually don't like to be quoted, either. As on Wikipedia, though, the rough consensus tends to get it right eventually. 205.217.105.2 19:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk Hogan

edit

Not a self Nomination, I just think this is a well written and interesting artical and I don't even watch professional wrestling. --Richy 14:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Phelps

edit

Self nom. I've worked for a loooong time on this article, to make it as fair, balanced, and comprehensive as possible, a difficult task when involving someone like Phelps. There is still much to be added, but in the past few days I've gone to work foot-noting the hell out of the thing (thankfully, "Addicted to Hate" and the Topeka Capital Journal put all of the interviews with Phelps and his friends, enemies, and family in one place). The copyrights on the pictures are solid, the subject is timely, and the article thoroughly researched. I think this belongs on the front page. Mistergrind 04:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor cosmetic objections: 1. Some sections seem to have a lot of short paragraphs which would be better merged to improve flow. 2. Incorrect format of quotes: short quotes (four lines or fewer) should be enclosed in quotation marks and embedded in the text. They should not be italicized. Long quotes (longer than four lines) should be formatted as blockquotes. Slightly less minor objection: The references section is very short indeed, and is called "Sources cited/biographies." It only contains three items, but it's not clear which is which. One would assume that a very long article such as this would have more than one or two sources. Perhaps the bios could be added to the external links section (which should be moved -- sources should be at the very end). Otherwise, distasteful a subject as it is, good job. Exploding Boy 06:23, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • As much as I despise Phelps and everything he stands for, we need more sources to back up all the extreme statements in this article. Almost all inline citations are from a single online source, which is apparently nor sympathetic to Phelps. Also, there are a lot of microsections, making the table of contents unnecessarily long; these should be reorganized. Phils 14:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although there are only three references, the main one, "Addicted to Hate," is mainly made up of interviews with his children, enemies, Phelps himself, friends (such as Pete Peters) and members of the Westboro congregation. I debated, myself, on whether or not to include a lot of the ATH info, because it seems biased. Ultimately I decided to, because as I examined the book, although it seems biased, ultimately it is the facts that make it seem so; the simple truth is that Phelps has given very little to write positively about.70.243.38.28 19:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object
    1. The image Image:Phelps51.JPG has no source or copyright information.
    2. The image Image:FPhelps.jpg is claimed under "fair use", but does not have a fair use rationale. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what's needed.
    --Carnildo 20:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Due to POV. I don't like the man either, but this article seems a little too empassioned about him being a dispicable fellow to be a good encyclopedia article. Take the following example (only an example, fixing only this won't change my vote)
In the realm of traditional fire-and-brimstone sermons, the one that Phelps credits for helping to develop his hatred was relatively tame by any standards: Christ inviting all men to come into God's service, likening the afterlife and God to a rich man who has made a great banquet and invites many to come dine with him.
    • Does Phelps really credit himself for devloping hatred? That's the sort of thing I'd really need to see some quotes on. The article makes some claims that I find slightly hard to swallow. Does he really think about himself in such terms? I've found that most people are pretty rational if you accept some certain irrational premises first... but this article doesn't present that side of the story. What does he really think about himself, and his activities? I mean, even the premise that God hates "Fags" doesn't back up all the things written here. I understand that most of what you have written comes from a few, biased sources. Would it be possible to find more sources to explain things better, and in a more dispationate way? Words like hate, while applicable to quotes, should be avoided in the main text of the article unless directly referencing a phrase someone said. Otherwise it colors the article in a POV way. Now, I'm sure he really is as despicable as you say... but can't we describe that in a more nuetral manner? Fieari 21:41, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is the problem run into when dealing with Phelps... people don't seem to understand that when the article is NPOV, it's not going to seem as NPOV as some other articles. There are people out there who just don't give you good things. There are other people, like Phelps, who due to mental instability, don't provide the reasonable "flow" you'd expect, and so people automatically assume that there's something amiss in the article. As pointed out above, someone who doesn't know much about Phelps would assume that "God hates fags" doesn't back up Fred's theology. These people seem to miss the point, which is made very clear by people quoted in the article, that they believe Phelps is mentally ill, a statement that would appear to be easily verifiable based on his actions and beliefs (such as that he'd like to see children adopted by gay couples turned over to child molestors). Now for the most part everything I've written I've done so trying to use as many quotes as possible, and to not try and make it anti-Phelps: I just present the facts as they are. So the constant NPOV accusations really get on my nerves.70.243.38.28 22:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allow me to go into more detail.
      • "...an image emerges of Phelps as a ferocious child abuser and wife beater, who..." -- Is this original research? If not, who does this image arise to? Can we quote him/her/them? I'd argue that this sentence, as it stands, is currently and horribly POV. It could be made NPOV, however, and still keep all the facts, which WOULD emerge an image of Phelps as all that, but wouldn't put it in those terms. The facts alone should suffice. Don't push the point.
      • "...ownership of a book...", "In the book..." -- (Nitpick) Err, what book? If it's public domain, why not link to to inline here? Does this book have a title?
      • "In the realm of traditional fire-and-brimstone sermons, the one that Phelps credits for helping to develop his hatred was relatively tame by any standards: Christ inviting all men to come into God's service, likening the afterlife and God to a rich man who has made a great banquet and invites many to come dine with him."
      • In order to further illustrate the POV, I've attempted to reword the above statement in a more NPOV manner:
      • "Phelps is quoted [source] as crediting a sermon many consider to be relatively tame for inspiring him to his hatred: Christ inviting all men to come into God's service, likening the afterlife and God to a rich man who has made a great banquet and invites many to come dine with him.</nowiki>" (also, a link to either the bible chapter or the sermon itself if available might be interesting)
      • "he was part of a failed mission to convert" -- The word failed, while accurate, is a little strong and adds to the negative tone of the article. A more nuetral term might be useful here, such as unsuccessful.
      • "The campaign ended badly: ..." -- POV. You can state the fact without judging it.
      • In general, you state many things as fact, whereas they are mostly claims by individuals. For example, "At the same time, even though he had gone back to being an attorney, Phelps continued to force the children to sell candy." How do we know that he forced the kids to do so? Well... because the kids said so. But people can lie. I doubt they did, but in an encyclopedia, we like to state things that we KNOW are true. Someone could concievably dispute that the kids actually did these things. No one can dispute that the kids claim that they were forced to do these things. So change the wording to more accurately reflect your source-- personal anecdotes.
      • That's the biggest source of POV here... treating things recounted in anecdotes as fact, when they should be treated as claims... even claims backed up by a great deal of plausibility, but still claims.
    • The facts should speak for themselves. I agree with you, Phelps is a madman. But we can say that in a NPOV way. Fieari 00:16, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. No offense to your work, but this article has a ways to go to reaching featured quality. It is far from NPOV. Instead of making claims, it should simply state known facts. For example, an NPOV article shouldn't say "Through interviews with his children, family members, congregants, friends, and enemies, an image emerges of...". That is making a claim. Instead it should say so and so described him as... and His son says this and that, etc. That kind of stating opinions is pretty much throughout the article. - Taxman Talk 23:02, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rant. I put this article up for peer review (link), and none of this was brought up there, in fact hardly any feedback was given at all. What is the point of having a peer review which gets completely ignored then when somebody does a feature nomination, all this comes out? Why should we use peer review at all? Seems we should all just nominate anything here, since it's the only place any feedback gets given. End Rant. I'll look at the language over the next 24 hours and attempt to correct any POV I can find in terms of claims vs facts etc and see what people think then. Djbrianuk 19:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't get to everything on PR. Sometimes when I see an article on PR that doesn't have a chance to make FA I choose to spend my time reviewing something else. I'm not saying that is the case here. But what PR needs, is more reviewers that know the FA criteria. How many listings on PR have you reviewed? Only then is your rant justified. - Taxman Talk 20:46, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

edit

Self-submit that objections raised previously (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Darwin/archive 1) have now been met, and this is a reasonably worthy candidate...dave souza 06:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Captions revised..dave souza 10:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - captions seem to be quite good now. There are a few small changes that I will make in the article, but overall it seems like a totally appropriate FA. I would like to see careful, each fact footnoting, but I know I am in a very small minority on this, and it's hardly a FA criteria. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, a few format issues should be addresses, first the main article links breaking up the Orchids, Variation, Descent of Man and Worms section don't do much for readibility, would it be possible work them into the text, after all a blue link in the text is effectively the same as a {{main}} link in this case. I also think the works section of the article is poorly organised, list of publications would be nicer on the eye if it was presented as a table, (Year!Title/URL1!Alternate URL), even if you don't make a table this section needs to be tidied up. Why is there a section on links to his works, when all his works are listed as links anyway? The Alternative links also repeats the resources already listed. Finally the Commemoration section should be written as prose rather that a list of points.--nixie 04:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These issues have been addressed, but I don't have the expertise to make a table of the works section so have tried revising the formatting....dave souza 10:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but a little reluctantly. Since every major subsection under "Biography" seems to have its own satelite article, it seems like a lot of page space is wasted in duplicating those articles. That being said, I think the overall quality of this article is better than the quality of the satelite articles (the "inception of theory" section is much better written than the Inception of Darwin's theory article, IMO), and the overall quality of the article itself is quite good. It just needs to be a little more controlled in layout, IMO. – Seancdaug 16:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Layout being tightened, any further ideas welcome...dave souza 10:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a good article related to one of the most important scientific topics ever. I'll probably support the nomination after going through the article to tweak the text on the clause level. Tony 01:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC) At the opening, I wonder about the statement 'who achieved lasting fame as originator of the theory of evolution through natural selection'. The two planks of the theory are natural selection and sexual selection; if you feel that it's inappropriate to mention the latter at the opening, can 'through natural selection' simply be removed at this point? Tony 01:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for qualifying evolution as "through natural selection" is that Darwin is often wrongly characterised as having introduced evolution as an idea, though theories of evolution were current and controversial throughout his early life. My non-expert thought was that sexual selection is a sub-set of natural selection, and as it wasn't covered in the famous Origin but added in Descent of Man, having it in the intro might confuse some people. Thanks for tackling the layout/style concerns, work in progress....dave souza 10:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a subset of natural selection. Victorian and 20th-century scientists had a history of neglecting this second half of the theory for 'moral' reasons, and it is still all too common for people to ignore sexual selection; yet it is so important. Accordingly, I strongly argue that it be announced at the start. For this reason, I strongly argue that it be announced at the start. Tony 10:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will go along with that. In his intro to his abridged Origin Richard Leakey describes sexual selection as an "accessory mechanism" (not necessarily a great authority, just had the book to hand), but it's certainly an important part of the theory....dave souza 11:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not happy at all with the section entitled 'Return to celebrity and science', which I've just slightly edited.

    • Was he a celebrity before he left? I don't think so.
    • 'printed for distribution': isn't that just 'published'?
    • Lots of things hit you unexplained: 'plants'—are they the fossils previously mentioned? 'radicalism', 'controversial', 'hazards', 'Grant'—all a jumble that needs to be disentangled and explained to the poor reader.
    • 'Chile, and the South American landmass, was slowly rising'—Isn't Chile part of that landmass?
    • Why 'startling'? Making the account colourful is fine, but it's becoming opaque.
    • 'the collections of others'—other finches? other islands?
    • 'Eras's lady friend'—Is that your abbreviation?

And on and on ...

I'm starting to wonder whether this is too big a job to bring up to standard. Can you entice some other editors to help? It's a very important article, and I want this nomination to succeed. However, at the moment, I must oppose it. Tony 08:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is extremely valuable feedback. The aim of minimising article size while including a lot of information has resulted in obscurity. I'll go over this section now and aim for clarity...dave souza 18:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the next section—'Family, work, and development of theory', the title of which sums up a problem I have: the detail in which relatively inconsequential aspects of his life are treated, compared with his intellectual, scientific development. His relationship with Aldous Huxley is dismissed in one, stubby little sentence (six words, is it?). I think some of the account of the more mundane aspects of his life should be trimmed in this summary article. I've gone through this section making numerous alterations to the language. Please look at the commas I've inserted. Tony 01:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Shack 19:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)I've gone through the whole article except Darwin's family. I hope I've improved it. Please check.[reply]

Ashlee Simpson

edit

Another Everyking-driven article on Ashlee Simpson, although this one I spent a lot of time on. Its a very good article on a pop star :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - contains too much fancruft and trivia, and a pro-Simpson POV pervades throughout. Also, the fact that this and related articles have led to several arbitration cases against the main author for his steadfast refusal to let anyone else make substantial edits does not do much for this article's claim to be representative of the best of Wikipedia. Worldtraveller 19:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you mean the album your comment is exactly the same as here.... please ignore your dispute with Everyking and try to help me out here and give me an example or something to work with :-) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • World, are your objections the same as raised by Johnleemk? You're falling silent on the issue which is kind of troubling (your objection veers on being too broad to act upon) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some detailed objections here, but I also strongly advise looking through the extensive talk archives in which numerous editors raised strong objections to the style of the article. In general it reads like a magazine article or a fan page rather than an encyclopaedia article.
  • highly rated MTV reality series - who rated it highly?
  • ...used a pre-recorded vocal track...This led to accusations that she had lip synced... - what is using a pre-recorded vocal track if not lip synching?
  • The U.K.-sourced "La La" single - what does that mean?
  • Simpson cut her hair shorter... - trivial, only of interest to hard core fans.
  • Frequent use of 'Ashlee' instead of 'Simpson'
  • Simpson often wears shirts with "punk"-style designs and typically has her fingernails and toenails painted black - trivia, not notable.
  • are sometimes described (positively or negatively) as raspy - defensive tone here
  • Ashlee got a tattoo of a star on her left wrist after the release of her album, and another tattoo of two cherries was seen on her ankle in 2005. [13] As of August 2005 Simpson has a new tattoo, of the word "love", located on her right wrist.[14] - trivia, only of interest to die-hard fans.
  • Criticisms and controversy should be woven into the narrative rather than given a separate section.
  • Due to some of her actions and performances... - which ones? Why? This is extremely speculative and vague
  • a more popular theory - by what reckoning?
  • "completely [lost] [her] voice" - what is she actually saying here? Either quote directly or paraphrase and drop the speech marks.
  • the incident was made apparent when her drummer hit the wrong button - why 'was made apparent' instead of 'was caused' or something like that?
  • Various explanations for the booing have been suggested - why not just cut this altogether? It has an extremely defensive tone and seems to be pure speculation.
  • which was originally said to be called In Another Life - said by whom?
  • although "L.O.V.E." was originally said to be the first single - said by whom?
  • although there have been rumors that Simpson stole Valderrama from Lohan - according to whom?
Worldtraveller 21:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - I'm working on these and others at the moment - please check back in a few days :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again World - those helped out a lot.... I'm pretty sure I addressed those and some more, sans a couple cases. Namely the tattoo/punk-style thing - instead of just removing it I tried to highlight its notability. Anyway, thanks again, and even if this doesn't pass I think your comments really helped me tone down the NPOV in the article. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It has improved and I commend you on the work you've put in, but I think there's still an awful lot here that's superficial and unencyclopaedic. Why is the fact that she's apparently going to appear on Oprah notable at all, let alone notable enough to appear in the intro? used a pre-recorded vocal track...led to accusations that she had lip synced: the former is the latter - this clearly seeks to tone down what happened. Her next tour is planned for the fall of 2005 - reads like promo material. The whole section offering opinions about why she got booed makes me cringe - as I said before, not our place to speculate, and it reads like a defensive fan article. Around the time of the petition looks like an attempt to belittle the negative point about the petition. Set list from tour dates is not encyclopaedic in my opinion. A point of writing style - there's a paragraph that contains stuff about her voice and then her worst-dressed accolade - a jarring non sequitur. "I decided that I didn't want to talk about that because it's super personal," she said of the situation - that's extraneous, you can just give the reference to support the fact, and generally there are too many quotes from Simpson, they make it read like promo material.
The article looks well written, I just don't think it is encyclopaedic enough in content at the moment. Worldtraveller 20:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have an idea: why don't you write your own version of the article in your user space, and then everyone can look at it and decide whether any of its changes are worth including? I think this would actually be very easy work because all you'd be doing is chopping it back to a few paragraphs. Everyking 21:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When people take the time to offer extensive constructive criticism, it's astonishingly rude to respond with inane and snide remarks. Be civil and avoid personal attacks. If you can't do that I will have to file an RfC or RfA. Worldtraveller 21:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are threats any better than a sneering—but quite truthful—remark? In fact I think they're worse. But I encourage you to start an RfC or an RfAr or whatever else you like, and see how much support you have. Everyking 21:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Everyking.... please understand that he's trying to give criticism on how to improve the article in HIS OPINION.... it doesn't neccesarily mean we have to do that exact thing to get his support. Often times we can just reword something rather than eliminating it. To clarify, many of the problems he points out are valid, but he's just giving what he thinks is the best solution (in some cases axing it completely) which could very well be wrong. The important thing is to look at the problem and try to work with it rather than doing what he suggests as a solution. Does that make sense? (Hopefully it does).Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
EK, he's got some good points - although, I don't know if simply "chopping" them up is the best solution. Perhaps we should try to come to a comprimise on the talk page. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
RN: Redundent double positives like "...through the success of her chart-topping..." sound POV/fannish; either one is sufficient--having both sounds like hype. Also, "...popular reality show..." is somewhat POV and ambiguous. Should be more fact-based, such as highly rated (if that was the case). Similar issues with "...successful two-month North American tour." Would be much better if "successful" was replaced with something more tangible, like something relating to profitability, or number of sold out shows, or if applicable lack of cancellations due to low ticket sales. Anything quantifiable is superior to generic adjectives. Waterguy 03:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Waterguy - I went ahead and tried to quantify all of those a bit.... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm abstaining for the moment at least, because I think it's generally good but doesn't really flow very well. Tuf-Kat 22:54, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Everyking 23:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I applaud the efforts to slim this article down, but it still has some issues. I won't object further if the following are fixed: 1) It's too positive and I'll give specific examples. The lead fails to mention she is generally panned heavily by the critics. The phrasing regarding the critics refers to it as mixed while pretty much giving examples of negative press. I've never seen honest positive press about her to balance the negative, so mixed is a stretch. Pretty much everyone outside her fanbase that buys her music in droves thinks she's horrible as a singer and artist. Yes that's my observation, but it's a lot more widespread than this article even attempts to address. Most artists are simply ignored by those that don't like them, but not her. The 'controversial incidents' aren't that at all, but very simply indications of how much she is disliked. There's not much controversial about them. You don't need to be negative about her everywhere, and it's not and won't be if these issues are adressed since it notes how well her albums have sold and all her fame. 2) The lead is too short. Wikipedia:Lead section calls for 2 or 3 paragraphs for an article this size. Autobiography has basically the same problems. - Taxman Talk 03:13, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • I finally have an idea of what to fix now :). BTW on the converse I really haven't too many serious reviews that universally pan the album either - could you live with it characterized as recieving "mediocre" reviews? Thanks again :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think what I mean is the new intro I just did for Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can live with whatever is the case, and yes that lead captures it fine as far as I can tell. "Critical reviews were mixed" sounds like some were negative and some positive. It does seem like most were just mediocre, so clarity on that would be good. - Taxman Talk 04:23, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
        • Autobiography received a fair bit of critical praise—and even the critics who didn't praise it generally gave it so-so, not dismal reviews. Read our article on the album to see this. So to characterize her critical reception the way you want would be just plain inaccurate. I think "mixed" is fair and accurate in that regard. Everyking 07:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Everyking what he's saying is that in that section we don't any positive reviews to back it up though... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, well grab one from the album article then if you like. Also, as to critical reception, there was also the tour—I think I read pretty much every article published about it and the impression I got was that the reviews were mostly good, that people thought she put on a good show. There was some negative press as well, I'll grant, but it mainly consisted of lingering SNL barbs. Everyking 07:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Nothing's going to change the fact that she is pretty much laughed at. Brushing it off as lingering SNL barbs is part of the problem. There's always going to be positive critics because their job depends on it and everyone knows that. So go back to mixed reviews and make it clear some were positive and some were negative, if it is the case that they were about even. The article doesn't need to move to a negative POV, but it can't be hagiographic and pretend in the lead that she is not viewed negatively by a large number of people. - Taxman Talk 14:28, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
              • I changed the lead quite a bit to reflect the impact of the SNL incident - in your opinion what else needs to be done? Should I try to emphasize more in the intro that she's more of a mediocre/average singer, maybe point out more the differences of opinion between the negative and positive reviews? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ok, it seems a lot more balanced now. Biggest problem left is there are just way too many short pragraphs that makes the prose choppy and flow poorly. A great article shouldn't need them. Either expand or merge with related material. - Taxman Talk 15:23, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
              • OK, thanks a lot for your help Taxman. I've crunched the paragraphs as much as I can and me (and possibly EK too) are out of ideas at this point.... do you think its good now, or...? Thanks again. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • In the interests of being fair, the lead has swung too far the other way. In my best attempt to be neutral I think it is clear that while the criticisms are strong and common, it is also clear she is very successful and her music sells well. If the lead has two sentences clearly stating the negative criticism (well done I think), it could now use one mentioning how succesful. Instead of chart topping, which sounds promotional, just mention her albums have sold very well and she had her own show on MTV that did well (try to specify how well). Try to keep it short too. One sentence should really do it, two could easily overdo it. After that is fixed, I'll probably go neutral. I don't think the article is great, no offense, but I don't think I could motivate myself to find specific issues. Maybe that's just my bias against pop culture topics in general, so sorry, but neutral won't hurt the article. Autobiography has the opposite problem, in that the only non positive mention is that reviews where mixed. Some mention of the negative publicity/criticism that came from the promotion of the album should be mentioned in the lead. Again, probably only one additional sentence. Sorry for combining the advice, but they're related and it saves an edit. - Taxman Talk 14:03, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems NPOV. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Object. Perhaps after many incidents whether good or bad surely will have more info than this. Furthermore, it seems like Ashlee is receiving only kids awards and no major awards have been said. Maybe if they focus on the history of Ashlee Simpaon a bit further. Also, like other popstars, each album should be explained and analysed in detail. It's too little so far. I however congratulate you on this nomination." *Support: It is now better. Keep up the good work! I have now seen that she has won a substantial award. (Which is a Billboard award). Well Done!

    • Sadly, the article used to be fairly rich in detail, but has been trimmed back a good bit since January or so due to deletionist criticism. (On the other hand, I think it still has a reasonable length, and it's been growing recently.) So I don't think an objection is actionable if implementing it would mean a flare-up of massive conflict. Anyway, you need to sign. Everyking 07:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly is your objection? What specific parts need to be added/removed for your support :)? The album itself is described in excrutiating detail in its own article... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Perhaps I'm a glutton for punishment (seeing how James doesn't really like me), but I'll weigh in anyhow. The article struck me as being "almost there"; not bad enough to object to, but nowhere near good enough to support. The captioning isn't in line with Wikipedia:Captions. I think the article is a bit fancruft-heavy; does it matter what/how many tattoos Ashlee has? The list of various minor performances is something I'm unsure about; on the one hand, most of them seem irrelevant to me, but on the other, take them out, and there's not much of an article. Who is Mr. Blackwell? The personal life section implies Simpson and Cabrera are together, but the "current activities" section indicates Simpson stole Lindsay Lohan's boyfriend, Wilmer Valderrama. I'm not sure we need a detailed description of how Ashlee got Punk'd, either. Nevertheless, I remain neutral; let's see what happens next. Johnleemk | Talk 14:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments:
    1. As for the tattoos etc., they are relevant because they are widely reported by the media (maybe unfortunately but that's a POV), so it would seem to me a bit intellectually dishonest not to record them, in fact what's in the article right now is mostly just the media has widely reported - sans some stuff about her doing commercials earlier there isn't a whole lot of fancruft in there (and yes, the hair is even more relevant whether anyone likes it or not). Maybe the importance of image could be expanded upon though.
    2. You may be right about the captions - I'll fix that today :)
    3. You're definately right on the boyfriend thing, it is confusing and I'll rework it
    4. About the punk'd part though you may be right that it verges on fancruft... I'll think about that one
  • Thanks again for the comments :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified and linked Mr. Blackwell. Waterguy 03:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Got a couple of problems here — the criticism of Ashlee appears to be rather weaselly; might we cite one or two editorials or columns slamming her for these actions? Second problem is that that paragraph does not segue well into the SNL incident. The Valderrama incident isn't too clear — shouldn't there be a slight mention of that in the personal life section? Also, the references/notes are whispered, but I could have sworn that somewhere in policy, it is advised not to whisper them because readers with deteriorating eyesight (i.e. aging academics) may have trouble reading them. Like Worldtraveller, I am still a bit concerned about the pro-Simpson POV of this article. I ignored it before, but now that there's a paragraph on criticism, it seems to me that the article is rather imbalanced (especially as much of what I've heard about Simpson is indeed negative); might the criticism be expanded to cover an extra paragraph or two? I'm not objecting yet, just having a lot of trouble with supporting. Johnleemk | Talk 13:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You want something added to the article? Well, this is certainly a change of heart. Problematically it only pertains to criticism, criticism which is already explained in adequate detail. Everyking 14:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Damnit, I knew it was only a matter of time. Oh, well. "Adequate" you say? Perhaps 80% to 90% of comments I have heard about Ashlee are negative, and either refer to her lip syncing or being an artificially produced pop star. The former is covered well by the article; the latter is not. Since arguably more print is devoted to criticising Ashlee than discussing the colour of her finger- and toenails, the least we could do is have a couple of paragraphs about her other negative press. Johnleemk | Talk 16:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, as mentioned to taxman and WT I've done everything I can think of to balance this, in addition footnotes like this are standard in FA as far as I know.... your comments have been very helpful, thank you. If you have any more please don't hesitate to share them :).
  • Object. It is great that this article has been slimmed down. It is much better than it was when there was only one editor, a policy which was thankfully tackled by the arbitration committee. The input from a second editor has toned down the kind of excess still on display at Pieces of Me, where we learn that Ashlee's single "debuted [in Denmark] at 5 and peaked at 4, after which it fell off the chart; in Sweden, it reached a peak of number 31 on the singles chart, while in Norway it stayed on the top 20 singles chart for 12 weeks, peaking at 3 in its fifth week". And it is nice to see that subsequent editors have added negative criticisms of the much-maligned Ashlee. But the article is compromised, in my eyes, by the "Controversial incidents" section, which reeks of spin. That was the reason I disliked the article back then; not so much the excessive detail, which is hilarious, but the spin, which makes it hard to trust either the article or the person writing it. A lesser criticism is that the article says nothing about the process of manufacturing Ashlee. I have a rough idea how people such as this transition from being competent singers and the sisters of famous people into actual pop stars, with a contract and a product and songs, but this article skips the process entirely. The fact that this lady's parents cannot spell my good name, and dare to impugne my muscular masculinity by naming their daughter after me, has no bearing on my decision. (Subsequent edit: to be fair, some of the later objects - the process of pop rather than my name - are addressed in the article on Autobiography, her album, although it still reads like a massaged press effusion).-Ashley Pomeroy 16:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how we can talk about "manufacturing" Ashlee. For one thing, that would be POV; for another, the only side of the story we have access to, if you even believe there is another side, is the official side. So how can this be addressed? Everyking 16:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd already reworked the controversy section many times before and just now reworked it again for factual accuracy, and I really don't see any more spin in it. What are the remaining spin problems in your opinion? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every serious (ie, not just a press release) media account I've read about this woman puts her in the same category as Hilary Duff and Lindsay Lohan. They were, according to these accounts, celebrities first, and then were signed to record deals as a way to 'cash in' by stamping their names on a formulaic product. Ashlee Simpson is depicted as a spin-off of the already successful Jessica Simpson franchise. An encyclopedia article about Ashlee Simpson cannot just ignore this. Her career, after all, follows a pattern established by child stars like Rick Nelson, Patty Duke, and Alyssa Milano (to name just three), and people shouldn't have to read between the lines to figure that out.67.67.120.228 22:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object --Revolución (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General comment- Everyone, please stop taking things so personal around here. There is a difference between constructive criticism and a personal attack, and everyone here is taking everything as a personal attack. Also, these edit wars and arbitration cases were MONTHS ago - there may be some lingering stuff left, but as you can see the article is improving rapidly and will hopefully be featured article quality before this FAC is over.... so please keep your comment strictly to the article at hand. Thank you and thanks to everyone for their criticism, help and comments Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. Writing is not up to featured standard, and needs work for flow and style. Format of numbers inconsistent -- numbers that can be expressed in one or two words should be written out, other numbers are given numerically. Exploding Boy 06:49, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The article is much improved, but there's still work to be done:
  • In the "Awards and More Controversy" section, we offer speculation as to the reasons for the Orange Bowl booing (off key singing, halftime show "too MTV"), but no inline citations for those opinions.
  • In the "Early 2005" mention of the "Stop Ashlee" petition, we provde a link to a story about the petition but not the petition itself.
  • In "Style and Personal Life", it's noteworthy that she has tattoos, it's even worth mentioning that she has 3 of them. But I don't believe the specifics about what the images are and where they're located on her body are of interest to a general reader seeking information about Ashlee Simpson.
  • In "Criticism" : Assuming she is a manufactured artist, much of the media speculate that Simpson was pushed to fame through the aggressive management style and contacts of her father, Joe Simpson, who is her manager and was the executive producer of her reality show on MTV. I don't think we should be attributing assumptions to anyone in the media, let alone "much of the media" collectively.
  • The "Astroturfing" text in the same section should mention the Wired Magazine "Jargon Watch" entry for "Ashleeturfing".
  • External links are not balanced, and sites with any negativity have been repeatedly removed. Of the 7 present links, 3 are unarguably "pro" (the official site, the official online team, and the unofficial fan site), three are neutral (TV.COM, IMDB, Notable Names), and one has a mild "pro" pov IMO, but is neutral at best (wikicities). Skyraider 15:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. True
  2. Petition is www.petitiononline.com/StopAsh/ of course
  3. Fair enough..... I guess the references can take care of that
  4. As mentioned below that's a tough one
  5. I guess so
  6. Again, WP:NOT a link farm and there should only be a minimal set of links, although maybe the fan site could be taken out (it really doesn't make sense to have an "anti" ashlee link as there are several references for that and besides the WP:NOT rule it opens up the externals links to silly edit wars (on any article)) basically from what I understand you're just supposed to have the imdb links etc. and then the official sites, including an official fan site. However, since there is no official fan site we have an unofficial one here instead. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still very much dissatisfied about the criticism section being weaselly, as many assertions we make there are not being backed up by the references, which only make one or two broad generalisations. The Orange Bowl incident has some speculation that is not referenced (i.e. backlash against MTV-isation of the halftime show). Overall, the article is starting to look a lot better than it used to be, but I'm not ready to support just yet. A lot of the sentences don't flow well (although there are slightly fewer of them than before), and their phrasing often sounds similar to what you'd find in a fan magazine. Johnleemk | Talk 15:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, well I'm not sure what to do here except attribute them specifically to the editorials. As for the sentence flow I've tried my best, and I guess its up to someone else at this point I'll take one more shot at it. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I took one last shot at the prose and backed up the orange bowl claims. As for the criticism the references do back them up (I believe) and I couldn't find any good sources for any other claims (and I don't really know of any others...) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another criticism I forgot to mention: description of future events is not encyclopaedic. Exploding Boy 15:55, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose. If the article does not begin with the fact that she has no talent at all and would not be notable or have an article at all but for her sister, then it is extremely unbalanced and this subject should never be a FAC. I mean, name me one thing she is notable for except for being a sibling and screwing up the opportunities she got? --Noitall 19:20, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • With all due respect, saying that and an edit summary "forget it", its no wonder people get defensive when putting a lot of effort into these. Anyway, if you have a specific objection I'd like to hear it, but that is completely unactionable Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I have not edited one thing on this article even though I think it is wildly out of balance. I figure it is your article and the subject is too unimportant that I would leave it alone. But as for FAC, forget it. The article states, "Ashlee Simpson eventually rose to prominence in her own right", which is ridiculous. Ashlee has had constant and total media exposure with the world's best media companies on all forms, movie, records, cable, etc. Yet she is only truly notable "in her own right" for Saturday Night Live and the Orange Bowl incidents. Actually, now that I type this, I would probably support FAC if this article was entirely re-written to show what a no-talent person could accomplish when married to a talented and popular sister and having a media savvy father dedicated to making his daughters famous. But the article has none of that flavor. --Noitall 19:51, September 10, 2005 (UTC)


See also: Paris Hilton (vacant whore). Exploding Boy 19:56, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Regarding Paris, at least she is notable for "famous for being famous" and for being in the tabloids on her own right for her wild antics. Further, the article clearly addresses what is notable about Paris. In this case, it is "famous for being a sister of someone famous" and "famous for screwing up the incredible opportunities presented to her after having years of professional training and the world's best media exposure." The article does not come close to addressing this and is much more suited to a fan site. --Noitall 20:18, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • If I change the intro a bit to note the varying opinions on why she is successful (assuming I can find a credible reference(s)) and expand the criticism to note this would that address your objection? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a lot of changes, including changing the flavor of the article, rather than just tweeking. I will reconsider anything. --Noitall 06:23, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • *sigh* I've searched through over 1000 links on google in an effort to come up with credible sources for anti-ashlee claims such as these, with basically just coming up with just [11] (which ends up being pro-ashlee in an odd way). I guess if you want something overly critical you could see the talk page, lol (I still don't have any sources to back up the riding coattails of sister claim though...). That what's makes this subject hard is the lack of sources. Anyway, I'll see what I can mash together with what I've got :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 12:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am beginning to think I will support this article, but only after some minor issues I have are clarified. For example, certain pieces of information don't fit into some sections, such as the paragraph about her backing band in her biography, or the sentence about her vocal range in the middle of her personal life section. Also, I won't support until we clear up that commented out paragraph near the end of the article; either we reference it, or we get rid of it. By the way, I don't think iMDB lists Ashlee as having starred in Raise Your Voice any more. Johnleemk | Talk 14:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ryan, you are buried way too deep in the issues to see the big picture. Here is a true measure of notability, 2,220 google references for "Ashlee Simpson sucks". [12] and 574 for the huge sentence "Ashlee Simpson has no talent"[13]. I mean, really, she is notable for having no talent. --Noitall 14:37, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not that I want to knock James or anything, but you honestly can't say that until you look back at what he (Everyking) inadvertently caused because of the huge misunderstanding we had about Ashlee Simpson and her related articles. Ryan is being extremely reasonable, if you ask me, especially considering some of your statements seem to imply you'd prefer us to distort the article with POVed assertions. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think if you vote in a way that would require the article to be reworked in a manner that would dissatisfy everyone but yourself, your vote is inactionable. Opposing votes need to be at least vaguely compatible with majority sentiment in order to be actionable. Everyking 22:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on now EK, I think I've even seen you present a better understanding of "actionable" than that. Actionable means literally able to be acted upon, and certainly working the article so it would be entirely anti-Ashlee is possible, therefore actionable. But it is also possible to be actionable, but not help an article follow the policies and get closer to meeting the criteria. In that case we just think the objection is improper or whatever word you want, but it is actionable. We can still get a consensus for ignoring the objection. - 18:56, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I should note that Raul removed this from FAC so it failed. Anyway, I digged through about 100 links on both the search queries Noitall mentions - but they are almost all message board posts, blogs, or student newspapers without references to back it up. Ergo, not credible enough for here. I also searched for '"Ashlee Simpson" criticism' '"Ashlee Simpson" critique' '"Ashlee Simpson" coattails' and much more. It's not that I disagree at all its just that credible sources for claims like that are nearly impossible to find (and pretty much all the ones we have now are opinion columns from reputable papers which have wild speculation). Its not like Paris Hilton where there's an actual porno to back it up, and if we just put that kind of criticism in without references to back it up it will be massacred on the next FAC. Anyway, Carnildo mentioned a spokesman review column that might be useful which I'll see if I can get ahold of. In the mean time we've got a month till we can put this on FAC again, so we should try to do what we can until then. Plus with another album coming out lengthening the article should be slightly easier to do by then. Noitall, remember next time you comment on FAC you need to make it clear what needs to be done, and not say you "might" support, otherwise Raul is probably just going to ignore it when he filters the FACs. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, there is no "expert" opinion or research to decide such issues. The references are valid only to what the general public generally thinks of her. And they generally think that she has no talent. That said, I have not edited on this article and don't intend to. My only true and "actionable" statement is that, as it stands now, this article comes nowhere close, even in the universe, of FAC status. You and others are welcome to ignore my comments and continue building an "I love Ashlee" fan site, and that will be fine with me. It just does not qualify for FAC. --Noitall 23:13, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Listen, at least the FAs here I've seen about celebs here have little to no criticism of the person - this one at least has somewhat of an in-depth NPOVing of the controversies and a brief overview of the criticisms. Also, believe me when I say that I'd get more specific and critical if I could (you can see the stuff on the talk page that is over-the-top criticism of her father etc.), and you may vote support - but many others here will oppose if I do it without credible references, and probably some others who arn't here will jump in just to oppose on that note. Of course, someone here can correct me if I'm wrong :). In the mean time, I'll try to rework the intro and criticisms as much as I can - also, I do agree with johnleemc's comments about the structure - but I'm not sure what to do about it - I'll try to think of something about that :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. This article seems shallow to me. On reading this I get no impression of how she fits into the history of American popular music. I'm not even sure what genre of music she performs, other than "pop" or "pop rock." The closest thing to this is the single dismissive statement by a critic that her music is a "mundane melange of Avril-ish brat pop and Sheryl Crow cod rock." Which artists have influenced her? Whom does she acknowledge as her musical mentors? Whom are the artists she has influenced? There is a great deal about her life and career, very little about her music. For that matter, there is very little about her voice. We are told that Mariah Carey sings in a whistle register, but all we learn about Simpson's voice is that on occasion it has been damaged by acid reflux. The whole article reads like something from People magazine (which is high praise, of a sort). A hundred years from now, people reading this article would have some idea of what kind of celebrity she was, but very little idea of what kind of singer she was. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taoism

edit

Inherently readable, referenced, great article. --PopUpPirate 23:32, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • A couple of relatively minor objections. First, since Pinyin is the preferred romanization system, shouldn't the article be titled "Dao" rather than "Tao"? Second, there seems to be a rather random mix of Pinyin and Wade Giles in the article. Third, the tone and style verge into the chatty in some areas: academic writing prefers to avoid terms like "I" and "we" ("one does" rather than "we do" is preferrable). The Chinese character dao really should be explained closer to the beginning of the article, and does it not still mean "road" or "way" in Chinese as it does in Japanese? And lastly, and most nitpickily, the image of the character is a bit large... Otherwise looks good. Exploding Boy 07:07, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • minor objection: "overview" should not be a section heading. the lead section is the overview. Come up with some other label, merge the overview section with the lead, merge the overview section with the rest of the article, or do both--Jiang 04:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree - overview section has been integrated in other parts of the article, yep much more suitable mixed in. --PopUpPirate 20:44, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Fixed the I/we problem (we --> one). It is a good article though. With some further tightening would make a great feature. Sunray 10:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Riina

edit

Self Nominated, Mafia boss from Sicily. I've worked quite a bit on this article from it's original stub (most of it used to reside at "Toto Riina" before a redirect to his full name) and I think I've managed to create a fairly thorough piece that hopefully fits the criteria for a Featured Article. If it it doesn't make the grade then constructive criticism is appreciated so I that I can work on it some more. Thanks. Robert Mercer 19:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rosicrucian

edit

It is an article about an ancient esoteric movement, which is very active in current-days. It presents the inception, history and legend surrounding the movement and the mysterious "Rosicrucian Order" (including internal links to the articles on their main XVII century foudation documents: "The Manifestos"). It presents also a list of deceased notorious world persons, at different periods, known or considered to have been Rosicrucianists (or at least to have influenced the movement). It also gives an insight into the foudation of modern groups, current aims and studies, and establishes a NPOV relation among all the current-day groups (i.e. instead of having long texts about each group in the article, as some wiki languages have, each group - at least the main ones - has its own article accessible from this main article). It has many internal related references and also external links to groups and to the most deep studies available on the Rosicrucians from a variety of old and current authors, for readers who might want to learn more about it. It may be an example to other articles on similiar subject. The Portuguese language version "Rosa-cruz", which absorved some material from this article, is already a "featured article" and the French version "Rose-Croix" is at this time also nominated. It is currently available in 13 languages at Wikipedia. --GalaazV 01:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object for now. It's an interesting topic, the prose is very well-written, and it has lots of great free images; but there are some improvements that need to be made before it's ready to be featured.
    1. All images need descriptive captions in complete sentences
    2. The lead section should have two paragraphs for an article of this size. The second paragraph could summarize the content in the article.
    3. The last sentence in the first paragraph refers to "some": does that mean "some modern societies" mentioned in the previous sentence? Or "some critics"? This ought to be specified, preferably with a footnote to an example of one who holds this view.
    4. You say that the early Rosicrucians "held certain views in common". Which ones?
    5. You state that the pamphlets "caused immense excitement throughout Europe", but the article doesn't say why. What was in the pamplets?
    6. The Lutheranism paragraph contains only one sentence and seems out of place. Perhaps you could flesh that out into a longer paragraph that give many of their teachings? Maybe that should even go in the lead section, as a summary.
    7. How were so many greats (such as Mozart and Shakespeare) associated with Rosicrucianism? Were they known followers? Did they influence Rosicrucianism without knowing it? More detail (where known) would be helpful.
    8. You mentioned that Rosicrucianism probably had little influence on Freemasonry. It probably had little influence on Islam as well, but why is that noteworthy? I assume that you note its lack of influence because others have contended that it did in fact have such influence. If you were to add a paragraph here giving information on the former view, preferably with a footnote, it would help.
    9. The «» symbols aren't used in English.
    10. I've re-written the "modern groups" section to conform to certain style guidelines and to add clarity. It would be better if the subsections were entitled "para-Masonic groups" and "Esoteric Christianity groups" (without the "Personalities related to. . ."), and if the sections each began with a paragraph explaining what each category was about. – Quadell (talk) 02:42, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object beyone the points made by Quadell there are too many lists and too little prose.--nixie 03:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is an interesting article and a piece of knowledge vital for understanding the esotericism movement and its undercurrents in the enlightenment. General public knowledge in the matter is very scarce. Nixdorf 06:50:58, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
  • Support most of the objections above are fairly likely to be addressed and repaired as a result of its appearance on the front page. This article is worth featuring, as it's actually a whole constellation of related articles. Featuring this article would show off several other articles of near-feature-worthiness. Pedant 09:17, 2005 September 9 (UTC)
  • Object - a good start, but the lead section is inadequate, and there are too many lists of people - move them to List of Rosicrucians or whatever and mention a few of the more important personalities in paragraphs explaining who they were and why they are relevant. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - On principle. The article is okay now and could become better with editing. But whatever state it gets into from this process, the subject matter is such that future revisions will inevitably become weighted down with true-believer claptrap. These future revisions will continue to hold the "Featured Article" seal of approval, and I don't think that's desirable. Bacchiad 15:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This objection does not look actionable to me, and seems to display a lack of belief in the wiki process. If an article meets the featured article criteria (comprehensive, stable, NPOV, well-referenced article, etc), we should feature it. We should not withhold featured status for fear of what later editors may or may not do. Subsequent revisions that do not improve the article further can always be reverted. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I second ALoan's comments. – Quadell (talk) 03:22, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • The prose is nowhere near good enough yet. Can you find someone to go through it? For example, the opening paragraph doesn't really tell me what the movement is all about. Instead, we're told that 'Several modern societies have been formed for the study of Rosicrucianism and allied subjects.' That belongs lower down. Origins in the 15th or 17th centuries: the fact that they're not contiguous centuries is unusual and interesting; it needs some type of acknowledgement, such as 'is believed to date from either the 15th or 17th centuries ....'. Please don't finish a sentence with 'thereof' in modern English! Tony 01:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and I request that everyone lend a hand to address the objections. Sam Spade 17:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Dean

edit

After having read this article many times, I have found it to be exhaustively researched, minutely detailed, and remarkably even-handed. I believe that it meets all of the criteria in spades and I therefore submit it as a candidate to become a featured article. --12.217.121.245 02:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, while I agree the article is well written and quite balanced it comletely lacks references of any sort.--nixie 02:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean aside from the "Further Reading" section and the rather lengthy list of websites at the end?--12.217.121.245 02:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, facts should be easily verifiable, this is important for things like $ in campaign donations and so on to be given as inline cites.--nixie 02:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • How difficult is it to verify information by scrolling down to the bottom of the page? (By the way, I count seven in-line citations in the presidential candidacy section.) --12.217.121.245 02:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Html links in text should not be used in the place of a proppper footnoting system which allows the reader to view the URL and records the URL for future reference if the site goes down. These links also don't address the verifiability of other parts of the article, the reader should not have to guess which one of 20 external links or books contains the information they may want to check.--nixie 02:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I note that the articles on Barack Obama, Margaret Thatcher, Jean Schmidt, Joshua A. Norton, Sid McMath, Ralph Yarborough, and John Major all lack proper footnoting. Shall we strip them of featured article status? --12.217.121.245 03:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Mabye, but rather than being combatitive why don't you fix this article, it shouldn't take very long since you appear to know the subject matter well?--nixie 03:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • 1. I don't know how to footnote. 2. Even if I did know how to footnote, I don't know which link goes where because I didn't write the article. The fact is that nowhere does it say that a featured article has to have footnoting. It says that it must have sources, which the Dean article has in spades. If a skeptical reader doesn't believe what he reads and wants to check the facts, I fail to see how the writers have any responsibility to him other than to provide their sources. --12.217.121.245 03:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • The Schmidt article went to great lenghts, even without using a footnoting system, to make that article easily verifiable. It would benetit the reader if this article at least attempted to verfiy some of the more specific facts mentioned.--nixie 03:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Nixie - The featured article criteria call for inline citations (which html links in the article are a perfectly acceptable form of), and a complete listing of references in a references section at the bottom. →Raul654 06:18, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
                    • Even if that's the case, there's still the fact that the article already has seven inline citations. --12.217.121.245 06:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Using the footnote style is definately neater and more helpful. You may also see the print version where the raw link displayed spoils the text. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:21, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • To clarify (1) More things in the article should have inline cites for verifiabily (2) It is not clear if the external links listed at the end of the article are in fact references that were used to write the text or if they are general interst articles about Dean the same is true for the further reading section, where those books actaully consulted to write the text (3) 3/6 html links in text that were assumedly used as refernces are dead, and one is a link to an ad - not a reference (4) There are incomplete citations in the text like the Time one, that are not included in a list of references, and the websites linked to in text are also not listed in a list of references.--nixie 07:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you in many aspects, perhaps you should start editing the way the featured articles would have you edit, as every article has FA potential. In response to your worry about too many US politicians, I should let you know that those who select the order of the FAs make sure that their order gets varied. (This is to nominate for FA status, it doesn't go directly to the front page, look at the WP:FA page). -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 11:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hopkins School

edit

Self Nomination, Support I've worked for a long time on this article, along with Harro (founder of WikiProjects Schools) to get this article into tip-top shape. It has interested, copyright info'd images, encyclopedic information, and has already become a Wikiproject Schools FA. Here's the first attempt at FA status, though the article was incomplete (issues fixed) Staxringold 21:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great effort to clean up this article, and I'll be happy to feature it at the Schools Portal if it becomes a WP:FA. Support, although I'll be interested to hear what Carnildo has to say about the copyrighted images (thought I'd just come out and mention that...full disclosure!). Harro5 22:03, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just a note, I have been given express permission to use those images. I can expand the fair use justifications, but please don't vote against because you think I'm using copyrighted material without permission. Staxringold 22:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object
    2. In all three images, you state that "As a Yearbook Editor I, Staxringold (J---- R------), have been given permission to use Development Office materials such as this". What is this permission? Is it permission to use in the yearbook (in which case use on Wikipedia is a copyvio), permission to use on Wikipedia (an unacceptable license), or permission to release under the GFDL (acceptable)?
    3. Image:HopkinsSchoolHeathCommons1.jpg and Image:Hopkins Old Dining Hall.jpg are rather high-resolution to be claiming "fair use" on.
    4. Image:HopkinsMascotGoat1.gif states that "the promo photo tag basically applies". Is this image officially part of the school press kit or equivalent?
    --Carnildo 23:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object There's a loooong way to go. A quick look at the opening reveals numerous problems.
    • The itty-bitty paragraphing destroys the flow.
    • 'North America' and then 'the country' later in the same sentence doesn't work.
    • What do you mean by 'somewhat' divided schools?
    • The quote-mark fairy has been splashing around in the second mini-paragraph.
    • 'Comprised of' is better as 'consisting of' or 'comprising'.
    • 'The Hopkins' motto' is ungrammatical, and if it really is 'the breeding up of hopeful youths', it's great fodder for stand-up comedians.
    • '... only qualified students are accepted and are then placed where they should be based on ability'—back to the drawing board for that clause.

If the parents fork out US$24,000 a year in fees, they should hope that the school's junior English students are taught to write better than this. Sorry. Tony 15:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serious object. I believe this article could be a wonderful FA, but as it is now it is missing major sections and information. For example, the school has existed since 1660, yet the article has no history of the school at all. I would imagine the history section of the article would be rather large. Also, I'm sure the school has produced more noted alumni than the few mentioned here. As it is now, the article reads like an informational brochure promoting the school.--Alabamaboy 18:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony: To start off, please don't be offensive without cause. Also:
  • If I don't paragraph, people complain about long blocks of text without organization. I went this way.
  • Changed 'the country' to 'the United States'
  • All three schools go to the same Hopkins, and all three go to all school assemblies. However, generally Junior schoolers have classes with Junior schoolers, Middle schoolers with Middle schoolers, and Upper schoolers with Upper schoolers.
  • Removed single quotes for various schools, as those are their names
  • Changed Comprised of to Consisting of
  • It is "for the breeding up of hopeful youths," and I fixed the sentence to not be so wordy
  • Reworked the admittance sentence
Alabamaboy: The school was a one-room schoolhouse until 1926, there isn't exactly a lot of history worth mentioning before that. As for noted alumni, I left the list as it was in the old stub article, as many of our 'famous' alums aren't really that major. Also, what sections seem particularly POV? Staxringold 01:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the school was a one-room schoolhouse until 1926, then the article should have stated that. Now that you've added in the history section, the article looks much better. I do wonder, though, what your references are for the history in the history section. Please list them.--Alabamaboy 02:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. While my reason for opposition is not addressed literally in the featured article criteria, I nevertheless feel that the content of this article is not suitable for a featured article. Featured articles are, accoring to the criteria "the best what wikipedia has to offer". Information about any regional educational institution in any country is relevant to only a minute fraction of wikipedia visitors. As featured articles function as a "showcase" and are used for wikipedia promotion, I don't think articles with such a limited value to the vast majority of wikipedia users should be featured. Esthurin 02:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to give offence, Stax; it was a bit naughty of me. Although my final statement was a slight exaggeration, I stand by it in principle. I'd remove mention of the school motto, frankly; the school should reword it, because the sexual overtones are inescapable in modern English.

The problem is that the whole article needs serious rewriting. Can you find someone to go through it? What about one of the English staff at the school who's good at editing—surely they have an interest in it? Tony 01:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The motto is what the motto is. I understand that breeding is a sexual statement, but so is 'ejaculate,' but they don't edit old Hardy Boys that say "Oh Boy," Chet ejaculated (or something of that sort). The text is what the text is. As for an actual editor editing the article... This really isn't on their radar. If you want to dig through for smaller notes, I'll be happy to give 'er a good ol' fashioned American hack n' slash job, but I don't know what needs reworking/wording/writing or needs to be added/removed entirely. Staxringold 01:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not interested enough in the topic to work on it; as I said, try the teaching staff at the school. Tony 02:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hopkins School

edit
Object, not ready for being a FA. Pictures lacks proper tags, and if you claim fair use on any of them you ought to provide a rationale for it. Try turning the list of facilities into normal prose. Also, I get left with a feeling that this article isn't complete - it says a bit about the history, a bit about where the school is, and thats about it, apart from the list of facilities. What makes the school special? Is there any school sports teams (which I understand there typicaly is on US schools)? As a private school, I'm assuming parents have to pay - but the article don't say, nor how much, nor what class of people attend? Overall, a good start, but I feel it's not ready quite yet. WegianWarrior 06:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

El Ángel

edit

This is mostly a self-nomination, and my first FAC. This is an article on one of the most important landmarks in Mexico City, and I've been working on it since last May. I followed most of the recommendations I received during peer review, and in the process I created many articles related to important figures of the Mexican independence movement too. Overall I think the article is quite complete at this point and meets all the criteria to become a FA -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 19:49, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Object- while this article is well-written, I don't think it is quite comprehensive enough. Aside from the list of people entombed, there are only a few paragraphs on the history, and the only other section is the description. I would recommend expanding the history, making it more comprehensive, adding sections on the cultural impact, etc. See Statue of Liberty (which is NOT a FA) for example. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. While I agree with your comment, I honestly don't think I could add much more material without falling into original reasearch, specially when it comes to cultural impact. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 21:26, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Fixed -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 21:26, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Fixed; {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/El Ángel}} was listed on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spoo/archive1. The {{...}} simply "adds" the page content. I've removed it from the FAC for Spoo and instead listed it directly on the FAC page. Hopefully, if I did it right, there should be no visible changes, except that it doesn't show up at the Spoo subpage. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 01:10, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Concern—It needs a bit of copy edit, but is not too bad; however, the main problem is that it's just too short. Can you expand it significantly, contextualising the monument in terms of the history of commissioning, designing and building these structures? I'm not sure that there is and can be enough meat here to qualify as a featured article. Tony 23:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)

edit

Been on FAC twice already, here's the last one. I think its ready or pretty much ready now. Everyking did most of the work, and I reworked the references and writing style. Rather thurough article Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First nomination here, second here. Extraordinary Machine 21:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportObject. The article only mentions in passing her SNL troubles. However, this lipsync controvery spanned a much larger media circus than one would know by reading this article. First off, the incident made massive news (inspiring such sites as this: [15]). In addition, the incident lead to SImpson being severely booed at her next big appearance (at the Orange Bowl in Jan, 2005) [16]. Simpson was also repeatedly compared to Milli Vanilli (sp?). However, according to this FAC article, the cultural and media response to all of this was, "The following week the incident was the subject of several skits." For an article on a pop album to be FA, it should address all of the cultural responses arising from the album's release. If all of this controvery is covered in detail (and referenced) I will vote to support.--Alabamaboy 01:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, of course; thanks to RN for helping out a bit with it recently. Everyking 03:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - comprehensive and well-written but not excessively long given the subject matter. Cedars 07:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - contains far too much fancruft and trivia, and a pro-Simpson POV pervades throughout. Also, the fact that this and related articles have led to several arbitration cases against the main author for his steadfast refusal to let anyone else make substantial edits does not do much for this article's claim to be representative of the best of Wikipedia. Worldtraveller 19:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has been reworked a bit for POV - in addition there is very little fancruft/trivia left in the article (if any) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • He defines fancruft as anything more than a few paragraphs, what most of us consider near stub length. And I don't think that's an exaggeration—I know what he thinks from hard experience. His objection is not actionable because if it was done nobody but him would think it was even close to featured quality. Everyking 08:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's so untrue it's offensive. See here and here.
          • This is actually considerably more moderate than what was done a few days later. At the time I was obviously outraged by that, but by comparison to the total butchering of the article that came later it was mild. But, lest I rehash this stuff excessively, the key point of it all is that none of these radical revisions, removal of huge amounts of content, was ever done with any attempt at compromise or consensus beforehand (compared with my emphasis on meeting halfway, which fell on deaf ears literally for months before something began to be achieved). Everyking 18:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I see it, the tone of the article is essentially, "This album was a hit on the charts, but not with critics", which I think reflects the reality of the situation. In my opinion, the article is several steps above most other articles on recently released albums in Wikipedia; some of which are little more than track listings, others are swamped by minutiae trivia and crufty detail, and precious few are supported by references. I'm sorry, but I can't see the "pro-Simpson POV" that supposedly "pervades" throughout the article. Please give specific examples of POV, or else your criticisms may be considered inactionable. Extraordinary Machine 21:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some specific examples of POV and other problems:
        • Ashlee claimed they were inspired... - claimed? They're her lyrics aren't they?
        • she wanted to do more rock-oriented music that some of her bigger influences did - that's just awful phrasing
        • For its part, The Village Voice... - this phrasing seems to be trying to give particular emphasis to what this one magazine is saying
        • "Autobiography" opens the album with retro instrumentation and dark chords... - this paragraph combines opinion, excessive quotes from the lyrics and a single positive review.
        • The description of pieces of me is also opinion followed by a quote from one positive review.
        • ...arguably the album's most rock-oriented... - who's arguing? Why? This is pure opinion.
        • "Better Off", described by People magazine... - only positive reviews quoted.
        • "Don't you know you're only wasting time", she sings; by stalling "you make your misery my company." - this is not encyclopaedic writing at all.
        • as she has said... - this one's come up repeatedly - this phrasing makes it look like Wikipedia endorses what she is saying. Many editors have tried to correct this but have had their edits reverted.
        • a melancholy song - POV
        • Lengthy descriptions of how the album sold in Norway and Switzerland are pure cruft, only of interest to hardcore fans.
        • The chart diagram is uninformative and illustrates nothing unique about this album.
        • the most rapidly added song on radio - what does this mean?
        • her voice had been weak in rehearsal due to acid reflux - a regurgitation of her PR. No source, unverifiable.
        • It appeared to viewers that Simpson had been lip synching - singing along to a pre-recorded track is lip synching, this phrasing is that of a defensive fan trying to deny that she was doing so.
        • although other explanations were that the crowd thought her voice was off-key or that they were expressing dissatisfaction with the half-time show in general - completely unnecessary fannish defence.
        • may have caused "La La", promotion for which began in the U.S. in November 2004, to have fared more poorly on the charts than it otherwise would have. - pure speculation
        • enabled Simpson to end the Autobiography era of her career on a high note - POV
        • The album's photography is credited to Mark Liddell, and its design is credited to Soap Design Co - trivia. Not encyclopaedic. Worldtraveller 15:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK World, me (and apparently ExtraordinaryMachine) took care of most of these and more. Sans the chart and the performance in other countries, which was just tweaked a bit, there shouldn't be many if any POV issues/unreferenced stuff left. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. 21:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC) Abstain. While I'm very impressed by this article, I encountered "hidden" ref/notes and editorial comments while performing some minor edits, leading me to believe that this article is still very much a "work-in-progress". However, I still think it's a great article nonetheless, which is why I am abstaining rather than voting "object". Extraordinary Machine 21:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think it's quite good. My only suggestion is to provide a link in the references section for the two chart compiling companyes. Tuf-Kat 22:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral, as with Ashlee Simpson. I can't shake the feeling that the tone of the article wouldn't be out of place in a fan club publication. I'm sorry, I really do want to see this article featured, but I can't in good faith support an article that I feel doesn't make the cut. I won't stand in its way, however; it is a good possibility that my opinion may be clouded by the huge conflict Everyking had with myself and several other editors. Johnleemk | Talk 14:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • John, your comments on the Ashlee Simpson article were quite helpful... is there anything in particular you see wrong with this? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like I said, it's difficult to quantify in words. I think it's a decent article, but the tone of writing just sounds too positive. Then again, most articles about celebrities on Wikipedia seem that way to me, so, like I said, I'm not sure if that's sufficient grounds to object. Johnleemk | Talk 13:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object --Revolución (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. That's the best I'll give considering it's pop culture. But it seems as neutral as possible I suppose. There's been good work done dealing with objections and balancing the article, so I won't stand in the way any more. Object. Agree with John Lee. Same problems as her article. Short paragraphs make for poor flow. The SNL bit gives only the pro Ashlee explanation. If you're going to go into 6 paragraphs on how it did in the charts, sqeezing the SNL bit and the Orange bowl into one paragraph under 'promotion and publicity' is a bit much. - Taxman Talk 03:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • What would be your suggestion? (aside from delving deep into the incedent as the ashlee simpson article already does this) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I maintain that the SNL and Orange Bowl incidents should only be dealt with briefly in this article, which is about an album. The chart stuff, on the other hand, is directly relevant to this specific subject so warrants a bit more detail. Everyking 04:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm... what I mean is should I extend the criticism somehow or try to make the chart stuff more pithy? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I guess I agree, it shouldn't be expanded, it just shouldn't toe the PRO Ashlee line only. For ex. Acid reflux is a claim that I don't think many people beleive. My opinion on that doesn't matter, but we can't promote that claim as correct. Have your chart details of how the album did in 233 countries around the world week to week, I don't care, other than it makes the article look a little silly. My point was more that hiding the criticism under that heading is whitewashing it. Maybe make it promotion and criticism or something. The elminating the short paragraphs helped a lot in my opinion. - Taxman Talk 17:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, heading renamed and we took out most of the POV stuff out of the criticism (which made it shorter but more damning) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some phrasing is still POVed, and on occasion, the prose reminds me of what you'd find in a fan magazine. For example, "It appeared to viewers", although readable in a neutral manner, implies that the situation was different, and that Ashlee wasn't lip synching, although there's no way we can tell for sure. It should be clarified that numerous media sources do not believe the official explanation of Ashlee's camp about the incident. Johnleemk | Talk 15:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, the POV issues should be mostly gone folks. let me know what you think. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative support after making several changes to tighten the prose and smooth the flow (and some snipping at POV portions of the commentary on the tracks). I'm not quite sure about the reviews section, though — it seems to me that it leans ever so slightly in favour of Ashlee. (Compare the length of the quotes from positive and negative reviews.) Johnleemk | Talk 13:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. If my comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ashlee Simpson were any indication, my only question is, how did she get a separate page for an single nothing album??? Don't answer. I know the answer: her fans wrote it. This FAC would truly make Wiki the laughingstock of encyclopedias. People magazine doesn't even gush this much. No way. --Noitall 07:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may want to note that even among radical deletionists the idea that #1 albums should not have articles is seldom heard. As for your other point, this article has no "gush" at all. Did you actually read it? Everyking 07:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noitall, it would be appreciated by many here if you were to list specific examples of "gush" within the article (like Worldtraveller did) instead of accusing its editors of "building an "I love Ashlee" fan site". Otherwise, your objection may be considered inactionable and thus ignored by Raul. Extraordinary Machine 17:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically referenced my comments on the Ashley Simpson FAC, which is obviously related and they obviously apply. I am not going to repeat them all, because I already referenced them and they occureed at the same time. It gushes because she is notable for having no talent and the article makes her look like Madonna. It is entirely misleading, and, yes, looks like a fan site (which it actually is -- nobody does this much work for such a non-notable talent, notable non-talent). You have to get half way into the article (nowhere in the summary), before you get "Critical reviews of Autobiography were mixed." You have to be kidding me. How about something like, "a substantial number of people state that she has no talent and only had the opportunity to make this album because of the success of her sister, her father's dedicated star-pushing, connections in the industry, and media manipulation." --Noitall 02:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Google searches for terms such as "Ashlee Simpson sucks" do not count as references. The objections you raised on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ashlee Simpson refer to the Ashlee Simpson article, and not Autobiography. I'm beginning to doubt you have read the Autobiography article at all, or at least thoroughly, as it states in the second sentence of the lead section that critical reception was mixed (and it has done for at least a week). Also included in the article is a direct quote from the Billboard director of charts stating that Ashlee's success would not have occurred if not for her sister, along with several negative reviews in the article. You're here to comment on the article, not its subject. Unless you provide specific examples of "gush" within the article, your objection may be considered inactionable. Extraordinary Machine 21:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the material sourced as "Simpson said," to interviews with her, to comments from her label and her publicists? It's the bulk of the article. Monicasdude 16:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What sources shall we use instead, or in addition? Everyking 18:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Division of Korea

edit

I think this article does a very good job at meeting the requirements of a featured article. It seems to show the various sides and opinions in a very neutral way. It's a reasonable sized article, with an adequate level of formatting and pictures. And it's nicely informative and educational! --Rebroad 19:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose no references and {{fac}} has to be in the talk page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:18, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose—Not well written, in particular, flawed approach to punctuation, a certain 'jerkiness' in places; paragraphing often detroys the flow. At the top, it would be good to broadly locate this issue in its historical period.

Don't Speak

edit

An article that originally took a lot of time to work on — although the English was not perfect and the image of the CD single cover was a bit blurry, those problems are now a thing of the past. This article has been nominated for featured article because it is rare to see a song actually on the front page of Wikipedia. Other reasons include the time taken to work on the article, the information and the references. I hope you agree with me. The final choice is up to you. DrippingInk 21:26, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. I like the article. It explains the success of "Don't Speak" throughly from start to finish. Good references, and much better job on this article than the Spice Girls. That's a different story though. Excellent job. Winnermario 22:07, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Send to peer review. Needs a lot more work. See Yesterday (song) for an example of a featured article about a song. --Michael Snow 22:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refer to peer review, lead is ok in my opinion, but sections are too short. As above, compare to Yesterday (song). Phoenix2 22:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Send to peer review. There are major problems. I'm sure it's not comprehensive. It doesn't explain the lead-up to the song very well, for example, and there are oddities throughout (like the calling the men in the video "pathetic" - what's pathetic about them? Or that "The road was not straight" line, which is not encyclopedic in tone). It's a good start, but it needs work to be featured. Tuf-Kat 22:48, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinions. 64.231.176.176 00:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above anon. must have been drunk writing that line. What does it have to do with the article status? Actually, I would gladly help improve this article since "Don't Speak" is one of my favourite songs. Winnermario 00:54, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I remember this. The first single of 1997 to spend more than a week at the top of the charts in the UK. I think it knocked Orbital's Satan off the top spot. It would probably have been a monster hit if the record company had released it later on in the year, but they snuck it out in the January graveyard because the group was unknown. Still, though, I have to oppose. The article is fairly good as far as it goes, but it's just too short. And the reason the article is too short is because there isn't enough to write about Don't Speak without resorting to padding of the "in Denmark, the single entered the chart on (date) before climbing to (position) on (date) and dropping to (position) a week later before leaving the chart altogether on (date)" variety. There's not enough meat to make a meal out of it. Although far from non-notable, the song just isn't-notable-enough; very few pop songs are worth more than a bare summary of dates, chart positions and personnel, especially as the 1980s and 1990s and 2000s has seen pop music - actual pop music singles, individual songs, rather than the phenomenon of pop stars - become such a trivial, tangental part of popular culture. You could write a lengthy article about, say, Do They Know It's Christmas or We Didn't Start the Fire or possibly even Men at Work's Down Under, but not this. The song is not about anything more than a lost love, it didn't play any part in a big cultural movement. And it doesn't really encapsulate 1997 or the late 1990s in any way. Unlike, for example, In the Air Tonight by Phil Collins, you can't write about how it has come to be an aural metaphor for its time period, either through association with popular television or literally because the production techniques were widely imitated. The guitar solo is pleasant. I'm petering out. -Ashley Pomeroy 16:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A) I believe you can deal with music-related topics without taking jabs at me. B) This song was one of the biggest hits of the '90s in the U.S., and if you feel it should not have an article, go ahead and put it on VfD, where I'm sure the result would be a very decisive keep. Everyking 20:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article looks like it needs TONS of work. Like this statement
"...the song is generally thought of as a number one hit in No Doubt's home country, this being demonstrated through its success on the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay, where it held the zenith position for sixteen consecutive weeks...."

No, it's not generally thought of as that here. Most people don't consider the Hot 100 Airplay to be indicative of charts, only the actual Hot 100 itself. The charts are also not placed in their correct hieracy. Why is Adult Top 40 listed TWICE?! There is no need to list a chart position twice just because it crossed over two years. Pick a year and list its peak OmegaWikipedia 18:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with you. If it was a number one during two years, there is no reason that it cannot be listed twice. Your arguement is not very effective, I must say.
Huh? Peaks should be listed. Anyway, I hope no one gets offended, but the article looked a bit messy, so I gave it a facelift. OmegaWikipedia 00:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everyking is right, this was one of the biggest songs of the 1990s, and even if it's only about bittersweet heartbreak (aren't the majority of songs about that these days?), it had depth and structure. Love will always be the strongest thing in the world, and songs about love (or this being the reverse) are just as notable as any other topic out there.

A heartbreak is a story to tell. So are all those other mentionables above. Winnermario 22:07, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Just not enough information under each of the sections. The beginnings to the tables are not enough. This thing's got a loooooooooong way to go yet; it just needs much more writing. --Matt Yeager 00:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose, for an article on a song it is notably missing any description of the lyrics or the music (melody, cords etc), it also makes some pretty big claims that aren't supported, for example how did a notably un-ska song start the ska revivial of the mid 90s?--nixie 05:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, most of your comments are acceptable. This song will be worked on immediately. DrippingInk 20:08, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Repetitious, writing needs much improvement, lack of consistency in spelling (eg: break-up, breakup), seems too short, unsupported claims, and I second the question of how a totally un-ska song led to a ska revival. Exploding Boy 06:45, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
They were an overall ska band, you idiot. 64.231.163.4 20:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really?? Exploding Boy 23:41, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to seem like I'm attacking you, Exploding Boy, but they were an overall ska/rock group. Winnermario 00:17, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I know that. But it really wasn't clear in the article. Exploding Boy 15:29, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose—Writing not good enough. Tony 04:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solarquest

edit

Fantabulous article about the most splendiferous game in the galaxy. Kaptain Krunk 12:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object – no references, images are too large, sections have hardly any content. Ref to Peer Review. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:38, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Refer to peer review, 1) lead is too short 2) Article doesn't contain games project info box 3) there's too many large fair use pictures without a reason on why it has been claimed fair use 4) I don't think you need 3 images of the game board and accessoiries. One will suffice to illustrate it and avoid a lot of copyright problems. - Mgm|(talk) 13:11, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object—Lacking in content; superficial. Simply describing the features of a game and wacking in a few pictures does not make a featured article. Try writing an article on a whole class of such games, and saying something a little more useful about them, if you want to author a FA. Tony 13:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to peer review -- This needs a peer review. Then maybe it will survive voting. --ZeWrestler Talk 14:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not yet FA standard. Much of it is a description of the game and its rules. Before resubmitting this, compare it to the Monopoly article, which is a Featured Article. The difference is staggering. Granted, Solarquest does not have the history that Monopoly has, but still. There needs to a be a dramatic reorganisation of the article (put all the "gameplay and rules" stuff together, have one history section, not bits of history scattered through the article). As people have said, peer review may be the best way to have a fresh start for this article. Batmanand 14:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TV-FM DX

edit

I believe all the objections from last time have been addressed. Andre (talk) 18:46, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Support Slightly too techy in parts but it's unavoidable I guess. It's certainly the place I'd look if I wanted information on it. --PopUpPirate 22:03, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Object, but may support later if it's cleaned up. The itty-bitty paragraphing is a real problem—needs some flow. Why 'miles' and 'feet', at least mostly? The spelling is not US, so why not use metrics consistently? Tony 06:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC) Comment. Well if it's written from a UK perspective, miles and feet are still the most pre-dominantly used measurements of distance. Not very scientific, I know, when we're metric in just about everything else. How this sort of thing should be handled on Wikipedia, I don't know. Angmering 14:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The UK is now a metric country. As a matter of practicality, and to be inclusive rather than exclusive, metrics should appear, possibly with US measurements in parentheses. Tony 08:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a mostly UK thing, but someone recently changed all the spellings from US to UK. I don't know why, but I didn't revert it. Andre (talk) 15:32, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object
    1. metric equivalents absent. A significant population of readers come from countries that do not use the imperial system. It would be unfair for them to keep using convertors.
    2. User the non breaking space when connecting numbers to units. eg. 15&nbsp;MHz. which renders it as 15 MHz; 16&nbsp;mm etc.
    3. All inline links should be formatted using a footnote style. eg. the {{ref}} type.
    4. Federal Communications Commission is introduced without also defining acronym, which is used later on in the article. It should be mentioned that it is a US govt. agency.
    5. The history section lists only three four countries. Any more notable events in other countries?
    6. ...pre-war band to a new band at 88–108 MHz you've not mentioned the significance of the move. This band is known as "broadcast band" and was adopted my by most countries for commercial FM. (at least that's what I recollect)
    7. ...India, Middle East, North... --> "...the Middle East....
    8. The cities are not formatted properly. You've used CITY, STATE for US locations and CITY, COUNTRY for non-US. For example you've used Chicago, Illinois, and Monterey, Mexico. Since this article is on a global topic, I'd suggest you drop the display of the state as Chicago is globally well known. So [[Chicago, Illinois|Chicago]] and Monterey in Mexico would be more appropriate. (there's also no other Chicago in the US so the name of the city won't conflict) Similarly with Riverhead, Long Island, New York, and Melbourne, Victoria. This problem also is present in =Notable tropospheric DX receptions=. The main problem here is that it is assumed that readers would know of all of US states.
    9. Who is George Palmer?
    10. 'Roger Bunney also published... reads more like a promo for the author, not needed.
    11. Australia and South Africa are linked multiple times. Please remove duplicate wikifying.
    12. =Afternoon TEP= needs expansion
    13. Woodruff T. Sullivan III? ---> astronomer and physicist Woodruff....
    14. Use of single sub-headings under a heading. 4.1, 6.1, 9.1. Either merge with parent topic or have two subheadings.
    15. Anthony Mann? Todd Emslie? format as I've shown for Woodruff.
  • There may be more issues I might catch later, but that's all I can muster up for now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:00, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I agree with most of Nichalp's points, but would add that the article is just too long in its current state (39KB, by my count). Considering the highly technical content of the article, this is deadly. It should either be scaled back, or split up. Plus, some of it just seems to meander rather randomly: the list of major meteor showers is kind of silly, IMO, as this is the sort of information better covered by an astronomy article. It seems sufficient to point out that meteor showers can and do affect DX reception. – Seancdaug 16:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Virtually all of the DX television reception reports were sourced from 1960s-1980s U.S. and U.K. radio/television/scientific technical journals. Because these journals almost invariably used miles as a distance reference, I felt it was proper to avoid metrics in the article. Even today, U.S. TV FM DX groups such as the WTFDA, commonly use miles in connection with distant reception reports.

Bivariate-correlator 13:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise, I recently added metric measurements in parentheses.

Bivariate-correlator 10:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy VI

edit

This article has received a lot of attention in an effort to make it a featured article. With the help of several editors, this article has had a CVG peer review, a regular peer review. Several editors have collaborated on this in order to have this article reach featured status. All of the pictures have fair use rationale and correct copyright tags, fancruft has been identified and removed, and the article meets the featured article criteria. Furthermore, this article is not a gameFAQs duplicate.

Nominate and Support --ZeWrestler Talk 13:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh dear, no. Erwin
  • Object. The section on censorship is gigantic, and doesn't need to show every single instance of censorship in the game. The Graphics and Musical score sections are too big with unecessary white space. The censhorship section is all muddled up, the Production credits is unnecessary, and the image on the infobox, according to consensus, should be the English boxart (with the exception of games not released in English). - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:44, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • Support, I guess. All complaints addressed except for the Infobox issue. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:26, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • The "consensus" regarding what image to put in the infobox does not, as far as I can tell, exist. The discussion went on for months, and I don't think any sort of reasonable observer could say that anything resembling a "consensus" was reached. Furthermore, there are a number of practical reasons for having the game logo there: the game was released multiple times in North America (and, if we're casting the net as "English," at least once in England, as well). There is nothing in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games#Infobox description of proper infobox usage that indicates that box art is any sort of mandated standard, and the writeup even points out that its precise usage is "strictly voluntary" and that "many variations on this archetype are in use in various articles." Final Fantasy VI is hardly unique in using this format, and it's been that way, without comment or reversion, for months. – Seancdaug 21:15, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, the page specifically states Additionally, consensus is that the image shown should be game box art. There is consensus on this, if you look at the discussion you linked to that was just one user (User:Slike2, who has since stopped contributing) objecting. The consensus on this issue was reached long before that discussion. Jacoplane 15:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The "consensus" note was added by Andrevan after this discussion started, and one editor saying so does not a consensus make ("something akin to a supermajority"). A cursory look at the discussion I linked indicates that no consensus was reached: two people were actively in favor of using the box art, a handful more said that they either didn't care one way or the other, or could accept whatever, and a few more said that the important thing was having the logo in the infobox, which, I would like to point out, the article in question had all along. Furthermore, there are numerous articles that do not use the box art in the infobox, and it has never once been raised as a serious issue before (and some, like the Final Fantasy VII were even mooted as an ideal example of the form). All that being said, I've placed the Japanese box art in there now, in the interests of reducing controversy, but it remains, for all the reasons I and others have cited, an extremely problematic solution, as this is a case where the box art is probably more misleading than it is useful, given the multiple versions of the game released under various different names in various different regions. – Seancdaug 16:10, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • The discussion above is a bit of a red herring. They're discussing box art vs. screenshots. We're using the logo, which is part of the box art, and in this case, more concise. -- Norvy (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do believe there was a consensus and I agree with that guideline on WP:CVG; however, given that Final Fantasy 3/6 (whatever) has been released so many times and there are a number of box covers for it, I don't think the logo is a big deal - in fact, it may make it easier also considering it was released as FF3 and FF6. The consensus dealt with screenshots anyway, not a logo, which in any other situation I would also oppose in favor of boxart. K1Bond007 19:14, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • To start off, the spaces added in the graphics and musical score sections were put in to make the reduce visual clutter. Without the spaces, the pictures of those two sections would run into the next sections. --ZeWrestler Talk 19:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It shouldn't have visual clutter, and it shouldn't have blank space. I suggest you add content to the sections or just remove the images. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • About how many instances of censorship would you say is acceptable? --ZeWrestler Talk 19:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In responce to the production credits being unnecessary, I believe that they are necessary, and they have been used in other video game featured articles. A good example would be Super Mario 64 credits.--ZeWrestler Talk 20:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm a perfectionist, and I'm not 100% satisfied with everything about the article, but I think it's come a long way, and is more than worthy of FA status. – Seancdaug 21:16, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing my vote to neutral in light of the lack of article stability cited by BrianSmithson. – Seancdaug 16:10, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I'd really like to support this one, but... eh, there are a lot of things wrong with it, in my view. The excessive censorship images, lack of flowing prose in the plot section, etc. It's a good article, I think, but I'm not sure it's worthy of being featured. --Dalkaen 22:28, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Does not conform with all WikiProjects, one of which is the WikiProject CVG, which states that the infobox picture should be the box art. Andre (talk) 00:02, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I think it has reached a magnificant level with all the feedback and the contributions coming from both the Final Fantasy WikiProject and editors. It has my support. Derktar 20:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC).
  • Support The censorship section seems a managable size, as does the music section. There was an awkward phrase I think I made flow better and one fact I fixed. The infobox seems a little crouded with all the images, but it's not a big issue. This looks like a great article. Fieari 20:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. User:Seancdaug keeps reverting things to past tense that should be in present; he also insists on making album titles bold in an article that is not about albums. Besides, the page is hardly stable right now, which is one of the requirements for featured-article status. BrianSmithson 15:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take some offense at your characterization of my edit (which happened only once, I would add), Brian, though I do apologize for the error: the "reversions" were a mistake owing to an edit conflict, and I will gladly correct them. That being said, you're right about the stability question. In light of the issues that have been raised during this vote, I'm withdrawing my vote until such time as the page achieves stability. – Seancdaug 16:10, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, Sean(?). I misinterpreted your edit, and I thought you had made similar changes before. There have been so many cooks in that kitchn, though, so it could have been anyone. Again, apologies. If the page attains some stability in the next couple of days, I will change my vote. The article is already much better than Wario, another video-game FA. BrianSmithson 16:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem, and the very fact that I was running into edit conflicts kind of proves your second point. I think the major complaint, though, was about the infobox, and I expect that the resolution of that issue will do a great deal to stabilize the article. – Seancdaug 17:03, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • I would hardly call it better than Wario; it's not just the content, it's also the writing. For one, Wario keeps lists down to a minimum... and although Wario's in a different situation than a game, that character list should have much more content, opposed to being just one sentence. Not to flip flop, but I'd rather not support it unless the character list gains a little more content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:35, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • Are you saying that the character list in this game should have more information, or are you referring to the Wario article. If your refering to this game, would the fact that the 14 major characters of FFVI have their own articles help? --ZeWrestler Talk 19:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I'm speaking of FFVI, and yes, I know they all have articles, but no, that doesn't make it appropriate for the characters section to be underdeveloped. - A Link to the Past (talk)
        • That's exactly why I think it's better than Wario, though, Link. The FF6 article as it (sort of) stands now does not suffer from the list-o-mania that so many video-game articles do (we've pruned it of that). Wario currently takes a "In this game, Wario could do this. In this game, Wario could do this" approach, which makes it read like a fanpage. I think the FF6 characters section can stand a bit of fleshing out, but I'm perfectly happy with it as it is and would in fact prefer it that way. BrianSmithson 20:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • So should the character section be expanded or would that be considered going into the Fancruft territory.--ZeWrestler Talk 20:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is on a different level, however, because a video game article should either have an indepth analysis of the characters or no character list at all. It may have a list, but this list has a large amount of content, necessary content. And yes, it NEEDS extra content - there's fancruft, and then there's lack of info. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:38, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
              • The thing is, what kind of content would you be looking for? Adding length for length's sake seems pointless. And the thing is, the section was longer, several months ago: the problem is that most of the content was either fancruft or repetition of what was said better in other articles. Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I'm honestly curious as to what you think is missing. – Seancdaug 21:10, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
                • It just needs an extra sentence on each character at least. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:38, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
                  • So you've said, but that's not actually useful: adding extra text simply for the purpose of making something longer is the very definition of "cruft." The question is what content you think is missing, what needs to be said about each character, but currently isn't. There's no point in making the thing longer if we don't have anything else worth saying. – Seancdaug 22:03, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
                    • Look at their pages, take a sentence. If it's not cruft there, it's not cruft here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:04, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
                      • Actually, it most certainly can be, because of the different scope. Someone reading Locke Cole is almost certainly looking for detailed information about the character. Someone reading this article might be, but s/he might also be looking for information about the gameplay, or the music, or any countless number of other things. An article covering the game in its entirety cannot afford to be as detailed as an article devoted to but a single part of that game, and what's perfectly acceptable in the latter is fluff and cruft in the former. Furthermore, it's unneccessary repetition: there are links to every single character article right there in the section, so why on earth waste space by copying and pasting existing info? Again, it's entirely possible that there is character information that deserves to be in the Final Fantasy VI article that we've missed, but you've given no hint as to what you think that information might be. You've just said you want the section to be longer, and seem positively uninterested in the actual content of the section. Which strikes me as a positively surreal attitude to take for an encyclopedia. So I ask again: what sort of sentence would you like us to take from the individual character pages and add to this article? – Seancdaug 22:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know, you seem to be an FFVI fan, you work it out. One extra sentence on the character is certainly not cruft. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • But that's just it: I am a fan. If I had to, I could wax on nearly indefinitely about every single character in the game. But, then again, I'm also not the kind of person who would be consulting an encyclopedia for information about the game, am I? The question isn't what sort of fannish minutae we can add to the section, but sort of thing the "average" reader would be likely to look for. That's why I keep asking you, as (apparently) a non-fan: what are you looking for? What's missing? And, more to the point, if you can supply a single thing that you think should be there but isn't, what's the point of expanding the section? If we don't have anything else important to say, why add extraneous prose (more precisely, cruft) to the article? – Seancdaug 00:21, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • I'd have to say Seancdaug makes an exceedingly valid point. :P --Dalkaen 00:34, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
        • It is NOT cruft. You're avoiding the matter at hand, that all the characters list is, is a list of characters with one sentence slapped onto them. You're avoiding cruft to the point of giving bare-bone information, and going for minimal information, as opposed to the middleground. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:56, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
          • Link, I have done no such thing. The reason I posed my initial question was to engage your complaint. You're the one who has the problem: it's up to you to help us understand how we can resolve it. You keep barely skirting around the meat of the issue: the fact that we're having this discussion is my way of trying to attain the "middleground." But there is absolutely nothing to be gained by adding random information (that, furthermore, is already available in other articles) simply to pad the article, which is already plenty long as is. "Make it longer" is not a particularly constructive comment. "I would like to see more information about x" is, and that's what I'm still waiting for you to respond to. – Seancdaug 01:34, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
          • Everyone, relax a few minutes. We are here to discuss this article and how to make it into an FA. Not to squabble like little school girls. (no offence to the female editors) Lets take a deep breath, count to 10 and try to work together, rather then against each other. --ZeWrestler Talk 01:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to itemize what's in the article, as far as I can see, each character has a:
          1. Full Name
          2. Name in Japanese
          3. Brief background
          4. Character type (i.e. class)
          5. Combat technique
        • Keep in mind Featured article criteria #6: It should stay tightly-focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail, using summary style to cover sub-topics in other articles. So, for the third time, what's missing? -- Norvy (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added a sentence to the Terra description. It is a brand new sentence that I did not copy from the other article on her. Is this addition to her what you want done to the others, or should I delete the sentence? --ZeWrestler Talk 01:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Norv, it's a matter of undevelopment. One extra sentence would not harm anything. And Ze, looks good. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:25, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
            • Padding does not equal development, and we can't develop anything without some sort of idea as to what our ultimate goal is. And you have resolutely failed to address that very basic issue. What kind of information should we add? If there's no specific rationale for expansion, then that expansion is meaningless (again, this is what "cruft" means). "Not harming" is not the same as "helping," after all. – Seancdaug 01:40, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
              • Use Ze's edit as an example. I personally hate it when there's a large series of small paragraphish parts in articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:08, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
                • What if we rewrite the "Characters" section as prose rather than a list? Maybe break the section into two or three paragraphs, either separating by major characters (Terra, Locke) vs. minor characters (Mog, Umaru), or based on broad classes (fighters, magic-users, rogues)? The paragraphs would go something like: "Final Fantasy VI features fourteen playable characters blah blah blah that fit into the traditional role-playing-game classes of fighters, magic users, and rogues." Then begin the fighter paragraph: "Cyan Garamonde is blah blah blah." This would avoid the list-o-mania that I've mentioned before, and it might let us add another sentence on the more important characters without it looking unbalanced if we leave the minor figures alone (I mean, how much more can you say about Gogo?). Or am I barking up the proverbial wrong tree? BrianSmithson 02:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I agree that this is probably the best solution, and, indeed, that's basically what I did when I worked on improving the Final Fantasy VIII article a month or so ago. – Seancdaug 02:58, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I wasn't sure about the boxart, but I'll accept the logo if people really want to have it. Other than that it's a great article. Jacoplane 19:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article (about a great game may I add), is very informative and is better than some video game featured articles. I see no issue with the logo in the infobox. Though, as Sean noted earlier, there is no real "consensus" - though most articles do use the North American box art. The best known N.A. box art is Image:Ff3usbox.gif, which of course contradicts the title of the article. The only other N.A. box art is Ffabox.jpg, which is box art for a compilation known by another name. I don't believe the game was as successful in Europe as it was in America (probably because it was first released there when the graphics were fairly dated), thus making Image:Ff6eupsxbox.jpg a bad choice. As the article is in English, using any of the Japanese box art is stupid. The logo is the way to go. — WARPEDmirror 21:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm willing to bet if the Final Fantasy Wikiproject was polled, they'd endorse the logo. I also see no reason to bloat the character section with information about a character's astrology sign or weight when that information better serves the reader in the character's page. -- Norvy (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, did I just read what I think I read? Are you saying that all information on Terra can be summed up in a single sentence? That the character list will take up half of the article's space if each character got even a SINGLE sentence added to them? Again, you're saying that middleground is cruft, and that the only appropriate information is almost no information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:00, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Great article, the recent streamlining since I've been gone has made it even better. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:30, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A good article that isn't too wordy or full of info that is meaningless to the casual reader. It is definitely deserving of featured status. Amren (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Hardly meets the criterion of 'brilliant' prose. Take, for example, awkward sentences such as: 'Towns contain shops where players can buy items, and villagers who offer information.'

Or 'Magicite also imparts various statistic bonuses as characters gain experience levels. Magicite also ...' Two successive sentences start the same way. Why 'also'? Every new sentence could be 'also'. 'Statistic bonuses' is a non-item. How do you gain experience levels?

Or this huge snake: 'In addition, the English localization features several name changes, either because of length restrictions ("Stragos" becomes "Strago"), Nintendo content guidelines (the magic spell "Holy" becomes "Pearl" to avoid religious connotations), or simply because of cultural differences between Asian and North American audiences (Terra's Japanese name, Tina, sounds exotic to Japanese speakers because of its usage of the rare "Ti" sound, but is a common Anglophone name).' This is indigestible—so many phrases tacked onto each other like roof-tiles.

The large amount of text given over to an account of what is, frankly, a superficial, plot-driven story that would do poorly as a high-school attempt at fiction, makes me wonder whether this ranks with the best the Wikipedia has to offer. I can see that the authors have worked hard, and in its own way, it's OK; but I'm afraid an unfeatured article it should stay. There's nothing special about it. By the way, please don't use male generic pronouns; be inclusive. Tony

Sorry, I've gone to the correct article and found it very easy to pluck out equivalent examples, which I've inserted above. The first example remains awkward in the article, despite your recent changes. My overall feelings are unchanged, although it is a step up from F IV.

Another example (they're so easy to find): 'Final Fantasy VI's combat is menu-based, meaning the player selects a battle action for the character from a menu of choices.' The possessive form is clumsy here; 'menu' should not be repeated in the same sentence; both cases of 'the' need rethinking. Isn't 'of choices' redundant?

With such a topic, the article would need to be very special to qualify for featured status. Tony 16:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • During the Peer Review we were told that we hadn't covered the storyline fully enough. Now you are saying too much of the text is dedicated to the story. Which is it? I also fail to understand why you added a comment next to male pronoun male-pronoun, rather than just fixing it. By the way, for the sake of clarity, you shouldn't edit your past comments. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I did edit my past comments. And one of my key concerns is that it's a boring little superficial story. Why not let people experience it simply by playing the game? Why write it out in an authoritative resource such as Wikipedia? It's just not of the quality we expect of featured articles. Tony 16:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that people should experience the story themselves. But this it what we were advised to do during the peer review. So I request comment from other editors, should the storyline section have ever been expanded? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:59, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Let me put my previous, intemperate comment in context. Don't get me wrong, I'd probably play the game myself if I had access to it (although I wouldn't purchase it). However, the story-line is made for a game, and requires interactivity to be of any value. Once it's removed from its original context, as here, it comes across as one long stream of sub-Lord of the Rings plot-sequence. Without characterisation, it's uninteresting; to a certain extent, this lack of characterisation is compensated for by the human element in the playing of the game—that's my point.

To be constructive, I'd consider changing my opinion if:

    • the prose were lifted to the specified 'brilliant' standard (I'm not interested in working on it intensively, but you might find others);
    • there were a stronger account of any criticism the game may have received;
    • there were an outline of the technological/feature improvements thus far in the series;
    • there were a section positioning this game in the array of similar games that have been developed (not in terms of plot/content, but technically);
    • there were some mention (at the top?) of the demographic at which the game is targetted, and the marketing strategy of the manufacturer;
    • there were an account of how such games (or this one in particular) are developed, from initial idea right through to production and marketing.

Then it will start to look like among the best that Wikipedia has to offer.

I'd be inclined to shorten the plot section, so that it's more of a summary. The stream of names, in particular, won't mean much to the unitiatied reader. Give us an overall idea of the flavor of the plot, and its movement in broad brushstrokes only. At the start of the plot section, you neglect to state that the story occurs in some kind of fictional, mediavalist world. (I'd ignore the previous advice to expand the plot, in the light of my argument here.)

I'm interested to know how much of the information here is simply a repeat of what you receive in the accompanying hard-copy, or that is embedded in the game. Can one of the authors let us know? Tony 01:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem with many of your suggestions is that much of the information you desire simply does not exist in any kind of accessible form. It's difficult to present an account of the development of this particular game simply because the English-language material on that topic is sparse, and anything beyond that would likely fall under the rubric of original research. And I think it's important to remember that this is not an article about computer role-playing games, so any "general" overview of "how such games are developed" would likely belong elsewhere to begin with. As for "any criticism the game may have received," I tend to agree, but the vast majority of commentators have pointed out (with some degree of relevancy, I think) that more often than not such writeups are a thinly disguised example of POV-pushing, and that unless a case can be made of the notability of a particular strain of criticism in the larger sense (like a direct link to sales, or whatever) that such things are very rarely encyclopedic. As for the plot section, none of it is "simply a repeat of what you receive in the accompanying hard-copy." It is a summary, although perahps a longer one than you'd like. And uninteresting though it may be (and, understand, I'm not really disagreeing with you here), I'm not convinced that it's irrelevant to a writeup of the game, which is a more useful rubric for inclusion, IMO. – Seancdaug 12:14, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I agree with Tony, the quality of the writing isn't there, take for example this monster:
Together with other members of the Returners and anti-imperial sympathizers, including Locke, a thief who searches the world for a special treasure that can restore life, King Edgar of Figaro, who has publicly allied with the Empire, but secretly provides supplies and aid to the Returners, and former Imperial general Celes, Terra manages to open the gate to the world of the Espers in a bid to enlist their aid against the Empire.
I may have a thing for tables at the moment, but the list of characters would look better as a table (Character!Description!Special ability) or actially written as prose than as a list. It would also be usedful for the reader to have been introduced to the cast before the plotline. I think it would aslo been informative in terms of the franchise to describe how this game was technologically different from its predecessors, did final fantasy V have Mode 7 graphics, are there any gameplay differences between the Super Nintendo and the playstation versions, I assume this kind of info would be in the early reviews mentioned in the reception section. It's kind of crufty, but it should probably mention how many hours it takes to play through the game, and that this was a very popular RPG amoung gamers (beyond the sales figures which don't mean alot without the reader knowing how well video games sell normally).--nixie 12:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Return to Oppose per nixie and Tony. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:38, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Comment- Now the infobox image is the box art. So... igordebraga ≠ 17:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Godfather

edit

The article has been worked on by the Featured Article Drive team.

I've worked on this article over the past month, and I now feel it meets the criteria for what film articles should be. I'd like to think this article could be featured, and perhaps appear on the Main Page. The Godfather is an excellent film, and I hope this is considered to be an excellent article. Rob Church Talk | Desk 14:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object
    • needs more depth to qualify as featured. Many very short sections give it a choppy effect. For example "Critical acclaim" - it's one of the most discussed films of the last 30 years - what did the critics say?
    • Images are tagged, but neither have a fair use rationale on the image description pages as per Wikipedia:Image description page. The screenshot for example - why that particular one? What is it adding to the article?
    • The two references quoted seem to have been used only for a few minor points in the article, which suggests that most of the article is not referenced. (The two references are back to front also - the information that is supposed to be referenced by reference 1 actually cites reference 2 and vice versa).
    • Trivia section should be merged into article and then trivia header removed.
    • some POV (Brando's "memorably acted") and issues with colloquial style should be reworded. ("smashing" records, "rocketed into the limelight" as examples
    • lead section contains an absolute spoiler - should not be there. Rossrs 16:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Object. This article was not ready for the FAC. However, I do understand that people didn't properly address problems with the article in the Peer Review, a case I commonly see. Rob, fix the complaints stated above and I will change to support. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:55, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Thanks for all the feedback so far. As Link mentioned, none of this was brought up in the Peer Review. I'll take this page as a to-do list and make the article better. Rob Church Talk | Desk 21:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: adding to this to-do list, a Trivia section is usually frowned upon (I personally am not a fan). While the stuff here is good, it really should be included into another area of the article and the Trivia section deleted. Thanks. Harro5 21:45, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs info on the various themes in the film: good and evil, the end of innocence, etc. Andre (talk) 00:40, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object: I think it need some work somehow. 2 or 3 references seem to be not enough but it not actionable objection anyway. Disclamier: I am a member of the FAD team.--Kiba 01:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon I of France

edit
This article is a former featured article candidate. You can view its previous nomination here

This was a failed FAC from several months ago, but it has had around 700 edits since then, and I think it deserves another shot at featured status. --⟳ausa کui × 05:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object 1) those headings make the ToC ugly. 2) Some sections are too short. 3) Overall page size 50kb! The article should be written in summary style. 3) Phrases such as It appeared the Napoleon of old was back.... This is not written in encyclopedic style. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:48, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
I took that out to avoid your objection, but I guess some friendly fellow decided to put it back in. Oh well --⟳ausa کui × 09:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Article should be written in summary style, sections which have more information than necessary should split off into their own article. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I agree about the summary style. This article is too long, and some of the information is redundant with related articles like Napoleonic Wars. Phils 10:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, and think it should go back to Peer review. "In May, 2005 a team of Swiss physicians claimed… A team of physicians from the University of Monterspertoli led by Professor Biondi recently [when?] confirmed this." No citations for any of this, and pretty obviously the sort of thing that needs a citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:15, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, I am a Napolean expert and this article is pretty good in summarizing him. This article failed previously to mentioned in Featured Article, but after more than 1000 edits. I think it deserves another chance.

-- Mercenary2k | Talk 12:18 AM, March 4, 2006 (Toronto, Canada)

  • Object. I don't think that the article is too long, but I am dissapointed that there are so few inline citations. Out of 5 notes, nr 1 and 2 seem to be broken (not linked in main body). As for comprehensivness, I realize the article is already long (but there are FAs close to twice his lenght), and I'd like to see Polish Legions in Italy linked somewhere in the article. Finally, there seem to be a copyvio problem.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Oppose. No response to any objections, no improvement to the article. See comments below. The article has a serious shortage of line citations and violates WP:NPOV. For example, the introduction praises the Napoleonic Code and describes Napoleon as a benevolent despot. Nowhere in this article do I see that he also reimposed slavery on the French Caribbean (the revolution had ended it) or that the Napoleonic Code not only erased all the revolution's advances in women's rights, but imposed new inequalities that had not been a part of the Ancien Régime. Married women in France had enjoyed property rights until Napoleon's era. Moreover, his continuous wars decimated the adult male population so badly that after he escaped from Elba he could scarcely raise an army. A pro-France and pro-Napoleon POV seeps into other issues, such as the unqualified assertion of the rather controversial view that the Russians deliberately burned Moscow in 1812. Durova 06:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, strangely, this nomination includes a reposting of several unanswered objections from six months ago. I've tried to solicit attention at the Napoleonic Era group of the military history project. If no one is interested in attending this nomination and bringing the article up to FA quality I'll convert my objection to an opposing vote (quite sadly, since Wikipedia clearly needs a feature quality biography of this man). Durova 20:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I don't see how the following can be interrpreted as Pro-Bonaparte/Pro-french POV:

After all, the military record is unquestioned—17 years of wars, perhaps six million Europeans dead, France bankrupt, her overseas colonies lost. And it was all such a great waste, for when the self-proclaimed tête d'armée was done, France's "losses were permanent" and she "began to slip from her position as the leading power in Europe to second-class status—that was Bonaparte's true legacy."[17]

This is a balanced, comprehensive and well-written if not consistantly brillant article. It passes my review. Especially since I still feel somewhat "dirty" about giving a passing grade to World War II, which is not IMO, as good as this one.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. It's just too long, there isn't much else wrong. I would also note that 5 references for 53kb of text, especially when each is only cited once, is a little bit on the short side. I'd add refs and shorten the text. Staxringold 12:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apple typography

edit

I stumbled across this article while browsing pages about fonts, and was instantly taken with how well it presents the history of an influential typographical design of the past few decades. I was moreover pleased to find that the article has a number of cited sources and credited images. This seems to me to be featured article material. --FOo 03:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment needs a longer lead, though I agree -- it's a great article! Tuf-Kat 05:41, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. A very informative article, but it is not well-formatted, and has a poor structure. As mentionned above, the lead section should be longer, and there are too many micro-headers. I'll see what I can do about that myself, but until then, I object this becoming an FA: Phils 11:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Besides the above points, info on support for OpenType fonts can be put in a para rather than scattering it all over. Points that can be added:

What are the differences between support for opentype that exists in Tiger and in Windows XP? What type of fonts are being used for displaying asian & Complex text languages now? Are there moves to switch to opentype fonts for these? You can find some pointers at the kannada wikipedia (in english). Otherwise, a very good article. pamri 18:04, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this article doesn't seem to be intending to deal with font support in OS X so much as Apple's use and styles of typography. The first is a software technical issue; the second is an artistic and industrial design issue. --FOo 18:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but can the title or lead be reworked to make this clear? My questions on asian language support/OpenType fonts(OTF) were not that far off since my doubts are based on the section on Apple Advanced Typography (AAT) and a bit of googling has cleared some of my doubts. The question is a technical one but answers an artistic design issue, because the choice of fonttype for asian languages (especially indic) play a role in the quality of its rendering (See http://sharma-home.net/people/arun/languages/kannada/ for an example) and it hardly takes a line or two to answer. The section on AAT didn't make it clear what made it different from OTF's and whether it supported features like GPOS/GSUB that OTF provides for Indian languages and if not, how are Gujarathi and Hindi being displayed now. I have taken the liberty to rename the line 'Features exclusive to AAT currently include:', since most of them are available in OTF. See http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/featurelist.htm This fontforge document answered my 2nd doubt. I will try to see, if I can add these myself. pamri 07:04, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
OpenType does not provide very good support for Indic languages when compared against that provided by AAT. All of the slack is taken up by Uniscribe, and this means it cannot be changed by font developers. This is the SIL's primary reason for developing their own Windows/Linux technology called Graphite (Macs are hard to come by in the far-flung areas where the SIL do their work), and is one of the areas where AAT differs substantially from OpenType. I wrote the section on AAT in the Apple typography article, and also the section at the Kannada wikipedia cited above. If anything is not clear to you please let me know and I will do my best to improve upon it. Nicholas 23:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, Nick. It would be good if you can add a bit about Indic support to the AAT section. Pamri • Talk 04:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Man

edit

Featuring the Burning Man festival while it was running would be a nice community gesture. (unsigned by JimD)

  • First of all, featured articles don't work that way. It is much more likly to get on the "In the news" section, if the page is updated for this year. Secondly, I object to this page being featured as it has no references at all. Gentgeen 05:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Has this even been through peer review? Too much insider/fannish writing. No references. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:44, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. It has no references, which are a requirement for a FA. The travelogue-esque nature of several parts of the article is also a problem; it should read like an encyclopedia article, not an advice guide. It should have been peer reviewed before being put here. I also find it lacking in information as to what kinds of events go on there; I've seen numerous new articles about noteworthy artwork, tech, and other curiousities at Burning Man, yet I see none of them mentioned in this article (even that kid in the bubble at this year's event isn't mentioned, and he's been given quite a lot of coverage). Increase the details on what exactly goes on there. -- LGagnon 22:15, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Elton John

edit

I am nominating this article because I think it is representive of Wikipedia's finest work. It has good images, as well as a detailed (but not unnecesarily long) overview of the subject.

  • Object. It's not a bad article, but there are several important obstacles to it becoming a featured article. Some of the images, such as Image:Oct272.jpg and Image:Wik-elton.jpg, have no copyright information, others, such as Image:Ejohn4.jpg and Image:Ejohn2.jpg, are claimed to be fairuse without enough justification. The article also lacks a references section, which is required for a featured article. There are also several smaller stylistic issues. - SimonP 02:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The article still needs work (I'm one of the recent contributors to it). In particular, coverage of Elton's work in the 1980s is very threadbare. Also, I think having 'Film work' and 'Musicals' as separate sections from the main timeline is probably a mistake; it would be better to fold them in, so you can see where The Lion King happened in relation to his other work. Ditto for "That's What Friends Are For" from the 'Personal life' section. Wasted Time R 03:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object
    1. The image Image:Wik-elton.jpg has no source or copyright information.
    2. The image Image:Oct272.jpg has no source or copyright information, and doesn't seem to be linked to anything in the article, so it should be removed.
    3. The image Image:Ejohn3.jpg has no source information. It's impossible to claim "fair use" without providing the source and copyright holder.
    4. The image Image:Ejohn2.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but does not specify the source, and has no fair use rationale.
    5. The image Image:Ejohn4.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but is not particularly important for the article. Any fair use claim is dubious.
    6. The image Image:Elton Tommy.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but has no source information or fair-use rationale.
    7. The image Image:Furnish.jpg has no source or copyright information.
    --Carnildo 07:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - no references, and the issue with the images needs to be addressed. There is no critical comment about him or his music and for someone of his stature, I think that's needed. I also think there are some very minor POV issues. Why, for example single out a relatively inconsequential (my opinion) hit such as "I'm Still Standing" and include it in the lead paragraph where it assumes a distinction that it may or may not be worthy of. I think it's a great song, but it was not a major turning point in his career. I don't think it's practical to discuss each and every album, and I'm glad you haven't, but it's essential to discuss each and every phase of his career comprehensively. The writing style changes dramatically at "1980s and onwards" - the earlier sections are free flowing prose, for the most part well written. In "1980s" there are numerous short unrelated sentences that completely break the flow of the article and create a choppy, incomplete effect, which suggests that section was rushed through in order to finish the article. These are all things that can be fixed though. Rossrs 11:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Until the images are credited (I added the unverified template to Image:Oct272.jpg as per those above), I cannot support the article. Also, the musicals section is almost empty, there are no references, the quotations should be moved to wikiquote with a link, the discography section is empty, and the article needs to be cleaned up. Other than that, it's well done, and has very few redlinks (until the end—perhaps these should be filled in, or removed?). -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 21:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane

edit

Well written, informed article of this transforational city. Mathieumcguire 00:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Modified Newtonian dynamics

edit

This article does a wonderful job of covering all the major points in a in-depth yet accessible way. It also explains the underlying mathametics for the expert. Even for the layman, the topic is described both conceptually and with equations. Every point is addressed in a methodical and analytical manner, a great example being the section Consistence with Observations. In short, it is a great example of what an encyclopedic article should be, both accessible and in-depth, offering something for everyone. There could hardly be a candidate more suited to being a featured article. I nominate Modified Newtonian dynamics. Loom91 07:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tally: The current opposition tally is- 6 Loom91 18:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]



  • Object. No references. Lead secion is a brief mention of the name and author rather than a summary, see this page. 119 08:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to the submitter's request I reconsider, I still object on the lead section. It does not summarize the rather weighty sections 'Consistence with the observations' and 'Discussion and Criticisms' and so is not a complete summary, in my opinion. 119 04:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Your wish is my command. I've added yet another paragraph to the intro, briefly touching on the main points of the two sections mentioned by you. I'm afraid of making it too lengthy. Loom91 17:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Object 1) The lead section is too short to adequately summarize an article of this length. 2) Cite your sources in a References section. 3) The image captions in the first section do not adequately describe the images. 4) The image placement in the first section leaves too much whitespace. 5) The mathematical description in the second section doesn't need to show every algebraic step from the initial equation to the last; show the initial equation, state assumptions (e.g. "We assume that, at this large distance r, a is smaller than a0 and thus..."), then show the solution for the variable that you are reducing to (i.e. "Solving for v, the equation is reduced to..."). 6) There are several places in the prose that need a copyedit for grammar (e.g. "As an effective theory, it describe the dynamics of accelerated object with an equation, without any physical justification." from the beginning of the Discussion and Criticisms section). slambo 16:01, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Has Slambo gone on a vacation or forgotten this page. He has made no changes to his objections since the first day! Loom91 18:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems Slambo has abandoned this discussion. What can be done about this? Loom91 18:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Object, per above: no references. Phoenix2 17:20, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Good enough for me, now that there are references. Images/diagrams seem well placed. Support. Phoenix2 21:12, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


Slambo's objections 1 through 5 addressed(i hope adequately). However my first language is not English and therefore I'm ill equipped to do grmmatical and spelling corrections(6th objection). A little help in this direction from anyone will be highly appreciated. On the two objections raised by Carnildo, the first image is nothing more than line diagrams which can be drawn by anyone and no copyright can be claimed on them anymore than a copyright can be claimed on a drawing of a circle. The objection raised about the second image is a valid one, thus I'm removing the image. Please help me in correcting grammer and change your votes to accept. Thank you. Loom91 18:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly possible to claim copyright on an image such as Image:Newtonianfig3.png. --Carnildo 19:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems CArnildos is the only objection remaining, and I could solve it in 5 minutes but unfortunately I have lost my copy of Microsoft Paint to a virus attack on my XP. If anyone mails me a copy of MS Paint at loom91@yahoo.com then I will upload an alternate image. Alternatively, someone kind can do the image themself and upload it. Thanks.Loom91 07:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The final objection has been addressed! I've replaced Newtonianfig3.png with a public domain drawing by me, DarkMatterHalo.png. That takes care of the lot. Now will you please change your votes to support? Loom91 07:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I have rectified the grammer and spelling errors. I believe that takes care of all existing objections. Anyhing else? Loom91 19:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]



Repaired? How? I don't get what's wrong with the link.Loom91 17:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I get it. Alright, fixed the link well and proper. Loom91 17:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support. I didn't know this theory. I've learned something. Why haven't you put a nice picture of the universe to make it a bit more appealing and allow the administrators to put it on the main page. Vb19:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Object—I'm surprised that it was nominated before a thorough copy-edit: I've made numerous small changes to the opening; the authors should try harder. Tony 13:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please be a little more specific as to exactly which grammatical errors remain, I unfortunately fail to find them. Loom91 17:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I've touched up the intro some more, see embedded comments for rationales. Loom91 17:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited another section. However, please let me know whether you'll be able to address the concerns below; if not, I won't go ahead with the edit. Why isn't that extraordinary photo on the discussion page in the article? It's an ideal article for photos. Tony 02:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not inserting the photo as it does not provide copyright information and is thus not suitable for a Featured Article. If you know that it fits in Wikkipedia policy, please let me know and I'll include it. And thank you for your work in the article. Loom91 18:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The standard applied to (all) other math and physics articles is to have the article start with the words In physics, ..., although in this case, In astronomy, modified Newtonian dynamics is .... Discussions about style and etc. can be carried out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. linas 18:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed! Loom91 17:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Object. My main point is that I believe this theory is not accepted by the community of physicists, not even as an alternative, and this should be noted in the lead section (I'm not a physicist, so I've asked the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics to comment). It's not clear what happens if multiple forces act on a body: should one first add up the forces and then apply the modified second law to find the acceleration, or the other way around; this is the same in Newtonian mechanics, but not in this modification. Some more comments, all from Modified Newtonian dynamics#The change:
    • the difference between   and   is not explained;
    • the formula should say   instead of  ;
    • the sentence below does not seem correct English to me;
    • I don't believe that "the form of µ doesn't change the consequences of the theory", only that it does not change some consequences of the theory (like the rotation curve);
    • "doesn't" should be written "does not";
    • "every day world" should be "everyday world";
    • "a is greater than a0" should be "a is much greater than a0" (and why the font tag in the subscript?).
Having so many questionable aspects in such a short fragment does not bode well. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your first point is addressed. The final sentence in the intro uses almost your exact phrasing. On your second point, it is most certainly not appropriate to explain basic vector notation. The article is long enough already. On your third point, the difference is of spacing, but I'm not familiar with LaTeX. As you know LaTeX, perhaps you can change the formula. The difference is trivial. Your other points are all now addressed. Loom91 18:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support. Of course, the points noted by Jitse should be addressed. About Jitse's first point: Only a handful of scientists advocate MOND as an alternative to dark matter. But this theory is taken seriously by the rest of the scientific community. They take it as a challenge to try to disprove it. See e.g. Joseph Silk's article cited in this article. So, I suggest that the fact that the theory has only a limited number of advocates be mentioned in the introduction. Another point are the links in the references. If possible try to also link to preprints. You need a subscription to APJ to access Silk's article, but this article is also available on the Arxiv preprint server. Count Iblis 21:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Object. I haven't contributed to this article, but I work in the field. The article could one day be good, but there are lots of small scale problems. For example, just to take the introduction, what does "Although Milgrom and others have demonstrated consistently ratifying evidence in favor of MOND, there has been little truly conclusive research" mean? It leaves the reader (and me) 100% confused about the observational status of MOND. How about "(beyond the mitigating influence of the Sun's gravitational field)"? What is "mitigating" about the Sun's field? There are also lots of examples of improperly informal language.
"Overview" section needs rework. The image of the dark matter halo is ugly and needs to be redone.
The mathematical derivation of the predicted rotation curve is too technical for an encyclopedia article, and also is rather laborious.
"Consistence with the observations" is a bit too much editorializing for my tastes, and misrepresents the scientific process as a form of "box checking". A good version of this section would focus on the actual criticisms and responses on the question of MOND, not just rehash a debate on the scientific method (imagine if every article on controversal science had this section.) That would be very interesting and encyclopedic: what were the actual methodological criticisms laid against MOND over its history?
An important fact is only obliquely mentioned: that MOND, as it was first stated, violates the (considered fundamental principle of) Lorentz invariance by postulating a preferred frame of reference. This has been rectified by the TVS paper, very recently, which recasts MOND in terms of a Lagrangian. A classic objection to MOND was that it could not explain the cosmological evidence for dark matter (e.g., spatial flatness); it remains to be seen whether or not the TVS formulation can do it.
In any case, I find the discussion of the impact of TVS on MOND, and the general question of general and special relativistic effects in MOND, to be severly lacking.
My general suggestion here is that this article could be great, but it needs serious work. A problem is that it is rather cluttered and poorly organized. I would suggest future editors start by cutting out lots of stuff, and trying to get a better outline format.
All the best, Sdedeo 02:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The intro has been reworked, all the sentences you objected to removed. Can you be more specific about which points in Overview need to be reworked? It's very difficult for me to edit if you give only vaugue impressions about your objections. I can not see how MOND postulates a 'preffered' frame of reference. Which frame does it prefer? How can you call that simple algebra techinical when articles on physics routinely make use of exotic and little-undertood mathematics such as Hilbert Spaces, Bra-ket notation and that sort of things? That's what I call techinical! About TeVeS, I know little about it. As you said you are working in the field, how about adding what you know to a new section about TeVeS? Also perhaps TeVeS should be treated as a separate matter, since it deviates from MOND in its native form.A good article is born from many people working together, everyone adding to the part they know most about. Please consider taking some time to improve the article. I have edited out the preamble about scientific method and instead placed a link to the original article for reference. Please let me know your thoughts Loom91 18:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Loom. My feeling is that this article is quite a ways from being a featured article candidate, which is why some of my objections are broad.
The algebra demonstrating that MOND gives flat rotation curves is not necessary. You don't have to prove statements in the article; you can just state them, and (hopefully) provide a reference if the statement is in any way contentious. Similarly, in the "mathematics of MOND", you should really not be busting out with the gradient operator. This is just a general tradition in popular science articles: avoid equations unless absolutely necessary; describe results with words and metaphor. It should be possible to describe the essentials of MOND without using the gradient, e.g..
As I've said (and so has SCZenz), one of the major objections to MOND was its conflict with Relativity. Another (connected) objection is the fact that "classic" (i.e., non-TVS) MOND could not make any cosmological predictions. Since cosmological evidence for dark matter has been a major thing since the early 1990s (at least), MOND's failure there is extremely notable, and not covered in the article.
The discussions of MOND vis a vis scientific methods are still pretty contentious. As I've said, you should really source any statements that suggest MOND is criticised because of a conflict with Occam's Razor. AFAIK, astronomers have not really challenged MOND on such broad grounds, but you might be able to find references.
Re: preferred frame stuff. This is part of MOND's conflict with General Relativity I've discussed above. In a nutshell, the local physics inside a freely-falling reference frame should be universal. However, MOND says that some freely falling reference frames (e.g., that of a spaceship free-falling into the Sun) are different from others (e.g., one on the outskirts of the galaxy.) The two experimenters will measure different values of the inertial mass of (e.g.) the electron, according to MOND. You would be able to distinguish the two reference frames, which is a violation of relativity even in the weak field limit.
I hope this helps you improve the article. Unfortunately, I don't think it will make FA status this time around, but perhaps in the future. I'll definitely put it on my list of things to look at later in the year.
All the best, Sdedeo 00:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, as per Sdedeo. In particular, I am concerned with the treatment of the scientific method in the article. And inconsistency with General Relativity is not to be ignored lightly. -- SCZenz 04:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ignored lightly? How? MOND is not a relativistic theory, niether does it claim to be one. That is the ream of TeVeS. Loom91 18:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems quite strange to have a large-scale theory of gravity and motion that's not compatible with GR. We already have one theoretical divide, between QM and GR--we don't need more unless absolutely necessary. But this really comes back to treatment of the scientific method. To say MOND is a phenomenological model that may give quantitatively accurate values for the rotation curves is one thing, but the article's claims are considerably stronger. -- SCZenz 21:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


References are not correctly cited; missing are the volume and page numbers. Authors should be given a first name as well as a last name. Suggest using the WP reference templates to provide a uniformity of style. See Wikipedia:Cite sources for pointers to templates. linas 18:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might even want to organize references according to whether they are historical or popular, etc. See Riemann hypothesis for such an example. linas 19:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The section called "external links" should be merged with the section "references". The external links should be credited with authors and dates as well. The reason for this is that many journal articles are now available on pre-print/reprint servers on the web; and so there is often no real difference between a print reference and a web reference. It also eliminates the bad habit of citing random web links wihtout given an author credit or dating the thing. linas 19:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that you are commenting rather than making a formal objection since you haven't used an Object to begin, but I will try to answer your concerns anyway. First off, page numbers? You are being too strict. The featured article criterias are not that strict! I have mentioned the date in each case, which makes finding the issue trivial, and from there the mentioned article can be tracked from the Index.I'm taking your suggestion and merging "external links" with "references", and the links are credited with authors whenever appropriate. I can't cite an author for a pre-print server! Loom91 17:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral of the Assumption (Louisville)

edit

I think that this is a very complete article with lots of nice photos.--Exir KamalabadiFeel free to criticize me 05:27, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Object – 1) No references 2) Misuse of subheadings. Please increase the length of each subheading or merge with the parent heading. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:33, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - images are a problem as stated above. Perhaps you could ask User:Essjay, who seems to have added most or all of them, to clarify the copyright status of them. If they are indeed fair use, then a fair use rationale should be put on each image description page, and you may consider reducing the number of images used, if this is the case. The use of references is essential, and the article is lacking in these. Lead paragraph needs to be expanded, and the number of small (one paragraph and even one sentence) sections should be condensed into broader headings. At first glance it looks like the subject has been covered with extreme brevity - this is a somewhat misleading impression created by the number of headings and small sections. On the whole it's well written, but these a fairly major issues that need to be addressed. Rossrs 14:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu sahasranama

edit

I am requesting comments on whether Vishnu sahasranama should be a featured article candidate.

Thanks,

Raj2004 19:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object – 1) the references have to be moved to the end of the article. 2) Some sections are too short. 3) If you want comments please go through the Peer review. Will review more thoroughly later. =Nichalp «Talk»= 21:10, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

In-N-Out

edit

I would like to nominate In-N-Out as a featured article. This article is one of the most comprehensive works on this restaurant that I have ever seen. Anything you would like to know about this place has been added to this article. There are plenty of references to prove factuality. The article is stable; there hasn’t been any major revision for a while. This article is surprising well written and is actually compelling to read. Since it is just a burger place it can’t be too controversial of an article. It has been written in appropriate Wikipedia style standards. The article contains a lot of images in appropriate places. Even though the article is comprehensive it is not too long. Topics are divided into different section and stay on topic. SenorAnderson 23:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object, due to the following:
    • "just-in-time" isn't really a business model, its an inventory strategy and it hyperlinks to the wrong article. Maybe it might be better to just say the food is "made-to-order"?
    • "locations's" is grammatically incorrect.
    • "food preparation area (where the tomatoes, onions," is an incomplete sentence.
    • Dedicated "mechanical/electrical rooms" strike me as unusual for small fast-food outlets. Please elaborate.
    • "employee locker rooms" are important to understanding the corporate culture, are these just a set of lockers or are they part of a set of employee facilities. Please elaborate.
    • "concrete tables and benches" sound awfully uncomfortable, are they really concrete or are they just set in a paved area?
    • The "two-box" design could use something visual to aid understanding (either a diagram or a photograph).
    • "larger restaurant site, newer restaurants" - the first noun is singular, the second is plural.
    • "the Snyders" are introduced in Advertising without any mention of who they are.
    • The list for the "secret" menu is a bit overwhelming - maybe you could move it to a new article?
    • Link 666x666 in Trivia to the Number of the Beast (numerology), non-Christians might otherwise be baffled by the reference.
    • Details of store numbers would be appreciated.
    • The History could be a bit more detailed.
    • The menu photograph should be relabelled as being in the public domain.

I'll probably be back to add more comments. From the WikiProject on business, "each article should have a section discussing the company's business model, which intimately tied to how a company is put together and one of the major factors usually shaping a companies history" and "management philosophy, vision, and values is also a major element of coporations and their behaviour which often go under-reported". I think you do a pretty good job of outlining both but any enhancements would be welcome. Good luck with the nomination. Cedars 03:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "the Snyders" are introduced in the history section: In-N-Out's first location was opened in October 1948 by Harry and Esther Snyder Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object
    1. The copyright status of Image:IN-N-OUT BURGER MENU BOARD.JPG needs to be clarified. Is it GFDL as implied by the upload comment, public domain/no rights reserved as implied by the rights summary, or "fair use" as implied by the discussion page?
    2. The "trivia" section should be worked into the prose or removed.
    3. There seems to be too much emphasis on the menu.
    --Carnildo 07:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one's a little overboard. A guy drove up and took a picture of the menu board. In-N-Out may be abe to trademark the menu board, but as a photo of a menu board I don't think there's much claim for copyright of the photo. Now a transcription of the text they may, but not the photo this user took. Besides the template on that image page is wrong. It claims no source information, while the user clearly claims he took the photo. - Taxman Talk 20:05, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
    There are three conflicting statements as to the copyright status of the image. Before the article can be considered to be of featured status, this needs to be straightened out, or the image needs to be removed from the article. I don't see what's "overboard" about that. --Carnildo 21:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with removal, especially since this photo can be easily retaken and properly tagged by any number of people. -- Norvy (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose featured article candidacy. Except for the recent notation, this is one of the most boring articles on Wiki. It looks like someone dumped their Business 101 weekend writing assignment on here. --Noitall 06:48, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry but I must agree..... it's unbelivably, unreadably dull. --PopUpPirate 23:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I concur with all those who say this article is boring to read. I liked it better when it was a stub. :) sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 08:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Tupac Shakur

edit

My reason for nominating this article was because it has a good length to it and regains the quality no matter how long it is. It is supported by quite a few images with captions as well. It will make a good read since people can find out about why he was murdered and how his songs are still going to this day. Thorpe 19:33, 27 August 2005

  • Object. I think it's a good article, but there are some problems with it that will have to be remedied before it is worthy of becoming a featured article. For example, more than half of the lead section is devoted to the origin of the name "Tupac Shakur", whereas the lead really should be a summary of his life and career (a "mini-biography", if you will). The only reference in the article is in relation to conspiracy theories surrounding his death. Also, Image:Pac5.jpg, Image:Tupac-pensive.jpg. Image:Bblogo.jpg and Image:2Pac Makaveli-The Don Killuminati front.jpg are claimed as "fair use", and will need fair use rationale on their image description pages. And the page for Image:Tupac-mugshot.jpg claims that it has been released into the public domain, but on the legal section of the web address featured on the photograph, it says "Certain materials reproduced on this website are believed to be in the public domain." Are you absolutely sure that the image is in the public domain? Extraordinary Machine 21:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks good but it needs references (besides the conspiracy one) and preferably inline citations. Could probably use a copyedit too. Tuf-Kat 23:22, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. An article about a major musician (indeed, any noteworthy musicial artist) should devote a substantial and appropriately proportioned amount of text to a discussion of the artist's music; and for a major musician that discussion should be based on an appropriate set of sources. This article goes nore more than a single step beyond characterizing the music as "hip-hop" and "rap." Monicasdude 17:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, I agree with Monicasdude there is no real discussion of his music, lyrical themes and style etc. The section -his future plans- is poorly named, and the source of this information, and indeed all references used to write this article need to be clearly identified.--nixie 05:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Equivocal objection: Whilst I think the article is, on the whole, of featured article standard, I agree with the points made by Monicasdude and nixie. The article doesn't do his artistic career justice.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Schiavo

edit

The previous nomination can be found here

"Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status." I am re-nominating Schiavo, and the process led me to this archived page, so I will go ahead and use it.

New info (ATTN: Nichalp) re Article Length: I just saved the Terri Schiavo page in *.txt format on my computer: My computer says that it is "69.7 KB (71,438 bytes)." which is accurate. Wikipedia claims says of "Talk" page that: "This page is 119 kilobytes long," so are my computer's numbers are accurate?? My computer says the "Talk" page "117 KB (120,015 bytes)," so my computer is telling the truth about the article page too, I believe. (PS" I saved the talk and article pages in HTML format, but I shall not discuss those figures, as they are not accurate.) So, in conclusion, since I can't pull up the edit dialogue and get "wikipedia's" assessment, we will have to guess that my computer is accurate: Terri Schiavo is larger than 55Kb or 65Kb, yes, but it is not 80Kb; it is more like 70Kb, references and all, FYI. Look at it yourself and see if I've read right, please. Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • New News: Today's FA uses a "Fair Use" image, so apparently Fair Use is OK for Featured Articles
  • NEW News: I have not fully studied all there is on the Fair Use issue, but I have new news on that standard -which I'm refactoring and placing at the top here: The Main Page lists a "Featured Article," Space opera in Scientology doctrine, which uses two images: One is made up with software, but the other, here, is clearly copyrighted and used under "fair use"; Since this is in a "Featured Article," then this feature shows by example that some images can indeed be "Fair Use." While I would like to personally visit Bob and Mary Schindler or email them, if that's not possible, then we can use the images we have, and still be legal --AND "pretty enough" to be a "Featured Article." I consider this concern closed unless someone can show how today's FA and Schiavo are different; However, Carnildo, raised good points in his links: If we use too many fair use images, then other will be limited on what they can copy; however, the few images on Schiavo are not enough to warrant that concern. The only other problems that remain are the length, which is a tad long, by some standards (??), and the edit war, which I expect to end soon, but I do NOT consider that a problem for the article -only for the editors.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE. Since there is ongoing concern of the edit war, please let me point out that I asked my father about it, and, if you want to remain credible in my eyes, I ask you to read this entire page, at least once, and pay special attention to my father’s remarks concerning the edit war. See e.g., below, before the page gets too long to be manageable.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the previous FAC nomination of this article. That FAC nomination has undergone heavy editing since it was archived on September 3, 2005. Lupo 07:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • NEW:Here's Talk:Terri_Schiavo the talk page, and the disagreement is "important," but both sides are close to an agreement, so don't come here if you are too lazy to actually educate yourself on the nuances of the disagreement; The actual disagreement that locked the page centers on one small paragraph: I wish to report both objections that an attorney had, and FuelWagon wants to report only one. He had in the past promised to not complain if I could quote a major player in the Schiavo saga, and said that this was superior to a mere description, accusing me of "original research" for merely reporting on facts; I did as he asked, and sourced (verified) it with links, so what's the holdup? Come and help out; PS: You remember Wagon as one of the six who favoured SUPPORT, as opposed to the eleven who OPPOSED Fac nomination. Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"(If you are resubmitting an article) Use the Move..." Already did, but it still shows this page.

Reason for (re)nominating the article:

There will be initial criticism for renominating the article so soon after it failed, but many have stated to the effect that Terri Schiavo is FA-worthy; and, let me add that the recent "emotional concerns" do not matter for FA-worthiness, because its fitness as a candidate is a state function, that is, the fitness to be a featured article is a property of the Schiavo article that depends only on the current state of the system, not on the way in which the system got to that state. My fellow scientists will understand this logic is more logical than the emotional concerns to wait: We editors (including Mark himself) have fixed ALL the problems that Mark (Raul654, the Fac editor), brought, and most of the problems that other editors mentioned; Only a few concerns remain, such as the length, but George W. Bush is about as long, and Terri Schiavo was arguably comparably as well-known as Bush.

The article is very stable, having only a few edits in recent times; there is, however, a LOCK on the article at the moment, and this hints that there is instability, but the existence of disputes is not a guarantee of instability. In fact, with the lock -and the negotiations going on in talk, the article is very stable.

In fact, a lot of work was done recently to procure images, first-hand, to release under GNU and avoid Fair Use. As well, the references section was created anew and much copyedit was done -with much blood-sweat-and-tears on the part of many editors, who don't always agree on things: For example: FuelWagon, the one who provoked me to ask for page protection does not always agree with me on things, but we both think Schiavo is FA-worthy, and so do some other editors.

To keep things orderly, I will not participate much in this renomination, since I contributed heavily in the past, but I want to set up areas of concern, here, and if the article meets most or all of these, then support it:

Policy Concerns:

  • Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work.
  • Comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-written.
  • Uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy,
  • Comply with the standards set in the style manual,
  • Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status.
  • Have an appropriate length

Mark's concerns, addressed below:

  • TOCright breaks the manual of style, the TOC (with its 37 sections) is quite overwhelming - We fixed that, and Mark scratched that out.
  • the article has no introduction - We fixed that, and he scratched it out too.
  • it has no references section to complement the inline linking -I fixed that almost single-handedly. Come and see.
  • it has a see also section (which should be converted to prose, inserted into the article, and the section deleted) - we did that
  • every image used in the article is fair use - Not any longer.
  • it's 80 kilobytes long -We greatly cut the article down - You happy now?

Since the major problems have been ironed out, it is only logical to renominate, and I regret having waited: My inaction does nothing to honor the collective work of all the editors who have worked on this -and it does not honor the casual reader who wants to see a top-notch article.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. For the reasons above and below. Chiefly, the problems have been ironed out. If a few remain, deal with it: Life isn't perfect: This is a very quality article, representing the very best of Wikipedia and its editors. The few remaining disputes are discussed in Schiavo's talk page. Other than that, it;s good to go. For that reason, I support.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Article is clearly not stable (it currently is even protected due to a recent edit war), and there are many unresolved points on the talk page. Lupo 07:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The page is right now protected. 2) The article stands at 87 kb. That's unacceptable for any FAC, and especially such an over-blown and over-politicized subject. 3) It's been, what? Two weeks since the last nomination? This thing needs at least six months, probably several years to cool down enough. This is not "the best of Wikipedia". It's merely an outlet for the frustrations and non-notable opinions of those closely involved or deeply engaged in the affair. Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of writing and it's very unbecoming an FAC. / Peter Isotalo 08:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, Peter for your concern in comments above and below, but let me assure you that the "frustrations" of the participant, editors, etc., are a reflection on them, not on the article: We are not getting voted on; The article is. Also, since many complaints herein have been addressed or are not a reflection of the article itself (maybe a reflection on the "edit warring editors"), then many of the complaints (except maybe article length) are not actionable or relevant to the vote; Thank you, still, for your feedback, Peter.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a side not to Gordon: please don't use this nomination as yet another forum for intricate Schiavo-discussions. This is not the place for it. Accept votes as they are; if they're inactionable, Raul (and no one else) will decide if they're valid or not. No one with any formal powers will intervene and especially not Jimbo. Peter Isotalo 08:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object.
    1. Article is not stable, as evidenced by a recent revert war and current page protection.
    2. The images Image:TerriSchiavo2.jpg and Image:Schiavo catscan.jpg are claimed as "fair use", but have no fair use rationale. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what's needed, and the image description pages at Sunset Boulevard (film) for a good example.
    3. The image Image:TerriSchiavo2.jpg does not indicate the creator or copyright holder. Without that information, it's not possible to claim fair use.
    4. The image Image:Schiavo.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but the fair use rationale provided is inadequate.
    --Carnildo 08:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - This article is clearly not in a stable state yet. And it is far too soon after the previous nomination to renominate. The size does not worry me unduly, but query whether the legal toing and froing could be moved to a separate sub-article which is summarised here - this article should be about the person, not the legal cases. Also query whether all 79 references are required - in some sections, almost every other phrase has a footnote. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ALoan, where do the rules say there has to be any mandatory waiting period? The rules simply say: "Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status." I did that. Now, I agree with you on article length, but a few dissenters may compel the regular editors to look into that. Lastly, Mark, the Fac editor (Raul654 is Mark) is the one who called for the reference section, and this is policy; Yes, 79 or 80 references is a lot, but we must document, verify, source, and link to verify our claims. It will be OK; The "References" section is at the bottom and won't affect things. Oh, the "stability" issue: Yes, My father addressed that; see below.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • First let me say that I respect the effort that you and others are putting into getting this article featured: in principle, it certainly can and should be featured, but only when it meets the featured article criteria - that is to say, when it is comprehensive, accurate, stable, NPOV, well written, has appropriate images, and is of an appropriate length. Irrespective of its other merits, this article is still unstable (as evidenced by the edit war and page protection) and the only way to show that it is stable is for it to stay in an acceptable form, without significant revisions from day to day, for a substantial period (that is, for at least a few weeks - and no, this is not written down either, but it is what I would expect). I will reconsider my objection when the article is stable. Now, regarding your question, "the rules" also do not state that there has to be a waiting period between FAC nominations. It is, however, the usual practice to wait for a sensible period after a FAC fails before renominating (otherwise, as we are seeing here, everyone's time is wasted with the similar objections coming up all over again). And when an article is unstable, like this one, the waiting period is likely to be longer: the only way to demonstrate stability is to wait. It certainly takes more than one week after an unstable article fails FAC for the article be demonstrably stable. (Sorry, I don't see how your father's reported comments address the stability issue: you say "I told him about the dispute on the talk page, and asked him if an article could still be of good quality -even if its recent editors had questionable quality -as shown by disputed. He said that he didn't see why not." - I don't see how that contributes significantly to the issue of stability). Finally, this is a consensus process: you need to convince everyone with an actionable objection that this article meets the featured article criteria. It is really not necessary to write screeds of justification and rebuttal to do that. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm sorry Gordon, I warned you that you should have waited a while. This article is extremely unstable, with a recent page protection to boot! Borisblue 12:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Do not re-nominate unstable articles so quickly. Phils 13:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Agree fully with Peter. Renominating just because you feel it should be featured is inappropriate. There was consensus on the FAC talk page against it, so even if some people though you should nominate it, you should have been able to see this coming. Multiple objections have been levied for it being too long. Please use Wikipedia:Summary style to trim the article down without losing information. Yes it is possible, but no one said it was easy. Prioritize properly what information really needs to be included to give a proper overview. And no, that won't likely be possible to do and reach stability in a few days. - Taxman Talk 15:16, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Object. Too quick a renomination, edit warring, too big, etc. And I'm confused how you justify the size by saying that Terri Schiavo was "arguably comparably as well-known as Bush". Bush is the leader of the free world; Schiavo was a news story for perhaps a few months. Ral315 15:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ral315 My father addresses the stability issue below, and I address the "waiting period" issue in the answer to ALoan, above. "Bush is the leader of the free world; Schiavo was a news story for perhaps a few months." Terri Schiavo will remain a story for the rest of American History; She will be remembered along with Dred Scot, Abraham Lincoln, and others, but her article is longer for now because she, like George W. Bush are "current" news.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bush doesn't need or deserve such a large article either, regardless of being "the leader of the free world" (a statement which in itself is subject to debate, though this is the wrong place). Object for many of the above given reasons. Fredrik | talk 17:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak oppose, for reasons of instability stated above; the article itself is fair enough I suppose; but just because (even if) antagonists agree on a version, it does not follow that it is FA-worthy. Especially if both factions are (for different reasons) obsessed with the subject. Also, some annoying excess-linkage (stuffed animal (!), fax, dove, high school, iced tea..... I mean, seriously, what good is a link to testimony or April in this article?) dab (ᛏ) 20:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conclusion.
    • Since the article was highly-praised by people on both sides of the issue who normally don't agree --even back in the peer reviews, and since the article has dramatically improved since then, it is more ready. The edit warring will quit ...if there is stability brought on by a Featured Article status. If the article was (almost) ready for FA-status in the peer reviews, and if it has had improvements since then -on several successive occasions -then how can it get less ready? I think it is nothing more than pack mentality. Are we not smarter than that?--GordonWattsDotCom 19:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • With all due respect, you seem to have this very backwards. We don't promote articles to featured status in the hopes they will become stable; we promote stable articles to featured status *because* they are, among other things, stable. →Raul654 19:22, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • It goes both ways: The article is deserving because it was almost ready in the past 2 peer reviews, and has improved much since. However, nomination also affects stability -in the same way stability affects quality of nomination. ~~ It works both ways -not one, not another, but both. However, if there is "Pack Mentality," no matter how ready the article is for Feature --the Featured Editors are not ready for the article. Pack Mentality, where one person follows another without a full examination of the logic.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You seem to be having a really hard time understanding how this FAC process of gaining consensus works. We'll all give you some leeway because it is your first time, but come on now, you're not even trying to listen to what people have to say. With well over a year of sustained FAC participation, I can guarantee you this article will not be promoted if you keep up what you're doing. People have repeatedly told you the article needs to be trimmed down. Continuing to ignore that isn't going to help. Please, step away, and stop with the polemics. - Taxman Talk 20:31, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
            • I am flexible on the length issue, but many editors with 'expertise on editing this article think it should be this long; Who are you or I to disagree? PS: On the "concensus" thing, Taxman, I think you misunderstand what happened in the past three (3) reviews -the two peer reviews and the last FA-review. There were more positive comments than you imply, and you should ask yourself "why" if the article is that bad: And, it has improved, with the only "major" concern being the recent edit war, but I address that below, when I discuss what my father had to say about it, so I won't repeat it here. I've addressed all concerns, and any more opposition -even if it from many voters -is "emotional," not logical; see below for my answers on the lingering concerns.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The article is currently protected from editing due to edit warring, is listed at WP:RFC, and thus does not meet the stability criteria that is required for featured articles. There also seem to be ongoing debates about the article's content on its talk page. Extraordinary Machine 20:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object since me and Carnildo's objections were never resolved last time around. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Object - Edit war, stability, and length. You mention that George Bush's article is also really long, but you might also note that George Bush's article is not featured, either. Fieari 21:26, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • First, I want to agree that a few things could be removed from the article, stuff like Terri's cat, for example. With that said, I will take an opportunity to tell you the feedback I received from my father, when I asked him about this.
    • What my father said, when I asked him about the edit war:
    • My father is not a "computer-type," but a common working man, but I called him up today and asked him about the edit war situation, the only thing that is a major concern (except now I think maybe a little fat can be cut from the article, but it still is quality). I told my father, born in 1935, who runs his own auto part sales business, the situation about the nomination and the edit war. (Pop used to be personal friends with "Big Daddy" Don Garlits, as both were in drag racing about 30 years ago, here in the Tampa Bay area, not that this affects his wisdom or anything.) Anyhow, I told him that a featured article represents the very best of our collective contributions.
    • I told him about the dispute on the talk page, and asked him if an article could still be of good quality -even if its recent editors had questionable quality -as shown by disputed. He said that he didn't see why not.
    • My opinion is that the edit war is possibly a reflection on the editor -however, this is not a popularity contest of the editor -but one of the page itself.
    • If you don't believe me, contact me, and I will put you in touch with my father.
    • Since the page was in the past considered by many for FA, and since the current status is much-improved (with no regard to the editors themselves in any edit war), then the transitive property reigns: If the past versions of Schiavo were good enough to be considered for FA; and, if the current versions are better, then the current versions are definitely better then the previous standards -which they passed well enough to get many positive rave reviews -in both peer reviews (see quotes, this page) -and the past FA-nomination (see archives, which show it was a closer vote than you and your fellow editors would imply here).
    • CONCLUSION: If the reader, you that is, don't at least read this entire page (it's not that long), then you are disrespecting the past three sets of editors, myself, and my father. Do you want to do that? I am not asking you vote "for" me (although that is my formal nomination request); I am, rather, asking you to either read the page and vote accordingly, or, instead, if you STILL have complaints, come and help out. Either help out -or don't complain -but you have no moral justification to speak unless you can certify that you have at least read this one small page here.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Object - The reasons given above by others are overwhelming and do not need repeating. The nominator has crossed the line into "abuse of the system" long, long ago. - Bantman 21:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • The article was considered for FA in the 1st two reviews, and it has improved since then. Did you even read the page, or are you just following the crowd? PS: Read the comments (above) from my father on the issue -and he is not a "computer person," by the way, but a common man.
    • Regarding abuse, let me point out that the FA candidacy is not a review on the nominator -or editor -or edit wars -it is a nomination of the article. If the article was seriously considered for FA twice in peer reviews, and almost passed the third time (the "vote" was close, if you actually counted them), then I am inclined to believe the abuse is on the part of people who seem to say that the editors in the past peer reviews were wrong or stupid to suggest a FA nomination. If I were the only one who shared the feeling that the Terri article was FA material, I'd be inclined to believe you might be right, but since the past three reviews (the two peer reviews and the recent FA review) had many positive comments, and since it has improved since then, I say you are abusing the process: Your "no" vote implies the past three (3) sets of reviewers were stupid abusers of the process by voting positively: No respectful at all. Your only valid concern is the recent edit war, and I address that above -and share insight that I got from asking my father about this. I hope you would respect him enough to at least look it over.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We understand that you are nominating the article; however, the featured article criteria state that a features article should be "mostly static, and not change rapidly from day to day" and be "uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars". The Terri Schiavo article meets neither of these requirements. Also, since you have reverted Wikipedia:Featured article candidates more than three times in 24 hours, I have reported you at WP:3RR. Extraordinary Machine 03:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Correction: my apologies, you have not violated the 3RR, but I advise you not to pursue featured article status for Terri Schiavo for at least some time after this nomination fails. Extraordinary Machine 03:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem, Extraordinary Machine , regarding the 3RR mistake: We all slip up; and, yes, there is a current edit war, but that is one (singular), not edit wars, plural. It was mostly static, as Mark said in the recent FA-nomination (see archive link at very top), and now it is very static, and when the page unlocks, it will probably be fairly static, based on the edit history of the last months. ""uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy" It is not an uncontroversial topic, but all sides usually agree that it is NPOV (with an exception on this recent edit war on a small section). "...after this nomination fails." Huh? You are assuming it will fail. While it looks bad, I have met the technical requirements, "Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status," so I don't see the problem. The problem is perceived, not real.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support I don't know where these accusations of instability are coming from. What's the objective measurement of stability? It's a good article and is a better written and more complete summary of this very important case than you will find anywhere on the Internet. I have nothing against Sun Yat-Sen or the History of Alaska but the material in those articles organized in a useful way is duplicated all over the net. The Terri Schiavo article on the other hand is a unique demonstration of how the competitive editing process of the Wikipedia can produce timely, comprehensive, and good enough quality. patsw 04:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Stability" means that the article does not constantly change dramatically, as, e.g. in an edit war. Borisblue 05:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object – Currently protected from editing (thus not suitable for FA at this juncture), and definately needs a summary as the article takes up 54kb (excluding refs, ext links etc.) =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:15, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Questions 1 & 2. (1)How do you see the size in Kb? (I used to know how but can't do it now-days, but even then, my "saved" copy was a different size than the Wikipedia servers said, lol.) (2)Also, where's the policy on article size that sets an upper limit? (If I get a chance, Wagon and I will maybe try to trim it down, but it's harmelss and complete as it, I think.)--GordonWattsDotCom 05:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS: Yes, it's long, Nichalp, but, as I've said before, current events (Bush, Schiavo, etc.) are going to be longer than ancient ones (Lincoln, Washington, etc.).--GordonWattsDotCom 05:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • When you click edit, if the article is above 32 kilobytes, above the edit window you'll get a message saying "This page is X kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." 32 kilobytes used to be considered the approximate ceiling for how large our articles should go. Nowadays, with references and whatnot, we accept that around 45 or 55 kilobytes is a more reasonable ceiling. However, bigger than that is generally unacceptable. →Raul654 05:24, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Mark. I thought it was automatic, but since the page is locked, I can't get that function; ALSO, Nichalp, regarding the edit war, I address that above, hopefully to your satisfaction.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Brilliant Flash: Mark just now said that 55 Kb was alright for a total size, Nichalp, and the references can't push the total up that much more, and are very essential to document, source, verify, and such make it legit. So, I see no problems with the article length, but I admit I do not know it all, and should hope to see if any fluff exists, fat that can be cut off.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's incorrect. I removed the references, see alsos, notes, interwikis and the infobox and then previewed. Without all this the article content comes to 54kb, otherwise it touches 80kb. don't compare the article to GWB, that article is not a Featured one. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:38, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
          • I acknowledged your removal of the references in my comment above and was about to clarify that the addition of them might push the total up above the 55 Kb (but I had an edit conflict and could not clirify) but still the article is close enough for me; nonetheless, I admit I don't know all there is about the details, and have an open mind that maybe some extra fluff can be removed.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Nichalp re length: What happens if the article is featured as is? Do readers howl at the length if/when they click on it? I think they would simply ignore something if it were too long, and since the extra Kilobytes are merely boxes, notes, etc., then I don't think it would detract from the "look and feel" of the article; forget "legal" arguments: I "feel" that I am right, and I surf the web all the time, and apparently others feel this way: Many long pages exist, and one day will be featured articles, so this standard of 80-90 Kb is, IMHO, not too long, lol.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • [paste after edit conflict] Yes, it may be a current (ok recent past) event, and I don't deny that contemporary figures will have a lot of material about them, but that does not justify the need for having such a long article. You would need to add the detail to dedicated articles link you've done in the case of " Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case". You need to summarise the text here. Newspapers and magazines summarise all the time, so it isn't too difficult to get a summary here. Also if you want to check the size of the page offline, save the material as .txt and see the file size. Your ultimate aim is to get it featured, but why don't you wait for a few more weeks till things cool over? As the history of FAC goes, articles which are submitted immediately after being failed have a lesser chance promotion than those which have been nominated after a sufficient period of time. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:49, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • In that case WW2 would have a massive entry. Wikipedia:Summary style will address your queries. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:51, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • "but that does not justify" does it not? Maybe - maybe not - "would need to add the detail to dedicated articles link" Hold on a second: You're saying one article is too long and the linked one is too short? So, why can't you just shift a little material and make it ALL good. Hmm... Interesting! "need to summarise the text here" We did. It is the intro. We all worked on that -well many of us here did. "if you want to check the size of the page offline," Thx! However, it gave me different measurements when I saved it -maybe I used HTML instead of Text formats. May check later to see if my version's the same size as what Wiki-servers say... " but why don't you wait" Why should I? Since fitness is a state function, the burden of proof is on those who oppose moving forward, and especially since "Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status." "As the history of FAC goes..." Thx for your analysis, but might does not make right, nor do two wrongs (in past nomination history) make right. Right is right regardless of the "history." The article is what is being judged, not it's history, not the editors, not the edit wars: The article is fine whether or not there exists an edit war on some small (but important) point. We are judging the article, not the article's editors, lol. I know this page is growing faster than inflation, but you did read it all, Nichalp, right? I did! (As nominator, I hope I have upheld my responsibility to be responsive to ALL concerns; have I?)--GordonWattsDotCom 06:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still object - both for the fact that it's apparantly unstable (as proven by the fact that is has been protected) and for the problems with the images pointed out above. And of a wild tangent, what does the submitters father has to do with this??? WegianWarrior 06:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "And of a wild tangent, what does the submitters father has to do with this???" Two things: 1) His analysis makes sense: The fitness of the article is what is being assessed, not the fitness of the editors, and the editor arguments do not necessarily affect the article (because the "lock" will soon be over, I am sure) -and 2) Since many people have morals, I thought they would respect my father's opinion and increase the depth of understanding.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So.. basicly you're asking us to support because your father says so? Uhm.. no, I don't think so. I'll support or object based on the article as it stands at the time I cast (or change) my vote. WegianWarrior 06:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "So.. basicly you're asking us to support because your father says so?" Read what I wrote: I did not say my father said to support it; I said that he suggested that it could still be a good article -even if there existed arguments on the talk page; Furthermore, I don't ask you to do as my father suggest because he says sol I would ask that you look at his ideas that I shared and see if they make sense, but read them, which maybe you haven't? Thx for your interest.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object due to instability. A protected article can't become featured because it is profoundly unwiki -- page protection goes against the core principles of the Wikipedia project, and we can't be featuring articles that are the antithesis of the wiki spirit. In addition, I find the lead highly unsatisfactory because it doesn't state why this issue became such a high-profile event (i.e. the very reason it has an article at all). And I agree that the nominator's father's opinion on an article he appears to have not read is pretty irrelevant. If he thinks it's a worthy FA, he should become a Wikipedian and support on this page. Tuf-Kat 06:27, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
To be fair, Gordon's father's opinion wasn't on the article's FAC, but on the idea that edit war-ravaged articles shouldn't be featured. Borisblue 06:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"And I agree that the nominator's father's opinion on an article he appears to have not read is pretty irrelevant." Let me repeat it, since you may not have understood my comments above: My father did not comment on the article itself (he has not read it) -contra he commented that there is no problem in featuring an article (in general) if it's of good quality -whether or not there is an "edit war" among the editors; My father is just another person; However, if his idea has merit, I would hope you consider: Who is being judged: The editors -or the article? The name of this page is not "Featured editor candidates" -it is "Featured article candidates" --and the article is fine -very complete and refined in fact -even if we editors get crazy at times.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You have to realise, though that some articles attract more 'crazy' editors than others. And the fact is, if there is frequent warring, this page will have to be protected, have NPOV notices, etc. all of which would affect the article and look bad for Wikipedia. Stability is set in stone as a FA criteria. To get this article featured, you have to resolve that dispute with fuelwagon and get that page protection lifted, and then let the article go for two or three weeks without an edit war. Patience. Borisblue 06:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Stability is set in stone as a FA criteria"Wiki is, by the very definition, unstable, but for a very controversial topic, Schiavo has been surprisingly stable; Edit wars are normal for ALL pages -that does not affect the page -it affects the editors. The page is invariablely protected for a few days and then opened back up, and this will be the case here, barring disaster, so it is certainly stable enough for FA.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: At least two people (TUF-KAT and Wegian Warrior) have misquoted or misrepresented what I wrote about my father in this talk page, and a third person Bantman was kind enough to admit that he didn't study the what I quoted in regards to the history of the nominations entirely before voting; Since I am not going to get mad at you for disrespecting my father, I would hope you also don't get mad at me for criticizing you for not fully understanding and/or studying the fact.

My point here is not to offend a person by mentioning their name and saying they are a bad person; We all make mistakes and/or get too busy to fully read a page; Contra, my purpose in making this comment here is to point out that people have not studied the basic facts and arguments herein, and thus sometimes make uninformed decisions.

My conclusion is simple: Please just take a little time to read and study the facts; I am trying to study the materials that Carnildo asked me to research --before I comment further, and I would hope my global neighbors would do the same for me here -regardless of how you feel or vote --if you don't mind. Thank you for your concerns.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misqouted or misrepresented? No, I'm confused what he has to do with this at all. Most wikipedians are sensible enought to realise that what they vote for (or against) is the article itself, not the editors or the edit history of the article. Please don't assume stuff because you gotten emotinaly involved. If the article stabilises, and if the issue with the images is cleared up (which should be easy enought), I'll reconsider my vote. If not.. well, then I won't cahnge it. WegianWarrior 07:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't pretend to know it all about copyright, but if the images were so bad, why have they remained to this day? Also, you did misrepresent what I wrote, but it's no big deal; if you re-read our dialogue, you'll see the nuances, but as to my question on the images... Hmm...? Emotionally involved? Does that invalidate the quality of the page, which has improved since in each sucessive review?--GordonWattsDotCom 07:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The images are not bad, they just need - as pointed out - better rationale for their use. Which is why, incidentaly, I pointed out it should be easy enought to fix.
Your involment don't invalidate the page - but it might make you, how to put it, liable to read things into comments other didn't intent.
As far as the misrepresentation go... see my previous point. Misunderstood, perhaps, and I still can't even see why you thought it nececarry to bring up. Again, most wikipedians are sensible enought to realise that what they vote for (or against) is the article itself, not the guys who wrote it. WegianWarrior 07:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your points are good; I admit I don't know the fullness of the image use issue, but getting GNU FDL images is easier said than done (harder done than said) -and should only be done if actually needed. I wonder if it is really needed, but if "justification" is all that is needed, you might be able to help fix that -ZScout370 is working on that as well. What do you think should be done? If you can suggest a proposed solution, I investigate doing it.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The very simple explonation is that you need to explain in full on the image-page why you feel that the use of the image in the article is fair use - the links Carnildo gave explains it pretty well. There is even a template sort of thingy at Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale. WegianWarrior 07:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WW, I just looked at all seven images: Four I took myself and released under GNU; The other three have good explanations, two of which were done just now by ZScout270, and the other with a good rationale relating to ist release: Here, you can see for yourself: Terri Schiavo. --GordonWattsDotCom 07:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked over the three 'non-free' images, and noted the following:
  • Image:TerriSchiavo2.jpg Still needs a rationale why it's important to have in the article (just noteing that others have used it isn't explaining why wikipedia uses it)
  • Image:Schiavo.jpg Should include _why_ it's important to the article (should be very easy to fix)
  • Image:Schiavo catscan.jpg Ditto - why is it important to the article to have it (well, I realise why, but it ought to be written at the imagepage) in the article?
Off course, it could be that my ISP has cached the page and won't show me the latest version properly. At least you seem to understand my concerns over the images and are working to adress them. Now if only something could be done to the issue of (apperant lack of) stability, we might be home and dry. WegianWarrior 08:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I most certainly did not misunderstand anything. You are apparently under the impression that anybody should care about your father's opinion -- I'm sure he's a wonderful and very intelligent man and all that, but I have no reason to suspect he knows anything about Wikipedia, encyclopedias, edit warring, featured-article-status or anything else relevant to the subject at hand. Your father thinks a disputed article can be featured... So your father's opinions overrides the opinions of Wikipedians who have spent a lot of time thinking about what the qualities of a great article are? We should all just drop our objections because some dude's dad thinks so? Guess what? I asked my friend, Jeff, and my other friend, Mark, and they both figured an article of disputed neutrality should not be considered "featured". On the other hand, my third friend, Tim, thought it was the stupidest question he ever heard (OTOH, he thinks Wikipedia itself is a stupid idea), and his dog responded by looking at me hungrily. So, do Mark and Jeff beat your dad, or are we to assume that your father's opinions are better-informed than theirs? Of course, if your dad, Mark, Jeff, Tim or Tim's dog were to write out their reasoning somewhere we could see it, such as for example, on a freely-editable page like this one, we could judge for ourselves instead of trusting you and I to adequately inform each other about our respective friends and family's ability to form rational conclusions on this subject. Tuf-Kat 07:43, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
The short answer (I'll stick to that) is that my father did not opine on the article itself -merely the concept of what can and can not be featured -but, yes, I'll agree he knows less about it than you or I --OTOH, let me point out that, since you ask for one: "to write out their reasoning somewhere we could see it, such as for example, on a freely-editable page like this one," let me point out that his opinion is so close to mine that my "reasoning" should represent his as well; Yes, he did say this, but I will write it out -again, my my: The edit war reflects on the editors who are at fault (as yet to be officially determined by a vote or admin analysis), but the article will only be locked for a little bit in all likelihood, and the "wiki" open nature of it will probably be little affected, and the article's fitness is like height or temperature: It is what it is -a state function -the daily tempers of the editors little affects the article, for few sustentative edits happen in relation to the article -it changes little over time: It is stable. Nominate. Vote to Support. Chill.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, your position is that the article is disputed but that this dispute will not amount to any substantive changes. I don't find that at all convincing, and I note that the article's lead still does not adequately explain why Schiavo is important. Tuf-Kat 08:30, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
"If I understand correctly, your position is that the article is disputed but that this dispute will not amount to any substantive changes." Correct. "I don't find that at all convincing," Time will tell, and probably find me correct. "and I note that the article's lead still does not adequately explain why Schiavo is important." OK, I agree it could use more clarification, but let me tell you why she was an important news item: A woman who had speech troubles might have been able to feel pain but was dehydrated slowly (which has happened to other people, falsely diagnosed as PVS, and who reported MUCH PAIN) -and that the average citizen said to himself - herself "Hmm... what if I can't speak; "Will they do this to me?" LET ME TRANSLATE: It scared the hell out of a lot of people! That's why it was news, he heh. Clarification: I'm not saying that Terri was PVS -I'm not rearguing the case; I'm instead saying that she may have been able to feel pain, and nobody knows because they refused to let her have communication or blink therapy.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak objection: there are at least a dozen spots in the article which need clarification. i listed them in Talk:Terri Schiavo a few days ago. i think eventually, the article can meet my standards of quality writing. Kingturtle 09:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CF-101 Voodoo

edit

This is a self-nomination (my first). I think this article is a valuable addition to the store of information about the post-Second World War history of the Canadian Air Force. Comments and suggestions for further improvement would be most welcome.

  • Comment--I'd love to support, but all the images are under crown copyright, which doesn't allow commercial use and is therefore incompatible with the GFDL. If the planes themselves were run jointly with the U.S. govt., as per the article, would it be possible to get some public domain photos? Or perhaps an enterprising Wikipedian could get a photo of one of them in a museum? Meelar (talk) 21:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
If you take a look at the F-101 page you will see that all the images are CF-101s. The USAF hasn't been very forth coming releasing more then a handful of their older photos in high quality, and IMO, a featured article deserves more then a static photo from a museum. In particular when dealing with UK and Canadian military subjects finding a free photo will be kind of hard since they do no release into the Public Domain like the US Government does. Overall the article looks good I am going to read it over, a check it against Jane's for basic details tonight. PPGMD 19:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the lead would not be complete without briefly mentioning the information in "Squadron operations" and whether they saw combat. 119 19:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an adjustment to the lead, and to the squadron operations section that should address this. --Voodude 13:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albion (Gundam)

edit

This is an article that I have been working on for quite some time now, and I think it has a good chance of becoming featured. This article deals with the Pegasus-Class Assault Carrier Albion, which was the main ship in the anime series Mobile Suit Gundam 0083: Stardust Memory. I do ask one favor though: have some patients if I don't get back to your comments and suggestions as quickly as I should. Collage work is demanding, and school of nessesity must come before Wikipedia. This is definatly a self nomination. TomStar81 05:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object
    1. The image Image:Albion subclass MS carrier.jpg has no source information, and there is no evidence of how the quoted FAQ applies to the image.
    2. The image Image:EFSF2.PNG has no source information, and is listed on WP:PUI.
    3. The images Image:Albion at Torrington.jpg, Image:Albion and MS.jpg do not indicate the creator/copyright holder or source of the image, and do not have a fair use rationale. Further, these images don't add significantly to the article, and aren't under a free license, so I'd suggest simply removing them entirely.
    4. The article has far too much coverage of "Albion as a ship in Gundam" and no coverage of "Albion as a fictional starship".
  • Honestly, unless there's a lot more to say about this article than I expect, I'd suggest condensing the "ship history" section down to a paragraph or two and look for another article to merge it into. --Carnildo 06:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1.The image Image:Albion subclass MS carrier.jpg has no source information, and there is no evidence of how the quoted FAQ applies to the image.
Could I pester you to get a little bit more specific with this part of your objection? Rather basically speaking, the source is the website mahq.com, and they allow anyone use of their images for any reason. If you want specifics, I could add that its use is for illistrative purposes. Would that work?
2.The image Image:EFSF2.PNG has no source information, and is listed on WP:PUI.
Actually, if you look back you will see that this picture was deleted once before only to be resurrected by User:Name under a new name. If User:Name would bother adding a website for us we could get around this particular fiasco, but at the moment I cannot give and adequete defense if this pic. If User:Name fails to put a website source for the photo then by this time tommarrow I will remove it from the article.
3.The images Image:Albion at Torrington.jpg, Image:Albion and MS.jpg do not indicate the creator/copyright holder or source of the image, and do not have a fair use rationale. Further, these images don't add significantly to the article, and aren't under a free license, so I'd suggest simply removing them entirely.
From Wikipedia: What is a Featured Article?: It should have images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status... Given this, I think the images are apropraite. The first image illistrates the size of Albion in realtion to other buildings and vehicals, and also gives a nice ariel view of what a Pegasus-Class Assault Carrier looks like. The second picture demonstrates the type and size of the mobile suits Albion carries. Since the article deals with a fictional ship in an anime series the fact that the images are all fair use is something you're just going to have to accept, unless of course you want to spend two weeks with me hand drawing the pictures so we can put a PD liscence on them :)
4.The article has far too much coverage of "Albion as a ship in Gundam" and no coverage of "Albion as a fictional starship".
Albion is a ship in Gundam. The Gundam universe is centered around the Mobile Suits, which is why this article stands out. Trying to remove Albion from the Gundam Universe would be like trying to remove Enterprise from Star Trek: the underlining message would be "good luck with that".
5....unless there's a lot more to say about this article than I expect, I'd suggest condensing the "ship history" section down to a paragraph or two and look for another article to merge it into.
I and to other users had this discussion before over the United States battleship Missouri. The page deals with one ship from a class of ships, so anyone coming to this page ought to be interrested in the ships history and its lifespan. Merging the article would only ensure that the ship and it details get lost in the site. TomStar81 21:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to Image:Albion subclass MS carrier.jpg, I assume that it is not an image they made themselves. Therefore it is either a scan or a screenshot, and thus there needs to be an indication of what it is a scan or screenshot from. If it is from a copyrighted work, it also needs a "fair use" rationale.
Image:Albion at Torrington.jpg doesn't do a good job of indicating scale; the size information in the infobox does a better job. And Image:Albion and MS.jpg doesn't really show much of anything -- it's too dark, too small, and not from a good angle. Since Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, "fair use" and other non-free images should only be used if nothing else will work, and in this case, the infobox is sufficient.
Yes, Albion is a ship in Gundam. But the article is written from the point of view of an author living in the Gundam universe, not from the point of view of an author here on Earth. For an article in Wikipedia, that needs to be changed. And once you stop writing from within the Gundam universe, a lot of the information in the "ship history" section becomes a lot less important. --Carnildo 00:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't writting from the point of an author in the Gundam universe be an advantage? As it stands at least three other universal century pages — White Base, Grey Phantom, and Ra Cailum — are written in this manner, and I do believe that the Archangel class MS Carriers from the alternative Cosmic Era are also written as such. I'm sorry, but I still fail to see how this style of writting subtracts from the overall quality. From my POV this is no different than detailing a real ship's history. TomStar81 01:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It might be an advantage for a Gundam-centered encyclopedia. This is a general-knowlege encyclopedia. Compare our article on USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) with that of Memory Alpha: MemoryAlpha:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701). --Carnildo 06:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object a) fails to cover influence in real world: how many models etc. sold? b) comments in footnotes should rather be part of respective articles (e.g. courts martial) use HTML comments if aiming at editors,\. c) history should focus on ship d) history should be more condensed anyway e) fails to cite sources enough; not clear which would cover whichf) fails to mention artistic history; what similar previous ships have existed in past other stories. g) the last picture is too dark, using only about 1/5 to 1/4 of the JPEG dynamic range. h) language like "both were sunk" means "both were destroyed" I understand. Convert to standard usage rather than one which from Gundam. Mozzerati 18:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1. fails to cover influence in real world: how many models etc. sold?
I have yet to find model information for this ship. I know that models of the ship have been sold because I can find a limited number of people who have bought and constructed them, but there really isn't a public figure that reports on this.
2. comments in footnotes should rather be part of respective articles
Accoriding to Wikipedia: What is a Feature Article? such an article should be well written and comprehensive. Adding information about the Republic of Zeon and the Earth Federation into the article would subtract from the article by deviating from Albion, which is why the first two notes are at the bottom. The note about the court martial is their because I hope that people will read it before they incorrectly correct the word to say "court martials" instead of "courts martial".
3. history should focus on ship
I belive that it is focused on the ship, so you are going to have to explain what mean on this one.
4. history should be more condensed anyway
Compared to other articles the history is condensed. This is one ship, and its history is long enough to cover all the important points and short enough to hold an attention span.
5. fails to cite sources enough; not clear which would cover which
By its very nature the ships history is taken from the primary source Mobile Suit Gundam 0083: Stardust Memory. Most books and websites only give overviews of the story, not of the ship. Its not that I don't want to add more sources, its just that finding a needle in a mountain of needles is difficult.
6. fails to mention artistic history; what similar previous ships have existed in past other stories
I'm not sure what you mean by articstic history, but Albion is the 7th Pegasus-Class Assault Carrier, so if you're looking for information regarding the previous ships of the class I suggest checking out Pegasus page, which was created with just exactly this situation in mind.
7. the last picture is too dark, using only about 1/5 to 1/4 of the JPEG dynamic range
The picture is set in space, and space is dark; Screenshots such as this tend to be reduce portions of the original work. The size and color of the picture are beyond my abilty to fix, which is limited to inserting and removing them from the text.
8. language like "both were sunk" means "both were destroyed" I understand. Convert to standard usage rather than one which from Gundam.
That I can do, but I can't garantee that either of us will like the result. TomStar81 21:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sigh. Please don't nominate animecruft like this. It's of very little value except to diehard fans. While I'll probably get the usual protests from every other anime fans and their dog who claim that "all article are equal", this one simply isn't. It's not useful as information about either anime or the series itself. Please concentrate on FAC:ing higher level articles (Gundam) instead of minutiae. Try to rise just a little bit above your own interests and think "how does this help others to better understand my interests". In this case, it simply doesn't unless you're already a pretty devout Gundam or action anime fan. / Peter Isotalo 06:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This comment reads like an objection (it is hardly supportive). As such, nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of this objection. It can therefore be ignored. The precedent is that subject matter is never a valid reason to reject an article from Featured status. What makes a subject interesting or boring is in the eye of the beholder. If an article has the rigor to be Featured, that alone makes it of sufficient interest. --Susurrus 11:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Err, it's not an objection because there is nothing in the criteria that dictates that common sense should be used when nominatin for FAC. This, just like spoo, is not common sense. And please note that it's not due to hatred for all things sci-fi or anime or comletely subjective epithets like "boring" or "interesting", but because it's of virtually no use to people who aren't already die-hard fans. If I want to inform people about Danish, I do it by first FAC:ing the actual main article or maybe something like Danish phonology, not by starting a sub-sub-sub-article on the subject of Schwa-assimilation in Standard Copenhagen Danish and trying to push that as "the best of Wikipedia". It's correct if you only consider policy, but that's about it.
Peter Isotalo 16:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense is also in the eye of the beholder. Who cares whether the information is of "use" to anybody? Ninety percent of the information in this encyclopedia is useless and it can still get featured. If he can develop an article about Albion with enough rigour to get it featured, that's fine. If you can write about schwa-assimilation to Featured quality, that's fine. It matters how good the article actually is and not what it's about. As far as I'm concerned that is common sense. --Susurrus 12:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. It's a long way from an encyclopedia article; it's just a superficial account of a story that is of no interest to the public at large. Why has it been nominated for FA status? The lead dives in as though we're all familiar with the topic: is it a film, a computer game, or what? Why not let people DO it, rather than read about it here? Prose is faulty, opaque, and unexplained in various places. Text is jammed up against the text box at right. Second image way too dark. It's just twaddle. Tony 13:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be careful with that "public at large" line, unless you've gone out an interviewed people regarding this articles and is FAC canidacy you're only speaking for your self. TomStar81

I trimmed the article dawn some. Let me know if this is an improvement. TomStar81 22:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian Republican Youth Union

edit

Self-renom, again.

The last two times this has been around, people complained it is too new and it needs to grow moss. Well, I waited over two weeks and no one has touched the page. So I am going to assume it has enough moss on it. Plus, the last time I checked WP:WIAFA, there is 'no time limit for articles having to be on Wikipedia before nomination to FAC. The only time limit for articles I even saw was for WP:DYK. Please judge the article on it's merits, not it's length of time. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. For the following reasons:

  • You install equipment or machinery, you instill values.
  • "closely similar" is a tautology.
  • "The organization is also called the Belarusian Republic Youth Union" is obvious because the article starts with "The Belarusian Republican Youth Union...is a youth group organized in the Eastern European country of Belarus".
  • The group's acronym should be mentioned before it is used in prose.
  • "moral values" is an unnecessary red link maybe you could link it to "morality".
  • The verb "allowed" in "Lukashenko allowed BRSM" is probably not the best choice.
  • "In order to join the BRSM, a young person between the ages of 14 and 16 must have written permission from their parents or legal guardian and must submit a photo." needs to be revised. Firstly, a person between the ages of 14 and 16 is young by definition. The "In order" is also redundant.
  • "A person must also pay a fee of 1,400 rubles (0.65 USD) [4], which is a one time fee." instead try "A person must also pay a one-time fee of 1,400 rubles (0.65 USD). [4]".
  • "However, if a person choose to remain a member," is grammatically incorrect.
  • The "is" is redundant in "and is adjusted".
  • "structure, membership" needs a conjunction for example "structure, though membership"

I did not complete the article but please consider removing it from featured article candidates, focusing on the prose and resubmitting it later. You can also request help through Peer Review. Cedars 00:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While being interesting, and full of information, it don't 'flow' as well as it ought to in my opinion. Perhaps you could get a one or two editors who speak nativly english to look over it and tweek it? WegianWarrior 07:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/September_2005&oldid=989959607"