Oppose. Improper referencing. Not enough inline citations to match claims. Lead section far too short for my taste. Prose not brilliant. Here is an example: "George was not the first choice of the Greek people (citation??). Upon the overthrow of Otto, the Greek people had rejected his brother Leopold, the heir presumptive, while adhering to the concept of a monarchy.JHMM1308:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose and Conditional SupportSupport. I agree with JHMM13 that the article needs a larger lead and more citations as some sections do not have any. I also think that the article needs a seperate references section. If my concerns are adressed I would be more than happy to support the article. Kyriakos06:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the lead and separated the note from the references. The unreferenced comments are ones which occur in more than one source. I shall select representative references and insert them gradually. DrKiernan13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but after some thought I've decided not to continue with this proposal. I just don't understand how an article like George IV of the United Kingdom can be the Main Page Featured Article in April when it has no citations, and includes comments like "...every time he had intimate relations with a woman he would cut a lock of her hair and place it in an envelope with her name on it. At the time of his death there were allegedly 7,000 such envelopes." Whilst at the same time you oppose FA status for my article because of "Improper referencing" even though it contains no contested comments and is fully referenced.
(1) As I am not able to understand your criticisms, I consequently cannot address them.
(2) I think my limited time would be better spent improving what I consider a bad article like George IV, rather than improving an already good article like George I into a fantastic one.
Please close the discussion and accept my apologies for wasting your time. I would prefer not to enter into correspondence on this matter. DrKiernan12:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The featured article criteria have changed, George IV was promoted back in 2004. If you think it doesn't meet the criteria, then nominate it for a WP:FAR, but that there are bad featured articles still doesn't mean your article is good enough to be an FA. Some problems with it: no main references, only footnotes; list within the body; no use of cite templates; tiny sections ("Titles, styles and arms" and "Territorial expansion (1871-1881)"). Todor→Bozhinov14:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer For the same reason that other such articles have made it there recently: they weren't FARC'd in time to prevent that.--Rmky8714:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do I really have to cite WP:FA? OK then: "... this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations... the meta:cite format is recommended." No, cite templates are not required, but they're strongly recommended because they provide uniformity and are easy to use and identify. An FA has to represent "our very best work", and in that sense it should be as good as possible. If it can be improved, then this should be done. Todor→Bozhinov20:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The full citations can be mixed in with the notes, as they were in this case before the article was changed; nor does the section need to literally be called "references," although the criteria may be misleading in this regard. See e.g. recent promotions The Four Stages of Cruelty, Hurricane Erika (1997), and many others. Citation templates are specifically "neither encouraged nor discouraged" (WP:CITE) -- while some people like them, others find them strongly distasteful. Christopher Parham(talk)21:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it's a lot more convenient to have the main references and the footnotes in separate sections — it looks better arranged and neater. It also allows you to use simplified syntax in the footnotes instead of giving all the long bibliographic info every time when you just want to list the specific page(s). But it's a matter of personal taste to an extent, that's for sure :) The same goes for cite templates, I guess. Todor→Bozhinov22:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the usefulness of a references section, at least, I agree with you, and it's obviously okay to suggest methods that you find convenient. But in consideration of nominators I think it is useful to maintain a line between what is actually required and what is a matter of taste. cheers, Christopher Parham(talk)04:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self nomination This article has passed WP:GA and been generally well received by Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles members. It's stable, well referenced and contains no fair-use images. As far as I can tell it passes all of the FAC requirements. The only slight problem is that it's only 17kBytes long - which is a little short for an FA. However, when you've said all that needs to be said, anything more would be useless padding - so there we are. The subject of the article is a fairly obscure British vehicle - there aren't many books about it - I'm 99% certain that every book that contains any information about it whatever is in my collection and is referenced in the article. Additionally, the article has been carefully read by several leading members of the Mini Moke Club (who, sadly, are not Wikipedians) - the few minor flaws they managed to find have been passed on to me and eradicated since passing WP:GA. SteveBaker03:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed this is a very good article. I have cleaned it up a bit per MOS (minor changes) and I used the citation templates for some of the references. When editing it (expanding cm and other units out in text) I used British English because I found kilometre in the article, but you can change it if you like. The paragraph below is choppy, lots of short sentences ruin the flow making it difficult to read.
From 1975 a pickup version of the Moke was produced with a 1.45 x 1.50 metre (55 x 59 in) drop-sided bed which protruded behind the back of the vehicle. There was a cloth top over the cab area. At least two four-wheel drive Moke prototypes were manufactured by Leyland Australia in the late 1970s. Unlike the British 'Twini' version, these used just one engine. One of those prototypes is now privately owned by an enthusiast in Western Australia. Leyland were planning to market this version but the end of Moke production in Australia in 1981 saw the demise of the project
This paragraph is also a bit hard to read, it's using the same sentence twice right after one another "Because X, Y occurs." Mix it up a bit.
Because the Moke's A-Series engine, gearbox and suspension are identical to those of a standard Mini (which was still in production up to October 2000), most spare parts are still readily available. Because there is no chassis, the front and rear subframes holding the wheels, brake assemblies and suspension are bolted straight onto the monocoque shell just as with a standard Mini. Mokes tend to require much structural maintenance if they are to stay in good running order
After one has read and tweaked these paragraphs about a bazillion times, it gets hard to see the wood for the trees! Both suggestions are well taken. I've made changes to both paragraphs, I think they read more easily now (but now I've read and tweaked them a bazillion-and-one times...so...) let me know if there is anything else I can do. SteveBaker15:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - and yes, this was originally a British car (although the Aussies have some significant claim to it) - so I've used British English throughout. SteveBaker15:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be possible if I could find anything at all to say about it! Alec Issigonis' biography merely mentions the name - offering no further details. The Nuffield company was pretty obscure and there isn't much written about it. The top Google hit for 'Nuffield Guppy' is this article and the only other links that are talking about this vehicle are mirrors of this article! The best stub I could personally come up with would be "The Nuffield Guppy was some kind of a motor vehicle that was designed by Alec Issigonis for some sort of military role."...I thought it would be better to leave it as a redlink so that someone who knows something about it would spot the redlink and be provoked into writing something. Redlinks are (in moderation) a good thing - they help the Encyclopedia to grow. SteveBaker
Oppose in the lead; a vehicle can't be a cult - it would be logical to say that it has a cult following; the lead also lacks focus it goes from what they are to how they were popular and back to where they were first made. The prose of the rest of the article needs work, it slips into a non-professional tone in parts, grammar needs work, and the single sentence paragraph pops up a few times. The latter part of the article is comprised of short sections that don't really say much, could the competitions and kits sections be merged into the text somewhere else (competitions into history and kits into construction)?--Peta00:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment You said: "a vehicle can't be a cult"? Well, the Wiktionary definition of "cult" gives as its sole example of proper usage: "The Lord of the Rings" is a classic geek cult novel - so we can have cult novels but not cult cars? I'll try to reduce the number of single-sentence paragraphs but I'm mindful that a paragraph is supposed to be about a single subject and that just glueing separate paragraphs together without regard to content just in order to limit the number of short paragraphs is not a good thing. SteveBaker05:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment with this sentence In Australia the Mini Moke was a popular car for college students into the late 1980s, the term "college students" when referring to Australian students is ambigious as its a term not used within Australia, student are referred to as either using High School or University. Gnangarra08:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I might argue that whilst we are talking about Australia, this article is written in British English - but to avoid the issue entirely, I'll say just "students" and leave it at that. SteveBaker16:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Although I disagree with User:Peta about the tone/grammar (I think it's suited to the subject matter and isn't unencyclopedic) I'd agree about consolidating paragraphs; "Kit cars and look-alikes" would fit well as a "Construction and maintenance" sub-section, while the "Competitions" bit could, I reckon, be reduced to a single paragraph and spliced into either "History" or "Popular culture" (since sport's become part of pop culture nowadays). I was going to do a quick edit and revert just to have both versions to compare, but I noticed I'd need to tamper with the layout/position of images, so I chickened out. I also reckon that since the Mini page isn't specifically about construction and maintenance, you don't need to give it a Main article: Mini. And well done on getting the Nuffield Guppy stub off the ground too. --DeLarge15:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I've merged those two sections. Kit Cars is now a sub-section of construction & maintenance - I guess that kinda fits. The "Competitions" part ended up being split in two because putting it into the history section resulted in the first paragraph being related to British Mokes and the second to Australian ones. I'm still not convinced that this is a good change - because anyone who is interested in competitions involving Mokes would have looked to that section - but now the information is kinda mooshed in with what is essentially a time-line of the development of the car...but anything for a quiet life! If I ever find more information about racing/autocrossing Mini Mokes so I can expand on the theme a bit, I may re-instate that section - but that's not going to happen anytime soon. I replaced the {{main|Mini}} with a 'seealso' - but because so much of the information about the nature of the engine, transmission, suspension, etc is in the Mini article - we need some kind of a link here. Incidentally, the Nuffield Guppy article required me to spend $75 on purchasing an original memo written by Issigonis to Nuffield management from a collector in Germany - the guy told me that it contained the answer to my question (which it did) - but wouldn't tell me what it said unless I bought it from him! Such is my commitment to getting the truth out there - I hope you guys are happy! :-) SteveBaker16:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
A notorious case in 19th century England, this murder sparked an early "media frenzy". The comments at peer review were very positive, so I'm putting up here in the hope they continue. Yomanganitalk18:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the referencing would be a little more accessible to the reader if abbreviated titles were added to the notes: that is, "Gatrell, The Hanging Tree, p.13" instead of "Gatrell p.13". semper fictilis18:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. I wonder whether the afterlife of the story in 20th century literature and film couldn't be given its own section and receive further elaboration. semper fictilis18:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is enough to merit breaking it out. There's a quite a bit on the Tod Slaughter film (enough to bump up that article beyond a stub), but info on the rest of the films is thin on the ground, even from unreliable sources. Yomanganitalk17:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favour of redlinks: they provide an opportunity to expand the encyclopedia. In the past it has been suggested that it is a problem that can be solved by creating stubs, but this seems to be solely to change the colour and gives the misleading impression that there is some content behind the link. Most of those redlinks are on my list to be filled at some point, but I prefer to write a decent article rather than, for example, replace the redlinked mole-catcher with a link to an article which says "A mole-catcher is a person who catches moles", or something equally pointless. Removing the links in the article is equally bad, that gives the impression that there are no articles to be written, and when an article is written there is no link to it. As a point in fact, this article was written as the result of a redlink in the featured Spring Heeled Jack, and wouldn't exist if that link had been removed or a stub created. Yomanganitalk11:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Other articles I've seen criticised at peer review for redlinks. No matter, I'm happy to Support regardless. --Dweller11:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Looks pretty cool. Some style changes. In the lead, "huge crowd" might be better as "large crowd". "in the newspapers, and songs and plays." could be better as "in newspapers, songs and plays." I'm a bit thrown off by the "Citations" section. Coming from a scientific background, I'm not sure how appropriate it is to have incomplete entries for the per-page in-line citations. Aside from those minor points, the article looks good. Shrumster17:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a "huge" crowd for the time: between 7,000 and 20,000 people; "a large crowd" doesn't seem to cut the mustard there. The problem with dropping the first "and" from "in the newspapers, and songs and plays" is that the proceeding words are "The story provoked numerous articles", and it didn't provoke numerous articles in songs and plays. I'll look at rewording it some other way and I'll also look at the citation format (although other articles use this format it seems to be a bit of a sticking point). Yomanganitalk18:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The story provoked numerous articles in the newspapers, and songs and plays" is one of those awkward little sentences: "...articles in the newspapers, songs and plays" doesn't work because it miscues to "articles in the...songs and plays". It's not reversible, either: you can't put "numerous songs, plays, and newspaper articles" because that offends the time sequence. "Newspaper articles" would not really be much better, which would cue "newspaper...songs and plays". I thought of "...newspaper articles, as well as songs and plays", but it's clunky. My best suggestion is "The story not only provoked numerous articles in the newspapers but also songs and plays." The trouble is that, strictly speaking, the "not only" should go before "numerous articles", but there it sounds unharmonious. I'm the sort of language nerd who enjoys this type of problem, but I admit I'm a bit stumped here. qp10qp18:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the shortened note references, I believe the method used in this article is the best one for Wikipedia. It is the style the Chicago Manual of Style regards as satisfactory for journal articles since those are short enough to make it easy to locate the full reference. All the more reason to use the method on Wikipedia, which is not paper, and where the full reference is located a few inches down the same page. I see no difficulty in this author-page method at all, except where two different works by the same author are cited, in which case the title or shortened title should of course be added. qp10qp
The inline citations are formatted perfectly, there is no need to change them. I'm very surprised there was a complaint from a "scientific backround" since it's identical to the format used in scientific journals, at least for geology, geography, and biology. American high schools actually teach that inline citations should include the author's last name and the page numbers while listing the full book information at the end of the paper. The only "Wikipediaism" involved is making them footnotes rather than spelling them out within the body of the text. Jay3218319:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great prose. Some aspects might be considered POV in a different context on other articles but they are entirely in keeping with the spirit and prose of the article and make for a great read.cheers 04:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
This page has undergone significant changes and enhancements since the prior FAC attempt. The new layout has been modelled after the Mercury (planet) and Venus FA pages, with a few differences due to the nature of the planet. I believe that all of the issues on the FAC and PR have been addressed, with one exception which I am disputing. (Namely the assertion that Jupiter's rings are not composed of ejected material from satellites.) Please take a look and let me know if anything else needs to be done to bring this up to FA quality. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very detailed, not bad at all. Some suggestions. Perhaps you could move the Aurora Borealis picture to an upper paragraph as it cuts into and forcibly indents the next section (on my 1024x768 screen, at least). The retrograde diagram could also be moved to the start of the upper paragraph, to give it more...symmetry? Perhaps the "observation" section could be integrated into the "studies of Jupiter" or an "astronomy" section, since they're more-or-less sections about human study of the planet itself. If you could do something about the margin of the "fly-bys" table, please do so. Right now, the text of the paragraph it sits in is directly adjacent to its left margin. The "Effect on the Solar System" title seems a bit...hmm...might be better with a more neutral statement like "Interactions with Solar System" or something of the sort. Same deal with "Possibility of Life" section. Would the header "Xenobiology" be better, perhaps? Oh, and the Bibliography section should be a separate section adjacent to but not part of the References, for style pusposes. Aside from these minor points, great work. Shrumster06:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback.
The images you mention are placed at the location of corresponding text. I moved the aurora to the right.
I'd rather not merge the Observation section; it corresponds to the same sections on the Mercury and Venus pages, and it's about what an observer would notice rather than a history.
The left margin of the Fly-by mission table has been set to 1em.
I changed the "Effect on Solar System" section title per your suggestion.
Xenobiology is relatively obscure and may be obsolete. I think astrobiology is used these days. But the current title seems pretty appropriate.
The reference sections have been split out as you suggested.
Comment I am an avid reader of popular science books, so I cannot comment on the page's comprehensiveness or accuracy, but I can tell you how it appears to an educated, interested, non-scientist. I found it pretty easy to follow (except for a few spots I list below) and quite informative. Nice work. I am fully willing to support if the following issues are addressed.
I now feel that the majority of the issues have been addressed and I am sure any outstanding ones will be, so I support. I learned a lot from reading this article. Awadewit21:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Jovian being the adjectival form of Jupiter, derived from the Latin genitive of the noun). - This is helpful information, but I do not think that it is necessary to put it in the lead.
Since Jovian is used in the preceding sentence (and the remainder of the text), some type of definition seems appropriate, at least to me.
Instead of saying Jupiter was named during the era of Classical Antiquity might you give the dates?
As an expediency I just removed that statement.
The planet Jupiter is primarily composed of hydrogen, with a smaller portion of helium and possibly a rocky core. - "portion" seems like odd diction here
Okay I tried to remedy this.
Because of its rapid rotation the planet possesses a slight but noticeable bulge around the equator, giving it an oblate appearance. - perhaps you could briefly define "oblate" for non-specialists, especially since this sentence is in the lead?
I think it's addressed.
Jupiter's upper atmosphere is composed of about 93% hydrogen and 7% helium by number of atoms (86% H2 and 13% He by fraction of gas molecules—see table at top), or approximately 75% hydrogen and 24% helium by mass, with the remaining 1% of the mass consisting of other elements. The interior contains denser materials such that the distribution is roughly 71% hydrogen, 24% helium and 5% other elements, by mass. - might you explain a bit about the difference between measuring by atoms and by mass for the non-specialist?
I tried to clarify this.
This is much better.
Based on spectroscopy, Saturn is thought to have a quite similar composition to Jupiter, but Uranus and Neptune have relatively much less hydrogen and helium. - for the non-specialist, mention again that the reason you are comparing Jupiter to these other planets is because they are the other gas giants
I added a comment about gas giants.
Extrasolar planets have been discovered with much greater masses. - do you mean "Extrasolar planets similar to Jupiter but with much greater masses have been discovered"?
I didn't write that, but I couldn't say for certain that the extrasolar planets with greater mass are like Jupiter. Some are located very near their star and appear highly expanded, for example. I wouldn't want to say that is like Jupiter and I'm not sure of the benefit of needing to explain it in a section on mass. :-)
I guess what I meant was, are they gas giants like Jupiter? I was under the impression that most of the extrasolar planets that have been discovered are gas giants.
Could be, but I couldn't say with absolute certainty that all discovered planets with masses greater than Jupiter are gas giants. All we know about some is their mass.
Jupiter is thought to have about as large a diameter as a planet of its composition can; adding extra mass would cause the planet to shrink because of increased gravitational compression. - awkward sentence
I think it reads better now.
Jupiter's low obliquity means that the poles constantly receive less solar radiation than at the planet's equatorial region. Internal convection processes transport more energy to the poles, however, balancing out the surface temperature across the planet. - This sentence could be explained a little more for the non-specialist.
I changed "obliquity" to axial tilt. Otherwise I'm uncertain what part is unclear. Could you clarify?
When you say "internal convection processes," what do you mean? What is moving the heat, exactly? Clouds? Storms?
Convection within the interior. I reworded it for better clarity (I hope).
It has lasted from at least 1831,[26] and possibly since 1665. - awkward phrasing - Perhaps, "It has existed since at least..."
This appears to have been addressed already.
The tops of this storm is about 8 km above the surrounding cloudtops. - do you mean "tops . . .are" or "top . . .is"?
It's an irregular feature, so perhaps the original author meant the highest cloud features? Anyway I changed it to say maximum altitude.
The entire last paragraph of the "Great Red Spot" section is awkwardly worded.
Rewrote paragraph.
The first paragraph of "Magnetosphere" could be explained better for the non-specialist. Perhaps "torus" could also be linked to the appropriate torus page.
I tried, while attempting to stay on topic. Is it any clearer?
Yes.
That is, for a period of time Jupiter seems to move backward in the night sky, forming a graceful looping motion. - is this POV? why is it "graceful"?
Fixed.
The astronomical symbol for the planet is a stylized representation of the god's lightning bolt. - could you insert the actual symbol here so that this explanation is connected to the symbol at the top of the page?
The discovery, a testament to his extraordinary eyesight, made him quickly famous. - why his eyesight? this sounds a bit ood - perhaps you could explain a bit further
Done.
They discovered that the radiation fields in the vicinity of the planet were much higher than expected, but managed to survive in that environment. - what "managed to survive"? the spacecraft or the radiation fields?
Clarified.
How come "Pioneer" isn't itacilized? Is there a particular reason it isn't when the other missions are? Also, the italicization is inconsistent. Sometimes Voyager, Cassini, etc. are italicized and sometimes they are not.
Fixed.
This is seen most dramatically in Io's extraordinary volcanic activity, and to a somewhat less dramatic extent in the geologically young surface of Europa indicating recent resurfacing. - "resurfacing" sounds a bit odd; I was waiting for something after that - "resurfacing" of what? - you might think about rewording
Clarified.
I would not use a Teaching Company lecture as a reference (see note 5). They are expensive and therefore hard to access (not everyone is willing to download). Moreover, since you use it only for an etymology, there are obviously better sources.
Replaced citation.
Also, not all of the notes are formatted the same way. Some have the first name of the author first and some have the last name first, etc. Your "Additional Reading" citations are also not cited in the same format and I do not think that you need to link the years.
Citations modified to use consistent author naming order. The "Additional reading" section uses the standard wikipedia citation templates. I left the years linked because in the past others have insistent they be present; opinions on this seem to flip-flop endlessly over time.
Why does the year come first in one of the citations? That should never happen. It should always be either the author or the title.
That article did not have any authors listed. I replaced it with another reference.
Ah, I see. It's often helpful to put "Anonymous" in the author spot when the author is not listed.
I have some prose/clarity comments, but overall this article is very well-organized and well-written, so I'll just go ahead and support.
'The density of this planet is the second highest of the gas giant planets' - mention which one it's second to.
Neptune. I added a note.
I'm not sure what it means to say that the atmosphere contains trace amounts of 'rock'.
Fixed.
'However, because of the lack of atmospheric entries probes...' - should this be 'entry probes'? Also, the parenthetical at the end of this sentence is awkward; isn't the word 'other' sufficient to exclude Jupiter?
Addressed.
I don't remember the timescale for this and this may therefore be a stupid question, but how does the rate of Jupiter's contraction compare to the estimated life of the sun?
Age of the Sun = ~4.57 × 109; current rate of contraction = 2 cm/yr = 2 × 10-5 km. If one were to assume this rate were constant, then the total contraction would be ~9 × 104 km = 90,000 km. It's on the order of magnitude of Jupiter's radius, which matches the sentence: "When it was first formed, Jupiter was much hotter and was about twice its current diameter."
I might have missed it, but kelvin (unit) should be wikilinked somewhere in the text.
Okay it's linked a couple of times.
No need for parenthetical '(See cloud pattern on Jupiter.)' when it's already linked as the main article.
Right.
Why is lightning evidence specifically for a water layer in the atmosphere?
I'm certainly no expert in chemistry, but I believe it has something to do with water being a good "charge separator" (in contrast to methane). Through convection of the water, a separation in electrical potential is produced that results in a lightning discharge.
The lead says Jupiter is the third-brightest object in the night sky, but the observation section says fourth.
The key word there is "night". :-)
I don't understand what 'with Thor being identified with the Roman god Jupiter' is meant to imply. Was Thor identified with the planet in Norse mythology? Otherwise I don't know what possible relevance this has. Opabinia regalis03:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a note; they are associated because they represent similar powers over thunder.
If there are before-and-after shots of the three ovals that merged recently, that would be a great addition to the existing images.
There's an illustration on the linked Oval BA page, but it's not a very good shot.
Am I right in remembering that feared 'contamination' of Europa by the Galileo orbiter was motivated by speculation that Europa might support life? Whatever the reason was, it ought to be briefly stated.
Yes. I added a brief note; the Europa (moon) page contains more discussion.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment - really nice article, but the wording could be improved; for example:
The first European to sight B. epica may have been the explorer Edward John Eyre,[4] who recorded sighting "stunted specimens" of Banksia as he was nearing the western edge of the Great Australian Bight on 1 May 1841. Not only is this too wordy ("to sight" isn't terribly idiomatic), but it also (unnecessarily) speculates that the first record of the species was the first sighting of the species.
To clarify (per a question from Hesperian), right now the article speculates that Eyre may have been the first European to see the species, based on his record. But unless he was the first European in the range of this species (which may be true, but it isn't clear from the article), it isn't clear to me why the assumption that he was the first European to see the species. Guettarda02:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Struck per clarification Guettarda[reply]
Despite this probable early sighting, the first herbarium collection of B. epica was not made until October 1973 - Despite this probable early sighting is unnecessary. (There are many other places where the wording could be tightened up).
Some of the links to reprints do not appear to go to the right articles (e.g., the Wooler & Wooler article), or go to pages to purchase access to the articles, despite the fact that free abstracts were available (e.g., the Thiele & Ladiges article). Guettarda02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Guettarda. I've taken the liberty of numbering your comments so that I knock them off one by one. I've clarified re: the "speculation" aspect of 1. I'll leave it to you to decide if the "too wordy" aspect is also resolved. Hesperian02:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as one who helped out a bit. You dissin' my copyedits? But seriously, thanks for the feedback, we'll tweak :) cheers Cas Liber08:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very well written and informative article. I enjoyed the taxonomic history section and wonder why George didn't name it B. Falconer. He was robbed! —Moondyne01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self-nominated article. I've completely rewritten this article over the past few months. It has gone through a peer review and the Good Article nomination process and was passed as a Good Article about a month ago. It was suggested that I nominate it for a featured article review. I've provided inline citations from a broad variety of references, obtained permission from the Beinecke Library for free use of historical photos, provided attribution is given, and have tried to cover every area of the topic as broadly and as neutrally as I could. The article includes information about Anastasia's characteristics, DNA testing on the Romanov remains and the controversy over whether Anastasia or Maria was missing from the grave, information about reports of a survivor, and a section about the impact the legend has had upon the popular culture. It also contains a section about the Romanovs' sainthood and the controversy related to whether they should be declared martyrs or passion bearers. It's a topic that is still of great interest to a large number of people and the importance of the subject matter has been rated as high. I think the article is well-written and covers the subject extensively, but I'm open to suggestions to improve upon it further.--Bookworm85715836722:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an excellent article; I was reminded of my youthful fascination with Anastasia. Here are my suggestions (I am almost ready to support this article):
You have a lot of quotations that demonstrate that Anastasia was fun, lighthearted and mischievious. Perhaps you could select a few of the best? After a while, they no longer add information to the article, they only make it longer (I would say that this is a particular problem in the "Life and Childhood" section).
Your sections are also rather long - might you consider breaking them up or providing subheadings? One obvious suggestion is to preface the section on "Canonization" with a subheading.
I would also cut off the "Cultural Influces" section with the 2004 novel. It seems choppy and insignificant after that. If you decide to keep the material, perhaps a list is the better way to go?
This is a small thing. I noticed that your footnotes aren't all formatted the same way. Some have the author's last name first and some have the author's first name first. Some book titles are missing italics. Some have dates and some do not. Also, if you are planning on giving the entire citation first and then using only the author's name in subsequent notes, which I think you are, the first citation is incorrect. Etc. (You might also consider two-column notes since you have so many.) Awadewit23:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Awadewit, you last point is partially my fault, had started standardising the ref formats when I saw the nom, was half way through the job when you posted you comments; hence they looked inconsistent when you viewed the article. Ceoil23:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support now, although perhaps the "Two bodies missing from the Mass Romanov Grave" section could be renamed "Romanov Grave"? As it stands, it sounds too much like a newspaper headline. Awadewit12:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have tackled some of the suggestions made to improve on the article. I summarized the comments made about Anastasia's character in the first section on her Early Life. I also changed the sub-heading title "From Mystery to Legend" to "Reports of Survival" and broke up the section into a separate section on "Two bodies missing from the Mass Romanov Grave." I'll also attempt to fix the citations. Any other suggestions? --Bookworm85715836704:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article improved a lot. And it is already can be featured article. And the imperial sisters article too. Astor Lam 08:35, 21 February 2007
Weak oppose 1. Sentence "Anastasia was nasty to the point of being evil," requires a reference. 2. Footnotes should come immediately after punctuation without an intervening space. 3. If she did indeed write "Goodby" instead of "Goodbye" can you insert [sic] after the misspelt word? 4. Please duplicate the references through the "rape" section. 5. I am concerned by the image "Romanovsaints.png" - there is no source indicated and the artwork depicts the Romanovs as passion bearers, so it can not have been painted prior to 2000. Consequently, the painter can not have been dead for 70 years as the public domain tag asserts. 6. Is it necessary to repeat information twice in both notes and references (Dehn, Eagar, Gilliard, Sams, Shevchenko, Vyrubova)?DrKiernan19:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In reply:
1. This is supported by the reference at the end of the following sentence ("King and Wilson (2003), p. 50"). Its no problem to repeat the ref, but is it necessary to pepper the text with duplicates like this.
2. There was three instances of this, all fixed now.
3. This has been done.
4. Have added another source to support claims.
5. Take your point; file was taken from commons, but maybe Bookworm has detail of the image's origions.
6. It's within the guidelines stated at WP:CITE, and allows for both a clear an unmuddled "Notes" section, and for a concise "Sources" section that gives an overview of available resources. Ceoil20:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't upload the icon image. It was already included in the Nicholas II article when I started working on the Romanov articles. I have no idea who, if anyone, would hold the copyright. I happen to own a copy of the image that was sold by a company in Las Vegas and I've seen the image featured on other web sites. It's widely circulated. If nothing else, I'd say it would be fair use. Ceoil appears to have fixed the other things you objected to or explained them.--Bookworm85715836702:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support The image tag needs altering in that case. The article is excellent, fairly typical of the other work of yours I've seen. DrKiernan08:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been, but I see someone else has rewritten that sentence now and taken it out. The term was already in the article when I started rewriting it. She did have bunions, so I must have overlooked the word as some medical terminology for that condition or for the side of her toes. I can't find it in the dictionary now when I look it up, so it probably shouldn't go back in.--Bookworm85715836713:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is the article's second nomination and I feel that it has substantially improved and addressed most of the concerns that were raised when it failed its first nomination in September 2006. The article boasts over 100 in-line references derived from a plethora of sources which are comprised virtually of both reputable and verifiable books and respected scholarly journals. It had held a GA rating for well over half a year and I believe that it is well-written and covers every aspect of this war on both sides that it possibly can.--MarshallBagramyan00:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the grainy footage images (the captured tank, the Shilka AA, the 366th Division's cache of weapons, unless otherwise indicated if they were taken by a TV agency) were taken by amateur cameramen who accompanied the fighters during the war. The screenshots of the images were taken by videos of the war and many of them of them were uploaded on to YouTube. For example, a great deal of video montages containing them can be found here [1]. The people who recorded the footage of the Sumgait massacre remain unknown and their images have been published all over the web and on television. Nevertheless the owners of the website [2] gave permission and free rein over the use of their images. I'm unsure of the copyright over the Khojaly massacre but a source is listed.
I updated the status of the first image which was taken by the Armenian Government and found on its Ministry of Defense's website however its source link appears to be dead. For the second picture, I contacted the person who uploaded the to see if he is able to clarify its source.
Permission to use this image was given to me by the owner of the website Armeniapedia.org and fellow Wikipedia contributor User:RaffiKojian who used to run its predecessor cilicia.com where the image was originally found. My asking and his agreeing of the image usage can be found here [3].
Oppose The article is not up to the FA standards, and has not been much improved since the last nomination. The references for the most part are not academic, and there are problems with neutrality. Grandmaster11:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The content is biased and tendentious. Furthermore, the quotes have been deliberately chosen in a manner, which serve to manipulate the reader's opinion rather than provide insights. --Tabib13:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral contributors raised problems with the prose, sources (too many news articles) and the length of the article in the last nomination. Bias and POV issues weren't among them and even they told you this. All of the books used are academic, I don't know how you came up with that conclusion that they compromise any of the facts. --MarshallBagramyan16:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above two oppose comments are ambiguous at best and seem to be there for the sake of opposing only. Unless they are expanded upon they oughta be disregarded.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!!17:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All quotations should have citations, and whoever said each quotation should not be included within the quotation marks. —Cuiviénen18:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The page essentially became a site of Armenian POV, yet again claiming that Karabakh was "made" part of Azerbaijan by Stalin. This is not true, Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) was "established within" Azerbaijan SSR by the decision of Kavbureau in 1923. Atabek18:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is pretty much obvious that Azeris editors like Grandmaster would always oppose to the nomination of this article, and probably some Armenian editors too. Batabat is a newly registered user, this vote being his 9th edit here. Tabib will also always oppose, he is working with political parties in Azerbaijan and we can't expect him to ever accept FA on this article until it becomes the official view of the republic of Azerbaijan.
So a note to the Armenian and Azeri editor, I think it is best for both parties concerned to not vote, comment, but do not vote. Anyway, I will refrain voting myself. Fad(ix)20:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAgreed w/ both Marshall's and Fad(ix)'s comments. This article has been fixed up well since the last FAC nomination (which failed to pin-point any POV problem). The same old issues brought by the Azeri editors on this page have been discussed 1000 times. I agree w/ Fad(ix) that we should let non-Armenian and non-Azeri editors vote. - Fedayee22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a clarification, I did not say we should leave non-Armenian and non-Azeri editors to vote, but rather that I think it would be best if such was to happen. Fad(ix)22:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would also wanted to vote, but Fadix mad a good point. I rather not vote since Azeri users would oppose and Armenian users would support. The best would be to let non Armenian and Azeri users to vote on this article. ROOB32304:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the time being, the page is not ready yet, let's return to this issue later, once more sources will be added and this page will become save quality as featured articles should be. --AdilBaguirov04:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - This article is well written has over 60 references, the image problems have been solved, and obviously this section has been invaded by Turkish nationalists. Nareklm05:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the authority to speak for Raul, but I can say that I am certain that any and all oppose votes by Azeri editors and any and all support votes by Armenian editors that provide flimsy or no reasons for supporting or opposing will be ignored. Please don't even bother. —Cuiviénen05:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - (Upgraded to strong support after many fixes were made to article. --Petercorless 17:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)) Prior "Conditional Support" discussion: I just went through the article, proofreading and making a few minor editing changes towards the grammar and syntax of the article. Since I am not an expert on the conflict, and since most of the references were to off-line sources, I cannot comment on the veracity of its claims. My main reservation is that it does not follow the form of citation templates favored by Wikipedia. I wish to see the templates replace most of the presently unstructured textual footnotes. As a neutral observer I did not sense any heavy bias, though quotes from Armenian sources might be balanced by a few comments by Azeri sources. Aside that, I have to say the article read very clearly and would be a fine featured article. I would not wish to see partisan political opposition sideline the forwarding of an article which helps illuminate the conflict. --Petercorless11:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have objections to the quotes. For example this quote: Congratulations on your earthquake. Nature has spared us the trouble is taken from the book by Melkonian, which is definitely not third party. No one has ever seen this telegram, and it is nothing but allegation of Armenian sources. Grandmaster11:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there are specific quotes like this, which are considered objectionable or of questionable origin, we can discuss excising them. Is there any other independent source of this quote? I did not find anything on Google. Of course, I have no visibility into original language sources. Thoughts on the value of this quote versus its divisiveness? --Petercorless11:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shamil Basayev was just snipped from the list of commanders; his own biography notes his possible involvement in the NK-Azeri conflict. Would anyone have a reference to prove this assertion, or should his name be excised? --Petercorless12:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was involved, but not as a commander of Azerbaijani army. He was just one of the Chechen fighters who fought on Azerbaijani side at the early stage of war. Grandmaster12:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's this kind of careless attitude towards editing that spoils the page overall -- what is meant by "so?" That's the point, this is an encyclopedia, and only verifiable and correct information should be featured -- there is a big difference between commander of the entire Azerbaijani Army and a commander of a Chechen battallion of maybe 100 fighters, who was there only for the first half of 1992. Meanwhile, the Russian commanders who led Armenian troops, such as Anatoliy Vladimirovich Zinevich, a Major General and even "Chief of the Nagorno-Karabakh Army Headquarters", should be mentioned, as should be other mercenaries that fought on Armenian behalf (you can read Zinevich's interview in Yerevan's VREMYA newspaper in Russian, 24 August 1996, p. 3, by Ara Tatevosyan, MOSKOVSKIYE NOVOSTI staff correspondent, entitled "Once a Russian General...") Zinevich died only recently, with both President Kocharyan and next President Sarkisyan attending his funeral. --AdilBaguirov16:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say this in the most elemantary language possible, That column does not list the commanders of the Azeri national army. It lists the commanders of the factions fighting against Armenians. In addition, Bassayev and the Chechens were not mercenaries! Likewise, the Afghan/Al-Qaueda terrorists were also not mercenaries.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!!16:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Earthquake source. Hey Peter, here is another source from TIME Magazine that supports Melkonian: A Journey into Misery (page 3): "Sometimes these tales of grief from the earthquake zone merged seamlessly with horror stories of brutal rapes and beatings during ethnic clashes last February in the Azerbaijani city of Sumgait. The people I spoke with insisted that after the earthquake, Azerbaijanis refused to help, announcing that "Allah has finally heard us." Some claimed that trains from the neighboring Muslim republic were even scrawled with graffiti reading DECEMBER 7. HAPPY HOLIDAY!" If it would help I can replace his book with this source. Zinevich falls under a CIS mercenary, Basayev is included because he is a notable figure.--MarshallBagramyan16:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's ridiculous is the "CIS mercenary" terminology (?!) - the Maj-General ended up staying in Armenia and dying there just some time ago, and was far more important and prominent than any mercenaries that fought on Azerbaijani side. Moreover, the page lacks references and citations of UN documents, which outline several instances of mercenaries fighting for Armenia, including Russian Spetsnaz (Special Forces), who were captured in 1993 and released because of an appeal of President Yeltsin. Then what about the EXECUTION of several Azerbaijani POWs, which Western human rights organizations have slammed?
Meanwhile, the most ridiculous of all is the total disrespect to, and lack of knowledge of, the fact that Azerbaijan SSR and Azerbaijanis were among the FIRST to help Armenia after the eqrthquake -- even though it coincided with a mass-scale ethnic cleansing of 165,000 Azerbaijanis from Armenia in Nov-Dec 1988 (plus the remaining 50,000 or so thousand Azerbaijanis and Kurds later)! That's right -- Azerbaijan sent a military plane full of supplies to Yerevan, and due to a very suspicious "mistake" by ground operators, the plane crashed and all but one have died. No one in Armenia mentions this, and there is no memorial or otherwise thanks. Also, all hospitals and spas (pansionats) of Kelbajar region were urgently made room at, so as to accomodate Armenian victims of the earthquake -- some 2,000 people, from what I remember reading the Soviet press back then (it should be available in the FBIS translated into English articles too, see December 1988 digests). Also, there are references in Azerbaijani press that all the blood donated by Azerbaijanis was smashed by Armenians with exclamations "We don't need blood of Turks". However, not very sure if all these references from both sides are appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Long thing short -- this article is not ready, it is POV and lacks balance. --AdilBaguirov04:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This may come as a shock to you, but atrocities were committed on both sides; don't act as if Azerbaijan was an innocent party twiddling its thumbs during the war. Should I introduce instances of rape of captive Armenian women by the Azeris during the war? Of prisoner torture and abuse in Baku? Of course because then that will start pathetic POV war that up to one year now, this article has avoided. I don't doubt Azeris sent help after the earthquake but after multiple pogroms in Azerbaijan (Sumgait, Kirovabad, etc.) I don't doubt Armenians rejected, understandably, aid from Azerbaijan either. But the quote highlights the ethnic tensions prior to outbreak of war and its not supposed to be casting aspersions on any of the sides. More than 1,200 Armenian families left Sumgait after the pogrom, which was one of the ultimate reasons why the conflict grew worse, which is why many Azeris left Armenia and Armenians from Azerbaijan. None of the third party observers are seeing these silly errors Adil. Please be more constructive in your criticism.--MarshallBagramyan05:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see a systemic bias. If you (AdilBaguirov, others) have citations of UN documents of mercenaries, or the refutation of someone's status as a mercenary, bring the titles, dates, and URLs to the table. Offer them with a positive "can-do" spirit, and presume goodwill as the basis of our work. No stonewalling or grandstanding. Before we start devolving into who-committed-the-worse-atrocities, or who didn't thank who for extensions of olive branches and aid, let's keep in mind we are seeking to construct a sober, rational document of what happened -- not to inflame a vivid re-eruption of partisan emotions and griefs. For those of you for whom the issue is to close to your heart, take a step away from the monitor, take a deep breath, and come back with constructive comments on how to improve the document. I think people are willing to accommodate changes which are citable and verifiable. Please avoid polarizing claims and accusations. Thank you. --Petercorless05:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is becoming ridiculous. Including Azerbaijani members know very well that Azeri having celebrated the earthquake is well documented, here another two sources.
A sever earthquake hit northwestern Armenia on December 7, 1988. The news was greeted in Azerbaijan by cheers in student dormitories and celebration in the streets. Armenia- portraits of survival and hope Par Donald E. Miller, Lorna Touryan Miller, Jerry Berndt, University of California Press, p.7
However, even the massive earthquake which devastated parts of Armenia failed to bring about a diminution of tensions in the area, and the Soviet press noted that some Azerbaijanis openly rejoiced over this tragedy. Niall M. Fraser; Keith W. Hipel; John Jaworsky; Ralph Zuljan, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Dec., 1990), p.668
Some members would really like to have this article as a conform copy of the official Azerbaijan republic vision.
And here, I am addressing to non-Armenian, non-Azeri members. I advice those members to go on and read the Khojali section of the article. Marshall has tried to do everything to satisfy the Azeri members, even as far as tainting sections with Azeri POV. The wording is harsher than the Armenian Genocide intro. If some Azeri members are not satisfied now, with such unjustifiable concessions, does anyone think they will ever? Both Azeri and Armenian members know that while Marshal has presented the moderate estimates of the losses of Khojali to be on the over 400, the moderate estimates in scholarship publications is in the range of between 100-200. See for instance, Roberta Cohen and Francis M Deng book The Forsaken People- Case Studies of the Internally Displaced, Brookings Institution Press 1998 p.260, or Vitaly V. Naumkin book, Central Asia and Transcaucasia: Ethnicity and Conflict, Greenwood Press, 1994 p. 95. I have also provided the fist Azerbaijani official figures supporting that contention and many other sources on that, on Khojali tragedy article itself.
Marshall has gone out of his way to voluntarily make concessions, and various, here was one example, to taint a little bit to satisfy the Azeri members. And this is how he is thanked by those same members.
But here is the situation; many of the members here are not in Wikipedia in good faith. Tabib who has voted, works in a tink tank organization which work with political parties in Azerbaijan, was a real life friend with Adil, who has associated himself with think thank organizations members of the republic of Turkey, like Sedat Laciner, and even got articles published by their journals, among many things denying the Armenian genocide and adhering to Laciner ultra nationalistic views. Then we have new members just recently created suspected to be socks, like Atabek, Dacy etc., who had no better than maintaining Adil versions and pushing over them.
So, if Raul want to take a fair decision, and while I admit to be maybe biased, while this would be involuntarily, I think it would be best to only take into consideration members who have not been involved with Azeri-Armenian conflicts on Wikipedia. For now, this is all what I wanted to say. Fad(ix)17:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is truly ridiculous -- Fadix is overstepping all boundaries with his repeated defamation and harassment of myself and another user, Tabib, as well as groundless and false claims about other well-established users like Dacy69 and Atabek. Additionally, the above two references are worthless -- both are co-written by Armenians, such as Touryan and Zuljian, and that's POV, no need to pretend it is from unbiased Western sources. --AdilBaguirov04:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Resorting to personal attacks instead of responding to criticism is not the best way to deal with the issue. It is very sad that Fadix consumes so much space to slander other Wikipedia contributors, who do not hide behind the nicknames and contribute under their real names. Adil has a very good point. How come that the article lists Shamil Basayev as an Azeri commander, while he was never in charge of any unit of Azerbaijani army and never commanded any military operation during the NK war, and at the same time, the article never mentions such a prominent Russian mercenary as Zinevich, who was a chief of stuff in the Armenian army, let alone listing him as a commander. This shows that the article is very superficial. As for the telegram, neither of the quotes presented prove its existence. Time Magazine reporter only repeats what he heard from Armenians, plus they told him about some graffiti, and Fadix’s quotes are not about the telegram either. Grandmaster18:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say Bassayev was an Azeri commander? Am I blind or are you blind? The footnote states he was in command of Chechens fighting against Armenian, for Azerbaijan obviously. No point to list mercenaries, unless they are notable individuals. I don't se how this guy is notable. Besides, Azeris had more money and had more mercenaries, if we start listing them guess who gets the shorter end of the stick.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!!19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Create an article on Zinevich and I'll include his name in the column (that is if it falls under WP:N. Your vague, stonewalling objections are becoming more superficial and non-existant as they come. Most of the neutral observers have pointed out actual problems in the article that I have no objections to rectify, but POV issues is not one of them. --MarshallBagramyan19:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Additionally, the above two references are worthless -- both are co-written by Armenians, such as Touryan and Zuljian, and that's POV, no need to pretend it is from unbiased Western sources." To dismiss a reference as "worthless" simply because it is Armenian or Azerbaijan, is not sufficient, and smacks of extreme chauvanism. Let's avoid that, shall we? Meanwhile, conversely, let's leave out attacks ad hominem and stick with critiquing the article, thank you. --Petercorless05:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's been doing this from the beginning, this is just the point of the iceberg, if you even knew all the racist trash he is known to write..., when I answer to this sort of stuff I am warned for personal attack. Anyway, Zuljan, is not an Armenian. Adil purpously added the 'i' to make it sound as if he is an Armenian. Zuljan is a Slovak name, not Armenian. Fad(ix)08:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask all parties to avoid speaking of personal past relationships. Let's focus on the output of the work. Comments should be directed towards the quality of the article, Thank you. In regard to Zuljan's heritage: what point are you trying to make specifically? --Petercorless
Petercorless, the "ian" ending is an Armenian family name ending. Adil added the "i" to make it "ian." He modified the authors name to then claim he is an Armenian and dismiss the article on the bases that an Armenian contributed. I just clarified that Zuljan is a Slovake author not Armenian. Fad(ix)00:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. After some further thought, I suggest that all of the quotations used to head sections be removed. They're unencyclopedic, instead making the text more of a narrative than a presentation of facts. It might be useful to mention some of the quotations in the body of some sections as appropriate, but only if they add significantly to the understanding of the section. —Cuiviénen22:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marshall, I agree that placing quotations on the lead of each sections is not encyclopedic, it gives more of a sensationalist look to the article, like the magazines bolding sensasionalist phrases in leads etc. Fad(ix)22:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Consider to achieve a peer review and A-class rating on the Military history project. Several NPOV issues still remain, for example already in the lead: "As the war progressed, Armenia and Azerbaijan, both former Soviet Republics, became enveloped in a protracted, undeclared war as the latter attempted to curb a secessionist, irredentist movement in Nagorno-Karabakh". The opening of the background is one-sided. A POV could be traced in the referencing (6 Armenian sources). --Brandспойт00:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one that added the comment as to it being a irredentist movement, because this is how the conflict is objectively classified. Irredentism is a cause of many ethnically-driven conflicts in the world. Citing that as a cause of the war is not a validation nor a refutation of either side, nor is that description particularly partisan. It is an objective description of why there was fighting in the first place. --Petercorless00:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus-building
Folks, we need to develop a consensus about the quality of the article, and avoid personal aspersions or even comments about those commenting about the article. Why a person votes for or against an article matters to me far, far less than "Is it a good article or not?" I wish to use objective evidence, not subjective personal political positions. That said, I wish to address some of the issues brought about above, which are getting buried under cross-talk.
Footnotes -- If it makes for a better article, add the formatting. In the case of this article, it would help the professionalism and standardization of the citations. Laziness is no excuse. Neither is byte count.
Main leaders of factions should be shown in the infobox. If you want to have a more comprehensive list of military leaders of each of the participants, and perhaps a list of units under their command, you can have some sort of order of battle or leader listing in the article. It can include both civil and military leaders, wheras the infobox should be for military commanders only. Example: War in Somalia (2006–present): Key people.
Earthquake seems notable to mention, and I suggest to add the related verifiable published newspaper/magazine/book references so long as we do not beat a dead horse or argue ad nauseum. If there are objections, ensure to cite who made such claims to show they were assertions as opposed to provable/verifiable fact. If there are counter-arguments that these events or expressions never occurred or did not occur as asserted, then cite a published source where the refutation was made. No personal assertions or POV-based excisions. Back your statements. If you cannot, we won't delete simply because you find it an objectionable topic or reference.
Quotes at the start of sections -- Personally, I liked them as a stylistic engagement of a reader. But yes, they can be argued to be non-encyclopedic that way. Some of those taken away could be worked back in to the paragraphs either inline or as cquotes for the section.
Seems close to ready -- aside from some minor and often technical disputes which are never going to be resolved unless people put down partisan positions, this article seems about 95% ready for FA status. Remember that no article is ever complete, and just because FA does not mean the article is enshrined in a temple somewhere. --Petercorless23:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-"third party" objections of sources -- If this was an article about World War II, it would be allowable to quote from either Churchill's six-volume history of World War II, or Hitler's Mein Kampf, as both individuals were personally and primarily involved. You cannot toss away a primary source by calling it POV. What you can do is note who the source is, and ensure that assertions, allegations, and other non-verified claims or opinions of an author, even if a primary source, are properly contextualized. --Petercorless23:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will remind that we are not simply supposed to throw up any roadblock to progress we can find in Wikipedia's arsenal of templates, especially if said template additions are not followed by a related discussion or citation of what the problems are. Talk rationally, thank you. --Petercorless06:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I already explained that Basayev was not a commander in Azerbaijani army, still he is listed as such in the commanders section. I also provided a full text of Kavburo resolution, which says that Nagorno-Karabakh was to be left within Azerbaijan SSR, and not awarded. The article clearly provides inaccurate info with regard to these issues. Grandmaster06:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basayev was not a commander in the Azerbaijani army. He is not listed as such. He is listed as a commander during the war. He is not listed as a commander of the Azeri army. Stop this malicious nonsense. It's understandable why you're seeking to remove this fact from the article but it's just silly. --ΕυπάτωρTalk!!13:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, mind civility. Second, the two warring sides were Armenia and Azerbaijan, so Basayev should be a commander in the either army to be listed as commander. I'm not trying to remove Basayev from the article, he can be mentioned in the text along with people like Zinevich, but the attempts to present Basayev as a commander are deliberate misinformation. Grandmaster13:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. He need not be part of the Azerbaijan army to be listed as a commander in the Infobox. He simply needs to have been a commander of a notable faction or formation. --Petercorless00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dodging the issue by saying mind civility is uncivil and uncalled for. No, the two principal warring sides were the NKR Army and Azerbaijan. Both sides were supported by others. NKR by Armenia and Azerbaijan by Afghan mujahedin and Chechen guerillas commanded by Basayev. In addition each side employed mercenaries. Basayev with his Chechens was as much a part of the conflict as Azerbaijan was. Basayev cannot be compared with Zinevich since Zinevich was a mercenary while Basayev was not.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!!15:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You cited no sources to support your claim that Basayev commanded any military unit. He fought in Karabakh, but none of your sources say that he was anything other than a soldier. And again, Basayev did not command any military operation, while Zinevich was chief of stuff in the Armenian army. Grandmaster15:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are countless sources that name Basayev. Even De Wall: " One of the last fighters to leave Shusha was the Chechen volunteer Shamil Basayev,". He was a commander of batallionm always has been.[4].
President Dudayev soon dispatched Basayev to Azerbaijan to assist the Muslim
Azerbaijani national army in fighting the Russian-backed Christian Armenian...:-The Wolves of Islam: Russia and the Faces of Chechen Terror - Page 13 by Paul J. Murphy.
This book: Caucasus: A Journey to the Land Between Christianity and Islam - Page 186,by Nicholas Griffin - 2004 - 248 pages writes extensively about Basayev and his dirty deeds for Azerbaijan. Link:[5]--ΕυπάτωρTalk!!16:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps his role should be detailed specifically in the text as well as the Infobox. Furthermore, the citation of the CIA factbook in the infobox does not lead to any infomation about Basayev. Was it in an older year entry? I also suggest to add it to Basayev's own Wikipedia entry. Again, please use reliable sources, and since there seem to be doubts, put in more than one if possible. If his alleged battalion had a name or designation, it should also be cited. --Petercorless00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that Basayev did not fight in Karabakh, show me a source that proves that he commanded any significant military unit or was in charge of any operation by Azerbaijani army. Otherwise he cannot be listed as a commander. And even if he was a battalion commander, he still does not qualify to be listed there. You cannot list every battalion commander in the list of commanders. Also, Armenian sources have obvious bias in this issue and cannot be trusted. Grandmaster17:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a foreign command with a foreign commander, there are times when it is appropriate to cite the external force, and other times when it is not appropriate. If this was a squad or platoon of advisors, that would be one thing. Once you are talking about a battalion commitment, that is arguably a sufficient force for citation in the infobox given the scale of the war. Also, while the force itself is not major, I believe the point that is trying to be illustrated is the convergence of Islamist forces in support of the Azeri government. For that purpose, it is significant and duly notable. Those who assert his presence in NK, also cite sources on the alleged size of the force he commanded. Transfer further discussion to the Talk page. --Petercorless00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list of commanders should include those who were in charge of military operations, and not every minor military leader. Plus, we have no sources to support the claim that Basayev commanded anything at all in Karbakah war. We only know that he fought in Karabakh. He might as well be just a soldier. On the other hand, Russian general Zinevich was chief of stuff of Armenian forces, so he definitely belongs to the list, while Basayev does not. Basayev can be mentioned in the text, but should not be listed as a commander. Grandmaster05:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my gush, not this AGAIN. Grandmaster we've been there, two Administrators have mediated the whole thing on the NK and you've wasted the time of countless numbers of users on this for months. There has been various sources on that, and both administrators, including all the other members beside you have opposed to this word. You much know why Kavburo resolution contained that word, this was discussed for a very long time. No one is interested to bring this for a year, two year, three year. Fad(ix)08:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't know what the compromise was, you know I left the article because I had no time to waste fighting over one single word. Bring this with the other members who were still there. But there is no any single word used there as POV as "left." Fad(ix)08:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awarded and granted are more acceptable and more accurate wordings than left. Something can not be left in an entity which was just created with no official borders. But we can claim that the one having created it "granted" or "awarded" it. Also, I havent seen you editing it with the wordings of NK main article, you have rather replaced it with the term left which you knew was more opposed by the 2 administrators and members than the terms "granted" and "awarded." Fad(ix)18:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to distort the facts. This was my edit, which was reverted by certain people: [6] I proposed a compromise in line with the main article about Nagorno-Karabakh, but you insist on your prefered version, despite it contradicting the text of Kavburo resolution. Grandmaster06:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. At this point, the major issues have been addressed. The arguing over minor semantic differences should be handled on the Talk page henceforth. --Petercorless00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the citation of the CIA factbook in the infobox does not lead to any infomation about Basayev. If you check the link next to Chechen Volunteers and Basayev's name in the infobox, you'll see that its a clickable link refers to a book I added. The number 2 citation follows the "Republic of Armenia" in the infobox where it refers to the participants in the conflict.--MarshallBagramyan02:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. The problem is in the fact that note1 and note2 in the infobox occurred twice. I made the link to the CIA Factbook a standard citation template. Also, as many, many, many of the military conflicts on Wikipedia have to do with unrecognized or de facto states, I dropped the note from RNK. --Petercorless03:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Featured Article criteria and call for consensus - As per Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, the page seems well-written and comprehensive. Issues of factual accuracy and neutrality, including extensive footnoting, have been addressed to the general satisfaction of most, though there are definitely going to be some who would oppose the NPOV issue no matter how many revisions it goes through. Even for the changes, the vast bulk of the text remained stable. Many of the objections listed above have been addressed already. While my own view is that the article is ready for FA status at present, given the extensive discussions above, we have a few options:
Approve it as it stands now, in recognition of changes incorporated since the start of this review.
Fail it or agree there was no consensus for this FA candidacy.
I think the article is always going to have its detractors; many of those who opposed the article did it outright, listing that it was misrepresenting history which is only about 5% of this article, in other words, it does not correspond to their (point of) views. Those who have objected due to more realistic concerns (i.e. sources, citations style, etc.) have voiced their support so I think we'll go with option 1 :) --MarshallBagramyan01:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. We seem to be about evenly split in votes supporting and opposing. Many of the "oppose" votes were cast early in the cycle, and many of those who voted thusly did not rejoin discussions after fixes and changes were made. Grandmaster, you seem to be the main proponent of a certain viewpoint in the discussion. Is the article now at a good state of readiness in your opinion? What would be needed to change your vote from "Object" to "Support" at this time? Or should we move for "no consensus" at this time, and try again in a future round? --Petercorless22:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the "oppose" votes were cast early in the cycle, and many of those who voted thusly did not rejoin discussions after fixes and changes were made. Not to mention that one of them was found to be a sock puppet [7]. But I'm surprised as to why Brand and Peta have yet to reply in regards to the changes made on the issues they originally raised. Asides from GM, does anyone else have objections to this article's FAC? Eupator, Fadix, and Roob23 were also to raise their support for the article but abstained for the sake of having it attain FA support via 3rd party editors, which it broadly has. --MarshallBagramyan02:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article needs more work. The Azerbaijani side of story is not fairly presented (you can see it even by photos), and the problems that I mentioned have not been rectified. You may have noticed that none of Azerbaijani editors voted in support of this article. You may discard their votes, but this fact shows that the article lacks objectivity, otherwise they would have at least abstained from voting. Fadix blames the position of Azeri users to ethnic bias, but if it was so, we would have voted against other FA articles created by Armenian users [8], which we did not. But since this article has a direct relation to Azerbaijan, the opinions of Azeri editors should be taken into account. Grandmaster07:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Article is still biased, especially in the background section. The numbers provided for Nagorno-Karabakh's ethnic composition in 1923 are based on two sources - one clearly Armenian, the other one from 1921 when Nagorno-Karabakh did not exist and therefore its borders could not have been determined. However when Nakhichevan and its being part of Azerbaijan are mentioned, nothing is said about its predominantly Azeri population. Parishan07:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nakhichevan was not the reason why this conflict began. Its impossible to satisfy all sides, whether you're Armenian or Azeri. I've had to revert this article and others several times whenever someone has injected Armenian POV. The images are not my problem, nor should they suggest that I hand picked those favorable to a certain POV: no one, asides from Baku87, bothered showing me images of the Azeris fighting in the war which I would more than happily accepted into this article. It does not show it lacks objectivity when only Azeri users are finding hints of systematic bias. It simply means that they do not agree to the current version because it does not correspond to their POV, that's tough luck because it definitely does not correspond to the Armenian, nor any other interested party, POV either. That is why the problems raised by the neutral contributors have found little to no traces of POV, all of which, if found, they or I have quickly sought to fix.
The content is biased and tendentious -Tabib
The content contains historical distortions and verbal manipulations while using sources in order to create an impression that NK used to be part of Armenia and was transferred to Azerbaijan by accident (which is nonsense, like 2+2=5) - Batabat
And so forth. We cannot be listening to Azeri editors if all they complain about is who Karabakh belonged to in 1921 or 1923 or who or what gave it for. Images, yes; troop numbers, yes; command decisions, yes but 97% of this article is about the war and yet seemingly, we are focusing on what words we should use in the background section. I have spent little over a year focusing on what went on with the war rather than drag through on the reasons that brought it which, although important, does not solely merit an oppose vote to block and stonewall an article because someone disagrees on the way it is written. If its not Karabakh's population in 1923, its the death count and perpetrators of the Sumgait massacre, or its the casualty count and actions of Khojaly, or its the circumstances of the capture of Shushi, or its the capture of Kelbajar - certain people are always going to have problems with this article, but that does not mean the article itself is problematic and filled with errors and inaccurate history.--MarshallBagramyan18:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MarshallBagramyam, I understand how frustrated you may feel after working very hard and very long on this article. Stay calm, even in the face of criticism, whether perceived as fair or unfair. Remember that even a very few words can be "show-stoppers" to people. While I am not validating removing any specific text at this time, nor offering that we fundamentally rewrite (or whitewash) the background or any elements of the article to please partisan audiences, we need to consider how to resolve and conclude the present FA discussion. Nakhichevan is mentioned a good number of times in the article. Might it be worthwhile to make a brief description of the contrast between how Nakhichevan, as an Azeri exclave, resolved quite differently than NK, as an Armenian exclave? Something very high-level, including general population sizes, influences, and results. Perhaps a small table or sidebar? Bullet point comparison? If we do include something like that, would it be an element editors would support, or oppose? I'm trying to find the resistance points to FA status. Please, bring specific and constructive suggestions forward at this time. Presume and work in good faith, folks. --Petercorless19:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were a few skirmishes in Nakhichevan between Azerbaijani forces and the Republic of Armenia's military but much of the war rested on Karabakh Armenians who were fighting to secede from Azerbaijan. Perhaps the attacks there were diversionary in May 1992 due to the victories in Shushi and Lachin but its apparent that Azeri leaders were intent on keeping the region out of the caranges of war and so diffused the crisis within a matter of days (Nakh.'s Azeri pop. was in the high 90s by the breakup of the USSR). It never grew into a second front but I don't mind if someone wants to introduce something about it.--MarshallBagramyan20:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Second time self nomination. I withdrew the first nomination because the reviews thought the writing could be better. After a second peer review I feel that it meets the criteria now. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline00:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article is crowded with images, some duplicating that which is already shown. Image galleries are for the commons, not the wikipedia main namespace. Why is the lead in four parts; I think given the size of the article it is too long and its content is directly repeated later. The as a symbol and in the arts section should be in prose, but bullets could be effectively used to delineate the 5 subspecies in the taxonomy section.--Peta00:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree strongly as to the article having "too many images". Bird identification may not be the primary function of a Wikipedia entry, but it is nonetheless a significant factor - and one that is facilitated greatly by the inclusion of high-quality imagery showing different variations of the species, from different angles, and in different lighting conditions. This article is a good example of how these types of entries should be done. 'Card
Support, thanks for making those changes. One minor thing, is a birds call a part of its physical description or a behaviour? --Peta03:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The call seems to be placed in description rather than behaviour generally. I conitnued that in some corvid articles. Now to have a better squiz at this one......Cas Liber12:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: a little short but I can't see what else should be in there. I feel it satisfies all criteria though I do like ref footnotes in smaller sized scripts as on the dino FA articles. Also the heading "Physical description"; the word "physical" is redundant (what other type of description is there?) - I have removed the first word on loads of dino, bird, plant and fungi pages. cheers Cas Liber12:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object - Comprehensiveness. What is the etymology of the name? Why "Mourning" dove? The last section about artistic use is too short, and I feel more could be written there. Fieari20:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose needs a copy edit, common incident is with Inches it should be dab to Inch. The flight speed 88km/hour, what is that in mph? while on that 88 km/hour should be written as kilometre per hour or km/h. Gnangarra15:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
another problem opening sentence of the lead the dovefamilyColumbidae have a look where these three links redirect to. Gnangarra
I have bypassed a few redirects, made the suggested changes to the units of measurement and added the etymology. Emu (which is the source for section names in this article) has the section Taxonomy and distribution, so there is no particular problem with using that as a section. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline00:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self-nominated. Have gone through Peer Review. In the time since the article achieved GA status prose has been reviewed and improved. I have also added content and references to better substantiate the lead paragraph. Have used other musician FAs (Alison Krauss, Elliot Smith)as models and feel that the Ellis Paul article meets all FA criteria in strong fashion. Kmzundel15:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain why this nomination is seemingly being overlooked? I'm new at this and am hoping I haven't made some kind of blunder. Kmzundel02:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice work Kmzundel, the article is close to FA standard, but needs some work to bring it over the line. Just a few suggestions:
You might consider splitting the References section into "Sources" (which would list the full details of books you have used, and "notes" (for inline cites). Example here
For my own edification - why would this have to be implemented? I looked at the example provided and it seems to be splitting hairs. Also - not to beat a dead horse - but I went to great pains to model the article after what I thought would lead me down the correct path: HereKmzundel12:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will take a look and comment. May not be until tomorrow.
Looks like the Smashing Pumpkins issue was more with images. I should be OK with images since I only used images that I own. I looked at several other FA musicians re: sound samples and the Fair Use rationale seems to be fine (when compared to Alison Krauss and Elliot Smith) but beefed it up per Celine Dion. Kmzundel03:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opening sentence should read "Paul Plissey (born January 14, 1965) (better known as Ellis Paul). This isn't policy, but is more usual, and I think, more logical.
"It was then that he realized folk music was nothing to make fun of." - The 'make fun of' statement is out of context and reads strangely.
An unusual quote, perhaps, but it supports the previous sentence and nicely describes his surprise at finding folk music. Kmzundel
But the article doesn't mention that he 'made fun' of folk before this. I know what you are getting at, you just need to be more explicit. + Ceoil18:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me think about how I can paraphrase that quote and still get it across.
These are just from a very brief scan of the article, I'll read it properly over the next few days and post other comments. + Ceoil16:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead claims that the Boston Music Awards "are considered a pinnacle of contemporary acoustic music success". However, these awards seem to be open to artists from the greater Boston area only.
The awards have been won by artists outside the Bonston area. I will think of a way to re-state that. The quote I had used originally was nixed by another editor. Kmzundel21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source I cite for that statement refers to the Boston Awards at the "New Hampshire primary" of acoustic awards which is the statement I had originally used. Another editor thought that term (New Hampshire Primary)was confusing - see my UserTalk page for his comments - so I re-wrote the statement to what it currently says. Can you help me re-state that? Also, the BMA website says the awards are given to showcase artists "with strong ties to Boston". Kmzundel22:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The following year in November Paul once again was successful in having a song in a movie when "Sweet Mistakes" was featured in Shallow Hal starring Gwyneth Paltrow and Jack Black." - The following November; "once again was successful" - could be better worded.
"Nora Guthrie stated that there was a job description that her father left behind (writing music for the lyrics) that Ellis took on" - meaning is unclear; to me at least.
I had originally used a Nora Guthrie quote "my father left a job description that Ellis took on" but another editor didn't like it. Have to think about how to re-state her quote to make it more clear. Kmzundel21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"was asked to participate in the Ribbon of Highway, Endless Skyway tribute show to honor Woody Guthrie, the brainchild of Texas singer-songwriter Jimmy LaFave." - dangling modifier.
As a general comment the lead is not a concise overview of the article per WP:LEAD; at present it mostly details career achievments, rather than provides a biographical summary. + Ceoil19:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support The lead still needs a little work; at present bio details take us to his high school knee injury. I've reorganised sightly - and you are allowed to disagree with my edit of course ;) -, my suggestion is that adding a few more bio sentences in the second para would greatly improve the opening.
One final point: would it be possible to split the "Current career" section into two smaller headings; at present it is over long and out of proportion to the other sections. + Ceoil20:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nora Guthrie stated that there was a job description that her father left behind that Ellis took on. - I don't understand this sentence, what job? what description? why is this randomly put in? - refer to Nora as Guthrie
13th Boston Music Award, this one in the category - remove 'this one'
Your suggestion is how I had that sentence originally written, but another editor said it sounded like he won 13 awards in that particular category which is why I added "this one" - but I have removed it again per your suggestion. Readers can see the individual BMA categories in the list under Awards. Kmzundel10:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first two external links link to the same site, remove the 'discussion board' one as there shouldn't be blogs - forum type things.
Can you direct me to policy on this one? I specifically read the MoS re: External Links and did not find anything and forums are linked on both FAs Alison Krauss and Elliot Smith.
Just noticed a copy edit you made re: the wording of the Kerrville New Folk Award. You actually reverted back to what I had originally written. MrFizyk felt the statement was misleading - see his Jan. 17, 2007 edit. See also the Kerrville Folk Festival section on my UserTalk page. Kmzundel12:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello chaps. To be honest I haven't read the entire article because I am completely unfamiliar with the artist, I'll maybe get round to reading and casting a vote later. However, I did do some small edits to help the article, and I've got some suggestions. The lead is fine, but beef up the middle paragraph with a concise summary of how he got into music and perhaps say how and when he gained fame as a musician. I also feel that the review quote in the lead feels a bit out of place and could perhaps be placed later on in the article, historically closer to that album's release. My last point is to do with the media: Good job with all the free photos, and a nice selection of samples, but they need better descriptions/captions to explain to the reader why they are there or why they are significant. Use the descriptions to highlight the aspects of his music/career they exemplify, or any other significance they hold. Just spell out for the reader how these photos/samples add to the text. I hope this is a help. =) - Phorque22:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. I moved the quote from the lead paragraph to the "songwriting" section where songwriting style is discussed. Kmzundel05:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Not sure (kinda brain-dead right now) about the song sample captions. Re-read what's there and combined with the article's content (which you admitted not reading) I think they're OK. May re-visit tomorrow. Kmzundel05:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK! It's a new day! Just added a bit of description to the sound samples and the first (Maine) image. Let me know if that beefs things up enough. Kmzundel12:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support In the spirit of lighting a candle rather than cursing the darkness, I went in and edited the captions to my liking. It was an easy task as this is a well-written, interesting and informative article that, with the final touches that are being done through this nomination, will be more than worthy of the Featured status. The images and samples are a nice addition to the article.
My final suggestions for improving the article are:
Providing some kind of external link and/or reference(s?) for the "Awards" section, even if you re-use sources used in the prose.
The best I could do was link to his website biography. Is that OK? Sadly, the Boston Music Awards website stinks and does not provide any historical information, nor have I ever been able to find a compiled listing of winners anywhere else. I do have a list that *I* have compiled that I could link (it's on a website that I maintain), but I'm not sure that would be appropriate. Kmzundel17:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining either in words or with a wiki-link what "the Mount" is in one of Ellis' quotes regarding the Guthrie festival.
I'm assuming he was talking about some kind of holy or significant mount that one would make a pilgrimage to or something? (couldn't find anything else giving it away in the external link either... am I being uncultured not knowing what he's on about?)
Well, that's a trick question. ;-) I'm certain he was referring to the same mount (The Mount of Olives) that Jesus went to as told in the Bible. "Going to the mount" means being close (or attempting to be close) to one's God or communicating with same God. Have wiki-linked it. Kmzundel17:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for lighting the candle. This is my first Wiki experience and you, Ceoil and M3tal H3ad have helped me learn alot from your support, patience and encouragement. Kmzundel17:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Oppose There remains some unsourced theories and material in the Intelligence as an observable quality. Until that is resolved I don't think the article can proceed yet.--Zleitzen (Talk) 18:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 21 citations in the lead??? It's meant to be a summary of the article where information is referenced in the body. Web sources are missing date retrieved and publisher (website). Image:Time evolution wars.jpg is missing a fair use rationale - too many external links. M3tal H3ad07:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, some of these seem like valid critiques and need to be addressed. However, just responding to the first concern 21 citations in the lead- the presence of those citations is due the controversial nature of topic which has resulted in everything being cited in great detail even when something is arguably a summary of a later information in the article. JoshuaZ07:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually if you read through WP:LEAD, it would appear that the lead should be supported like any other text (after all, it isn't an abstract). Anyway, there's a reason that everything is cited. Guettarda14:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support An incredibly impressive article given the controversial nature of the topic. If this made FA it would serve as a great example of how this sort of thing ought to be done. But... according to WP:WIAFA, it really needs a "References" section that lists all of the sources that have been cited in the article. Given the number of footnotes, I don't envy the person who puts it together. But it really has to be done. MLilburne11:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it’s a good article, but there are some issues that stop me from supporting just now:
The article (correctly) portrays the issue as endemic to the USA, but this is only said explicitly once, in the ‘Movement’ section, and it is not cited there. If I understand correctly, there should be a mention of this earlier in the article (maybe in the lead?) and there should be some kind of citation to substantiate the geographical disparity.
There are several definitions of ‘science’ or ‘scientific method’ in the article that are not thoroughly referenced. It may be enough to have them all share one footnote, but that footnote must appear next to each.
Per the Manual of Style punctuation at the end of an inline quoted passage should be outside the quotes, “like this”, unless “the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation (‘logical’ quotations).” (Also, I happen to prefer Unicode quotation marks to ASCII quotation marks, but that’s not an objection to the article.)
Use a consistent dash style (outside of quotations, where of course the dashes should be preserved). Apparently the preferred style for the article is to use spaced em-dashes — like this —, but I’ve noticed several en-dashes.
There should be no spaces between punctuation marks and subsequent ref tags.
Minor object. Not comprehensive - no treatment of how it is viewed outside US, UK and Australia. Also, there are some unreferenced paragraphs. See also is very large, per MoS the relevant terms should be incorporated in text. Finally - can we have some pictures?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 03:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that this is largely because it, as opposed to creationism, hasn't actually spread beyond those countries. Trying to find evidence of this. Adam Cuerdentalk05:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent article on a controveisal topic. I do have a small quibble with the criteria listed in 'Defining intelligent design as science'. It says a theory must be "Correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)" while at the same time being falsifiable. These would seem to be contradictory. Given that the "Evolution can't be falsified" argument is a common ID canard, this should probably be clarified. Raul65419:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whatever happened to the policy that the lead is supposed to be free of references? That's a rhetorical question by the way (please don't waste your time and tell me to read WP:LEAD. I practically have it memorized). The load of references in the lead is ugly beyond comprehension. Quadzilla9917:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rule as we have defined it is that the lead should established the notability of th subject, and summarize information found in the rest of the article. Thus, for a properly written lead, refs are not necessary, but not prohited either. This article is fine. Raul65417:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could explain the rule to you backwards with my eyes closed so there's no need to attempt to explain it to me. I commented the lead was ugly and your basic response was "This article is fine." Quadzilla9922:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you know what the rules are, you wouldn't have said "Whatever happened to the policy that the lead is supposed to be free of references?" when no such policy has ever existed. Raul65402:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugly but funtional. Being a controversial topic, content (especially in the lead) is regularly challenged or removed, especially by new editors. Referencing every statement in the lead reduces this problem, and thus improves the stability of the article. Guettarda16:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as per comments below
2.5 out of the 3 lead paras discuss the controversy of the topic, and what it is not. More info needs to be put in on what it *IS*.
The lead para, as per wikipedia policy, should not be so heavily cited
You do not distinguish between footnotes and citations. See Roman-Spartan War for a far better way of distinguishing the two
The "Creationism" navbar template is flawed, since it puts all the articles listed on a single footing and puts ID and Hindu Creationism on a similar footing, whereas ID and Young Earth Creationism are a sub-theory of "creation science", which is itself a subsection of christian creationism.
"The stated purpose of intelligent design is to investigate whether or not existing empirical evidence implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents" - "intelligent design" doesn't have a stated purpose, it is just a concept. People have purposes, concepts don't.
"ID" - I don't like this acronym being used, since it has a much more common usage for another word. I'd use the full phrase.
"Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern development of natural theology " Weasel words. Find someone who does say that and cite it, or don't say it at all.
"Examples offered in the past included the eye (optical system) and the feathered wing; current examples are mostly biochemical" Why? Were the earlier examples disproved? If so, I would mention this, it seems apposite.
Proceedural Aside - I'm not sure I like the idea of the Featured Article Director supporting FAC nominations and contributing to discussions. the FAD is supposed to objectively review the comments made and reach a conclusion on consensus, this will surely be hampered by a personal involvement in discussion on the article
I don't want to put too fine a point on this (so don't take what I'm about to say personally), but your comment is flatly wrong. I have been participating on the FAC for years, including making both support and oppose comments. My involvement in this case has been limited (A) to reviewing the article and determining whether or not it meets the criteria, which is something I unequivocally reserve the right to do AT ANY TIME to any article nominated on the FAC, and (B) giving clarification to others involved on this FAC nom as to issues of policy (since this is a topic where policies tend to get invoked a lot, both rightly and wrong). Raul65405:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, Raul's comments have no more or less weight than those of any other registered user. Consequently, there is no reason to bar him from contributing. TimVickers23:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. This is not an article about Intelligent Design, but an article against Intelligent Design. Many of the criticisms may be referenced, but that the criticism is there, especially in the quantity it is, is POV-pushing. This is not a neutral article, but an anti-ID article.
The criticism begins in the introduction, and 70% of the introduction comprises criticism or rejection of the idea.
Almost every section other than perhaps the sections under "Overview" includes criticism of the aspect of ID being explained.
One section ("Arguments from ignorance") is entirely criticism, without even putting an ID answer to that criticism.
It argues some points rather than documenting them, such as the second paragraph under "Peer Review".
It makes demonstrably wrong claims. The claim (in the first sentence under "Peer Review") that there have been no peer-reviewed ID papers, whilst supported by the first of the two references supplied, is contradicted by the second reference (which tries to dismiss the paper, but does acknowledge that is was peer-reviewed). It also overlooks likely ID papers published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Creation.
Regarding the peer review comment, the article states "To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal". This is what the sources say. The "Journal of Creation" is not a peer reviewed science journal. Guettarda16:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is NOT what the second reference says. The second reference acknowledges that there was a peer-reviewed ID article, as I said above.
The Journal of Creation is (a) peer-reviewed, (b) has articles about science, and (c) is a journal. So your counter claim is false.
The peer review section could be better cited but the rest of your claims are less than persuasive. If a topic gets a lot of criticism, it isn't NPOV to pretend otherwise. If every single aspect of an idea is rejected by the larger scientific community, that should be clear. Meanwhile, attempting to argue that content published in an avowedly creationist "journal" constitutes peer review of ID is funny at so many different levels...(and in any event, we have reliable sources saying there is no peer review material making your personal opinion about what constitutes peer reviewed papers irrelevant)JoshuaZ16:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I suggest that the article should pretend that the topic doesn't get a lot of criticism? I didn't. And neither did I say that it shouldn't be clear that it's all rejected by the majority of the scientific community. Both those points could be briefly mentioned (not argued). I said that the article should be about ID, not against ID, which is how it is at the moment.
What provokes your sense of humour is irrelevant. That the Journal of Creation is peer reviewed is NOT merely a personal opinion. It is a fact, despite what your apparently unreliable sources claim. If you still maintain that it is not peer-reviewed, could you please show me where these "reliable sources" claim that the Journal of Creation is not peer-reviewed. I will be interested to see if they exist, and if they do, whether they have anything to back up the claim or are mere assertion.
"Reviewed by a peer, to make sure it follows creationist values" is not what is generally meant by "peer-review". I suppose that definining terms might help here. Adam Cuerdentalk00:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me some evidence that JC is "peer reviewed science"? It isn't ISI indexed, and while the Instructions to Authors say "Do not use too many big or extra words", there's nothing about peer review or any idea of the composition of the editorial committee. The assertion that there are no ID publications in peer reviewed scientific publications is supported by references, including evidence under oath by ID-proponent Michael Behe. Do you have any reputable references which say otherwise? Guettarda02:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're simply looking for something that says that the Journal of Creation is peer-reviewed, see here.
I don't know why you are asking for a reference for peer-reviewed ID articles when I've already pointed out twice that one of the two references in the article to the very statement in question talks about such an article!
Comment I think that no matter what the answer was to one of Rainman's objections, including agreeing with him, he'd find some reason why the answer was wrong and simply raise another specious objection. Best not to feed the trolls. •Jim62sch•22:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to both FeloniousMonk and Jim62sch: Your responses appear to be merely dismissal of opposing views based on your own POVs. I have provided specifics as to what is wrong with the article, and neither of you has attempted to address them. And calling me names is not a valid form of argument. Philip J. Rayment22:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I struggle to understand how you could possibly say that. Perhaps you are referring to the various people who have attempted to respond to my objections. In that case, I'll clarify that I was talking specifically about FeloniousMonk and Jim62sch, who have not replied to my objections here at all. The other objections have been answered. Philip J. Rayment12:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that the Journal of Creation can Peer Review ID is abusing the concept of peer review. The term “Peer” refers to colleagues in the domain the subject is covering(experts in the field). ID wants itself to be a biology related domain, a scientific hypothesis. It should therefore be reviewed by biologists. It is not peer reviewing to submit a biology related article to “astrologists.” This doesn’t mean ID is not valid, it just mean that ID has not been published in a peer reviewed journal, I believe this needs clarification by adding “scientific”, since when the term “Peer Reviewed” is used, it is in connection to science related journals. ID being also about creationism, I do admit that we can call it Peer review if it is reviewed by some “experts” in creationism like theologists. But it sure is not a “Peer Reviewed Science” it might be “Peer reviewed theology” though. So further clarification there could be worthwhile. I too have a problem with the introduction but the rest of your critics I don't believe are valid. Fad(ix)21:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fad, I agree with the your description of what peer review is, but not with the unstated implication that the Journal of Creation doesn't do this. What gives you the idea that papers in the JoC are not reviewed by "colleagues in the domain the subject is covering(experts in the field)"? Your objection amounts to a slur against the JoC unless you can demonstrate the JoC does not do this. Philip J. Rayment02:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“Demosntrating” is quite a strong word. I don’t have to support the thesis that they do not peer review, since this would be a logical fallacy. The existence and not the non existence should be supported. Do you have evidences that the JoC peer review in any field of science? If not, then we can’t claim it is peer reviewed science. Fad(ix)04:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The onus to support the position is on all claimants of existence. Nothing to do with creationists. This is how science work, I am not talking about sceptic organizations or other systems which claim to do science by trying to “prove” non existence. This article doesn’t mean the ID hypothesis is fake, it just highlight that it is not peer reviewed science and that this is not what most scientists believe. It is also pathetic that we need to transform such articles into a kind of “polling scientists” thing, which if you ask me is a success for those contributors who support ID. It’s obvious that most scientists support natural selection, obvious, we don’t go on writing thousands of words and polling articles by citing how most scientist believe in a well established hypothesis. If we are at a point that this need to be done, scientists are at the defensive and this reaction is a defence mechanism. Fad(ix)16:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any reason why the Discovery Institute's reprint of "Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure" is cited along with the original version from The American Spectator website? They say the same thing, and I don't have to worry about how on Earth I am supposed to indicate where it's reprinted using the template. Unless they have policy of making content unfree after a certain period of time, which seems rather unlikely given the date of publication, I see no reason to include the reprint.
The issue is not whether or not the referneces go to the web but whether or not they are reliable. One of the most cited sources is the testimony and ruling in the Kitzmer case (and specifically, links to them on the web). These are reliable. So to complain that they are "all web references" is to focus on the wrong thing. Raul65402:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that they should all have retrieval dates and other information like whether or not it is part of a larger work, who wrote it, who published it, when it was published/last updated, etc. I must have hit enter by mistake.--Rmky8702:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, unless the section on the movement is reduced ' to a sentence or two leading to its article. & the section on Controversy made NPOV. ID (despite the motives on many of its proponents) is an intelligible argument, very much more difficult to refute than many other creationist positions. The article should be devoted to it in its own right, with of course the arguments against it. Having the material on the Movement is inherently NPOV, and the actual section on the movement is entirely NPOV without any defense of the Movement. Further, the section on the controversy is entirely devoted to arguments against ID. This is reasonable, except that there should be a rejoinder of similarsome reasonable though not necessarily equal length--and there isn't. I notice that summaries of the same arguments is also placed at the end of each of the sections on the theory itself. (As for personal POV, let me mention that I am not a supporter of ID in any sense of the word, and most certainly not a supporter of the Movement) DGG21:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This strikes me as another clueless objection since it references policies and FA requirements that do not exist. Can you please point us to the specific policy or FA requirement that specifies that sections of articles detailing controversies must have a "a rejoinder of similar length" and where sections that have spin out articles must be only "a sentence or two." Wikipedia:Content forking notwithstanding, is simply a guideline, and there is no way you can properly summarize a topic as complicated as the movement as required by WP:NPOV in one or two sentences. Unless you can provide specific policy to support your objection, it runs the risk of being discounted here. FeloniousMonk22:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, from WP:NPOV, below. You are right that it doesn't have to be equal, but the basic requirement is that you cannot make criticisms from one side and not include replies. The section on criticism needs some perhaps smallish amount of ID rejoinder.
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.... Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.''DGG'01:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're cherry picking from the NPOV policy. As the ID article states, ID is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. The WP:NPOV policy tells us when writing about pseudoscience: "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." (emphasis in original) WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. Clearly the article complies with WP:NPOV exactly, and your undue weight objection is baseless. FeloniousMonk05:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not the least objection to adding the category pseudoscience, because, in summary, that is what I think it is. I can argue for it, but as Writing for the enemy. A category should indicate the various aspects of an article & pseudoscience is certainly one of them, and I have never said otherwise. But this is pseudoscience defended from another viewpoint. There's also the viewpoint of the ID Movement. Personally, i have an extremely negative view of many of the activities discussed there, but I do not think this theory owes its origin there--rather, it was conveniently at hand for adoption as being something not overtly ridiculous. ID still needs a serious presentation, and the article as a whole can not sum up for or against it. The reader will do that, and with a fair presentation and a good article, the reader will do that correctly. The reader without preconceptions will do so even without a slanted POV.
To write as much from the creationist point of view as from the mainstream point of view would give undue weight to the creationists. As for uncritical description, none of ID’s notability is directly due to its propositions so we shouldn’t waste any paragraphs on it. —xyzzyn22:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Intelligent design is supposed to be a "scientific" topic (it was designed to get around the Edward case, which declared that creation science was religion, not science. In the 20 years it has been around, something like 300,000 papers are published a year in the biological sciences; almost all of them work within the neo-darwinian paradigm. Even taking the broadest view of "publications" (ie, stuff in ISCID, etc) you're looking at something like 1 in a million papers which use the "paradigm" of ID, no matter how broadly...and these handful of papers have almost never been citationed by others (which is the currency of scientific publication). So, when it comes down to it, the ID perspective is given far too much space in this article. It's an incredibly tiny fringe position in science. So to say it need not necessarily be as much suggests a lack of understanding of the situation. Guettarda06:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those complaining about citations in the lead paragraph need to consider the nature of the topic. They are essential for such a controversial subject such as this, and are needed for stability, though I recommend condensing a few of the multiple footnotes into one note, rather than having a horizontal line of footnote numbers referencing one point. See example here[1]
^My comments for FA reference 1 • More comments for FA reference 2 • Even more comments for FA reference 3
Good work on clipping the references in the lead, indeed it is better now. As far as I'm concerned its just the unsourced points lower down the page.--Zleitzen(talk)03:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article seems NPOV to me. An article on Adolf Hitler would include a great deal of negative information, and an anrticle on Martin Luther King Jr. would include a great deal of positive inofrmation. Likewise, an article on a discredited pseudoscientific theory would make that fact — that it is discredited both in United States courts and scientific circles — and therefore would include a great deal of negative information. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!)01:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the Article on Adolf Hitler is almost entirely devoted to a factual summary of his deeds, including several paragraph-length quotations from his work. There is no quotation from any of his opponents either in the text or the notes, though there are links. The only part that contains comment is "Since the defeat of Germany in World War II, Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism have been regarded in most of the world as synonymous with evil. Historical and cultural portrayals of Hitler in the west are, by virtually universal consensus, condemnatory." And that is the only negative comment necessary. Similar political leaders are treated in a similar fashion.DGG
So you are trying to say that the Adolf Hitler article is written from Nazi-party approved sources? It's entirely (or almost entirely) written from the perspective of "the other side". The entire article is written from a "negative slant"...I don't see any party-approved sources. And, you really need to read the article more carefully - it's full of negative statements (like that he dodged taxes on Mein Kampf) or the statement that "Opponents unconnected with the SA were also murdered". Guettarda07:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think he would have much objected to the article as a whole. The objective things that are said there are things he intended to do, knew he was doing, and generally did not try to hide. When he did what he did, he boasted about it. But back to our subject:
This should be such an article that the ID people could say--yes, it presents ID fairly. Naturally, we don't agree with the negative criticisms, but we have answered them, and anyone who believes as we do will see the merit of our case. And the strong evolutionists (like myself) could say, Yes it presents ID fairly, and it give our objections clearly, and although the ID people have tried to answer them, anyone who knows about science will see the justice of our case. DGG07:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. I totally endorse Philip J. Rayment's comments. Wikipedia has justifiably been called "The Abomination that Causes Misinformation". No where is this more true than the hatchet jobs performed by admins on articles opposing evolutionary dogma, while they censor any criticism of the most rabid antitheists like Harris and Dawkins. Evidently their idea of NPOV is "agreeing with me". Compare The Six Sins of the Wikipedia60.242.13.8704:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A well balanced and well referenced article on a highly controversial topic. I would like to note that Rayment's objection that criticism is given too much weight is not conclusive. The controversy around ID and its total lack of success in the attempt to be accepted as science is much of what there is interesting about it, so the abundance of criticism in the article is absolutely justified. Kosebamse19:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adam (and to anyone else who is fixing the objections brought up here) - I'm satisfied that this article meets our criteria and all the valid objections have been dealt with. Finish off that last citation-requested tag and I'll promote the article. Raul65422:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Here goes nothing. I just published this earlier today to FA criteria, and I believe it is of featured quality. The primary concern a fellow editor had was that it was a little too technical, which I will gladly address. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article is very well written, and cited. The images are also used properly. I do have two concerns but they are minor. In the lead, it says October of 2005 with "October" linked. The word "of" is unneeded and I don't think linking "October" provides any context here. My second concern is that some references refer to the "National Hurricane Center" and others to the "NHC". I assume these are the same organization, and should be listed consistantly. I can't help you with the sounding "too technical" because my degree is in Earth Systems, so I understood everything anyway. Other than that, great job. Jay3218303:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note 14 uses the numerical number "10", where as the rest of the citations spell the discussion numbers. Needs addressing. Other than that, good work. LuciferMorgan03:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Any chance you could put some quick stubs for those few red linked terms? Would be a step in the right direction for making the article more understandable on the technical side. Other than that, looks solid to me. You know Hink, after so many successful FACs, we might want to consider just giving you the right to post your articles straight to the FA list without going through the process. Would certainly save time. (Tongue in Cheek) Fieari04:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - An excellent article! The only thing I'm slightly concerned about is the reliance on a single source of information: the National Hurricane Center. While they're undoubtedly the authoritative source on all things hurricane, would it not be a good idea to corroborate some of their data with information from other sources? Mexico's Servicio Meteorológico Nacional comes to mind: home page, tropical cyclone archive. --Plek14:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concern, though nowhere else has as good of information pertaining to the meteorological history of the hurricane. If I were to expand the article to include impact and meteorological statistics, I would certainly include other sources such as Mexico's SMN. Mainly I based it off of Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina, which almost solely uses the NHC (only one ref is not NHC, but rather a sister organization within NOAA). For Wilma, that organization doesn't help. I also checked out the Canadian Hurricane Centre and the Bermuda Weather Service, but neither had something else to add to this topic. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The National Hurricane Center is the official source for data in the North Atlantic; any meteorological information presented by other agencies on hurricanes in the area is either borrowed from the NHC or unofficial and unrecognized by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The WMO has assigned "official" status to certain agencies in each cyclone basin, and the NHC is official in the North Atlantic (as well as the Northeast Pacific). You can read more at Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre. —Cuiviénen00:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, okay, I suppose you're right about that (mutter, mutter). Anyhow, here are some other things I noticed:
"The system continued to organize, with the National Hurricane Center remarking the system could ultimately become a hurricane prior to it becoming a tropical cyclone." — Become a hurricane prior to becoming a tropical cyclone? Pardon my ignorance, but isn't that saying the same thing twice?
"By late on 15 October, the surface circulation became well-enough defined, with sufficiently organized deep convection, for the National Hurricane Center to designate the system as Tropical Depression Twenty-Four while located about 220 miles (345 km) east-southeast of Grand Cayman." — I take it the NHC didn't relocate their offices to a somewhat precarious position east-southeast of Grand Cayman to make that announcement. You may want to edit that modifier a bit.
"As Tropical Depression Twenty-Four drifted southwestward, it gradually organized; by early on 16 October, rainbands began to gradually consolidate with well-established outflow." — Replace one "gradually"?
"Deep convection and banding features increased, as well, though mid-level dry air from the north prevented significant organization, with the convection split into two primary areas." — One comma too many, and the modifier could be clarified somewhat (it's not really clear to me what it's referring to).
"... surface buoy reports continued to report minimal winds due to the large size of the system." — Reporting reports. And (again, apologies for my ignorance): did the buoys report minimal winds because the system was so large? Are large systems and high wind speed mutually exclusive? (I assume this is about increasing rotation speed due to contraction, but it could be clarified a bit in the text.)
"By early on 17 October," — Spot the redundant word.
"and at 0800 UTC Reconnaissance Aircraft" — Capitalization?
"As the hurricane moved further inland, the eye became cloud-filled as the deepest convection began to warm, and it gradually weakened during its passage over land." — Is "it" referring to the hurricane or to the convection?
"Upon reaching open waters, Reconnaissance Aircraft reported..." — It's them caps again!
"Despite wind shear amounts of about 30 mph..." — I'm not sure, but is "amounts" the right word to use? Intensity? Speed? Or, just "wind shear of about 30 mph"?
Got most of the things. Actually, I don't spot the redundant word in "By early on October 17." It didn't occur in the early hours of October 17, and it didn't occur late on the 17th; it occurred by the morning hours when the discussion was released. For some reason or another, Reconnaissance Aircraft and other variants are generally capitalized. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article is on the Himalayan border pass between India and China, recently opened after sealed for four decades. Has a lot of content for an article with limited scope and is well referenced. Article started my me, and expansion continued by user:Ambuj.Saxena. Copyedited by several editors. Currently rated a good article. =Nichalp«Talk»=09:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I can't see anything on the topo map in the infobox without looking at the image page - which makes it's inclusion in the box kind of pointless. The lead makes this claim "The opening of the pass bolstered the economy of the region and is expected to play a key role in the growing Sino-Indian trade" - while the economy section talks about the expected effects there is no data supporting the assertion that "the opening of the pass bolstered the economy". It's been open again for 8 months, is there any current data to show the economic effect of reopening? The text also needs another copyedit. --Peta01:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions. 1. I've removed the topo map. 2. Fixed the lead statement. 3. Added data for trade figures in 2006. (PS The pass is only open till 30 Sep). 4. Not sure what needs to be copyedited. Could you point out some areas needing improvement? (I've also submitted this article for copyediting.) Thanks! =Nichalp«Talk»=06:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A well written and comprehensive article on an interesting, though little-known, subject. Meets all the FA criteria as far as I can see. Dislosure: I recently copyedited the article a bit, though I can't take any credit for the content. Abecedare20:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has been a work in progress for quite a few years, and I think it's finally time to get it up to FA. I've been cleaning it up and tweaking for quite a while now, and I think it now meets all the FA criteria. The subject is a video game website/forum. As far as I know, this is the first time such an article has ended up here, so there is little precedent to work with. At the very least, we'll get some good feedback. --- RockMFR21:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before I support, I'd like to give it a second copyedit (it's been a month or so) and perhaps get another copy-editor into it to be safe. — Deckiller22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object Does not comply with 1(b) and 4; the article lacks vital information and goes off-topic, particularly in the "Life, the Universe, and Everything" subsection and the "Contests" section. Will someone unfamiliar with GameFAQs garner better knowledge of it from being told the site's annual revenue or that a topic on a board they have not seen occasionally uses an image impertinent to the topic at hand?
The user Plek in the second and latest World of Warcraft featured article nomination (currently, it has yet to be archived) brought up a good point about similar articles like this that are practically in-universe. The only universal section is the "History," which is still fairly lax (what was the previous domain's name? What was the "popular FTP FAQ archive"? How do Jeff Veasey and Allen Tyner apply to that archive?), but there should be better information about its ad or any other source of revenue, its affect on the gaming industry or some technical data about its server, its usage or similar.
Revenue/ad numbers and current server specs are entirely unknown and have never been released anywhere, so this can't be added. The various "off-topic" sections are important to the topic at hand, so I'm not sure how to address that criticism. I added a bit more about the FTP archive (name of the person who maintained it and link to its original location). The only way Jeff Veasey is related to the archive is that he decided to mirror it (as the article says). GameFAQs has had no known effect on the gaming industry as a whole. One of GameFAQs' earlier locations can be seen in the citation at the end of the line mentioning the domain switch (the original url at AOL is unknown). The footnotes are now fixed. --- RockMFR05:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a recent phonomenon, so books and analysis have yet to be fully matured. We won't know the impact for years. Therefore, for what we have to work with, it's quite good for a website article. — Deckiller07:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, because you can't find it, means it doesn't exist? The objection still stands; there's still far too much information about impertinent topics and far too little about pertinent ones. Slof04:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that anything published in a reliable source that is of any value is in this article. Anything left out is original research. --- RockMFR04:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you have to put 10 refs in a lead, the lead is not a true summary of the article. A good lead will have few if any refs. Rlevse21:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I've moved the refs that were being used on the summary statements. I've left the ref for the direct quote from Ars Technica, along with the refs for the last paragraph in the lead. --- RockMFR22:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support from a prose standpoint, I think the main audits have been completed. As for the reference arguement, I'll leave that to the rest of you. — Deckiller07:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look through the article for use of "also" and remove the ones which aren't needed. Same for "additionally" and every other additive term.
Double use of "original" in the first paragraph (after the lead). And another double use in first paragraph of Message Boards.
other board categories have been added since the boards opened - as opposed to before the boards opened?
The basic structure of the GameFAQs boards served as a basis for the forums of GameSpot, MP3.com, TV.com, and FilmSpot - cite?
Is LUElinks really worth mentioning in the article? Are they particularly significant?
Most of the FAQs are not actually lists of frequently asked questions; instead, they usually cover aspects of gameplay that would normally be found in strategy guides - "most", "usually", "normally" - it gives the impression the sentence isn't very sure of itself (if you know what I mean). Trebor15:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to go ahead and use the abbreviated "site" throughout the article when referring to GameFAQs, as it just makes it flow a bit better. "website" is now used in the article only in the initial description and when talking about other websites, such as "highest-trafficked websites", "unrelated websites", and "spinoff websites" (so there is no confusion that we are talking about websites). I've fixed the uses of "original". I've now fixed the "Most of the FAQs" thing. I'll look over the other stuff later. --- RockMFR15:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and removed the GS/MP3/TV.com thing until I can get a proper citation (although it is true). The unneeded uses of "also" have been cleaned up. I don't see anything wrong with the board categories thing - other categories were added after the boards opened, meaning the boards did not launch with all of the various categories. LUElinks is significant, as it is (undisputedly) the largest and most active of all the various spinoff websites right now. The site is not significant enough for its own article, but it definitely deserves a mention. At the very least, it needs to be there to give the reader some idea of the scope of spinoff websites. Do they have just a few members? Do they have hundreds of thousands of members? The statement pertaining to the size of LUElinks gives the reader an idea of how important (or unimportant) spinoffs are. --- RockMFR22:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I guess. While I agree the article is low on out-of-universe info, you can only write with the sources that exist. Seems to meet the criteria. Trebor23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that wihtout citing any other spinoff numbers - which are all mostly private as well - the reader has absolutley no context on why LUELinks is so significant. Hbdragon8804:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Far too unprofessional a topic to host on the main page, ever again. A "games" related article once a year (perhaps April 1) is a better balance the the current embarrassing focus FA has on games and game related "articles." --Connel MacKenzie - wikt22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, the consensus appears to be that it's actually unprofessional when all topics are not covered. Second, the oppose is invalid; it does not cite any criterion. — Deckiller23:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to engage in attacks, calling my oppose invalid, I could counter that you are unqualified to name anything professional or unprofessional based on your user page comments.
The topic has been beaten to absolute death, making Wikipedia look ridiculous. This class of article should never be featured again. There is spillover vandalism this causes to sister projects that must not be ignored. Each time nonsense like this is featured (indeed, with impeccable citations often balanced with good writing) a deluge of vandalism hits Wikipedia. But more importantly, a deluge of related vandalism hits sister projects that don't have 1,000+ sysops to deal with it. This class of article shouldn't just be prohibited from featured articles, they should be moved to an appropriate forum like wikia and deleted from Wikipedia. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt23:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your oppose is invalid. There is nothing actionable in it, and the idea this should be deleted is absurd. This isn't nonsense (as you say "impeccable citations often balanced with good writing"), although it may not fit with traditional ideas of what an encyclopaedia should include. And since when did we avoid featuring quality articles because of possible vandalism? Trebor23:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not claim to know every subtlety of Wikipedia, however to call a vote on a vote page "invalid" is inherently wrong. Do you speak for all of WMF, when you suggest that inter-project coordination is not an issue? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt23:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't vote on things, not in the conventional sense. This is a discussion which will hopefully result in a consensus that the article should be featured or not. The Featured Article Director (currently User:Raul654) will look at the objections and judge whether they are actionable or not. Thus a "vote" which isn't actionable won't count for anything. I couldn't possibly speak for all of WMF, but there is only a very tenuous link between featuring less traditionally encyclopaedic topics and vandalism on Wikitionary, and this link certainly shouldn't come into these discussions. This is about assessing an article according to the featured article criteria. Trebor00:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a big world we live in. While tools like the Internet make some aspects of it seem smaller, I see no excuse to narrow minded isolationist concepts; the Wikipedia FA has direct (negative) effects on other projects. If the FAC is erroneously worded to focus only on the writing of an article, without any consideration for the appropriateness of the topic to massive promotion, then the FAC needs to be fixed. As a Wiktionary sysop, I can assure you that this topic being featured has a negative effect across all WMF projects. If the FAC does not currently recognize that, it needs to be updated. The tone expressed by the Feartured Article Cabal which immediately assaulted me for expressing my opinion, needs to be shut down; it is very un-wiki, and detrimental to all WMF projects, not just Wikipedia. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt18:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Care to share how you know that an article like this being featured has a direct negative effect on other projects? If you have problems with the process of FAC as a whole, propose a general change (although I can't see it getting much support). But your opposition has no relation to the current criteria, and so cannot be counted in the closing decision. I'm sorry if you feel assaulted, but we were just explaining that your opinion was not relevant to the discussion at hand. Trebor19:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing bizarre here is your nonsensical nomination, apparently because you think every featured article is on the main page - I can safely say that this will never reach the main page until the apparently "important" articles run out. Considering the amount of time you have been editing Wikipedia, I'm surprised at your ignorance. I'm pretty sure I just said what everyone else said previously. Eh, I couldn't be bothered reading it. --Teggles19:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FAs do not necessarily land on the main page. I think I recall this one FA that wasn't featured because the topic was too technical, or something like htat. Hbdragon8823:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The History section is too long, and goes into too much detail. It could easily be 25% shorter, mayve even 50%, by removing sentences such as "In September 2002, the ad was moved from the horizontal header to the vertical sidebar." This might be true, but I don't see why it is worth mentioning.
The references in the lead seem outdated. The reference for "The site hosts one of the most active message board communities on the Web." dates back to 2001. If GameFAQs is indeed "consistently cited by The Guardian as one of the top gaming sites on the Web", I would like an example from the last two years showing that it is still the case. Given how fast things change in the Internet world, all that information could no longer be true.
There are many references, sure, but about two thirds of the references are direct links to (sometimes archived) pages of the website. That is too many primary sources, and not enough secondary sources - see WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. For example, could you give a secondary source, from someone outside the GameFAQ community, showing that the LUE boards are important? --Pruneautalk18:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe everything in the history section at this moment in time is good, so I guess I disagree with this point. There are a few other Guardian references not currently in the article because I thought having all of them was overkill, but I can go back in the edit history and pull them up. For a subject like this, it is natural that it will have quite a lot of content based on primary sources. It obviously isn't clear what should be included and not included in this article, so editorial judgment has been a very important part of this article's history. --- RockMFR19:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Any objections I had have been dealt with. Great job! JACOPLANE • 2007-02-22 12:23
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self-nomination. I replaced the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica entry with this more up-to-date and comprehensive page. I believe that it fairly and accurately covers Barbauld, a major Romantic figure, with all of the necessary citations. The article has gone through a mini-peer review from a wikipedia peer reviewer and a larger peer review from the biography wikipedians. One question I have is: to reference or not to reference in the lead? I originally did not but was advised in a peer review to do so. I have since seen comments on other pages recommending a deletion of references from the lead. Please advise. Awadewit07:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A well-researched and thorough article that does an excellent job in discussing the literary context and posthumous reputation of its subject. MLilburne16:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is my favourite type of Wikipedia article, one which introduces me convincingly to someone I've never heard of. It is well written and structured and in places fascinating. I do have two criticisms: first, the article peacocks Barbauld rather too often for my taste, particularly in the "Children's Literature" section; second, it seems to me that the text sometimes lapses into essay style—for example:
Moreover, the intellectual ferment that Barbauld was an important part of—particularly at the dissenting academies—had, by the end of the nineteenth century, come to be associated with the “philistine” middle class, as Matthew Arnold would so eloquently and damningly phrase it.[30] Not only was she attacked as a dissenter, she was also attacked as part of the middle-class. The emerging eighteenth-century middle class that had advocated for the reform of education of England and other noble causes such as the abolition of slavery had, in many ways, come to be seen as responsible for the greatest abuses of the industrial age.
You may have sources for this reading and therefore strictly-speaking fulfil verifiability; but for me the fact that someone may have said something like this doesn't make it inarguable, and the above, for me at least, is arguable. "Come to be associated"/"come to be seen" by whom? And what is so eloquent about the word (not phrase) "philistine"?
I have moved the reference to the end so it is clear that this idea has a reference. The sentences after the original footnote cited here were supposed to be an explanation of the first sentence you quote. I hope that moving the footnote makes it clearer. Also, this is a standard narrative of nineteenth-century history; during the nineteenth-century, condemnation of the middle-class, even by themselves, was a widespread phenomenon (think Karl Marx) - that is why there is no "agent" in the sentence. No historical narrative is, of course, inarguable, but I feel that since I have a source and am explaining it (or trying), it is important to include.
I have tried to remove some of the peacock terms but I specifically left the ones in the "Children's Literature" section. It is hard to "show" her impact on that genre without narrating the entire history of children's literature and this page is not the appropriate venue for that. I understand the problem, but I guess I'm not sure how to explain that a writer revolutionized a field without saying that or providing an extensive history. I'm certainly open to suggestions, though.
I'm not sure what to do about the essay-style. Might you expand a little on the difference between essay-style and wikistyle?
Since I'm confident the article will make FA, I'm happy to leave this for the moment, as to go into detail might make me seem too critical of an article I admire. It's a small point: once the article has its star, I'll drop you a note on what I mean. qp10qp16:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, the article is a treasure, and, to judge by your user page, one you are probably the only Wikipedian who could have provided. Congratulations on a fine piece of work.
(By the way, you are right that contradictory advice exists about citations in the lead; I favour including them, though you'd have to remove them in the separate lead required for a front-page bid.) qp10qp03:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Support(partial contributor). This article meets the criteria and it's a really important sports related article.--Thugchildz
Object For now because it is almost there. Tournament and Media coverage sections need exspanding. The "Performance of teams" section looks a bit odd stuck between two tables. The lead infobox should only have the current champion. A lot of original reserch. Buc22:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what else is there to do? the tournament and media coverage have been expanded, the tables are the same way for the fifa world cup and thats a FA, and you still have not pointed out orginal research.
Object (for this state:[9]). The article looks good, but I still have some comments below. (Note: please don't mix your replies/answers/comments on my comment below as it will confuse who said which. The darkred fonts were copy-pasted from the article.)
Please complete all fair use rationale of all fair use images used in this article. Some fair use images, esp. logos, have high resolution. Its size should be reduced, per WP:FAIR.
I'm not really good at compelling prose criterion, but the following sentences do not have a good flow. The first cricket Test match was played in 1877 between Australia and England. Cricket was included as a sport at the 1900 Summer Olympics, where Great Britain defeated France in the final to win the gold medal. Cricket was not included in subsequent summer olympics. The next international cricket competition was the 1912 Triangular Tournament. They just look like bulleted items presented in a paragraph. No conjunction words and there is big gap between sentences.
I'm not also good at grammar, but this is the first time I read the word "while" is used strangely without a complete sentence. Here they are: Non-Test playing teams from the last World Cup automatically qualifies for the Qualifier. While, the next best ranked teams are seeded in division two and division three. From division three, two teams are promoted to division two. From that, four teams qualify for the World Cup Qualifier. While the others are still in contention. (see the bold part). Also, it confuses me to read "From that". Which "that" is it? the division three or the division two?
Again with the cutoff half-clauses (main and subordinate into two sentences) like these: The top two teams from division five then moves up to division four. From which, the top two teams are promoted to division three (second edition).
Could you just draw a graph to show how the qualification process works, rather than confusing sentences of "from that", "from which" and other "from..." ?
The television distribution rights to the 2007 Cricket World Cup have been sold to EchoStar Communications Corporation, which will be broadcasting to viewers from countries around the world, including an estimated 12 million viewers in the United States, which is a non-cricket playing nation. (too many "which"es)
The number of references is a bit thin, compared to the article size. Some sentences need inline citations, for instance:
The first cricket Test match was played in 1877 between Australia and England.
Australia won the championship by defeating England by 7 runs, the closest margin ever in World Cup final history.
...,were awarded victory by default after riots broke out in protest against the Indian performance.
The 1999 event was held in England, with some matches also being held in Scotland, Ireland and Netherlands.
In 2009 the name "ICC Trophy" will be changed to "ICC World Cup Qualifier".
The 2007 Cricket World Cup will feature 16 teams allocated into four groups of four.
There is still room for another ten teams to have their name inscribed.
The tournament today is one of the world’s largest and most viewed sporting events. (I don't believe this. Compare to the FIFA World Cup?)
Now let's look at the current references:
2. ^ Cricket World Cup PDF → please complete this.
3. ^ a b Ruthless Aussies lift World Cup. bbc.co.uk. Retrieved on 29 August 2006 → when did this news appear?
17. ^ Wisden Cricketers Almanack 2004 → what is this? book? newspaper? who is the publisher?
18. ^ ICC Cricket World Cup Anti-infringement programme → infringement? It's only FAQs. Which one is it?
Ref. 18 & 19 link to the same place, but they give different citations.
For all citation to news, please provide also when the news appeared. It's not informative to state only when you accessed it.
Numerous sponsorship deals have been made for each of the World Cups, for example, the sponsors for the 2007 Cricket World Cup include LG Electronics, Pepsi, Hutch, Hero Honda, Indian Oil, Scotiabank and Visa. Of course, all modern sport events now have sponsors. I don't think spelling out sponsors for a tournament is an encyclopaedic terms.
In the "See Also" section, there are two wikilinks: "International cricket in 2006-07" and "International cricket in 2007". Why are they different?
comment all objections have been addressed and explained to the users who objected;here & here--Thugchildz
(Moved from my talk page, please address all concerns about this article's review here. Please don't put them in my talk page, okay?) — Indon (reply) — 08:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hello, thank you for pointiing out the things that needs to be improved on the article. Right now most of you ojections for the article's FA have been addressed so can you please strike out you objection and comments (with <del>...</del>).
Edit:i found out im not supposed to do that so sorry about that.--Thugchildz
Response I know how to strike, but I don't like striking reviews. It's awful to read strikes in a review. I will only strike my oppose vote later after running a second look. — Indon (reply) — 08:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second look. I'm still opposing it after a glance look again to the page. Take one example, ^ Book:Wisden Cricketers Almanack 2004. Is this a good way of citing a source? Please read examples in WP:CITET and then you know why. (Note: WP:CITET is not mandatory but it is a good place to see what minimal parameters for a citation to be informative.)) — Indon (reply) — 15:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some images still lack fair use rationales. Also, the refs need to be completed with authors, dates (and pages for the PDF files), for example, ref no. 3 has an update date, but isn't cited; ref no. 7 also names the author but it isn't cited either. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 06:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean by ref no.3 abd 7 not being cited? also all of them are complete with authors and the dates, plus PDF have now the page no. and plus as said above WP:CITET is not mandatory--Thugchildz
I mind, this source names the author and the publication date (Martin Williamson / April 30, 2005), if you cite that source as a reference, you've got to include all the information, it doesn't matter if you're using a citation template or not. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 01:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITET does not say you have to include all the info. it only says that the bold ones are required and plus those templates don't even have to be used, so i dont think its mandatory include every single info about the source. may be i am wrong but not that i know of--Thugchildz
Comment This is not directly related to the article. I use a widescreen display and the "Infobox Cricket Tournaments" is grossly oversized in that format, i.e. I think its default size should be set so that its the same size in a 4:3 or widescreen display - just big enough to hold all the information. As it is there are massive empty spaces. Mark8312:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The trophy section of the article has an embedded comment that says <!--Need to add data about the original trophy -->. Is the article complete or incomplete? — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 13:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's complete that was just left there from before--Thugchildz
Support An excellent, well-illustrated, informative article, with a considered, appropriate use of stats (in a stats-crazy sport) - deserving of FA status. --Dweller15:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you check the history, I didn't strike out his comment, he did it himself, with the edit summary of "vandalism". But I think that if you want your vote to count in the tally, you need to be signed in as this means there can be no sockpuppetry or vote stacking. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C]22:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm sorry about forgetting to cite everything using proper templates. It's done now. Please point out any other problems and I'll quickly go and fix them, referencing format shouldn't be the factor keeping this away from FA. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C]21:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think "Most Successful" "Top run scorer(s)" or "Top wicket taker(s)" are really notable enough to be in the lead infobox. Maybe move them to another part of the article. Also I think the lead image should be either the logo or just the trophy on it's own. Buc22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
they are, because cricket is a stats-crazy sport and those are summary of the stats provided in the article--Thugchildz
I think you're right... the leading batsman/bowler need to remain. The "most successful" stat is, however, misleading, as it gives the impression Australia has won 40 world cups. I agree with comments above regarding the image in the info box... perhaps the Australia team image and the trophy image could just swap positions in the otherwise excellent article. --Dweller23:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
taken care of; the pictures is a issue.--Thugchildz
Not sure what the problem is with the pictures (unless it's a landscape/portrait problem) but the stat is still a bit unhelpful IMHO (although no longer misleading). Surely the reader interested in the most successful side wants to know who's won the most World Cups, not matches? England's win record is pretty decent in terms of matches (joint second best, according to the article)... but they've never won the shiny metal thing. Surely the natural thing to list would be "Australia (1987, 1999, 2003)"? --Dweller23:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yeah its lanscape/portrait so the other way looks odd and your right about world cups won not/matches--Thugchildz
Comment: Having worked on the article I don't wish to support or object it, but I would like to bring out a few problems I have with the article at present.
The infobox for me serves little to no purpose when all of the information quoted in the box is already stated in the introduction right next to it (with the exception of the top run scorer and wicket taker). On top of that I have problems with what is in the infobox: "Time Line" should be read as timeline and "round robin, super sixes and knockout" should not be capitalised. "Total participants" is misleading - this could mean a number of things and is ambiguous even to a reader familiar with the topic. But all of that said, I still believe it should be removed altogether and would like to hear the thoughts of other editors about this one.
I have major issues with the use of some images. I fail to see the purpose of the inclusion of the 2007 Mascot under "Media coverage" and the use of Clide Lloyd's photo with the number 75 stuck on. The Trophy image should be used as the lead picture instead of the picture of the Australian team. The topic in question is the Cricket World Cup, not the Cricket World Cup champions.
The article has a few factual errors. Instantly when I read the introduction I see that a "Super 6" stage is one of the tournament stages. This is incorrect, as the upcoming tournament will have a "Super 8" round robin stage.
I don't see the purpose of "Process summary in chronological order" of qualification. Maybe it's just me, but I think it goes into too much depth.
thanks for enlightening us, will take these to account. also super 6 will be changed to super 8 when it happens, not before. the mascot is related and Clide Lloyd's picture is for the 1st world cup and is fine with fair use as it's not better than it would be printed from original copy, that said it belongs to represent the 1st ever world cup; you cant expect pictures back to the same as picture of later on. chronological order is what the explains it best. these have already been addressed and/or discussed in the peer reveiw--Thugchildz
also on the other hand the topic is the cricket world cup not cricket world cup trophy, so what makes the tournament- world cup- the trophy or the people?--Thugchildz
It's up to you whether you want "Super 8" or "Super 6" in the article, but whichever it is, the wording needs to be changed accordingly. "Nowadays" implies the present; Super 6 is no longer used. Also, let's get opinions from other editors about whether the infobox should stay or go. Peer review is much less critical than this stage (as I've learned before) and it would be smart to address all possible concerns now rather than in 2 weeks. --mdmanser02:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Why are the news report citation not reporting the date of publishing of the news? Without them, citations look incomplete. Also, I think that the "format" in the infobox is highly misleading. Any reader who reads it now would most likely be interested in the format in place, not the one outdated. For a casual reader who came to the page to confirm how the format would be like would be misled by the infobox that it would involve a super six. While it is true that until the event takes place, super eight would never be in place, but it is equally true that super six is is no longer in use. I think we should mention the latest format decided by the ICC, and make a footnote saying that the event with this format is yet to take place. Also, the world cup tournament isn't an everyday phenomenon, so writing "nowadays" in the lead is highly misleading. Also, it reinstates the view that the upcoming world cup would follow the super six format. Now, regarding the image to be placed in the lead, there could have been a possibility of a debate if there were two possible images. However, as I noted on the article talk page, the Aussie cricket team image violates the fair use criteria since a free replacement of the world cup's image is available. It needs to go and the trophy's image needs to be put in its place. Regarding the "Participants" in infobox, it is not clear what "from 97 entrants" mean. By standard dictionary definition, entrant is a synonym of participant. How are they different? — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 06:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
as said above entrants are the teams that tried but failed to make it to the final 16 for the final tournament. picture is not a replacement because it trophy alone doesn't show australia with the trophy does it? so its not a vio for fair use criteria. also the citation is a only big issue now and it would be great if anyone could solve it--Thugchildz
The Super Six to Super Eight change has been made. I'm not sure about the image placement in the lead but neither do I really care which image ends up there. If people really want to get rid of the Australian win image then we can do so. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C]06:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I'm a cricket fan, I'll have to Objectper 1(a), the prose doesnt really seem that compelling, with some redundant terms in there (eg. The number of teams getting selected through the ICC Trophy has varied from event to event. Currently, it selects six teams for the Cricket World Cup.) just to point out one. (Referencing in concerned section has been done --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 01:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC))The Performance of teams section could do with some references per 1(c). --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 14:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentFurther to that, the tournament format could be referenced, especially the Super 6 stage, cause its unclear whether the Super 6 format may continue into WC 2007. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I personally disagree with Super 6 and Super 8 being separate articles (as both can change over time as the WC expands and more associate nations eg Canada.. (go Asish Bagai!) have to qualify to participate in expanded World Cups). All concerns have been addressed, and will be more than happy enough to Support. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support good article, easy to understand for the most part, but thats because i don't know much about cricket--Kbk122:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The infobox is unnecessary and rebundant. Most of the information could be found easily in the lead or in respective sections (the statstics section at the end). So what is its use? CG17:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it was answered already "I don't believe the infobox needs removing because it is more informative then a picture of the world cup alone. It is not more or less useful than a biography article having an infobox about the person's death, birth and occupation etc. As all these things are presented in the article itself. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C]04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
No WikiProject Cricket wants it to be FA in time for 2007 tournament--Thugchildz
But the article will have to be notably changed during and after the tournament. So even if it's a FA now it may not be after the 2007 tournament. Buc09:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wouldn't. Everything would just be updated. It deserves FA now. Every article changes but they don't wait arround for it to not change when nominating it and plus that's whay FA review is for. It wouldn't change much anyway because all the things are up to date and so there would just be little things updated or added. At the moment it deserves FA, we can't wait around to see if it will FA in the future or not; no article can. And it would still be a FA most likely. that's just a rubbish--Thugchildz
The editors must be wondering why so many people have commented, yet so few have supported the article. In my opinion, this is because the article's language is not up to the mark to become an FA. I request the editors to find someone with good English to copyedit the article. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 03:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wondering......(I'm not the author of the page), but yeah, the reviewers aren't impressed and they know the FAC isn't "winning" at this stage, so they don't really have any reason to drop by for a while. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Nichalp would be an ideal person to copyedit the article. Not only is he good at copyediting, he also understands the topic well in depth. So he will also be able to provide inputs on comprehensiveness. Thugchildz has asked for his help, let's see what comes of it. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 13:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have finally got around to doing a full end-to-end copyedit. Another pass from a second editor may be a good idea, but this it very good. -- ALoan(Talk)13:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd support this article per the nomination listed. I think that it is a great treatment of an important topic.--Evabd19:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very close to support now. They thing bugging me is that maybe the "Awards" section could put into a table. Buc11:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that could be done but would be too many tables...also the section explaining why they got the award might get messy--Thugchildz
Comment Another issues with the wording. Thugchildz says that saying "tornament" all the time is "boring". I wouldn't have thought how boring an article is would matter, it's designed to infom not entertain. I would also say sticking to the same wording in more encyclopedic but I'm not really bothered. Anyone eles got a preference either way? Buc21:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it has to be both informative and interesting at the same time. A well written article is never boring.--Thugchildz
Question Last night I made a new infobox for the page which was later reverted and somewhat incorporated into the original by Thugzchild. The difference between the two different versions can be seen here and here. I've removed some of the entries from the infobox which are very ambiguous and technically incorrect (there have been more than 97 participants). Given that there have been numerous ways of tournament formatting I simple changed the infobox to read "multiple (see article)". Which version should be used? --mdmanser00:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well first off, I don't see why there's need to be two different infoboxes that basically does the same thing. Right now the orinal version doesn't have anything ambigous and technically incorrect. There cant be more than 97 because if your not a ICC member you can't qualify for the tournment. The format of the tournament goes by the current format, "multiple" imo is ambiguous. Also some of the better things were incorporated into the orinal one because the original one is used by other articles as well so why does there need to be two infoboxes when the orinal one can do the same thing?--Thugchildz
Comment - I would like the history to be more comprehensive and informative, but it has been cut down before. I have left some comments on the article's talk page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The history part is informative I think. 1st it had more details and then some editors said it had excesive trivia and so it was cut down some. It still is has everything without geting into too much details, which should be in the main article- history of the world cup and the specific world cup articles anyway imo--Thugchildz
Support - the infobox is now admirable, containing a good mix of "top level" info, without digressing into minutiae. The History section is about right too, considering that it links to a main article that deals with the subject exclusively and at length. What else needs to be done before this is passed for FA? --Dweller09:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the article is near-FA quality, but not there yet. Here are some of the sentences I found that can do with some editing. I am not doing it myself as others may disagree. (Note: quotes italised)
The two teams competed regularly for The Ashes, with South Africa being admitted to Test status in 1889. Part of sentence before and after the comma talk about completely different things. Either bring in flow, or break-up into two sentences.
The event was not a success, due to lack of public interest and poor weather. "Not a success": There must be better ways to phrase that.
In the subsequent years, international Test cricket has been generally been organised as bilateral series: a multilateral Test tournament was not organised again until the quadrangular Asian Test Championship in 1999. I don't see why a colon is used.
Starting in 1962 as a four-team knockout competition (known as the Midlands Knock-Out Cup), and Gillette Cup in 1963, one-day cricket grew in popularity, leading to the formation of the national Sunday League in 1969. The Midlands Cup info is an important part of the sentence (not just an additional info), and thus should be outside braces. Also, I think it would be wise to break this sentence as this is very long.
The first One-day International event was played on the fifth day of a rain-aborted Test match between England and Australia at Melbourne in 1971, to fill the time available and as compensation for the frustrated crowd. If cricket matches lasting one day were played since 1960s, then how was the first ODI played in 1971. If the operating word is "official", it should be categorically mentioned.
comment interfere one-day cricket means- limited overs cricket it can be both odi or twenty20. odi is different.--Thugchildz
Actually, it's about the difference between matches at international and non international level. The first one day international was in 1971. Twenty20 is a much more recent innovation. --Dweller12:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One notable omission was South Africa, who were banned from international cricket due to apartheid. I think South Africa is singular, and the sentence should have "which was".
The 1979 World Cup saw the introduction of the ICC Trophy competition to select non-Test playing teams for the World Cup, with Sri Lanka and Canada qualifying. The sentence seems to end abruptly.
India, an outsider quoted at 66 to 1 before the competition began, were crowned champions after upsetting the West Indies by 43 runs in the final. A casual reader wouldn't have a clue what this sentence meant. Who is an outsider, and what is meant by quoted?
comment interfere anyone can understand what it meant by outsiders if they can understand english ok--Thugchildz
The 1987 tournament was held in India and Pakistan, the first time the competition has been held outside England. Grammar can be improved.
Pakistan overcame a dismal start to emerge as winners, defeating England by 22 runs in the final. Unclear: Dismal start in tournament, or in the final?
In the semi-final, Sri Lanka, headed towards a crushing victory over India at Eden Gardens (Calcutta) after their hosts lost eight wickets while scoring 120 runs in pursuit of 254, were awarded victory by default after riots broke out in protest against the Indian performance. Extremely difficult to read. Needs to be simplified. Also, if the location of Eden Garden is mentioned here, why isn't location of Lord's mentioned a few paragraphs above. There should be consistency in prose.
In 1999 the event returned to England, with some matches also being held in Scotland, Ireland and the Netherlands. Unnecessary anthropomorphism.
In the final, Australia dismissed Pakistan for 132 and then reaching the target in less than 20 overs, with eight wickets in hand. Grammer is serious off-track.
Kenya's victories, including wins against Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe, and a forfeit by the New Zealand team, which refused to play in Kenya due to security reasons, enabled Kenya to reach the semi finals, where they lost to India. Without sufficient background of significance, this sentence seems completely avoidable. In other words, of the four semi-finalists, why is Kenya singled out for mention. The significance finds mention many sections below under "Performance of teams".
In the final, Australia made 359 runs for the loss of two wickets, the largest ever total in a final, to defeat India by 125 runs. Should mention "World Cup final" for clarity. Also, usage of word "final" throughout the article needs to be thought-out because the next paragraph has a sentence like The Test-playing nations and ODI-playing nations qualify automatically for the the World Cup finals.
comment interfere if without sufficient background a person can understand what it meant by winning the world cup, while the finals mean the main tournament. --Thugchildz
Currently, six teams are selected for the Cricket World Cup. Should rather start with "For the 200x world cup" to clarify if currently mean 2003 or 2007 world cup.
comment interferecurrently means the current system so no need for it.--Thugchildz
The teams were split into two pools, with the top three teams in each pool advancing to the "Super 6" stage, with all six teams playing each other once. Avoid two "with"s.
As they advanced, they would also carry their points forward from previous matches against the teams advancing alongside them, giving the teams an incentive to perform well in the group stages. Language can be improved.
Teams will earn points for wins and half-points for ties. How many points for win? If one, use "a point" (singular usage).
comment interfere points mean more than 1 and it chances from tournament to trounament how manny points are earn so it simply says it earns points- which works for all of them.--Thugchildz
The current trophy was created for the 1999 championships, and was the first permanent prize in the tournament's history; prior to this, different trophies were made for each World Cup. Why use semi-colon where a full-stop would do.
Television rights, mainly for the 2011 and 2015 World Cup, were sold for over US$1.1 billion, and sponsorship rights were sold for a further US$500 million. The sentence will be highly misleading if "mainly" is not explained. What else did it constitute?
comment interfere how is it misleading?--Thugchildz
Previously, only Man of the Match awards were given in individual matches, although it was considered a particularly good achievement to be Man of the Match in the final, as this generally indicated the player who played the biggest part in winning the World Cup final. Too long sentence.
In addition to these, the article has additional issues. The first paragraph of "selection of hosts" section is a repeat of things that are already covered in other sections. Why is "Performance of teams" a sub-section of "Summary". The word "Summary" is mis-leading. If you mean the sub-section is a summary of the performance of teams, it is a no-brainer, as articles are meant for summaries. Also, use of geocities.com pages is strictly forbidden as reference. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 11:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Selection of host explains how things works/worked and explains them. Sumarry isn't misleading as it summarizes the past results of the world cups and performace of the teams.--Thugchildz
I've made some amends to the section headers, including compiling one section with all of the Statistical summaries in it and tightening up some of the titling used to more accurately reflect what's in the section. I hope there's consensus it's an improvement. Otherwise, happy for someone to revert. --Dweller09:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's only on book being used as source and it as the ISBN numder under the reference section as follows: Browning, Mark (1999). A complete history of World Cup Cricket. Kangaroo Press. ISBN0-7318-0833-9.
Hmm, you aren't supposed to put the full book reference in every time when you refer to different parts of the book, you're supposed to have the books separate as a reference, and have the short noteform for each occurrence on each page. Could you undo it please? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, what happens now? I made some changes on the 14th, but all seems done now. What's the process by which this is either approved or more reasons for denying are given? --Dweller 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC) I now see that more enhancements are continuing. Do the FA rules mean the article can't be considered until these have died away and the article is "stable"? --Dweller16:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wondering that. The only thing can suggest is asking Raul. I was surprise this wasn't included in the judgements made yesterday. I asked Raul about it but so far no response. Buc19:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is messy and it's difficult to work out what's outstanding. Is the outstanding query from Indon about the 2006/7 and 2007 issue? If so, there's a difference between the two (hence the two articles existing). The latter deals with cricket played in a specific calendar year. The other deals with events during the Northern hemisphere winter - it's a traditional and useful naming system utilised by cricket books and journals. --Dweller13:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply, got stuck with real life domain. I stroke my objection as it is non relevant now after so much discussions and revisions. So my vote is abstain in this nomination. — Indon (reply) — 13:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken they(pictures mentioned above) are all logos from the icc and is for the world cup. The size doesn't need to be reduced. And logo's doesn't need detailed fair use rationales.--Thugchildz
The only case I can think of when it may be acceptable to use a higher resolution image is when we have explicit permission to use the high resolution version. Logos are no exception to Wikipedia:Fair use. ShadowHalo04:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self Nomination I have followed the model of several other featured articles about movies, and I have included most present information about Cannibal Holocaust. It covers most aspects and information surrounding Cannibal Holocaust, I believe it is in a neutral point of view, it has several (30+) reliable sources, and is written in a comprehensible and formal tone. There are no copyright issues for images or sound files, and it has a well-written introduction. Helltopay2720:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at least one ref to EW.com needs to be fixed, as it appears to reference the entire website rather than an artcle. Please include the article title and retrieval date in case the link stops working one day. I'm about to read this though. CanadianCaesarEt tu, Brute?00:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I fixed the EW.com reference, including the access date (which was already present). I also truncated the synopsis slightly. Helltopay2700:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to oppose after some of my copyediting was inexplicably undone- in the plot summary, "executives" was changed back to the slangy "execs" and the sentence "The group’s first encounter with each tribe is the death of a Yanomamo woman" was restored- I don't think one group's encounter with another can be the death of an unrelated third person. You'd say that during the encounter, the death was seen or witnessed, or stood out.CanadianCaesarEt tu, Brute?23:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Sorry about that... I had to trim the summary down to less that 1000 words to avoid fair use issues and forgot about your changes. I'm correcting your copy-edits. EDIT: Your changes have been restored. If you still object to some copyedits, I'd be willing to change them. Helltopay2716:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The gory stills, especially the one of the impaled woman, are very explicit, and I don't see that it's really necessary to actually use it in the article. I don't recall seeing any articles on pornographic films being illustrated with penetration footage, and as far as I'm concerned this is far more offensive. / PeterIsotalo14:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response The "stills" assist the article by depicting information visually, like every other article with pictures. The impalement scene is one of the most famous scenes in the movie, and it is highly talked about in the article. Also, the burning of the hut has no explicit gore, and the piranha photo has gore, but very little. Wikipedia even has disclaimers about upsetting content, and so I feel your argument lacks merit. Helltopay2718:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy.Helltopay2718:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the fact that Wikipedia shouldn't practice self-censorship, but the actual application of that guideline is in reality fairly restrictive. For example, the "depictions of human anatomy" generally don't go beyond neutral depictions of genitalia or drawn softcore illustrations of various sexual acts (which might be very difficult to imagine without those images). And while I am not a fan of any kind of moralization, I understand the real world attitudes that make such an interpretation necessary.
And we're talking brutal, speculative, photo-realistic, sexualized gore in this case; a bloody, naked woman impaled through the ass. It's extreme! Allowing such imagery in an article that would eventually be featured on the main page would be too liberal a stance. It's not remotely comparable to what is otherwise tolerated, and there's already two non-photographic depictions of the scene in the article (the poster and the soundtrack cover). It's definitely not necessary to clarify anything other than its being horribly explicit, which is explained in some detail in prose. I think this should be solved by external linking to stills, like at Deep Throat (film). / PeterIsotalo07:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deep Throat isn't featured, but it still doesn't have a single shot of deep throating, even though the entire film evolves around it. Same thing goes for Basic Instinct where Sharon Stone's infamous crotch shot is clearly absent. And why not compare this with Salò, where at least a modicum of moderation has been applied to the choice of illustrations. What we're talking about here isn't notable because it's intended as social commentary, high art or even satire or parody; it's just gratuitous violence for shock value. And, again, it's already depicted twice in the article somewhat more stylized. So what's the point of displying it other than... well... extending that shock value? / PeterIsotalo13:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still fairly gruesome, but it does seem acceptable for our purposes. Objection stricken. And a fine job in writing the article overall, I might add. With some of the additions and tweaks already suggested, I believe the article should considered to be of FA quality. Support. / PeterIsotalo18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments. I just noticed that the citations are burdened with a lot of redundancy both in terms of repeated use of the same footnotes and the applications of ref tags and citations templates:
The lead, even though it's supposed to be a summary of the entire article, is heavily cited, which doesn't make all that much sense, since all these facts appear in greater detail (with the same sources) later in the article. One source is used 4 times in just 3 sentences.
In "Production", the first paragraph cites the same source three times, even though it's the only one being used. Another repetition can be found in the last paragraph.
"Original Italian controversy" really only uses the same two footnotes (with one exception) throughout the entire section, but repeats them over and over, often in tandem. It would have basically no effect on the verifiability if they were reduced to one of each and placed at the end of the section.
Similar repetitions can be found in "Film influence" and "Releases and sequels".
Instead of using the <ref name="xyz"/> for repeated use of the same footnote, the full source info, including the bulky citation template, is used. / PeterIsotalo16:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I had thought of that, but it would inevitably lead to people saying that there weren't enough citations, or some people would put [citation needed] down where there weren't citations. EDIT: I've eliminated "redundant" sources, but if someone starts on with how there aren't enough, I'll change them back. Helltopay2718:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object for now due to prose issues, for example:
Several instances of things like 'Another controversial aspect is that...', 'An irony is that...' - ugh.
'Production began in 1979, when director Ruggero Deodato was contacted by "the Germans"' - what Germans? This is the first time Germans are mentioned in the text. What they contacted him about is also unclear.
'but in order to keep it as an Italian film' - redundancy, but also unclear why two Italian actors make it an Italian film. Casting details in general read as strung-together bits of information.
'Among others, actress Francesca Ciardi also had some unpleasant experiences' - not sure why she merits her own paragraph, but this is an awkward sentence in any case.
'it was in the actors' contracts that they were not allowed in any type of media' - contracts with whom? Did the eventual appearance break the contracts, or was the clause dropped?
Why was it re-banned in NZ in 2006, and why is that a stuck-in parenthetical?
'With the laxing of cinematic standards in recent years...' - 'to lax' shouldn't be a verb, and this sentence doesn't seem to mean anything. Does it intend to point to laxity of standards for content censorship?
Interpretations section lists a lot of possible interpretations as if they are fact, immediately after quoting Deodato that the interpretations are overstretched.
I no longer actively object to this article, but I'm not at the point of supporting either, due to prose and clarity issues. The final sentence in the plot synposis uses the first-person plural, not encyclopedic in tone; 'long time Italian horror screenwriter' needs a hyphen; 'Still, things were not in the clear yet' is a lame transition; '...usually because of unkind remarks from Deodato' - things aren't objectively unkind; presumably this was someone's observation and shouldn't be presented in the text as fact. I appreciate the attempt at clarification but I still don't understand why a film had to have a nationality (who imposed this requirement?) or why two actors who speak Italian make it an Italian film (when apparently all the actors who spoke English didn't make it a film of their nationality). Similarly, the circumstances of the actors' contracts - who they were with and why they weren't waived when the director was facing imprisonment. Opabinia regalis03:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just came across a great article that addresses the nationality issue and explains not only why the films required a nationality, but what called for the nationality criteria (it was under Italian law, as a matter of fact). This information has been added into the article and should no longer be a problem. Also, I mentioned the contracts - they were with Deodato and the film's producers, and they were waived to avoid life in prison. Lastly, tell me exactly where the hyphen should be and I'll add it. Helltopay2706:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added the hyphen. I like the explanation about the nationality stuff now. In the controversy section, the article says 'Disregarding the contracts that the actors had signed with him in order to avoid life in prison, Deodato brought the foursome onto the set of an Italian television show' (btw, television show probably doesn't need linking). That implies to me that Deodato and the actors deliberately went against contracts that were still in force. If that's not the case, that sentence should be reworded. Opabinia regalis05:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Opabinia regalis makes several good points on the prose; in addition the plot section is too long and delves into trivial details.--Peta03:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Episode II has a fairly complex plot compared to this film. The blow by blow summary in this article accounts for about 1/4 - 1/3 of the length of the article and raises issues of fair use.--Peta23:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree with Peta. The Star Wars films have a fully-developed background story and a very complicated mythology behind them. There's nothing like that in CH. / PeterIsotalo13:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentObject It's on the right track but it needs some work still. My main concern is the writing, it's clunky, and needs to be copy edited for flow (I would even recommend rearranging the sections into a more natural order), the prose tightened up and redundancies eliminated. Also, the main sources for information seem to be the DVD supplements and reviews, which lends the article an anecdotal feel. I can understand the Cannibal Holocaust book being difficult to track down but surely it being such a notorious film there must be others that cover the topic. The horror community is large. Plus some other small things I'll list:
The first three inline citations are repeated under Interpretations and should be removed from the lead.
Citation 2 is IMDb user comments which is not a reliable source. I understand the point you're trying to make with it but it's already adequately covered with the other two citations that sandwich it.
There's no mention of how well the film did. It's implied that it has a following and one can infer that it did well, as most controversial films do, from all the sequels and such but it's not stated explicitly. It's well known but how big is the fanbase?
The images are not great quality. I remember the DVD I saw was bad so I can't fault you for that but making them bigger, not in the article, but so that one can click on it to see a larger picture would be helpful. Also, Wikipedia has the option for users to set individual default picture display sizes so if anyone has it set above 250 these won't do them any good. I'd make them at least 300px.
Unless you're planning to update the IMDb rating in the userbox for the rest of your life, I'd lose that. The IMDb is one click away making its use here of little value.
The first two paragraphs in Plot start with "the film" which is grammatically undesirable.
Beginning in the plot with Professor Monroe, and continued throughout the article especially with the director, people, seemingly at random, are referred to by their full name, then last name and back again. Use the full name once and then stick with he/she or the last name. This isn't a solid rule so there are exceptions but some pruning is in order here.
The transitions in the plot can be tightened up, for example "Back in the film," can be "In the film". Later, "Deodato, the film's producers and screenwrite, and the representative from United Artists" should be "Deodato, the producers, screenwriter and the United Artists representative". Who else's producers would it be?
There are some typos, "the film reels then end" (should be "ends"), "screenwrite" and "rain forest" is one word.
Citation 9 is the IMDb's trivia section which is stretching it reliability-wise. Plus, assuming the production start date was there at one point, it isn't anymore.
The Controvery section should not have a subheading with controversy in the title.
BBFC should probably be spelled out in full once and definitely should not be wikilinked three times in the same paragraph.
Since all of the countries cannot be wikilinked to "Cinema of" articles, and because it's more the government than the film industry doing the banning, I would direct them all to the main country articles.
"A pig is kicked and then killed with a rifle when shot in the head by an actor." Didn't I read somewhere that the actor didn't shoot the pig himself? And that can be tightened up especially as it's in a list of animals that are killed. Perhaps, "kicked and shot with a rifle".
"Documentary" links to Mondo film (which is misleading) and then "Mondo" links to Mondo film in the next sentence.
There must be some reviews of the soundtrack, I'm not sure it qualifies as OR but surely there are some sources out there.
Releases should be Home video or DVD releases.
Natura Contro is wikilinked twice in the same sentence (under different names).
The See also section can be removed, all the links are included in the article except Cannibal boom which should be added under Influence (a little expansion about the sequels wouldn't hurt too.)
Citation 30 is a repeat of citation 19.
I'm unclear what the Deodato's involvement with Hostel: Part II is.
The References are of an inconsistent style. Some have the last name first, some don't. Some are "Retrieved on" with a wikilinked date, others only have an unwikilinked date. Sometimes Cannibal Holocaust is italicized, other times it's in all caps even when the actual linked article doesn't title it that way.
Finally, is there no information on how long the production and post-production were? Any audience reactions? Any protests? Anyway, it's a very good article. I've listed a lot of points but these are all fixable, I think. Keep at it. Doctor Sunshinetalk05:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The first three inline citations are repeated under Interpretations and should be removed from the lead."
It's a weasel-worded statement that should keep its sources (or at least that's what I've read in Wikipedia's guidelines).
"The images are not great quality. I remember the DVD I saw was bad so I can't fault you for that but making them bigger, not in the article, but so that one can click on it to see a larger picture would be helpful. Also, Wikipedia has the option for users to set individual default picture display sizes so if anyone has it set above 250 these won't do them any good. I'd make them at least 300px."
Site Wikipedia's fair use policy regarding images: images must be of low-resolution and of inferior quality to the original.
"The References are of an inconsistent style. Some have the last name first, some don't. Some are "Retrieved on" with a wikilinked date, others only have an unwikilinked date. Sometimes Cannibal Holocaust is italicized, other times it's in all caps even when the actual linked article doesn't title it that way."
This is because of how the citation template is formatted.
Good work. You're right, that is a bit weasel wordish. I'd recommend changing it to "some critics" and removing "important" as I haven't seen anyone claim it's a great insight but I have seen a number say it's heavy-handed. Then you should be able to make the lead citation free.
I noticed some of the images came from here. Rather than listing the DVD as the source, the internet site should be used.
All citation templates allow for "lastname, first name" usage.
I'm going to change my vote to comment for now. I still feel the prose can be improved and the article isn't as comprehensive as it could be. A Google Books search didn't turn up anything substantial but browsing through reviews and various websites shows that there's more information to be had. Namely, it could be contextualized further within the cannibal genre, details about the filmmaking, audience reactions and responses. I didn't find any wellsprings of information in my Google searching but I'll check out some other cultish FAs and see how they handle information gathering and then reconsider my vote. Doctor Sunshinetalk22:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Then you should be able to make the lead citation free."
"Some critics" is still a weasel worded statement (in fact, it's one of the examples on Wikipedia:Weasel words). Other than that, I think I can fix everything you've mentioned. UPDATE: I've added a section on the reaction (box office and critical response).
Comment (maybe opinion later):Changing to Support after re-reading. Very thorough, probably the best that can be done about this film.
"Production began ... making a film "like Cannibal Holocaust."" How could the whole thing start making a film like itself?
The Yanomamo seem to be an actual tribe. How about explaining whether they are or are not actually cannibals? Similarly, specify whether the Shamatari and Yacumo are real, and the extent to which they are accurately portrayed.
The star, Robert Kerman, is rather more famous for a certain other stage name and film. Mention?
"a cruelty previously unknown me" seems awkward phrasing - is that an accurate quote? Is he a native English speaker?
"'Production began ... making a film "like Cannibal Holocaust."' How could the whole thing start making a film like itself?
That's a direct quote from Deodato; they wanted a film "like Cannibal Holocaust," that is, like what would be the final product of Cannibal Holocaust, even though they didn't know what it was.
The star, Robert Kerman, is rather more famous for a certain other stage name and film. Mention?
I'm not sure how that would be relevant (his connection with Deodato has already been mentioned), but I'll add it somewhere if you see it fit.
"'...a cruelty previously unknown me' seems awkward phrasing - is that an accurate quote? Is he a native English speaker?"
That's a typo on my part. Also, after watching the program again, the quote is slightly off. It has been corrected.
"What's the source for the budget estimate?"
The "In the Jungle" program. Since it was in the infobox, I didn't really notice it. It's been corrected.
"Reference 11 (Geleng) has a "Retrieved on" but no link?"
There's a link, but it's on the next line down (at least it is on my browser).
It reads: {{cite video | people = Gelend, Antonio (interviewee) | year = 2003 | title = In the Jungle: The Making of Cannibal Holocaust | accessdate = 2007-02-10 | medium = Documentary | location = Italy | publisher = Alan Young Pictures}} There's an accessdate= field but no url= field. Also don't forget the part about the actual tribes; calling them cannibals is rather severe, and needs to be specified true (and if so, cited) or not. I don't know if an entire tribe can sue for libel, but if they can, they could have a case ... :-) --AnonEMouse(squeak)15:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then so should the accessdate field. That's for when the URL was accessed, not for when you watched the video! The point is that "we guarantee this URL was good at such a time". The video won't change since the accessdate, the URL may well go away. --AnonEMouse(squeak)21:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, supporting. One last nitpick - you write that many unofficial sequels were made: can you name a few, and/or provide a reference so that people who are interested can look for them? --14:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Under the Controversy section of the article, i found the "moral crusaders" comment to be somewhat biased and non-neutral. Thats all i noticed wrong with the article. I dont think that just because some people would like to sensor the movie means they are crusaders neccessarily. RRM MBA04:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self nomination Figured it was about time I submitted one of these myself. :) I've been working on this article for about three months now, and I believe it meets all FA criteria. I daresay that it's the most comprehensive biography on Mr. Jennings out there. The peer review is here. I look forward to your comments. Gzkn08:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - While it is very well referenced, they need some work. The ones retrieved with LexisNexis are linked to a page subscription form. The reader cannot verify the information, failing FAC 1c. You can't expect the reader to subscribe to a paid search function just to verify your research. I know from using Lexis myself that the details of the article are provided (author, date, page number, etc). Please insert those into the reference. Several of the ref are from major papers, such as the Washington Post and New York Times, which maintain online archives, so it should be possible to link directly to many of the articles. I don't mean to come across picky, but this is not a case of one or two refs. I counted approximately 40 with this problem. Jeffpw13:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Well, the reason I linked to LexisNexis is because that's where I got the information...LexisNexis articles may be different from the paid subscription archive articles of the Washington Post/New York Times (which I don't have access to)...i.e. the LexisNexis ones may contain typos or might vary in some other way from the online archives of the paper itself. If you like, I can take out the links to LexisNexis, and link to the ones in the online archives, but that would be misleading to readers, as those versions are not the ones I used to write Peter Jennings. I'm also unclear how this fails 1c...even if no online link exists, the fact that the articles were published passes WP:V...links are merely courtesies to the reader (think about if an editor used the print editions of newspaper/magazine stories to write an article...would that fail WP:V?). In this case, a direct link does not exist for many of those LexisNexis articles, as many of the publications do not allow online access to those old articles. So, I guess my questions are:
What should I do about the many articles I used that don't have online archives? Should I just get rid of the link all together? You seem to say if a direct link doesn't exist, it's not verifiable. "You can't expect the reader to subscribe to a paid search function just to verify your research." Unfortunately, no matter what, they'll have to pay to view the older articles online, whether it's through LexisNexis or the online archives of the publication itself.
Should I link to stuff like this instead of LexisNexis for the others that are paid archive versions? I'm perfectly willing to do this for the articles that have them...it's just that I feel that it's misleading not to link to LexisNexis. :-/ And even then, we're still expecting readers to pay for the article, which does not seem to resolve your concern.
"I know from using Lexis myself that the details of the article are provided (author, date, page number, etc). Please insert those into the reference." If you look closely, I provided author, date of publication, publication name, and "retrieved on" date in all of my references...I don't recall page numbers being a requirement, but if you like, I can go back and include those. On further reflection, I'll add page numbers. Gzkn05:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After some further thought, should I link the "LexisNexis® Academic" phrase in my refs to the LexisNexis site, and just leave the headline in these articles unlinked? See for example, reference 3 at User:Gzkn/Sandbox/Peter_Jennings. I'm still disappointed that people seem to think my research is not verifiable. What about articles that rely solely on books and other sources not available online? Would those fail WP:V too? Gzkn07:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I am not saying I don't believe your research. I do. But if an online document exists, it is better to link to that. In the example you showed above, the reader sees at least the article details, and not merely a registration page (and the NYTimes archives are free for the last 25 years). For articles that don't have an online archive at all, adding the page number is an additional piece of info about your source. Books, obviously, cannot be linked in most cases, but then you'd provide the author, title, publisher, ISBN and page number--more info than you currently have in your refs. Additionally, for those that have no online link to the article in any form, I would lose the LexisNexis link entirely, and just name the reference itself. Perhaps others have a different opinion than mine, but I see no point in linking to a registration form. It's frustrating, and could also be seen to imply a link between our site and LexisNexis. And to be very, very clear, the reference issue is my sole objection to your otherwise excellent article. When that's resolved, I will certainly strike my oppose and make it a vote of support. Jeffpw09:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll try to find online versions for the LexisNexis articles. I'll also go back and add page numbers for all the refs. This will probably take a while, so I'll drop a note on your talk page when I'm done. Thanks! Gzkn09:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentOpposeComment I have a question about the phrasing of this sentence: "In January 1994, he locked horns with another woman in his life, his executive producer on World News Tonight, Emily Rooney." Does it mean to imply that Jennings also had a relationship with Rooney, or is it merely stating the obvious, that she is also a woman? Either way I think it needs rephrasing. MLilburne14:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Just the obvious...I'll rephrase it. Gzkn 05:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC) I decided to delete the "another woman in his life" bit...thanks for the comment! Gzkn05:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And having tried to look up the reference, I hit the same LexisNexis registration screen, despite the fact that my university subscribes to LexisNexis. On these grounds I'm changing my comment to opposition. MLilburne14:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Ah, whoops. I'll provide fair use rationale for all of them. I believe the 1978 has a good fair use rationale, but if it's a problem I can remove the image from the article. Gzkn 05:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC) I've added fair use rationales for those five images. Gzkn05:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A head's up I'll be addressing Jeffpw's concerns in the coming days, so the refs may look inconsistent at times. Gzkn13:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you're actively working on this issue, and I have every confidence you'll have the refs worked out in short order, I am withdrawing my objection for now. Jeffpw13:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had time to review this article or read it yet (been traveling), but I did see this controversy on my watchlist, and glanced at the references. I don't consider this a valid Objection. The article definitely meets WP:V - the newspapers articles have full biblio info such that they can be located, either online or in hard print, exactly as a reader would locate a book with a page number given. I object when full biblio info isn't given, so the reader has to guess (for example, the publication date or article title is missing). The courtesy links are that - a courtesy. Yes, it may be easier on our readers to provide working URLs, and the Nexis stuff could be a distraction - perhaps I, too, would argue, those should be fixed where possible as a courtesy. But, I don't consider it valid to object on the grounds of 1c - the article meets WP:V exactly as it would if the sources were a book with page numbers - being able to locate something that exists in hardprint online isn't part of verifiability. (Gzkn - I'm more concerned that Lexis-Nexis versions wouldn't be the same as hard print versions - that doesn't feel right.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sandy regarding the status of these objections. However, I don't know why Lexis-Nexis(R)(C)(TM) need be mentioned at all. Can't
That's typically what I do - add a link at the end, saying available at ... The link is entirely optional here, but I do like to see the links to common online news archives provided. I'm concerned this red herring seems to have stalled the FAC on a well-referenced article; I won't have time to read the article until I catch up from travel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've worked up a compromise that takes care of everyone's concerns. For those LexisNexis articles that contain equivalent online archive versions:
This takes care of Jeff's concern about not linking to equivalent online archive versions. It also takes care of my concern that by not mentioning that I accessed the article through LexisNexis, I'm misleading readers, especially w.r.t. the "Retrieved on" date (and my concern that LexisNexis articles may contain typos/differ in some way from the online archive versions). If this doesn't satisfy WP:V...well, I don't see what else I can do. This is somewhat based off of LexisNexis' APA recommendations.
I'm going back through the LexisNexis archives to add page numbers for all those that have them. I'm finding that a lot of them don't contain page numbers for some reason. Gzkn03:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not following the argument about LexisNexis versions differing from the actual newspaper's archives - why not just provide a link, for example, to Washington Post and NY Times archives, as they do have these articles? I find it hard to understand why the articles would differ. If a free link is available, why not provide it to readers? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if a free link is available, I used that in my research instead of LexisNexis, obviously (for example, with the NYTimes obit). I don't believe any of the LexisNexis articles exist free on the publications' websites; you'd have to link to the paid archive version. The reason I'm giving information that I accessed an article through LexisNexis is because I didn't access it through the publication's paid archives. Thus, the "retrieved on" date would be misleading if I didn't disclose the LexisNexis info...I didn't retrieve anything from the paid archives. My reading of WP:V is to basically say where you got your source. In my case, I obtained many of my sources through LexisNexis...not through the paid archives. LexisNexis articles also sometimes differ from the print edition or the online archives (typos, misquotes that may be corrected later in the archives but not in LexisNexis, etc.) That's why I'm including the LexisNexis info. I want to make it clear that I'm basing my info off of the LexisNexis version. To be honest, not including any links such as:
Carmody, John (August 10, 1983). "Jennings to Solo for ABC News". The Washington Post through LexisNexis® Academic, p. B1. Retrieved on January 23, 2006.
Update I just spent probably far too many hours updating the refs. Where online archive versions exist, I have now linked to them as well. I have added page numbers for those that I could find through LexisNexis. Many articles didn't list page numbers at all. I really still don't understand how one can object to refs linking to LexisNexis as somehow "not verifiable", but hey, substitute with ProQuest abstracts, and magically they satisfy WP:V! Or how stating how I obtained my sources (through LexisNexis) is a fault instead of helpful to readers wanting to verify the article. Gzkn07:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Due to circumstances in my personal life, I will be on a wikibreak and probably unavailable to respond to further comments/do further work on the article. Withdrawing the nom... Gzkn06:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well written, thorough, etc., I'd love to support, strongly, but there are more issues than just images and refs. The article covers the career well, but it's a biography, it can't drop the ball on his personal life this badly, when it covers the career in such great detail.
"a half-hour, Saturday morning CBC Radio show" - needs either more, or fewer, commas.
"That summer, Jennings married for the second time to Annoushka Malouf" needs a comma after "time", otherwise it's implying they had been married to each other before.
"His first wife had been childhood sweetheart Valerie Godsoe." Surely a marriage deserves more than an off-the-cuff mention. Dates, did she die, did they divorce, why, what was her profession...?
"Jennings also found renewed success in his personal life. In 1979, he married for the third time to fellow ABC correspondent Kati Marton. That same year, he became a father after Marton gave birth to their daughter, Elizabeth." - Aiee! So much to write here about three sentences. Multiple marriages are considered success? Especially considering how the marriage to Marton went? If that is success, I'd hate to hear what you consider failure! How and when did the second marriage end? He became a father "after" Marton gave birth - in other words, he wasn't the father of Marton's child, but of some other child, later? Maybe "when"?
"As part of ABC's troika," surely you don't mean he was part of a three horse drawn sled.
"his former girlfriend, Hanan Ashrawi" - whoah! His girlfriend was a prominent and controversial Palestinian politician? You need to describe that more, when, in what context, etc.
Walt Disney Company - specify its relationship to Jennings/ABC
"Growing Up in the Age of AIDS, a frank, 90-minute-long discussion on AIDS in February 1992[33] and Prejudice: Answering Children's Questions" - needs a comma after 1992 for sentence legibility, whatever you think of the serial comma otherwise --AnonEMouse(squeak)17:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Already a good article, and the most recent peer review came out with very minor issues—all addressed by now. The article is well written, very comprehensive, referenced, and accurate. I'm aware that the following is not a reason to feature an article, but it may be the most complete material available on the topic.
As Sandy pointed out, that's not a requirement for FA, but since they were red links in the infobox, I have created stubs for both topics. See the flag and the coat of arms. Tomer T, could you please give more detail about your objection? What precisely fails as featured article status? Thanks.--enano(Talk)16:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The fact that there were no articles about the coat of arms or the flag really bothered me, because a featured article should be a role model. In this case, it should be a role model for articles about cities, and I think that a good article about a city must be an article that has articles about the coat of arms and the flag of the city. Now, that they were created, I Support. Tomer T20:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I think this article is ready to be featured. --Ricardo Ramírez 23:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Support as a contributor. I reviewed this article in its second peer review, helped check sources, and did some copyediting. I've watched Enano working on this article for a year; he has done an excellent job of putting together reliable information about El Hatillo (a place I know well), covering the entire Municipality while giving balanced treatment to the tourist haven that is the main town. Hard work, nice job. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
After discussing it with KP Botany, I've decided to reset this nom (previous FAC). Many of the problems brought up have been addressed, but there are some others outstanding. Raul65418:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Very few fallacies"? Can you expound on this statement? I supported the article last go-round and would be happy to support it again, but would like you to clarify this statement first. Thanks! --Jayzel16:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I did compare this to the Seattle, Washington article and I found a few issues that prevent me from adding my support.
The "Government and politics" seemed a little on the light side. Compare to the same section on the Seattle, Washington page. More than half of the section is actually focused on crime (specifically the Katrina-related crime rise), and there is little or no discussion of city politics.
Would like to note that the bulk of the crime statistics in the main article is actually text from the Demographics of Houston article, and was orginally located in that section.Deatonjr21:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The crime issue, while clearly notable, contains a lot of tactical detail. Similar details span only half a paragraph on the Seattle article. I'm not suggesting to get rid of it, but I wonder if there is a Katrina-related page somewhere that could cover the crime effects of the population displacement in more detail? (For example, "Social effects of Hurricane Katrina".)
Raul agreed to reset the nom, as KP Botany felt most of his objections were fairly minor and shouldn't be too hard to deal with. Trebor22:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I really want to support, as this is better (in some cases much better) than the existing FAs on cities, but a few points remain. For starters, have all the points on KP Botany's extensive list been dealt with? Could The Houston metropolitan area is served by several radio and television stations. be turned into something more informative. Ref #120 is missing an accessdate. The fourth paragraph of the lead seems to be given undue weight to the visual and performing arts; perhaps it could summarise the whole of the "Culture" section. Keep up the good work. Trebor22:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the radio/TV sentence since they are in the "Further information" lists, Ref #120 fixed, the fourth paragraph of the lead was revised. Thanks, Postoak18:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many of KP Botany's issues were fixed, some have not. I (and hopefully some of the other editors) will review the list soon and verify that they were addressed. Thanks Postoak18:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, it still needs attention to detail, but the editor, who is working on all the points I posted, needs more time--like me, someone with limited Wikipedia free time, that's all. KP Botany23:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Have been working on this article for a while in my user space. I've had to reduce the page significantly is size, which is always heart-breaking, and involved the removal of what I considered the coolest bits. As a result, the page now has half a dozen "daughter pages". The problems it may currently have - if any - are of the kind most likely to be identified by the extra thoroughness involved here. It's my opinion that this is the right moment for an FA nomination ... but judge for yourself. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)23:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DrKiernan. The article's actually only around sixty in text; the large amount of notes is making it larger. What I'd like to know is, would cutting the article in size any more actually be worth it? I'm not sure, but this is the kind of thing where many people have to add their voice. The Davidian Revolution content is pretty important ... and lots of the other sections of the article have been cut to make room for it. Now, I'm perfectly willing to cut the Davidian Revolution section more down to size; but because I regard this material as so important, if I did so I'd have to bring the actual Davidian Revolution article up to a free standing FA quality article too. Anyways, tell me what you think ... anyone else for that matter too. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)17:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support There isn't much left to cut and create other articles from. I don't think we have to keep every article extremely short if we provide a detailed index of contents for the reader. Wandalstouring12:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why "William Rufus" throughout, when our article calls him William II? Especially since this article is "David I" not "David Some-other-nickname".
Capitalization: "King of the English" but "king of Moray"? Similarly Kingdom of Scotland but kingdom of Northumbria? "bishop of Ostia" but "Bishop of Durham"? Most obvious: "archbishop of York" and "Archbishop of York"? Inconsistencies throughout The article, Please go Through with Fine toothed Comb.
"bore to him a son" - unnecessarily archaic phrasing
"was spurious to say the least" - last 4 words unnecessary
"is the independence-loving" - "was", surely?
"It is clear that neither one of these interpretations can be taken without some weight being given to the other." - whoah! Do some historians favor one and some the other? If so, we have to say which favors which. Right now we're writing that every historian treats both equally, which seems unlikely given what I know of historians.
Remove period from "chronicle records.[65] as well as". In fact rephrase that sentence, otherwise the stories are entering the enslavings.
"was met by force of knights" needs an "a"
Maybe at least stub Battle of Clitheroe?
"The Battle of the Standard, and the following encounter came to be known." - "as", maybe?
"along side"->"alongside"?
Cite the Richard of Hexham quote, I think there's a rule that all quotes need a citation.
Davidian Revolution section can be shortened since there is a separate article just for it. But I won't push it, as I'm being assailed for length myself in the FAC just below. :-) --AnonEMouse(squeak)21:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time and comments, AnonEMouse; much appreciated. Here are my comments and responses:
Why "William Rufus" throughout, when our article calls him William II? Especially since this article is "David I" not "David Some-other-nickname".
He is associated strongly with this nickname; e.g. the main scholarly survey of his reign, by Frank Barlow, is William Rufus
Capitalization: "King of the English" but "king of Moray"? Similarly Kingdom of Scotland but kingdom of Northumbria? "bishop of Ostia" but "Bishop of Durham"? Most obvious: "archbishop of York" and "Archbishop of York"? Inconsistencies throughout The article, Please go Through with Fine toothed Comb.
I think you got me here. I was following different rules at different stages of the article writing. I did that with a few things, but forgot to get around to fixing that.
"bore to him a son" - unnecessarily archaic phrasing
fixed
"was spurious to say the least" - last 4 words unnecessary
fixed
"is the independence-loving" - "was", surely?
fixed
"It is clear that neither one of these interpretations can be taken without some weight being given to the other." - whoah! Do some historians favor one and some the other? If so, we have to say which favors which. Right now we're writing that every historian treats both equally, which seems unlikely given what I know of historians.
It's more that certain historians lend more weight to one than the other. No group, after all, can argue that David had no ambition, and no group can argue that he didn't wasn't involved with English kings. I've made it clearer that the two interpretations are not really rivals; although it is common to hear this topic debated in more informal circumstances.
Remove period from "chronicle records.[65] as well as". In fact rephrase that sentence, otherwise the stories are entering the enslavings.
tried to fix this.
"was met by force of knights" needs an "a"
fixed.
Maybe at least stub Battle of Clitheroe?
Sure, I can open a stub. I've relocated for this weekend, and don't have access to the particular books I'd need for this article, but a stub's no problem.
"The Battle of the Standard, and the following encounter came to be known." - "as", maybe?
fixed.
"along side"->"alongside"?
fixed.
Cite the Richard of Hexham quote, I think there's a rule that all quotes need a citation.
this passage is governed by the following footnote; since that may not be obvious unless the footnote is read, I'll move it for clarity.
Davidian Revolution section can be shortened since there is a separate article just for it. But I won't push it, as I'm being assailed for length myself in the FAC just below. :-)
This is hard for me to react to; two people here do not support cutting it, and two do. At this stage, I shall wait to see what others think.
Oppose. I would prefer it a bit shorter. The contents seem overwhelming at the moment and many of the sections have only one (albeit lengthy) paragraph. Also:
Image sizes shouldn't be set unless there's a specific reason to do so, per MoS.
For the few external links used in "References", accessdates are needed.
The "See also" section doesn't seem very useful, and is in the wrong place per WP:MSH.
Check that dates are wikilinked where appropriate for date preferences to apply.
the only way to understand David's early career is with reference to the great political figures around him. - cite? Who says it's the only way?
There are numerous issues with the prose; starting from the beginning:
The early years of David I's life are the most obscure in his life - clumsy repetition of "life".
Before he became a great political magnate in his own right by the year 1113, the only way to understand David's early career is with reference to the great political figures around him. - mess of a sentence. "Before he became a magnate by 1113" is grammatically incorrect. And then a sudden switch to how a hypothetical person can understand David's early career. The meaning's there but it's difficult to find.
David was born at some point between 1083 and 1085 - "at some point" is redundant, people understand that being born won't last for 2 years.
probably the eighth son of King Máel Coluim III, and the sixth and youngest produced by Máel Coluim's second marriage to Queen Margaret. - it's unclear whether the "probably" applies to both statements or just the first.
allegedly after hearing the news of the family deaths - allegedly is in words to avoid. Who alleges it?
We cannot be certain what happened next, - shouldn't use "we", per MoS.
claims that Domnall forced his three nephews into exile - claims is also in words to avoid (and used in the following sentence).
and sometime in 1094 marched into Scotland. - again, "sometime" is fairly redundant.
by the end of the year Donnchad himself was slain - I think there's a problem with the grammar again. Isn't being slain a one-time event that can't happen "by" a certain date. "Himself" is redundant. Perhaps could be rephrased in the active voice.
A lot of the paragraphs are very long, making it difficult to read, and are made up of lots of short sentences making it feel disjointed. Needs a proofread and copyedit. There is lots and lots of good here (top-notch referencing, quality images, very comprehensive) but it isn't there yet. Trebor22:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your input, Trebot. Lemme respond to you to:
- mess of a sentence. "Before he became a magnate by 1113" is grammatically incorrect. And then a sudden switch to how a hypothetical person can understand David's early career. The meaning's there but it's difficult to find.
Originally, this sentence read "by the year 1113", and was changed to "by 1113"; don't see why it's grammatically incorrect. "By 1113" is used because there is some unclarity about when exactly he became a territorial magnate, and the first certain date is late 1113.
David was born at some point between 1083 and 1085 - "at some point" is redundant, people understand that being born won't last for 2 years.
Yep, you're correct; although in fairness that kind of phraseology is kinda common in history writing , perhaps because it makes it clearer that the date is unknown.
probably the eighth son of King Máel Coluim III, and the sixth and youngest produced by Máel Coluim's second marriage to Queen Margaret. - it's unclear whether the "probably" applies to both statements or just the first.
The explanation for this is in the following note, but I've altered the wording to make this clearer, adding "certainly".
allegedly after hearing the news of the family deaths - allegedly is in words to avoid. Who alleges it?
The source in the following footnote alleges it. That is a common way of wording such things, and the usual understanding is that the accuracy of the source is in question, without being directly analysed. So, don't have a problem with it, impossible to rephrase without lengthening, so just deleted the statement.
We cannot be certain what happened next, - shouldn't use "we", per MoS
Well, changed it to "it is not certain"
claims that Domnall forced his three nephews into exile -
The page you link, WP:WTA, states of the word "claims" - "In this sense, it carries a very strong connotation of dubiousness: by using it, you suggest that the assertion is suspect." And yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing. This is not a news article reporting on a contemporary figure, it's fine to use this kind of word IMHO. Sources from this period are naturally suspect. No historian even a little familiar with medieval Scotland has to explain that Fordun and the Chronicle of Melrose may be open to doubt as sources. I've changed it, but I totally disagree with the change.
and sometime in 1094 marched into Scotland. - again, "sometime" is fairly redundant.-
Not really, it communicates that the exact point is unknown; it isn't in the slightest bit redundant.
Okay, perhaps this is a matter of style. I automatically infer from "and in 1094 marched into Scotland" that it means "at some point in 1094" but others might not.
by the end of the year Donnchad himself was slain - I think there's a problem with the grammar again. Isn't being slain a one-time event that can't happen "by" a certain date. "Himself" is redundant. Perhaps could be rephrased in the active voice.
Again, this is not redundant; it happens "by the end of the year" because it is known he was slain sometime this year, but not in the next. As events in the same year have already been narrated, this "redundant" usage is in fact essential.
Redundancy was referring to "himself". If you think it's alright then leave it; I just find it slightly jarring to read "so-and-so was slain by the end of the year".
A lot of the paragraphs are very long, making it difficult to read, and are made up of lots of short sentences making it feel disjointed. Needs a proofread and copyedit. There is lots and lots of good here (top-notch referencing, quality images, very comprehensive) but it isn't there yet.
Whoever said this kind of paragraph length is bad? Sometimes people offer objections which can be dealt with, sometimes they are just subjective and can't be dealt with. I think the paragraph lengths are good, but that's just me. Again, with the "claim" thing, you maybe don't like it, but to me it is proper phraseology for history writing. If there are other like thing you disapprove of, I cannot be expected to predict what these are. Maybe it does need another few minor proofreads - they always do - but you can be sure it'll get another couple from me alone even in the next day. Anyways, sorry it's not getting your vote. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph lengths are, of course, a matter of personal preference. I find them harder to read once they pass around six sentences, particularly with the large number of subsections used in the article but others may see it differently. Don't change "claim" if you feel that there is unambiguously doubt over what the source says; you are much more knowledgeable in this area than me, so use your best judgement. (And don't forget about my non-prose points; they're irritatingly picky I know.) Trebor00:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I changed them anyways to be safe. Sometimes I think one thing, then 20 people come along thinking the opposite. The length thing is an issue; I'm perfectly willing to cut some sections ... i.e. the Revoltion section, if I can be sure that that won't arouse opposition. The latter is my worry ... to be honest, I think they'd have a point if I cut some parts and they objected. It would be nice if some other users could comment on this. It would help if I knew, for instance, if the two users who've supported the current length regard it as important, or if they just don't mind. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is splintering slightly with user talk, I'd prefer to keep it all here if that's alright. Other opinions (particularly from people with background knowledge) would be very useful. I definitely don't want to be dictating any changes. Trebor00:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, all I can do is wait. In the mean time, I've given the article another heavy copyedit. I'd be surprised if there are still many problems. Like I said, splitting many of the paragraphs can easily be done in theory, and I'm not averse to trimming it some more. All I worry about is the damage the latter could do to the article in respect of other users. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)02:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, assorted minor style problems and ambiguities:
Thanks for your comments. I've tried to respond to your comments as best I can. See following:
David spent most of his childhood in Scotland, but in 1093 political events forced him into exile in England. In England he became subject to Norman cultural influences and a hanger-on at the court of King Henry I of England.
During his reign David became a great "reformer". The term "Davidian Revolution" is used by many scholars to summarise the changes which took place in the Kingdom of Scotland during his reign.
The first sentence is redundant.
Beginning to think redundancy ain't such a bad thing. Deleted it anyways.
The result of the invasion was at first indecisive, but after a few months the English and French soldiers given to Donnchad by King William were massacred, and by the end of the year Donnchad was slain by Domnall's ally, Máel Petair, mormaer of Mearns.
'The result of' is unnecessary, that the soldiers were provided by William is implied, the second 'Donnchad' could be changed to 'he'. Use killed instead of 'slain'.
Despite the setback, William Rufus did not give up, and in 1097 he sent Donnchad's half-brother Edgar into Scotland. The latter was more successful, and was crowned King of Scotland by the end of 1097.
Why is this glossed over compared to Donnchad's defeat? It might be worth going into more detail here, mentioning Edmund of Scotland for example.
Well, there is no like record of the course of events, we only know the result. The only way of getting into it is by explaining the course of Donnchad's invasion, which was the same resistance. Could add a sentence about Edmund, but it would be along the lines of "another brother, Edmund, appears to have sided with Domnall". It's just a case of using judgment as to what is important enough to mention in an article which has to be concise.
King Edgar was a young man, only a few years older than David, and another of David's older brothers, Alexander, was alive and well and closer to the throne than David. David was in fact so far away from becoming king that Ethelred, his older brother and superior in line to the succession, had given himself up to a career in the church.
These two sentences contain a lot of redundant information and awkward phrasing; avoid unneeded phrases like 'alive and well' and 'in fact'. Three uses of 'David' in the first sentence is excessive.
Replaced "alive and well" with healthy. Got rid of "in fact", but don't really understand why I had to; it's a following statement; it is of course, literally reduntant, but adding meaning is not generally the point of such particles. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The two sentences are still quite clunky. How about 'King Edgar was only a few years older than him and another brother, Alexander, was healthy and closer to the throne.' Yes, Ethelred gets the boot, but if Edmund doesn't merit a mention here, why should Ethelred?
Moreover, when William Rufus was killed and Henry Beauclerc seized power, David's fortunes got even better.
'Moreover' is unnecessary. 'fortunes got even better' doesn't sound right.
Although he remained for some time a princely hanger-on, the marriage made David the brother-in-law of the ruler of England. Although still a youth, from that point onwards David was a more important figure at court, with a much brighter future than he previously had.
Two sentences starting with 'although'. 'than he previously had' is redundant. 'for some time' has little descriptive value.
Despite his Gaelic background and childhood, by the end of his stay in England, David was a fully fledged Normanised prince.
'in England' is redundant. Did he actually have a 'Gaelic background and childhood', given his mother wasn't Gaelic?
He had a Gaelic father and was brought up in Scotland. Would have mentioned his Saxon background (mentioned elsewhere), but as he went to England the contrast doesn't seem necessary. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David's time as Prince of the Cumbrians marks the beginning of his life as a great territorial lord. The year of these beginnings was probably 1113, the year in which Henry I arranged his marriage to an English heiress and the year in which for the first time David can be found in possession of "Scottish" territory.
Too many uses of 'the year'. 'of these beginnings' is redundant. The use of quotation marks throughout this article is questionable, better to replace them with unambiguous descriptions. It should be made clear that David gained possession of land in England via his marriage.
Guilty "the year"s changes to "when". I believe the consequences of that marriage was originally mentioned in that introductory paragraph, but I made the decision to cut it thinking the marriage, the consequences of which are mention in the article intro and the text following the section intro. Also "heiress" rather than just "female" kinda implies he got some kind of benefit from it. Not sure many would miss that implication. But, changed "heiress" to "heiress of vast estates in central England" "Scottish" is in quotation marks because was not thought of as Scottish then, but is now. Anyways, changed "Scottish" to "territory in what later became Scotland".Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it necessary to state that Henry arranged the marriage in what is a mini-intro, or that the estates were 'vast'? It just replicates what is said later on. How about 'The year was probably 1113, when he married the heiress of estates in England and definitely possessed territory in what is now Scotland.'
Seizure of inheritance
Isn't 'seizure' a bit strong, considering that there was no bloodshed?
You think so; it was taken from Alexander through threat of force. Not sure I agree, but changed "seizure of" to "Obtaining the". 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
According to Oram, it was only in 1113, when Henry had returned to England, that David was at last in a position to claim his inheritance in southern "Scotland"
Richard Oram should be wikilinked. Again, avoid quotation marks. This sentence is rather confusing unless you read David, Prince of the Cumbrians. How accepted are Oram's ideas and is there any hard evidence for them?
There is more info about this in both the notes and the daughter article. Oram's view in this regard is supported by Duncan (see note); nothing since has been published arguing against this view - which seems to be orthodoxy now - but I have nevertheless given previous views a mention (see first sentence and note). Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The part 'when Henry returned to England' is what confuses me. Where is Henry returning from? Normandy? Scotland? What does this have to do with David being in position to claim his inheritance?
There is no evidence which shows that King Henry participated in the campaign in person, but it is clear that his backing was enough to force King Alexander to recognise his younger brother's claims.
If there's no evidence, why mention it at all?
Because it's inherently likely. The period and context is of the type where many likely things are not directly provable. Such a situation shaped the phraseology of all writings about this period. Are you nevertheless think it should be deleted? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is sufficient to note that David was supported by Henry. Speculation about whether Henry appeared in person seems OTT.
Years later, when David invaded England with a huge army composed almost entirely of Gaelic Scots, Ailred of Rievaulx has a Norman knight named Robert de Brus lament and complain to David about his betrayal of the Angli and Normanni, the English and Normans, whom he once relied upon. Among other things, the knight asserted:
This is too detailed for an introduction to a source. 'asserted' is a word to avoid. 'Among other things' seems redundant.
On this point I strongly disagree. It is this source which illuminates the events under discussion. To remove this will give the impression that this is clear-cut, when it is not. It is possible that I could get rid of this whole part and just say "later evidence shows that this inheritance was obtained through threat of force", but that would make me unhappy. :( Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could easily be cut back to 'Years later, when David invaded England, Ailred of Rievaulx has a knight named Robert de Brus complain to David about his betrayal of the English and Normans.'
It was in this way, through a bloodless threat of force, that David gained his first territorial foothold within the area of modern Scotland.
Wouldn't it be fairer to say he gained it through inheritance backed up by the threat of force? 'bloodless' is redundant.
I'm not sure I understand; before you objected to detailed introduction to another source, but you want me to make this one even more detailed? The information you're requesting is given in the footnotes. So I'm glad you gave me a second option; I went and deleted the "recently rediscovered". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few more comments above, but I still feel as if I've only scratched the surface of this article; it is really, really long. Rather than cut the Davidian Revolution stuff (though that could be trimmed), it would be better to reduce the early life/feudal stuff i.e the exact dates he spent in England, or the details of various conflicts.
More stuff:
He was the youngest son of the Scottish King Máel Coluim mac Donnchada and his second wife Margaret, a princess of the House of Wessex. David spent most of his childhood in Scotland, but in 1093 political events forced him into exile in England.
Suggest shortening this to 'The youngest son of the Máel Coluim mac Donnchada and Margaret, David spent most of his childhood in Scotland, but was exiled to England in 1093.'
David and his brothers Alexander (Alaxandair) and Edgar (Étgar) were probably in the presence of their mother when she too died.
Specifically mentioning in this sentence that these brothers later became kings would help make the later sections more accessible. Gaelic versions of their names seems like overkill, especially when the Gaelic names don't have English versions.--Nydas(Talk)22:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to address most of your suggestions. I've cut much of the opening two sections - early life and prince of the cumbrians - and edited away most of the Davidian revolution section. Tell me what you think. Also, per Trebor, made most of the paragraphs shorter. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)02:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is of course an excellent article, and here are a few suggested tweaks. Apologies if this duplicates some of the above - I have only skimmed it.
Lead para
"There he became a hanger-on at the court of King Henry I". Call me an old fuddy-duddy if you like, but this strikes me as both informal and an unverifiable opinion. 'A peripheral figure'?
"Hanger-on" is the term Oram uses. Medieval courts consisted on inner and outer circles, and Oram means to say he was in the outer circle until his sister's marriage to Henry. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Early years
"the sparcity of the evidence available". Is 'sparcity' a word? - and 'available' is redundant.
David was born at an unknown point between 1083 and 1085'. 'at an unknown point' is redundant.
This was said before I think; I disagree that this is redundant. "between 1083 and 1085" doesn't necessarily imply that the exact date is unknown. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Intervention
"During the power struggle of 1093-97, David was in England. In 1093, he may have been about nine years old." We know how old he may have been. 'During the power struggle of 1093-97, David spent his childhood in England from about ages x - y'?
I don't understand what you you're meaning to get at here. Could you elaborate? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Henry married David's sister, Matilda (or Edith)".
I understand the difficulties but this does not read well. Suggest moving '"or Edith" to a footnote.
"The marriage made David the brother-in-law of the ruler of England."
Whilst accepting that the readers of Wikipedia who post articles about tag-wrestling in pidgin English might not be able to work this out for themselves I am not sure it adds value to the article.
It emphasizes David's new political status in England. You could delete it, but then someone else might quote the remaining passage here and ask what it's significance is. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prince of the Cumbrians
There is a link available for Annandale and Cunninghame. (They appear linked later.)
David in England
"Moreover, Matilda's father Waltheof had been Earl of Northumberland, a defunct lordship"
You just told us that.
'Moreover, his father-in-law's Earldom was a defunct lordship'?
Reread that sentence, and it looks fine. It isn't redundant because Waltheof had two lordships, one (Northumberland) and the other the "Honour of Huntingdon"; he lost Northumberland but kept his status as an earl and retained possession of the "Honour of Huntingdon" (the latter wasn't actually a territorial earldom at this stage, as other wiki articles make out). Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its the para that has repitition, not the sentence. "Henry gave David the hand of Matilda de Senlis, daughter of Waltheof, Earl of Northumberland". "Moreover, Matilda's father Waltheof had been Earl of Northumberland,"Ben MacDui(Talk)20:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd war against Máel Coluim
"Matilda de Senlis, passed away. Possibly as a result of this". At first reading I thought 'why would his wife pass away as a result of a trial?' It's the ref tag that creates the gap in the flow. Might be better as 'Possibly as a result, [40] and while'?
"The instigator was his half-brother Máel Coluim"
As there are more than one of these wretched Malcolms, this phrase had me wondering. The section header tells me anyway, but perhaps:
' The instigator was once again his half-brother Máel Coluim'.
" who now had the support of Óengus of Moray"
Earlier
"he had the support of the King of Moray"
So, if its the same Malcolm and the same King it should be:
'who still had the support of Óengus of Moray'?
No, The previous sentences said "when Máel Coluim reappears in the sources six years later, he had the support of the King of Moray". It didn't say he had support of the King then, but implies he may have. It's the only way of guessing who was backing him at that point. But I deleted the first mention since it has caused this confusion. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"including Walter l'Espec, and were sent"
'and' is redundant.
" In 1134 Máel Coluim was captured"
Do we know where the capture happened?
I can't remember. I need to check my books, which I won't have access to again until Wednesday. I'm away from my main residence for the "weekend" and brought with me only books relevant for doing articles on bishops (see my contribs :) ). I'll get back to you on that though, or you can ask Angus. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pacification
"Kadrez" - one has a cap, the other not. What is it?
Fixed. Meaning unknown, but it's the word that appears in the relevant charter sources. I think it lists these regions as Kadrez of "Galloway" (greater Galloway, as in "Strathyrewen in Galweia"). Possibly cognate with Welsh "Cantref". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"in compensation for the exclusion from the succession" - 'in compensation for his exclusion' ?
Then one would be wondering, "exclusion from what". No?
I meant 'in compensation for his exclusion from the succession
Dominating the north
"While fighting King Stephen" Who he? Henry's successor?
Of course. This is covered by the following section - and Stephen is linked. Do you think a "(see below)" should be put next to it. Remember that this has already been introduced in the article intro at the top of the page. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1150, it looked like Caithness the whole earldom of Orkney were going to come under permanent Scottish control." Missing 'and' after Caithness?
"David's weakness in Orkney was that the Norwegian kings were not prepared to stand back and let David reduce their power"
Suggest 'him reduce their power'.
King David and England
Probably MOS would prefer 'Later relations with England' or similar.
Why? I did think a title more similar to the scottish section should be used, but decided to follow the daughter article. Could you explain your reasoning? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"over the most important of David's gains. It is clear that neither one of these interpretations can be taken without some weight being given to the other."
which gains? Don't understand second sentence.
Means that both views have to be and are taken into account by all historians, if only with varying degress. This is the second time this section has been brought up. I'll look to altering it later this evening. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it at all possible that David had an eye on the English throne, or becoming a regent of some kind for Matilda?
Never heard that be suggested. Would be original research, though if you can find that argued anywhere Id be delighted to mention it. What has been suggested is that David secretely thought of himself as a potential king of England, or a part of it. David was, after all, since 1124 at least, the rightful King of England under contemporary succession laws. It's also curious that his Gaelic style, appearing in an obituary, is rí Alban & Saxain, king of Scotland and England. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bishopric of Durham
"However, Stephen's supporters had gotten wind of the plan" Your disregard for the Queen's English is a national scandal!
I noticed your dreadful user box. Thank-you for recanting.
"British Isles lost" 'British Isles was lost?
No, no; read the whole sentence - a quote from a historian - "For Oram, this event was the turning point, "the chance to radically redraw the political map of the British Isles lost forever"." The syntax of the whole sentence means that the "was" is understood. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would benefit from a comma before 'lost' even if its not in the original.
Succession and death
"He had probably been suffering from some kind of illness for a long time."'some kind' is redundant.
David I and the economy
MOS grumble and
"undermine the position of the native Scottish language" I think this is misleading - perhaps disambiguating native Gaelic and Scots might be helpful?
I don't understand why it's misleading? Scots were Gaelic-speakers by definition in this era and there was no such thing as Lallans. It's also clear from the context, if the user had any unlikely doubts, what language is meant. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
2) "Máel Coluim had at seems to have had two sons". Syntax error
Thanks for taking the time to point out fixes and suggest tweaks. I hope you regard my responses as satisfactory ... and continue commenting as necessary and appropriate. Will respond to my talk page message in a little bit. Best regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Extensive, scrupulously well referenced, nicely illustrated, covers the different views of the subject, and the prose isn't too terrible. More proof-reading would be beneficial, as would more proof-readers. Angus McLellan(Talk)19:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
An article on a bogus but still ingenious "automaton" that played chess: a device that concealed the fact that the chess was instead being played by a cooped-up
human, thanks to magnets and candlelight. This is an article to which I have contributed nothing aside from liberal application of my fine-toothed comb, and therefore one that I can unashamedly praise. Almost exactly two years ago, this failed as a featured article, mostly for its sketchiness (here is its state at the time); it is certainly informative now, and it has also gone through the "GA" and peer review hoops. So what do you all think? -- Hoary07:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as principal author - and a hearty thanks to Hoary in particular for his help on it over the last month. I think it meets the standard:
Prose is in great shape, and has been copyedited by at least three different people.
It is very comprehensive - I believe I've covered every relevant piece of information available, and accurately - I found a number of great sources.
It's neutral and stable - no quibbling about facts, no questions as to whether you can even have a POV on a chess-playing automaton.
I believe it meets the relevant MOS guidelines.
All images are public domain and relevant for the exception of two which are released through the GFDL.
With references included, the text is roughly 37kb. The storied history of the machine and its newfound relevance and attention make it a worthwhile size, in my opinion.
I think I may have accidentally removed the link at some point, I'll re-add it. I also forgot about the book (although I have it waiting for me on interlibrary loan!), so I'll add that in shortly. Thanks! --badlydrawnjefftalk18:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A brilliant and very interesting read. Comments as I went throughout:
Thanks in advance, I broke up your comments for easier replies, I hope you don't mind. My replies in itals:
I'll get on the date links, I tend to overlink dates and fix them later - I'm not shocked that I missed a few.
When describing the Turkish look of the human model, it's important to mention that the machine was named after it; this might not be understandable for all readers at first.
Good call on the naming issue, I'll find a way to work that in.
I've also noted that there is nothing written in the section about candles, how exactly did the player see the parts?
I mention the candles at the end - it's important to note that the actual part of the candles wasn't completely revealed until later on, perhaps that isn't clear. Will that cover it, or should I find a way to work it in earlier?
Well, yeah. Some people may come to the article for the purpose of understanding the mechanism, and incomplete descriptions would cause some confusion. Michaelas10(Talk)19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Not everything was lost, however" in "The final years and beyond" section doesn't make much sense.
I think that's a bit of flair if anything. I'll just remove it (no offense, Hoary).
The following sentence should explain which existing parts it used in building the machine (e.g. "...spent $120,000 building his own version of Kempelen's machine over a five-year period from 1984 using the remained illustrations of the machine").
Is the section confusing? It mentions that the only part it used was the original chessboard.
Redlinks at the "Revealing the secrets" seem overwhelming, remove the links or at least create stubs.
I'll see what I can do, I cut back a LOT from what was there.
A bit of point of view issue at the beginning of the "Inspiration", I suggest rewording "The Turk was so popular and mysterious that its construction..." to "Due to the Turk's popularity and mysteriousness, its construction..." Michaelas10(Talk)19:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the grounds of factual inaccuracy. The images Image:Turk-engraving6.jpg and Image:Turk-engraving1.jpg in the Construction section are presented as theough they are an accurate representation of the Turk's workings. They are illustrations of Joseph Friedrich Freiherr von Racknitz's contemporary theories of how the device was operated. However, as Standage himself notes (p.88):
There are, indeed, a few problems with Racknitz's explanation. First, his model was not in proportion to the actual Turk; the cabinet was far too long in relation to its height and depth. Second, even according to Racknitz's distorted measurements, the operating hiding behind the drawer would have had to have fitted into a space five feet long, eighteen inches wide, and about seven inches tall -- surely an impossibility for an adult. Racknitz's engravings show a diminutive operator smaller than the Turkish figure itself, which Rackham described as medium-sized.
Interesting catch. My question to you would be how to note this. Are mentions in the photo boxes enough, something along the lines of "This is a distorted measurement based on Racknitz's calculations, showing an impossible design in relation to the actual dimensions of the machine?" I ask only because I don't use Racknitz's measurements or much else in the text itself, so I assume it's how the photos are captioned that you object to? --badlydrawnjefftalk19:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think your suggestion is good, and I believe the more accurate engravings on pp. 198-199 of Standage should be added. The captions representing the 18th-century illos as accurate are probably all that need correcting. Andrew Levine20:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The text will be adjusted by the time you finish reading this. The illustrations on 198-199 are replicated in the Levitt text in greater detail - they're apparently from the American Heritage article, and I'm thinking the fair use rationale would be shaky (on one hand, it's the most accurate engraving available, but the free ones illustrate the Turk the same way). Thoughts? --badlydrawnjefftalk20:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My thought process was to differentiate between subjects. Thus, with your comment, I recalled wanting to combine the two paragraphs about inventions. The rest doesn't appear logical to my eye, but I have been working on this for over two months. Any suggestions? --badlydrawnjefftalk02:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SupportThe lead is brief and unsatisfying, given the (outstanding) detail offered in the body of the text. + Ceoil00:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few sentences summarising the "The final years" and "Revealing the secrets" sections would complete the lead overview; maybe mention that the machine fell from view until the 1854 fire, a word or two on Mitchell's articles, and a note on the revival of interest following the launch of Big Blue.
The sentence "Upon the return of the ship that Mälzel died on, Mälzel's various machines, including the Turk, fell into the hands of a friend of Mälzel's, the businessman John Ohl" is a little hard to understand.
Support a good addition to the Featured Articles. I agree with the comment that longer paragraphs might improve the narrative that may just be my personal preference. Well done and thank you for your hard work. -Susanlesch18:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Really enjoyed it, especially the first part, which has excellent hard prose (once Von Kempelen exits the picture, it necessarily turns into a bit of a shaggy dog story). One thing I itched to know, but it seems is unknown, is the identity of the guy inside the machine. He had to be some player to beat most comers and do the knight's tour. Perhaps I'm overimaginative, but I read into this article that the reason Von Kempelen stopped demonstrating the machine was that his player was no longer available. It seems to me he must have had a different guy when the machine started losing regularly. Well done to the editors—a great read. qp10qp00:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the positive comments. Your itching raises an interesting point - Kempelen didn't want to tour the machine because he didn't want to be known as "The Turk guy" (I can somehow relate to that, no wonder I'm drawn to this thin). If that's the vibe you got, I'll have to make some repairs, so thanks! --badlydrawnjefftalk00:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much the only part that I ended up holding over - whoever initially did the article got some excellent quality scans of the materials uploaded, so it was more about my picking and choosing which ones were best. Being public domain helped a lot. --badlydrawnjefftalk18:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent article, though I too would love to know who the director was. It must have been quite a feat: playing on an upside-down board while shoved into a tiny box, and at the same time having to work the mechanics of the automaton. Yomanganitalk19:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Article is result of collaborative work by editorial team – user:Novickas, user:Renata3 and user:M.K. As a result article covers important issue of Lithuania's history, is well referenced, comprehensive, has unique and free historical pictures, graphic representations etc. If you have questions, comments I (or my colleagues) will happily answer them. M.K.12:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both of the pictures on the page have unclear copyright status. They are listed as cc-sa-2.5, but the images also state "Owned by Lietuvos nacionalinis muziejus (National Museum of Lithuania). Usage granted by coffer curator from National Museum administration. For any questions regarding this image contact Museum administration." Hipocrite - «Talk»13:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
License states that You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor and that you see as Owned by Lietuvos nacionalinis muziejus (National Museum of Lithuania) is attribution, demanded by license. It is the only Museum request, that when using pictures the proper label to Museum should be provided, usage and label of image is directly fits to the license frame. M.K.16:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the image upload page says, yes. It also says "Owned by Lietuvos nacionalinis muziejus (National Museum of Lithuania). Usage granted by coffer curator from National Museum administration. For any questions regarding this image contact Museum administration." This leads me to believe it was not licenced under cc-by-sa-2.5, which has a lot more terms than "use their name". Where did you get the image from? Did you send whatever coorespondence existed to permissions@wikimedia.org? Hipocrite - «Talk»16:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your are referring to "source" part, which aim was to inform that not contributor X made these images and they can be found in LNM. It would be much simple if your specifically point which parts and how makes you doubt. M.K.20:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures are probably in the public domain anyways. One of the pictures, after some daunting research appeared to be in public domain (taken in 1905 by Aleksandras Jurašaitis who died in 1915; Lithuania has 70 years after author's death rule). The second (with all twenty members) despite being very popular image does not have the author indicated in any sources. Therefore as "author unknown" work it is in public domain. Renata03:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor object. Main point: I believe 'Aftermath' section should be expanded, with reactions of various factions - in Lithuania and among its neighbours to it, how it impacted their plans and eventually shaped the situation of the interwar period, before the article is comprehensive. Also, in the history of section, it would be interesting to learn if there were any factions which preffered a different outcome, and why (Krajowcy comes to mind). Other comments. In 'Act of December 11, 1917', it would be very usefulto know who voted how. I would think that the House of the Signatories and the museum are notable and should be linked. 'Path to the Act' is quite impressive. 'Final text of the Act': English should go to the left, as it is what most readers will start (and end) with. The text of the act should be on the Wikisource. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 14:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will answer to your points a bit later, but for start - do you suggesting that original text of Act should be deleted from article? M.K.16:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's short ant ties in in a useful way (color coding) with the history graph. But it should be copied to Wikisource. Note that comments are not part of the objection, they are just comments (neutral vote). PS. It's usually a good idea to streamline the FACs by going through WP:PR and WP:GAC first.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Aftermath" was kept short for a purpose: the article has a very narrow focus, i.e. the one page document that was signed by 20 men. It is way out of the scope to include the formation of Lithuanian identity, anything more detailed about the dreams regarding Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or Grand Duchy of Lithuania, ideas of those who sought only autonomy, or other "visions." It belongs to a whole new article with much wider focus. Renata13:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article House of the Signatories is up and running, in future it will be expanded. I also think that "Aftermath" should have narrow focus; inclusion various factions and their opinions should go to article something like History of Lithuania (1918-1940). About moving EN Act's text to right, it can result mixing all these LT lines [1,2,3 etc] which is vital. M.K.20:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent piece of work, written in clear, effective prose, which explains a complicated subject lucidly and fascinatingly. Two minor points: although I know about Brest-Litovsk, it might require an explanatory phrase at first mention, for those who don't. And I found the point about the word "finally" obscure. That did become clear when I came to the word in the text of the treaty, but perhaps the containing phrase needs quoting as part of the explanation, so the significance is immediately apparent. Well done to all editors. qp10qp15:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For Brest-Litovsk I expanded part like this: Germany failed to recognize Lithuania as an independent state, and the Lithuanian delegation was not invited to the Brest-Litovsk negotiations, which started in 1917-12-22 between Central Powers and Russia in order to settle territorial claims. Is it satisfactory to you?
For "finally" I added these -"" to the original word and translation. Also added that finally is translation; hope it solves a bit problem M.K.20:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating Anton Chekhov as I believe the article now meets all the criteria and because, in my opinion, this great writer deserves a higher profile. I didn't interpret the title "Anton Chekhov" to stand only for "biography of Anton Chekhov" but also for "the work of Anton Chekhov". In the opening and closing sections in particular, with their accompanying notes, I have tried to provide the readers of this article—and I believe many of them will be writers, writing students, and literature readers and students—with an entry into critical opinion on Chekhov's work.
Chekhov's life has been exhaustively documented in biographies, and I could probably reach out to one now and tell you what he had for breakfast any time between 1880 and 1904, but I have restricted this article to that biographical information which I feel is relevant to an understanding of his work: so there is no attempt here, for example, to describe his love life. As he said himself in his notebook: "When I see books, I am not
concerned with how the authors loved or played cards; I see only their marvellous works". This article therefore refers to Chekhov's writing as often as possible, particularly his letters and short stories. I at first intended to mention all his most famous stories, intertwining references to them with the biographical narrative, but when I realised this would produce an article length of over 80kb, I decided instead to honour Chekhov's faith in brevity and attempt a relatively crisp article that shouldn't test the patience of the readers and may tempt them to investigate further for themselves. I plan to make some articles about his short and longer stories in the future. qp10qp20:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just flicking through, a couple of minor things. Wikilink dates with months and days to allow date preferences to work, but generally not single years, per WP:DATE. Work a little on the formatting of the online references. The external link should only be applied to the title, not the retrieval date. As much info should be given about the source as possible; for instance, The Guardian one should include the publisher and date of the story. Will give it a more detailed look later. Trebor21:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support with caveats. You say in your description that you made no attempt to describe his love life. What exactly do you mean by that? Sometimes love lives are essential to a person's biography. If you mean that you didn't detail every tryst, I am in agreement, but if you mean that you eliminated torrid love affairs that had a significant influence on Chekhov, I would have to disagree with your decision. Also, I wished that there had been more Chekhov criticism; you have writers' responses to him which is excellent, but what about scholars? They generally have a more dispassionate take; perhaps a "Themes" section could integrate this sometime in the future? (On that note, I would remove the beautiful quotation from Ian MacCllellan in the lead - it is too poetic for a lead, I think.) Finally, some tiny source things: in the notes, I think that the first time a source appears, it is supposed to be completely cited and in your bibliography, not all of the citations are formatted exactly the same way (some have publication locations, some do not, for example). Overall, though, I thought this was a good article. Awadewit05:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments.
On the question of scholarly opinion, I disagree that I have neglected it. There is considerable referencing of scholarly opinion throughout the article—starting with Styan in the lead. There is even a reference to Michael Finke, ("'Chekhov's 'Steppe': A Metapoetic Journey"), which I referenced through Janet Malcom's use of him (I have actually tried to read Finke myself, finding him almost incomprehensible). Malcom in my opinion does a good job of reporting some of the recent original work in Chekhov scholarship, and she is used as a main source for the article, as is James Wood (The Broken Estate: Essays in Literature and Belief), a critic but a scrupulously scholarly one. There are a good few scholarly works used and referenced, but some scholarly opinion may be disguised: for example, Nabokov is quoted as much as a scholar as a writer, and Rayfield's biography of Chekhov was used in particular because it contains much new scholarship on Chekhov based on his access to previously censored archives in Russia—his original scholarship on the evolution of Uncle Vanya from the Wood Demon is noted too; some of Bartlett's work is also original. Theatre scholarship is referenced in the article as well. The notes reveal more scholarly underpinning than is apparent from the article text.
Perhaps you could make this clearer in the body of the text by simply attaching epithets such as "a theater scholar" to various names?
I've kept scholars' names out of the main text and largely used their views for supplementary analysis in the notes. For example, I've quoted Martin Esslin in the notes because he defines "subtext" so well (I regard Esslin as one of the key analysts of modern theatre). That underpins a quotation from Stanislavski in the text, Stanislavski being a name that will mean something to the reader. I've used that layered principle throughout—quoting famous voices in the text and scholars in the notes. qp10qp21:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that you need to identify people such as Stanislavski. When I write an article, I try to imagine an undergraduate reader - a freshman, for example - and given the state of education today (at least in the United States) the freshmen that I teach are sorely lacking in non-popular culture references. Awadewit21:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Stanislavski was introduced earlier in the article. I don't really like seeing scholars' or historians' names intruding into this sort of article. Readers who want to know the background to assertions or quotes can click the tags—the minority, I should think. qp10qp22:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to follow WP:CITE#HOW. I agree that it can interrupt the flow of one's prose, but somtimes readers have to be reminded about the reliability of a source. Sadly, it doesn't always occur to them to check. (A blatantly political example: the Iraq war) Awadewit22:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do stick to correct Wikipedia citing principles. It's a stylistic decision whether to name scholars, etc. in the text; and whereas you obviously have to do so in controversial articles like those about the Iraq war, it's not often required in articles like this one, in my opinion. As soon as a controversial assertion is necessary, however, yes, one should mention the source in the text: I did that with Donald Rayfield's suggestion that Olga may have become pregnant when she was apart from Chekhov: that is a famous thesis of his and so worth mentioning, but I balanced it with contrary views in the notes.
When I put quotes in the notes, they are often supplementary to a citation to an assertion in the text; I combine references to achieve a juxtaposed effect, counterweighting possible unreliability. But since these supplementary notes are incidental to the text, all the less reason for the noted scholars or historians to be mentioned upfront. To me, a historian or scholar who appears in the text is like a waiter who sits down at your table and helps himself to a piece of melon. I know my method here is unusual: it's the result of trying to think through what notes and references on Wikipedia are really for: I've decided they are primarily for transparency, which is why I often put quotes in the notes: that way the readers have a clearer idea what the various sources said. I think the Chekhov article will be of more use to students, for example, by giving them a bunch of incidental quotes to consider, than if I restricted them to "Smith, 167" on a key point. And I believe that one day notes will be hideable, meaning length issues will become irrelevant for notes on Wikipedia, making possible vast subterranean stores of supplementary information for those who are interested. qp10qp23:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My example of the Iraq War was not meant as a reference to the page but was meant as a real-life example. It illustrates that, in general, people often do not consider the reliability of sources which is why it is important to remind people of what sources you are using and why. I agree that the notes are for transparency, but readers rarely read them - it is our job as writers to remind readers that sources are important and that who is saying something matters. Awadewit00:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the other points, I have reasons for the methods used:
Chekhov appears to have had many passing mistresses, but as far as I can see he never reveals himself very deeply to or about them in his letters. He used prostitutes and appears not to have fallen for anyone until Olga, who is given her proper place in the article. Quite honestly, I've never come across a writer with such a tedious love life. Simmons has quite a lot about a woman called Lidiya Avilova who posthumously claimed to have been Chekhov's great love, but the conclusion of Simmons's long study of her case is that she never had even so much as an affair with Chekhov. Rayfield calls her Chekhov's "most deluded admirer". Chekhov had relatively little to do with her, and I don't see why the article should give her the time of day. In my opinion, letters to Olga apart, the most beautiful thing Chekhov ever wrote about a woman in his letters was this:
The Japanese girl has her own concept of modesty. She doesn't put out the light and when you ask what the Japanese is for one thing or another, she gives a straight answer and as she does so, because she doesn't understand much Russian, points her fingers and even puts her hand on it. What's more, she doesn't put on airs or go coy, like Russian women. And all the time she is laughing and making lots of tsu noises. She is amazingly skilled at her job, so that you feel you are not having intercourse but taking part in a top level equestrian course. When you come, the Japanese girl pulls with her teeth a sheet of cotton wool from her sleeve, catches you by the 'boy'...gives you a massage, and the cotton wool tickles your belly. And all this is done with coquetry, laughing, singing, saying tsu.
Wish I could have found a place for that. Apart from Olga, I believe the two women of Chekhov's life were his mother and his sister, both of whom he lived with till his death, who are often mentioned in the article. There are other things I haven't bothered with much, like his friendships and his philanthropy.
I'm beginning to worry that too much might be missing from this biography. I have debated in my own writing of biographies of authors what is relevant and what is not. I finally came to the conclusion that since it is a biography page, more information about their life was necessary than one might use when writing about their works. To me, it sounds like you might be eliminating huge swaths of his life in order to focus on his writing. While I accept your premise that those interested in his writing will be the most likely readers of this page, that does not mean that they are uninterested in the rest of his life. Perhaps a few lines about these other issues for balance?
I've not omitted anything linear. All the important events of Chekhov's life are included one after another, and the scheme of the article is very like that in his biographies. I should make clear that this was a man who lived a particularly quiet life, spending most of his time writing. The only two accessible dramas in his life (he was markedly unrevealing in his letters about Olga's miscarriage and her possible infidelity) were his journey to Sakhalin and his tuberculosis, both of which I feel are given appropriate space.
It's so much harder to write a relatively short article about someone like Chekhov than a longer one; and it is my ambition to write concise articles for Wikipedia because I don't believe the casual reader wants to read more than 40kb (this one is 45kb already). Still, I've always had a plan B for this article: if people insist on expansion, I can add loads of stuff very quickly because I have heaps of extra material written and referenced already, just in case. But I feel we're getting too many bloated articles at FAC already, so I will be disappointed if it comes to that. qp10qp21:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I don't mean to be difficult - I just wanted to understand your methodology. It's good to have a discussion about this with someone who has thought about this as well! Awadewit21:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not being difficult, just starting to remind me of Porfiry in Crime and Punishment, that's all. (Only joking.) Actually, it's a relief to find someone's bothered. As a Chekhov nut, I'm bewildered no-one edits the Chekhov article much or shows any interest in it; I doubt many people will turn out to be interested in this FAC, either. Never mind. qp10qp
On the Ian Mckellen quote, this comes from possibly the greatest English-language actor of Chekhov. The lead should establish significance, and Chekhov's position as one of the summits of the actors' profession needs to be made clear: of course, quoting actors never sounds very scholarly (though the quote comes through a secondary source), but McKellen's words attest to the plays' living presence in the theatre and to their unique demands on the acting ensemble.
It is the placement I have a problem with - the lead seems the wrong place for it. The lead is supposed to be a summary.
Well, it's gone now. The lead does provide a summary, but a lead should also indicate the subject's significance, so I felt that some reference to Chekhov's significance to actors was called for. (I should confess here that I have acted in Chekhov, and so might be biased.)
With it missing, I felt the assertion about the challenge to the ensemble (though common knowledge in the theatre) lacked support, and so I have re-added the quote, but only to the notes, where it isn't obtrusive.qp10qp18:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the formatting is concerned: it's true that scholarly footnoting requires the first mention of a source to be complete, and I used to do that. But Wikipedia articles are different animals from scholarly ones, I think, and to load up the notes with long book references which already appear in full a few inches down the page seems to me unnecessary (but I have fully referenced in the notes books which aren't largely about Chekhov and which do not appear therefore in the "references" section).
In the references section proper, I don't as a rule include publication locations, which are optional. My criterion is to give the reader information useful in finding the book, and so I added New York as a location for books by Leonard Woolf, Constance Garnett, Donald Rayfield, since one might associate them with London, and London as a location for Janet Malcom and James Wood because much of their work has been published in the States. However, I have removed those locations now to ensure consistency (I don't willingly include locations anyway, because I can't bring myself to write things like "Cambridge: Cambridge University Press", etc.)
I understand that publication location is optional, but it often helps in locating a book. When you request a book from a library, they often ask for the place of publication. My argument always is, give the reader as much information as possible to help them locate the book. But you are right that it is a personal preference. Awadewit20:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good article; however, it probably needs to go through some kind of peer review. There are some caveats I have too. The article doesn't flow too well - though I'll see what I can do about it. The referencing could be improved. The first para doesn't follow usual Wikipedia practice, in DOB/DOD referencing, for instance. The style isn't dispassionate enough - I'm sure some will baulk at the sentence 'Chekhov calmly, and with a "strange, sourceless maturity", now assumed responsibility for the whole family', which is a biographer's style, not encyclopedist. I agree with the Ian McKellen thingie too. The assessment is a little inadequate. I don't think this is ready yet, in short.
With some hindsight, Qp10qp seems to have completely rewritten the article. I don't think that is entirely necessary though, given it already have some structure, and that User Ghirlandajo, a Russian, have done some good things which is now gone in the article proper. Maybe we should have a cooperation. Mandel16:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I can respond to some of your points:
The style isn't dispassionate enough - I'm sure some will baulk at the sentence 'Chekhov calmly, and with a "strange, sourceless maturity", now assumed responsibility for the whole family', which is a biographer's style, not encyclopedist. I agree with the Ian McKellen thingie too.
Since you are the second person to object to the Ian Mckellen quote, I have removed it I have moved it to the notes. Perhaps I was trying to be too clever in using the words of the leading English-language Chekhov actor as evidence for Chekhov's significance to actors. Although I referenced the "calmly", "strange sourceless maturity" to a critic's own words (not a biographer's), I have withdrawn that as well, since you think it strikes too biographical a note. If you have other examples of the style not being dispassionate enough, could you note them here so that I can address them.
The referencing could be improved.
Could you explain what you mean there, and I will respond. I have a pile of the relevant books in front of me, and so I don't lack the resources to improve the references, but I need actionable objections to work on.
The article doesn't flow too well - though I'll see what I can do about it.
I've never been criticised on those grounds before, but obviously I'm blind to how the text reads to other people. I wonder if I became over-precise in the attempt to keep the length down.
The first para doesn't follow usual Wikipedia practice, in DOB/DOD referencing, for instance.
I thought I had stuck to the guidelines. Can you explain what you mean?
The assessment is a little inadequate.
Can you explain in what way? In quantity or quality? I honestly thought I'd piled the assessment on, when you take the stuff in the notes into account: I see few literary articles with this much referenced assessment. I referenced the weightiest critical sources that I could: Middleton Murry, Allen, Styan, Nabokov, Wood, Prose, Gerhardie, Esslin, Steiner are or were all commentators of good repute, I feel. I added to their comments the assessments from writers like Woolf, Joyce, Boyd, Carver, Hemingway, etc. and from the theatre workers Meyerhold, Stanislavski, and Ian McKellen.
With some hindsight, Qp10qp seems to have completely rewritten the article. I don't think that is entirely necessary though, given it already have some structure, and that User Ghirlandajo, a Russian, have done some good things which is now gone in the article proper. Maybe we should have a cooperation.
I prefer cooperation to working on my own, but no one was forthcoming, and the article was in a pitiful state, as people were noting on the talk page. It didn't have a single reference. Far from having any structure, the childhood and early period took up half the article: look at how the article stood before I started work on it: article condition on 29 October 2006. It's true that I've rewritten the article, but I did so gradually, one phrase at a time, working on what was there. Ghirlandajo has only ever done about eight small edits to the article (pictures/external links). One of my first edits was to rescue the picture of Chekhov and Tolstoy which he had uploaded, which had been spoiled by another editor: that picture is still here. Ghirlandajo was aware I was working on the article and didn't seem to mind: he actually helped me with a bit of research. If you are saying that it would be better if a Russian brought the article to FAC, then of course I agree. But I saw no sign of that happening—and as you've said yourself, "Chekhov matters". qp10qp18:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent article, well-written, referenced and illustrated. I will look through my books to see what can be added but the article is quite ready as it is. --Irpen00:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Thoroughly sourced, neutral, illustrated article, with appropriate statistics, tells the story of a summer of chaos for English cricket, the "Summer of four captains". Has been peer reviewed and failed one GA nomination; concerns have been addressed. Renommed for GA, but huge backlog at GA candidates page; in any case, it seems it's now at FA level anyway. This article is largely a collaboration between myself and User:The Rambling Man, with help of late from some of the cricket Wikiproject, notably User:ALoan who gave it a copyedit. --Dweller10:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blush, well suppport, but outside views from non-cricket-afficionados are particularly welcome - are there any parts that need further explanation? -- ALoan(Talk)11:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know nothing about cricket, but this article was pretty easy to follow with my general understanding of sports and the effective wikilinking. The article is also well written and well referenced with appropriate use of inline citations. Jay3218321:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are one or two lines which are not sourced such as "England had grounds for optimism leading up to the Test series", which is undeniably true. Normally I would demand a source but I believe that in this case it would add nothing to the quality of the article, and thus it gains my support. Great article - good subject - brings back some memories - and we sure do miss Malcolm Marshall.--Zleitzen (Talk) 01:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it's in the style guide there, "cricket tours are named "[visiting team] in [host nation] in [cricket season]": for example, New Zealand cricket team in Zimbabwe in 2005-06" --Dweller22:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the results should be make clear in either a list or a table. Also since this article is about the West Indians does there need to be so much about the England team? Buc 16:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Re the results, we can look at that. I think it's currently done encyclopedically but appropriately succinctly for non major matches. The article follows the standard titling for a cricket tour. Any international cricket tour is about a series between two (sometimes more) teams. The major feature of that tour was England's disarray. As an analogy, an article about a world cup in Foo, would be imbalanced if it focussed on the performance of Foo in the tournament. --Dweller17:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would give undue prominence to the matches against the county sides if they were given equal billing to the Tests and ODIs - and they were almost all draws anyway, as the article already says. As Dweller says, the major parts of an overseas tour by a Test team are the Tests and ODIs against the host team (and, sometimes, another visiting team) - the series are largely bilateral, so it makes sense to speak about both teams. And, in this case, the main interest of the tour was the poor performance of the England team. -- ALoan(Talk)17:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going going on the title of the article. A better title would be "1988 series between WI and E" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bole2 (talk • contribs).
It reflects the standard naming convention in most serious cricket reference works. It's slightly archaic and not entirely intuitive, but it's encyclopedic (and consistent). --Dweller09:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So basically it's about the 1988 series between WI and E but not allowed to be called so. Um ok I guess I can live with that. Still don't like it though. Support
Buc 17:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
After working on this and its daughter articles for about 3 months, I guess I feel this article now meets the featured criteria. Another user rated it A class, so I went ahead with it. It has complete sourcing throughout the article, comprehensive without going into too much detail (the details are in the daughter articles), it has non-breaking spaces, etc. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well written, well referenced article. Good use of images with appropriate captions. The only flaw I can see is a few missing retrieval dates, which I have no doubt you'll fix. Jay3218321:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This will be another "Damnit, Hink, on how many FACs do I have to ask you to write articles on all topics because your blatant pro-hurricane-article bias means so many of them are incredible while so many other articles are not as incredible?" support. -- Kicking22222:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article, on the subject of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, was the MCB collaboration from December. It was brought to GA status by TimVickers a couple of weeks ago, and has since been substantively expanded by me. It's had a very productive peer review here. Incidentally, this was also the first article I edited with my then-shiny-new account last spring ;) Comments appreciated as always. Opabinia regalis06:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The website it was obtained from states: "Images or text created by Wormatlas may be used by individuals or organizations for non-profit educational and scientific purposes with proper acknowledgement of Wormatlas (http://www.wormatlas.org)", which would make it fair use AFAICT. Still not good, but perhaps acceptable. Any tagging ideas? Fvasconcellos23:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced it with a freely-licensed image from PLoS Genetics. It's not quite as pretty, but it's also an example of an RNAi experiment, which is nice. I'm not sure fair-use of a worm image would fly; it's not really any different from a fair-use image of a living person in terms of replaceability. Opabinia regalis01:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There has been some discussion about improvements to this article on the talk page, despite the unusual dearth of participation here. I'm not sure that any RNAi expert is going to approve of the balance of topics or choice of emphasis in a review he or she didn't write ;) (Note: I'm not an RNAi expert.) I'd certainly be curious about what an external reviewer thinks, but wouldn't know where to find such a person, as I'm not interested in associating my real-life identity with my wikipedia work, and 'some fossil from the Internet wants you to take a look at this' is unlikely to generate much interest. Opabinia regalis02:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and - the citations in the last sentence are mostly there to give a pointer to the original 1998 paper, which seems more useful than making someone read/scroll to the very last section to find it. Does it look that weird? Opabinia regalis18:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The sentence "In Drosophila, miRNA and siRNA are differentially processed by distinct argonaute proteins and dicer enzymes." tells us there is a difference, but doesn't say what this is. If this difference is important you need to say what it is, but if it is only a curiosity, it would best to remove it.
Really? As far as I understand, we don't know the reason for the specificity yet, although I guess that sentence should point out that it's true in plants as well as Drosophila. There's a paper from 2002 claiming that miRNA and siRNA are not processed differently in mammals, pointed out by both of the Drosophila studies, but it's old enough and contains enough outdated assumptions that I'm hesitant to include it. At any rate, I think the point is important in the sense that the endogenous-regulatory and exogenous-immune pathways are more divergent than they might appear at first look. Opabinia regalis23:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried just cutting the word "differentially" does this change what you were trying to say? I was reading this to say that the processing was different, not similar processing by different isoforms. TimVickers23:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:*The image of the argonaute proteins needs to be bigger.
The sentence "In animals, these nucleases are known as argonaute proteins." needs to add what these proteins are called when they are not called argonaute - add plants, bacteria or protozoa?
That's old; they're all argonautes. Thanks for pointing this out. See the additions to the evolution section; there are even argonautes in bacteria. Opabinia regalis23:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "The miRNA activity, which is a major means of regulation of cell cycle progression and cell proliferation, is also clustered in P-bodies. would be best to move the function of miRNAs to the later section on biological functions and keep the material on localisation together.
I must not have my thinking cap on straight, because I'm not sure what you're suggesting here - the localization stuff already is together? I moved the function stuff for miRNA to the functions section, which is rather short because we do have a somewhat decent article on miRNA (though it needs some ref-formatting work). Opabinia regalis23:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure what this means "Plants such as the Arabidopsis thaliana express multiple dicer homologs that show differential specificity to infection by different common viruses." it sounds like the dicer homologues are being infected by viruses!
Nowhere is the distinction between antisense and RNAi explained clearly. I have never been very sure about this myself, so it would be good to have it laid out somewhere, perhaps in the lead? TimVickers18:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current usage of 'antisense' mostly involves the introduction of single-stranded fragments, expected to physically bind mRNA and block translation (ie, stoichiometrically), whereas RNAi explicitly refers to exploitation of the dicer/RISC pathway. Some of the early antisense applications are now thought to have worked through the RNAi pathway, which I suspect is going to be generally true in an organism that expresses RdRP. The one antisense drug that I know of (fomivirsen) is a modified oligo, so it likely wouldn't be recognized by the RNAi machinery anyway. I'm not sure how much of this belongs in the lead, since antisense isn't really mentioned except a brief note in the technology section, and a lot of the excitement for antisense drugs has transferred to siRNA. Maybe this is best placed with the biotech stuff then? Opabinia regalis23:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested the lead since it is sometimes important in introducing a subject to clarify the difference between the area you are going to discuss and related but frequently-confused areas. What about something in the last lead section like "Historically, RNA interference was known by other names, including post transcriptional gene silencing, transgene silencing, and quelling. It was also frequently confused with antisense suppression of gene expression, which does not act catalytically to degrade mRNA but instead involves single-stranded RNA fragments physically binding to mRNA and blocking translation." TimVickers23:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ref 59 is empty. It's a named ref, so I guess its first instance was removed and the ref text not moved to the second instance. Mind if I check the history and re-instate it, or was it on purpose? Was that a typo—"Samuet" supposed to be "Saumet"? (Saumet A, Lecellier CH (2006). "Anti-viral RNA silencing: do we look like plants?". Retrovirology 3 (3). PMID16409629) Fvasconcellos00:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Good balance of plants and animals but I feel some more fungi stuff is needed. I've read ref 35 myself, and though yes some pathways are missing in fungi, they are still present in many of them. Maybe put some theories in as to why the fungi have lost these pathways. Also, RNAi was noticed in fungi at around the same time as plants - where it was called quelling. (Million_Moments23:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Added a brief reference in the history section, though as far as I understand, work in fungus wasn't part of the main trajectory. I'm not sure about theories related to the loss of RNAi components - I know loss of RdRP is supposed to be correlated with greater genomic transposon load, but I'm not aware of any theories relating to specific lineages. If you know of any, do tell ;) I can't actually access ref 35 from here and originally read the paper quite a while ago now, so if there's anything pertinent in there, feel free to add it; I won't be able to look till tomorrow at the earliest. Opabinia regalis02:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind but since I am working on dsRNAs in rust at the moment I added a few sentances about RNA silencing proteins in fungi. You might wanna check them over, they might also be better suited to the evolution section. One other thing: fungi also have an RNA interferance pathway that is in my knowledge is unquie to fungi: MSDU. I think since you've mentioned RITS that should be in there as well. (Million_Moments17:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Shouldn’t this go in the evolution section? Maybe the entire section on the variation among organisms be a subsection of Evolution, or Evolution being a subsection of variation. They’re much too linked with each other to separate them. Fad(ix)17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to be careful here with how much detail can fit in one article. This article could be three times its current size and still omit or gloss over fruitful areas of research. If anyone wants to create a subarticle specifically about unique features of RNAi in fungus, that's great. (I was thinking of eventually creating an article on plant innate immunity, since there's an enormous amount of work out there on the plant/virus arms race.) I truncated the fungus addition just a bit, to keep it consistent in length with the other organisms and to remove some speculation on why unicellular organisms might lose the pathway. (I doubt 'unicellular = less complex life cycle = less need for RNAi' works, at least in that simplified form, because the pathway was well elaborated in the ancestral eukaryote.) MSUD sounds like a phenomenon that needs its own article more than it needs much elaboration in this one. There is actually a lot of somewhat related work on miRNA-induced meiotic events in Drosophila that is touched on in the piwi article, but not at all in the RNAi article itself. I do think RITS might have gotten a little overbilled in my desire to equitably cover 'classic' mRNA-degradation RNAi and the more recent work that has broadened the definition.
Correspondingly, I'm somewhat indifferent to moving the variations section; I'd rather see that material quite brief and earlier in the article than the evolution section, because the goal in the evolution section itself was to discuss the pathway as a whole rather than loss or modification of individual proteins in individual species (which, again, could be a whole article in itself). I thought of moving just the second paragraph so that the general plant/animal distinction remains early in the article. Opabinia regalis02:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article again for its return to featured article status and hopefully it'll stick this time. It has 80 citations and has undergone numerous edits and I believe it's up to par. It is currently a good article as well so the next step is, I believe, a logical one. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Tombseye04:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. I see limited improvement since the article was defeatured. The refs are not properly formatted to a consistent and complete bibliographic style, and there is far too much unreferenced text which appears as opinion or original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second look - the article needs to be better categorized. On my second look, I went straight to the Women section, which was in bad shape before. The first sentence I encounter there is not supported by the cited reference:
The Pashtuns today are a diverse population with widely varying lifestyles and perspectives. The effects of globalization have led to the proliferation of Western ideas as well as the infiltration of Saudi-style Wahhabist Islam into Pashtun regions.
The BBC article referenced does not support the cited text. The rest of the first paragraph in "Women" is uncited, and looks like opinion. These are the same kinds of issues that led to the article FARC; I remain concerened that this article needs much work to reflect FA standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reworked the women's section considerably and added relevant references as well closely mirroring your criticism. Please let me know what you think and if there are other sections that you feel require similar revisions. Thanks. Tombseye16:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic image: Image:At_a_wedding_tif.jpg The license is "copyrighted, but freely used". However, the permission is stated as "CopyrightedFairUse". Which one is the correct one? Furthermore, I don't really believe the claim that the image is free according to the license tag. Looking at the source in [11], the image is part of a Photographs Exhibition by Michael Foley. Can you tell me that you have explicit permission / statement from Michael Foley that the image can be used freely, even commercially?
Failed fair use image: Image:Sharbat_Gula.png. The image is very famous, taken by the famous NGC photographer Steve Mc Curry. It is absolutely copyrighted. However, the inclusion here violates the WP:FAIR criteria, esp. #8 that the image only serves as decorative purposes. The image can be used under Fair Use rationale only for Sharbat Gula, National Geographic Magazine or Steve McCurry articles. Nowhere else.
Wrong tag: Image:Afghanistan_-_Ahmad_Shah_Durrani.jpg. Again, the permission is stated "CopyrightedFairUse (Attribution Required)", but the license tag is {{cc-by-2.5}}. Looking at the source, I don't think the image was released under Creative Commons license.
Unknown source: Image:Portrait_of_Rahman_Baba.jpg. No source is given where the image is taken. Please see the tag in the image description.
Self-made? Image:QueenSorayaTarzi.JPG. The license is {{PD-self}} which is public domain taken by the uploader him/her-self. Really?
Contradict license tages: Image:Meena-7.jpg. Two license: one is assumed-to-have-been-released-as GFDL and the other is GFDL taken by the uploader him/her-self. Which one is correct? Also there is no link to the source where the image was taken. It's dubiously released as GFDL.
External link farms. Please reduce them. Wikipedia is not a directory. Some of them are commercial (spam?) and there are some that are best to be used as references (links to articles) rather than ext. links.
UpdateEveryone thanks for the comments. I'm in the process of fixing the references so that they all match and I'm adding references to everything that currently may be viewed as original research as well. Also, I will delete or figure out the pictures situation as well and have already removed many of the pics that are of questionable copyright status and will be done by tomorrow. Tombseye07:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further Update, I fixed the references and made them all consistent and re-wrote some sections. In addition, anything that was original research and not corroborated by references has been deleted. Pictures will be taken care of asap. Thanks. Tombseye01:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update part 3, Well we have taken care of the picture situation (special shout out to Khoikhoi for assist) so hopefully people can change their votes to support now? Tombseye02:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments after another fresh look into [12]. The image problems have been resolved and no external links, that's good, but I still have some issues below:
The numbers of Pashtun population in several countries used different sources. Even one figure has 2 different sources. This may contradict the numbers. For instance, for Pashtun in Iran, the article uses Ethnologue report based on 1993 sensus, but also points to UNHCR census in 2005, which does not specifically says about Pashtuns, but only Afghan refugees. Why would you point two different sources for one number? Please also state when the census/survey of Pashtun population was taken to give an idea how old it is, particularly when you use different sources.
Important metropolitan centers of Pashtun culture include Peshawar and Kandahar, while Quetta and Kabul, though having large Pashtun populations, are more mixed cities of cultural significance. → I don't understand the bold part. Do you mean mixed culture or mixed cities? What is actually metropolitan center and cultural significance? Perhaps a wikilink to a WP article describing these two terms?
Pashtuns comprise over 15.42% of Pakistan's population or 25.6 million[2] and about 42% of Afghanistan's population totaling 12.5 million. → ambiguity. The totaling 12.5 million, is that all Pasthuns in Pakistan and Afghanistan combined? or the number of Pasthun in Afghanistan? or 42% from 12.5 million Afghanistan population?
A cumulative population assessment suggests a total of over 40 million. → needs inline citation there.
It is often hypothesized that the Pashtuns emerged from the area around Kandahar and the Suleiman Mountains and began expanding millennia ago. → needs inline citation there.
According to many academics, such as Yu V. Gankovsky, the Pashtuns began... → since there is no wikilink to Gankovsky and the statement has used Gankovsky's publications, it is better to simplified as "Some sources claimed that the Pasthuns began...".
Update: Now, you introduced a new unauthoarized source of ^ History of Pakistan - Pashtuns (retrieved 10 January 2007) links to free geocities website. Please find more academic/reliable source or just remove this source. — Indon (reply) — 10:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Oral traditions and recent research" section name. I don't really see why would you want to put "recent research" there. Are all other sections based on non-recent research? And how recent it is? It's better to remove that because "recent" is inexact word.
Other Pashtun tribes claim descent from Arabs including some even claiming to be descendants of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad (popularly referred to as sayyids). → needs an inline citation there.WP:AGF
According to some genetic research (the source of which is disclosed under the references section below regarding a random sampling of Pashtun populations without specification as to which Pashtun tribes were tested in western Pakistan) the anthropological evidence .... → I don't understand why the editorial comment (bold part) is inserted in the statement?
The genetic testing, though still in its initial phases, has not shown any substantial connection between the general Pashtun population sampled to the genetic markers found among most Greeks, Jews, or Arabs. → It seems that the bold part is a POV assertion. Is the statement that the genetic testing is an initial phases mentioned in the article?
What may be the case is that the genetically Pashtuns have slightly changed over time due to various migrations in the area, while still maintaining an eastern Iranian base genetically overall. → looks an opinion to me, any citation for this?
..., possibly derived from ancient Israelite Mosaic Law, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." → a speculative statement, needs an inline citation there.
Update: yes, it is cited now, but when I read the source, there is no mentioning that Badal is derived from Isaelite Law. You stated it is probably, so it still sounds opinion. Wouldn't it be just a coincidence that Israelite Law is similar with Badal? I know one ethnic group in Indonesia who has the same law like this, but it is just their characters. — Indon (reply) — 10:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Sport" section for an ethnic group is a bit strange. Unless there is a specific traditional ethnic sport game to describe, then it is unnecessary information. The section does not give additional information about Pasthun, because all other people in the world play soccer, cricket, volleyball and other modern sports. The only traditional game is a single statement of buzul-bazi, which is not enough to form a separate section.
Possibly the most prominent institution of the Pashtun people is the intricate system of tribes. → another speculation, needs an inline citation.
The "The modern era" section should be merged into "History" section.
The effects of globalization have led to the proliferation of Western ideas as well as the infiltration of Saudi-style Wahhabist Islam into Pashtun regions. → needs an inline citation.
I am wondering about the "Women" section. Is the problem discussed in the section only specific to Pasthun or is it commonly observed by the whole Afghan women? I am not sure that, for instance, the literacy of women is lower than male only holds for Pashtuns. Looking to tremendous turbulation of Afghanisthan history, I think all Afghan women suffered from injustice civil rights, not only Pasthuns. In these two statements, for instance, "Pashtun women often have their legal rights curtailed in favor of their husbands or male relatives as well. For example, though women are technically allowed to vote in Afghanistan and Pakistan, many have been kept away from ballot boxes by males.", the second statement does not conclude that the rule only applies for Pasthun women, but it is for the whole Afghan women. So I believe, the Women section should be trimmed significantly and only describes specific Pasthun women information.
I instituted most of your criticisms as they were valid, BUT I kept the sports section as is because it describes what sports Pashtuns play in addition to traditional sports. It's brief and some sports like cricket are widely popular and worth mentioning. The women section I also kept as is because although the stats are applicable to all ethnic groups, I figure it is still worth mentioning as it includes Pashtun women. Everything else though I agreed with and so have instituted in the article. Thanks for the suggestions. Tombseye23:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated my issues above and added a few comments there. About Sport and Women section, I did not ask you to remove it, but simply filtering out what issues are related to the subject, that is the Pashtuns. Still, I can't figure out why would you write something that Pashtuns engage many modern sports? Everybody else does. For instance, in this statement: Pashtuns engage in wrestling (Pehlwani), which is often part of larger sporting events.[65], the citation links to ^ Afghanistan: Sports and Recreation, Afghanistan (retrieved 18 January 2007). The source tells about sports in Afghanistan, not Pashtun specific issue. If the section is inside Afghanistan article, then it will be in the correct place. Again, if the section is about traditional Pashtun games/sports, then I wouldn't mind about it. It's also the same issue with the Women section. Please filter out which women issues that are specific only for Pashtuns, not to write a general Afghan's women issues. — Indon (reply) — 10:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indon has some good points. I think as long as the speculations and opinions (or interpretations if you like) are removed there will be a wide support for this FA status. Khorshid05:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object Why exactly does Iranian People have to be wikilinked in almost every instance, even twice in the same section, ditto Pashto twice in the same paragraph, and almost every ethnic group wikilinked to create a black and blue mess of an article throughout? This simply makes the article hard to read, it doesn't, as is supposed by people who use this method, emphasize the importance of these ethnic groups. It's not necessary.
Also I have concerns about the photographs, the ethnicity of the people in the images is asserted by the photographer, an American servicemember. This may be sufficient, but the images do not include the background information. As Pashtuns are patrilineal, a family would describe itself to a visiting American airman as Pashtun if the father is Pashtun. However, is this what the images are meant to convey, or are they meant to convey ethno-linguistic Pashtuns? Whichever, it should be clarified in the images. If it can't be clarified without original research, though, the images have to be removed, whatever anyone concludes on the talk page about the ethnicities of the people in the pictures. This issue also remains unresolved on the article's talk page, with editors offering their personal viewpoints as to whether or not and how they know the people in the images are Pashtuns. This is Original Research! The issue should have been resolved before it was brought for FAC, or the images should not have been added after FAC.
I know that all the nationality articles do this in Wikipedia, but geeze, I would love to just read an opening sentence for once, "Pashtuns (also Pushtuns, Pakhtuns, Pukhtuns; Pashto/Urdu/Persian: پشتون Paštūn or پختون Paxtūn), or Pathans (Urdu: پٹھان, Hindi: पठान Paṭhān) and/or ethnic Afghans (Persian: افغان Afğān)[10]" I'm getting used to it now on Wikipedia, but it really doesn't enhance reading the article. Can't this just be put in the box?
*"Northwestern Frontier Province" should be written without the "province" as this is provided at the end of the sentence in the lead paragraph, or all the other provinces should have "province" attached. This sentence would also be easier to read, to see where folks are going with it if Afghanistan was listed first, then Pakistan.
"during which they have rarely been united." Rarely united in what way? Culturally? Linguistically? Or politically?
"Pashtuns have survived a turbulent history over several centuries, during which they have rarely been united. Their modern past began with the rise of the Durrani Empire in 1747. Pashtun martial prowess has been renowned since Alexander the Great ran up against them in the third century BCE.[12]" Although I know the relevance of this, it's confusing to lead with "the modern past" and move immediately back a couple thousand years. Reword/rewrite/or tie the two sentences together somehow, even though this is just the introduction. Not just "the Mujahideen" but the "Afghan Mujahideen," because "mujahideen" is a general word, whereas the Pashtuns were part of a specific Mujahideen, well, a rather loosely specific one, still not just any. Were they "the main ethnic contingent in the movement" or the "largest" or both? And what is meant by main if not the largest in number?
"Modern Pashtuns have been prominent in the rebuilding of Afghanistan where they are the largest ethnic group and are an important community in Pakistan, where they are the second-largest ethnic group." This sentence shows that Afghanistan should be mentioned first in the lead paragraph, or if it shouldn't be, the reason should also be included in the lead.
"Additional colonies can be found in the Northern Areas, Azad Kashmir and Karachi in Pakistan as well as in other parts of Afghanistan." Why are they colonies? Colonies of whom?
"Though no official census has ever been made in Afghanistan, some higher estimates place speakers of Pashto at 60% to 65% of the population.[15]" But you just told me one had been made in the 1970s, "...the practice of secluding women and the lack of an official census in Afghanistan since the 1970s." Which is it, the last one was in the 70s or "no official census has ever been made?" This makes me question the accurate interpretation of sources, or it could just be an error that needs minor correction.
The demographics section needs expanded, there are unexplained paranthetical remarks about refugees. "The exact measure of all of these figures remains uncertain, particularly those for Afghanistan, and are affected by approximately three million Afghan refugees (of which 81.5% or 2.49 million are ethnic Pashtuns) that remain in Pakistan.[3] An indeteminate number of refugees continue to reside in Iran.[16]" Also, "indeteminate" is not a word. This section is just too short for a people with a modern and ancient diaspora this complex.
"The history of the Pashtuns is ancient and much of it has yet to be recorded." Doesn't tie in with confusing lead about modern past, need to establish their ancient lineage early on, in the lead, in order to place this much emphasis here. Here we go with a section where Greeks are linked twice, Persians, three times, although only 2 to Persian peoples, one to Persian Empire. Then we have 1st millennium BCE.[17] wikilinked, but not the second. Can we get continuity of linking that DOESN'T include frantic overlinking multiple times of the same term throughout the article? It really isn't the equivalent of bolding something to emphasize its importance--it's just annoying to the on-screen reader.
"It has been conjectured that these may be the ancestors of today's Pashtuns, but there is no corroborating evidence for this. In addition, the Rig-Veda mentions a tribe called the Pakthas (in the region of Pakhat) as inhabiting eastern Afghanistan and some have speculated that they may have been early ancestors of the Pashtuns, but this too remains unproven." If it "has been conjectured" and is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, it must be tied to a specific reference, so we know who conjectured it. Unsourced conjectures are not part of an encyclopedia.
There are more issues. Overall, however, the prose is excellent. Not necessarily its order, and the irritating over-wikilinking interferes with this, but it is one of the few FAC that I've read that had clear prose without dumbing things down. However, there's still a lot of work to be done, although with enough work it will be a FA.
Comment: North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) is the official name of the province. The word "Province" is included in the name. North-West Frontier could be confused with the Durand line. I think it makes sense to use the full name unless it is causing some serious problems. deeptrivia (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dillip Kumar (Yousuf Khan) and Shah Rukh Khan, both are not Pashtuns by blood. They are Hindko Speaking Persian decendents. I am from Peshawar and I know their families tree personally. I beleive they should be removed right away from the list of Pashtun celebrities! Thank you.
Comment The population figures for some countries are figures of Afghan refugees, which might be much less than the total Pashtun population in some of those countries. It would be good to have figures on Pashtuns, but in absence of actual Pashtun figures, we should atleast have a note on what exactly the figures presented are about. deeptrivia (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references clarify that they are refugees. If this is confusing I'll change it to reflect it further, but I figured it would make it messy to include the caption refugees at the top. Tombseye03:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is still a lot of work to be done on this article. Although it's fine to refer the reader to a more in-depth article on a subject, that doesn't excuse the failure to write a complete paragraph about the topic to include in this article--an article about Pashtuns that a list of points on Pashtunwali? No way. The language? Pashtuns are largely identified by their language, it needs a complete paragraph, ditto culture. Maintain the structure throughout, language religion, Pashtunwali, including introductory paragraph and order in subsections.
If "segmentary lineage" is prominent in the introduction, it needs elaborated below, and it is a major part of Pashtun culture, so its absence from the article outside of the introduction needs to be addressed.
Also, did Afghanistan have an official census in the 70s? Then put the year in, or the years, don't be vague, then you can use it again, instead of the "for decades."
The writing needs worked on by one editor, from top to bottom, preferably someone not obsessed with wikilinking Persian prominently at the beginning of each section--this often leads to sentences that don't actually say anything. There are stray sentences everywhere that simply reek of getting Persian in the article without attaching it in a sensible way, this may be an artifact of multiple editors, though. "For much of Pashtun history, literature has not played a major role as Persian was the lingua franca used by neighboring peoples and generally relied upon for writing purposes." What precisely does this have to do with Pashtun literature, did Pashtuns write in Persian? This is a mix/mash of culture/language. Literature played a major role in Western European history when Latin was their lingua franca, so specifically say what you are saying. Tie it directly into Pashtun culture, ditto language, ditto everything in this section which is, after all, about Pashtun culture. This appears to detract overall from a compelling writing style that is generally necessary and desirable in a FA.
"These tribes, who most likely spoke an early version of modern Pashto, survived countless invasions and spread throughout the eastern Iranian plateau." This is rather an obscure use of the Iranian plateau, which I suspect many readers simply have no idea what it is. Also, the Wikipedia article on it is incorrect, Tajikistan is not part of the Iranian plateau, it is not plateau, so linking to an unresearched article that doesn't include the relevant information is not helpful. What precisely is meant by eastern Iranian plateau? I could believe this, knowing the modern day distribution of Pasthuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but possibly just saying southern and southeastern Afghanistan would suffice. KP Botany22:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed most of your points. As for explanations on other sections, I'm afraid any more additions will balloon this article to epic proportions. If that's what people want I'll add more, but the links and references do address some of the issues you raise. The family picture is being objected to by Behnam who thinks they don't look like Pashtuns (I think that's what he means but I'm not sure) or can't be identified as such I'm going to avoid that picture for the time being even I think they do look like Pashtuns I've encountered myself. The segmentary nature is a reference to their tribal way of life. If it's that unclear I'll work on it more, but again for the sake of keeping the article within readable limits (and comparable to Britannica which usually avoids lengthy discussions) I didn't add anything more. The Iranian plateau is a geographic range that parallels almost exactly the areas populated by Pashtuns so I thought it worth mentioning and I've added a reference to it. I can change the wiki article of course. I'll see what I can do further as well with regards to clarity and re-writing the putative section (which is the most problematic and prone to changes it seems). Tombseye03:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The article has to stand alone, and having sections that really say nothing doesn't do it.
I changed the Iranian plateau article, but if you know Iranian geology, by all means, get over there and fix it, as it was a disaster and called the Iranian plateau a "geological formation!" Also you may have just gone with the link because it highlights the region north of the Zagros/Makran continental zones, but it's unsourced on the website it's on, which clearly states it is a casual site, not a reliable reference for technical information. You'd have to find their source in order to use it. And hasn't this changed greatly over the past decade?
Comment about Iranian plateau I realized something thinking about this yesterday and looking at your attached links to the quote about the dispersal of Pashto speaking peoples into the eastern Iranian plateau. You connected to the peakbaggers map at the Iranian plateau page probably because it coincides well with the core dispersal of Pashto-speaking people in Afghanistan/Pakistan. The map at peakbaggers is in reference to the geological area north of faulting due to the impact of the Arabian plate into the Eurasian continent, which is what the Wikipedia article on the Iranian plateau is speaking about. However, almost certainly the sources you originally got this information from were not speaking about the geological Iranian plateau, but rather the geographical Iranian plateau, an area fairly coincident with the eastern expansion of the peoples of the Persian Empire. This makes linking to the Wikipedia article on the Iranian plateau, and the article on the Iranian plateau itself problematic, rather than any particular reference in the Pashtun people article. However, neither of the references included actually discuss the issue in the sentence, "These tribes, ... spread throughout the eastern Iranian plateau." References must be tied directly to what they are supporting, not indirectly. I will add the one reference to the Iranian plateau article, though, so someone can clarify the geographical aspect. But this information must be referenced. KP Botany18:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand what it is you are referring to, but the reference does refer to Old Iranian tribes, which we know the Pashtuns were a part of and we know that the Iranian plateau or whatever you want to call it (the British referred to the Afghan and Pashtun areas as highlands) coincides with where the Pashtuns live so I thought it worth mentioning. Also, the reference is ancient precursors who need some mention here. I can clarify the wording, but I believe that all of this is worth mentioning and having in the article. Tombseye19:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, clarifying the wording to tie the resource into the sentence would suffice. A plateau is a highland, the flatter parts of the highlands, in general. KP Botany19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Main article: Pashto language
The Pashtuns speak Pashto, an Indo-European language. It belongs to the Iranian sub-group of the Indo-Iranian branch.[55] In addition to their mother-tongue, many Pashtuns are fluent in Persian (Dari) and/or Urdu."
This really says nothing. I see there is a larger language area above, but if Pasthuns are defined by their language, or united in their culture by their language, this has to be elaborated--the article is not written for people who know Pasthun culture--this section is simply insufficient. And the ordering in this section, placing Pashtun literature above Pashtunwali, is contradicted by the article itself which clearly defines Pashtuns according to their language, religion and Pashtunwali. The article has to be internally consitent, and it's not, that's why I urge someone to read through the article with an open mind to giving it this internal consistency.
The problem with the images is that any selection relies upon our original research. My cousin is an ethnographer, and I would be glad to ask her whether all these folks are Pashtuns--but it's not published, peer-reviewed research any more than any of us saying they look like Pashtuns. Yet, if we're going in this direction, we ought to at least use the culturally most relevant and normal picture of Pashtuns: a family, rather than stylized American snapshots of Pashtuns in solitude. KP Botany03:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the language section with academic references. I can't do much about the pictures as I am just trying to add what I can. I'd be happy with just a few and I agree that families or group shots are a good way to go (it's how encyclopedias do it), but it seems that the pictures often have objections. By all means ask your cousin for her advice. I do believe that all of the people are Pashtuns as I've seen people just like all of them during my travels. The boy looks like many Pashtun boys I've seen except his hat is more ethnically linked to the Sindhis rather than Pashtuns, while the family look like many Pashtuns I've seen as well. I'm okay with the family but we have the aforementioned objection. Tombseye04:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Pashtun Jews and BBC link This article doesn't state they are Pashtuns, only they are Afghan Jews. It's an unusual enough situation that there must be a resource that explicitly states they are Pashtun. KP Botany19:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of weasly sentences. If a theory or hypothesis is or was held by only one part of the scientific community, then name one or two of the most prominent scientists that do or did so. Here are some examples.
"It has been conjectured that these may be the ancestors of today's Pashtuns, but there is no corroborating evidence for this."
"The Bactrians appear to have spoken a related Middle Iranian language and it is conceivable that at least some Pashtuns are partially related to them."
"It is often hypothesized that the Pashtuns emerged from the area around Kandahar and the Suleiman Mountains and began expanding millennia ago."
"the Pashtuns are often classified as an Iranian people,[25][26][27] possibly as partial modern-day descendants of the "Scythians, an ancient Iranian group"
Some sources claim that the Pashtuns began as a "union of largely East-Iranian tribes which became the initial ethnic stratum of the Pashtun ethnogenesis dates from the middle of the first millennium CE and is connected with the dissolution of the Epthalite (White Huns) confederacy.""
"Pashtun martial prowess has been renowned since Alexander the Great ran up against them in the third century BCE." Renowned by whom? And could you be a bit more specific than "ran up against them. Was he defeated in a war or what happened? And BTW it wasn't just Alexander the Great that "ran up against them" it was an army led by him.
"The Pashtuns gained notoriety with the rise and fall of the Taliban" This is written from a Western standpoint. Just because noone in the West heard about them before the Taliban, doesn't mean they weren't notorious before that. Notoriety in itself seems to be a POV term to me.
The demographics section does not mention the populations in the US and the UK at all, even though the infobox tells us these are significant.
"The origins of the Pashtuns are not entirely clear" That's redundant, because that's pretty much what the previous section told us.
"the Ghilzai who may have mingled with Turkic tribes." What difference does it make to this article whom the Ghilzai mingled with?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Image problems: Image:Bahailotustemple.jpg is from Flickr and was listed as "cc-by-sa-2.5" which is a license Flickr doesn't offer (they only have 2.0). When I went to check it say it's non-commercial now, which isn't usable by Wikipedia. If they originally released it as CC-BY-SA then changed it you can probably use it since, once it's released it's released.... but, get that cleared up. Image:Waterboy.jpg has the same problem. Also Image:Maharaji Nehru stadium.jpg says who it was uploaded by but it's not clear about copyrighted / creator. Probably minor but should be cleaned up. Image:Connaughtplace.jpg has no source. No need to look further until all of that is cleared up. grenグレン15:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks (I hadn't noticed that it was taken by the uploader). Just to clarify the two images from Flickr have CC-BY-2.5 listed on Wikipedia even though Flickr only offers CC-BY-2.0. CC-BY-2.0 is free, however, the images now state that they are CC-BY-NC-2.0 which is not free since it doesn't allow for commercial use. Since the uploader used the incorrect tag in the first place I cannot tell if the Flickr user changed their mind (which would mean it would be free, because once released you cannot revoke it) or if the uploader was just wrong. If you can get an answer to that then you can use it--just make sure to explain on the image page. In any case, by not using them you have fixed the problem in another way.
Comment. I'm sorry but, I won't support until I've seen other's opinions. This is because I know certain things that make articles opposable but I am not sure what makes it featured quality. Hopefully my comments will help. The pronunciation should follow whichever pronunciation it is representing (which, is not the English). The only other comment I quickly have is that maybe there should be more book references. Although, the main section that would benefit is the History one which has a sub-article. Sorry I'm not more help--but I'd like to see what others say first. grenグレン05:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's about time that this article should get featured. But I did have some difficulties understanding the difference between Delhi, New Delhi and Old Delhi. Apart from that, I would give it support. --Wolftalk09:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. Now the lead contains information about what is Old Delhi and New Delhi. The Mughals built a particular section of the city known as Shahjahanabad, now known as Old City or Old Delhi. New Delhi was built by the British as an administrative section of the city, and now serves as the capital of India. Apart from being mentioned in the lead, this has been further discussed in "History" and also, to some extent, in "Government and politics". Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just went through every image currently in the article. There was only one problem. Image:Sweetpan.jpg is licensed for noncommercial use only. I've tagged it for deletion. Nice article layout, by the way. Jkelly22:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Support' - the culture section has improved considerably and it is more relevant in context of Delhi. The biggest improvement has been taking out the list feeling of the old version and adding context to the same information. I can add support to the current revision. Just a question: Arn't the images tad small or is it just my laptop? --Blacksun12:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are still a few instances of flabby prose. Examples:
last sentence of the lead
this: "However, the city is said to have lost its own identity and socio-cultural legacies as it went to absorb multitude of humanity from across the country and has morphed into an amorphous pool of cultural styles"
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self nom. This article has had a previous FAC which can be seen here. The FAC was withdrawn and since then the article has been greatly improve by myself and Wandalstouring and has under gone many copy-edits by various users. I think that the article passes feature article criteria. Kyriakos00:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. There are still issues with the writing, including:
"The Roman-Spartan War or Laconian War (Greek:Λακωνικός Πόλεμος), occurring in 195 BC, was a military conflict in Ancient Greece…" is verbose and redundant;
"as part of games of power" is unidiomatic;
"official casus belli"; official?
"the region of Laconia" otiose (Laconia is sufficient);
"were able to capture" otiose ("captured")
"whilst" archaism
"later" for "latter", etc.
Also, the bibliography needs to be all English, I think, which means replacing the Baltroush in n. 35 (which is German) and the Κουτσιλιέρη in n. 19 (modern Greek); can a better source than Kassis, Mani's History (n. 2) be found? An author in n. 4?; Smith's dictionary (n. 10) is positively archaic (1875!); Fermor's Mani: Travels in the Southern Peloponesse (n. 17) and Greenhalgh and Eliopoulos Deep into Mani:Journey to the southern tip of Greece (n. 35) are travel-guides and therefore should be replaced by something more scholarly; punctuation throughout the footnotes is erratic.
Generally, I think the context needs clarification throughout. All the way through I get the feeling that its one fact happening after another without giving me much sense at to what it all means, how this all fits into the wider historical context. Semperf19:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response:First, I don't see why sources in other languages should be excluded. Recently featured article like Alcibiades (Greek) and Demosthenes (Greek and German) both have sources in other languages and I'm sure if I look at more FA's I'll find more FA with sources in other languages. Secondly, I dont see a problem with including Greenhalgh and Eliopoulos and Fermor. Yes both book may be tour guide books but they also deal with the history of the areas they travel through as well as the whole region. Thirdly, I don't think Smith is a problem. Smith gives a detailed description on Nabis' life which is one of the best I have seen on Nabis. As for Kassis, he gives a good description of events during the war and I don't see why I should not use him. Thats all for the moment and I'll work on your other comments ASAP. Thanks. Kyriakos20:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. On the question of sources in English, the more fundamental question is what references are for. Are they tags to say to your reader "fact x is confirmed"? Or are they sign-posts to show the reader where they can go to check things out for themselves and pursue the matter further if they wish? I incline towards the latter, which means that in English wikipedia, the references should be accessible to the readership. On whether a travel-guide is a good source, it seems to me the point is that wikipedia requires no original research because it should depend on the best modern scholarship--that is, on things that are original research. A travel guide--even an excellent one--is never going to be that, in my view. Semperf21:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply It is usus in scientific literature in this field to work multilingual, so often there is no equivalent work in other languages, but works from different languages are used. In this case it is from a scholarly book(that is part of a series written by university professor which is continuosly translated into other languages), so it is likely that one day there is an English version. However, until then we have to use whatever source we have. And to be more specific in this case the claims from this book can be verified independently(took a lot of research to retrieve). So as long as someone at least uses as much suitable English material as possible there should be no objections. Some fields of scholarly research are simply non-existent in English language (pretty much of precolonial African history and African metallurgy for example, etc.) and you have to use works in Russian, French, German, etc.(publications are often multilingual, switching between several languages if quoting other publications) like any serious English-speaking scientist working on the topic. Of course you can raise doubts if an article is completely lacking English sources, but that can be the case due to systemic bias in the world of science or someone needs a helping hand to find any English sources, what is neither the case. Wandalstouring00:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore lots of native English speakers are not monolingual and scientific/university published material in other languages is available in the UK and the USA.
Support. On the topic of source languages, it may cause confusion with a non-English source however, we have had articles even more controversial (when judging sources) like the battle of Marathon and the Greco-Persian Wars that are both A-class and are currently very close to FA with Greek and non-English sources. Therefore I don't know if it is that big a problem. Regarding the content of the article itself, it seems quite good, the lead has been trimmed down and probably for the best. The article also carries a very decent number of citations. I have been looking at the article with a hawk-eye and am finding far more difficult to find grammar errors recently. I have made several edits, including structure and word strengthening and article aesthetics but it really seems to be at the stage where it really needs no more significant improvement. Having said that, there are probably still a few minor things to look at like that will still be found in the days to come. But certainly this article is of FA class in my humble opinion.--Arsenous Commodore06:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Continued oppose. The footnotes have erratic punctuation with misplaced, stray quotation marks. The Baltrush has no page number in n. 35. Some of the bibliography is of dubious value--it is not merely a question of the language (which I raised above), but also the quality. We should aim to have works that are published by academic publishing houses such as university presses. The titles of Kassis and Κουτσιλιέρη imply that they are general works covering 2000+ years of the history one small region of what used to be Laconia. For a featured article, we should expect sources that concentrate on this specific period of history written by experts.Semperf15:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading Warfare in the Classical World(University of Oklahoma Press) and while it is generally acceptable quality in-depth research shows some flaws, so a university publishing house is no guarantee. On the other hand Osprey is generally held in high esteem, although no university publishing house. Wandalstouring00:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's true. There are many fine scholarly books written outside the university presses--Routledge, Blackwells, too. (I don't recall anything by Osprey, but that may be my failure. But I'm not convinced that the items that we're arguing about here are reliable. Here's the test: do the first rate scholars (in this case Gruen and Green and Cartledge) cite them? do handbooks and textbooks include them in their bibliographies? It they don't we shouldn't either. Semperf01:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Osprey is not scientific research material, but is the *A*-class(genre-specific term for highest degree of accurate presentation) bible of the reenactment scene (most reenactors' presentations conflict with Osprey). It has an acceptable bibliography and refers a lot to findings of equipment and regions, etc.
OK, I can accept that although I'm not fluent with the aforementioned authors.(The whole subject wasn't quite my topic, I only improved the article on a few spots.) So you point out that some of the material used as a reference is possibly not reliable (lacking use by authoritative works). Perhaps we could try to retrieve another editor who is also familiar with these books, so we have more than one opinion on this delicate subject (I want to avoid bad blood and a precedence for all our national POV-pushers.).Wandalstouring02:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response. To me it doesn't really matter how famous the books are as long as they provide good infomation. Kassis for example is widely acclaimed as having the one of best books on the history of Mani. And those who are think what the hell Mani is it the middle leg of the Peloponnese hwere Gythium and Las are situated. Κουτσιλιέρη many not be well known by non-Greeks but his publishing house is well known in Greece. So in other words it doesn't really matter to me if a book is written by the worlds most famous author or by the world's least famous author as long as they give good info and history. Kyriakos23:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The correct procedure is to track down the primary sources of the secondary(and tertiary) works and to present the exact passage in the primary source to the reader as possibility for verification of the claims. How you interpret the primary source is based on the secondary(and tertiary) works. That is the approach of Alcibiades and Pericles (have been involved in the primary source tracking process in the latter). Do both of you agree that this is acceptable? Are there any specific issues where the Kassis provides doubtful concepts to the article? Wandalstouring02:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response. I have omitted Kassis and Κουτσιλιέρη from the article and have replaced them with Livy and I have done the came with their inline citations. Kyriakos05:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maps. Another point, which I raise on the talk page, is that the maps aren't very helpful for this article. The map of Greece in c. 200 BC would be brilliant, but it comes before the second Macedonian War, which changed a lot. At the very least, the article needs maps that allow the reader to see the places mentioned in the article. (E.g., Argos and Gytheum are important for the article, but many readers won't know where they are without a map.)Semperf18:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the map does not show the exact time it is still good. They are roughly the borders of the countries except for Macedon. But also the narrative starts at around 200 BC and it ends at 188 BC which is the time period that the map shows. Plus we have put a request for a map of Greece at 195 BC so we got these maps which are the best we can do for the moment.
Prelude section. This section needs to be renamed, reorganized, and rewritten. What is the point of this section? I assume to acquaint the reader with the major players and important events before the war, especially Nabis and his dealings during the Second Macedonian War. But this is buried in a lot of detail--the nature of Spartan kingship, the decline of the population of Spartiates, and Nabis' reforms--that largely obscures what is important here. Much of this detail should be moved into the Nabis article; a summary should be sufficient. Semperf19:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Well, we felt that this was important to understand the nature of the conflict as it is rather complicated regarding the political implications, not the campaign itself. However, it may be restructured and better implemented to support an understanding of the camapaign. If you read carefully, you will notice that the whole legal dispute who is to be king of Sparta is involved into this conflict. So without mentioning Nabis' reforms it is not very clear why the Romans didn't replace him and without this it is neither clear why the war happened at all. We have hinted the Spartan expansion there. Of course we can break down into a very detailled analyses of the argy-bargy who conquers the peninsula. The Achean League was shaken by the social unequality and Nabis offered a solution, making the fundaments of democracy shake because many people were fancying with the choice between sth. to eat in a dictatorship and the right to declare war in a democracy. I didn't know how deep we should go into Greek domestic politics and social problems. Wandalstouring00:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
formatting issues in notes. One thing that I've noticed is that there are a lot of minor typos and formatting problems in the footnotes. One consistent problem is that many of the titles are put in italics with the double-single-quotemark '', but the italic is not ended with another, but with a single double-quotemark ("). The result is this:v Holleaux, Rome and the Mediterranean; 218-133 B.C", 190. This needs to be fixed throughout. (Note also the punctuation in the notes: B.C needs another period here.) Semperf13:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this comment is intended to make sense you must point out what is missing. The article length itself is absolutely sufficient for FA criteria. Wandalstouring14:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that comment is useless. Many article of lesser size have become FA's. For example just look at the Cretan War which passes FAC 2 months ago. Kyriakos20:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I find it a bit strange that 3/4 of the article focuses on the background, preparations and aftermath, while the actual war is addressed rather briefly in comparison. Jaqu02:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I you have read the article you would see that the campaign itself only goes on for a month or two which answers the shortness of the actual campaign. Kyriakos03:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An excellent article on a very little known war. I have a couple of very minor suggestions for improvement:
I think most readers would be unfamiliar with terms such as "helot", "perioeci", "phalangite", "agoge", "syssitia" and others and ideally I would like these to be (very briefly) explained in-line in the article. I feel a user not familiar with the topic should ideally be able to understand everything in the article in a self-contained manner without having to consult other articles except if they wanted further detail. - this has now been done
My second comment is more to do with the format of the military conflict infobox - I know this is not specific to this article but for complicated conflicts such as this the list of combatants is listed but a name is not assigned at the top of the list for how the "side" as a whole is referred to. This makes it confusing sometimes since a single term is not established for each side that can then be used elsewhere in the article. I would love for the military conflict infobox template to be altered to allow a name to be assigned as a whole to all the combatants on one side eg "Spartan Coalition" and "Anti-Spartan Coalition" or similar, in this case.
Can you elaborate, Wandals? its only marginally useful to this FAC, agreed (and maybe we should move discussion elsewhere), but I feel this would be really useful in several of the battle and war infoboxes and articles.
I love the system of separate notes and citations
I know that neither of the main editors speak English as a first language and despite their grasp of English being extremely high there are a certain number of very slightly awkward-sounding sentences in the article. I shall work through and try and re-word some of them. If anyone else is able to copyedit the whole thing that would be best.
If a map exists showing the route of advance of the Laconian campaign, I think this would be a more fitting image than the current line drawing of the onager.
The onager is there to illustrate the siege engines which played an important role. Wandalstouring
I don't have a real problem with the onager graphic, I just think its difficult to visualise the troop movements without a campaign map, especially if you're not familar with Greek geography.
Is it worth mentioning in summary at the beginning of the background Sparta's long and proud military history?
I don't see the long and proud military history mentioned, rather the decline and the creation of a new military system. There were two reasons for including this: the old élite was still around and wanted their power back and the Cretan fighting style, although they were a similar Doric culture, was totally different. If these changes are not mentioned most readers with a bit of background on Sparta would assume that there were these élite hoplites fighting Rome. Wandalstouring
Again, I'm not saying anything that is there needs taking out but, as you point out, the common perception is of Spartan hoplites. I think it might be worth mentioning more clearly in a throwaway sentence in the intro that the old Spartan military culture of hoplite citizens was big before but was at this point a thing of the past. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few "why did they do that?" questions occurred to me when reading the article, that the article didn't answer:
Why did the Roman army initially march past Sparta on their way to Mount Menelaus, instead of investing Sparta immediately?
Sparta was utterly unimportant. The whole affair was about Gythium and the other naval bases of the Cretan pirates. There is a note somewhere about a later invasion of Crete by the Roman army and the subsequent freeing of thousands of enslaved Romans. If I assume correctly it was part of Pompeys struggle against pirates, however I couldn't find it in the campaign list. Will continue searching. Wandalstouring
Why were the Cretans willing to suport Sparta militarily? What did they have to gain?
Sparta was the host bearing the brunt of attacks for their share in piracy. I lack sources(I didn't research much), but you could say that Sparta was a Cretan puppet state. The Cretan pirates furnished the mercenaries that established Nabis in power and in exchange had free access to establish their naval bases. From these naval bases they could much easier venture on their expeditions. Wandalstouring13:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article describes the current "world's most famous porn star"— no other way to put it. She has had a rather interesting life. The motivation was to write at least one article to set a standard for the encyclopedia's other porn star articles to aim for; we have a lot of them, they should at least try to be good. When I started work, I thought this could be very controversial, but considering that History of erotic depictions made it to the front page, this should be less so (though I still expect some controversy here, be polite, please).
I believe it meets the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. It is "well written" in the sense that many pairs of eyes have made style suggestions, most of which were implemented. It is "comprehensive", I guarantee more so than any other article about her on the Web (and there are many) and even more comprehensive than her autobiography, since it includes many events after that book's publishing, and business details it doesn't. It is "factually accurate", with over 100 mostly different references, many very high quality: New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes ... and not leaning overly much directly on the autobiography (in fact, until late in the process it didn't reference it directly at all, until I was finally convinced that a few refs were necessary and wouldn't hurt). It is "neutral", presenting many controversies without bias. It is "stable", with no major ongoing edits except for grammar, phrasing, and such - with the obvious exception of the ongoing vandalism reverts. It has a summary lead section of the appropriate length covering all major topics in the rest of the article. It has a hierarchical system of headings and table of contents. It has a number of images, only in appropriate places, mostly free (thanks again, Tabercil), a few rigorously justified fair use. It is of appropriate length - 60 kilobytes total, but half of that is references and credits lists (the references are necessary since almost everything about her could be considered at least somewhat controversial, and she has won a lot of awards). Less than 32 kilobytes otherwise (no warning). --AnonEMouse(squeak)15:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've been watching and giving comments for a while now, and this is a very well-done, meticulously sourced article. Certainly sets the standard for pornographic bios, if not the standard for any bio. --badlydrawnjefftalk15:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support who knew that porn stars were people. It grosses me out, but it is a well-written and sourced article. Good work...I guess.--Evabd18:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose fails 1a, per comments below, all references are not fully formatted, including last access dates (example:Jenna Jameson's American Sex Star Playboy TV reality sex show official page. ), and strangely, one section heading is used twice in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. I spent 3 days going over the access dates, and see I missed a few. I think I got them all this time, but if I missed any more, please say. The section heading has been resolved by moving the filmography section to a separate article.--AnonEMouse(squeak)21:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this is an embarrassment of an article. It is not of appropriate length; 60kb on a porn star is ridiculous, and 106 references is absurd beyond description. It is very poorly written, presenting quotes as if they are fact rather than summarising in the voice of the encyclopaedia. Her words express her own point of view, of course, and the author of this article adopts that point of view without question. The list of awards is not necessary; it just reinforces the impression that the author is a huge fan. "Notable pornographic work" - who decided these works are the notable ones? Many sentences are complete non sequiturs, such as her father didn't recognize her when she got off the plane.[12] He was then living in California, home of the American adult film industry.[3]. This really exemplifies the very worst of Wikipedia, and in my opinion it would bring the project into disrepute if an article like this got featured. Re-write totally, neutrally and at appropriate length and I would reconsider my vote. Worldtraveller23:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partially because I've been looking at this article for a while, and partly because of the worthlessness of that statement, I'm going to support this article. Can't wait till she gets to the main page...Phoenix223:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe those are too small? I guess when I think of something being appropriate in length, I think in terms of available information, which there's no small amount here. --badlydrawnjefftalk00:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but those people could have a lot of sub-articles, too. It's a fair criticism, I suppose, but there are ways around it if you're concerned about Jameson v. Jefferson. --badlydrawnjefftalk01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we have a fundamentally different approach to writing an encyclopaedia. I just find everything about this article deeply embarrassing. Not just the size but what is done with it - the obvious bias, misuse of quotes, the dreadful writing. Anyone looking at Wikipedia, wondering whether to take it seriously as a reference work, and finding this article, is surely going to look elsewhere. Worldtraveller01:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with the writing and use of quotes, or feel that the article does not conform to NPOV, then by all means, share these concerns. If you feel that the article is too long and detailed, then say what in it should be take out, in your opinion. But if, as it appears, your main problem is that you feel the article is not "important" enough to be FA, or even in Wikipedia at all, then please go back and read WP:WIAFA again, as that concern is not in there. --PresN03:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already did share my concerns. Please read what I wrote. Please also read very carefully the bit where I said that if certain things happened, I'd reconsider my vote. Please do not try and denigrate my vote by suggesting that I think things that I clearly don't. Worldtraveller09:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Look at some of the other articles that are also tagged as FA: Xenu (about a mythological alien dictator), Fuck the Millennium (a song which didn't even reach the top ten of the charts!), Diary of a Camper, Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia (what? part of the constitution warrants FA status but not the entire constitution??). Whether an article deserves to be FA looks to me like it's independent of whether the article is "important". Tabercil04:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the problem is that articles on more important subjects have yet to be improved, and not that this one ought to be shorter or less well-referenced just to maintain a sense of proportion? For better or worse, Wikipedia articles don't get improved in proportion to, or in the order of, their relative importance. Opabinia regalis04:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and they both have dozens of sister and daughter articles. Gandhi has his own nav template. (Neither is that good at the moment, but that's beside the point.) So comparing raw sizes is a complete red herring, and while I might agree with you on broader points, I don't know what you're trying to get at here. Opabinia regalis02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you here, are you saying the article should be less comprehensive and have fewer references? Because that, to me, seems absurd. It's 60kb including references, but that's not really relevant; the main body of text is under 5000 words which is fine. But even if you don't think it should be featured, saying it "exemplifies the very worst of Wikipedia" is just not true, and borderline incivil. Trebor11:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reread what you had said Worldtraveller, and apologize... I mistook what you had said. Let me paraphrase what you said just so we're all clear on what you mean:
With regards to article length that we've gone overboard and have gone into too much depth, and we ought to cut it back.
You're saying the full list of awards is not necessary in this article, correct? If we were to break it out into a separate article, much like List of Alison Krauss awards, and stub the mention in the main Jenna article, would that clear up this objection?
There seems to be a general consensus regarding the choppiness of the text, and I'm agreeing with you that the general sentence length is rather short. However, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Tabercil17:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awards section aside, there seems to be precedent for moving the filmography to a separate article as was done in the WP:FA articles on Vivien Leigh and Bette Davis. Did that. That will shorten the article a bit, but note that Wikipedia:article size specifically excludes tabular, list, and reference sections when measuring size, and for good reason. As I wrote in opening the FAC, the many references are quite necessary per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, note how potentially controversial almost every part of the article is: even besides pornography, we write about rape, homosexuality, false id use, drug addiction, flagrant adultery, and numerous public criticisms. Following the instructions on the bottom of WP:SIZE, I don't get a size warning, which I believe means it's less than 32K.--AnonEMouse(squeak)20:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. There's a cited statement within the body of the article for the bisexuality; I've applied that cite to the infobox. Tabercil03:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ObjectSee below due to prose issues; there are many choppy-sounding sentences and the writing overall strikes me as sophomoric. For example (and please comb through the text for others):
"Jameson began to feel that Randall was "a shark", was taking advantage of her, and she stopped working for her." Italicized part, ugh.
Ummm. That's not an 'academic paper', it's some college student's PDF'd word document. It doesn't appear that http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/ is or hosts a peer-reviewed publication, and if that text has actually been published anywhere that claims academic qualifications, I'll eat not one but several hats. Opabinia regalis02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you, my hats are safe ;) I'm willing to bet there has been a paper in cultural studies/media studies/whatever it's called now that does discuss Jameson, but I wouldn't know offhand where to look. Opabinia regalis08:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"She acts in a porn film directed by Brian Griffin (the dog) which wins an award." - misplaced modifier again. (end prose examples)
Grdina is repeatedly referred to as her husband, then we find out at the end that they're no longer together; try 'then-husband'.
Technically, the divorce isn't final, so they are currently married, but that's beside the point - as far as I understand, in a biographical article it is understood that we're always discussing a point in time. To give some specific FA examples, Bette Davis, uses "husband", rather than "then-husband" to refer to two distinct people, both of whom she later divorced, Vivien Leigh refers to "her husband, Laurence Olivier", though they divorced, etc. It seems to be practice to do that.--AnonEMouse(squeak)19:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they're still technically married, I suppose it's moot. In general (IMO) there should be some temporal indicator when he's introduced and especially in the image caption, which is likely to be read separately from the text. Just like you'd caption a photo of her at 22 'Jenna Jameson at 22' and not just 'Jenna Jameson', even if it's in the section where her early-twenties exploits are discussed. Opabinia regalis08:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since she's best known for porn, is it appropriate that the 'mainstream appearances' section is longer than the 'pornographic film career' section?
I generally agree with Worldtraveller on the use of quotes in the text (though not with the same force); there are several instances where Jameson's statements are written into the text as if they were statements of fact. A relatively benign example is that she "left after two months because the schedule was "brutal ... and the money was terrible".[15]" Why not "she left after two months, complaining of low pay and demanding work schedules"? (or some variant, depending on what the source actually says). There's a general overuse of cquote (to be fair, I hate this template and its goofy blue quotation marks).
Per WP:NPOV we are supposed to let the facts -- in this case her statements -- speak for themselves. If we write "complaining", we're injecting our opinion. But I can see that this line reads like we may be claiming her opinion is fact -- rephrased. I looked through the text, and couldn't find any other quotes that aren't clearly described to be her statements rather than facts. --AnonEMouse(squeak)15:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 'complaining' is just an example, as I don't know what the context of the statement was in the original source. Sorry, I don't have time tonight to read it again in detail, but the version I read originally had a couple of cases of rather trivial single sentences set off from the main text in cquotes. Opabinia regalis08:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I admit, I like cquotes. But in the interests of getting your support, I changed two of the four, leaving two rather important quotes emphasized - the shorter one is possibly the most complete characterization that could be managed in that length. Good enough for a compromise? --AnonEMouse(squeak)15:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the problem is here. The only ISBNs are for the autobiography, which is rather important, not random. The "see #Awards" is the equivalent of "see below" with a more useful link added. This isn't something I'll fight to the death over, and will get rid of either or all if you insist, but what is wrong with either of those? To me, they seem useful, and fairly standard usage. Is there any guideline regarding the use of either of these that I am missing and you are referring to? --AnonEMouse(squeak)21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Put reference information in the references section. Or 'notes', or a bibliography, or just about anywhere besides the middle of a paragraph. You can link internally, but - just as with wikilinks to other articles - the link should be integrated into the text, not dangling as a parenthetical. Opabinia regalis02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Internal link integrated. ISBNs I still like, but I promised not to contest too much, so removed as I can't see a separate section containing one book. They are in the separate book article, I guess. --AnonEMouse(squeak)14:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to support. I can't see spending too much time on the quote thing, as it's essentially a stylistic matter. There are a few lingering prose issues (eg, 'first Club Jenna produced film' should have a hyphen, 'Early Club Jenna films starred Jameson herself, limiting herself...' is awkwardly phrased), but they're minor and hard to avoid in an article whose subject invites vandalism and edit creep. Opabinia regalis03:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I recognise that a lot of work has gone into this article, and it has improved greatly since I saw it at peer review, but the writing just isn't up to standard yet. There are a lot of very awkward run-on sentences that need to be rephrased. For example: "Jenna wrote in her autobiography, with graphic details, that in October 1990, while the family was living on a cattle ranch in Fromberg, Montana, she was beaten with rocks and gang raped by four boys after a football game." There's also: "Stern also put her in his semi-autobiographical 1997 film Private Parts, where she played "Mandy", the "First Nude Woman on Radio", reflecting those appearances." These aren't isolated examples. On the whole the article has a lot of promise, but it's just not there yet. MLilburne08:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased, hopefully fixed, both, others have also been fixed elsewhere, am looking for more. I apologise, but must ask for specific examples, as otherwise I might miss the phrasings you think are the most awkward. --AnonEMouse(squeak)15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the only three fair use images in the article. The book cover relates directly to the section on the book, which discusses it in great detail and contributes significantly to the section. The DVD cover is related to the section next to it as the first release from her distribution company, and contributes significantly, allowing readers to discren the quality of the release. The screencap is arguably one of the most mainstream performances that she has offered, and is easily recognizable. I don't think I agree with any of this. --badlydrawnjefftalk16:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. The book cover I am afraid I will fight for to the death against all odds - the book is mentioned all over the article, it's crucial, indispensable, to Jameson's mainstream fame, and, when you come down to it, it's an autobiography, kind of important to a biography article by definition. The book isn't just important to the autobiography section, it gets noticeable text in the mainstream appearances section and the article header. Without the book she would not be the same person, and we would not be writing this article. I just can't see this article without it, no way. The DVD cover is not quite as important, but still important - it basically "put legs under" the ClubJenna company, not just by being their first movie, as Jeff writes, but by being the best selling genre movie of the year. In addition, it was Jameson's return to film after a many year absence. Finally, it's what she does, we need one, and it is as close as we can get to a demonstration of what she does for a living without being unnecessarily risque. So I really do think it is also important enough to keep. The screen capture - well, as Jeff writes, this seems an important one, she is playing herself, in an animation that wanted an iconic porn star, showing she was an icon. I guess I can be convinced otherwise if there is such a consensus, but I don't see it yet -- are there other opinions? --AnonEMouse(squeak)19:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree with badlydrawnjeff and AnonEMouse on this count, for the book and DVD covers at the least. Both images are used in a fashion that just about perfectly matches the intent of WP:FU, and especially point 8: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text)" (emphasis in this case added by me). The book cover, as the Mouse says, illustrates the article segment about the book. The DVD cover illustrates specific text within the Business section, namely this snippet: "The first ClubJenna film, Briana Loves Jenna (2001),... was the best selling and best renting pornographic title of its year, winning twin AVN Awards." As well, the criteria which IMO most commonly causes fair use images to get deleted (#1: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information") does not apply. Tabercil20:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the text doesn't actually discuss either cover; it discusses the products. It's arguable that neither cover is a particularly notable or relevant part of the product. Opabinia regalis02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While anything can be arguable, it has been generally decided that covers are quite relevant and notable to the product, and discussion of the product is sufficient, discussion of the cover is not necessary. Look at most cover usage within writer and actor Wikipedia:Featured articles - Isaac Asimov uses a cover of Foundation, J. R. R. Tolkien uses three book covers, Diane Keaton uses two movie posters, Douglas Adams uses two book covers and a video game cover, Anthony Michael Hall uses a DVD cover, Katie Holmes uses a film poster, many others... in all these cases, the discussion in the article is of the product, not the cover. These are all illustrative of specific points, not decorative. Also the DVD cover is specifically discussed, note the prominent comment about Jameson's return to film on it. --AnonEMouse(squeak)14:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the other existing FA, we have the video game Shadow of the Colossus which has a soundtrack cover present within the article, but no discussion of the cover. In fact if I interpret your argumemt correctly, any use of a cover for a book or DVD, or even a promotional poster for a movie without a discussion of the cover (or poster) itself is using the image incorrectly and doesn't qualify for FA! So that means the feature articles Gremlins 2: The New Batch, Blade Runner, Dog Day Afternoon and more all fail. And horror of horrors, we have the album Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), which has the front cover, the back cover and even an alternate cover present within the article, but no discussion of any those covers within the article! Yes, I realize that my point is slightly inane, perhaps even farscical, but I feel that you've missed the intent of point 8 of WP:FU and this is the best way to show that. Tabercil15:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Featured Articles are about presenting the best content that a free (as in speech) encyclopedia can present. Such articles should avoid using unfree (as in speech and beer) content like the plague. These images are not imperitive to the article - they are, arguably, eye candy to break up the text. If such candy is needed, we should be seeking out free (as in speech) content. Contact the publicity agent and beg for GFDL releases on some images. Get some guys flikr cc-by-sa images in the article. Per mindspillage, the crackdown on fair-use is coming. DVD covers on articles about actors will be gone before you know it. Why not make this the best it can be? Hipocrite - «Talk»15:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's got more completely free images than almost all FAs, obtained just the way you recommend. That's actually one of the things we can be most proud of here. Commercial cover images have never been released, are not replaceable, and are not eye candy. --AnonEMouse(squeak)15:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with AnonEMouse here. Even Jimbo has said that things like soundtrack covers are good fair use - any "crackdown' is unlikely to include those sorts of things, and their use in this article is more than okay. --badlydrawnjefftalk16:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very well referenced, mostly adequately written apart from confusingly switching between her surnames, slightly long, however, overall probably acceptable. Addhoc17:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any suggestions on how to handle the switch? We're supposed to use last names to refer to article subjects. Her stage name is indubitably better known, but I can't see using it for her early life before she invented it. Mark Twain seems to do it the way this article does, using it after it was taken, John Wayne uses the stage name even earlier, but neither one is a Wikipedia: Featured article. Is there a guideline or FA model to follow? --AnonEMouse(squeak)17:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, as it happens Bob Dylan uses the same format. I think my confusion was partly due to the use of her first name, for when she was younger. From the discussion on my talk page, I appreciate your reasons for this. Addhoc18:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The existing way is probably the cleanest way to do it, and Dylan was the example I was going to use. Another FA that also has a birth name different than the eventual famous name is Vivian Leigh - she was born Vivian Hartley. How that article handles is to refer to Vivian by her full name (Vivian Hartley) up until she took her professional name of Vivian Leigh, then refers to her thereafter as by just her last name of Leigh. In my opinion, the way it's handled in the Vivian Leigh article is rather clunky in comparison to how its handles in the articles for Dylan and Jenna. Tabercil18:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well-written, well-sourced, interesting, and, I suspect, the best article on the subject on the Web or, likely, anywhere else. Unlike articles on major subjects which become POV-battle-grounds, and are redundant to other sources when they don't, this one shows Wikipedia at its best. In a category so often criticized for having too many stubs, the "too long" complaint is somewhat puzzling. If she is indeed the "World's most famous porn star," then a long article is not out of order. If the Gandhi article is not lengthy enough, then improve that one so that it's as good as this one. Great job, AnonEMouse. Dekkappai23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support; length is not an issue. The fact no-one has put in the effort to write longer articles for people with more historical or contemporary importance has absolutely no bearing on this article. What, have all wiki editors got to rewrite every other article before putting in effort to articles for less significant figures? The article had prose issues, but these are disappearing. I'm afraid subject matter doesn't dictate FA criteria for me, and this article passes on enough of those criteria for me to support. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)00:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This seems like a good article, a few minor concerns:
The article Briana Loves Jenna should be created, at least as a stub, red links in the lead don't look very good.
Hoist by my own petard! Stubbed.
Are all of these double and triple footnotes really necessary? For instance, "has been called the world's most famous porn star" has three footnote, Rolling Stone, Forbes and Wall Street Journal. Any one of them would be sufficient.
That's pretty strong puffery, without being cited as being from very reputable sources it would not be WP:NPOV - however, that is exactly how they refer to her. Other lines with multiple citations are similarly potentially controversial.
Why is Adult Star Path of Fame bold in the awards list? Is that something special?
No - yikes, even the link is bad! That addition was a recent "gift" from a new contributor. Removed bold, shortened, fixed link, and if anyone complains further can remove altogether. I don't like to outright remove well intentioned contributions, but also don't know that it's really an important award.
The mainstream appearances section is not chronological, it jumps from 2003 to 1999 and then back to 2001, what is the logic behind that exactly?
I tried to put the major controversies/debates (Abercrombie & Fitch, Oxford Union, Bill O'Reilly) together thematically, rather than just have that section be a chronological list. Since dates are given for each, I hoped it wouldn't be that confusing. Is it?
Using two different styles for quotes, Cquote and blockquote, is not good.
See above for the criticism that caused me to remove a few Cquotes. I do think it properly emphasizes important quotes, while the blockquote is for something interesting enough to be quoted, but hardly career-defining.
If it actually was her autobiography that marked her mainstream breakthrough, it should be made clear in the lead. Right now it reads like this was just another random career step.
Really? Most authors would give their right arm to have a book spend six weeks on The New York Times Best Seller list. It was the breakthrough in the sense that after it much of the mainstream treated her differently, but exactly how differently is hard to say in one sentence; details and before/after contrast takes half of the mainstream appearances section. Can you suggest something short enough for the header?
Oppose. Fails criteria 1a and 4, specifically the prose is often awkward and the article is full of unnecessary detail. Nearly every section could be cut by at least half. After having defended two articles at WP:FAR lately I'm a little surprised there aren't more vocal opposes here. In all fairness, comments are supposed to be specific and actionable, so detailed list follows. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lead paragraph, second sentence is awkward.
Parentheticals are nearly always just sloppy prose.
Early life - unnecessary details include where her mother danced, how much time her father spent working. Is the beating and rape a documented fact? The reference seems to quote her autobiography. Presenting this as fact seems dubious. Perhaps these both could be condensed to "In her autobiography, she says she was beaten and gang raped, and in a separate incident raped again, both when she was 16."
Early career - nearly all of this is sourced to quotes from Jenna (reported in a variety of publications). Presenting this as sourced "facts" in an encyclopedia seems kind of a stretch. I don't know what to do about this, but condensing it down to a paragraph or at most two would probably help.
Pornographic film career - Even though it has two references, I'd cut the first sentence completely (the references are no doubt two different interviews). Her signature move is oral sex, "lubricated with plenty of saliva" ... overcoming her addiction "by spending several weeks with her father and grandmother recovering on butter and focaccia bread" - aren't these sort of the definition of unnecessary detail? Yet, despite all this unnecessary (even lurid) detail, there isn't a count of how many movies she made between 1995 and 2001. "She was the first entertainer to have won" - perhaps "to win"?
Relationships - cut by half, unnecessary details include famous boyfriends, "scion of a wealthy cattle-ranching family", Roman Catholic-style ceremony, ring finger tattoo, where they lived, how much their house cost, gossip column level details about her current relationship.
Business - also cut by half.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
I nominated this article for FAC about 2 months ago, it would have possibily been approved then, but SandyGeorgia made some excellent criticisms and I decided to withdraw the FAC to make those edits. The article has been considerably reworked and reviewed by numerous people. It has achieved "A" status per the Military History Peer Review process. I believe this article is ready for FA and needs to be FA because so many people do not understand the term "Military brat" or the degree to which the effects of being a military brat affects people.Balloonman08:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is lengthy, so just comments on the first parts for now.
Should the first sentence say "served full-time in the armed forces" or "served full-time in the American armed forces". Small, but important. The latter seems accurate; the former seems a post-hoc label that Americans will apply elsewhere. At a glance, I see no real non-US descriptions. If so, consider moving this over top the Military brat redirect; the current title seems to suggest a bunch of military brat groups, when this is more or less it.
Military brat is used in both England and Canada (and I've been told, but can't document Australia.) I think it is more accurate the way it is without the word "America" in there.Balloonman07:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violates criterion 4 (focus) in early parts:
The first paragraph of Linguistic reclamation. It's irrelevant to this article whether gays and Mormons have reclaimed once pejorative labels. Reduce to a single sentence, IMO.
"The American Heritage Dictionary defines culture as 'the predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.'" You don't need to unpack a word as broad as culture on a page this specific.
I've edited it some, hopefully this works a little better. I included it because some people have questioned whether or not it is really a culture or a demographic.Balloonman07:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to read more closely before describing the POV fully, but I had this uneasy feeling of "just so" when reading. For instance: "In his book The Great Santini, Patrick Conroy describes a military family with an abusive, totalitarian father. The character, Bull Meecham, is the epitome of the worst stereotypes of the military father. His traits, however, ring true with military brats, who reported either having a father like Bull Meecham, or knowing one." It really rings true for all of them? Isn't that just so. I'm not saying this is inaccurate—it just doesn't feel right.
Yeah, I have to agree... I liked it because it does create the proper image of the stereotypical military father and I do believe that most brats do know somebody like Bull Meecham... but it doesn't really belong in an encyclopedic article... I've just been reluctant to get rid of it because I liked the imagery... just needed the right kick in the pants to do so... consider it removed.Balloonman07:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must add, having partially created a loophole with an edit myself, that the article should differentiate class difference and military rank. It treats them as interchangeable, when they are nothing of the sort. Marskell21:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the section title to "Military Classism." There is a difference in 'class' based upon military rank... but I'm not sure if that title works... I thought about "Rankism" but that wouldn't capture the differences in Academy/non-Academy and Combat/non-Combat differences...Balloonman07:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject The sentence in the second paragraph beginning with "Despite being used in other English speaking countries, only military brats in the United States have been studied as an identifiable demographic;[3] a demographic shaped, in part, by frequent..." is poorly written. The introductory phrase "Despite being used in other English speaking countries" must be followed by a noun phrase that resolves the tension and tells the reader exactly what is being used in other English speaking countries. Also, the phrase "only military brats in the United States have been studied as an identifiable demographic;" is certainly not true. But: these are only grammar defects that can be easily corrected, I realize; in no way am I disparaging all the diligent research and reflection that have undoubtedly contributed to this very fine article.GrouchyDan03:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, based upon everything that I've been able to find, it is true that only US brats have been studied as a demographic---it's one of the things that is mentioned in the literature on the subject. A British researcher, Grace Clifton, was asked to compile information on British military brats and declared that "no significant literature" on the subject has been done outside of the U.S. She then used the research in the US and speculated on whether or not the findings in the US would hold true for British brats. (I found another source wherein Morton Ender did the same thing with Canadian brats---but they are speculative analysis as compared to legit studies.) Morton Ender (the big name in brat studies) likewise laments there has been no research on brats in other countries to compare the the effects with. Ann Cottrell, a big name in Third Culture Kids research, warns while there have been international studies comparing third culture kids from around the world, that Military Brats are an anomaly because TCK's who are military brats are almost exclusively from the USA---and thus throw a lot of TCK studies off. As for the poor grammar, I'm not sure I understand the problem. "Despite being used in other English speaking countries" is followed by "only military brats in the US have been studied...." The tension is that other countries don't study the effects of growing up in the military eventhough they use the same terminology. I'm not sure of what you mean by, "tells the reader exactly what is being used in other English speaking countries." They use the same term, they just don't study what effects it has.Balloonman05:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Balloonman. What I mean is this: many social groups throughout history have been studied as discrete demographics. Thus, the phrase "only military brats in the United States have been studied as an identifiable demographic", taken by itself, is false. If it were true, then I could write this: "Single mothers in Honduras have not been studied as an identifiable demographic; five-year-old children in Iceland have not been studied as an identifiable demographic; in fact, no conceivable social group except for military brats in the United States has been studied as an identifiable demographic." The phrase does NOT mean, as written, that "Of all military brats in the world, only those in the United States have been studied as an identifiable demographic," although that is possibly the meaning that the phrase's author wanted to communicate.
Also, what I meant by "Despite being used in other English speaking countries" and tension is this: "Despite being used in other English speaking countries" is an introductory phrase meant to modify something immediately following it. For example, properly-structured sentences beginning with that phrase might take these forms: "Despite being used in other English speaking countries, the word "petrol" is most often associated with speakers in Great Britain." "Despite being used in other English speaking countries, Lincoln's Rheumatism Cure is unabashedly labeled using American spellings." "Despite being used in other English speaking countries, the phrase "military brats" is most often associated with children of Irish service members." In other words, the introductory phrase "Despite being used in other English speaking countries," must be followed by a noun or noun phrase that, as I wrote, resolves the tension in the reader's mind by identifying exactly what is being used in other English speaking countries. "Only military brats in the United States" is not such a noun phrase.
Part of the reason for errors like these is that the writer knows what he wanted to communicate in a given passage, and he may therefore mentally supply missing or ambiguous information during his proof-reading of the phrase; the reader, however, should not be expected to do so.
Finally, this comment. I usually edit articles in situations like this to repair grammar and structure. I refrained from editing the article in question, however, for lack of knowledge concerning the relevant social studies.
My apologies for not explaining myself more clearly. The article is very good, by the way. Aside: the singer Emmylou Harris comes to my mind as an example of a military brat (her father, a Marine Corps pilot, was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for a while).
GrouchyDan21:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ok, your criticism makes much more sense now. I still don't understand the grammar problem (grammar ain't my thing.) So I asked somebody else who I know to be better with grammar to take a look at it, and she agreed with you... something about a danglind participle or such, I still don't understand it, but according to her it is fixed now. I also fixed your concern about the group being studied. Let me know if it addresses your concern... the U.S. is the only country where the effects of growing up in their military has been systematically studied. Other countries haven't made that investment. I'm hoping that with your liking the article to fix it so that you can support it ;-) Added emmylou to List of famous military brats thanks.Balloonman22:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't see any quibbling... I just see some solid comments/recommendations that make the article better---but thanks for the support.Balloonman00:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oooops, that was a cut-n-paste error. At Sandy's recommendation I was getting rid of a HUGE reference list by mentioning sources used only once in the endnotes in the end notes. The source for Quigly (sp) was cut and pasted, but apparently, I pasted a wikisource by mistake. It's been fixed.Balloonman19:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't like the subsection "Where are you from?". A section's name should explain its context, and this isn't very understandable. Maybe you should remove it and place the contained paragraphs below the main section. Michaelas10(Talk)16:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This group is shaped by frequent moves, authoritarian family dynamics, strong patriarchal authority, the frequent absence of a parent, the threat of parental loss in war, and the militarization of the family unit - would be nicer to group the terms involving "frequent" together.
...military culture is unique due to the tightly knit communities that perceive these traits as normal. Military culture,[5] which is not chosen by the the child,[6] impacts, but does not control, who children of military personnel are as adults - very hard to follow, sudden switch from families to culture.
As adults, military brats - the exact same phrase is used at the beginning of a sentence later on in the paragraph (except the second time, "military" is inexplicably capitalised).
Ooops, I meant to get rid of the second "as adults" and simply start the sentence with "Military brats." I felt that it was implicit in the sentence that it was refering to them as adults. Thanks for catching that.Balloonman07:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They can also struggle to develop and maintain deep lasting relationship - "also" is redundant.
Military brats compose the largest groups of TCKs,[13] but are almost exclusively from the U.S. - "but" isn't being used to contradict or contrast, so shouldn't be used.
Actually it is, because TCK is explicitly a global term. Changed it to: "Globally military brats compromise about 30% of all TCKs, but they are almost exclusively from the U.S."Balloonman07:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't until the 1980s, that systematic research began on military brats. - seems to be making an implicit comment on it taking a long time to begin; can't it just be "systematic research began on military brats in the 1980s" or something similar?
Changed... actually, if I was making any kind of unconscious statement, it would have been "the research prior to the 1980's is dubious in nature."Balloonman07:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I looked through a bit more the article and made a few tweaks. The prose is consistently not up to standard, so I'm still opposing for the time being. Things I was unsure about:
Military culture has reclaimed the term to make it their own. "There’s a standard term for the military child: 'Brat.'" - where is this quotation from? It doesn't seem to be attributed.
Actually, it was part of the full quote "There’s a standard term for the military child: 'Brat.' While it sounds pejorative, it’s actually a term of great affection." I moved the speaker to the start rather than between the two sentences.Balloonman08:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...it becomes a term of endearment.[sic]" - what's the [sic] for?
sociologist Morton Ender reported, - reported is in words to avoid as it sounds too authoritative. Just use "wrote" or "said" (I don't know which he did otherwise I'd correct it).
There's a sense of vagueness in everything written here. I know you're trying to avoid generalising but the vagueness makes the article seem weak. For instance, The stereotypical military family might have... isn't saying much. We aren't talking about all military families, we're talking about a stereotypical one. And even this hypothetical stereotypical one doesn't definitely have something, it only might have. This is repeated elsewhere: it's full of mays and mights and often and is likely. It makes the article seem unsure of itself, even though there are plenty of references.
Now I have to smile, you can't win can ya ;-) One of the criticisms of the article previously was that it was too strong in making declarations now it's too weak ;-) EDIT: went through and edited many of those often/may/mights... I decided that as with any study of a culture, you are indicating trends not absolutes. Any specific individual in a community may or may not hold or have a specific attribute.Balloonman08:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it. I hope that you can support it after making these changes, but even if you don't your involvement will improve the article.Balloonman08:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New comments, up to anti-racism:
and concluded that 93% patients came from military families where overly authoritarian. - has this been cut off? It leaves the sentence hanging somewhat.
military brats will invariably name the one to which their parent belonged. - I dislike "invariably", you'll hate me for saying this but it's too assertive.
SupportMinor objectI'll change this when fixed...why do some web refs say "Acessed on" and not have a wikilinked full date and others as "Retrieved on" but do have a wikilinked full date? You should be consistent. Suggest wikilinking the full dates per WP:DATE. if you use cite web templates and enter "yyyy=mm=dd" in the accessdate parameter, it will auto format them for you and link them.Rlevse11:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suspicious of the claim that this term is used in other English-speaking countries; I have never heard of it. Is it actually used on a widespread basis or just the occasional journal?
Do a websearch on "Canadian Brats" and you'll pull up quite a few hits for Canadian Military brat groups. Here are just a few of the Canadian brat cites: [14][15][16][17][18]Military Brats of Singapore is a group I didn't know about. In my research I found several references to "British Regiment Attached Travellers" for British brats---although a British reviewer in the first military history peer review indicated that the term is used in England primarily in regards to Army brats, not their Navy/Air Force. If you do a websearch for British and "army brat" you will have quite a few hits---a quick search and I couldn't find a british brat group, but I did find quite a few blogs/unofficial sources. But it is a term that I've seen in the literature referencing the children of military personell. In all honesty, I can state with 100% certainity that it is widely used in Canada... and I've had strong indications (including several published sources) that it is used in England, but I'm not sure how widely used it is there.Balloonman07:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A google search for "Military brat" + "British Army" only returns around 178 unique hits. Since this term is used in Canada, doesn't that invalidate the 'U.S. subculture' part of the title? This has probably been gone over before, but why isn't this article at Military brat?--Nydas(Talk)08:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try using "Army brat", a synonymn with military brat, instead and you'll see plenty of hits. As for the US focus---yes it has been discussed quite a bit. The best summary occured at the Original Military History Peer Review where a German and Brit weighed in on the subject. Essentially it boils down to this, U.S. military culture is vastly different from British/Canadian military experience. Trends and issues identified among US brats may not be true elsewhere, but we don't know this because brats have not been studied elsewhere. What is known/studied about military brats is true about U.S. brats---not Canadian/British brats. It would be virtually impossible to write a comprehensive article on ALL military brats (even if the research was available which it isn't.)Balloonman05:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Military culture, which is not chosen by the the child, impacts, but does not control, who children of military personnel are as adults. - terribly clunky sentence, made worse by the citations lodged within it. Break it up if possible.
There is no need for an entire paragraph explaining what linguistic reclamation is. That is covered by the relevant article.
When I first wrote the sentence I hadn't found the relevant article (which isn't one of Wikipedia's finest.) So I wrote the paragraph to explain it, but you are correct, since there is an article, I've reduced it to one sentence.Balloonman06:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is because children in military communities grow up in a very different culture than non-military families; the culture being the knowledge, experience, values, ideas, attitudes, skills, tastes, and techniques that are associated with the military. This sentence is too long and strikes me as redundant. The two 'military culture' paragraphs could be slimmed down to just one.
The captions for the images are not very good. Ideally they should link into the points within the article, rather than being bland statements like "Waiting for return of father from Iraq". I'd drop the individual's names from the captions, they're not really encyclopedic.
That's much better. I'm not an expert on this, but I think that avoiding terms like 'sacrifice' would be preferable. Also try to keep captions down to one sentence, for example: The internet has enabled soldiers to connect with their families while deployed. Such as when a child is born. Only one sentence is needed here, and 'Internet' should be capitalised.--Nydas(Talk)08:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many external links that just link to different parts of the same site. One link per site is enough, any more looks like spam.--Nydas(Talk)21:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Therein is where the challenge arises. If I get rid of them, then somebody will invariably tag a section as "uncited." I went through and got rid of as many as I felt comfortable getting rid of.Balloonman07:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, completely misread your critique... I read it as complaining that there were too many citations to the same sources, not the external links that you mentioned. Will take care of your criticisms later on... but I agree with the children's book cite... it is something that I am not sold on having here.155.201.35.5316:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, that was me, I thought I was logged in when I responded. I don't know how I misread your original critique, but I've gone through the external links and edited them significantly. I agree and got rid of quite a few of them... it's an area I haven't focused on and some have been added where I simply said, "ok, what harm does it do." But you are right, they needed to goBalloonman05:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I withdraw my objection, but there are still a few things that could be looked at.
All the pictures in the article are recent; are there any of brats from the 70s and 80s?
The 'Post-Cold War Era brats' section has a clunky title and the 'Alcohol and Abuse' section doesn't fit well within it, being about the 80s and 90s.
The 'Reunited and reaching out' section has a POV name, and some of the info within it seems forced. 'A recent study' - what's the name of the study? Do all brats "feel a sense of euphoria when they discover that other brats share the same feelings and emotions"? I think this section should be renamed 'Military brats in adulthood' and reworked into a more measured description; too often it implies that all former military brats feel this way, which seems very unlikely.--Nydas(Talk)09:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This goes back to my laughing above. If I acknowledge that this is for "many" or even "most" it is criticized. If I get rid of them, it is criticized. Can't win. But I reworded it some.70.252.183.17904:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't understand this caption at all: Operation Enduring Freedom was a commemoration for marines since 9/11. First, the "marines since 9/11" at the end doesn't seem to make any grammatical sense. Second, can Operation Enduring Freedom really be called a "commemoration" of anything? And what did it have to do with a kid splashing in a pool? Andrew Levine10:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of weird generalizations, like in the intro, "They struggle to develop and maintain deep lasting relationships, feeling like outsiders to U.S. civilian culture", which is worded as applying broadly to MBs, when the footnote says that less than half of them express such a sentiment. Nothing is given to compare these figures to; what percentage of US youths overall feel themselves "not central to any group"? These recur throughout the article.
Again, Trebor didn't like it when it was worded to acknowledge that it isn't universal. Can't win---any study of any group will show trends and themes. These trends/themes WILL NOT apply to everybody within a culture/subgroup. Even as tightly defined as a culture/group can be, it will never be applicable to everybody who belongs to the group. I switched it back to the way it was because I didn't like the "stronger" language.70.252.183.17904:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, though this isn't an objection per se, I corrected one glaring factual error in the article (Ben Nelson is a Senator, not a Representative) even though I'm not too familiar with the subject. This combined with the "Operation Enduring Freedom" goof suggests that there may be more errors that someone else who knows more about the military might be able to address. I highly recommend that someone besides Ballonman who has a good familiarity with the topic of military families and the activities they engage in look over the article. Andrew Levine00:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This has come a long way since Baloonman took it up and whilst there are a few grammatical niggles I'm not going to pick up on them as most are transatlantic stylistic issues. Share Andrew Levines concern about the caption on the swimming pool image, it's clearly not OEF, although it may be related to a commemorative event of some kind. Needs resolved. The image on the opposite side at the same level also repeats community which strikes me as clumsy (potentially a USian style thing though).ALR19:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Stinks of POV like almost no other article I've read. I'd like to be nice, but I'll be honest: it reads like a piece of soppy propaganda and lacks substance. All the crap like "The return of a parent from deployment is often a cause of celebration and anticipation." and "Deployment can be a time of heartbreak and tears." needs to be cut; not for me to change my vote, but because the article needs to be neutral and serious. michaeltalk02:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Sir Thomas Playford KCMG (July 5, 1896 – 16 June 1981) served as Premier of South Australia from November 5, 1938 to March 10, 1965, which at 26 years and 125 days, remains a British Commonwealth record for the longest time someone has served as a democratically elected national or regional leader. His tenure as Premier was marked by a period of unprecedented population and economic growth that was not matched by any other Australian states. Playford took a unique, strong and hands-on approach to the Premiership and personally oversaw his industrial initiatives. His string of election wins were assisted by a system of malapportionment that bore his name.
This is my sixth attempt at a featured article; it is thoroughly referenced and well written. Any concerns or problems will be dealt with promptly. Thanks for voting/commenting! michaeltalk04:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The lead section lacks a bit of specificity (see WP:LEAD if you fancy)
When you say, 'His tenure as Premier was marked by a period of unprecedented population and economic growth that was not matched by any other Australian states.' do you mean at the time or throughout Australian history?
In Australian history. Thus, it stands alone, and needs no further explanation.
The 'was not matched by' makes you wonder if it was just that period of Australian history or all of Australian history upto today. I couldn't say one way or another from this sentence.-BiancaOfHell07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence 'Playford took a unique, strong and hands-on approach to the Premiership and personally oversaw his industrial initiatives.' uses the word unique a bit too strongly, but maybe it's appropriate, though when you say he personally oversaw his industrial initiatives it leads me to ask 'who else would oversee their own industrial initiatives than themselves?'. The wording could be better.
The sentence means what it states. Most Premiers did not involve themselves in their economies as much as Playford ("unique", "strong and hands-on") and did not have industrial initiatives like Playford did.
It's not exacting enough. What is a strong approach? 'took a hands-on approach' and 'personally oversaw' are identical, and so you have a redundancy there. This sentence doesn't describe this guy's "uniqueness" well enough. Readers should be able to take away alot of information, and a summary of the entire article from just the lead section.-BiancaOfHell07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the sentence 'His string of election wins were assisted by a system of malapportionment that bore his name.' you wikify 'name' with the wikilink 'Playmander'. Playmander should probably follow name like such 'his name, Playmander'.
I will rectify this.
The semicolon. Your use of the semicolon is extensive and in my years as a reader I've never seen such frequent use. You could be starting a new trend, or be misusing it. In the Family section, in the sentence 'Four children was born to the couple; three daughters and one son, Sir Thomas.' you are misusing it.
I probably am overusing it. I am still not the best writer, so this type of feedback is helpful; can you elaborate?
How about you tell me how many semicolons you put in the article? :) I don't even really know how to use the semicolon. Have to brush up on that.-BiancaOfHell07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - it's good, but it could be better. I don't like the lead - the first paragraph is good and appropriate, but the second two paragraphs read like they belong primarily in the "Early life" section, with a few paragraphs about his premiership and later life tacked on for good measure. I'd like it fixed up and written with a better overview of the whole article - at present it's not balanced. Secondly, there's a whole paragraph on his religious beliefs (or lack thereof) without a reference. Can you add one? In fact, I think you could add a few more references to the article - one per paragraph often isn't enough. Thirdly, you may like to get someone to grammar check your article. I found some misplaced apostrophes in the article that shouldn't have been there. I would be happy to do it but don't have time at present. Fourthly, I don't think "Don Dunstan" is the best header you could have - something like "working relationship with Don Dunstan" or something like that would be more appropriate; the article is about Playford, not Don Dunstan. Otherwise well done. JROBBO11:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the latter two paragraphs of the introduction to provide an overview of his life, and will now attempt to find a reference for his religious beliefs.
I don't want to have to change the heading of 'Don Dunstan'. Despite Dunstan having his own article, he was integral to Playford's downfall (and that of the conservatives in South Australia), and this deserves attention. Of the sources I have, entire chapters are spent on the Playford-Dunstan relationship and transition.
I have no intention to clutter the article needlessly with references. Forty is more than sufficient; I have referenced where appropriate, not because a certain number is expected. michaeltalk01:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but I think it could be better referenced. The third paragraph of "Retirement", the third paragraph of fall from power, and the third paragraph of the "ascendance to office" paragraph don't have any references, and some editors could see those paragraphs, as well as elsewhere, as containing statements that are not obvious facts. I'll be happy though if you fix up those three paragraphs where it might be seen not to be obvious. JROBBO09:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Minor issues with references: full dates should be wikilinked, only title should be external linked, not the source. Trebor17:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Playford 1956.jpg was taken in 1956, PD-Australia only applies to images pre 1955; has no source information. Will need to be changes to fair use; and there is no real reason this image could be fairly used.
All have been updated; the first picture is a government photograph and it is 50 years since it has been taken, and therefore is out of copyright (expired in 2006). michaeltalk05:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The records search link doesn't work; images from the NAA should have item numbers or some other form of identification that could be added to the image page. Thanks for fixing these so quickly. --Peta06:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
In order for this to come on the main page I believe it must pass the FAC test. So I nominate this article for making it an FA. --Parker00714:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, there have been so many people helping out in this article you can't just give credit to one person. I have striked struck out your comment. --Maclean104:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. Mixed reference styles in the lead? I didn't get past that. Please convert your refs to one, consistent style. Also, pls have a look at WP:LEAD, particularly, "The lead section, lead paragraph or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the first headline. The table of contents, if displayed, appears between the lead section and the first headline." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
Object and refer to peer review. Ten days later, still not correctly referenced, an article on a topic as complex as Law - with structural problems - can't be written while on FAC. Compelling prose: Law is usually learned in different subjects. Please withdraw the article and prepare it properly to meet FA standards. Also, pls see WP:FN for footnote placement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
I've just done these references that I think you were talking about. I got mixed up and thought you had meant the links. And I've fixed the objection to the legal subjects opening. The article isn't all that bad though is it? It's better than the "B" which it was given a while ago. I do think, as well, that most of the initial criticisms have been patched up. I'm not sure what the new "structural problems" are, but would be very glad to hear! Wikidea05:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second look - far from featured. Seealso templates are used incorrectly (they belong at top of sections), references are not formatted correctly (cite templates may help sort out incorrect manual formatting), no discussion of differences between Napoleonic Law and English Law, drop-down navigational templatess in the body of the article, WP:LEAD is not a summary of the article, external jump to a blog in the text Done, lack of citing throughout, including statements that look like opinion ("The more people are involved with and concerned by how political power is exercised over their lives, the more acceptable and legitimate the law becomes to the people.") Done, and too much text that just doesn't say anything (" there are certain core subjects, that students are required to learn in order to practise law.") Still suggest peer review is a better venue at this stage in this article's development. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the difference between "napoleonic" law and english law, I think you mean the difference between Civil and Common law, which there are clearly sections on, aren't there?
No, I mean the fundamental difference between the legal systems in Latin America, Italy and France and, for example, Britian and the USA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
Yes, you do mean the difference between civil and common law; Latin America, Italy, France, most of continental Europe, (and some historically interesting places like Louisiana and Scotland) are fundamentally different to Britain, the USA, India, and so on because of the absence of judge made law, and the practice of comprehensively codifying laws. That's what's explained in the civil and common law parts of the law page already; or have a read of the main article Legal systems of the world. Wikidea08:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the navigational templates, I can imagine there's a rule about not having them in the body. But in the case of this article, there's no reason why they don't do a very good job where they are. It helps to have links to different countries alongside the discussion of systems. Rules aren't ends in themselves, surely! Wikidea08:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same point on the seealso template can't be at the bottom of a section. If there's a rule about this somewhere, it's not very good. It makes sense to have them at the bottom sometimes, after you read about a topic. Wouldn't the words "see also" suggest that you'd "seen something to start with" Wikidea08:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Gtl: "Rather than scattering such additional references thoughout the text of a section, they should be grouped together at the beginning of the section for easy selection by the reader:" Do you think they are "scattered" in the article? Wikidea10:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the lead, it's not an exact summary of the article, you're right. It provides information and quotes that you don't find elsewhere. But it does summarise the main headers. Wikidea 10:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)I'm happy to fill out more on institutions though maybe. Is that what you had in mind? DoneWikidea10:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to core subjects, which you say doesn't say anything is precisely what the headings of the legal subjects follows before the further disciplines part. What would you prefer? Wikidea10:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But if you want to refer this article to a peer review, please do so - I haven't seen one of these done before myself. I'm more than happy for you to go ahead and refer! Wikidea10:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Partially fixed, though I wonder if the nominator will respond to any criticisms of the article, since he created the account right before he nominated this article. And I say partially because I thought this problem was confined only to the lead. It actually crops up throughout the article. This article needs lots of copyediting/formatting help before it comes to FAC. Jeffpw15:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The image layout and selection could use some work. Most of them are teeny-tiny, and a few don't seem to be all that relevant as illustrations of an article on law in general. For example:
Image:Car_crash_2.jpg and Image:California bungalow.jpg; Knowing what an average American single house or a crashed car looks like doesn't seem to be all that relevant to the understanding of law. Done
Image:Clipboard.jpg; It's just a generic clipboard with illegible writing. Why not a picture of an actual form? Done
Overall, I think the effort of trying to bring such a broad topic to FA quality is very commendable (even if the nomination itself might not be all that serious). / PeterIsotalo15:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the lead didn't actually make any attempt to define "law", but rather just gave lots of examples of how it's used. I tried to make the first paragraph a bit more encyclopedic. Do feel free to rewrite, but keep in mind that the lead of an article should always (unless its an abstract term or something like it) start with something like "A law is X and Y..." rather than "Law(s) has/have function X and Y..." / PeterIsotalo15:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
I was really pleased to see this nominated, as I have done quite a lot of this article (the layout, all the pictures, the intro, the legal subjects, institutions, etc) since about September 2006. People have criticised the intro and lack of definition before. The problem is really a philosophical one, and you can read a bit about it on the Law#Philosophy of law or the Jurisprudence page, under analytical jurisprudence. But I'll give up arguing and put a definition up. And, I'll rewrite the part underneath, so that you don't have words linking to subjects (although someone seems to have already started on this. As for the images, I agree about the clipboard being a bit naff! Can anyone think of something better that implies "regulation"? The way I got all of them was simply taking them from other Wikipedia pages, because I've been told off before from getting them from the internet or elsewhere. The one of Ronald Dworkin is simply from his page. Anything else I can do? Wikidea08:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's a bunch of the article written from in the first person plural ("our" is everywhere), which is weird to me. I don't know if this goes against the MoS, does anyone know? Wickethewok22:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
Object and refer to peer-review. These article needs a peer-review; not a FAC-review. Many problems. Let's enumerate them:
Stylistic:
I see about 15 external jumps. Done
I'm afraid articles already linked in the main article are repeated in "See also" section. Done
Verifiability problems: Many citations with printed sources have no pages.
Prose problems:
Un-cyclopedic prose. "The numerous ways that we can think of law reflects the numerous ways law comes into our lives. Contract law governs everything from buying a bus ticket, to our obligations in the workplace. When we buy or rent a house, property law defines our rights and duties towards our bank, or landlord. When we earn pensions, trust law protects our savings. Tort law gives us claims for compensation when someone injures us or damages our property. But if someone harms us intentionally, then criminal law ensures that the perpetrator is removed from society." "Criminal law is the most familiar kind of law that we hear about from the papers, or news on TV, despite its relatively small part in the legal whole." "We"?! "us"?! This is totally un-cyclopedic and improper for an article having to do with the legal science. Done
"Ancient law" is listy.
Citing problems. Whole sections or sub-sections like "Criminal law" are uncited. Done
Stubbyness. See, for instance, the stubby sub-section "Civil law". Done
Content problems.
Let's take "Criminal law". The editor describes us how criminal law is perceived by Common Law. But what about Continental Law? I though this is an article about law in general, and not anly about Common law. Unfortunately, the whole "Legal subjects" section, the "heart" of the article is directed towards common law. Continental law is almost ignored. Done
And what about legal procedure: civil and criminal? This is also a part of law! But I do not see the adequate analysis here. Done
Civil-Common law is not the only distincion. Other important categorizations such as private law-public law are ignored. Done
Nothing about the differences of the way administrative law works in continental and civil law? Conseil d'Etat in France does not deserve mentioning in "Constitutional and administrative law" or "Judiciary"? Done
I'm afraid the current version of the article confirms the law quality of many law-related articles of Wikipedia in the most vivid way.--Yannismarou13:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Yannismarou. And I find it unsatisfactory to plunge straight into a modern, industrial, capitalist view of law before encompassing its universal aspects in the lead. Tony15:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the interest! I've done lots of the suggestions:
changed first person plural/prosey style in introduction
added Kelsen to jurisprudence
improved the criminal law section (although, please note that the mens rea, actus reus stuff isn't at all only common law, in Germany its der Tat und Vorsatz, in France intention e act, etc - criminal law's pretty similar in the fundamentals)
added comment on civil/common law not being the only distinction in the legal systems section
emboldened section on Procedural law, which is with the further disciplines section
Things I'm usure of though are these:
do we need sociology of law? I took a course in this in Germany, and it's often very specific to particular systems. It's often political philosophy, and as you can see nobody has much to say about it in its own article. Max Weber is mentioned in jurisprudence
I'm afraid disagree about giving more than the passing mention to EU law in its own right - just as I would about a separate section for US Law or Greek Law. On the other hand there are links there for both the Convention and the Court of Human Rights; the Constitution might be something to put in in future, but perhaps we should wait till it's ratified.
What does "15 external jumps" mean? I'm not too good on wikijargon!
I'm not quite sure what a modern, industrial, capitalist view of law refers to. I agree that the history of law isn't so good though.
Please keep the suggestions coming (although I don't take responsibility for the quality of all the law related articles!)Wikidea01:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another point of me. I respect Wikidea's opinion about European Law, but I want to stress that European law is not like US or Greek law, because "The European Union is unique among international organisations" (per Wikipedia!). I as reading an article of Sally McNamara of the Thatcher Center of Freedom; I quote:"Justice Antonin Scalia notes that the Framers of the US Constituion were absolutely clear that the US has a different moral and legal framework from Europe, one that is jeopardized by the aggressive exportation of EU law. The European COurt of Human Rights has been responsible for some truly egregious rulings in recent years. With a Charter of Fundamental Rights, the EC of Justice and EC of Human Rights would together preside over the final destruction of common law tradition and promote judicial activism both within and outside of the EU." And Sally McNamara inists: "The wrongful interpretation of the American Constitution on the basis of foreign law would only increase with an EU constitution that encompasses such a vastly prescriptive legal enterprise. As Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said recently, "what we see here is a vision of international law that if taken aggressively would literally strike at the heart of some of out basic fundamental principles"." I obviously do not espouse the approach of Scalia and McNamara (with Chertoff I'm not sure!), but they do state interesting things, and they reveal that EU law is not like other national laws; it is regarded as something more; as a threat for the common law! And within this framework European Constitution (a misleading title of the treaty for me, but anyway) and the atached Charter of Fundamental Rights are of huge importance IMO, and deserve some further mentioning.--Yannismarou20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not I think I added that quote about EU law being unique - it's from a case called Van Gend en Loos, about the free movement of workers, and its famous line is that the EEC (as it then was) constitutes a new legal order - that's the idea I wanted to get across by talking about EU law as the first and only example of a supranational legal system (although in S. America, something similar may happen). You're definitely right that it deserves special mention for this reason. Though I'm not sure that the common law will die, as the Europhobe thatcherites want us to believe! I'll try to change these external links :) Wikidea00:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the external jumps, correct me if I missed some, I found only 6. The 6 External Jumps had reference templates used after it, or they had been wiki-linked to other articles in the same sentence, so I deleted them. --Parker00716:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have to insist in my objection per Sandy's comments. The article needs proper preparation and a thorough peer-review, in order to get rid of its current deficiencies (inconsistent referencing [many long paragraphs have not even one citation], not brilliant prose, some listy sections which should get rid of the bullets style and get proper prose [like ancient law], I see printed sources without pages etc.). Under the pressure of WP:FAC I don't think that these things could be achieved. A delay of 2-3 weeks will not harm the article. It is on the right track, but IMO it needs some further work, and a peer-review would probably help it "shine".--Yannismarou08:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read today's reply by User:Wikidea to Sandy's comment, if you haven't already done so. The reason many long paragraphs have not even one citation is because it is just a summary of the "main article", if you know what I mean. Sure we could just remove the bullets in some section, but wouldn't that make the article worse? And regarding your comment of printed sources with no pages, I doubt any Wiki-editors have the actual books, (I may be wrong though). But in any chance, you are the more experienced editor of Wikipedia than me, so I guess you know what a FA is, and what it isnt, so I am changing my vote to abstain, due to conflict of interest. --Parker00720:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Human Right law is POV. Human Rights doesn't come from anybody but the human itself. According to UN Human Rights can not exists without a state giving the people those rights. And the article echoes this. UN's way of creating freedom is through socialism rather than liberty shown clearly by their publications and actions. Only their side is presented in the article. Lord Metroid21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is your POV, which IMO does not constitute a valid objection. In legal terms the relevant section is not inaccurate. HR may come from the human itself, but how are you going to defend them without documents protecting them? Hm?!--Yannismarou07:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only way you can defend your rights which among many are life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness is to do like a monarch would do. If someone try to violate a monarch's right, that man soon will know that he can not do so without force and the monarch would use force against that violator. The document is nothing worth without a person himself standing up for his rights. Sometimes that may lead to death, protecting one's rights isn't easy. It wasn't easy for monarchs either but that is the only way one can protect ones rights. The state is a direct peril to these rights as the state is an organization of force(If you don't do as the state want you to do. You are in big trouble as the state tries to force you to do so by various means of coercion). The UN want to protect people's right by granting(granting is a paradox in itself as the state has nothing to grant) the individual his human rights using the state, the very entity that is the number one threat to someone's human rights, the threat which was widely recognized by the founding fathers of USA. Lord Metroid21:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, what you say is very interesting, but I'm afraid it has nothing to do with the article. The state may be a threat for HR, but it is also the institution that can protect them, and that is why societies have assigned it this authority. Do you forget that also the US Constitution protects human rights and that the Supreme Court of the US (a state institution) has created through his decisions a net (which sometimes get looser) protecting HR? So, I don't know what the founding fathers wanted, but the way the US institutions and the way UN institutions proceeded and implemented the protection of HR have many similarities. At the end of the day, the individual who stands up for his right has no chance to protect them effectively, if the state where he lives does not respect HR. Of course, there is an interaction between individual and state, but the individual who lives in an organized society has realized that the most effective way to create this "net of protection" is to assign certain authorities to a state strong enough to impose itself through force, and to try through a democratic structure to make this state better and to further improve the "net of protection". Now, UN explicitely recognizes the primordial role of the state and, as you say, the founding fathers don't. This may be true, because: 1) UN is an international organization consisting of states, and it cannot ignore them; UN lives through the state; 2) UN is also influenced by the European conception of "state" which is more regulatory than the US state. But, despite the differing philosophy behind the words or the differing expressions, the outcome is the same: The UN acknowledges the primordial role of the state in the protection of UR, and the US, as a "strong state" (per Schmitt and per Fukuyama!) adhere to the philosophy of UN, using state institutions (courts) and documents (constitution and law) to protect HR!--Yannismarou08:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is a very interesting concept. I didn't think I had anything further to reply until I noticed the edit summary, "what has this to do with the article?", If the article is about the written law then I suppose it would have nothing to do with the article. Maybe a clarification in the article that the article is only a mere presentation of the various laws existing as laws written in text. However if the article is about concept of law in general which it seems to be as one scrutinize the article in general. Then I think it would be beneficial to include the philosphy of why the laws exists and the idea behind their implementation. Like it has been done in other sections of the article regarding other kinds of laws.
Comment, Better yet, rewrite the article to create a more logical representation. Because as it is now the information on one subject such as Human Rights are spread widely over the different sections which makes it hard to get an overview. Lord Metroid14:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe human rights article is reasonably good: perhaps that's the place to raise these matters? Have a read about Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, who say some quite interesting things about enforcement and natural rights. As yet, I don't really know what you mean about the philosophy of why laws exist. Read the Philosophy of law article; and political philosophy (which is covered on the law page itself). Wikidea02:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have put ticks next to all the requests for changes, and in my view, all the criticisms have been dealt with. The exceptions are the "structural problems" and the "capitalist view of law" because I don't know what these things mean. Also I tend to disagree about lists, because sometimes they're necessary; and not citing pages, because sometimes its general. But thank you to the useful people that have made specific criticisms. Wikidea05:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the legal systems section, there's information about the history of these systems and where they are in practice, but no real explanation about what they are really about, or what is the difference between them. CG17:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object - Prose issues; it feels a little chatty at times. Some POV-ish sentences, such as "But despite the complexity, law is a highly rewarding study" lurk, Done and I'm not sure about the Civil Society para either. Done Footnote placement doesn't follow WP:FN. CloudNine21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've hopefully improved on the suggestions above; but I too don't know what is wrong with footnotes. I've written a lot of footnotes before, and I am really not sure why they are being wrongly placed. Please do explain what you mean! Wikidea03:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not ready to support this article, and my objection stands. Because of that I decided to offer the article a full-scale review. These are my remarks:
Some parts of the article are still under-cites. See for instance "trusts and equity", where the first paragraph is uncited or sections (and sub-sections) "Civil law" Done, "European law", "Asian law" Done, "Legislature", "Executive", and "Religious law" Done (no citations there). I could add a lot of these ugly [citation needed]s, but I do not want to do it.
"Human rights" law isn't is a part of international law? And souldn't we mention that the "European convention on human rights" is a convention with a binding force, whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not? Done
the ECHR is technically not binding. Countries are more politically obliged to adhere to judgments (some still don't). You could say it's binding via the EU, where EU law is concerned (from the Solange II judgments), although that's why the EU is mentioned as a one of a kind. Good point about public international law not being binding though. I'm putting that in.
"Ancient law" remains listed (IMO) Done and undercited. Three "bullets", which IMO should be turned into proper prose have no citations.
"Austin and Bentham, following David Hume thought this conflated what "is" and what "ought to be" the case. They believed in law's positivism, that real law is entirely separate from "morality"." Uncited assessments.
"Kelsen believed that though law is separate from morality, it is endowed with "normativity", meaning we ought to obey it. Whilst laws are positive "is" statements (e.g. the fine for reversing on a highway is $500), law tells us what we "should" do (i.e. not drive backwards). So every legal system can be hypothesised to have a basic norm (Grundnorm) telling us we should obey the law." Uncited.
"Today's proponents, such as Richard Posner from the so called Chicago School of economists and lawyers, are generally advocates of deregulation, privatization, and are hostile to state regulation, or what they see as restrictions on the operation of free markets." Uncited.
"John Locke in Two Treatises On Civil Government [45] and Baron de Montesquieu after him in Spirit of Laws [46] advocated a separation of powers between the institutions that wield political influence, namely the judiciary, legislature and executive. Their principle was that no person should be able to usurp, as Thomas Hobbes wanted for an all powerful sovereign, a Leviathan[47] of power." (the above sentences are just an example) Try to have the inline citations at the end of the sentences. Otherwise, you interrupt the prose flaw. Put them in the missle only if it is necessary for emphasis reasons.
I see what you mean, but I think that to some extent, this is unavoidable. In the case above, I'd have to turn it into three sentences; I think most of the others are where you have cases, and they really ought to have citations alongside. Wikidea11:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Coase said that regardless of whether the judge ruled that the sweetmaker had to stop using his machinery, or that the doctor had to put up with it, they could strike a mutually beneficial bargain about who moves house that reaches the same outcome of resource distribution. Only, the existence of transaction costs may prevent this. So the law ought to pre-empt what would happen, and be guided by the most efficient solution. The idea is that law, and regulation, is not as important or effective at helping people as lawyers, and government planners, believe." Uncited; since he "said" these things, we need a source to verify that. Done
"More recently Max Weber, and many others, reshaped thinking about the extensions of the state, which come under the control of the executive. Modern military, policing and bureaucratic power over ordinary citizens' daily lives pose special problems for accountability that earlier writers like Locke and Montesquieu could not have foreseen. The custom and practice of the legal profession itself is an important part of people's access to justice, whilst civil society is a term used to refer to the social institutions, communities and partnerships that are the political base of the law." Further uncited assessments.
"Most legislatures are bi-cameral, having two legislative houses." OK, but unicameralism doesn't deserve mentioning (still alive in Denmark, Greece, Israel)? Done
"Under such presidential systems the executive is directly elected by a popular vote, and may appoint a cabinet that is not directly elected." This is inaccurate: 1) It is not the executive which is elected by popular vote, but the president himself, who then appoints the government (which is not usually elected), 2) Again, the president is not always elected by "popular vote". A characteristic example is US; the president is elected by representatives of the states not the popular vote (see the 2000 US elections). I think that the relevant article has a more accurate definition of the presidential system: "A presidential system, also called a congressional system, is a system of government where the executive branch exists and presides (hence the term) separate from the legislature, to which it is not accountable, and which cannot in normal circumstances dismiss it." The part in italics is indeed the most important, and the definition in the article in question fails to include it. Done
"The military and police are sometimes referred to as "the long arms of the law". Referred by whom? As it is now this uncited assertion-quote, it looks like weasel. Done
IMO in "Military and Police" Carl Schmitt deserves some mentioning, since he was the first theoritician who focused on the important of enforcement, and on the theory that the state is basically a machine of legal violence and enforcement (see his related theoris about the state of emergency and the distinction "friend and enemy" ("freund und feind")). But again this may be a personal preference.
I'm not sure if in "Bureaucracy" the reader gets the right idea; that for Weber bureaucracy is not a bad thing, but an institution necessary for a developped state; that it is another thing bureaucracy as an institution, and another thing bureaucracy as "red tape"; that the conception of bureaucracy in England or US is different from its conception in Germany, France, Greece etc. where the public administration is built on bureaucracy. Done
Reply thanks for all this. I'll do my best. A lot are really just a matter of reading the articles already cited, a few are tricky to get books on. (Weasel? The "long arm of the law" is from Dickens!) Wikidea10:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have updated the rating to A from B via the Assessment scales provided for: This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale. & This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration. Law has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale. If it was wrong for me to do this please revert and state your reason here. Previously instead of A it was B. --Parker00710:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm reluctant to rate as A-Class articles that have not gone through (at least!) GAC. If this article passes FAC, your rating will be of no importance; the article will be FA. If the article fails FAC, then it will be rated as A-Class, although it has never gone through GAC. So, you will have rated as A-Class a failed FAC, which will be neither officially recognized a good article!--Yannismarou10:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do you think if it gets to FA status, and is featured on the main page many anon editors with knowledge about law will chip in to improve all the sub articles, which has been given a brief mention in the Law article (i.e it states Main article above)? --Parker00711:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. But again my opinion is that the driving force of Wikipedia are not anon editors but "eponymous editors" like you and Wikidea who dedicate time in the project. And what appears in the main page must really be "our best", so as not to receive criticisms for the quality-level of our articles.--Yannismarou12:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can someone tell me, how do you use a template, and repeat it throughout the text but with different page numbers? I mean, I know how to go "ref name=xxx" and then a template, but you can't have different pages in each footnote when you do it that way. Wikidea11:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, stick something different to the right of "page ="? Oh, and which template is this? And are you trying to give references to different parts of the same document the same name? That just won't work (if that's what you're doing!).--Rmky8720:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another questionSorry, just the cite book reference template - I mean I don't want to keep having to write out the whole thing each time I refer to a different page; I was hoping that I could do the ref name=xxx thing; is that what you say I can't do??
Oppose because of poor structure. It's a very difficult, complex topic whose boundaries are hard to define, and the article does a good job of summarizing many of the areas of law. However, the opening two paragraphs are shockingly confusing, there should be a more general definition & history section at the beginning, and the all the legal branches should be discussed equally. With some work it could be featureable. Theonlyedge22:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply You aren't being clear - is it the structure or the introduction that doesn't suit your fancy? Which bit shockingly confuses you? If you read the article, especially down to philosophy of law, there's a very good reason for not doing a definition at the start. Everyone agrees about history improvements - but you haven't given any reason why it should go before legal subjects. Surely the substance is the most important thing first!Wikidea09:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Update: IMO it is not so important if history section is first or last. Wikidea has his arguments. The most important thing is comprehensiveness. I want to inform the other reviewers here that I have started some edits in the article (citing, rephrasing, formatting). I think that it is on the right track, and I would like to ask Raul not to close yet this nomination. I'll focus my attention now on the formatting of the citations (in some cases there is huge inconsistency). With the main work of Wikipedia, and my parallel minor edits, I hope that the article will soon be ready to make it through.--Yannismarou 11:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Reply. You are right, the history-location argument was nit-picky. But the article's intro remains very confusing, and the branches section comes as a bit of a shock because only a weak definition has been given at that point. Still oppose, Theonlyedge 22:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
Re:Reply. I rewrote the lead section, in order to serve better its role per WP:LEAD. Do you think it is still confusing? Can you be more clear about what should be changed in the branches section, so as to initiate improvements?--Yannismarou15:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object - its tone is far too chatty and it seems to be quite messy. I think it would be helpful if some parts of it were trimmed down and moved to the main articles. Some comments jumped out at me:
"But if the harm is criminalised, and the act is intentional, then criminal law ensures that the perpetrator is removed from society." This sentence implies that everyone who commits a crime goes to jail, which is obviously not true.
"Developed political parties, debating clubs, trade unions, impartial media, charities and perhaps even online encyclopedias are signs of a healthy civil society." I really dislike the link to Wikipedia here, it just smacks of a self-reference. In fact I dislike that entire sentence as a whole, especially as it has no reference. Who decides what makes a healthy society? You? Cites please. For the following sentence also: "A developed system of law is the strongest sign of a civil society, just as civil society is vital for the law itself."
Yes, me. Sorry, it was a joke for the end of the article, but I suppose a sense of humour doesn't belong there. It's changed. I'm glad you have no worries with the stuff in between! Wikidea05:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are just a few things I noticed that I thought were iffy. I don't have the time to go over it properly. I must say I'm surprised this has come up for FAC, after looking at the preceding discusson above and the amount of objections that have been raised. I don't think FAC is meant to be the same as peer review. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 16:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not, and that is what I pointed out from the first moment. But, at least, there is now an ongoing effort to make this article featurable; whether it will work or not is something we'll see. And, although many things are left to be done, if you compare the article that was submitted to FAC with this one, you'll find great steps towards the right direction. So, even if the FAC fails, the article earned something from this procedure. DOn't you think?--Yannismarou20:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm afraid Brittanica is WRONG with its definition of law - law isn't always binding; public international law isn't; it also says that the people need to accept law as binding, which is wrong as well if you're a positivist. Unfortunately, if one takes jurisprudence seriously, this is why we have so much debate in the philosophy of law; I'm putting back the composite definition - but I see the criticism in the intro's complexity from Theonlyedge. Can you suggest anything else?
Second, I'm not sure about the etymology and definition's section; I like Rousseau too; but he's a natural lawyer, and as you see he's saying "an unjust law is not a law" or lex injusta non est lex, as the very old saying goes; now this is bitterly contested by all the positivists since Bentham. The definition of law is the philosophy of law (or analytical jurisprudence). I know this is going to seem boring and obtuse, but it's important. If one doesn't try to deal with definitions, then the etymology looks a bit small for its own section.
Third, I'm just making a few of the photos smaller, and don't you think the opening photo looks better if bigger?
Fourth, I wanted the criminal law case, Dudley and Stephens in there as an example of how a case might spin out; it brings the section more to life by illustrating what can happen. I was going to put one into the trusts section too, because you raised it before.
Can I please stress to everyone else who is helping out, do not attempt to define law in a comprehensive way. The definition is the philosophy of law!!! Wikidea00:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidea, what was the problem with the "etymology and definition" section? And if you don't like the definition of Britannica, why did you have to revert the whole lead, as I rewrote it? You see that the lead is under attack by reviewers here, and I agree: it is really confusing. Yes, I suggest a most concise lead, with an one-sentence definition (yes, we need a "comprehensive definition" in the lead!), and a clearer distinction of branches and systems. As it is now, it is really a mess. (The prose in the lead gets uncyclopedic, just like the prose throughout the article, as it has been correctly mentioned above) More definitions of law can go to a seperate "Definitions and etymology" section as I wrote it. And what is the problem with Rousseau?! Of course, it is not an official definition of law. It is not even a stricto sensu definition. But this is a quite interesting short analysis with historical value. I know it may have "flaws", but all the definitions of law have flaws. Even those you mention No legal scholar has offered a satisfactory definition of law. And I added "Rousseau" not as "definition", but as a "quote". It is something parallel; it is something different; it offers what IMO and in other people's opinion constitutes the "human element", which is something very useful for a FA. But I'm afraid why are not there yet, are we?
And did you read one of the last criticisms: "I think it would be helpful if some parts of it were trimmed down and moved to the main articles." Why, on earth, should we have the whole criminal case here?! What matters is the reference of "necessity". For anything else, for more details, the reader can go to the case's article. This is the essence of WP:SS.
Public internation law is not binding?!! Huh?! I now realized what you wrote, and I'm a bit shocked! I strongly object that! Of course, it is. The fact that there may be no courts to impose it does not mean that it is not binding. International treaties, and decisions of UN security council under chapter 7 are binding. A non-binding international treaty is no international law treaty! The decisions of the Hague Court (not the criminal one, which is also binding) are binding! The decision of the international criminal courts are binding! If an internation treaty of decision is not binding, then it is no law! Even the UN human rights declaration is being regarded by some as "binding" through the theory of soft law. Thus, even the non-enforceable documents of international law are getting through soft law enforceable! Therefore, your objection for Britannica's definition does not stand. I had decided not to put it back, but now I'm convinced that you are wrong! It is back!--Yannismarou11:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't upset yourself. You're welcome to manipulate the definition of binding to fit into the Brittanica definition, but you'll find yourself at odds with most of the people who've thought about this longer than an FAC review. Do you mean international law is morally/politically binding do you? Does that mean something is legally binding when it's morally binding? Or does it have to be enforced in some way? In what sense is the decision of the ICJ binding when a nation state doesn't listen? Hmmm, doesn't sound very binding to me. I'd leave it to the philosophers if I were you. Wikidea12:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want you to mention me one state that has not followed ICJ rulings! I assure you there is none!! All ICJ rulings have been implemented by the involved parties. International law is binding, because it is legally binding! I don't know how to explain it to you! Whan two states sign an international treaty, they have a legal obligation to follow its provisions. It is not a moral obligation, it is not a political obligation; it is a legal obligation! When a state breaks its obligations and violates the Treaty, then it violates legal obligations. When a state violates the Geneva Treaty duuring a war, then it violates its legal obligations; and it may be held accountable to that by the Security Council-not for political violations, but for legal violations. Iran is now held legally responsible for violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Its signature to the Treaty entails legal obligations. If it had not signed it, the US wouldn't be able to initiate all these procedures against it.--Yannismarou14:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay maybe I was getting ahead of myself. I'm thinking of things like the UN resolutions against Israel that are ignored; or the ius cogens norms that go unheeded, you're probably right about the ICJ; I finally found all the jurisprudence books I've quoted, and Hart makes says it's "binding" - Raz is another one, he says "authoritatively binding" - I'm not a fan of these two, and saying "law is that which is legally/authoritatively binding" is pure tautology, but yes, they say binding; I'm wrong. But I think we can quote them rather than an encyclopedia quoting them. I found a good few sociology of law books too. You'll get all your refs. Wikidea09:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the change of place of legal systems, the reason it doesn't belong at the top is because when you start to learn law, you must grapple with the content of it. The people who I'm interested in reading this article are people who want to learn something about what law does, not which bit of the world they belong to. That's why it's important to start with subjects. I know a lot of editors looking at this will be more concerned with the form, the style, the use of reference templates and nice looking boxes with quotes. But that's not the way to get people to learn about law, and is why every university teaching law starts the same way as the article, with basic subjects. Wikidea12:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you don't see is that if you put the subjects first, you have to speak to the reader about the differences between common law and civil law in each branch, without having explained yet to him what are these systems! And, this is no university lecture. This is an encyclopedic article. Anyway, I disagree, but I had it your way, although, when you see that two other users are against your opinion, you may have to listen to them a bit.--Yannismarou14:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have added the Oxford Handbook, but I do not see its full data (ISBNS etc.) Rhodes is one of the editors; is he also the author of the part you quote?--Yannismarou13:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry yes, Ch. 19 called "Public Bureaucracies" is by Donald F. Kettl; and Ch. 8 called the "Development of Civil Society" is by Jose Harris - thought I put the isbn in - it's 0199275696, but I'm no good with the refs, and didn't know how to do chapters Wikidea09:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you keep some things from the changes in the lead?!!! You have the etymology at the end, with no connection with the rest of the paragraph. The etymology should go after the definition. Don't you see that? Definition and etymology are connected. And why don't you insist to have the legal subjects before the legal systems. Both me and Reswik say that the systems as more general should go before the subjects. I still believe this is the correct thing.--Yannismarou14:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that I've written excellent sections on legal systems (ha ha) but I still think it's better to start with the substance; I don't think people should be led to believe that the approach to law from one system or another alters vastly the outcomes in rules, because there's more in common than divides. Wikidea09:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following citations have citations with printed sources without mentioning pages: 1, 4, 5, 6, 34, 53, 93, 95 and 100. Even Hegel and Webel should be cited. A general reference of their books is not enough.--Yannismarou17:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I turn my vote to neutral for the time being; a lot of work has been done here by a lot of people (especially Wikedia - I also want to thank Robth for his immediate response to my request for prose help), and I think the article is too too close to FA status (and much better than many law articles in other encyclopedias - we have raised the standards too high here!). Some minor flaws do not justify an objection like now. I'll initiate some further improvements, and I think that I'll be able soon to give my full support to the article.--Yannismarou11:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Parker, you don't judge FA statuss by the number of references in the lead. Please, I know something more about FAs! I've nominated and promoted some of them myself. A huge work is under way right now, so as the article to be a proper FA. Please, respect that, and don't jump into rushy conclusions.--Yannismarou19:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At Yannis' request, I took a look through this over the past day or so and tweaked the phrasing in a few places where it was slightly unusual. I'm in no way knowledgeable about law, so I can't really speak to the content or the referencing of this article very much. What I can note is that I found the phrasing in the Civil Law and Trust and Equity sections to be ambiguous and confusing. I left some commented out questions in those sections, and would appreciate seeing them clarified. Other than that, this looks very good, and it's excellent to see a challenging "top-level" article like this brought up to such a high standard. --RobthTalk05:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The prose has been reworked and copyedited by Wikedia, Robth, and, in some sections, by Reswik.
I wikified and fixed all the citations and references, adding pages, data, and, where necessary, further sources. I also provided clarifications in the "Civil law" section, and trimmed "See also" section incorporating some links in the text.
After these developments, and the work of all the previous weeks, I can now say that this article definitely deserves FA status. Therefore, I change my vote, and, although I have become one of the contributors to this article, I think I can offer my enthusiastic support.--Yannismarou18:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. The effort put into this article while it has been on FAC has been phenomenal. This is now an extremely impressive article on a very difficult and complex subject, and it fully deserves FA status. —Cuiviénen02:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this page has overrun its time. Thanks to Yannis, this surely is the best referenced page there is! Make everyone happy, and declare it FA! Wikidea11:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I've tried to straighten out some of the use of "publisher" vs. "work" in sources using {{citeweb}}, but I'm not sure I've caught them all. Also, per WP:GTL, navigational templates belong at the bottom of the article; this article has an entire section (Jurisdictions) of navigational templates in the middle of the article (against WP:GTL, unsightly and distracting). A method or restructuring or rewriting to refer to navigational templates at the bottom of the article should be found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply*Sandy Georgia, I can see you like the WP:GTL rules, but you didn't respond to my comments above about why it isn't always appropriate to not put navigational templates in the middle of an article. Isn't the burden on you, in this case, to say why it's "unsightly and distracting"? The rules are suggestive, rather mandatory. And shouldn't you propose the way to be found, if you don't like it? I think the templates work well where they are. They're useful and informative, whereas if we shoved them to the page's bottom, they might not be. That said, I'm happy to hear your suggestions. Wikidea12:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self-nomination. The article on the legendary basketballer and the NBA's most successful player of all time is already a GA, and after going through peer review, reading the FAC and getting valuable help of guys like Quadzilla99, Myasuda, Chensiyuan and others, I want to go for the FA. The WikiProject NBA (WP:NBA) has atm zero FAs, and I would like to make a start. Thanks for reading. —Onomatopoeia08:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For now. There's almost no information about his early life. I once recall watching a documentary about Russell where it discussed the racism he experienced in Louisiana and later San Francisco and how those experiences made him the person he was. I think this article needs to expand its personal life section greatly and needs a few paragraphs about his childhood so that it can delve into just how fascinating and complex the man was. As it stands now, its just mostly an article about his basketball achievements. Warhol1314:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
to be sure, there is quite a bit on the non-NBA aspects in the article. yes, not a whole lot on the racism incident but well, if we can agree that is very important, then something has to be done about it. however, i do not think the documentary per se makes it very significant. we need to know why it warrants independent treatment within the article. thanks. Chensiyuan14:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was bringing to light that the article mentions nothing about the first 16 years about the mans life other than where he was born and that he moved to San Franciso. All childhoods are important to understaning who a person is and for Russell this seems to be especially so. Anyway, the documentary I'm referencing is "Sportcentury: Bill Russell" and I saw is on ESPN a few years ago. You might be able to catch is on ESPN Classic sometime. Warhol1316:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bill Russell had thirteen blocks in a game because goal tending was legal in college during that time (watch footage of those ncaa chamionship games). Rusell was important is this rule change as well as, along with Wilt Chamberlain, the rule change to extend the paint from 6 to 12 feet. I added this to the article but perhaps it could use work. Also, the "early years" section is coming along. I would like to see some discussion on what impact the racism had on him, perhaps a quote from him. I also know that he experienced racism in San Francisco, a place where his family felt it would get better. Warhol1320:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a good chunk of info on Russell as a victim of racial abuse, and added his quote that the racist abuse made him harder and how he worked that others saw him as a man first and a basketballer second. —Onomatopoeia12:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that getting your skin color registered officially is simply outrageous. But I have changed that. —Onomatopoeia 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Oops, I misread the article and removed that sentence. —Onomatopoeia15:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last picture has a very shaky free use rational. Also, the writing during his career could use some more work. I'll try to work on it some tomorrow. Thanks the three of you. I don't feel like the article is FA status yet but it could get there soon. Warhol1320:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please add WP:PDATA - make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), defense (A) (British: defence), offense (A) (British: offence), recognize (A) (British: recognise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), aging (A) (British: ageing), routing (A) (British: routeing). M3tal H3ad10:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose/moral supportSupport The research is solid, but the article could use more copy-editing. I think the intro (especially the second paragraph) could use some work, as it contains redundancies and non-parallel constructions. I'd love to see this on the main page, though, so I'll try to help out however I can. Zagalejo17:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I think those concerns have been addressed, could you be more specific as much as the prose has been rewritten in the last couple of days. Quadzilla9907:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have time to go into specifics. There are a few minor things to address (unnecessary or incorrect punctuation marks; passive voice; sentences that end with prepositions, etc.), but it looks like the copy-editing is progressing nicely. The article should be fine by the time it has reached the front page, so I'll vote support for now. Zagalejo16:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If anyone has any comments as to the prose please be specific so people can address your concerns. Just saying the prose is not good is not really an actionable objection. A lot of work has been done in recent days and the prose looks pretty solid. Thanks. Quadzilla9908:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article is comprehensive and well documented -- the difference between the article from early December of last year to where it stands now are like night and day. My only issue with the article at this time are some redundancies between second paragraphs of the "Awards and feats" and "Legacy" sections, but this is a minor point.Myasuda05:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Initially, I had the same reserves as Zagalejo, with regard to passive voice, and other minor grammatical complaints. Overall, however, I belive the article is well written, documented, and sourced. Zodiiak03:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Gracious me - a favourite of mine since I read Winston Churchill's account many years ago. I see that there was only one comment on the MilHist PR, from Kirill Lokshin. Given his importance, it is unfortunately that there was not a general PR to get other historians, etc, involved. Anyway, this is a very good article, but I have a few comments.
Some general points first:
I thought house style was to use straight quotes (' ' and " ") rather than curly ones (‘ ’ and “ ”)
It would be useful if someone gave this an end-to-end copyedit, to pick up the occasional infelicty in spelling, etc. I will try when I have time.
Some more specific points:
"Unlike his royalist mother-in-law, Winston had had the misfortune of fighting on the losing side of the war for which he, like so many other cavaliers, was forced to pay recompense" - his mother was a royalist, so unlike her he was a parliamentarian (and so on the winning side?) - or perhaps his mother supported Parliament?
"The old cavaliers had received recompense for losses incurred fighting parliament during the civil war, but Charles’ own penury meant they received scant reward" - who did they receive recompense from, if Charles could not afford it?
In my effort to keep the article down in size, I did some clumsy editing! The above should be clearer now.
Tangier in 1668 had only just become a British holding, part of the dowry of Catherine of Braganza. Why was a junior guardsman like Churchill sent there? Or has he already changed regiment? (was the system of purchasing rank already in existence?)
Not sure I understand your point Aloan.
Presuambly he was too insignificant to be mentioned in Pepys' diary?
Absolutely. He was just a teenager when Pepy's wrote his diary
Fn.8 - the second chapter of Urban's recent Generals repeats the Villiers story and the bread quote (probably from the same source). (And the previous chapter, George Monck, 1st Duke of Albemarle deserves to be a featured article too).
As stated in the article he was promoted to Captian to that Regiment from the Guards. Later 24th of foot. Not sure if that's the Buffs.
Given the otherwise extensive level of citaion, can you indicate where Miller and Churchill's Marlborough: His Life and Times are used?
For some unfathomable reason, another user added the Churchill reference to the list. I don't know why but its gone now (I'm sure his heart was in the right place). Miller was used as a reference, but it's true there are no direct citations from him.
Which French regiment did he command under Turenne?
No, not a French regiment. It says English regiment remaining in French service. I think the regiment was a composite one with a detachment from the Admiralty Regiment.
The explanation of the "Camaret Bay letter" (i.e. the failed Attack on Brest) could be clearer.
Blenhim passes in a flash (as do the later battles). Urban goes to some detail explaining how unusual it was for the British Army to march into the bowels of the continent to fight away from the support of the Royal Navy. The column contained a large component of non-British forces (a typical British strategy, given its small army - get others to do the fighting for you - see Wellington in the Peninsular and at Waterloo). Marlborough somehow pursuading the Dutch States-General to let him take their forces away from the Netherlands was also a coup, the force also moved exceptionally quickly due to Marlborough's planning, and to defeat the mighty French in pitched battle was almost unimaginable.
Please explain Non Plus Ultra.
I've added a 'see map' and explained in the notes in more detail.
There really ought to be more about Blenheim Palace, the commissioning of Vanbrugh, and problems in securing the funding to finish it. An image would be nice.
Thanks all for your comments and thank you Aloan. The reason I didn't enter into detail about the battles and Blenheim Place etc was to keep the article down to a readable length. I had to include his personal life (how can you not include his nagging wife); the political as well as the military aspects. Therefore to balance these concernes meant sacrificing military detail. I also thought that these battles will have their own articles anyway (as does Blenheim palace) so I only gave a brief overview. I may have got the balance wrong, however.Raymond Palmer21:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. I am going to reply down here:
There is no need to avoid redlinks - that is how we know where there are gaps in our coverage.
Re Tangier - I was wondering what a guardsman was doing there - was it a typical posting? Was he on a special mission?
The Buffs were briefly the 4th (The Lord High Admiral's) Regiment, and later the 3rd Regiment of Foot. The 24th Regiment of Foot were the 2nd Warwickshire, and later South Wales Borderers.
Perhaps the unused references are suitable "Further reading"?
Sorry, I had the impression that he was commanding a French regiment, not a British one in French service. I would be slightly surprised if it were a composite regiment - can you check?
This is a massive topic, and you have done a good job, but there are areas where more could be added - including the battles and architecture.
I have copyedited - lots of fiddling but generally excellent, and a few more redlinks, but not excessively so. A couple of further things - his progeny are mentioned several times (younger son Charles; daughter Elizabeth, Countess of Bridgwater; daughter Anne, Countess of Sunderland) - should there be a list of his issue, and their marriages (if any)? Should there be a mention of the French antipathy to "Malbrouke". -- ALoan(Talk)19:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a list of his legitimate children at Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough. The Duke's article mentions the death of his younger son in 1692, while he is in the Tower, but presumably the death of his elder son and heir, John - erstwhile Master of the Horse in fn.59 - in February 1702/3 must have been a crushing blow, having been made a Duke just a few months before in December 1702, and his wife now aged over 40.[19] It seems he also died of smallpox, while at Kings College, Cambridge.[20] The patents for his new titles were amended to allow his daughters to inherit. -- ALoan(Talk)16:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
WeakSupport — Overall it's good; a nice, summary-style article on the system. But I'm still of the opinion that too much text is spent on the outer planetary bodies Pluto and Eris. (Compare, for example, to the meager single paragraph spent on Jupiter, which is a far more important planet in terms of the system's evolution.) Still I can live with that. However I would like to see the lead section include a definition of "solar", which is currently only mentioned down in the "Extrasolar systems" section. — RJH (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revised. Pluto is longer mainly because of the uncertainty over Charon's status. The issue of "Solar" is still not settled; there is, at the moment, no officially sanctioned generic term for "solar system", and in truth I would prefer if that paragraph in extrasolar systems wasn't there. Serendipodous20:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Considering the scope of the topic, I find this a very impressive article -- it seems to cover things in reasonable depth without being overly lengthy, instead pointing toward appropriate daughter articles. Nicely referenced, too. Shimeru20:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Serendipodous has done a great job revising (and re-revising) this article, and it really shows. One issue, though - removing the subsection headings makes it a LOT harder to find information quickly, and (IMHO) weakens the layout. I think it would be better to explore other options for reducing the size of the TOC. --Ckatzchatspy20:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The two illustrations in "Planets, dwarf planets, and small solar system bodies" are redundant. Also, including the astronomical symbols in the intro is distracting. They should be moved to their respective planet sections. Kaldari00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about the use of astronomical symbols in the lead. They should stay, but maybe Ceres doesn't need an astronomical symbol in the lead.-BiancaOfHell05:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The astronomical symbols cause a problem in my browser window; the line-wrapping separates the paren from the symbol. I don't know how this can be fixed. --Ideogram08:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It was great to read an up-to-date article on the Solar system. I have one suggestion, that a Main article be listed under the section 'Layout and structure' that would detail how you yourself, as a citizen of the planet, can observe and verify certain facts about the solar system by looking up at the sky. There must be small articles all over Wikipedia that make up such an article. It's one of the first things a person will want to do after they've read this article. What can I see when I look up at the sky? What kind of proofs can I make about the solar system by looking up at the sky. It doesn't have to be complete, but a beginning for others to finish. Overall, this article is a really important contribution to Wikipedia.-BiancaOfHell06:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the first sentence, couldn't you use another word than "retinue"? Until five minutes ago, I had no idea that word existed. I know this isn't the Simple English Wikipedia, but I think I am not the only one who would have to reach for a dictionary. Thanks, Pruneautalk01:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word seems quite suitable to me. I'd hate to see Wikipedia have a requirement for all articles to use words that everybody knows. Reading these pages can present a good opportunity to expand your vocabulary. :-) — RJH (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object This article is not well organized and contains digressions into details of lesser importance. Examples:
2006 IAU decision on Pluto does not belong in the lead.
Duplicated information about Kepler's laws ("Layout and structure" section, paras 4 and 5).
Final para of "Layout and structure" section seems to exist only to counter a "common misconception".
"Formation" section, Stardust/Comet Wild 2 para is excessive detail.
"Sun" section, "The vast majority of stars are dim red dwarfs ..." excessive detail of limited relevance.
Overall there is a lot of repetition and there needs to be more focus on important areas instead of keeping everything interesting that was contributed to the article. It also needs a good copyedit but that can come later. --Ideogram08:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No links except "Solar System" should be bolded. This is clearly the result of copying and pasting from daughter articles. --Ideogram13:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further thoughts: I would keep the overall structure of the article tightly bound to the physical structure of the Solar System. "Galactic context" needs to be abbreviated. The discussion of "Extrasolar systems" seems tangential. The history of "Discovery and exploration" belongs in another article. "Planets, dwarf planets, and small solar system bodies" consists of definitions and does not deserve its own section. --Ideogram08:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed most of your specific objections, though I'm iffy on the irrellevance of the Red Dwarf mention; a grand statement like "stars dimmer than the Sun are common" could do with some backup, though it doesn't necessarily need it. I wouldn't mind seeing the final paragraph in Layout and Structure shortened or merged with another paragraph, but some mention of the increasing distances between the planets should be retained. As regards your more general objections, "Extrasolar systems" could probably be shortened and merged with "Galactic context," but some mention on how recent extrasolar discoveries reflect on our own solar system should remain, I think. I myself have debated removing the "Discovery and exploration" section, and, to my surprise, those who responded said no. The "Planets, Dwarf Planets and Small Solar system bodies" section was the end result of a compromise following a particularly bitter and protracted edit war. Actually, "stalemate" is a better word; the guy never conceded defeat, and I am certain that were that section removed, a similar edit war would start up again. If you feel this article doesn't need it, that's OK with me, but I'm not touching it with a ten foot pole :-) Serendipodous11:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that it's necessary to even say "stars dimmer than the Sun are common". The comments on how extrasolar systems reflect on our own are too tenuous and speculative; as the text itself notes, they could just be a sampling error. I realize the "Discovery and exploration" question is really a content dispute, but I feel very strongly that the history of exploration of the Solar System does not belong here. I don't see any problem with mentioning the definition of "Planets, dwarf planets, and small solar system bodies", I just think it makes no sense to put it in its own section. Good work so far. --Ideogram11:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A question for Ideogram: why do you feel so strongly about removing the exploration section? Is it the length of the section, or the fact it is there that bothers you? It would seem to me that a natural part of presenting what we know about the Solar System would include outlining how we figured it out. --Ckatzchatspy18:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I simply don't agree that what we know belongs with how we figured it out. The subject of an article needs to be summarizable in one sentence, without the use of "and". The structure of the Solar System and how we figured it out does not qualify. These are two subjects; "The structure of the Solar System", and "How we figured out the structure of the Solar System". --Ideogram20:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that debating the structure of an article gets in the way of the best writing being done by an individual. Serendipodous has written an excellent article, and if some of his writing is moved off into other articles it's still an individual effort. There are some things committees are better at doing, like determining structure, and other work best left largely to individuals such as the writing. All that has to be done is highlight the articles that explain how the layout of the Solar System was discovered. Those articles could do with a lot more depth to begin with. -BiancaOfHell13:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I would say the overall structure is the most important thing that needs to be done by an individual. A house without an architect is just a pile of bricks; an article without someone in charge of structure is just a pile of facts. --Ideogram13:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what overall structure? The overall structure of Wikipedia, the overall structure of the topic, the subject, the article? It's all debatable, but the individual/committee make their best contributions at different places and in different time frames. Often an article will start off as a haphazard collection of facts gathered over years, and then one individual will come in and write it up proper.-BiancaOfHell13:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdenting) The overall structure of an article. This level is critical, since the primary interaction at Wikipedia is one person reading one article. I absolutely agree with you that many people can contribute in different ways; for instance I hate chasing down references and prefer to let other people do it. There is nothing wrong with an article evolving through time, starting as a pile of facts and then having a structure imposed by someone coming along later. --Ideogram13:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your responses are revealing and touch on one of the deepest problems facing Wikipedia, to wit:
The best writing cannot be done by committee.
There must be one person responsible for maintaining a consistent POV. Including various bits of text that different people wanted is not going to cut it. Elsewhere I have noted that Wikipedia favors articles on minor and obscure topics, because they can be written by one person who doesn't have to fight with a bunch of editors for consensus.
Since you have tackled an important topic you may not be able to impose a consistent POV. But if you cannot do that your article will never qualify as good writing. This may be the best that Wikipedia can do. But I cannot support it. I do not have a solution for you.
The problem is, as I see it (if we are to debate the philosophy behind the wiki concept) that if I were to take the suggestions you offer on board, then by definition I would be acceding to your vision of how the article should be, and thus handing control over to other users. I cannot simply grant this article featured status on my own, and whatever ultimately emerges (hopefully) with a gold star on it will be the result of consensus. If I were to stand up for my "vision" of this article, many things you desire, such as the removal of Extrasolar systems and Discovery and Exploration, would occur, but many other things, such as the removal of the paragraph on relative distances, would not. Some definition of Dwarf planet vs. planet should occur in the article, and if not in that section I am not sure where it could go. Removing the line about stars dimmer than the Sun would essentially invalidate the entire section and render redundant any and all references to the HR diagram. Serendipodous16:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not bringing up these issues to force you to accede to my vision. At this point I am arguing about process and not content. If I raise an objection, and you say, "well person X wanted it that way and I can't edit-war with him", or "I can't go against consensus on this" your answers are based on limitations of the Wiki process and not what is best for the article. If you say "this does not go with my vision of the article" we can discuss what your vision is and I have a chance to change your vision, while implicitly accepting that it is your vision to define. --Ideogram20:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I compared the two, and Ideogram's version is more immediate. The depth is left to the sister articles, and for this article that might be the best way to do it. There will probably be a lot of traffic to this article by all reader levels and cutting off excesses seems like the right thing to do in this situation. Some of those other articles attached to this article should go up for FA as well.-BiancaOfHell13:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only one major flaw with Ideogram's concept that I can see. It is against Wiki policy for introductory paragraphs to be labelled "Introduction". This does raise a number of issues, as the intro covers a wide range of topics and there would need to be a more specific title that covers them all. I think the best thing to do would be to merge the two paragraphs under "Introduction" with the main heading, and make the two subsections their own sections. Serendipodous16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked up with the admins; the "Wikipedia:Lead section" article is maddeningly vague, but I left a question for an editor and he specified that it was lead sections labelled "Introduction" that are disallowed; subsequent sections labelled "Introduction" are apparently fine. Serendipodous20:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to disagree here; Ideogram's version is more streamlined but less comprehensive than Serendipodous' version. I think the summary overview of discovery and exploration is, in fact, necessary to a comprehensive article, and I'm not sure I could support Ideogram's version as an FA in its absence for that reason. There may indeed be a need to improve other, more specific articles about those topics, but that's no reason to omit the information from the main article about the solar system. It would be like cutting the "History" section from the Earth article -- of course the main article can't contain all of it, but containing none of it leaves a blatant gap in the article's coverage. The galactic context I'm less certain of, but I don't think it hurts the article, so I tend to lean toward inclusion there, as well. Shimeru19:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "History" section of Earth is about the history of the Earth not the history of its discovery and exploration. We already have a corresponding section in Solar System, "Formation". BTW could you please not mark every edit as "minor"? Typically a minor edit is one that corrects spelling or grammar without adding new content. --Ideogram20:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a sentence is a pretty minor edit, but here you are: this one isn't marked minor. On the topic at hand... I'm not certain whether I'm utterly failing to convey my point, or whether those trees are obstructing your view of the forest, but allow me to rephrase without the example: Comprehensiveness is an FA quality. This is not, I believe, contested. You appear to feel (please correct me if I'm wrong) that an article is comprehensive if it covers one aspect of its topic in depth, and leaves other aspects entirely to subarticles. I feel that an article is comprehensive if it addresses all major aspects of its topic. In the case of this particular article, that would include a brief discussion of how our concept of the solar system evolved. I don't understand what concern motivates the suggestion that this information should be completely excised from the article -- is it the article length? Shimeru 11:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC) (*sigh* I lied. Edit conflict rechecked the minor edit box. Sorry. Shimeru11:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
A quick glance at your contributions shows you mark almost every edit as minor. In my version, the brief discussion of how our concept of the Solar System evolved is in the Introduction section. We don't have a whole section describing the "Discovery and exploration" of the Earth in Earth and we don't need it here.
If you want to produce an outline of what major topics you feel a comprehensive overview should cover, I would be very interested to see it. At that point we could fill in the outline with balanced coverage of all those topics. However, that is clearly not how this article evolved; people wrote pieces on individual topics they considered interesting and stitched them together. The result looks like Frankenstein. --Ideogram12:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at the table of contents. "Sun", "Asteroid belt", "Comets", "Discovery and exploration". Which of the above do not belong? If all these topics are of equal importance, then they should be explored to equal depth, for instance the top level sections could be "Formation", "Physical structure", "Discovery and exploration", and hopefully some others. The fact that the table of contents is so unbalanced implies that they are not all of equal importance, which leads to the question of why the left arm is ten times bigger than the right. --Ideogram13:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(reset indent) Most of my edits are minor, from my perspective. Copy editing, tagging, commenting in discussions. I generally use major edit only for, well, major changes or additions, or for nominations for deletion, which would constitute a major change if successful. You are correct -- we don't have a whole section describing the "Discovery and exploration" of Earth. That article is also not a FA. (But I note that all of our planetary articles except for Earth do have such a subsection. Chose a bad example, I suppose.) As for the ToC, I think I disagree with your underlying premise -- the existing ToC is more or less as I would have it. I might attempt to move "Formation" to before "Structure" for chronological reasons, but I think there's also a good argument for the current placement. "Formation" could also potentially be moved near the end, before "Galactic context" or "Exploration", although I personally think it's more aesthetically placed near the beginning. Most of the structure seems logically fixed to me, though -- define the terminology, overview the layout, then begin discussion with the sun and move outward. Shimeru20:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possible. My apologies, then, but the fact is: I do not see anything wrong with the current structure. I don't understand where your objections are coming from. I suspect it's simply a case of conflicting wikiphilosophies. In any case, I'm not sure the discussion is helping with the FA at this point; perhaps it would be better to continue it on my talk page, or yours? Shimeru21:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Galileo's telescope.jpg - Who took this photo and where did it come from; clearly the telescope is old, but there is no source of copyright information for the photo?
I've made some revisions which hopefully meet Ideogram's objections half way. I've created a "Terminology" section and moved it to the top; I've also deleted the Extrasolar systems section and merged Galactic context. I've removed hypothetical planets (it's all just copied from another article anyway) and created a section called "Boundaries" which combines its intro with the former intro to "Farthest regions", which I have deleted, in favour of giving each region its own section. I'll leave any more substantial revisions until disputes are resolved. Serendipodous14:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support current revision, haven't looked at original. One comment- article has a redlink in the Oort Cloud section, galactic tides. Needs to be linked to an article that describes it, as it's a technical term. --PresN07:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am generally satisfied with this organization, the section "Galactic context" flows naturally from the structure of describing the Solar System from the inside outwards. It still needs a good copyedit but I am holding off on that until the remaining major question about "Discovery and exploration" is settled. --Ideogram15:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really don't like the astronomical symbols in the lead. You do realize they don't resize when the user tries to change the text size in his browser? --Ideogram06:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit done. I am pleased to change my vote to Support. One more note: this is just a personal preference, but I prefer not to specify the size of images explicitly; this allows users to use the thumbnail size they specified in their preferences. --Ideogram08:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I was able to assuage your concerns. :-) I have only two issues with your copyedit; the elimination of the definitions of perihelion and aphelion (the words are used later in the article and we shouldn't expect a reader new to astronomy to understand them) and the removal of the line describing the heliosphere as a bubble. Admittedly, "bubble" isn't the best description, since the heliosphere isn't an empty space surrounded by a membrane, but there might be a better description. Serendipodous12:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the definitions to Terminology. I think the heliosphere can remain as is for now, at least until I come up with a better analogy. Serendipodous19:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt, but I didn't want to be presumptuous. Besides, waiting a little longer resulted in some more good feedback. — RJH (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Apologies if I put this in the wrong section, the subheadings have me confused - feel free to move it to the right one. Understandable, comprehensive, thoroughly cited. Nitpicks:
Can you add something like "we live on Earth" somewhere? Yes, it's probably obvious, but also rather important. You may want to tie it to the perhaps less obvious note why things planet size or AU are measured in comparison to Earth.
"All planets in the solar system have now been visited to varying degrees by spacecraft launched from Earth, the last being Neptune in 1989." "The last" bothers me - if you are referring to Voyager 2, just above, then say so, if not say that and provide a link. Or just leave out "the last" and everything after that in that sentence.
Pluto ... ; this changed in 2006 with the adoption of a formal definition of "planet". - needs a Wikilink, we surely have an article on that. It's recent and important. --AnonEMouse(squeak)18:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the first to the subsection on Earth, unsurprisingly enough. I don't think why any distances or sizes are measured with respect to Earth belongs in a Solar System article though; there are astronomical distances and planet articles for that. Spiral Wave11:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's a wee bit irrellevant perhaps but it does have a certain poetic/philosophical value :-) As regards Earth-based units, the only ones I'm aware of are Earth masses for planets and the astronomical unit. Earth masses isn't really an official unit; it's only really practical for measuring the other eight planets in the Solar System. Extrasolar planets and brown dwarfs are usually measured in jovian masses, while stars are usually measured in solar masses. You might argue that, due to our intuitive familiarity with the objects in our Solar System, their values are often used as standard units for extrasolar objects such as planets and stars. Serendipodous11:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Parsecs are also Earth-based, but again, I don't think there's any value having them in the article. I suppose I could see a case for AU at a push, slid into the Earth section in a similar way, but the article should be about what's there, not our arcane units derived from it. As for humans, I wasn't sure if you could see how to slide it in smoothly. Feel free to rip it back out. Spiral Wave12:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not directly, but perhaps indirectly. A parsec is the point at which a star's parallax is equal to one arcsecond, and you could argue that, since a star's parallax is determined by the distance from the Earth to the Sun, it is derived from the AU, but not in the way that, say, the kilometre is derived from the metre. Serendipodous13:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just meant that it was yet another measurement derived from Earth orbit. Rather than worry about where to draw the line, and since the connections are tenuous, I reckon it's easier not to have any of them in, s'all. Spiral Wave14:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know! I have been tarting up parsec over the last couple of days! No, the parsec is not an SI derived unit, like the newton or the farad, but the definition of the parsec is driven by the AU - the parallax angle for an Earth-bound observer is defined by reference to a baseline of one AU, and, as you say, the parsec is defined by refernce to the parallax angle. An object at a distance of one parsec would have a different parallax on another planet, because its orbit around the Sun would be greater or smaller than 1 AU. (Either that, or you would have to redefine the parsec.) -- ALoan(Talk)14:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't meaning to be patronising, I was just saying it's yet another unit that could go in, but there seems to be little point. So, do we all agree? And if so, why are we arguing? ;) Spiral Wave14:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't even aware we were arguing. Apologies if either of you took anything I wrote the wrong way; it can be difficult to get your point across online. Serendipodous15:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
(Self-nom) I found this article when it was in a bad way [21] and rewrote it. It has since had 2 peer reviews; 1 and 2, the second not providing much which I hope is good. The only criteria I'm hesitant about is 1a. Note: it's written with British spelling. James086Talk09:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say that "the MC12 qualifies as a super car, meeting all criteria" - yet the Super car article says: "The proper application of this term is subjective and disputed, especially among enthusiasts. In addition, the use of the term is dependent on the era; a vehicle that is considered to be a supercar at one time may not retain its superiority in the future." I agree with what Super car says - there is no set of criteria you can apply to say that this car is or is not a supercar (note arguments about the Arial Atom for example - it equals or beats most supercars in most technical regards but isn't regarded as one because its styling isn't like other supercars and it doesn't cost millions of dollars). Personally, I believe that the term is inherently non-encyclopeadic and that we should delete all references to the term 'super car' in all of our articles (except the Super car article itself). But at the very least, you shouldn't say that the car meets criteria when there are no widely recognised criteria to meet. Aside from that this is a good article - I think the English majors here may have something to say about punctuation - but I'm not in a well-qualified position to complain about that! SteveBaker17:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will change it today, I'm in a bit of a hurry now so I won't be able to do it immediately (real-life beckons) but will come back later and alter it. Thanks for commenting. James086Talk23:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice job with the re-write. I did a bit of cleanup today: I changed the ambiguous damper wikilink to point to the shock absorber article (but kept damper visible, since the article is written in British style.) There were redundant links to carbon fibre, radio, down force, and clutch that I took out. I also removed a wikilink to leather, which I found too generic word to merit a link from this particular article, and dropped a wikilink to power (physics) which is an extremely technical article, with formulas galore; it just didn't seem like a good fit for the general audience of the car article. I also added three race location links for Imola, Motopark Oschersleben and Dubai Autodrome.
My biggest complaint is the opening sentence:
The Maserati MC12 is a super car produced by Maserati as a road car (for homologation) from which they developed a FIA GT Championship racing variant.
I'm a 49 year old, reasonably well-read and educated American, and I've never heard the word homologation in my life. Maybe in Europe it's more familiar, or well-known among avid racing fans, but I don't think that a lead sentence should have a word that in all likelihood could be unfamiliar to many readers. The word is also wikilinked twice in the article, but I left the redundant link in because I figure readers like myself may need to re-check the word for its meaning. After looking it up, I guess a more-familiar (to me, anyway) term that is equivalent would be street legal, but I'm not sure I'm right about that! Feel free to leave the word in, but I felt I had to comment about it. - Itsfullofstars18:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should I rewoword it into something along the lines of
The Maserati MC12 is a sports car produced by Maserati as a road car to homologate (meet entry criteria) a FIA GT Championship racing variant.
Homologation doesn't mean anything like street legal. It means something like: When you want to race a really special hand-built kind of race car in certain race events, you are obliged to show that not only is this a 'street legal' car - but also that it's somewhat mass-produced and is sold as street car. So in order to get this car into the race events they wanted it to compete in, they had to make and sell enough of them to the general public. The rules for how many you have to sell - and how similar they are to the car you are planning to race are the homologation rules for that event. I very much doubt there is another word that means the same thing - I'm hard pressed to think of even a shortish phrase that means that. But street legal doesn't cut it. To give you a concrete example, the Mini Cooper'S that won the Monte Carlo rally in 1966 was definitely street legal - but because it had different headlamp dimming circuits from the version they sold to the general public, it failed the homologation test and was disqualified. I think the word has to stay - I don't approve to 'talking down' to our readership...but maybe I'd reorganise the introduction section to move that information down into the second or third paragraph so that the first paragraph is more approachable. SteveBaker23:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the homologation info into the 3rd paragraph (I agree that it needs to be included, but the first sentence should be clearer) and changed "supercar" to "grand tourer" because that's what Maserati calls it officially. Heres the diff: [22]. James086Talk09:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the changes. After reading the further comments here, I can absolutely agree that homologation is the proper word and needed to be kept, but its new location outside the lead sentence is a big improvement. It's better not to have a possible 'huh?' factor in the lead paragraph. In retrospect, my mentioning of 'street legal' is embarrassing, but hey, at least I learned a new word. - Itsfullofstars18:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WHAT?! Someone learned something by reading Wikipedia? OMG - Quick...call the media! Short-sell your Encyclopedia Britannica stock! :-) SteveBaker23:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What else can I say, very well written, support to keep the term homlogation in as people should know what this term means, if not get to know it, it could be useful for you! Willirennen00:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well written, well researched. (Someday, I'm going to toss the word Homologation into a conversation to impress my friends, but I worry I may not pronounce it right.) Itsfullofstars20:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ObjectAbstain - I do like the content and structure of the article, but I have to agree with the nominator: the prose is not up to par yet. There are many grammatical and punctuational errors present, which should be corrected first. Find a good copyeditor and thoroughly cleanse the article. Thanks. --Plek20:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being fashionably late. I intended to create a list of all the things I thought needed copyediting, but ended up making the edits myself. As I'm not a stellar copyeditor (I usually have no problem spotting the mishaps, but my corrections are not always the best possible), you might want to look through the diff to see if I messed things up somewhere. Changing vote to abstain. --Plek00:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only one minor wording change [23], saying that the figures are lower implies it accelerates faster. It is hard to describe in one sentence but I think it is important to keep in there. Thanks for copyediting and improving the article :) James086Talk08:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the TOC is a bit bloated. Also is there any information on how commercially successful the car has been, I couldn't spot it.--Peta00:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly thanks for the comments, all suggestions are great. There were only 50 cars made, as it was produced to meet the entry criteria for the FIA GT. Also they probably limited the the number produced to make it seem prestigous. Maserati approached customers that they selected and offered it to them for €600 000. Commercial success isn't really something that applies to this car, especially since you couldn't request to buy it. You shrunk the TOC a bit, should it be reduced any more? I might be able to work some of the specification sections together if need be. James086Talk07:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
As writer of this article, I believe (and hope) it adheres to the featured article criteria. Two things I should mention before you assess it. First, I am aware that it might not follow the proper naming conventions (cyclone shouldn't be capitalized in the article), but the tropical cyclone Wikiproject is currently discussing our naming conventions, so if you object because of the title, could you wait until we finish discussing, or could you possibly give your imput? Secondly, as a notice, the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject has a standard that references are excluded from the lede, and in the body of the article they are used at the end of every block- that is, block A is three sentences long, and ends with ref A. Any comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Before I support this article I would like to see it reviewed by some Sri Lankan editors. I have left a message on Lahiru k's talk page asking him to address the following:
Did the cyclone have a native name in Sinhala or Tamil?
Is there a corresponding article in either the Sinhala or Tamil Wikipedias?
Are there any POV issues due to a lack of local sources?
Oppose Some of the language is confusing, particularly...
"Though the cyclone struck areas under control by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, there are no damage reports exist for those regions." - Are there no damage reports because the storm's effect was weaker in these areas? Is the lack of damage reports linked to a lack of cooperation from the Tigers?
"By about a month after the cyclone, the Red Cross distributed 10 sheets of roof to 1,720 families..." - I believe "roofing sheets" (per the text of the cited source) or "roofing material" may make more sense here.
Also, I'd like to see an image of the aftermath of the storm to tell the human side of the story. Having just satellite imagery makes it a little too impersonal. Caknuck19:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I got those two problems. I tried finding a damage picture, but as there was no well-accepted international name or significant international interest in the storm, I couldn't find any damage pics, let alone any fair use or PD ones. Are there any other objections? Hurricanehink (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably there's no Tamil or Sinhalese article; neither the Tamil nor Sinhalese Wikipedias are very large, so that should be no surprise, and the cyclone was not especially devastating. (Even the 1970 Bhola cyclone only has a very short article in Bengali.) —Cuiviénen02:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, it's a good article, and I would definitely support for GA status, but there just isn't enough here to be a featured article. I'm sure not much more can be written on the topic, and I know that length is not a specific requirement, but FA's are supposed to be examples of our very best work. I think more comprehensive topics better serve this end. --Mus Musculus03:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right. What I'm trying to convey is that I think FA's should be topics on which more can be written. But I realize now that this isn't the place to try to change the standard. --Mus Musculus04:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as the only pending issue, the check by regional editors, didn't bring any issues to the surface, and I cannot identify any either. Titoxd(?!?)04:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
This 18th-century thief was executed at the age of 22, but he became a working-class hero as a result of his repeated escapes from prison in 1723 and 1724. The case became a cause célèbre, and contributed to the ultimate fall from grace of the villainous Jonathan Wild (please also read Geogre's excellent featured article on him).
ObjectSupport I'd love to support this article, as it is very well-written and tells a fascinating story, but the almost-exclusive reliance on one source is just too much. Were you not able to track down the other sources that you mentioned at peer review? I might be able to help you get hold of them if it would be useful. Also, have you looked for Defoe's "History of the Remarkable Life of John Sheppard"?
Your citations could use a little work. You need full references for "The London Hanged," for "The Road to Tyburn" and for the source that you cite from Project Gutenberg. They also should be listed in the references as well as in the notes.
I only found one phrase that I question, the description of Sheppard's "syncopated liberation." While it sounds nice, the meaning is less clear. MLilburne18:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OBJECT. I agree with MLilburne's comments that more sources need to be used to reference this article. The reliance on one source makes this article not a comprehensive treatment (in terms of addressing all the available coverage). It is a remarkably well-written article, and if it were better sourced, I'd gladly support it. —ExplorerCDT00:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I did not add the "syncopated liberation" passage - I have tweaked the wording a little.
On citations, I am afraid I am not sure what you mean by "full reference". I have added an ISBN for "The London Hanged". What else should I add for "The Road to Tyburn", or for the links to Project Gutenberg sources (more links than sources, actually)?
On sources, I said "largely based on" not "derived solely from". The bones of the article were based on work by Geogre derived from Howson and the DNB, although without inline citations; I have augmented it from Moore and other sources, for which inline citations have been added to the article. Inevitably, a recent work like Moore's synthesises the early body of knowledge, although half it is on Wild; I am not aware of recent non-fiction works specifically on Sheppard. I do mention some other potential sources in the peer review: the 2002 article would be nice, but I don't have access to an academic library; Hibbert's book would also be nice, but it dates from 1957 and I have not located a copy. The Newgate Calendar was already mentioned as an external link, but I have added some more specific citations. Tell me if you know of a source that should be included - even better, find one and add some notes (please!). -- ALoan(Talk)12:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can get at Victorian Studies, so I've sent you a copy of the 2002 article, ALoan. (For me to pass on a copy to you, and for you to discuss it on Wikipedia, is a perfectly kosher use of my access, as far as I can make out.) I thought about adding some information from it and notes about it to the article, but... er... hrm... you do it. Bishonen | talk13:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
By "full references," I mean what is specified here: WP:CITE#Full_citations. Personally I find the use of citation templates helpful (WP:CITET), but they're not required. For the footnotes you can use a shorter form (personally I use last name of author, short title and page number, but this is personal practice rather than a rule). Either way, "The Road to Tyburn," "The London Hanged" and any other source that you cite should be listed in full in the references.
Well, I think the sources are perfectly identifiable from the current information (don't I already have "name of the author, the title of the book or article, and the date of publication"?) Can I appeal to a citation guru like to help me out here if anything further is required. -- ALoan(Talk)14:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, you have several sources that aren't listed under "References" (as opposed to in foonotes under "Notes") at all. I might be able to help you with that later, but it doesn't seem like it should be all that difficult... MLilburne15:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right - I thought you were complaining about the absence of "full references". The sources listed in the "References" section are the only ones that I have used - I don't think it would be right to include the others, which is why they are only noted. I was just trying to be helpful by putting some additional information in the footnotes. -- ALoan(Talk)17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should include all the sources that the article cites, whether you used them or not. And ideally, you should really track them down. I'm still getting the feeling that the article really isn't comprehensive enough. MLilburne18:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't think it would be right to call a source a "reference" when it has not been used to generate or support the contents of the article. For example, the article says that Sheppard's story was written about in The Road to Tyburn by Christopher Hibbert in 1957, with a footnote giving the ISBN of a 2001 reprint. I think it is entirely right that I give enough information for the interested reader to find the book themselves, but I have not used that work as a source so it should not be included in the "References". Ditto, I have not viewed either of the silent movies, or the Tommy Steele film version, despite linking to IMDb pages on all of them, nor Stephenson's recent novels, nor Ainsworth's serialised novelisation from 1839, nor Montcreiff's melodrama from 1825. And, to be honest, I am not convinced that I need to. Having found a copies, I will read Defoe's account and Ainsworths version (I suspect the latter will be useless as a source on the actual Sheppard, by the way) and see if they add anything, but I suspect that the secondary sources I have used already are better able to judge what is worth mentioning than my own reading of a primary source. As for comprehensiveness, what do you think is missing? -- ALoan(Talk)19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The section is called "References," not "Sources," so it seems to me that any book, article or website referenced in the footnotes has contributed enough to the article to be included in that section. It would help the reader look the book up if it was listed in the usual place, in the usual format. To tell you the truth, the way you've listed it now just looks odd.
As for comprehensiveness, what do I think is missing? Well, we've established that the article replies almost exclusively on one source, but that there are a lot of other sources available. These include: 1) the 2002 Victorian Studies article, 2) Linebaugh, who might have more to say, 3) Hibbert, 4) Defoe, 5) Ainsworth, 6) a rather interesting discussion of Sheppard's role in the so-called "Newgate novels," which I've just found here, and 7) any of the rather impressive list of sources cited therein. You're right in saying that Defoe and Ainsworth are useless as reliable sources for Sheppard's actual life, but they are very relevant to the "Legacy" section. While it's incorrect to draw conclusions based on primary sources, they do provide excellent illustrations for an article, and I'm sure that the Defoe, at least, would provide some pithy quotes. MLilburne20:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[← Returning to the left margin]
I am sorry: I still disagree - I don't think every work mentioned in passing in the footnotes needs to be added as a reference. Would you rather that I removed the footnotes that include helpful information, such as links to Gutenberg versions, IMDb articles and ISBNs for items mentioned in the article? I repeat - they are not references: they are just pointers for additional information. As for articles that use a similar style, how about Dürer's Rhinoceros (now brought to you in featured versions in German and Spanish, and a FAC in French).
Thanks for the additional article: it was interesting. It is more about the reaction to Ainsworth's work as a melodrama/Newgate novel (a juicy redlink for someone, there) than about Sheppard per se, but I will add some extra sentences to the "Legacy" section in due course. The article provided by Bishonen will also help in this regard (it is also more about the reaction to the fictionalised account in Ainsworth's novel than the facts of the historical person). I would not want to give undue weight to later fiction based around the life of the real Jack Sheppard. (How much about Shakespeare's Richard III would you exect in an article about the King?)
To repeat: the article does not rely "almost exclusively on one source" - it is fundamentally based on two very good sources, substantially augmented from a third, plus snippets from a few others. I have read the Defoe "History", which does not add much to the article as it stands (understandably, as the secondary sources will already have used it); the "Narrative" may be more interesting (if anyone can point me to a version; again, I expect the sources already cited will have taken it fully into account). I may read Ainsworth for interest, but I doubt it is going to add much more. I don't have copies of Linebaugh or Hibbert, and don't see that they are essential - do you really think they are going to add anything material to the article as it stands? Finally, there are already a number of illustrations. What more would you like to see pictured? -- ALoan(Talk)11:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I follow the same practice as ALoan and don't repeat in the references all the books cited in the notes. There are subtle reasons for that which are difficult to put into words for someone without the feel for it. However, I believe MLilburne's objections might be met easily enough by the addition of a "Further Reading" section beneath the References section, in which could be listed books etc. mentioned (or even unmentioned) in the article that do not appear in the References list.--qp10qp13:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have added some snippets from Defoe's History and added it as a reference. I could not find too many juicy quotes, and I am sure he made up the reported speech anyway, but what he said people said is at least verifiable. Linebaugh has gone in as a reference (I'm sure the anon read him even though I have not). Hibbert has gone in as "further reading" - Geogre will add some references in due course I hope, and I will expand legacy a little when I have time in the next few days. -- ALoan(Talk)15:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly get behind the idea of a "Further Reading" section. Should Howson be listed in Further Reading rather than References? It doesn't seem to be cited in the article.
I'll be keeping an eye on the article over the next few days, as some of my concerns have been addressed, but I'd like to see how it develops before striking my objection. MLilburne14:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Geogre's parts came from Howson, even if there are no inline citations, so it ought to be in "References", I think. Some Victoriana should be added today, when I have time. -- ALoan(Talk)12:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent article, and best read I've had in a while. It must be fun writing sentences like "Sheppard was arrested a third time at Blueskin's mother's brandy shop in Rosemary Lane on 23 July by Wild's henchman, Quilt Arnold". I don't see any problem with the sourcing: about a small subject like this, the facts are finite, and I doubt any significant extra ones would be unearthed from sources other than Sheppard's recent biographer.
Linebaugh's views are peculiarly odious; if we must have them, may they not be buried among the clinker at the bottom instead of obtruding where they do?
By the way, it is mentioned Hogarth could have remembered Sheppard in Industry and Idleness, but is that not our boy a-dangle upstage in the sheet illustrated here? --qp10qp17:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Linebaugh's views were inserted by an anon here. I don't care much whether they stay or go, although it is an interesting alternative view. -- ALoan(Talk)17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that they should stay, as they are relevant whether one agrees with them or not. Just one point: the citation should be at the end of the paragraph on Linebaugh, not right after his name. MLilburne18:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Linebaugh is ... making a point, as it were. I agree/d that the view should stay. The anon originally had a good deal more, as I recall, and we needed to trim it some. My problem is that, as a New Historicist, he's a reactive analysis, and I hate handing people strong readings (Harold Bloom's term for antagonistic/analytic/"deconstructive" readings) before they have the basic reading under their belts, and I always figure our first task is to lay down the dull first principles. Geogre11:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the inevitable prose nitpick or two:
Is it possible to break up the "arrests and escapes" section with a subheading or two for navigability?
In the lead it says his arrests "were part of the downfall" of Jonathan Wild, but with no specifics; though this is explained in Wild's article, it could use a bit more explanation here.
"a ban, at least in London, on licensing any plays" - slightly confused, for two reasons. 1) Is it not clear from the source whether the ban extended outside London? 2) Forgive my ignorance, but what does it mean to "license" a play? (Also - this same phrase is repeated in the legacy section.)
"...but then began to be led astray" - not much dispute that he was astray, but the phrase still sounds moralizing.
Lead says "little more than a year" of his apprenticeship left, but the early life section says he served five out of the seven years, and the arrests section says he had "less than two years" left. These aren't necessarily inconsistent, but the descriptions are a little sloppy.
In the paragraph about Linebaugh, Foucault's "Great Confinement" is mentioned - if this is going to be referenced here, it could use a bit more description, though it gets a little fleshing out in Foucault's article. Having only a stereotyped set of mental associations with Foucault, I wasn't sure if the term was referring to actually putting people in jail or to some sort of foggy sociological phenomenon that happened to get that label.
"Wild and Field gave evidence against him at the Old Bailey" - "Old Bailey courthouse"? Some context is useful for the clicking-impaired.
"also preventing a plan to take his body to a doctor to be revived." - a bit confused again; even if it took him a long time to die, why would anyone plan to revive him in the middle of his execution? Opabinia regalis03:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I have looked at your nitpicks and made some changes which I hope deal with them. I am not sure if the subheads are quite right; it is not entirely clear (to me, at least) whether there was a ban outside London (plays required a licence from the Lord Chamberlain until the Theatres Act 1968); and the dates are reasonbly clear, I hope (indenture for 7 years in April 1717; off the rails in late 1722/early 1723 - more than 5 years in, less than 2 to go; first crime in Spring 1723, little more than a year to go; left his master in August 1723. I may be falling foul of New Style/Old Style issues, of course). Further comments welcome. -- ALoan(Talk)12:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the subheads, though I won't cry if you take them out again; even with the images, that section is a very long block of text without them, and scrolls on for several screenfuls at low resolution. But making them consistently nouns (not "arrested and escaped twice") would read more cleanly. The dates themselves seem internally consistent; it's just the text estimates that sound a bit odd (just reading the text without keeping the specific dates in mind, it's not clear whether "less than two years" is a rephrasing of "little more than a year", or meant to refer to a larger gap of time). I'm still not clear on why there was a plan to take him to the doctor; was that normally done when someone took a long time to die during an execution? Or was it an attempted concession to the crowd? Lastly, one minor question: is "Edgworth Bess" really spelled without the second 'e'? Opabinia regalis03:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support and I apologize for being virtually vanished as this process has been underway. I have Road to Tyburn and Albion's Fatal Tree and others, so I can provide full MLA citations easily enough. The only difficult to cite sections are the ones about later usages of the Sheppard story. It's really shadowy, which plays ran when and for how long and didn't run, etc., and especially the film probjects. I will go through and try to add/note/support what's there presently. This article is a companion to the well-loved Jonathan Wild article, and I originally got involved only because what had been present had been wrong and come from some wide-eyed sources. Geogre11:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object - the narrow range of sources is worrying. Is it not possible to cite from contemporary newspaper articles, published legal proceedings etc for this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PocklingtonDan (talk • contribs) 14:24, 1 February 2007
But the primary sources have been recycled by the secondary sources, so Moore would have effectively cited and covered them. Wikipedia articles in general rely on good secondary sources, not primary ones. However, this is an easy objection to meet, and I could quite easily sprinkle some quotes from contemporary newspapers and pamphlets into the article and plump out the references, if you like, though it wouldn't alter the substance. I'll have a go at doing such a thing later on today, if ALoan doesn't mind, since I'd be upset if this article failed FA on counts of window dressing. qp10qp15:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, was away again unexpectedly. Thanks for adding some more choice quotes. The article is based on sources which are themselves based on the primary sources anyway (Defoe's "History" and "Narrative" and the newspaper account, already linked, for example). -- ALoan(Talk)12:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no real need for the additions, of course, because the secondary sources already covered the primary sources. It's just rearranging the deckchairs, and opening a few out. I've been enjoying myself, though; the History is a lovely read, is it not? And Linebaugh is much better than I expected from the garbled, pretentious version of his views we had here. I'd be surprised if the article failed to make FA: it seems to me admirably reliable for the documented events (I challenge anyone to read one of the primary sources and find anything in it that substantially contradicts the present account). Very well done. qp10qp18:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blush, well, thanks. I would not bet my pension on 100% accuracy (particularly given the nature of some of the original sources) but I trust the ensemble is reasonably reliable. The sermon is at the end of the first external link too, by the way [24] ("mount the chimney of hope, take from hence the bar of good resolution, break through the stone wall of despair and all the strong holds in the dark entry of the valley of the shadow of death ... fix the blanket of faith with the spike of the church; let yourselves down to the turner's house of resignation and descend the stairs of humility"(!)) . -- ALoan(Talk)19:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I quoted the extract through Mackay and removed the word "pulpit" because he suggests the sermon was remembered from a street preacher. I don't know if Mackay was right, or if there were other sermons (the plural may here stand for the exemplary singular). I've no idea how official the street preachers were in those days; these days they strike me as decidedly manic. qp10qp15:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a really good article on a fairly obscure subject. It doesn't surprise me that it leans heavily on one or two secondary sources. That can't be avoided with some subjects. Well done. — Brian (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought I'd supported a couple of days ago with exactly the sentiment Brian expressed above, but I obviously wandered off after hitting "Preview", sorry. Yomanganitalk12:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing other than to wait--sometimes it takes me a little while to make up my mind! I've switched to support now. It's an excellent article, and everyone who's worked on it has done a great job. I hope there are no hard feelings as a result of my original opposition... I think it's improved by leaps and bounds since it was nominated. MLilburne10:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely - thanks :) No, no hard feelings - I agree that the article has improved substantially since it was nominated, which is largely due to contributions by other supporters here, for which also my thanks. -- ALoan(Talk)11:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional; if you'll expand your websources (IMDB and Trial summary) to reflect full biblio info—including last access date— I'll support. Also, wondering why you reduced size on Notes twice—to pick on people with poor eyesight? <grin> Would you mind just replacing all of that "stuff" in Notes with {{reflist|2}}, which accomplishes the double column, single size reduction more efficiently? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re references, I just usually add <references/> - I am not too concerned at how is displays as long as the information is there - but have switched to {{reflist|2}} on your suggestion. I have also switched to the {{imdb title}} template and added "retrieved" dates - better? -- ALoan(Talk)11:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't usually !vote on FACs, but I stumbled across this article and was impressed by its quality, then spotted the link on the discussion page. Seems to be an excellent piece of work. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)03:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self nom, with help from numerous IPs watching my back on spelling. Article tells quite a sad story, though it's enlivened by insightful commentry from Joe Boyd, Drake's sister Gabrielle, and a few others. Previous nom here, withdrawn at my request until I tought it ready. I think it ready now, though I might live to regret this. + Ceoil23:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -great article which qualifies all criteria. I think it qualifies WRT teh hardest which is good and exciting prose. The only minor point is in the lead's last sentence: "...within one month Drake had sold more records than he had in the previous thirty" - maybe replacing thirty with 2½ years? Cas Liber00:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. It's generally very good, but the prose could do with some work. Examples from just looking at the lead and first subsection:
Drake's primary instrument was the guitar, but he was also proficient at piano, clarinet, and saxophone. - the second half doesn't contradict the first so "but" isn't really necessary.
Inconsistent use of "though" and "although"; I'd stick to the latter throughout.
However, none sold more than five thousand copies... - again, this isn't a contradiction of anything before. The fact he recorded albums doesn't imply that they sold well.
mid 1970s - I think this should have a hyphen.
of 'doomed romantic' musician - is "doomed romantic" a direct quote from somewhere? It should have double-quotes at any rate.
had all previously attended - I think previously is implied.
He developed an interest in sport, became an accomplished sprinter, and was captain of the school's rugby team for a period - bit messy, and not really suited to a triad as the first part leads on to the second two. Better would be "He developed an interest in sport, becoming an accomplished sprinter and captain of the school's rugby team for a period".
Drake played piano in the school orchestra, and also learned clarinet and saxophone - "also" is redundant as it's not being used additively. Also a bit vague: did he learn clarinet and saxophone in school; if not, why is it being linked to the school orchestra?
- This is very helpful feedback, I've taken care of most of your specific comments, weeding out similar issues later in the text. The words 'though' and 'although' are overused throughout, replacing with synonyms. + Ceoil21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few more points, but being interested in the subject I'm gonna run through it myself (with the added advantage that I only have myself to blame for any remaining mistakes); I've done half, and I'll finish when I'm more awake. Out of interest, is there a particular reason for the American spelling? I don't mind; it just seemed slightly odd for an article on an English artist. Trebor22:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Irish myself, if US spelling has slipped in, blame microsoft's spell checker! I would appreciate if you could help on the prose, nice work so far. + Ceoil22:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, I'll change it. Because when I said I didn't mind, I of course meant I loathe American spelling with a passion as an awful bastardisation of our fair tongue...or something similar. I must get a CD by this guy sometime, he sounds great. Trebor22:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With a pinch of salt, I have this linked on my user page. I have no problem with the US, their spelling, or whatever' just like the comment, so typical of the rotten Sun. + Ceoil23:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:D Brilliant! Anyway, I should probably try to stay on topic. Will finish my editing (and then almost certainly support) tomorrow; poke me if I forget. Trebor23:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, this is a fine article, but it still needs a little bit more tweaking. For example, in the intro: "...his reluctance to perform live or to be interviewed contributed to his lack of commercial success" is quite clunky. The middle 'to' isn't needed, and it could probably be reworded even more tightly.
In the early life section, we learn that his father worked for the East India Trading Company. This currently redirects to the British East India Company, an organisation that was dismantled long before Drake was born. An obvious error. A citation is needed to establish what job his father actually did. It would be a good to know what his mother did as well, particularly as she seems to have been an influence on Drake. I would suggest dropping the 'colonial', and changing the 'immigrated' to the more neutral 'moved'.--Nydas(Talk)12:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Nydas, have neutralised and corrected that section. There's some nice detail in the sources re their romance (eg Rodney was 9 years older, and had to wait until she turned 21 before her parents would let them marry), but maybe that would be straying a bit. Molly was an influence; she wrote songs herself, and both her voice and the mood of her pieces are remarkably similar to her son's work. I'll add that. + Ceoil21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (haven't read the article yet) - very nice referencing work, Ceoil. Can you please make the appendices at the bottom of the article conform with WP:GTL? I believe Wikiquotes belongs in External links, and the Resources heading is extraneous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A generally well and clearly written, researched, and referenced article on (allow me to be frank) one of the best songwriters and guitarists—his voice wasn't bad, either—I've ever heard. A thousand bravos, Ceoil, for your excellent work. —Saposcat10:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment, very nice - I did see one statement that looks speculative ("may") and could use attribution ("may" according to whom) and a cite:
Two miles down the canyon is Penasco Blanco ("White Bluff"), an arc-shaped compound built atop the canyon's southern rim in five distinct stages between 900 AD and 1125 AD. A cliff painting (the "Supernova Platograph") nearby may record the sighting of a supernova in July of 1054 AD.
and a few missing retrieval dates on websources in References.
Also, a runthrough for diacritics and ñ might be order (for example, I get an "ouch" when reading Peñasco as Penasco - two very different pronunciations). I'm not sure if Wikipedia addresses this anywhere in WP:MOS; if it doesn't we should. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sandy. Thanks for the critique. I uploaded some changes per your comments ([25]). Even after looking through this, I was unable to find guidance regarding diacritics; at any rate, I agree that we should use them in the Spanish terms here. Thanks. Saravask01:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reason, except to use available space give readers extra views of Chaco. I've done the same thing in several other FA's I've written. Saravask19:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Comment. I'm close to support. Here are some observations:
Am surprised at the lack of a section on flora and fauna.
I find a slight over-use of semicolons: e.g. "Chaco Canyon experiences four distinct season; rainfall is most likely between July and September; May and June are the driest months."
I believe the equivalency between "Ancestral Puebloan" and "Anasazi" should be made earlier than the last section (Usage).
The information in the last major section (Ruins) seems to come too late. As an example, the article refers to "kiva" eleven times before the thorough treatment of "kiva" in the last section. As one of the most interesting aspects of the park, I think it should come earlier.
A good, interesting, article. (I am going to make some minor edits now, which I mention lest someone see my name in the history and think I'm "associated" with the article.) –Outriggr§04:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. See this ([26]). I don't agree with point four (see a question of mine and this response), though I'm willing to discuss it further. I also need to get more comments on the quality of writing—e.g., is it turgid and boring? Do semicolons contribute to this? Other areas in need of improvement? These are not rhetorical questions. Thanks. Saravask19:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find the prose to be compelling and the current use of semicolons to be appropriate.
I don't care for some uses of passive voice, such as "The sites are considered sacred ancestral homelands of the Hopi, Navajo, and Pueblo people..." Considered by whom? Also, "The ruins of Chaco Canyon were first written about by...", etc.
I believe "Geology" and "Climate" should be subheadings of "Geography" - see Chicago, Washington, D.C., etc.
I'm not crazy about "Excavation and protection" being organized under History. The archaeological and anthropological issues should probably be in their own section. History, to me, should be the history of the sites' use when they were populated.
Thanks for the comments. I need to think about some of your suggestions for a day or two before implementing them. Most of your advice sounds good, though, and I'll be making the improvements soon. Thanks. Saravask00:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've added cites for the "The sites are considered ..." statement and recast the second sentence in active voice. Unfortunately, I disagree with your proposed rearrangement of sections: I think it's important to keep all history-related content under the same heading, and AFAIK that is how most geo FAs do it. Regarding "Geology" and "Climate", I think it's a matter of individual preference, not hard rules. As a comparable example, see Antarctica and Yellowstone National Park. Other than that, I'll try to hunt down more passive-voice sentences. Thanks for the input. Saravask19:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This article is beautifully illustrated, interesting, and informs people of a priceless public resource. The only problem I can see is that the article currently does not address the modern-day operations of the national park - hours, usage fees, budget, number of visitors and so on. In one sense this is irrelevant to what it is, a piece of history, but in the other sense it is relevant to what it is, a national historical park. If you think it belongs, add it; otherwise, it still looks good to me. Mike Serfas04:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We have a sister project with a nice article on travel details related to Chaco. I don't think we should replicate their content, and if you have current info on fares, hours, etc., that is the place to add it. In the infobox, we do list the number of visitors. Thanks for your comments. Saravask19:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is no section on the management of the park; this appears in several of the other featured US parks. Any reason for the omission? --Peta03:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self nomination First time nominating this article. It's currently rated at GA status and has gone through a peer review. I feel that it is comprehensive on the subject & accurate. I'll be happy to answer questions or address any issues. Gopher backer03:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you move the picture of the train so it's under the info box? It's just that it squashes the text and pictures generally shouldn't be put on the left. Also avoid using contractions like: aren't, doesn't spell it 'does not', and when doing conversions, use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb. M3tal H3ad06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Thanks, I think I took care of everything (let me know if I missed any). There are a couple gray areas where I would like some clarification though... In the chart, I left the titles spelled out as Fahrenheit and Celsius since I'm defening what's being listed, and for some units of measurement I left it in the full form when there was not a number in front of it. i.e. - "snow cover of greater than an inch". Is that correct, or should it be changed to in as well? Gopher backer13:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't even think the weather navbox belongs in the article, since the Climate of Minnesota article isn't part of the series on weather. I decided to be bold and remove the infobox, and to move the picture of the train. Also, the fall picture at Lebanon Hills Regional Park has some odd color fringing on the trees on the left and right. I probably have a fall picture that I can contribute. --Elkman - (Elkspeak)16:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: No problem, thanks for pointing that out. When I added that particular item I'd searched all around for different infoboxes on weather and that's the only thing I could find that was even remotely close so I just threw it in there. There are ongoing discussions at WikiProject Meteorology to create info boxes specifically for "Climate of Place" articles but to my knowledge none have actually been finished yet. Gopher backer17:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The wikitables on the right were in contact with text to their left so I added margin-left. There may be a better margin rule for these cases and feel free to revert if it didn't help. -Susanlesch02:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What jumped out at me was the lack of anything about Minnesota weather in culture. Hear me out, the Midwest is known and portrayed for its weather extremes, particularly the long winters, and Minnesota is really seen as the most extreme in terms of Climate. I recall the makers of the film Fargo describing Minnesota as "Siberia with family restaurants" [28], and that movie was probably the most famous modern depiction of Minnesota culture, and the climate played a big role in it. I just think that if this is going to be a well-rounded article, it should go beyond just scientific nuts and bolts and put what all of this means in context. In this particular article, that means explaining that the climate of Minnesota contributes to the state's reputation as a cold, bleak place at times with hardy residents. I'm not supporting or opposing, because I don't like to thrust such a writing assignment on someone, but to me all this article is really lacking for featured status is such coverage, even if it's just 2-3 paragraphs. --W.marsh22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We actually discussed something like this at one point... It was brought up a while ago was whether to include ice in/out dates because Minnesota is known for ice fishing. This is something that we ended up leaving out because it was was less of a meteorlogical issue as opposed to a Minnesota culture thing. If we included that, then we should also include other things like fall colors, Saint Paul Winter Carnival, its ice castles, etc. And then there are industries based on winter that are huge in Minnesota, like making hockey sticks, snowmobiles and snow throwers. In thinking about it at the time it seemed that could grow into enough where we could end up with a seperate article just on that topic. I'm not totally opposed to doing something along these lines though so I'd be curious to hear what other have to say. Gopher backer22:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is a fine line and easy to drift off topic here, but for me an interesting aspect of this specific topic (the climate of Minnesota) is how it is one of the things people most closely associate with the state, non-residents at least. I just think the article should communicate this to constitute "our best coverage" of this topic, right now it doesn't seem to do that. Just my two cents though. --W.marsh22:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Initially, I was going to comment that the lead section is too long, but it might be appropriate given the length of the article. Excellent article, comprehensive and a good read. --Mus Musculus04:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak object The "In popular culture" has nothing to do with popular culture. "Minnesota winters have produced skiers who have competed in the Winter Olympics(Who? Any medal wins?), pioneers who invented the snowmobile(Who?), The state is also known for enthusiastic ice hockey players, both at the amateur and professional levels(again what professional players?) This sentence is randomly added in "Summer sports are also popular" also what type of summer sports. The In popular culture makes no references to films, tv, radio, games and books basically what popular culture is, it tells us some famous sport stars, a palace that was built, "King Boreas", some people commenting on the climate. I suggest renaming the section or merging it with the rest of the article, first would be more suitable. M3tal H3ad08:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've added some information on movies and T.V. specifically that should improve this to make it fit better under the heading. As for the rest of your reply, I think it gets back to the issue of what we were discussing above... How much information and detail of this type should be included in an article on climate? We could get really in-depth and address all your concerns, but by the time we do that it seems as if we're on our way to writing Culture of Minnesota instead. Thoughts? Gopher backer19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self-nomination: I believe this article to be a complete biography of Aaron Sorkin's life. My goal was to chronicle his rise as a Screenwriter and to figure out how to write the life of a Screenwriter at Wikipedia. I believe if Aaron Sorkin's article reaches featured article status it will be the first featured article about a Screenwriter. A definite plus for Wikipedia. This article is also a part of the nascent Screenwriters Wikiproject.
Anyways, please help by vetting what I've done. Experimental sections such as 'Writing style and habits' could be debated. I think the section is important but how it's done could use a discussion. It will set a precedent for other articles about Screenwriters (such as the David Mamet article).-BiancaOfHell07:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the whole it looks like a very good article, and seems comprehensive and well-referenced. I personally like the 'Writing style and habits' section. There are, however, a few problems with writing style. Just taking a look at the lead:
"In the late 1990s he began his television career starting with the creation of the television series Sports Night for the ABC network that ran for two seasons from 1998-2000." Run-on sentence.
The revision is still a run-on: "In 1998 he began his television career, creating the television series Sports Night for the ABC network, running for two seasons". MLilburne08:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"His most recent feature film screenplay is Charlie Wilson's War with the film set to open in theaters on Christmas day 2007." Not sure about the use of "with the film" to connect the clauses.
"He has had his personal problems, battling cocaine addiction for many years and is currently clean." The tenses are a bit confused here. "and is currently clean" seems tacked-on to the end of the sentence.
Redid sentences, to clarify that he sought treatment and recuperated. You're right, badly worded and it's hard to say he is clean without the results of a recent drug test.-BiancaOfHell19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried "recovered" and "rehabilitated" but one sounds like he's fine now (and addictions normally continue to nag addicts for life?) and the other sounds like he was a prisoner. What do you think of "sought treatment, and rid himself of the dependence". I could specify "drug dependence" but I think it's implied.-BiancaOfHell10:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I see you cited the "he is currently clean." sentence. I hate that one too. I really can't prove that he hasn't been secretly using drugs, or had relapses hidden from the media. Does it require a conspiratorial sounding sentence like "He has remained clean as far as the media know?" Any ideas? Basically, he went to rehab, got better, and never had any press on the matter since.-BiancaOfHell10:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"often hogging the writing credit". "hogging" doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic in tone.
Nope, it doesn't but does the new 'He is known for being an overly controlling writer, reluctant to share the writing credit with his staff.' sound any better?-BiancaOfHell19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't got time to read through the rest of the article, but you might see whether you can find someone to take a look at the prose. MLilburne11:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
QUESTION: Should I be consistent in my use of theater/theatre, and which one should I use? Does this escalate to an issue of using either British or American verbiage, cuz I don't even know myself whether I prefer 'ize' or 'ise'.-BiancaOfHell22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll correct as such. Which means using 'theater' and correct usage of 'ize'. I'll get back to you when this change has been made.-BiancaOfHell23:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DONE. I changed all "theatre" mentions to "theater" and have been generally using American language, because the Firefox 2 spell checker corrects as such. So that is all good. BUT, I now wonder if perhaps European theaters such as the Abbey and the Theater Royal Haymarket should use "theatre" because it is a place name and not American but UK. Though in all these instances both versions are used interchangeably. American theaters would stay "theater". Does this matter? Probably, best to stick to "theater", huh?-BiancaOfHell00:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saved you the trouble - I've changed the word "theater" to "theatre" where appropriate. (As it turns out, several of the New York places use "re".) --Ckatzchatspy07:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. That link muddies the debate a little saying that 'Theatre tends to refer to the art, theater to the building' leading me to ask the question if 'theatre' shouldn't be used as well when mentioning his studies and his parents bringing him to the theater at an early age. What do you think?-BiancaOfHell07:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bianca - your last response is correct. In correct terminology "re" refers to the art of live theatrical performance, "er" refers to the physical structure. This is very confused by constant misuse of both spellings. However, if you'd like to be technically correct - both spellings should be used.LACameraman06:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what I'm going to do is leave the place names the way they are as corrected by Ckatz, and use "theater" in movie theater, and "theatre" for the art of live theatrical performance.-BiancaOfHell06:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get on this, though I'm not aware of any. Could you point to maybe one source and I'll follow up from there. Generally he has been lauded for his writing style, both dialogue and plot elements are quite original. But certainly I want this criticism in there. So if you can lead me to some of the source of this criticism. Maybe an episode in particular?-BiancaOfHell23:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I put in the criticism prior to Studio 60's days. I don't want to go where all the Studio 60 criticism is going, cuz it's early, and those detractors are mainly attacking the show, and not Sorkin's long writing history. End of season 1 could be a whole different story. So check out what I did. And because I do lean pro-Sorkin it would be great to have another voice take part in that section.-BiancaOfHell00:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the "lack of criticism" has been wholly rectified. Thank you for pointing it out. I would appreciate it if you could strike out your opposition.-BiancaOfHell12:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
QUESTION: Is the West Wing section good? Should I elaborate or leave that to the actual West Wing TV series article? I doubt people want to see too much on The West Wing but that's my opinion. Others thoughts most welcome. Thanks for the help so far.-BiancaOfHell01:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
QUESTION: Does the first section after the lead section sound too "dead"? It's factual, but isn't brilliant prose, yet is it acceptable?-BiancaOfHell02:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the presumably limited amount of material that's available about his early life, I don't think that taking a purely factual approach is really problematic. It's hard to write brilliant prose when you have so little material to go on. I detected a few little writing glitches here too, although some of them may be personal preference.
It seems more encyclopedic to say "mother" and "father" rather than "mom" and "dad"
"Before he was even a teenager..." This reads oddly. I would say either "Even before he was a teenager..." or just "Before he was a teenager, his parents started taking him..."
Okay, I too found that sentence odd, and I couldn't quite fix it, but I think I got it now. This sounds crisper:"He grew up with an older sister and brother who both went on to become lawyers.[4] Sorkin's interests were in acting. When he was young, before he even reached his teen years, his parents habitually took him to the theater to see shows such as Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. He didn't always comprehend the plot of the plays but he enjoyed the sound of the dialogue."-BiancaOfHell09:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...although he didn't understand the plot points he enjoyed the sound of dialogue." This is perfectly grammatical but I had to think about it when reading because it's a rather odd statement. Also having looked at the reference, I think the phrasing parallels the source a little too closely. So you should rephrase it. MLilburne08:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is basically summed up in one sentence from the article. If I reword it too much it could take on another meaning. I think I generally bettered the Early years section, but let me know. It would be great if there was more information on his early years but there really isn't. The Yahoo contributed biography is anonymous so I'm reluctant to trust it, but it has some interesting information (hard to believe though) about what he did as an actor while at Syracuse University. A top-pyramid acrobat for Carnival. As I said, hard to believe. I've been cross-checking facts I take from it (and discussed a bit of this in the Sorkin discussion page). Okay, thanks for the review. Let me know what you think of the changes.-BiancaOfHell09:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking a bit better. I may take a stab at improving the prose myself, if that's all right. I wouldn't worry too much about the thinness of the information on his early years. I got Glynn Lunney through the FAC process with even less info in that part of the article. It's all in how you make it flow. MLilburne13:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the copyedit. Yeah, if there isn't much to say about his early years then there's nothing that can be done about it. I see that Glynn Lunney has even less on his early years than the Sorkin article, but it starts off well and grabs you. That's kind of what I meant by the first section sounding "dead". Currently in the Talk page there's a discussion about including a new section in Controversy about Sorkin's fan interaction, but other than that the article is settling down.-BiancaOfHell23:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COPYEDIT QUESTION: I have many instances in the article where I'll write "In 2004, this happened..." but I sometimes write it as "In 2004 this happened..." without the comma. Should there be a comma after, or not?-BiancaOfHell10:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - will consider supporting if these are remediedSupport, editor made good faith effort to remedy my concerns, although we don't agree on the FU images. --Mus Musculus00:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are way too many fair use images in the article. The article should include a free photo of him, not a screen capture or other fair use image. The use of movie posters in this article are probably stretching the bounds of fair use - they are not necessary to illustrate anything about Sorkin.
The only fair use image I personally chose was the A Few Good Men the stageplay one. All the others have been chosen by other users (and most recently by user Bwith and I believe quite competently). If another user could help out here it would be a great help because I don't know much about fair use images.-BiancaOfHell22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, it doesn't really matter who put them there. According to the FA criteria, all images have to have acceptable copyright status. If you read WP:FU, it clearly states that using copyrighted images (the photo of Sorkin) when it is possible to find a free alternative (which it is since he is alive) is unacceptable. For the movie posters and such, their Fair Use rationales only allow them to be used where it is necessary to illustrate them. That means their respective articles, not other articles that link to it. Those should all be removed. --Mus Musculus22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The photo of Sorkin is a snapshot of a TV show. It falls under that fair use rationale. All the movie posters are for his biggest movies, with his greatest involvement, and fall into the fair use rationale. The use of the images follows the fair use rationale. There is no overuse of images and as I said someone far more familiar with fair use rationale added them. I haven't found a free use image (if that's what it's called) and Sorkin is known as a bit of a dictator over taking pictures of him, demanding picture approval at all times and a free use image has yet to be found. All the images stand.-BiancaOfHell23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't agree. You won't convince me that the images in this article are acceptable under WP:FU, so I will continue to oppose on those grounds. --Mus Musculus17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gave WP:FU a close read. Heavy stuff. As far as I can tell all the images meet the fair use rationale. There are no free use pictures of Sorkin, or the West Wing, or Sports Night, or Studio 60, so the only choice is fair use. These articles are already used in other articles on his works at Wikipedia. There is no excessive use of the images. They do not negate the product value of the image, and in fact aid the product value of the image (you know what I mean). All these images are essential to the article, and do not have equivalents out there. After all Sorkin's works are his products, so having images of his most important works, those that changed the course of his life, is a necessity. If I were to stalk Sorkin and snap a few photos would that be legal? Would those photos be considered free use after I licensed them? Lastly, all these images are promotional images, and I'm sure NBC or whomever owns them would happily have them on display. They help me, Wikipedia, Sorkin, and all other players involved. It's a win-win situation.-BiancaOfHell19:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is unpolished in many places, using awkward constructions and tense disagreement. I would recommend a thorough copyedit by an uninvolved editor. --Mus Musculus16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many users have already copyedited the article so far to help improve it. Could you give one or two examples of some of the prose that has problems?-BiancaOfHell22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are many sentences where the object is unclear because of the construction of the sentence. For example, "He found his passion in writing plays however, which established him as a young, promising playwright." What established him? His passion? His plays? Both?
I myself have done this to other people's lead sections. You can nitpick everything to pieces and get into a frame of mind where a sentence sounds weird. That sentence was a copyedit, and I get it, it works.-BiancaOfHell23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are also many long awkward sentences with multiple phrases that really should be at least two distinct sentences, such as, "He has had his personal problems, battling cocaine addiction for many years, but sought treatment and rid himself of the dependence." and "In television, Sorkin is known as an overcontrolling writer, who rarely shares the job of penning the teleplays with his writing staff, who are more likely to do research and come up with stories for him to tell." Those are just from the lead section. So, it needs more editing to make it the "compelling" or "brilliant" prose required for FA status. --Mus Musculus22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those sentences sum up perfectly what is later on discussed. The lead section has been fiddled with by "many users" and I really see no further need to touch it. Have you find prose that needs polish in the rest of the article?-BiancaOfHell23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I made an edit on February 3rd called "yet another modification to the lead section" that hopefully remedies any problems with the lead section. Please revert it if it sounds foul, or awkward or incoherent. I'm more worried about the rest of the article which has had far less criticism than the lead section.-BiancaOfHell06:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Reads much better now. As a side note, focusing on the lead section of an article is incredibly useful and relevant, as many readers gauge the quality of the entire article by the lead. --Mus Musculus17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's true, but at a certain point you begin to lose it when you're copyediting the lead section to death, along with others as well. As long as it all works out in the end it's worth it.-BiancaOfHell19:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment* I wanted to support but there are few issues that I think should be addressed first. I'm really confused about "Point of view" section. It looks rather inconsistent in TOC. What should it mean? Sorkin's political views? Should it be listed in Controversies? Should it be droped from the article? Should it be merged into West Wing section? I don't know but something should be done.--Pethr05:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply Sorkin's POV. It's not a controversy to have one. Almost everyone does. It doesn't belong in The West Wing section because that's about the TV series. It was formerly called Political view, but Point of View is a much more neutral section heading. It also encompasses more. It could possibly encompass at a later date his thoughts on the internet/amateurs, etc... which aren't necessarily political. The controversy section is strictly controversial stuff that don't necessarily have anything to do with his POV.-BiancaOfHell08:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are other issues like drug problem appearing in West Wing and controversies sections which leads me to recommendation to remove criticism section and place the ctitique to the text where is appropriate. NPOV doesn't mean isolate negative in one section but rather give balanced image throughout the article. I hope you find some of those comments helpful. Good luck.--Pethr05:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The drug problem is mentioned briefly in The West Wing section because it became an issue after 2 seasons. But Sorkin's drug problem has spanned decades, so it has it's own section. I put it together in a section about his 'Personal life' under Controversies.-BiancaOfHell08:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you also modified the lead section. I tweaked it a little more, that one sentence to this: 'In 2006, after a three year hiatus, he returned to television with a dramedy called Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, about the backstage drama at a late night sketch comedy show, once again for the NBC network.'. What do you think?-BiancaOfHell08:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that the Aaron Sorkin article has done very well for itself. It started out as just a mere bio but I believe it now meets the outline of a FA. I think the addition of the Studio 60 articles have really helped it along quite a bit. I've read the article several times and can't think of anything that would serve as a basis for opposition. Ganfon21:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article has ten fair use images which is not acceptable. On top of that the lead image is currently in a fair use dispute and will almost certainly be deleted, considering the current fair use policy. Jaqu02:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with Jaqu, excessive fair use; the movie posters in particular are just there as decoration.--Peta11:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Alright, where can we go from here? If it's only an issue of fair use images then let's work this out. I've brought up the issue over at WP:Fair Use. How many can stay? Can the "publicity photo" of Sorkin at the top stay? It is a screenshot from a documentary about Sorkin himself and his writing.
The first image that could go would be the Malice poster. After that the pictures are pretty important. This is a matter of pushing the limits of "fair use" in order to get the best possible article on Aaron Sorkin. I don't want to compromise to the point where the article suffers. The important thing to remember is that Sorkin is known to us because of his movies/TV shows, so inevitably there are going to have to be images of his most important products in shaping his life. This isn't an article about Mother Theresa.-BiancaOfHell11:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In response to the "too much fair use image" comments, how many is too many? I count six in the current FA Scottish Parliment, and many if not all of those are arguably decorative and could in theory be replaced by free ones (but as always, good luck with that). Also, are posters inherently less fair than other images, would screenshots be an improvement? --Milo H Minderbinder14:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response All fair use images have been removed from the Aaron Sorkin article. There are no free use images to be found so the article is imageless now. With that done, are there any other concerns about the article?-BiancaOfHell21:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
As I have been working on the article myself, this is technically a self-nomination; but really it is User:Halibutt's work, and all it needed from me was a copy-edit, though I couldn't resist meddling with it on my own account. Since Halibutt is largely on a wiki-break, I decided to focus the references to give the English-language sources more prominence, in case I have to answer FAC questions and requests myself. I am confident that the article covers all major aspects of the reign and is thoroughly referenced. qp10qp08:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's great to finally figure out who that statue in Central Park, NYC is supposed to represent. I'm leaning towards supporting this article as I find it well-written, well-referenced, and a rather comprehensive treatment of the subject. I applaud the use of google books for many of the older source materials. My only conditions to obtain my support are to make the article more aesthetically balanced. The placement of images in this article causes balance issues, some stacking problems and white space depending on what combination of monitor/resolution settings and user preferences people use. Also, I don't like the heirarchy of sections in for biographical information. I think a section entitled "Biography" should section off the biographical content from the genealogical/references/etc. That (making biographical sections into "subsections") might also help in addressing the whitespace issue. In any event, the fact that some biographical sections are tiny while others are humungous causes a significant lack of balance to the sectioning of the article. Please do let me know when the image issue is adequately addressed so that I can change my statement to one of support. —ExplorerCDT00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've restructured the sectioning, with more subsections.
Images are something I don't know much about (as you noticed), particularly as everything always looks fine and dandy on my screen. I've gone through the images and reduced them all to standard stubs, which I believe is the way to make them manageable by all screens. I did try that before, but I always find the results confusing: for example, on my screen, the maps are now too small to read without clicking them, something I didn't want to be the case, as they were designed to be glanced at while reading; and the coat of arms is now much bigger than the picture of the battle of Grunwald on my screen, which is not quite the way round I would have chosen. I don't quite understand how the standard thumb sizes are arrived at or how they can be adjusted without interfering with peoples' screens.
Comment. 'I applaud the use of google books for many of the older source materials.' Those book urls have ids or sigs or something on them... You're asked to log in to your gmail account when you don't need to. Might want to fix that.-BiancaOfHell08:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily fixable. I've never edited an article with Google Books links before, and I had to make the choice whether to delink them or continue with them on the grounds that something is better than nothing. I haven't actually been able to work out their mysteries: some days one will give me the page, another day the gmail thingie; sometimes they only give me the book cover; sometimes they tell me pages are locked that before were available, or that I've used up the number of pages I'm allowed to read. I went through them all the other day and delinked those that weren't playing ball then; but clearly they are volatile from day to day and from user to user. Any opinions about what to do? qp10qp09:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forget about it then. I thought maybe it was a simple thing to do, but it's not worth your time to fiddle with. It's good enough that those urls are there at all.-BiancaOfHell10:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was exactly my reasoning: I would use the books anyway, but since some people might be able to use the links - fine. If not - the reference is still valid, then why not have the link. //Halibutt15:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article appears impeccable in its current state, but I can't speak for the facts. It's very well cited with good notes. It will take someone familiar with this piece of history to do any further vetting.-BiancaOfHell10:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for reading the article and responding: genuinely appreciated. The Google Books thing worries me, because my hope was that even people who don't know much about the subject would be able to check a reasonable proportion of the facts quite easily. I've just gone through all the links again and I must say they are all as they were when I last checked them—but that's just for me. Of the links in the notes, only one (Delbrǔck) brought up the gmail box, but with one more click the required page came up. In the references section there are two books (Rowell and the New Cambridge VI) that come up with gmail boxes (as I knew), but a click gives you the cover (I can't link to specific pages in those books—used to be able to: they've gone play-hard-to-get on me—but for the references section (as opposed to the notes section) I don't think that matters, since the list is only a general reference. Oddly, the Delbrǔck came up in the references link without a gmail box.
One way of verifying quoted notes (this is why I've put quite a few quotes in there) would be to type the quotes, or part of them, into Google Books, or even Amazon Search Inside, and then read them in context. Even if you can't get the page up, you might still see enough of the context in the search results to know the quote's not spurious. (The above comments are addressed not to Bianca, who's tried enough, but to anyone else wanting to check refs).qp10qp12:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because of real life copyright paranoia the extremly useful Google Books links are not stable. I have many times found that weeks or months after I added a GB link, it is obsolete :( Nonetheless as long as they work, they are a very useful tool allowing quick verification and 'further reading'; my suggestion is to leave them until they are confirmed expired (pages are no longer available for browsing). PS. Getting a Google account is free and very easy.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting and well written. The coverage of the Council of Constance could do with another sentence or two though (hostilities break out...called off...turning point...all covered in two short sentences at the moment). I love this bit: His pleasures included hunting and music, especially Ruthenian fiddlers. - that's why you don't see many Ruthenian fiddlers nowadays. Yomanganitalk16:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course, qp10qp did a great job and it's great I could help. As to what Piotrus mentioned above, indeed, the current title was chosen by a single person against any consensus or WP:RM rules and would most likely be changed back to the original one. //Halibutt17:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I started to preparing some remarks about issues which have to be solved in article but the newest developments overshadow all this - during FAC process was proposed move of article name [29], and even was starting mediation case; so in near future we could see continues moves from one article name to another. Such developments will hurt article stability. M.K.16:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the beginning need background about state policy, what situation was then we access to the throne etc.
For the sake of simplicity this article uses this is not very encyclopedic formulation
Jogaila was the last pagan ruler of medieval Lithuania, the second to adopt Christianity (after King Of Lithuania Mindaugas), and the first to establish it on a lasting basis, and a holder of the title Didysis Kunigaikštis . Adopt should be changed to converted. And the formulation is still would be not correct, there was and Vaišvilkas.
Elaborate Foot note - Translated as high king (perceived as king over lesser rulers) in modern Lithuanian studies, and in other works either as What is this modern Lithuanian studies, is other works is modern too? Title it self translated not only in modern studies…
His overwhelming victory in the battle of Grunwald in 1410, followed by the First Peace of Toruń, Impossible, victory was not his alone at all.
The reign of Władysław II Jagiełło, as he was called after ascending the Polish throne . Does Britannica referring part - Władysław II Jagiełło, as he was called after ascending the Polish throne? Because now formulation implementing that contemporary name was after baptism was Władysław II Jagiełło.
Early life - Kulikovo events, which provided the key character of young ruler is not discus at all! Probably solving this issue google books would not fit here.
Death of Grand Duke Kęstutis should be explained in main text not in notes, no need to expand here only key moments.
In 1384, Vytautas offered more concessions – needs proving.
but then he switched sides and joined Jogaila in attacking and pillaging several Prussian towns – explain why he switch sides and what role played Jogaila. BTW, did he pillaged towns or castles, a?
The most problematic part of article - Baptism and marriage, I will tag it if issues would not be solved during this process:
Jogaila decided the only way to end conflict with the Teutonic Order was to convert to Christianity, - so he wake up in the morning and thought - Oh, good day for baptism?
Jogaila chose therefore to accept a remarkable Polish proposal that he become a Catholic and marry the eleven-year-old Queen Jadwiga of Poland. First remarkable is common only to the author disclaimer needed - X thinks, but such style will spoil whole article style. "Remarkable" - not encyclopedic approach.
There are no words why some Polish noblemen decided to invite a pagan ruler. why?? And there were several whys– Germanisation, Habsburgs, territorial claims etc. There is no hint that not all Polish noblemen agreed on this affair.
Jogaila signed a formal act of union with Poland - Jogaila did not sign act with "Poland". Second to call document as Union represents only one part of scholarly opinion.
and to incorporate Lithuania into Poland. – simple absurd. Applicare is not the same as incorporare, presented interpretation in article is one sided!
Just comment - taking the Christian name Władysław. There are some elements who trying to push that they call "authentic names" or names that the "guy refer himself" (with original research of course), wondering how these elements did not spot this "little" inaccuracy.
as well as mass baptisms in Lithuanian and Polish rivers – needs checking because I did not find in provided ref, any hint on Polish rivers
About law and legal tradition – already Gediminas referred the rights of civil law of the city of Riga. There is suggestion that even in Mindaugas times German law was applied etc. and the most important is missed - one of the Jogailas’ edicts started discrimination among Orthodox and Catholics.
In 1390, Władysław's rule in Lithuania faced a revived challenge from Vytautas, who made another bid for power, provoking a civil war. Nothing is explained why the fight renewed, and this is key issue.
Correct Nowogródek to Navahrudak.
There followed Poland's first war for 77 years. – prove needed.
Władysław won a victory so overwhelming that the Teutonic Order’s army was virtually annihilated. Nope, all glory to one person can not be placed.
but for some reason Władysław hesitated to pursue his advantage. Present, at least in notes section, more interpretation why it was delayed.
When quoting (for instance; for so called historian Dlugosz) use {{cquote}}
In 1415, they produced Samogitian witnesses. Strange interpretation, was produced ? Second Samogitians arrived into Constance by the order of Vytautas, who approx one year before Samogitian arrival started propaganda war there. So that Poles produced Samogitian witnesses not balanced interpretation.
In 1420, Sigismund decreed that all lands in dispute between Poland and the Knights be granted in perpetuity to the Order, including Pomerelia, Dobrzyń Land, Pomerania, and Samogitia. Source needed to check formulation correctness.
offered the Bohemian crown after the death of King Wenceslas of Bohemia in 1419, not to meddle in Bohemian affairs. Explain why Jogaila did not agreed on holding the new crown.
Explain Sigismund attempts to intervene in relations with Vytautas and Jogaila.
whom he ordered to restore the union by force. Prove needed, also explain Jogaila’s role in land dispute on Podolia etc.
and Lithuania to his younger, Casimir, both still minors at the time. Not exactly correct Lithuania was ruled by Žygimatas at the moment, and Casimir would show in Lithuania`s throne a bit later, breaking personal union.
Starnge family try – there was no Władysław II Jagiełło then he was born…
infobox – no hint about Grand Duke period at all.
succession box - Supreme Prince was applied and to Algirdas alongside with Emperor.
Comment why these all images placed in so small resolution in article?
Images: Tomb effigy of Jogaila, why nobody produced better image of tomb it is one of the most well known tomb in Poland after all! Second why there is no contemporary or close to contemporary Jogaila’s images like in Wawel or Liublin churches?
General opinion: After rereading article I made an impression that all battles, border changes were solved because of Jogaila; Pro-Polish interpretation of events also too strong; etc. I did not have time to go step by step through all references and dates, probably there are more inaccuracies. But thank you Qp10qp for impressive input, especially for deleting those silly headlines like – cold war turns hot etc. :) M.K.11:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't address these points for the moment (have to go out), but when I do, be patient, it will take me several days, and I'll go through one by one. I think all the objections can be addressed by either adjusting the text or quoting sources. Thanks for your thorough reading of the article. qp10qp18:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the naming stability argument was discussed before on article's talk page. Personally I'd like us to solve the naming issue before FAC, but since it's too late for this, I suggest we reach a consensus on the name and FA the article - as long as there are no move wars like in the past, the stability of a single (and even that a non certain) future move is not an issue.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The text of the article is excellent, but with the name itself still being unstable (especially considering that an RfM was just launched), I can't signoff on having this article Featured yet. After there's a solid consensus on a name though, I think this would be a great candidate. --Elonka21:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you cite 1(e)? ("Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day.) The article seems to me very stable, from my experience of working on it. I can't remember one revert or edit disagreement.qp10qp22:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was subject to a series of very heated move wars in 2006, because of disagreements about how it should be titled (check the talk archive for details, specifically Talk:Jogaila/Archive 7#Poll result and the following discussions/polls). Granted, the page hasn't been subjected to wars recently, but that's because all parties agreed (or were strongly encouraged/forced) to a "cooling off" period of a few months. To everyone's credit, they've abided by the request to give it some time -- but that doesn't mean that the issue is resolved (as is evidenced by the mediation). I am very optimistic though that with everyone's good faith efforts in the mediation, we will come out the other side with a stable name, and then we can try again for Featurability at that point. --Elonka23:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of that offends 1(e), though. I wouldn't have brought the article here if I didn't think it met the criteria. Apart from a single POV revert in October, the last non-vandal revert in this article was in July 2006. Six months is a long time in Wikipedia. qp10qp11:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, even if you apply 1(e) to the title, it is stable: there is discussion going on as to whether it is the correct/acceptable/best title, but nobody is switching it back and forth. The last name switch was way back last year as far as I can see. Yomanganitalk11:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose until the article has a stable, undisputed name and that request for mediation is over. (On second thought, as it seems the renaming process is just a discussion, so I'm switching to Conditional support if you guys promise to have a consensus about the name as soon as possible.) Also, there are some minor things to be fixed, like the unnecessary "Biography" heading (subsections should be sections) and some title case subheadings have to be converted to sentence case ("Final Years", "Last Conflicts". Strangely, the article uses ===== for "Challenges" after === ("Ruler of Lithuania and Poland"). Truly impressive list of main references, though, and the article looks very thorough and comprehensive. Todor→Bozhinov11:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added The "Biography" heading and extra headings just recently in response to User:Explorer's suggestions above. I'll ask him what he thinks now. My own preference is for no "Biography" heading or sub-headings, as it was before. A thing like that can be changed in an instant because the article, in my opinion, has a logical structure that does not necessarily need sub-headings.
As for the request for mediation, no one has yet taken it up: there seems no urgency. And in fact, this is more or less the same mediation requested by a very few people at the beginning of November, which was not taken up then either. Since this FAC is in progress and the mediation is not, should not this process take precedence? After all, it's actually about the article? qp10qp12:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As far as I can see, the article name and the mediation are a non-issues. The article has a stable name and hasn't been moved in months. If it is moved, it will be following mediation and consensus-building (rather than another evil vote). I would support this if I hadn't done some copyediting on it earlier. It largely meets the FA criteria. The current article name, for what it's worth, is what Norman Davies used for the chapter on this monarch in his widely read history God's Playground: there's nothing strange about calling the article Jogaila, it's just that some editors believe it should be called something else. The gmail/google books thing Bianca mentions is only an issue, so far as I can tell, if you link to the exact page. Using the vid and id parameters alone send the reader to the main page for the book and that seems to work fine. Angus McLellan(Talk)14:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Let me first praise the contributors for the time and effort they have given to this article's content. The name stability is not an issue. This argument is just silly. IMHO, if an article in FA quality, i should get FA status. Only content instability would make this a problem, and content stability is not a problem. Don't like opposing this article, but there are several issues too important for me to see my way past for a support vote. For instance, the article ignores Jogaila's earlier apparent conversion to Orthodox christianity. For instance, the great Orthodox scholar and Byzantinist John Meyendorff writes "In 1377, Olgerd of Lithuania died, leaving the Grand-Principality to his son Jagiello, an Orthodox christian with whom Cyprian, "Metropolitan of Kiev and the Lithuanians" entertained close connections" (JM, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, p. 205), and although Jogaila may have went back to being "officially" a pagan in Lithuania, writing of the Catholic conversion Meyendorff writes "on the 15th, although an orthodox christian, Jacob-Jagiello was rebatized..." (p. 243). Discussion of this is absence in the article in entirely absent; what are there arguments for or against ... ? When it comes to issues of this important, an FA quality article would be expected to cover them. Balancing is needed, even if that means Halibutt or someone else will need to do more research. Moreover, statements such as Lithuania "began adopting western legal traditions" after Jogaila's takeover of Poland is just is misleading; Lithuania already had a long history of borrowing "western legal tradition", Gediminas for instance had western friars settled in his capital drawing up western style legal documents earlier in the century. Frequent blanket statements of this kind in the article give me an impression of naivety about how medieval history actually works; statements I've already mentioned give the impression that we have more knowledge than we actually do; other judgmental assertions like "where Lithuanian overlordship was tolerated in return for protection against the Golden Horde" have no place here. The article makes out that Jogaila took the decision to convert to "Christianity" primarily to combat the Teutonic Order. In fact, besides ignoring all other plausible reasons, that is just speculation and assumes a threat level of the Order that many historians would doubt it posed. Polish nationalism also creeps in, not just in the articles focus and perspective, but also in names. The Rus'ian-Lithuanian town of Novgorodok is spelled, both in the text and in the map, "Nowogródek", the modern Polish way, despite the fact that the town had no connection to Poland (other than eventually sharing the same Rus-Lithuanian ruler). The good things going for the article is its basic survey of wars and political events following Jogaila's marital conquest of the Polish kingdom. It is also well written, something difficult to achieve, esp. for non-native Anglophone contributors. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)15:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, these are interesting objections, and I'm sure they can all be addressed. Before I trot off to the books, let me just say that it was an innocent decision to use the name Nowogródek in the map (though perhaps it was instinctively named that way in the article by a Polish editor): the more people who can contribute to things like that the better. The choice given in the Wikipedia article for that town is: "Navahrudak (Belarusian: Навагру́дак; Russian: Novogrudok; Polish: Nowogródek; Lithuanian: Naugardukas". (You say Novgorodok: is that a variant spelling of Novogrudok?)
On whether Jogaila was already Orthodox, this is the first source I've heard of on the matter. Clearly his mother was, and I always get the impression he retained paganism as a bargaining point. As you have given a reference, the point can easily be added, though I need to go and look at some books to remind myself where that and the other points you mention were sourced from. qp10qp16:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've started by adding your Meyendorff quote to the notes; as you request the reflection of a discussion on the point (I'm not aware [yet] of any historians discussing Meyendorff's assertion), I've combined it with a quote to the contrary by a primary source; this way:
"The historian John Meyendorff suggests that Jogaila may already have been an Orthodox Christian: "In 1377, Olgerd of Lithuania died, leaving the Grand Principality to his son Jagiello, an Orthodox Christian...". Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, 205; Dmitri, however, made it a condition of the marriage that Jogaila "should be baptized in the Orthodox faith and that he should proclaim his Christianity to all men". Document quoted by Dvornik, 221."
One technicality: I've added the book to the references, but it may be a different edition to the one you quote, and so I'd be grateful for the full details.
I've also changed some of the phrasing that you disliked: "overlordship was tolerated" is now "overlordship was accepted"; "began adopting western legal traditions" is now "began adopting Polish legal traditions"; and so that less impression of "primarily" is given, I've changed the phrasing in question to "Jogaila decided that a way to end conflict with the Teutonic Order would be to convert..." What do you think of these modifications?
Well, Meyendorff is a great historian and I doubt it would be a good idea to assume he doesn't no what he's talking about. I think the implication is that Jogaila was Orthodox before he became ruler of Lithuania, nominally reconverted to paganaism, then rereconverted the Catholic church. These responses are good btw. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support. I see no reason for this article not to be promoted as soon as the RfM is resolved, and I'd like to encourage Raul to put this nomination on hold until it is resolved (since there is nothing significant otherwise wrong). The article is well-written and well-sourced. —Cuiviénen19:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well done. I do appreciate Halibutt's work and detailed qp10qp's analysis. The text is convincing and well documented. One may enjoy the result. While I'm not happy with the title, I guess the stability of the article is not in danger. As far as I can tell, nobody opposed to the present title is willing to rename it without consensus building (as it was the case of the previous move from the original title to this one...). --Beaumont(@)15:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me address the following section of Calgacus's objection:
The article makes out that Jogaila took the decision to convert to "Christianity" primarily to combat the Teutonic Order. In fact, besides ignoring all other plausible reasons, that is just speculation and assumes a threat level of the Order that many historians would doubt it posed.
The new wording should remove any impression of "primarily", though that word wasn't used. However, I've not yet read a historian who downplays either that motivation or the threat posed by the Order. The following are extracts from some of the sources used (see the article for book details):
I have, and I'm just gonna take my memory for it. Getting an extra kingdom by itself is any motivation to marry and convert, rather than fearing some fantastical destruction by the Teutonic Knights. Portraying all Jogaila's career as a run-up to the Battle of Tannenburg is completely distoring history. 15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
"...for Lithuania a conversion to the Greek Orthodox Church would hardly have withdrawn the pretext for the attacks of the Crusaders, Rome considered the Eastern Churches to be semi-pagan." (Bojtár, 181)
"When Jagiello…ordered his armed followers, his ‘'boyari sive armigeri’', to convert to Catholicism, he aimed to deny the Knights any further justification for their onslaught on his homeland…" (Lukowski and Zawadzki, 34)
"In 1386, it was the Teutonic Knights who menaced the existence of Lithuania. Only three years before, they had capped over a century of bloody, unremitting effort by sacking much of the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius and destroying the great stronghold of Trakai…The union with Poland and the acceptance of Latin Christianity were a desperate gamble by Jogaila to avert a seemingly inevitable subjugation." (Lukowski and Zawadzki, 33).
"Jagiello’s decision was influenced by the fact that the Teutonic Order menaced not only Poland but also Lithuania…Only a reconciliation between the two cousins, initiated by Jagiello himself (1384), saved Lithuania from becoming the order’s vassal. It was probably this experience with the order which stimulated Jagiello’s decision to reject Moscow’s proposal and accept Poland’s offer.” (Dvornik, 222)
I would argue, and I'm sure so would others, that that statement is complete nonsense. Jogaila needed the superior Poles to save him from conquest from the Order? Polish nationalist myth. Funny how Lithuania had done alright before and had grown to five times larger than Poland. I dunno, maybe Jogaila didn't mind getting another kingdom to crush the Order and expand his own power, but to imply Lithuania faced desperation ... would like to see how these historians sustain that argument. If anything, fear of continued isolation, being surrounded by christian states, may have played some role in his decision, but most of Jogaila's lands lay out of reach of TO campaigns. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's fascinating. Must be another conspiracy between the ghosts of Stalin and Hitler to destroy the Polish nation. Congrats for discovering it! Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)17:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me about sources? In what parallel universe? If this is your reply when asked if you support human rights, then I guess there's no point going on. You must just be evil. :p Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)17:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The attacks of the Order devastated both Lithuania and Poland." (Vanda Sruogenė–Sruoga, Lituanus article)
"Between 1345 and 1382 the knights encroached into Lithuanian territory precisely one hundred times, which warranted forty counter-expeditions." (Bojtár, 180)
Lithuania had faced almost annual TO raids since the TO was created, but during that time the kingdom was formed and grew to the largest European state west of the Horde. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like now to respond to this part of Calgacus's objection:
Moreover, statements such as Lithuania "began adopting western legal traditions" after Jogaila's takeover of Poland is just is misleading; Lithuania already had a long history of borrowing "western legal tradition", Gediminas for instance had western friars settled in his capital drawing up western style legal documents earlier in the century.
As noted above, I've changed the word "western" to "Polish" here, in case there is a misunderstanding. But the succeeding sentence, in referring to the Magdeburg Laws, indicated what was meant. "Western" in that context was intended the way Dvornik intends it in the following:
"The Lithuanian magnates were more attracted by the Catholic faith and Western culture, represented by the Poles, than by the old Kievan civilisation…In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries Lithuanian cities followed the example of Polish burghers in accepting the Law of Magdeburg, while feudal institutions were introduced under the influence emanating from the state of the Teutonic Order and from Poland, binding the population to military service in return for lands granted to them by the sovereign. The first important step in this process of assimilation was made at the Union of Horodlo in 1413." (Dvornik, p 343)
I disagree that this had already begun with Gediminas. I have read
Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire Within East-central Europe, 1295-1345 by S.C.Rowell, which goes into great detail about the reigns of Gediminas and Algirdas in particular, and so I am familiar with the sophistication of Gediminas, his close contact with the Catholic world, and his use of Catholic documentation styles and Catholic scribes; but I have seen no evidence that this amounted to a state legal system of the type which began establishing itself in Lithuania after the unions. qp10qp03:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but since you already acknowledge that western legal tradtions had played a role in Lithuania before Jogaila, how can you defend "began adopting western legal traditions" rather than "began adopting more western legal traditions"?. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to this objection:
Other judgmental assertions like "where Lithuanian overlordship was tolerated in return for protection against the Golden Horde" have no place here.
I was not sure what was objected to, the word "tolerated" or the reference to the "Golden Horde". So I've now altered this further to: "Jogaila at first governed only south and eastern Lithuania, including territories of former Kievan Rus', where Lithuanian overlordship prevailed." I hope that will fully meet the objection.
Bojtár, a fairly innocuous historian, says: "Under Gediminas the city states of Novgorod, Tver, Pskov, and some others sought Lithuania’s protection against Moscow, and the Tartars in particular". (Bojtár, 180)
Rowell says: "In return the Slavs enjoyed the pax lithuanica which protected their trade routes to the Hansa and defended them from the depredations of the grand dukes of Moscow. They were not freed from Tatar tribute"… And of the grand dukes' guarantee of the status quo in the Rus' polities, he says, "This is not the mark of a primitive regime but a sophisticated recognition of how best to exploit alien subjects." (Rowell, 116)
Hopefully, by watering down the sentence objected to, I have made it inoffensive. The truth is that the relations between the Lithuanians and the Rus' principalities under their overlordship were not only complex and diverse but are shrouded in mystery due to the lack of sources (both Rowell and Plokhy, who do their best to investigate that area, admit as much). qp10qp03:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rowell is explaining a role the Lithuanians had earlier in the century. In the cases of Novgorod, Tver, and Pskov, the Lithuanians served as mercenaries. In Lithuanian Rus'ia, Lithuanians were their rulers, who spoke the same language and worshipped the same religion. "Tolerated" implies Lithuanian Rus'ia was engulfed by a underlying hotbed of seething discontent and resentment against Lithuanian rule put up with for fear of the Horde. MK has some more points, and the Meyendorff thing needs to be dealt with (although, I too have not found out more about this argument), but as far as everything else, I've removed by oppose vote in light of your efforts and commitment to raising the quality of the article. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Making a start with addressing MK's objections, from further up the page:
MK:"For the sake of simplicity this article uses" this is not very encyclopedic formulation
OK, I cut the following from the notes: "For the sake of simplicity this article uses the Lithuanian form Jogaila for the early period of his life and the Polish form Władysław for the period following his accession to the Polish throne."
I expect that was added to the notes because the name can be quite an issue. It's not encyclopedic, but nor are footnotes, on the whole, and it's OK for a footnote, in my opinion. But we can just as well do without it, I'm sure. qp10qp18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MK: "the second to adopt Christianity (after King Of Lithuania Mindaugas), and the first to establish it on a lasting basis", Adopt should be changed to converted. And the formulation is still would be not correct, there was and Vaišvilkas.
Some of that was added by an editor since the FAC began, and I've always wanted to cut this attempt to say whether he was the first, second, or umpteenth Christian ruler anyway. So I've cut it to:
"Jogaila was the last pagan ruler of medieval Lithuania, and a holder of the title Didysis Kunigaikštis." qp10qp18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MK:Elaborate Foot note - "Translated as high king (perceived as king over lesser rulers) in modern Lithuanian studies, and in other works either as" What is this modern Lithuanian studies, is other works is modern too? Title it self translated not only in modern studies…
I've cut "in modern Lithuanian studies, and in other works", which was never referenced, though the definition seems accurate. I spent a long time chasing Didysis Kunigaikštis around and ended up making a whole extra article on the subject of titles and names: Jogaila (Władysław II Jagiello): names and titles. (Some of that material might come into play when I address MK's points on supreme ducality, heirs etc.)
Good decision, yes definition is good, kunigas appears in Lithuania around 13c., kunigaikštis preservers it parts – kunigaikštis. In short very good cut :) M.K.18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MK: "His overwhelming victory in the battle of Grunwald in 1410, followed by the First Peace of Toruń," Impossible, victory was not his alone at all.
MK: "Władysław won a victory so overwhelming that the Teutonic Order’s army was virtually annihilated." Nope, all glory to one person can not be placed.
MK: "There followed Poland's first war for 77 years." – prove needed.
Will never be agreed, as definitions of war vary. I don't like this sort of thing anyway, which is slightly so-whattish, in my opinion. So, deleted. qp10qp18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MK: Just comment - taking the Christian name Władysław. There are some elements who trying to push that they call "authentic names" or names that the "guy refer himself" (with original research of course), wondering how these elements did not spot this "little" inaccuracy.
MK: "The reign of Władysław II Jagiełło, as he was called after ascending the Polish throne." Does Britannica referring part - Władysław II Jagiełło, as he was called after ascending the Polish throne? Because now formulation implementing that contemporary name was after baptism was Władysław II Jagiełło.
MK: "Starnge family try – there was no Władysław II Jagiełło then he was born…
MK: "as well as mass baptisms in Lithuanian and Polish rivers" – needs checking because I did not find in provided ref, any hint on Polish rivers
By "little inaccuracy", I presume you mean that he would have actually been given a Latin name at the baptism ceremony rather than the Slavic one. To take that into account, I've removed the word "Christian" and the inference (unintended) that he was given the Slavic name at the actual ceremony, leaving "Jogaila was duly baptised at the Wawel Cathedral in Kraków on 15 February 1386 and from then on formally used the name Władysław or Latin versions of it": this wording leaves room for a number of possibilities as to what he called himself or was called in private and does not presume the actual name used at the baptism ceremony. The note provides readers with Lithuanian and Latin versions of the name.
Cheers. Now I can change the rather clumsy wording in the footnote which says the name meant "the one who rules the fame" or "the one who praises power". "Glorious ruler"? Why did your mum not call you that, Piotrus? qp10qp17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the Encyclopedia Britannica was used to reference his Polish name in the lead; I don't like Encyclopedia Britannica references anyway, so I've removed that and also the inelegant subordinate clause, now leaving "The reign of Władysław II Jagiełło extended..." To make sure readers quickly find out about the name change, I have added the following higher up:
"and was crowned Polish king as Władysław Jagiełło."
I've referenced that to Bojtár (p.182), as those are the words he uses.
I've changed the family tree to show that its subject had the name Jogaila as well as Władysław II Jagiełło.
I don't know if the editor who wrote about the baptisms had a reason for mentioning Polish rivers (certainly Jogaila's retinue were in Poland when he was baptised); but I only know of the mass baptisms in Vilnius, and so I have cut the mention of Polish rivers. qp10qp10:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answering to the Bojtár (p.182) remark was crowned Polish king as Władysław Jagiełło , it is debatable among Historians is it possible by crowning use Baptizm name and his Polinized pagan name, but I would not press this further. M.K.19:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MK: "but for some reason Władysław hesitated to pursue his advantage." Present, at least in notes section, more interpretation why it was delayed.
MK: Death of Grand Duke Kęstutis should be explained in main text not in notes, no need to expand here only key moments.
In both these cases, where the information is scant, I felt it was best if the article kept things cautious and simple.
The expression "for some reason" was used for the delay because that's pretty much how several historians talk about the Polish-Lithuanian hesitation in following up after Grunwald. In case that made it seem as if the article, rather than the sources, was weak on the point, I've now changed the wording to "for reasons the sources do not explain". In response to your request for more information in the notes, I've added the following there, based on Turnbull (but even he, who has written a whole book on the battle, can shed relatively little light on the matter):
"What we know about this delay, as Stephen Turnbull describes, is that with Marienburg less than sixty miles away, the Polish-Lithuanian army, perhaps due to casualties, waited for two days before marching on, and then only at a rate of nine miles a day. The delay, which Turnbull calls "perhaps understandable but fatal", allowed Heinrich von Plauen to reach Marienburg with around 2000 (some sources say 3000 men), evacuate the town, and dig in for a long siege. Turnbull, Tannenberg 1410: Disaster for the Teutonic Knights, 73."
For what it's worth, my instinct is that "perhaps due to casualties" is indeed the most likely explanation. And I would guess that the slow march might be explained by caution, given that the Polish-Lithuanian army were now deep in the Order's territory. Their tactics leading up to the battle had been to divide the Order's forces with decoy attacks along the border, so they would have known that the Order had other troops at large than those defeated in the battle. The article sticks to what historians say, though, rather than my guesses.
With Kęstutis, I have changed "found dead" to "found dead, probably murdered", in case the wording appeared to suggest a weakness of the article rather than of the sources. The word "probably" might provide a nudge to the reader to look at the notes. And I believe the best place for a discussion of this matter is the notes, to save the readers from a diversion which could not provide them with any extra facts. However, I have expanded the notes to include the theory that the Germans had Kęstutis murdered. Most historians, however, seem to pass over this death with a hedging noise, which I suspect is the best approach.
The note now stands like this, in adequate relation, I believe, to the article text:
"Jogaila murdered the stubborn uncle in a quarrel at the end of 1382." Bojtár, 181. "Jogaila himself had come to power in 1382 with the murder of his uncle Kęstutis." Lukowski and Zawadzki, p 34. Vytautas, during his second Prussian refuge of 1390, was recorded as saying: "Jogaila captured our father and killed him; he also killed our mother and imprisoned me". Mickunaite, 157, from a Teutonic chancellery document titled dis ist witoldes sache wedir jagaln und skirgaln. Some historians dispute that Kęstutis was murdered by Jogaila. According to Sruogiene-Sruoga in Jogaila, the Lithuanian writer Maironis, in Kestuçio mirtis (The Death of Kestutis), suggests Kęstutis was murdered by servants commissioned by the Germans.
For full references see the article.
May I just say that in my opinion one of the trickiest challenges in writing an encyclopedia article is to despatch disputed and poorly sourced facts such as these—the delay after Grunwald and the death of Kęstutis—with the requisite brevity. The footnote facility at least means we can wave main-text readers through at such informationally barren moments.
Regarding murder of Kęstutis, Maironis probably should not be placed here :) Yes I believe such approach with death using nudge is possible solution. Regarding battle for Marienburg my aim was to draw attention on different approach towards why was delay, casualties is likely solution. If I not mistaken Jasienica wrote that commanders of allied armies did not want to finish TO finally due to several reasons. Nevertheless if you think that sufficient info amount is provided, I would not press further with this one. M.K.19:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MK: "and to incorporate Lithuania into Poland." – simple absurd. Applicare is not the same as incorporare, presented interpretation in article is one sided!
The point is covered by the following in the footnote:
"The term used for 'incorporate' in 1385—applicare—has given rise to much acrimonious discussion between Polish and Lithuanian historians, but the Poles had no doubt of what it meant at the time." Lukowski and Zawadzki, 34."
Endre Bojtár says: "In this matter the document applied the unfortunate term applicare, which carries the meaning of joining, unification, and merging." Bojtár, 182.
I don't think we should use our own knowledge of Latin here (personally, I would say applicare means "to attach"), because diplomats were just as capable of weasely formulations then as now, and there was probably some spin on the word which is lost to us. But the Polish historians aren't alone in their interpretation: Sruogiene-Sruoga says that the phrase Coronae Regni Polaniae applicare means "annexation of Lithuania to the Polish Kingdom" (Jogaila article in Lituanus).
Jogaila appears never to have believed a word of it, of course, and made no effort to put it into practice. So I suspect it was legal blarney.
Let me start answering to your point from this part :) In 2002 was prepared publication regarding Act of Kreva, which uses this specific term > 1385 m. rugpjūčio 14 d. Krėvos aktas; 2002; ISBN 9986-34-080-2. Few names of authors: Edmundas Rimša, S. C. Rowell (yes the same who is quoted in this article already); Jūratė Kiaupienė etc. Lets look that they say about this word: <<The infamous word „applicare“ is a neutral term which has no limited meaning of „incorporation“ and it reflects the broad promises „neс eos [the king and queen] aut coronam regni Polonie deserere“ made by Lithuanian princes in the wake of Jogaila's coronation or „adhaerere“ used in acts of fealty sworn by Jogaila and Jadwiga's Lithuanian vassals in chief. This vague but clear word, deliberately chosen for its broad sense, has given historians the opportunity to create a profession non-problem for themselves to argue over without real fruit.Incorporare appears for the first time in documents associated with Polish-Lithuanian relations in 1413 where its specificity (Lithuania is part of Poland and Poland is Catholic [in the face of arguments from the Teutonic Order that Lithuania really was still pagan and not just in Žemaitija], Lithuania like Poland belongs to Jogaila [in the face of pretensions from Grand Duke Vytautas]) suited internal and external political developments. In the mid-fifteenth century the now politically-literate and self-defending Lithuanian nobility objected not to applicare, but to incorporare. When he described the 1385 negotiations Długosz deliberately placed 1413 terminology in accounts of what happened [in Krėva] and deliberately removed reference to Jogaila's requiring that his future mother-in-law adopt him as her son [for purposes of inheritance, a common Lithuanian practice in cases of marriage to a female heir]. Długosz was the first, but not the last historian to „age“ the Horodło terms.>> This part I took from Lithuanian Historic Institute web site - abstract from presented book; if you need specific pages of the book let me know. You see, qp10qp, now that is provided in article speaks only for one part of scholars who choose to use “incorporation” concept but ignores others, this why I wrote that presented interpretation is on sided (including and with stronger remark :) ) . Plus I also addressed issue using formulation of "Union". M.K.18:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that page (book preview) before but dismissed it as inadmissable as a Wikipedia source, since it is not a book or scholarly article but a garbled summary of a book on a webpage which advertises the book. However, see my replies lower down under "Krėva", where I hope I have found a way of meeting your objections on this point. qp10qp17:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First summary of book is on Lithuanian Institute of History prepared by its scholars, second the summary do not advertises the book at all (all prominent books are listed in this web page, which are published by this Institute with summaries, content etc.), third I also noted that if you want direct pages from book, please say so, and I will provide, because these same formulation presented in web is in the book. In short I do not see any reason why presented research work of scholars is inadmissible. But I happy with your edits regarding sausage of applicare in main text, also you can add and English historian Rowell views of word interpretation. M.K.18:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MK: About law and legal tradition – already Gediminas referred the rights of civil law of the city of Riga. There is suggestion that even in Mindaugas times German law was applied etc. and the most important is missed - one of the Jogailas’ edicts started discrimination among Orthodox and Catholics.
I responded to the legal question in answer to Calgacus, and I hope that the article no longer gives the impression of downplaying any previous legal developments in Lithuania. In response to your point about the discrimination, I have now added the following paragraph, which I hope addresses it. (I might add something more lower down when I address your point about Podolia.)
Could you please elaborate remark about Lithuania began adopting Polish legal traditions here? Magdeburg Law is Polish law?
"One effect of Władysław’s measures was to be the advancement of Catholics in Lithuania at the expense of Orthodox elements; in 1387 and 1413, for example, Lithuanian Catholic boyars were granted special judicial and political privileges denied the Orthodox boyars. (Magocsi, 134) As this process gained momentum, it was accompanied by the rise of both Rus' and Lithuanian identity in the fifteenth century. (Plokhy, 98)"
I am quite happy with improvement, some remarks, could you please explain here what you mean with 1413 event - Samogitia baptism? M.K.18:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MK: "Jogaila signed a formal act of union with Poland" - Jogaila did not sign act with "Poland". Second to call document as Union represents only one part of scholarly opinion
He put his seal on it, which amounted to a formal signature. Some historians do use the word "signed", but I have removed it from the article to no ill effect. The word "Poland" was used because historians often use it in this context; for example:
Oh, no you a bit misinterpreted my words - my aim was to make difference between act which is sign with State as such and with scribes concurring your marriage agreement.M.K.18:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...the joining of Poland and Lithuania under a single ruler by the Union of Krewo." (Sedlar, 282)
and
"The act of union between the two polities concluded in 1385 at Kreva…listed only two parties to the agreement, the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy." (Plokhy, 96)
As far as the name for it goes, the majority of books I have seen call it a "union", a fair number call it an "act", a few call it an "agreement" or a "treaty", and one calls it an "alliance". It seems to me that the most neutral of those terms is "agreement", and so I have adjusted the text to that effect, which I hope will meet your objection. I have made sure that the notes now cover the view that what happened at Krėva was not a union, as well as the view that it was. I have added the clause which includes "applicare" to the main text but removed any discussion of the word itself from the notes, making the points there more general. (If even historians can't agree on its translation, maybe it's best to avoid troubling the readers with that linguistic issue.)
MK: "Jogaila decided the only way to end conflict with the Teutonic Order was to convert to Christianity", - so he wake up in the morning and thought - Oh, good day for baptism?
I have rewritten the paragraph to avoid giving any impression of that nature.
"Jogaila chose therefore to accept a remarkable Polish proposal that he become a Catholic and marry the eleven-year-old Queen Jadwiga of Poland." First remarkable is common only to the author disclaimer needed - X thinks, but such style will spoil whole article style. "Remarkable" - not encyclopedic approach.
I used the word "remarkable" because two books used it, one of which I quoted using it in the notes, while others used similar expressions. Also because I felt, having studied medieval history at university, that the remarkability of a Catholic queen marrying a pagan king at that time was a fact and not an opinion—certainly, much of Europe was scandalised by it. However, "remarkable" is not an essential word, and so I have cut it, along with its reference.
MK: There are no words why some Polish noblemen decided to invite a pagan ruler. why?? And there were several whys– Germanisation, Habsburgs, territorial claims etc. There is no hint that not all Polish noblemen agreed on this affair.
I have now added the following note, which covers the points you wish to be included:
"The nobles of Malopolska, not without suspicion from the nobles of Wielkopolska, made this offer to Jogaila for many reasons. For example, they were "concerned to neutralize the dangers from Lithuania itself and to secure the fertile territories of Halych-Rus’". Lukowski and Zawadzki, 42. Dvornik suggests that the Polish nobles saw the offer as an ”opportunity for increasing their privileges”. Dvornik, 129. They also wished to avoid Austrian influence, Jogaila agreeing to "pay off" Jadwiga's previous fiancé Wilhelm von Habsburg. Lukowski and Zawadzki, 37."
qp10qp17:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[qp10qp: I've decided to plough on with addressing the original objections and then go round again addressing the replies to the replies, in ever decreasing circles.]
MK: "In 1415, they produced Samogitian witnesses." Strange interpretation, was produced ? Second Samogitians arrived into Constance by the order of Vytautas, who approx one year before Samogitian arrival started propaganda war there. So that Poles produced Samogitian witnesses not balanced interpretation.
I've now placed the mention of the Samogitians ahead of the mention of Polish envoys. And I've added Vytautas's involvement. I've dropped the word "produced", an idiom sometimes used with "witnesses" in English. qp10qp23:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MK: "offered the Bohemian crown after the death of King Wenceslas of Bohemia in 1419", "not to meddle in Bohemian affairs". Explain why Jogaila did not agreed on holding the new crown..
MK: "In 1420, Sigismund decreed that all lands in dispute between Poland and the Knights be granted in perpetuity to the Order, including Pomerelia, Dobrzyń Land, Pomerania, and Samogitia." Source needed to check formulation correctness.
MK: Explain Sigismund attempts to intervene in relations with Vytautas and Jogaila.
The middle one of these was only sourced to Polish historians, and as it doesn't seem to me very important (since it never came to pass) I've cut it. I've added the problem of the Bohemian Diet's stipulation that Władysław swear to the Four Articles of Prague; and in the notes I have now included information about Vytautas's election,
Korybut's regency, and, on Sigismund's intervening, the offer of a crown to Vytautas in 1429. qp10qp00:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MK: "whom he ordered to restore the union by force". Prove needed, also explain Jogaila’s role in land dispute on Podolia etc.
So difficult is it to pin this down neatly that I have now rewritten this paragraph to be very tightly linked to the references, making no undue assumptions about Władysław's role. There are extraordinarily contradictory versions of what went on during this time, but the article now keeps things simple and cautious, I hope.
Władysław seems to me a shadowy presence in these events. In response to your specific question about his role, I have added the following note:
"How much influence the aged Władysław had on these events is not clear. Sruogiene-Sruoga says that he wished to restore Lithuanian independence and at one point instructed the leader of the Lithuanian army not to listen to Polish orders. Plokhy, on the other hand, says that he sided with the Poles over Podolia. Plokhy, 98."
One could use the sources to tell several different stories about these last few years of Władysław, but my strong impression is that the matter hasn't been researched fully yet.
MK: "In 1384, Vytautas offered more concessions" – needs proving.
MK: "but then he switched sides and joined Jogaila in attacking and pillaging several Prussian towns" – explain why he switch sides and what role played Jogaila. BTW, did he pillaged towns or castles, a?
MK: "In 1390, Władysław's rule in Lithuania faced a revived challenge from Vytautas, who made another bid for power, provoking a civil war." Nothing is explained why the fight renewed, and this is key issue.
The word "more" referred to Vytautas's concession of part of Samogitia in return for the Order's support, as added to Jogaila's previously mentioned concessions (Lukowski and Zawadzki, 33). But you've put your finger on a piece of sloppy writing there (mea culpa) because I admit that the sentence on its own makes it look as if Vytautas made more concessions in 1384 on top of concessions already made by himself. As the reason for the switching of sides, I have added that he accepted assurances from Jogaila about his inheritance, referenced to Mickūnaitė.
Since the referenced source for pillaging mentions only castles and not towns, I have changed the text to castles. I expect the original editor here inferred that the settlements attached to the castles would also have been pillaged for booty, since other Lithuanian raids had "laid waste" to territories—in 1376, for example. (Lukowski and Zawadzki, 34) However, I have now made sure the text echoes the reference precisely.
In response to the third point above, I have added the reason why Vytautas rebelled again, supported by a reference to Mickūnaitė which includes Vytautas's own reasoning as recorded by a Teutonic scribe. As follows:
"In 1390, Władysław's rule in Lithuania faced a revived challenge from Vytautas, who resented the power given to Skirgaila in Lithuania at the expense of his own patrimony."
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a summary-style article on an important astronomy topic. It is on both the vital articles and the core topics listings, and has achieved GA status. This article now seems FA-worthy, but, if not, then please let me know what needs be done to take it to that level. Specific details would be much appreciated. Thank you! — RJH (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article is well written and makes excellent use of inline citations from reliable sources. The images are informative. It's good to see that a lot of effort has gone into such an important topic. Jay3218322:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object The first half of this article is very well-written, but it falls apart at section 5 "Formation and evolution". This section is incoherent and reads like a cut-and-paste job. Succeeding sections could use some work. --Ideogram09:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it was a cut-and-paste job, for the most part. :-/ I just performed a re-write of the Formation section to make it more coherent. Could you take a look and see what you think? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I also tried to refine the Evolution section a little more. I'm unclear about the issues with the following sections. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Saw it recently as a Good Article candidate, and was very impressed by it. I think the level of depth and referencing is certainly enough for FA status. The Land13:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Reason for nomination: I split the old military history of ancient Rome article into 4 sections - campaign history (covering military campaigns), structural history (covering reforms of the army), political history (covering political changes in its command and use), and technological history (covering weapons development and use over is 1300 years of existence). My aim is to work through these one by one bringing them to featured article status. The first one I have worked on is the Campaign history of the Roman military. It has recently undergone a peer review and I have made several changes, primarily to layout rather than content, based upon the feedback from this peer review. To my mind the article is FA-ready and so I am self-nominating it as such, but I am happy to incorporate any requested changes. I am happy to answer any and all questions. - PocklingtonDan14:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to emphasize in the introduction that the page deals only with the Western Roman Empire after the split? Not every reader will be informed about the split and even if they would: the Eastern part is also considered Roman, so it is confusing.
The term "Roman Empire" normally does include only the west after the split, the east normally being termed the "byzantine empire", but I will make this clearer in the introduction. updated in lead para now to make this clearer - PocklingtonDan17:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
#It is at the hands of the Gallic Celts that Rome suffered a humiliating defeat that temporarily set back its advance and was to imprint itself upon the Roman consciousness. reads a bit narrative and unnecessary imo. (striked as it was a subjective and non-material comment)
Not sure I see a problem with that sentence, can you suggest an alternative?I was trying to build some narrative in to tie the sections together better and prevent the article appearing stubby - PocklingtonDan17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is it possible to add more specific campaign info (the used strategies, the generals in command, the assumptions made, specifics of troops: infantry, cavalry, etc?) if they aren't (yet?) specific battles wiki-battlepages. E.g., How were the Celts driven off or bought off? Especially the "driven-off" seems to be an important part, as it includes campaigns/battles.
If I go into too much detail in every section the article will get far to lengthy - the idea is to cover every campaign briefly, and then the campaignboxes to the right provide links to more detailed articles on each campaign and battle. I'd really rather not have the article try and incorporate that kind of detail, with 1300 years of battles to cover there just isn't room for it at this level - PocklingtonDan17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to add in a line (or two) when Rome created legions. They are first mentioned in the Pyrrhic War - a bit out of the blue.
I'd rather not cover that, since that is the job of the companion article "Structural history of...". Instead I will try and parse the article and replace legion -> army. Especially given how "legion" meant so many different times during different periods, I think its use at all here is probably confusing, and should remains in the companion "Strucutral history of..." article - done now - PocklingtonDan17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The map of the Pyrrhic War can be improved. The geographic names are not in English (I think).
Can it be added in a few words that Pyrrhus campaigned against Carthage - raises questions now.
I will look into this now I've added the very briefest of mentions of this now: although technically its not a Roman military campaign I see how it fits into the historical narrative - PocklingtonDan17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed superpower->power, but for the record one of the source reference works on Rome's military is subtitled "Military History of the World's First Superpower", I believe the term does fit - PocklingtonDan17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment References come after punctuation, example it's currently like this [149][150. when it should be .[149][150] FInd a citation for the [citation needed] tag. Try remove weasel words like allege. Make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), defence (B) (American: defense), pretence (B) (American: pretense), organize (A) (British: organise), realize (A) (British: realise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), counter-attack (B) (American: counterattack). Avoid using contractions like wasn't spell it was not. Also remove, merge or expand the very short one-two sentence paragraphs. I also think the article is too big, and the above objection will be ignored as it isn't valid. M3tal H3ad10:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling - should now be standardised on British English but American spellings are so common in online materials my brain subconsciously accepts them now so its difficult for me to recognise them. Let me know if I've missed any
Contractions - think there was only instance, sorted
Article Size - I'm not sure what to do on the article size issue. I know it is large, but I'm not convinced its " too large" (too large for what?) since any contraction of the article would be at the cost of reduced comprehension of the events and an FA criterion is that the article must be "Comprehensive". I have already cut out as many names of non-esential figures etc as possible but its hard to see how to cut it down any further whilst still being able to give an accurate overview of 1300 years of warfare. This is a big topic and if the recent FA Alcibiades (a single individual) can have an (officially "too large") size of 89kb, it doesn't seem unreasonable to have a 112kb article on the military campaigns of an empire over 1300 years. The only official FA criterion regarding size is that "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". I would arguse that the article size was appropriate for the massive scope of of te article, and that I have avoided unecessary details. I will have another go but I doubt I can reduce te article length substantially without simply losing information.
*Comment. Bibliography is long quanitity, but not especially impressive on quality, being dominated by general books rather than specific studies.Semperf13:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography Quality I'm not sure how you judge the "quality" of the reference works but if references to Gibbon, Liddell Hart and Livy aren't good enough for you, I wonder what would be? I have several books that go into great detail on individual battles, wars and events, but since the article aims only to give a brief overview of these, they are redundant and add nothing that the summary works do not, in my opinion - PocklingtonDan13:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment. An article like this is really a long list of details with little analysis of the history (what changed and why?). It is a better Featured List candidate than a Featured Article Candidate. Semperf13:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of analysis History is "the branch of knowledge dealing with past events", there is no necessity for it to provide analysis of every event. You are correct that there is little analysis, rather the article lays out a chronology with links to individual articles on individual wars, battles etc that one might expect to contain commentary and analysis. As explained above, the "what changed and why" matters will be informed in the sister articles "Structural history of...", "Political history of", and "Technological history of". I think the article's coverage is implicit in its title, ie it covers only campaign history. It is outside the remit of the article to consider the impact of campaign, especially as the article is already being judged as over-long even before the inclusion of this information. There is also no requirement for analysis in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria - PocklingtonDan14:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Bibliography has quantity, but not quality. Amyot-North is a translation of Plutarch from the 16th century and should not be used except as a link to Plutarch; Chaliand's The Art of War in World History is too general to be useful to a reader (references are for readers who want to do further research); Gibbon became a classic of English literature, but now is too old to be useful as a reference for history; Michael Grant is too general, as are Boris Johnson, Lane Fox, Matyszak; I don't know the Rogers, but any work that calls Rome the world's first superpower (Persia?!) can surely be improved upon; Rolfe is a translation of Sallust and therefore belongs in the primary source column; do Saggs, Trigger, and Wood really have much to offer? Also, lack of consistency in capitalization (either use capitals throughout or not) and naming of authors (Jones?), where sometimes it is full names, sometimes only initials, sometimes before surname, sometimes after. (Matyszak, by the way, is Philip; his friends call him 'Maty') Semperf14:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography quality I'm not aware of anything in WP guidelines that makes pronouncements on the quality of given sources, and I have confidence in the sources that I have used. If you believe that I have cited a fact that is reputed by, in your opinion, more reputable sources, the correct action would be to change "X is so" in the text to "Although A says X, B C D E and F say Y". Your point is academic unless you can cite an example of a cited fact that a more reputable source disagrees with.
Comments I haven't really focused on this article, but I just noticed that it has a massive number of footnotes for the simple reason that named refs haven't been employed - the footnotes would be FAR more readable if named refs were used consistently throughout to eliminate all the repeats. Also, the article doesn't currently conform with WP:GTL - External links are listed in Sources. Which are they? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Oops, another huge problem - 73 KB of prose is a non-starter. Please see WP:LENGTH and WP:SS for readable prose limitations and correct use of Summary style. The prose should be cut in half via use of daughter articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article Size - I have already addressed this issue above. I have read the length guidlines wikilinked above and I think the article broadly complies with them. The hardest guidline given is that articles over 50kb "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". This is not a hard and fast rule (let's not forget that WP guidelines are just that - guidelines to which there are always exceptions, not laws) and I note that it has already been broken by several feature articles including the recent Alcibiades, which is well over this. I think its hard to argue that a single figure of ancient Greece is a topic that "has a topic that justifies the added reading time", but easy to argue this for 1300 years of military history. I do not believe that the article can be significantly reduced whilst still maintaing an authoratitive overview of 1300 years of ROme's military history. Some articles are by their nature bigger than others, even in traditional print encyclopedias. To addres the four concerns with size specifically:
technical issues, (e.g. browser limitations, upload speeds, cellular connections, etc.) - this seems a poor reason for reducing article size. The broswer limitations listed are noted in the guidelines as being largely legacy and redundant now and not an issue. Upload speeds, etc are increasing every day on both fixed and portable devices. It seems a shame to butcher an article to meet technical restrictions that are at best rare and may be irrelevant the same time next year due to technical progress anyway.
reader issues, (i.e. readability, organization, information saturation, attention spans, etc.) - I think very few people sit and read every word on many of the larger WP articles. The key point here is that article is presenting an overview, which then allows drill-down to more detailed articles on specific sections. I would not expect a casual reader to read throught he whole article in a single sitting, but an interested reader would do so.
editor issues, (e.g. talkpage tensions, arguments over trivial contributions) - this does not seem to be an issue with this article.
contribution issues, (i.e. articles stop growing significantly once they reach a certain size) - this does not seem to be an issue with this article - PocklingtonDan11:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. The writing is competent, but not brilliant; the sourcing can be improved is mostly to tertiary, obsolete, and non-authoritative works; the decision (described in the nomination) to divide up Roman military history by theme (campaigns, structure, politics, and technology) and then have one article covering 1300 years of Roman history for each is deeply flawed and results in an article that fails guidelines such as WP:LENGTH and gives so little analysis that it begins to look like a compilation of facts rather than an encyclopedia article that aims to explain. The article seems not to have gone through the good article process (I frankly do not think it should pass even there), and the wikiproject that it is part of seems to rate it only a 'B'. Semperf15:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to see that you are still firmly entrenched against this article despite me working hard to address your previous concerns as well as explaining to you (in some detail) the rationale for decisions taken with regard to the directin taken with and presentation of the article.
Sourcing - I'm not sure that I understand your objection here. The article is comprehensively cited using over two dozen reference works. The article references primary, secondary and tertiary works, as is common. Primary works cannot be relied upon solely since they are often biased, and secondary sources that compile and correlate multiple primary sources seems like the most NPOV way of presenting facts. Are you saying that you think some of the facts presented are wrong? Or that they are correct, but you think the cites for the facts should come from elsewhere? If the former, please present examples of incorrect facts so that I can fix them. If the latter, your request is absurd. I'm particularly amused by the fact that you object to the fact that I'm not using solely primary sources, and at the same time call my secondary sources "obsolete". I think you'll find the primary sources, predating the secondary sources by, oooh, about 1500 years, are a good deal more "obsolete" still.
Further comment on sourcing. The difference between secondary and tertiary is important here (for a useful review of the principles, see WP:RS#Types_of_source_material). This article's bibliography is dominated by tertiary items, and the few sources that might be fairly described as "secondary" are not much used. Primary sources should be cited not by page number to a translation, but by book and chapter: e.g., not Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, p. 266, but Plutarch, Crassus, 54; etc., etc. Again, authors names have to be added to the references. Semperf18:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thematic split decision - I'm sorry that you disagree with how I am choosing to tackle the subject, but I am unsure why you feel such an approach is flawed. It was suggested by other editors when the original "Military history of ancient Rome" article grew too large, and I think it is an excellent way of presenting the information.
Good article process - It is not mandatory for an article to go through a GA process before going for FA status. In fact, although you state you think GA would be more appropriate, the GA guidelines actually state "For articles longer than about 25 kB, rigorous reviewing of the Wikipedia peer review and featured article candidates guidelines is often more appropriate than the process here", so I believe you are incorrect.
B rating - Article was rated as B several months ago before the majority of the work was done upon it. Why is this relevant to its current status now? - PocklingtonDan16:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think the basic complaints against this article have been addressed. This is not a simple topic to cover so completely and the 300+ notes is simply a testament to the thoroughness that must have gone into the development of this article. I disagree with the complaints made about the article's length as I don't think one can be thorough (an FA requirement) and brief (another FA ~requirement) about something like the military campaign history of Ancient Rome. There are many other FAs out there that are quite long as well and setting a limit on the size for all FA candidates doesn't allow for any mobility on the topic being covered. This is a long article, but it's not overlong for the topic. If I'm writing an article on the military campaign history of Fiji, clearly it's going to be shorter. I do have one question to the main editor, though, regarding the title: is this the common naming convention in the military history project? It seems like you might want to say, for instance, "Military campaign history of Ancient Rome" or something of the sort. Thanks, JHMM1319:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. For what is worth, I actually agree myself that the title should probably be changed as suggested to "Military campaign history of Ancient Rome", since this is in keeping with MILHIST naming conventions. I'm useless at wikipedia technical stuff, is it possible for this rename to go ahead during this FAC or is it best to wait until after it is closed? - PocklingtonDan19:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's renamed, it should probably be to Military campaigns of ancient Rome, as the "history" is redundant in that case; but I'm not convinced this is actually a good idea. The title isn't wrong, per se, and it allows for a nice parallel naming scheme with the related articles.
(If you are going to move it, I'd suggest doing so before the FAC concludes, as there will be fewer archives that need to be moved that way.) Kirill Lokshin20:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about it fitting in with the naming scheme of the other articles is a good point that I hadn't considered. It's just a shame it doesn't seem to quite tie in with MILHIST naming conventions. I'm happy to move it or keep it as-is - PocklingtonDan21:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I understand that there is a problem concerning the length. If this would be an obstacle, it is possible to let the article split at the Roman split in West and East. IMO, it isn't and shouldn't be obligatory, but it would shorten the article and give the opportunity to deepen certain aspects (if necessary). Sijo Ripa12:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting Article - If you look at the article on the Byzantine Empire, it is listed as 330 AD - 1453 AD (ie everything in the east after the split). If ancient Rome was not likewise considered to be everything up to the split and the west after the split (as is conventional) then the west after the split would be in a strange limbo of conceptual nothingness. I think it is best (and consistent with most texts) to consider the Roman empire to be that empire containing and being governed from Rome. ie after the split, the Byzantine Empire was founded in the east, and the Roman Empire lost half of its territory, despite that territory being populated by people previously citizens of the roman empire. I'm not sure any other treatment would be possible or consistent with other articles on wikipedia or with other sources/references. I would therefore be against splitting the article, which aims to give an overview of roman military campaigns from the city's foundation to its fall - PocklingtonDan13:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I severely lack the knowledge necessary to judge this article for completeness or correctness, this is a very impressive article that Wikipedia and the editors of this article should be proud of. In any case, this article looks to be a real challenge to judge, so best of luck with this FAC. Cheers! Wickethewok15:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I support this article because I think it meets all the FA criteria. It is wel citated and sourced and it gives and good descroption on a extremly hard topic. Kyriakos20:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose. Technically, the size should reflect the comparative coverage degree of an article (Campaign history..., being currently 113KB long, is only 1KB away from the United States for example). I suggest some heavy summarizing (to reduce the size to 70KB or lower) and adding further information templates to some sections. The general appearance is a bit tedious, consider adding at least one painting. The last to-do IMHO is unlinking the publishing houses names. A really cool work anyway. --Brandспойт01:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments:
Size - This seems to be a recurring complaint! I think it is a little bit of contemporary big-headedness to consider that the history of Rome's military campaigning shouldn't have a much greater article than that of the United States, the former covering a period of 1300 years, and the latter only just over 200. As before, I am heavily against shortening the article to the degree stated because it would impossible to maintain an authoratitive article on the topic in that length of space.
Further Informaiton templates - I have chosen not to use these, believeing that the campaignbox infoboxes to the right provide links to all the relevant pages.
Appearance and Paintings - I tend to not like to add paintings etc for the heck of it just to pretty up an article without adding informational content. It is a view I know is shared by a few other MILHIST editors. However, I realise it is not a widely-held view and a certain degree of beautification is necesssary. I have added 2 paintings now of a suitable martial nature!
Support. Terrific work, actually one of my dreams seems to become true very soon. My shaky preference is to narrow the first lead sentences (probably by merging) to achieve smoother transition to the subject. --Brandспойт19:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the complete variation in map scale and style detracts something from the article. But, I don't think that's fully a reason to oppose--but if you could employ one of the better map makers to standardize these it would help the article tremendously. I do have some other, simpler issues which I think can be dealt with:
Most of your maps have no source data that can be used to verify that what they are portraying is correct. The UTexas maps are fine. Some like Image:Roemischeprovinzentrajan.png really need source data since the link is to a world map that shows nothing about Roman Empire. Some are in between like Image:Caesar campaigns gaul.gif which states it's from a reliable source but gives no means to verify that; It needs either a web link or a proper citation so we could actually find the book.
"Rome from which we have inherited so much[359][360][361] breeds the concept that" seems to me to be bad style. Footnote markers should cause minimal disruption. You can easily combine them into one footnote making it:
359 ^ The History of Rome, p. 1; Civilization Before Greece and Rome, p. 1; In Search of the First Civilizations, p. 176
instead of
359 ^ The History of Rome, p. 1
360 ^ Civilization Before Greece and Rome, p. 1
361 ^ In Search of the First Civilizations, p. 176
I am a little worried about the hide/show for foonotes since when you click on a reference before pressing show it will not take you to the list. If there was a way that we could make it automatically show if you click on a footnote marker that would solve the problem.
Image:España y Portugal.jpg doesn't seem to add anything to the article. A map showing maybe Roman settlements or, at least relating to Rome in some way I think is necessary to justify the image. Having a satellite picture and saying 'Rome took this over' isn't enough in my opinion.
Maps I agree with you actually, it would be wonderful to have a cohesive series of maps specifically drawn up for this article. I will look into this today and tomorrow.
I've made a request on the talk page for someone to help out with some maps - its definitely outside of my area of expertise so I need help with this - PocklingtonDan15:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Combining Footnotes - Is this standard wikipedia policy? I don't want to do this only to have to undo it - I've not seen anybody combining several cites in one like that before. I am happy to do this if there is consensus for it, but its not something I've seenbefore either on wikipedia or in print. Is this standard??
I wouldn't call it "combining" them. But, citing one statistic from three sources in one footnote is standard academic practice--whereas having three footnote links next to each other surely isn't. This won't make or break any nomination, though.
I think this would actually make the list of footnotes longer and is incompatible with the named references that I have already implemented at the request of other editors, so this is going to have to be a no I'm afraid - PocklingtonDan21:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing of Maps - Agree with you completely that all maps should be sourced, just as text. This might take some time to verify, but I will start looking into this. - PocklingtonDan21:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I am most concerned about is that the maps aren't all reliably sourced. They provide information like texts and we need not only copyright sources for them but verifiability sources too. In some cases they are the same (such as the UTexas ones) but for the self-made ones they are not veriable until we have an understanding of how the user drew the borders. So, I did make the point that "it would be wonderful to have a cohesive series of maps" but what really needs to be done before this becomes a featured article is make sure the maps are verifiable like the text. (Image:Etruscan civilization map.png is a perfect example. It looks nice, no copyright problems, but we need some source to check to make sure that creator User:NormanEinstein got the locations right. I cannot presume that he knows the borders of an ancient empire unless it is cited "made from Scholarly Etruscan Book by Famous Author." This is just like leaving article content unsourced.)
So, my second point is the one that really matters. The others are just tweaks I think would be nice. I should note: I will support if this is done. Otherwise, I will have to oppose since FAs shouldn't have unsourced material. grenグレン18:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting article - Thank you for your comments. However, I do not feel this is a good idea. One of my main criticisms with the coverage of Rome, and the Roman military in particular, on wikipedia is that when I arrived it seemed that wikipedia equated Roman Empire to Rome, and the Roman legion to the Roman army. I have been hard at work in numerous articles trying to dispel this idea and emphasise that the Roman state was active for hundreds of years prior to the Empire, and that the legions were only one part of Rome's military, and changed massively in form and scope. I would be afraid that "Military campaigns of the Roman Empire" would likewise be taken to mean the military campaigns of the entirety of rome's history. It would also entail the creation of yet another article at the current page to link to the two. It would also ignore the Roman Kingdom unless this was put into yet another article. And finally it would be difficult to classify certain periods of war near the end of the republic as falling definitievely into either republic or empire. As you might have guessed I'm still against shortening the article by splitting! - PocklingtonDan14:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I support this page. I have read the page myself and have followed all comments made by other wikipedians. I cannot come up with any reason to object to FA status. I also want to compliment PocklingtonDan and other contributors because they were able to write a comprehensive well-references article about such a difficult topic. Sijo Ripa18:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. There is exemplary work in this article, and I'm very glad to see the dropdowns eliminated from the text, but some things still to be addressed:
Why did the previous External links go away, rather then being listed in External links?
I just realised I explained this in my edit summary but not on this talk page - it was because all the external links were actually legacy links from before I (massively) rewrote the article and were now redundant and had no conenction to the article contents. I don't think I used any web sources in revising the article - PocklingtonDan20:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are Wikis listed as sources ? If those Wikilinks are only intended as links to information about the books, the relevant info still needs to be included in this article. If Wikis were used to source the article, that wouldn't be good.
I think you've got confused on this point, I didn't use a wiki as source as such. All I have done is to link to the relevant reference works on wikisource where available to allow easier verification, but I worked from the print versions whose information is given after the wikisource link. The same is true of the texts available on Project Gutenberg. I have seen this method used on FA articles such as Alcibiades and liked the easy verification of cites - PocklingtonDan20:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All websources used in the Bibliography need last access date
None of the works in the bibliography are normal external websites as such but Wikisource or Project Gutenberg. Is it conventional to add access dates even on these sources?
The footnote list is still longer than need be, and could be shortened via use of named refs - example,
^ Tacitus, The Annals, Book 1, ch, 60
^ Tacitus, The Annals, Book 1, ch, 60
Named Refs If you look at the wikicode I have already used named references widely. It appears that I might have missed a couple - they are after all difficult to keep track of. I will try and fix any missed ones now but please fix any others you see that I have missed - PocklingtonDan20:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might also be possible to consolidate further some of the refs (to shorten the size and list) by judiciously (where appropriate) combining very close range page numbers into one ref - example:
^ Churchill, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, p. 6
^ a b Churchill, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, p. 7
Could become one link to pp. 6-7
Merging cites This should be possible, though very time-consuming. I will look into it. It would have the disavantage of making each cite "woolly" aswell - PocklingtonDan21:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced its worth making the cites more vague for the skae of reducing the number of discrete footnotes - the idea of the footnotes is to provide as exact as a cite as possible for easy verification of facts - PocklingtonDan17:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The readable prose size is still 73KB, with one of the largest overall sizes I can recall seeing on an FAC. This article will be simply inaccessible to anyone who doesn't have a fast connection, and I can't support an article which is double the recommended readable size per WP:LENGTH. This is fine work, and I hope the author will find a way to turn it into two or three shorter featured articles. I would normally register a very strong oppose on an article this length, but believe the quality of the work must be acknowledged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article Size As I have already addressed at great length above, I believe the technical restrictions placed on larger articles are now outmoded and redundant, and I do not intend to decrease the size of the article since I do not beleve anyone has suggested a viable way of doing so to date. Thanks - PocklingtonDan20:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
History of Lithuania approach - I'm not sure what the good aspects of the History of Lithuania that you refer to are - which aspect of that article do you think should be incorporated in this one? - PocklingtonDan17:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the way they farmed out a space of six years to another article (I didn't know until I read the article that this was only done with one period of time!).--Rmky8716:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article needs a lot of polish. For example – inline citations appearing before the punctuation;
There are many textual, punctuational, phrasing errors, examples from the first part of the article include:
“Relinquishing his army, of course, leave Caesar defenceless before his enemies.”
“This time the Romans had devised methods to deal with the war elephants, including the use of javelins,[65] fire[67] and, once source claims, simply hitting the elephants heavily on the head”
The other problem is more subjective. The campaign boxes take up a lot of space and are wholly unecessary. Punic War campaign boxes belong in the Punic War article – the link has has been made in the text and that should be sufficient. Removing the clutter will improve the look of the article and reduce its size.
Support. This is an excellent article, despite the size; and, for a topic like this, ignoring the normal suggested length seems justifiable. Even at this point, the article is, in many ways, just a skim through the millenum of Roman campaigning; condensing it further would significantly impair its actual usefulness to readers, I think. Kirill Lokshin18:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments Fails 1a—I'm wondering how many reviewers have read this article? I just took a glance at the prose somewhere in the middle; the first sentence my eyes fell on is:
When a diplomatic dispute between Rome and the Greek colony of Tarentum erupted into open warfare in the naval Battle of Thurii, Tarentum appealed for aid to Pyrrhus, ruler of Epirus, for military aid.
Editor reviews - It is somewhat out of my control to get others to proofread the article. I have scanned it several times myself and asked several others to do so, and I believe several people have. If you find a phrasing error in an article, the simplest thing to do surely is to fix it, rather than report it on the review page? - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a ce error in the first random section, first sentence I happen to look at, either I was incredibly unlucky (in such a large article), or the entire article might benefit from a third party ce. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object—1a. Long, winding sentences and other problems, which make it a harder read than it should be. Here are random examples just from the lead. They indicate that the whole texts needs serious copy-editing. And it's too long for a summary article. Consider starting a few daughter articles to shift details out?
The first sentence is like Hannibal's elephant: "The history of Ancient Rome, originally a city-state of Italy, and later an empire covering much of Eurasia and North Africa, from the ninth century BC to the fifth century AD, was often closely entwined with its military history." You could use em dashes and remove the unnecessary commas (and the questionable reference to Italy), I suppose: "The history of Ancient Rome—originally a city-state and later an empire covering much of Eurasia and North Africa from the ninth century BC to the fifth century AD—was often closely entwined with its military history." Or you could split it into two: "Ancient Rome was originally a city-state, and later an empire covering much of Eurasia and North Africa, from the ninth century BC to the fifth century AD; its history was often closely entwined with its military campaigns." I'm unsure which solution is better.
"Despite the later Empire being based around ...". Ouch: ungrammatical and clumsy. Reword, avoiding "Despite the fact that ..." if you can. Perhaps "Despite the later Empire's base round the periphery of the mediterranean, naval battles were typically less significant to the military history of Rome ...". Again, it's up to you how to do it. "Less significant" than what?
"From the outset, Rome's military typified this pattern and the majority of Rome's campaigns were characterised by one of two types: the first is the territorial expansionist campaign, normally beginning as a counter-offensive,[2] in which each victory brings subjugation of large areas of territory and allowed Rome to grow from a small town to the third largest empire in the ancient world, encompassing almost one quarter of the world's total population;[3] and the second is the civil war of which examples plagued Rome right from its foundation to its eventual demise." This is a very long sentence, despite the use of a semicolon to break it up. Remove "and" after the semicolon. Change present tenses to past, for consistency?
"Roman armies were not, despite their formidable reputation and host of victories,[4] invincible:"—Awkward word order; relocate "invincible" after "not".
It's clear that a lot of work has gone into this. That's why it's worth fixing up. Rintrah might agree to go through it ... Tony23:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The map of Carthage is not right. The Ebro-treaty mentioned in old sources is considered wrong by modern researchers, instead it is the Iberus-treaty now and they argue where this Iberus was(most think it was south of Sagunt). Another mistake is the Punic power in the Maghreb. The kings were formally sovereign according to Livy and Polybius and most modern authors agree that they had some degree of independence. I will start to draw a map of Carthage prior to the war, but it will take some time. However, I would appreciate if this wrong and outdated map gets removed. Wandalstouring00:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carthage Map - Wandals, if you were able to produce a revised map (maps are completely beyond my skill to create) that shows Carthage's territory more accurately, I would greatly appreciate it - it would be of benefit not just to this article but to several others. I will leave the old map in place for the moment since it does at least provide a general indication of territory even if not, as you say, absolutely correct. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Overall I would lean toward supporting over opposing; the article is very good.
The footnotes are broken by the collapsing references feature. This is a bigger problem than the size issue the collapsing section were designed to solve. I would suggest using a traditional reference section; with the small font size it will not be all that overwhelming.
The length seems appropriate for a survey article of this scope.
Copyedit - I have tried copyediting this myself but I'm not a professional writer, as with any article on wikipedia, it could doubtless benefit from the work of a professional copyeditor. I have requested this now - PocklingtonDan (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
This important topic is on the Wikipedia vital articles page under the astronomy category. It is at GA status and has undergone a PR. It was also January's Science CotW. I believe it meets the FA criteria (although the page could easily be considerably longer, depending on the level of detail), so I'm nominating this page as a FAC. I'll try to address the issues that come up, but please be specific about the problems. Thank you! — RJH (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not, but it is difficult to decide which to cull. They all seem valid and of interest for additional reading. Any suggestions? I whittled down the list by merging some as references and moving a few to other pages, where appropriate. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it's confusing that the phrase the most distant Type Ia supernovae before explaining what "Type Ia" actually means. Perhaps wikilink the term to further down the page. And all but a couple of the wikilinks in "See also" are elsewhere in the article, so perhaps the section oculd be integrated and removed. Further readings should be below notes and references, per MoS. Some of the refs need accessdates. Looks pretty good in general. Trebor10:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up the "See also" section redundant links, relocated "Further readings" and added in the access dates to all but one of the URL'd references. (I couldn't access one of the sites— it may be down temporarily so I'll check again later.) Thanks for the corrections. — RJH (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object on the grounds that, whilst it is well researched and well cited, it does not do a good job of explaining itself to the average reader. From the intro: "produces an extremely luminous object made of plasma. A supernova may briefly out-shine its entire host galaxy before fading from view over several weeks or months. It would take 10 billion years for the Sun to produce the energy output of an ordinary, Type II supernova.[1] The explosion expels much or all of a star's material with great force,[2] driving a shock wave into the surrounding space, forming a supernova remnant" What is plasma? What is a type two supernova? What is a supernova remnant? Can these things not be summaried in-line rather than having to switch to another article to find out before you've even got going? For most readers, the name plasma is less important than what plasma is. I would love to read an article on supernovas, but I am not a scientist and time and again whenr eading this article I was stumped by what wsa being presented. I think it is dying for greater in-line explanation of concepts to non-scientists, I feel it is enough to confuse and put-off non-scientists at resent - PocklingtonDan 14:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing objection - most of this has now been addressed, article is now a lot moer accessible for non-specialists - PocklingtonDan10:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per your comment and the above comment from Trebor, I've removed the mentions of supernova type from before the section that talks about type. That early in the article, such information is a bit too detailed. However, I disagree with you about "plasma" -- the term should be well known to those with a reasonable interest in astronomy, and if it's not, there's still a wikilink to the article Plasma (physics), which explains it. A better case could be made for the term "redshift", but there we see the peril -- it would be a mistake to digress into what redshift is, because it's not particularly crucial to the topic of supernovas, and there's another article for that. As for supernova remnant, that sentence basically defines the term, and I've revised it so that it's more clear that that's a definition. Mangojuicetalk15:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having difficulty relating this objection to the featured article criteria. Nowhere does it state the level of reader comprehension to be satisfied. (Compare, for example, to photon which is a far more technical article.) I agree with the removal of the "Type II". I'll try to add some clarification to the first paragraph, but in doing so it may become too wordy. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I quite disagree, "brilliant and compelling prose" assumes that the article is accessible to non-experts. Someone could write a truly comprehensive, sourced, well-structured article about charm quarks or spliceosomes, but without at least an attempt to introduce the reader to the overarching subject or the terms of art, I don't think I could support such an article as an FA. This article is not so badly-off, but this is a totally valid criticism.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk*17:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simple English is intended for people who don't have a complete grasp of the language, not the subject matter. Look at Klein-Gordon equation. Would it be so difficult to include brief explanations of "relativistic," "spinless particles", and a quick overview of the Schrodinger equation? And that's just the lead! The ideal wikipedia article encourages people to look at wikilinks for more detail, it doesn't force them to do so just to get a basic grasp of the original article. We are not talking about "level of education" in a broad sense, meaning that a reader should be able to understand context clues and look up unfamiliar words; sometimes, articles are so field-specific that only someone with a great deal of training in the subject can really understand. Perhaps in advanced topics in quantum mechanics, this is just par for the course, but if an article is up for FA, there has to be a concession to readability. But again, I don't think this article is nearly as bad as all that.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk*19:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Are there more specific examples that need some clarification? — RJH (talk)
Can I add, tangentially, that we shouldn't rely entirely on wikilinks to provide context in articles? A Wikipedia article in principle is written for the world, not for this website. Also, to the extent that context has to be derived from wikilinks, the educational value of an article falls off sharply. With technical articles, one can get into an endlessly recursive wikilink-following mess. (I am not referring to Supernova, which I haven't looked at yet.) –Outriggr§02:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem then becomes how much should a relatively technical article be written as a stand alone piece? Does it start to snow-ball so that every technical term needs to be explained in detail, pushing up the article length tremendously? By ignoring the wikilink capability in that manner we lose one of the big advantages of even having a wiki. I think you have to assume a certain level of education for an article, then provide wikilinks for those who haven't reached that point yet. But where that level is I have no idea. Just what is average? Anyway that's just my opinion, of course. :-) — RJH (talk)
CommentSupport- I would have thought mentioning the rarity of supernovas in this galaxy and how many there have been should have gone in the lead. I wonder whether calling it a exploding star rather than stellar explosion is just as accurate. cheers. Cas Liber18:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, saying "exploding star" or "stellar explosion" is essentially the same. I seems like a matter of taste really; I just prefer the current form. You're right in that the article needs information about general supernova rates in all galaxies... which I just did. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not a typo, but good observation. We only see part of the Milky Way due to the obscuring effect of the interstellar medium. So we're just viewing a sample of the total supernova explosions. The rate is derived from the amount of radioactive Aluminum-26 found, which is primarily produced by supernovae.[30] (I added a final section to the History of supernova observation page to describe this.) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support a well-written and exceptionally well-illustrated article on a complex subject. Regarding the accessibility question above, I didn't have undue difficulty understanding the specifics with the provided wikilinks, and I have no particular knowledge of the subject. Just a couple of very minor suggestions:
Since there's only a single note, can this be incorporated into the text, or is it just too specific to flow well?
I added the note in lieu of a reference, as it's a mathematical derivation. My feeling is that it's better as a note.
The table titled "Supernovae taxonomy" is a little awkward; sort of like "organisms classification" or "teeth brush". Would read better to me as "supernova taxonomy".
Okay I switched it back. But don't be surprised to see it changed to the way it was; people always seem to be word-smithing those little details. :-)
I'm always in the minority on this, but I like to see the "see also" section with several well-chosen links to key related topics, even if they have been linked in the text before. Not linking anything that appears in the text seems to be expecting everyone who hits the bottom of the article to have read the whole thing. But some people think the WP:MOS also comes in stone tablet form, so just take this as food for thought.
The external links section would be more useful organized with basic/introductory material at the top and papers at the bottom. Actually the papers should probably go in further reading; just because they're on the web doesn't require them to go in with the links. Opabinia regalis05:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Observation history" and "Discovery" are not important enough to take up whole sections.
Both are important enough to be included in the article. They were merged at one point, but in the past I've received complaints about sections with only one sub-section. So I put them in separate sections. — RJH (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a large amount of info on Type Ia and then Type Ib and Ic are crammed into one subsection. This leaves me wondering why there is nothing to say about the Formation and Light curve of type Ib and Ic supernovae.
Type Ib and Ic are less common variants, rather than major supernovae models. The summary includes information on how they are believed to have formed. Details on detecting their light curves seemed excessive at this level, but I wouldn't mind seeing separate articles in the future. — RJH (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they are so similar that there is not much to say about them, they don't deserve a separate subsection. You should merge the info in with "Type Ia"; rename it to "Type I" with most of the discussion about what all three have in common and then some notes about how they differ. --Ideogram16:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do seem to be a person who enjoys argument. Unfortunately I am of the opposite nature. I'm satisfied with the current taxonomic section arrangment. — RJH (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Hypernovae are still theoretical, why are they placed in the Type II subsection?
It's directly related; it's an important topic of research, and it's been in the news. So I think it deserves a brief summary. — RJH (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are sufficient reasons for including this material. I am advocating that the article have a tight focus on one subject; if we included everything that qualified under your reasons above the article would not be focused. They also don't answer my direct question, which is are Hypernovae really Type II? How do we know? --Ideogram16:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm arguing that the top level supernova article should provide a relatively comprehensive overview, with sub-topics better developed on other pages. For more information on Hypernova, I suggest reading (and perhaps even developing) that sub-topic. — RJH (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny, I thought that was my position. Can you explain why the description of Hypernovae shouldn't be reduced to one sentence with a link to the other article? --Ideogram17:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no criteria stating that a summary should be exactly one sentence. It should be as long as is needed to summarize the subject matter. — RJH (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the subsection "Asymmetry" doing here? It seems like too much detail, and even if it belongs in the article, certainly not here.
To provide an explanation of the kick to the supernova remnants, and because it's been frequently mentioned in recent modeling results (and in Supernova articles). It also helps explain jets. Finally I just found it interesting. — RJH (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just include everything that you find interesting. You need to consider that the reader may not be interested in the same things. This is why we have links; they can hint at other related topics and the reader can click on them if they are interested.
So again we disagree at a philosophical level. I haven't included everything I found interesting; but I do write about what I find interesting, otherwise this would be a pointless exercise. Obviously not all readers are going to be equally interesting in every section. I still firmly believe the topic is sufficiently important and relevant to include. — RJH (talk)
What other equally interesting material are you suggesting we merge? Asymmetry is directly related to supernova models, and the observables. The need for inclusion seems clear to me. The fact that I also find it an interesting topic hopefully makes it enjoyable to other occasional readers. — RJH (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am rejecting the notion that things should be included just because they are "interesting", I am pushing you to include things because they are important. Even if Asymmetry is important, is it important enough to require this much space? --Ideogram15:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Type I versus Type II" probably should go in the introduction to the section.
'IIRC, they were at one point and then were removed to keep the lead section free of excessive detail. I don't think the introduction suffers from their absence, so I left them out. Otherwise another paragraph would probably be needed in explanation. — RJH (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It is directly related to the topic of supernovae, and I find it interesting reading. Ditto for the next issue. — RJH (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, not "everything" can go in here. But these sections make the subject more compelling and the article an interesting read. They relate supernova events to people's lives, the history of the Earth and the whole reason why were here. So I remain strongly opposed to their removal. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia. It is supposed to be dry and factual. We are not here to make the subject exciting and relate it to people's lives. --Ideogram17:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it wasn't dry and factual? FA's are supposed to make for compelling reading--I read that as making the topic interesting to the reader. It isn't necessary for the topic to be emotive and arousing for it to be enjoyable. — RJH (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't writing an article for a popular science magazine. Nobody casually looks up Supernova in an encyclopedia because the article mentions "the whole reason why we are here". They are here because they are already interested in Supernovae and we don't need to make some kind of sales pitch to convince them that Supernovae are related to their lives. --Ideogram15:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say this but I really have deep philosophical differences with you on most of these issues. That is I disagree with everything except, possibly, the "Type I versus Type II" remark. (But even there I'm iffy, as it would require an expansion of the lead section in explanation.) If that means this article does not become FA, then, I'm sorry to say, so be it. Thank you for your feedback. — RJH (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the "Impact on Earth" and "Milky Way Candidates" don't belong, and I disagree that "Observation history" and "Discovery" aren't important enough for the coverage they have. Inclusion of those sections is what makes this article so comprehensive, which is one of the Featured article requirements. Mangojuicetalk22:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying "Observation history" and "Discovery" should be removed, I'm saying they are too small and minor to be sections by themselves. They could be combined with "Naming convention" in a general introductory section.
There is a tension between comprehensiveness and coherence. You clearly cannot include everything related to supernovae, you have to decide what is important and relevant enough to include. We can disagree on what specifically belongs but a general appeal to comprehensiveness would imply everything belongs. --Ideogram22:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. However, those sections are clearly about supernovae, and answer many of the kinds of questions a reader might have: What is the history of supernova discovery? How are supernovae found? What would happen to us if one happened nearby? Could one happen nearby? It seems to me that you must be saying that those parts of the subject aren't important enough to cover, but the extensive citations in those sections in academic venues prove that people are indeed very interested in such areas. I doubt a similar list of quality citations would be found for a really trivial section like "Supernovae in popular culture" or something. So... why do you think these are irrelevant, given that the scientific community seems to disagree? Mangojuicetalk00:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you limited the article to subjects for which extensive citations could be found, you would still have a bloated, unfocused article. There is nothing wrong with putting that valuable material in separate articles and linking to it. Especially here, where articles have to be short, each article needs to focus on one central aspect of the subject and link to other articles discussing related aspects. In this case, a quick glance at the table of contents reveals that the central aspect of supernovae being discussed is the classification system into Type Ia, Ib, Ic, and II and the behavior and models of those types. --Ideogram11:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find the present subject headings suitable to the topic, and not at all "bloated".
I have to agree with the unsigned comment. Some of the subject headings are clearly suitable candidates for spinning off into their own articles for further expansion in detail, but they will still need to be summarized in some detail in the Supernova article. The discovery, naming convention, models, asymmetry, remnants and effects on us are all closely intertwined subject-matter. Type Ib and Ic are just less common variants of the two primary forms: Type Ia and Type II, so I'm not sure how much they could be developed without including masses of additional detail and adding to your "bloat". Hypernovae are the subject of much current research and are very likely closely related to Type II, so that is also quite worthy of inclusion in at least a brief mention. Asymmetry is at the core of how supernovae function, so it should absolutely not be excluded. I also find the sections on supernovae effects and their proximity to the Earth to be relevant and quite interesting to the subject matter. Sorry but I can't just can't see the article size be the overriding factor here. I would much rather see this article fail FA than be chopped into separate pieces as is suggested. — RJH (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RJH, you are not answering my questions. These are questions anyone not expert on supernovae is likely to ask. Since I had them while reading the article, you need to clarify the issues I raised in the article.
I ask you to think clearly what your purpose is here. If all you want is the star, your article can probably pass without me. But if you want the article to truly represent the best that Wikipedia has to offer, you should try to work with me.
I have no interest in the star; it's just a vandal magnet and I would much rather not see this article appear on the front page—but that isn't an option for an FA. My primary interest was making this an interesting read that did not suffer from obvious errors. But I do find your hubris a little grating. — RJH (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am only stating my opinion. The validity of my objections will have to be determined by consensus among the other editors. --Ideogram16:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem unwilling to discuss. If you can address my points and explain your vision of the article, it is possible I will agree with you. Even if I do not, your explanation may help the FA director decide to overrule my objections. --Ideogram15:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ideogram -- having looked over things again, I agree with you to a degree. The asymmetry section, as it stands in the article, does seem a bit out of context. I also think that the "observation history" and "discovery" sections should probably just be grouped into a single section called "Observation" or something similar; the distinction between the two seems needless, and there's no need to have two top-level sections be so short when others are so much longer. Similarly with the other sections you are complaining about. Where I suppose we differ is that I feel those sections should be tied in to the rest of the article more clearly, rather than removed. Perhaps the asymmetry section and some of the others could be grouped into a section on current research topics? I do find current research topics interesting and relevant, but the organization should probably not flip-flop between well-established core stuff and new research issues. Mangojuicetalk15:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Asymmetry is a core element of modern supernovae models and I don't believe it should be excluded. The article still needs to mention the kick to remnants and provide an explanation of some sort. This is the best we have. The "Discovery" section was separated from "Observation" due to past complaints about having sections with only one sub-section. — RJH (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RJH, I generally agree with you here that comprehensiveness beats size every time, and the sections Ideogram has identified as excessive or extraneous are, in my view, crucial to comprehensiveness. But on this sub-point, I think that the discovery and observation sections can easily be merged; headers and subheaders are navigational tools, and conforming to the grade-school view of 'what an outline should be' (I remember learning the no-singleton-subsection rule too) is entirely unimportant. Opabinia regalis05:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no issue with a re-merger of the Discovery and Observation sections, as they were only split based on the precedent of this forum. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears we are at an impasse. My position is that the article needs to be focused on one topic and we can include links to other interesting and related topics. My understanding of RJH's position is that we should summarize many (to him) interesting topics, especially recent results. I'm sure RJH will correct me if I have misinterpreted him.
That sounds about right. However a number of the topics about which you've taken askance were contributed by other editors. It was not solely my interest that generated the subject matter. The "Impact on Earth" section was the result of a merge from a separate article. (See Talk:Supernova#Merge_Near-Earth_Supernova_into_Supernova.) Also I believe the sub-topics are at a sufficiently high level not to be relegated as minute details. — RJH (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "Yes" without a supporting reason is rather childish. As I noted already, this dispute is at an impasse and deciding who is right is up to consensus. If you really don't have anything to say, you don't have to say anything. --Ideogram18:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing a little about the topic (not my specific area of expertise, I hasten to add) I trust his judgement as to when something is important enough, or interesting enough, to be included in an overview article like this, and how much weight should be given to each element. I venture to add that further discussion of my background, or reasons for supporting, are rather tangential to this discussion - which is about whether this article should be featured or not. -- ALoan(Talk)18:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You brought it up. As a writer my expertise is in structuring and presenting the knowledge other people possess. He may know the what but I wish to advise on the how. I am quite aware that he is familiar with the subject matter and I am not, which is why most of the time I am asking questions about what is really important and what is not. His response is to reject the notion of importance as a criterion, in favor of what is "interesting". I have reasons for my opinions but he doesn't want to discuss them. --Ideogram18:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to be listening to his answers - the things that he thinks are interesting are also important. Anyway, enough of this meta-discussion. -- ALoan(Talk)19:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't noticed much explanation. Generally his answers are no more than "Yes it's important" with the implication that I am to take his word for it. He seems to personally dislike me for challenging him. Note the comment above about "hubris". --Ideogram19:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I don't see a problem with the current structure of the article. To respond to Ideogram's queries -- sections like "discovery," "observational history," and "impact on Earth" seem to have transparent importance. The nature of the sources used satisfy any further concerns about the importance of the material in the article. Christopher Parham(talk)23:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note again that I am not suggesting "discovery" and "observational history" be removed. I am suggesting that they be merged with other sections since they are so short. Also, just because you can find sources for certain material doesn't mean it's important to the article. You can slap together a well sourced article that contains all kinds of important science that is still poorly organized and poorly focused. --Ideogram15:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please try to make all your points in one edit that I can respond to? You are making multiple edits while I am composing my response which forces me to waste time dealing with edit conflicts. --Ideogram17:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's sort of how I ended up with my goofy unsigned comment--trying to respond while the page kept getting updated and ending up with edit locks. I can usually get in briefer replies without this issue arising. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Another article in the Isabel series and another sponsored by the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject, I just published it tonight to the standards of a featured article. Plenty of refs and local reports, as well as in depth info where it needs it. There's one thing I should mention. As a notice, the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject has a standard that references are excluded from the lede, and in the body of the article they are used at the end of every block- that is, block A is three sentences long, and ends with ref A. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Another great article from the Tropical cyclone project. Comprehensive, well-written and well-referenced. Out of interest, why do the FEMA references have a padlock next to them? Trebor14:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self-nomination. Stable article on one of the "Big Four" national networks of American radio's golden age. Corrects many errors prevalent online. Thanks to Eric O. Costello for helpful observations and PhantomS for source coding.—DCGeist18:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a well-written article which gives an excellent history of the network, from the Quality Network days up to dissolution in 1999. Wikipedia has so many Featured Articles on current pop culture topics; it is nice to see such detailed work on an oft-neglected topic from "the ole days". I believe the prose is well-written; it is hard to imagine this article more comprehensive; and the crosschecking between On the Air: The Encyclopedia of Old-Time Radio and The Encyclopedia of American Radio leads me to believe this article is about as factually accurate as anyone will get. Appropriate images are salted through the article, and the lead appears to summarize the rest of the contents of the article very well. No objection here. Well done. Firsfron of Ronchester23:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs a thorough copy-edit, preferably by a non-US editor. In the third sentence of the lead: "golden age of radio drama" doesn't represent a world-wide viewpoint. I suggest that you put "US" somewhere in there. Reworded.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Towards the end of the lead: "it introduced the country to Larry King" – surely this should read "it introduced Larry King to the country"? No. Current wording is proper and most natural idiomatic expression.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) The sentence starting "What WLW brought was sheer power" doesn't read entirely correctly, probably due to punctuation. Punctuation corrected.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Throughout the article, it used "through <date>" – you should be aware that this is an American idiom (In the UK, "to <date>" or "until <date>" is used). For an international audience "through to <date>" is the preferred compromise – this occurs too frequently for me to mention every occurrance. Addressed below.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) The phrase "five Midwestern stations: KSLG–St. Louis; KSO–Des Moines, Iowa; WMT–Cedar Rapids, Iowa; KOIL–Omaha, Neb.; and KFOR–Lincoln, Neb." – for one of the stations, you don't mention the state; for two of the stations, you mention the full name of the state; for two of the stations you give an abbreviation for the state. Please make these consistant. Adjusted. As short, vowel-filled word, Iowa is not commonly abbreviated, as Missouri and Nebraska are.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) "The Texas Network soon added twenty-three more stations to the MBS affiliate roster" – this sentance doesn't flow well from the previous one. Adjusted.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) "Within a few years, this new Ohio participant would become a vested member of MBS." – I don't believe that you have defined what a "vested" member is. Adjusted.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) "By the end of 1938, Mutual had 74 exclusive affiliates; though the two leading networks discouraged dual hookups" – at this point, the user is complete confused with the station abbreviation, and isn't certain what the "two leading networks" are; I would suggest putting these in parentheses after their mention. Reworded. Two leading networrk companies, CBS and NBC, now mentioned both in cited sentence and two sentences later.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Heading title "1940s: Major-minor" should have an en-dash. No. It's not major vs. minor. A compound of two single-word terms, one modifying the other, properly takes a hyphen.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) What caused the change in co-operative structure in 1940? The decision of the participants. Not clear on the confusion here.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) The paragraph starting "Already by 1940," – I'm confused by the references to "the Blue" and "the Red". Again, not clear on the confusion here. NBC's Blue and Red networks are brought up in preceding section. Quote is immediately preceded by a clarifying phrase "the FCC, calling for NBC to divest one of its two networks." What else can we do here?—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) In the Pearl Harbor section, you refer specifically to the time lag since the bombs had been dropped. How did this compare with other broadcasters? They followed shortly thereafter. Do you think that would be helpful to article? Simply observing that Mutual was first seems sufficient in context.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) "William Shirer came over from CBS to do commentary" – commentary on what? Clarified.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) In the 1950s section, you say "Mutual was at this point by far the largest radio network in the United States", and justify this by quoting the number of affiliates. However, in the previous section, it was mentioned that Mutual affiliates tended to broadcast at lower power than its rivals, and the network therefore required a greater number of affiliates to cover the same geographic area. If the argument is equally true in the 1950s, then a much larger number of affiliates does not correspond to a much larger network; if the argument is not equally true in the 1950s, then the article should mention the fact. Quite right. Adjusted.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) "with ABC falling in between" – in between what? Eliminated. No hard data available for that year.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 1960s: "had largely wiped their slates clean of most of their network programming" – I don't believe that "Network programming" has been defined yet in the article. Huh? It's programming provided by the network. What else were you thinking it might be?—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) "One of the few long-form programs" – what on earth is a "long-form" program? Right. Adjusted.—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Generally, there are too many "as well" statements throughout the article. Consider swapping some of these with equivalent terms, such as "also". OK. Down to five "as well"s (1 per section).—DCGeist 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Bluap04:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Thanks for comments. Specific ce suggestions will be addressed. Article is on a U.S. topic, so U.S. idiomatic approach is proper per Wikipedia style; meaning of "through <date>" not obscure to any English speaker.—DCGeist05:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the Pearl Harbor section, you refer specifically to the time lag since the bombs had been dropped. How did this compare with other broadcasters? They followed shortly thereafter. Do you think that would be helpful to article? Simply observing that Mutual was first seems sufficient in contextComment Except that the article does not say that that Mutual was first – it simply gives the time lag between the bombing and the radio broadcast. Bluap05:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction The line reads as it has: "Mutual flagship WOR interrupted a football game broadcast to make the initial mainland public announcement of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor." Initial=first. The reason "first" isn't used in that sentence is to avoid an awkward echo with the following sentence: "The first bombs had dropped 63 minutes earlier."—DCGeist06:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I interpreted "initial" to mean "the first announcement on Mutual", rather than "the first announcement on any radio network. Bluap21:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"had largely wiped their slates clean of most of their network programming" – I don't believe that "Network programming" has been defined yet in the article. Huh? It's programming provided by the network. What else were you thinking it might be?
I don't know what else it might mean. The concept of have lots of local stations that are owned separately, but share a large proportion of their programming with each other is not world-wide, and is mainly US-centric. Many countries do not have a differentiation between the "network" and the "station", or if they do, it is not the same as in the US. Since this concept is a pre-requisite for a large proportion of the artilce, perhaps a small paragraph near the station summarising what a US Radio Network does would be sufficient. Bluap05:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up OK. Lead states the following: "For the first eighteen years of its existence, MBS was owned and operated as a cooperative, setting the network apart from its competitors: Mutual's members shared their own original programming, transmission and promotion expenses, and advertising revenues.... [After] 1957, Mutual's ownership was largely disconnected from the stations it served, leading to a more conventional, top-down model of program production and distribution." There's also a lead link to radio network, which further details the concept.—DCGeist19:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further follow-up Consequent to responding to a comment of SandyGeorgia's, I edited the first couple sentences of the second graf of section 1 to further clarify the standard U.S. network style and Mutual's notable deviation.—DCGeist07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For some reason the formatting of "Sources" looks a bit odd on my computer...the left column is much skinnier than the right column. Have you tried <div class="references-2column"></div>? Gzkn06:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Same with me. PhantomS took my old-school, single column biblio formatting and brought the sources into this mod format. It looked fine on my computer--equal-width columns--for a few days, but now I'm seeing the same thing you are and for no apparent reason. I don't really understand the coding issues here, so if you have an idea how to deal with it (as it seems), please go ahead and test. I don't know how to apply the coding sequence you suggest for maximum effect.—DCGeist06:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I updated it to the "references-2column" class. Note that "references-2column" forces the columns to conform to the same height. Thus, depending on the width of your browser window, the last source in the left column may run over to the right column. Gzkn07:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The column templates I was using used tables. The extra long entries stretched the second column, which shrank the first column. Using the div is probably a better idea there, considering the entries would have to be played with otherwise. As for the height issues related to the addition of the references-2column div, they should be acceptable unless someone complains. --PhantomS07:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I decided not to wait for any complaints about text running over and modified the templates I was using. It should appear correctly now. If it doesn't, please let me know. The big difference was the change out of col-break for col-2.--PhantomS07:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in the Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article.
Related topics should be grouped by subject area for ease of navigation. Also provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent
That's what the See also section does here: (a) it lists internal links to other articles as a navigational aid, (b) it repeats no links already present in the article, (c) it groups the links into two subject areas--shows and individual people--for ease of navigation, and (d) it provides a brief explanatory or amplificatory bit of information with each link: (i) in the case of the shows (i.e., all the shows that ran on Mutual that I've been able to identify a Wikipedia article on and that are not discussed in the article), it gives their start and end dates, and (ii) in the case of the people, it identifies their primary profession.
How does that violate the guideline? And, given that the rosters are based--in See also fashion--on links to other articles in Wikipedia that are not referenced in the main text of the article, what would these two proposed Lists properly be called?—DCGeist20:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting article. Although I'm not a fan of the paragraph sized captions under each photo but that may be a personal preference. Harvey10010:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object - 1a, 1c, 2 - most seriously, again, the use of websources which may not rise to the level of WP:RS.
Weasle words without cites ("It is often claimed", etc.);
Reply In the end, only a weasle word if not verifiable. Sentence mentioned now rigorously and extensively cited. You wrote "weasle words." I searched the entire article for the most common weasle word flags and didn't find any more examples of uncited, weasly phrasing. If you identified any others, please specify them so they can be cited, edited, or eliminated.—DCGeist07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
snakes (Unlike the existing national networks of the time—NBC's Red and Blue networks (the latter of which would be sold and transform into ABC in 1943–44) and the Columbia Broadcasting System—the Mutual Broadcasting System was run as a true cooperative venture, with programming produced by and shared between the group's members.)
Reply Edited, and in such a way as to provide additional help to Bluap and others not familiar with the basic notion of a classic U.S.-style broadcasting network. You wrote "snakes." Opinions on what qualifies as a snake are in many cases subjective. I looked and didn't find any more. If you identified any others, please identify them so they can be edited.—DCGeist07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
named refs should be employed to avoid repeat refs to the same source;
Reply No. "Repeat refs to the same source" is the preferred scholarly style, and is also much easier for general readers of Wikipedia to navigate. "Named refs" are acceptable and many Wikipedia editors find them efficient, but specific references are clearly preferable intellectually, from an academic perspective, and practically, from a readership perspective. At best, you are expressing a personal preference that does not relate to the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. And, if you had looked through the 100-plus notes before writing, you would have seen that name refs would have eliminated a grand total of two of them. It would be unusual to raise this in a Comment; it clearly has no place as part of an Objection. Please refamiliarize yourself with the Featured article criteria.—DCGeist07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
publishers/authors not identified on all websources, some of which upon further examination appear to be personal websites not rising to the level of WP:RS;
Reply The first part of the comment is simply incorrect. Publishers and/or authors, as applicable, are identified for every single websource, either in the link itself or following it. In one lone case (the note for Zero Hour), online information resources that are not used as sources for article text are presented in abbreviated fashion, simply as an aid to the interested reader. The second part of the comment states that "upon further examination [some websources] appear to be personal websites not rising to the level of WP:RS." In fact, every websource, whatever its producer, was (a) vetted for reliability, both generally and for the specific field encompassing the data cited and was used (b) only after extensive research established it as the best available source for the relevant information. A reading of the notes evidences this assertion, revealing detailed consideration of sources' reliability and caveats to readers as appropriate (including important warnings about sources that would easily pass a simplistic, policy-based test). Please specify what websources underwent this "further examination" you speak of and the particular reason for doubting the reliability of any as a source for the specific data in question.—DCGeist07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
article text (lists of shows and personnel) included as See also, rather than incorporated into text as separate sections. Adding extra long image captions results in a very long article. (See also isn't counted by scripts calculating prose size; a manual check reveals 42KB of prose, indicating that Summary style should be considered to shorten the article per WP:LENGTH.)
Reply The contents of See also are not article text, as one would learn from reading either (a) my detailed response to your first comment on this issue or (b) the entire article, as is asked of all those who weigh in on FACs. The contents of See also are specifically not covered in the article. They are included as a navigational aid to Wikipedia readers, along with helpful amplificatory and explanatory information. Inclusion on each list is clearly based on Wikipedia's own resources, as is appropriate to a See also section. For such lists to have intellectual standing as article text sections, they would need to be comprehensive--i.e., listing every show that ever played on Mutual (adding in all the shows that are covered in the article text and the innumerable others not yet represented on Wikipedia) and every person significantly involved with the network (requiring an even vaster expansion). There is no authoritative source for the former. The latter is obviously (or, it appears, not so obviously) a fool's quest. Each image caption is intended to serve a pedagogical purpose, complementary and (in the longer cases) supplementary to the main text. If there are any captions you have a specific problem with, please identify them so they can be appropriately edited.—DCGeist07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Bluap's copyedit concerns: the issues Bluap raised are obscured by the strange formatting of replies, making it hard to sort out what has been addressed, but not all of those issues appear to have been addressed.
Reply I'm sorry you found the formatting of my replies to Bluap "strange" (Did you notice? Bluap never said they were strange...and had no problem finding my queries and responding to them.) I sought the most specific and respectful form of reply given the format in which Bluap brought forward the issues. Every single one of Bluap's issues has been addressed--in over 75% of the cases by a directly responsive edit; in two cases by a defense of U.S. idiom, in two cases by a defense on general intellectual grounds. Bluap has evidently acceded to the latter, and--as is evident from the ongoing colloquy between Bluap and me--would certainly be responded to respectfully if there were any lingering concern. Disregarding the productive exchange Bluap and I have had, you wrote "not all of those issues appear to have been addressed." Please specify what those issues are, so they can be.—DCGeist07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, they haven't - DCGeist's verbosity in responding about his own particular views of Wiki guidelines doesn't equate to concerns addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up Sandy is, of course, free to label my responses "verbose," "long-winded," "logorrheic," or simply "precise and detailed," but each basis for the objection has been addressed with responsive edits or has been shown to be ill-founded. No basis for Sandy's objection remains. As Sandy's inability to reply on a single point reveals.—DCGeist17:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it's worth, I feel that the vast majority of the points have been addressed, and that it shouldn't be actionable against the article being featured. Bluap03:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very good overall. Some minor points I that I think should be considered:
The sentence "Of the four national networks of American radio's classic era, for decades it had the largest number of affiliates but the least certain financial position" in the first paragraph is a little bit awkward. Rephrase or restructure.
Some of the section headers such as "Starting out," "Major-minor," and "Narrowed focus, niche markets" come off as too informal. Headings like "formative years" and "declining markets" or similiar variations might work better.
The list format of the 1940 MBS distribution of shares seems out-of-place amongst the body of prose. Consider transferring this into prose, or better yet, create a chart.
While cited, the sentence "Welles was brilliant in most regards, but he couldn't pull off the sinister chuckle" in the Orson Welles image box comes off as POV. Clarify who is making this statement.
"See also" can possibly be retitled "List of Mutual programs and personalities"
See replies to Sandy above. In sum: Shows and personalities are included under "See also" as navigational aids, based on current Wikipedia resources. There presently exists no authoritative source for a comprehensive or even near-comprehensive list of all Mutual series. If such a source is ever made available, the current show info in "See also" can be moved to a new list-article. A comprehensive list of all significant Mutual personalities is a practical impossibility. The rationale for inclusion does not come close to the necessary intellectual standard for a List; again, it is based in classsic "See also" fashion on existing Wikipedia articles not linked in the main text.—DCGeist02:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A major consideration: You might possibly want to move some text around to create a separate section (or article even, with a summary-style section featuring a link to the main article) about the programming and the notable shows (The Shadow, Superman, game shows, etc.). This might increase readability and cut down on length, as right now the sections focus on the company as a whole for a number of paragraphs, then shift to detailed explanations of the shows.
New subsections focusing on programming established for all extensive sections (i.e., all sections except those covering launch and demise of network). Text and image placement adjusted accordingly.—DCGeist02:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of my points have been sufficiently addressed. The chart does look better. My only concern now is the programming sections. What I was suggesting was more along the lines of a section covering the entire history of MBS' programming, separated from the main corporation history. However, I'm willing to defer to the thoughts of other editors on the matter if they're fine with the current layout. WesleyDodds03:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you know, come to think of it Wesley that would be pretty awesome, I still support the current version though. But I think we're asking an awful lot of DC however as he is the only one really working on it. Harvey10004:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a listener to Mutual during the 1940s, it was a delight to read this terrific survey with so much info I had never previously encountered. I'm in favor of keeping it chronological (as per the rule of biographies: never insert a sentence that jumps ahead of the ongoing timeline). Lengthy captions also fine with me. Pepso19:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fulfills all of the qualities expected of an FA to the Nth degree in a uniquely giest style. Don't get too overzealous through or you'll have to break it into sub articles and make multiple FAs. (Not like that's a bad thing) Andman822:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a little concerned with the amount of copyrighted photos in the article. Each one seems to have the explanation of basically it's really important that I have this and it's needed here. Also none of them are actually scaled down in resolution from their source images, they are merely stated to be so. The infobox pic is 299 x 374 pixels in both the source image and the Wikipedia image. Quadzilla9908:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed fair use rationales provided for all images—specific relevance to article is explained for each according to highest Wikipedia standards. All images now used fall easily within well-established Wikipedia fair usage guidelines (corporate logo, ads, business promotional images). Sources referenced provide low-res images to begin with—no further scaling down required, though scaling down was performed in over 50% of the cases to achieve manageable bitsize. Not a single image in the article is of high enough resolution to be improperly exploited. Rationale for infobox logo updated; image of corporate logo unquestionably permissible per fair use.—DCGeist09:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also the sources for all the images are not in the images description pages in a linkable format. The one for Fulton Lewis doesn't seem to be working either when it is cut and pasted to a url. Quadzilla9908:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll still a little bit concerned about the number of copyrighted images, so I'm not going to support it or oppose it. There's an awful lot of them. If an admin looked the images over and determined they were all acceptable then I'd support it. Quadzilla9921:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
That was added because while this article was being created, it was proposed to create more categories and eliminate others. As that never happened, I'll remove it. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a problem with the wording of sentence in the "Storm history" section: "The feature was erroneous, though, as visible satellite imagery revealed a partially exposed center from the convection."Caknuck01:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Great work, definite GA material, but I just don't think the topic allows for the depth of information that an FA should represent.--Mus Musculus04:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right. What I'm trying to convey is that I think FA's should be topics on which more can be written. But I realize now that this isn't the place to try to change the standard. --Mus Musculus04:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Support. Very well written and balanced. I particularly like the photo of the monument of Mindaugas with the children ;-) Personally, I prefer alternate left-right placement of illustrations, but that's the matter of personal preferences and style of course. Well done! --Lysytalk08:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support. Well-written article, comprehensive, well-referenced. My only issue is that the image placement causes stacking issues and white-space problems in several combinations of user-preferences and monitor and resolution settings. Please remove the size/pixel parameters on the thumbnailed images to accommodate user-preferences. Once that is fixed, my conditional support becomes an enthusiastic support. —ExplorerCDT23:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed 200px specification from regular images, but left 300px for maps because at thumb size they are way too small. Hope that solves... Renata01:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of them need to go. Policy around here is to accommodate user preferences, and we do that by not constricting photos, maps, etc. in thumbnail format by any pixel parameters and let the user's chosen (or default) preference kick in. If they want to see a bigger map, they'll click on the map. —ExplorerCDT04:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must respectfully disagree. The article has 5 maps that at default thumb size are impossible to make out. I don't see any reason why a regular reader should be forced to click on 5 different maps just to get an idea what they are about... By accommodating the very few with special preferences, we would be unduly punishing the wast majority of users that use defaults settings. Renata12:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree all you want. I could care less if the map was impossible to make out or not. The purpose of a thumbnail image format is to have reduce the size of a big image so it doesn't interfere with the article text but announce itself saying "click here if you want to see more". Your disagreement doesn't change the fact that by leaving this unchanged the article doesn't comply with the Featured Article Criteria...and that you're refusing to abide by Criteria No. 2 (complying with the WP:MOS, WP:IUP, policies etc.) with regard to accommodating user-preferences and the sizing of thumbnail images. Contining to refusal will make my potentially enthusiastic support turn to a strenuous objection until this article complies with the criteria and the relevant policies. Imposing your own personal pixel parameters limits the viewability of wikipedia for others, because your pixel parameters, personally set, cater to a special few who match your personal preferences. In order to make the article universal, for everyone that reads Wikipedia, the pixel parameters need to be removed. —ExplorerCDT13:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I'm removing the pixel parameters in order to comply with Wikipedia policy. If you reinstate them, I will object strenuously. There's no reason this article should fail just because you stubbornly refuse to comply with wikipedia policy. —ExplorerCDT13:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:MOS: Specifying the size of a thumb image is in general not recommended... Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include: ... When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts. Renata15:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read on a bit further. Taking one line that supports your position out of a half dozen that might not is problematic, and disingenuous. Continuing (after parenthetical): However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width in order to enhance the readability and/or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include: (1) On images with extreme aspect ratios (2) When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts (3) When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region. Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. I find these images to be completely useable at even the minimal user preference...2/3 of the default size. You forget that they are "thumbnails". They do not have an extreme aspect ratio requiring a fixed parameter, and are not excessively "detailed" to demand a fixed paramater. Sure they're maps, but they're not the most detailed maps I've ever seen. If you're going to quote WP:MOS to someone who knows it rather fluently, don't ignore important parts just because one line (lacking the context of the whole) agrees with your position. That's bad form. —ExplorerCDT20:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the arcana of the MOS is one of the few times that i think WP:IAR applies. But more to the point, Renata3's reference to the relevant passage is fine, it is not taken out of context at all, and certainly is not cause for veiled accusations of deceitfulness.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk*18:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that WP:IAR applies here, you shouldn't be trying to review FA candidates when MOS-compliance is one of the considerations in the criteria. Perhaps you should review the criteria before passing judgment. —ExplorerCDT00:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with all of the images on the right-hand side and the same size, there's a "photo-strip" effect that's awkward at any size, overruns the length of the text on my screen (admittedly unusual 1920x1200 resolution), and bunches the edit links. (Weirdly, they're also out of order, but I hope that's my browser's fault.) You could try putting some on the left, or using {{ImageStackRight}} perhaps. I don't want to turn this into a catch-22 situation, so I'll just say that the above "I could care less if the map was impossible to make out or not" is just about the worst possible argument for any way of formatting the images. (Neither cited policy page mentions what anonymous users who don't have preferences to set will see for images without size parameters; I see them quite a bit larger logged out.) Opabinia regalis04:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:IUP, a policy cited above you claim doesn't say anything about user preferences and sizes says clearly: In general, there is no need to specify thumbnail size. Users can select their ideal size in preferences.. The relevant passage from WP:MOS, the other thing I cited which you claimed had no relevant text, is italicised above in a comment to nominator. You might want to read a little more carefully next time. I don't care if he thinks it's impossible to read (it isn't). It's policy. And policy should trump his "preference." And the criteria says as much. —ExplorerCDT06:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, what? I said neither page mentions (as far as I see) what happens to anonymous users who don't have user preferences. You might want to read a little more carefully next time ;) Opabinia regalis07:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read again, default for users who don't set preferences and anons is 180px. It's not on WP:MOS regarding Images, but the main article entitled Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. It's usually wise to read relevant pages discussed on MOS and other policies. And while Picture Tutorial tells you how to size photos, it's the policy that matters...which says not to include size parameters with thumbnail images unless specific reasons are met. The maps on this page do not meet those requirements based on my understanding of the images at question and the words of the policy strictly constructed. —ExplorerCDT08:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any explicit mention of anonymous users on any of those pages; I'd agree that it makes sense to assume that the defaults are used, but observation disagrees. I've never done a thing to my image preferences and I see the images differently sized when logged out. (Incidentally, I've never had to adjust my image preferences because editors helpfully clue my browser in with an image parameter ;) I would also expect a strict constructionist to be careful with terminology; WP:MOS is a guideline, not a policy, and that WP:IUP punts to the MOS for size issues other than a rough maximum. Opabinia regalis02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've had a chance to actually read the text, support; this is a very well-written and well-organized article. A general suggestion, only somewhat relevant to this article, would be to organize history of Lithuania and create a set of navigational templates that link the successive period articles. This would be very helpful for people like me who have no particular knowledge of the subject. Renata, on the matter of image positioning, can you take a look at this mockup for moving some of the correctly sized images to the left? I'm hesitant to do anything to the actual article because my layout is nonstandard, but any reasonably high resolution will see these images dangling way down into and past the references on the right-hand side. Opabinia regalis02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't format images like this, with a right and left aligned at the same vertical position:
[[Image:Lithuanian state in 13-15th centuries.png|300px|thumb|Map of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania during the 13th - 15th centuries]]
[[Image:Mindaugo aktas su antspaudu.jpg|left|thumb|200 px|Act of transfer of [[Selonia]] to the Livonian Order, marked with Mindaugas' seal. This is the only original document from Mindaugas' times surviving to this date.]]
I said above that I am using an enormous monitor ;) See this screenshot for what it currently looks like to me - an entire screenful completely blank except for a tower of right-aligned images. Perhaps putting two images side-by-side in a right-justified table would help. Opabinia regalis05:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh yes. One possibility is to add {{clear}} or {{-}} just before each section header. On a monitor like yours, this would leave a small (or at least smaller) amount of whitespace at the end of each section, but prevent the big whitespace at the end. It would also make sure that each section is together with its relevant images. Christopher Parham(talk)05:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I give up on the image question. Do whatever you want. I don't own the article and you can edit it! :) On background note, I started the article in hopes to clean up history of Lithuania (at a very horrible state right now), but grew to become a project on its own. I plan to create more of such history articles and then clean up the main article with navigational templates and other stuff. Renata12:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image also covers part of the references on my screen, resolution 1280x800 with Firefox (screenshot here). At this resolution, all of the images on the right stack on each other and run longer than the article text. If some of the images were left aligned instead it might fix the problem. --Tntnnbltn13:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self nomination One of Hogarth's less pleasant series of engravings, but still an interesting look at London society in the 18th century. It's had a well-attended (by today's standards) and useful peer review and some helpful sources magically uncovered by ALoan. Yomanganitalk17:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent and interesting article, especially good on anatomising the many details in the prints. Good structure and balance, with a convenient interplay between the text and the pictures. A mild criticism: I felt the last paragraph of the lead and the first of the article proper overlapped rather joltingly. And an opinion: I don't find these prints exhibiting less humour than usual for Hogarth's prints—well, maybe the third one—the second one really made me laugh, with the fat lawyers' cart collapsing under them, the two people wobbling on a horse, and, in the distance, someone taking flight like a bird after being tossed by a bull. Thanks for reminding me of this wonderful work. (I'm sure if Hogarth were alive, he'd be drawing Jade Goody.) qp10qp14:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was behind Harry McNish in my FAC queue (all two of them), otherwise it would have been faster. I'll try to be quicker on the next one. And of course, it's not featured yet (though thanks for your confidence). Yomanganitalk17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I didn't lose my dinner, but for pennance, Yomangani should next bring Barbaro to status, to keep Laika and other poor animals company - 5 days? Don't forget the External links :o) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. One can only applaud these valiant editors who conjure up such a fine collection of delightful prose. I especially liked the wonderful "His appearance is deliberately more pleasing than the scowling ugly ruffians that populate the rest of the picture". Bravo!
I might have a minor issue with the sentence "The other boys carry out equally barbaric acts...." The point I'm trying to make is this: whilst I'm a great supporter of abundant use of proper punctuation, one could raise the concern that employing the services of a (somewhat lonely) colon; a multitude of semicolons, nice and shiny; the odd comma; an em dash; and a pair of parentheses, all in the same sentence — but what a brilliant one it is! — might be construed as "being too much of a good thing." I'll leave it to the punctuational wisdom of the editors to see if any corrective action is warranted. --Plek22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT. After reading this article, I'd like to have these prints on my wall. (I collect antique prints and maps). Well-written (brilliant and compelling...even captivating), well-referenced, and a comprehensive treatment of the subject. Excellent FA candidate.—ExplorerCDT06:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great stuff. Though if it said who wrote the verses I missed that; it would be nice to know. Hogarth himself? Johnbod04:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
08:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Done
--Parker007 11:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
03:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[27]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Chaco_Canyon.jpg){kind=link}
Writing quality - Am trying to arrange to have this article copyedited now- PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thematic split decision - I'm sorry that you disagree with how I am choosing to tackle the subject, but I am unsure why you feel such an approach is flawed. It was suggested by other editors when the original "Military history of ancient Rome" article grew too large, and I think it is an excellent way of presenting the information.
Appearance and Paintings - I tend to not like to add paintings etc for the heck of it just to pretty up an article without adding informational content. It is a view I know is shared by a few other MILHIST editors. However, I realise it is not a widely-held view and a certain degree of beautification is necesssary. I have added 2 paintings now of a suitable martial nature!
