Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2010

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 2010

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:40, 30 November 2010 [1].

PlayStation

[edit]
Nominator(s): KiasuKiasiMan 11:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the article is comprehensive in covering the topic and anything regarding the PlayStation brand. It is well sourced, well illustrated and is neutral in its point of view. It also has a comprehensive lead section which encompasses the entire article. KiasuKiasiMan 11:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE 20 non free images in one bundle with a boiler plated FU rationale, possibly the worst failure to meet WP:FA Criteria 3 in an FAC I have ever seen Fasach Nua (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I appreciate the work that's been done on this article so far, but it's not yet ready for FAC. There are multiple inconsistencies in citation formatting, problems with WP:RS and WP:V, a tag to be addressed, a huge ToC and many short choppy subsections, the image issues pointed out by Fasach Nua...it's just not there yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the fair use problem image, the article needs work to become a FA, stubby paragraphs, an expansion tag. I recommend the nominator remove the FAC and try a peer review or a GA review first, it shouldn't even be an GA. Secret account 17:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:57, 28 November 2010 [2].

Windows 7

[edit]
Nominator(s): Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 17:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... It's a good article about widely used Operating system.It has explanations with images that satisfies the criteria for inclusion of non-free content.It has tables to make the subject and comparison clear.It is properly cited with more than 125 references.Also long enough without unnecessary information.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 17:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: Nomination proposal is almost as illuminating as the actual article. To cover the problems with this briefly, the fact Windows 7 is widely used is neither here nor there. Long length and a large number of references are also no criteria: the length should be sufficient to cover the subject without excessive deviation and no longer. Similarly, articles should be sufficiently referenced to back up the points made in the article - references above that do nothing, and raising points specifically to wedge in a reference artificially actually detracts from an article.
Turning to the actual article it appears to me to be short of the required standard. I share the concerns raised by Jimfbleak and also Nikkimara in respect of reference style (specifically one or two hatnotes are misplaced). The lede could probably do with a good overhaul since at present it does not nicely summarise the article - the hatnotes can be purged at the same time.
Other concerns:
  • Dates are not in a consistent format throughout the article - yes, the infobox does count.
  • The language could use a certain amount of sharpening up. There are a few inappropriate uses of semicolons in particular that grate.
  • References could use a little weeding. Some are redundant (where an authoritative source is alongside a less reliable source) and some do not comply with WP:RS. Some references are also not much more than bare links: additional details would be preferable.
  • Division into sections needs attention, since some sections wholly or partly duplicate each other wheres others merge off-topic issues. For example, the "Editions" and "Marketing" sections would benefit from being integrated, and conversely the "Development" section dedicates more time to releases (of betas and otherwise) than to the actual development process.
  • In that same Development section, where does Windows NT come from? An assertion is made about NT without showing how that is remotely relevant to the subject of the article. That is a connection that hasn't been made.
The problems above should be considered exemplary rather than exhaustive. To echo Nikkimara's point, this is not really the place for initial scrutiny such as this. There are other places you can take this for the broad brush stuff to get an article near where it needs to be for FA status. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:06, 26 November 2010 [3].

European Union

[edit]
Nominator(s): Petrb (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a former featured article, has been on main page wackywace 11:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... It is very good article and I believe it deserves FA again, peer review had many suggestions, some of issues addressed in it were not fixed, one of them is that about 120 from its ~200 references are from one source, I believe that europa.eu is best source and it should not be problem, no matter if it would be successfull or not, I hope your opinions help us to make it better even more, thanks to all participants of FA nomination and to all who improve the article. Petrb (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, unfortunately. Impressive work, but I don't think this is ready for FA status

  • Long ToC, many short subsections - merge to improve flow and increase accessibility
  • Too many images - stacking, sandwiching of text
  • One-sentence paragraphs disrupt text flow and should in most cases be merged
  • WP:OVERLINK
  • Some problems with grammar and flow - needs general copy-edit to achieve clear and professional prose
  • Many inconsistencies in reference formatting, some references missing required information (ex. retrieval dates for web sources). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - uncited sections, way way way overlinked, large sections cited to the European Union itself, referencing issues as noted above. An example of uncited opinion is "National courts within the member states play a key role in the EU as enforcers of EU law, and a "spirit of cooperation" between EU and national courts is laid down in the Treaties." although there are many others. Needs serious work to come up to the use of secondary independant sources for most of this information, which would be needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:29, 26 November 2010 [4].

Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009

[edit]
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 14:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it comprehensively covers the topic, and provides a neutral and well-written analysis. This is the first article I have nominated for FA, so it is likely there will be short-comings in the article, but I'm happy to work with reviewers to overcome any of these problems. It has undergone a peer review (here) and is currently a Good Article (review). Harrias talk 14:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: The sources and citations all look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few general nitpicks:-

  • Unnecessary linking: "Australian" in lead
  • Unlinked.
  • Unlinked on most occasions.
  • Daily Telegraph in Background needs italics
  • Done.
  • Same section, The Guardian needs italics and link
  • Was already linked, italicised though.
  • List A should be linked at first mention (it is subsequently linked)
  • Done, also linked first-class and Twenty20 at first mention. Left subsequent link for List A as it isn't a commonly used term.
  • Long reference strings within the text should be avoided. The way to do this is to create a single footnote which contains all the references.
  • Not quite sure how I would do this, could you provide an example from another article that I can copy learn from?
  • Inconsistency, with "twenty wickets" and "20 wickets" in the article.
  • Changed to "20 wickets" throughout.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Harrias talk 09:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Just a few quick nit-picks from me:

  • Background: No need for two County Championship links here.
  • Unlinked on second use.
  • Same goes for Ian Blackwell. It might be worth scanning for this elsewhere.
  • Unlinked on second use. Will check for more.
  • County Championship: Prose redundancy in "The helpful batting conditions did help...".
  • Done, changed to "These batting conditions did help...".
  • Changed 'they' to 'then', which it should have been. Should it still take a semi-colon?

Thanks for you comments.Harrias talk 09:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • "Somerset, after drawing with Worcestershire, (their ninth draw in a row in the competition,) finished third in Division One" - You don't need the brackets and commas. --JP (Talk) 11:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments.

  • In the first paragraph of "Background", the first two sentences talk about the county championship, and the next sentence jumps to one day cricket; the reader doesn't figure that out till halfway through that sentence. Could you rephrase to start that third sentence with "In one day cricket", in order to let the reader know the subject is changing?
  • Tweaked as suggested.
  • Third paragraph of "Background": does the Guardian cite also cover the "viewpoint shared by the Guardian" comment? You have "The Guardian" twice in short succession there; if the cite covers both, then perhaps a rephrase such as: "They identified spin bowling as an area of weakness following the departure of Blackwell.[10] Bob Willis, writing in The Guardian, shared this view, and predicted that Somerset would also be hindered by the difficulty of getting 20 wickets at home, resulting in too many draws.[11]"
  • Tweaked as suggested.
  • Are there fielding statistics kept that are of sufficient interest to be quoted in the article?
  • There are fielding statistics, but in my opinion they wouldn't really add too much to the article, Kieswetter's statistics as wicket-keeper were nothing special. Harrias talk
  • Why is the Natwest Pro40 section ahead of the Twenty20 section? The Twenty20 competition both started and finished before the NatWest Pro40, and putting these sections in chronological order would avoid the reader being confused on reading "Having performed well but missed out narrowly in both other one-day competitions in 2009", when to that point in the article only one one-day competition has been covered.
  • The two paragraphs at the top of the NatWest Pro40 section suffer, I think, from being in reverse chronological order; you give the outcome first and then review the matches, with the result that the last sentence refers to the first paragraph. I think it would be easier on the reader just to reverse the order of the two paragraphs and copyedit a little to make that flow.
  • I think the last paragraph of the Twenty20 section needs a little work. Reading the first sentence, I thought it was about the final, and it took me a second to realize that it was about the tactics for the whole competition. I'd either move this material up, or (probably better) make it clearer to the reader that the topic has shifted slightly.
  • When you quote Scyld Berry I think you should let readers know who he is: perhaps "Wisden editor Scyld Berry".
  • But that isn't his only role, this was written as part of his job as a cricket writer for the Daily Telegraph, not part of his job as Wisden editor. It might give more weight to his comments, so I guess it could be worth adding, but overall I'm a bit wary? Harrias talk 19:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough -- all I'm saying is that the average reader has no idea who he is. "Cricket writer" or "cricket authority" or "Daily Telegraph cricket correspondent and Wisden editor" are all OK (well, that last one's a bit long); you just need to give the reader a reason to see Berry's opinion as authoritative. Mike Christie (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use a hyphen throughout in "first-innings" and "second-innings". I think this is arguably OK when it's an attributive use ("Langer's first-innings 107") but not when it's a straightforward noun use ("Durham scored 543 in their first-innings"). To be honest, I've never seen it hyphenated even in the attributive sense. Do any of your sources do this?
  • "a fact which Scyld Berry suggested was exposed in the final": this isn't quite right. It's a fact, but the fact wasn't exposed in the final; weaknesses get exposed, in this sense anyway. It could be "a weakness, according to Wisden editor Scyld Berry, which he felt was exposed in the final"; or "which Wisden editor Scyld Berry suggested was a weakness Sussex took advantage of in the final".

Overall a thorough and apparently comprehensive article. -- Mike Christie (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I've responded to a few and will look at the article and respond to the others when I'm feeling a little better (darn manflu!) Harrias talk 17:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I think I've addressed all your points made so far, thanks for the thorough copyedit, my writing skills need some improvement yet! I'm reasonably happy with your reworking of the NatWest Pro40 section, the section possibly needs a slight expansion to fit with the format of the other sections though, I'm not sure. Harrias talk 10:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've switched to support above. I've copyedited a little more; if I messed anything up please just change it. I dropped the Sussex Sharks from the lead just because it made it easier to make those sentences flow, and I didn't think it was critical. Nice work on the article -- are you planning to do a series of these? Once you get one right the others should be much easier (though pictures may become trickier for older seasons). Mike Christie (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, some sort of series. Initially I'm only really looking at articles for notable seasons, for example, ones in which they win something, or come very close (such as this one). Then maybe later I'll fill in the gaps. Don't expect a whole host of them in a rush though, I flit around a lot with my article writing, my last two projects are early Somerset captains Stephen Newton and Herbie Hewett, which are both at GA, the latter of which I'd like to get up to FA at some point (though I'm lacking information on his later life after cricket at the moment). Harrias talk 11:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query The West Indies flag has been omitted presumably due to copyright issues, where & when was this flag created? Fasach Nua (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No idea to be honest. We used to use it, but then the image was deleted. There is some argument that it is free use, but noone can really find out enough about the image to be able to prove it! I don't remember where the discussion is though unfortunately. Harrias talk 20:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here? Mike Christie (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was thinking of this, particularly the Ireland section. To be honest, it's an issue I haven't put much effort into; copyrights and copyvios and free-use and fair-use is all far too technical and irritating to me, I'd rather get on and write articles! If someone gets the image on for free, then I'll use it, if not, there's an annoying gap! Harrias talk 20:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of clarity will be a needless fail of WP:FA Criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at West_Indian_cricket_team_in_England_in_1900 and West_Indian_cricket_team_in_England_in_1906 there is a logo used, but is not resolvable in the images provided Fasach Nua (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed the article at GAN and it has improved since then. Prose seems OK and content very good. And the article looks great. Just a few minor points.

  • "in doing so made the earliest triple-century ever scored in an English season" Possibly clear up for non-cricketers to say "earliest date".
  • I'm not convinced that this would be confusing for a non-cricketer; I think it's pretty clear. Still, I'll have a look at some alternative language.
  • "Somerset were set a reduced target of 290 off 41 overs" Maybe add a note explaining about rain reduced targets. Non-cricketers probably won't have heard of Duckworth Lewis!
  • "A fourth-wicket partnership of 167, highlighted by powerful hitting from Kieswetter..." Not sure about highlighted. Led by? Dominated by? And it makes for a very long sentence.
  • Changed to dominated.
  • "ended just one over short of the requirement for a match..." Again needs explaining.
  • Is there an "official" review of the season, for example in the Yearbook? I know Yorkshire do something where the players are evaluated, the season summed up and there is a sense of oh well, maybe next year... If not, no problem.
  • Now you remind me? I have a quick flick through, and I find that the President, Chairman, Director of Cricket, Secretary and Captain all provide a couple of page spreads analysing the season. I'll see what is useful and will probably add some of it in.
  • The article may need a check from a non-cricketer as I may have missed some jargon/technical parts which are hard to follow if you aren't a fan. Other than that, no obvious problems. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As always, thanks for your comments! Harrias talk 09:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding the West Indies flag, I seem to remember around 2000 the board/players designed a new logo so that they could market it. So it's quite recent. And non-free. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review concern about File:Flag of South Africa.svg: Since all contents on the government site are copyrighted,[5] and South Africa's copyright law grants copyright to "every work which is eligible for copyright", "irrespective of the artistic quality". It lasts for "the life of the author and fifty years from the end of the year in which the author dies" or "continue to subsist for a period of fifty years from the end of the year" it was published (corporate or unknown authorship). Since the flag was designed in 1992 by Frederick Brownell, who is still alive, what disqualifies this flag design from copyright protection? And yes, flags are considered works of art eligible for copyright.[6] Jappalang (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above for the West Indies flag, I don't get involved too heavily in that sort of thing. Post this question on the discussion page of the file, and also on Commons maybe? Or even nominate it for deletion; that should ruffle enough feathers to get an answer! As far as I am aware, it has a valid copyright tag, and so I'll use it in this article. If that tag is shown to be invalid; I'll remove said image.Harrias talk 22:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out the flag's design was laid out in the country's Constitution, which is not copyrighted. All images okay. Jappalang (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I don't see a spotcheck for any reviewer on WP:V and WP:COPYVIO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which in English means?... Harrias talk 21:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Sandy's looking to see some evidence that some of the references verify the claims they're supposed to, and that there's no significant evidence of copyright violation. I'd be happy to take a look tomorrow if it helps? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, also WP:Close paraphrase (Harrias, this is a new issue, since the mainpage of October 31 contained a copyvio, and we need to check more closely for that now). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a check. Many of the refs are cricket scorecards and are fine. As these are statistical, they are not a problem for copyvio. Sample of online refs check out. I've also checked the text refs which I can access and these check out as well, although I had to slightly tweak a page ref in one of them. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right; apologies, reading it back now my comment seems a bit rude, I didn't mean it like that! Harrias talk 21:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sarastro, that work is much appreciated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, concerns with quality of research, attribution, and close paraphrasing. On a high level, I'm concerned that this is largely a narrative told with statistics—there are relatively few prose-based sources used. As such, the article has a dearth of real analysis taken from secondary sources and is mostly a retelling of results and stats. I spot-checked several sources and found moderate problems with attribution as described below. More seriously, when you have used prose-based sources, you are prone to close paraphrasing, also illustrated below. This is a form of plagiarism.
    • Attribution problems:
      • The entire first para of the Background section is cited to p.711 of an almanac. Does that page include prose that supports the text you've written?
      • "Somerset promoted four players from their academy for the 2009 season, giving contracts to Jos Buttler, Adam Dibble, Chris Jones and James Burke. Of these, only Buttler appeared for the first-team during the season." This is all cited to the "County Championship Preview" article, which only really supports the first sentence. "Butler" is misspelled, and I see no support of the second sentence.
      • Second para of "Friends Provident Trophy" has only one citation, and the article linked doesn't seem to support everything you've written. I don't see any information in the source about "winning by eight wickets against Warwickshire and Middlesex" and so on.
    • Close paraphrasing:
      • Your text: "signed former England Under-19 fast bowler David Stiff, initially on a two-month contract"
      • Source text: "signed former England Under-19 fast bowler David Stiff on an initial two-month deal"
      • Your text: "Somerset would also be hindered by the difficulty of getting 20 wickets at home, resulting in too many draws"
      • Source text: "Getting 20 wickets at Taunton is not easy and Somerset's downfall could be too many draws"
        • I'm not sure of the problem here; I did state that this was Willis' prediction from that source, I'm not sure how I can alter it further without saying something different to him? Harrias talk 19:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your text: "the on-field umpires allowed Somerset too many powerplay overs"
      • Source text: "the on-field umpires [...] allowing Somerset [...] too many Powerplay overs"
      • Your text: "which should have seen them have 16 powerplay overs, but they instead had 19"
      • Source text: "That should have meant they had 16 Powerplay overs but the umpires permitted them 19."
--Andy Walsh (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I fix these referencing issues will you still be opposed based on the fact it is "largely a narrative told with statistics—there are relatively few prose-based sources used. As such, the article has a dearth of real analysis taken from secondary sources and is mostly a retelling of results and stats" ? (Though I will do anyway, because I'd like the article to be as good as I can get it, even if I can't write prosaicly enough! Harrias talk 18:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick comment on the close paraphrasing concerns. I checked some of the online refs (above) but didn't see any problems myself, so I'd like to clarify for my own peace of mind! Of the ones mentioned above by Laser brain, the first one is quite close, although there are few ways to say "former England Under-19 fast bowler David Stiff". However, the second one does not look close to me as "too many draws" cannot really be said any other way. As Harrias said, the third is mainly factual and is pretty standard cricket phrasing as is the powerplay stuff in the final one. If these are really a problem, I'll strike my comment on sourcing above. The whole copyvio thing looks a minefield, and I want to make sure it's all OK. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've avoided making similar (to Sarastro1) comment, but agree. There aren't too many ways to state a statistic. I also feel that if this becomes an issue with sports-related FACs, then I'd like to dodge the minefield as well. Perhaps alternative phrasing for these "plagiaristic comments" could be suggested? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I empathize, believe me. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is a very good introduction to the topic, and stresses the importance of significant paraphrasing to avoid copyright violation. I grant you the second example might be okay in some camps. The rest of my examples are way too close for comfort, and we need to rewrite them. Plagiarism is a scary word, but in my experience it's mostly unintentional and just comes from following along with sources as you type, or copying text over and altering it. I understand that if a sports writer writes "Johnson scored 100 runs in a match" you can pretty much drive yourself batty (har har) trying to invent new ways of phrasing it. But, that doesn't excuse us of the responsibility to paraphrase appropriately. If we do that, no minefield. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Can I try an example? "signed former England Under-19 fast bowler David Stiff, initially on a two-month contract" perhaps "signed David Stiff, fast bowler and former England Under-19 representative, on an initial two-month contract"? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Fast bowler David Stiff, coming from the England Under-19 team, joined the team under a two-month contract" is better; structure and order of facts altered. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While this is being sorted, it's probably better if I strike my comments above as I seem to have missed some! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just me perhaps, but "coming from" is far from BritEng, particularly when talking about cricketers, and he didn't "join the team" he signed a contract... that's why this is a minefield I guess.... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I see your point. We don't want to make this minefield. The problem is, academically, plagiarism is simply an ethical issue. But here, if we use someone else's words too closely, they can literally file a copyright violation claim. I clearly have no idea how to write about cricket, but I think we're getting closer to the paraphrasing issue. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lame as it was, how would my rephrase work per your concerns? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, yes. Off to the Harry Potter opening now, will revisit in a bit. In the mean time, if anyone else wants to spot-check other online references, that would be helpful. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I've checked several of the other refs and didn't find additional problems with attribution or close paraphrasing. Like I said, very easy to do unintentionally. Are there any cricket folks watching that can speak to the sources used? Is the feeling that additional prose-based sources are not available? I've stricken my opposition above, but need to look closer at the writing. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wisden provides a written summary of the season and of each County Championship match, and the Somerset yearbook provides similar, and as I commented above in reply to Sarastro, there are the views of the director of cricket, chairman etc. Harrias talk 09:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sources are fine. All the print sources checked out and I had another look after Laser brain's comments on close paraphrasing and I could not find any problems no matter how hard I looked. One page ref needed tweaking. Most online sources have come from CricketArchive or Cricinfo, which are the best sites available, using statisticians and journalists. Newspapers tend to carry previews, reviews and individual match reports, and these have been used where appropriate. The best (and only) print sources available have mainly been used. Wisden, as Harrias says, has a double page report on a season and then a paragraph on every match played. There is probably more that could be added on particular matches or performances, but I tend to agree with Harrias' approach as adding too much detail on each match would bog the article down and the reports tend to concentrate on individual achievements. There are also general reports in Wisden on each competition and the teams' performances in them. Other print sources would include the county yearbook, which is like an end-of-term report from the people in charge at the county (which may arguably be slanted, although in practise tend to be too harsh). This is the only thing which may improve the article's sourcing. Everything else tends to be stats based and covered elsewhere, for example Playfair Cricket Annuals. There are other reviews of the season available but tend to be lower quality as Wisden is the "gold standard". Nothing else would be available yet on such a recent season as no players biographies would mention it yet. Sorry for the long reply, hope it helps!--Sarastro1 (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:34, 24 November 2010 [7].

2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl

[edit]
Nominator(s): –Grondemar 17:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl, one of 34 bowl games played in the 2009–10 NCAA bowl game season, featured two teams that had suffered adversity and then redemption during the season. The South Carolina Gamecocks' story was more conventional; after a hot start where they beat the No. 4 team in the country, they went on a long losing streak in the second half of the year. They redeemed their season in part by beating their arch-rival Clemson in the final regular season game. The Connecticut Huskies suffered more personal tragedy; their star cornerback Jasper Howard was stabbed and murdered on campus. The Huskies suffered close loss after close loss, only to finally break through with a win against Notre Dame on national television that the UConn coach called the biggest win in program history. The game itself wasn't nearly as interesting as the buildup; Connecticut dominated throughout.

This article was passed as a Good Article by User:Maclean25 and received a Peer Review from User:Finetooth. I believe this article now meets the featured article criteria; please review and concur with this assertion if you agree. –Grondemar 17:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • As noted in the last paragraph of the article, Papa John's revoked their sponsorship of the game after the 2010 contest; the name of the game reverted to "Birmingham Bowl". They have apparently redirected their old website under their old name to their new website under their new name. Should I change the link to point to the current website of the game? –Grondemar 21:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the link useful at all? Otherwise, perhaps add a note mentioning the name change at the external link itself—even with the prior mention, I think it is confusing for the "Official Papa John's Bowl Website" to be pointing to a site mentioning only the Birmingham Bowl. Ucucha 00:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • An explanation of the bowl name change has been added to the external link. The link is useful as the bowl website contains information about the game and surrounding events that are out of scope for the article. –Grondemar 01:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support Secret account 16:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Connecticut took control - sports slang, reword
  • Running back Andre Dixon scored on a 10-yard rush early in the fourth quarter to put the game away for UConn; the only Gamecock touchdown, on a two-yard run by Brian Maddox, came after the game had effectively been decided. - run-on split sentences, put the game away is also sports slang.
  • In 2010, the PapaJohns.com Bowl had contracts with the Big East and the SEC that allowed it to select one team from each conference to participate in its annual game. How they developed the contracts?
    • Are you asking how the bowl game reached its agreements with the conferences? Since these agreements were signed years before the 2010 bowl game, in my opinion that is beyond the scope of this article and would fit better in the main Birmingham Bowl article. Here it is sufficient to say that the bowl game had the contractual relationship with the conferences and for how long, in order to understand why Connecticut and South Carolina were picked to play in this bowl game. –Grondemar 02:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's irrelavent for which teams the Meineke Car Care Bowl selected.
    • Actually, the selection of the 2009 Meineke Car Care Bowl was highly relevant in determining which Big East team would go to the PapaJohns.com Bowl. If Rutgers had been selected by the Meineke Car Care Bowl, it was highly likely that Pittsburgh would have gone to Birmingham and UConn to the St. Petersburg Bowl; I can add that with a source if you wish. –Grondemar 02:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see in source number 11 "theory that fans are less likely to want to travel to the same destination they were at previously", i only read that they don't like sending their teams to the same bowl games.
  • Reduse some of the overlinking 2009 Pittsburgh Panthers football team is linked twice in two following sections for example, while others are like the football terms, and the links that was only in the lead, needs to be linked.
  • Any reason why they stabbed Howard, not in Howard's page. If you can't find a reason it's ok.
    • This is still controversial and uncertain, especially since the matter hasn't been been in court, but my best understanding is that a member of the football team who was academically ineligible and thus not actively playing with the team, got into an argument with another person over a woman. This argument continued as the Student Union was evacuated; at some point the other person and his companion left the scene, returned to their cars to retrieve knives, and returned to the front of the Student Union where Howard and several other football players still were. Both Howard and the academically-ineligible player were stabbed; only Howard's wound proved fatal. –Grondemar 02:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 28 "best win" in UConn football history. It mentions only "best win" but nothing about best win in UConn football history.
  • After the two teams traded touchdowns - reword traded
  • They sure didn't lose the Outback bowl 118–30, reword accordingly.
  • "wild contest" - prose
  • explain what is batted down to the non football readers.
  • subsequently sacked four times and threw two interceptions - was that the reason why they lost to Florida, was it all in the fourth quarter?
    • The four sacks and two interceptions definitely highly contributed to South Carolina losing to Florida, and as indicated by the world "subsequently", all of the mentioned sacks and interceptions occurred in the fourth quarter. This is directly supported by the provided source. –Grondemar 04:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cody Endres was hurt later in the season. - How he got hurt
  • had a stout defense - reword stout
  • Prose needs work in Game summary, alot of confusing sports terms or slang that are unclear to a non football reader
  • For example "threw a pass down the right sideline", "Reaching out, Moore", "again went three-and-out" "tried a trick pass" "was in good position" etc.
    • Wikilinked sideline; "Reaching out" isn't American football jargon, it is simply the act of extending one's arm from one's body; wikilinked Three-and-out at first usage; wikilinked "trick pass" to Halfback option play which was the specific type of trick play; "in good position" isn't really jargon, it simply states that the Huskies were relatively close to their opponent's end zone when the quarter ended. –Grondemar 15:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • irrelavent stats like "Wide receiver Stephen Flint lost nine yards on one rushing attempt".
  • Why Papa John's decided not to renew the bowl contract.

Thanks Secret account 23:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon alert Gee cricket articles would've been hauled over right away.... US bias again.....lol

YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source checking – One look at the FAC talk page is enough to show that some spot-checks of sources are a good thing for multiple reasons. Before offering support for the article, I wanted to go through a few of the references myself, to see if there were any issues. Unfortunately, I did find some items of concern, most relating to close paraphrasing. With what's been going on lately, it's best not to take any chances in this department.

  • From ref 64: "where (Spurrier) has some history. The 1966 Heisman Trophy winner played there while in the USFL in the 1980s, and guided Florida to SEC title games there in 1992 and 1993." From the article: "Spurrier had history in Birmingham and Legion Field, having played there while in the United States Football League in the 1980s as well as having coached the Florida Gators in SEC championship games there in 1992 and 1993." The "history" phrase is the same in both, as is much of the wording and structure.
  • "In UConn's last four games prior to the bowl Frazer performed well, throwing six touchdown passes against only two interceptions and helping the Huskies score an average of 41 points per game." The passing statistics aren't the same in the source (they look to be from the full season), and the points per game is also different, perhaps for the same reason. A bit confusing if you're doing actual fact-checking.
  • Source: "is quarterback Stephen Garcia, who enjoyed a breakout season under Spurrier. He finished second in the conference with 2,733 passing yards—ahead of former Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow of Florida...". Article: "Garcia had a breakout season in 2009, finishing second in the SEC with 2,733 passing yards—more than former Heisman Trophy-winning Florida quarterback Tim Tebow...". Again, the structure and some wording is close to the source.
    • Rephrased as "in 2009 Garcia passed for 2,733 yards, 17 touchdowns, and nine interceptions; this performance was second-best in the SEC that year." I removed the part about Tebow as I could not think of a way to rephrase it and the detail isn't really relevant to the article. –Grondemar 06:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From ref 81: "Garcia completed just 16 of 38 passes for 129 yards while gaining 56 yards on 15 carries. He lost a fumble, was intercepted once and didn't get much help." From the article: "For South Carolina, quarterback Stephen Garcia completed 16 of 38 passes for 129 yards while leading the team in rushing with 56 yards on 15 carries. He lost a fumble and was intercepted once by Connecticut safety Robert Vaughn". Some of the statistics would be hard to re-word well, but don't you agree that this is still a little too close to the source for comfort?
    • I'm going to have to rewrite this section completely. This sentence and the next one were carryovers from the article from before I started editing it [8] and I never noticed that they were almost direct copies of the AP source before I copyedited and rephrased them. I deeply apologize for this. I will work on rewriting this section tomorrow. –Grondemar 06:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rewritten as "For South Carolina, quarterback Stephen Garcia completed 16 out of 38 passes for 129 yards and no touchdowns. He threw one interception, to Connecticut safety Robert Vaughn; this was the fifth consecutive game in which Garcia had thrown an interception. He additionally turned over the ball a second time on a fumble recovered by UConn. Garcia was also the Gamecocks' leading rusher; he ran the ball 15 times for 56 yards." –Grondemar 05:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source: "South Carolina didn't even manage its initial first down until midway through the second quarter, and that took Garcia converting a third-and-16." Article: "South Carolina did not earn its initial first down until midway through the second quarter, when Stephen Garcia converted on 3rd-and-16." I'd say close is an understatement.

I checked a few other sources and nothing caught my eye. Still, you can understand why I'm somewhat worried at the moment. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the content is very good. Is "on the season" an Americanism for "on the team/squad"? as it sounds very odd YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "On the season" generally refers to an individual person or team's performance during a particular season of competition: for example, "In 2009, the quarterback threw for over 3,000 yards on the season" would mean that, during the 2009 season, the quarterback had thrown for over 3,000 yards. –Grondemar 05:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose—1a issues still linger. The prose has made huge strides, but two passes from editors unfamiliar with the text would help put the cherry on top. It usually takes a half dozen passes from different editors before an article is truly ironed out. Here are a handful of examples from the first few paragraphs:
    • Overlong sentence: Connecticut was selected as a participant in the 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl following a tumultuous 7–5 regular season marked by the loss of five games by a total of fifteen points among them, a double-overtime victory at Notre Dame, and the murder of cornerback Jasper Howard.
    • UConn represented the Big East Conference (Big East) in the game; South Carolina represented the Southeastern Conference (SEC). — "in the game" might be redundant, but that's more of a nitpick than anything else.
    • Redundancy: Connecticut was selected as a participant in to the 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl... There are probably better solutions to that example. For the sake of precision, you could change it to "selected to participate in...".
    • Pregame coverage focused on the tragic circumstances of the Huskies' season — I know many editors are wary of using terms like "tragic", "unfortunate", and "horrible", as they can seem either over dramatic or non-neutral for an encyclopedia.
      • I strongly believe any sports season that features the murder of a player on the team can safely and neutrally be described as "tragic"; certainly virtually every single source used language like that to describe the season. –Grondemar 05:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Big East's contract with the PapaJohns.com Bowl stated that the bowl would make its selection in coordination with the International Bowl and the St. Petersburg Bowl, following the selections of the bowls with higher priority. — the last clause is a bit vague and/or awkward.
    • Bowls generally dislike inviting the same team they had at the bowl in recent years. — this sentence feels a little awkward; I know there are several ways it can be improved and/or reworded for crispness.
      • Reworded as "In general, bowl games and conferences prefer to have different teams play in each game each year rather than have the same team appear in the same bowl game in consecutive years." Let me know what you think. –Grondemar 05:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...which by the rules resulted in a safety. — I believe the standard practice is "by rule", but you can probably restructure the entire clause for conciseness.
      • Changed back to "by rule"; I originally had "by rule" but it was copyedited-out by User:Diannaa diff. I think the "by rule" part is important here, since even people familiar with American football might not know that a penalty in the end zone results in a safety. –Grondemar 05:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Connecticut rebounded from the loss in its next game at Baylor — it's clear we're talking about the loss based on the context.
    • In the third quarter, with the score 21–13 in favor of Connecticut, Louisville running back Bilal Powell ran off left tackle near the end zone but was caught by UConn cornerback Jasper Howard, who forced a fumble. — missing comma. The sentence is also a bit of a snake; you may want to reword it.
    • Coach Randy Edsall was summoned to officially identify the body. — does the word "officially" really add anything here?
    • Connecticut came back in the fourth quarter to take a 24–21 lead with 38 seconds left in the game; — "in the game" is clearly redundant in this case.
    • After the two teams both scored traded touchdowns in the first overtime....
    • There also seems to be some overuse of Dixon's full name. Are there multiple Dixons in the game here?
  • In my opinion, more work is needed before this article can attain our highest standard. Nevertheless, it's easily one of the best football-related articles on the site. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 01:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
I'm likely not the best person to ask to review this article, as my strongest memory of this game is wanting it to be over!
"Acknowledging that the team had underperformed both his and the fans' expectations, he promised that he would resign or retire rather than let the program degenerate to the point where he might be fired or forced out." Can't say I like that being the final word on Spurrier in the article. Since it is mentioned that Carolina had not won the East, Saturday's game against Florida merits a sentence in the last section.
  • Sentence added: "The Gamecocks did indeed perform better in 2010; with a 36–14 win over Florida, South Carolina won the SEC East division and clinched a spot in the SEC Championship Game for the first time in school history." –Grondemar 04:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check your date on Ref 87. I know Spurrier said that sometime in the Spring, and not on 1 January... before the game was played.
Relating back to one of my points, the "aftermath" of a bowl game has to include the next season, not just what the coaches said afterwards and the draft.
  • I randomly selected four bowl game featured articles (2009 International Bowl, 2008 Humanitarian Bowl, 2005 Sugar Bowl, 2000 Sugar Bowl), and only the 2000 Sugar Bowl article discussed future seasons in any depth. (The International Bowl article mentions that the two teams played a couple of years later, but that was because earlier in the article it mentions that the two team were frequent opponents and had signed a four-game contract the season before the bowl game.) Other than mentioning South Carolina's SEC East championship and championship game appearance (and I fully agree that the results of the championship game should be added once it is played), I'm not sure what could be said; adding anything coherent on UConn's 2010 season would be difficult, as they could either win out and go to the BCS or lose out and miss a bowl game altogether. Perhaps something could be added in a few weeks, but not now. –Grondemar 04:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scoring summary. Check leading zeros in times.
The prose... is rather dull. The problem with this is that the game was rather dull, so I'd be mightily impressed if anyone made this sound interesting.
  • Like you said, the problem is that for a large portion of the game the two teams repeatedly punted to one another; there was no scoring in the entire third quarter. I think unfortunately there's a limit to how much this article can be "livened-up". –Grondemar 04:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Roughing the punter" Never heard anyone say it like that before, instead of roughing the kicker.
  • Technically the penalty is roughing the kicker, but I thought it would be confusing to a casual reader as to who was being roughed if I suddenly called the punter a kicker. I changed it to "roughing the kicker", and added a note that explained that, even though the penalty is announced as "roughing the kicker", the player fouled was the punter rather than the placekicker. –Grondemar 04:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of "Stephen Garcia" instead of just Garcia.
"and opted for LSU." Unexplained abbreviation alert.
  • I had originally thought that the school was so commonly refered to as "LSU" that expanding the abbreviation was unnecessary, but I changed it to "Louisiana State University (LSU)" at first mention in the bowl selection section. –Grondemar 04:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In the four seasons since 2005 Steve Spurrier had been head coach of the Gamecocks the team had a record of 28–21; they were bowl-eligible all four years." That sentence needs work.
"the Huskies traveled to West Virginia and lost a close-fought game" Would probably be better to say "lost by four points" rather than "close-fought" without a source. I'm sure we've both seen plenty of four-point games that weren't really close, after all.
  • The source cited does say the game was "close", but I clarified to "the Huskies traveled to West Virginia and lost on a late long run" and add the West Virginia game recap as a cite. –Grondemar 04:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it make more sense to discuss matchups in terms of offense against defense?
"While South Carolina's passing attack was passable" I cringed a little at this sentence. "passing... was passable"?
  • Oppose, 1a. This is nice work and well-researched! However, I don't think the writing is up to standard at this time. It could use at least one unfamiliar copyeditor to dig in and sift through. I just read through the lead and "Team Selection"; here are some random examples:
      • Thank you for your review; if you have a chance I strongly encourage you to read through the rest of the article. It could use another set of eyes and the remaining text shouldn't be quite as dry. –Grondemar 05:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Huskies faced the South Carolina Gamecocks" Unsure why you've restated "South Carolina" here when it's specified just above; plus, it does away with any potential parallel structure.
    • I appreciate that you're switching between Connecticut and UConn to provide variety, but it's actually a bit distracting in my opinion. Better to alternate between Connecticut and Huskies or UConn and Huskies.
      • I respectively disagree. Both "Connecticut" and "UConn" are common nicknames for the team; I don't see how it's distracting, especially when it is made clear from the first sentence of the lead that "Connecticut", "UConn", and "the Huskies" are all equivalents. If you want some background on the usage of "Connecticut" versus "UConn", see the RfC at Category talk:Connecticut Huskies, where is was decided that "Connecticut" was the preferred primary usage but "UConn" can and should be used secondarily. –Grondemar 05:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 2010, the PapaJohns.com Bowl had contracts with the Big East and the SEC that allowed it to select" Mmm, not crazy about the writing here. You've written as if the "Bowl" is a thinking entity that selected teams.
      • The "Bowl" in this case refers to its selection committee in the corporate sense, just as "Citigroup hired a new CEO" refers to Citigroup in a corporate sense; you wouldn't normally write out "Citigroup's board of directors hired a new CEO". Nevertheless, I rephrased as "In 2010, the PapaJohns.com Bowl selection committee had a contractual arrangement with the Big East and the SEC that allowed the committee to pick one team from each conference to participate in their annual game." –Grondemar 05:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "which resulted in them playing in the 2010 Sugar Bowl" I admit I've had a Macallan after dinner, but I think "them playing" is ungrammatical.
    • I have to say, I'm American and I barely comprehend the whole bowl system and selection process—I'm afraid your description of the bidding process here may muddy the waters even further for non-American readers. It needs a good cleansing by someone completely unfamiliar with the system.
      • I'm afraid the entire bowl selection process is very convoluted and confusing almost by nature; 35 games are trying to promote their best corporate interest while also (to varying degrees) rewarded teams that "deserve" better bowl bids due to their performance on the field. Essentially what this selection explains is why Connecticut and South Carolina were selected for the PapaJohns.com Bowl versus some other bowl game in their respective conference lineups. Unfortunately, as the PapaJohns.com Bowl is one of the last bowls in the selection order for both the Big East and SEC, the description of the selection process is necessarily long. –Grondemar 05:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This left three remaining bowl-eligible Big East teams" Always avoid the ambiguous "this". This what?
    • It appears overlinked; of course, a two-minutes session of mouseovers allowed me to discover what you really did. There may be more elegant solutions than the constant easter-egg linking, which is discouraged in the MoS.
      • This is a Catch-22; see User:YellowMonkey's feedback above. Non-US readers will be confused by American football jargon which is completely necessary to know in order to be able to describe the game without becoming completely bogged down in explaining the sport. The best way to explain the terms without slowing down the article is to link the jargon to the appropriate article. In many cases, the name of the linked article is not exactly the same as the jargon term used in the text (for example Down (American football) explaining 4th-and-16), thus making the "Easter-egg" links necessary. There is no good way to avoid this; it also has been standard practice on necessarily jargon-heavy sports FAs for not just American football, but also cricket and other sports.

        Regarding the frequency of linking, I had tried previously to relink terms at the beginning of every level-2 header on the theory that a casual reader might jump directly to a section and then not understand the American football jargon. If that is too frequent in your opinion, it can certainly be reduced. –Grondemar 05:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Andy Walsh (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much echoes my sentiment, especially the overlinking issues—the article is only half-pruned at this point. I haven't had a chance to dig into the "team selection" section yet, mainly because it looks like it'll be the hardest nut to crack. Sadly, I'm going to be a bit too busy with schoolwork to finish this one up in the next few days. Also, you're right about "them playing"—it should be "their playing". Grondemar has been doing such good work and I don't want my IRL workload to drag it down—maybe it's best to come back in 2-3 weeks? —Deckiller (t-c-l) 04:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally prefer to continue this FAC as multiple people have supported; I'll contact some of the people who have commented but not yet returned to comment on my response. –Grondemar 05:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:24, 24 November 2010 [9].

Act on National Flag and Anthem (Japan)

[edit]
Nominator(s): User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one of the most controversial laws (and for some one of the most important) that was passed by Japan in the last 20 years. It firmed established the Hinomaru flag (red sun on a white field) and the song Kimigayo as the symbols of Japan. I recently had a peer review and still having people fine tune the grammar on the article.

A lot of the content has come from the article on the Japanese flag (a FA) and the Japanese anthem (a GA). Due to the recent discussions on the talk page of FAC, there is content from Google Books. The links have been pared down, but only one of the books that have a GLink I actually own (Itoh 2003). I also am not sure what should be in an law article that will be going for FAC so there might be a few things I could add. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: I can't vouch for any of the Japanese refs, though their sources look substantial enough. A few nitpicks on the English language sources:-

  • Ref 14: This appears to be a reproduction of an article published in The Daily Telegraph in 2005, so the newspaper rather than the website should be shown as publisher
  • Refs 23 and 40: why the different formats?
  • Consistency required in formatting joint authors. For example see the differences between refs 24 and 53 (look for similar inconsistences).

Otherwise, sources look good. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what happened with 23 and 40 is that 23 was done a few years ago and 40 was done within the past month. I fixed the reference at 23 and the others you mentioned. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking we could use "the party discipline of the collation led by the Liberal Democratic Party" instead. Agree? I am also addressing some of your inline issues by making separate edits. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure—maybe the original wording is fine as is. Andy will be offering a second opinion soon. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 02:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:04, 24 November 2010 [10].

Vikos–Aoös National Park

[edit]
Nominator(s): Alexikoua (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked a lot on this: The article has been also at Peer review and there were serious objections, while some minor issues were fixed. All the aspects are covered here as far as information goes and I believe this article is well referenced, informative and encyclopedic.Alexikoua (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the first link and removed the second (the specific part is also referenced by another work from the same authors).Alexikoua (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Sources and citations generally fine; just a few nitpicks:-

  • "Natura 2008" should be in alphabetical sequence in the Sources, or it's difficult to find
  • Page ranges should have dashes not hyphens
  • Ref 28 lacks retrieval date.

Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fixed.Alexikoua (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment - Check out WP:caption; incomplete sentences (as most captions are in this article) don't need periods. I'll come back later for a full review. (... and don't use the {{done}} template as above, they increase FAC page loading times.) Sasata (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File:Greece_location_map.svg should be captioned along the lines of the map in 1949_Ambato_earthquake, otherwise fine Fasach Nua (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Caption issues have been fixed per above suggestions.Alexikoua (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial overview, 1(b) (geology)/1(a):

  • 1b (topic specific) concern: Geology is given short shrift in this article. For a park in a clearly spectacular geological setting, this should have much more detail, and surely should cite more of the relevant scientific literature (1(c) issue). Paschos, P.; Nikolaou, E.,; Papanikos, D. (2004) is the only geology-related reference I see, and it is citing one date and a few geographic features.
I would expect detail that covers the geologic formations in the area, and answers to questions such as:
  • is it entirely on Mid Jurassic limestone/dolomite?
  • Are the fossils notable? What glaciations are recorded through deposits such as moraines in the Park?
  • "The retreat of the glaciers": when and how far?
  • Is there remnant glaciation on the mountains?
  • How long has the karst been developing?
  • Are the cave networks well understood, and do they also house distinct and significant biota?
  • 1a concerns: prose needs considerable smoothing. Sample examples follow (representative of these concerns):
    • "Moreover, Vikos–Aoös National Park hosts one of the most complete spectra of animal species"
    • "The age of the compact dolomite rocks that lie on the bottom of the gorge has been determined by means of sea fossils found inside them and has been dated back to the Early Jurassic period"
    • "is considered among the five or six areas in Greece with the richest fauna characteristic of mountain and forest ecosystems"
  • It would be nice to see fewer uses of 'moreover'; I saw two in one section at times.
  • Overlinking: eg. horses, forest, grazing, tourism, etc need to go.

Iridia (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The geologic importance of the area is now well covered: two+1/2 paragraphs added in 'Vikos G.' and Tymfi' sections (+3 geologic references) that contain details per above points (age of the rock formations, notability of the fossils in Aoos bed, retreat of glaciers, period of glaciation, types of remnant glaciations, karst development, about the caves according to the available material they are still studied without any sign of biota so far). Copy edit job has been also perfomed on several parts including the above suggestions.Alexikoua (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - 1st pass: Copyedit/proofreading (most of which should have been done prior to FAC). Will check sources later. Sasata (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "located 30 kilometers north" need to give imperial convert per other instances
  • not sure if the following links are necessary in the lead: cave, canyon, rafting, canoe-kayaking, hiking, mountain biking
  • there a mix of both British and American English in the text: metres, supervised, centre vs. characterized, specialized, favor
  • "During the last decades"
  • "The landscape of the 20 km (12 mi) long gorge" should be hyphenated, as the number is being used as an adjective. Simply add the parameter adj=on to the conversion template.
  • "(660 ft)-700 metres" endash, not hyphen
  • "limestone derived" needs hyphen
  • "The final phase of glacial activity occurred between marine isotope stages 5d and 2" do not know what these numbers mean, and clicking the linked article did not help
  • link carbonate
  • "another gorge that is 10 km long." needs convert
  • "great number of secondary gullies and currents.[11] while the southern part" comma, I presume
  • "limestone weathering" hyphen
  • "gorge date back to the Early Jurassic period"
  • Aoos Gorge image caption does not need fullstop
  • "a formation which was created after" which->that
  • "Its maximum depth is 4.95 m while its surface covers 1 ha." converts
  • "A number of vertical caves and precipices, are found in the area" no comma
  • "These are being studied and explored by caving enthusiasts, while some of them bear names inspired from mythology,"the caving enthusiasts have mythological names?
  • "and has since then been studied by a large number of expeditions." expeditions don't study
  • link escarpment
  • "well developed" hyphen
  • "850 m above sea level" convert
  • "additional 9 near the borders" write out the number in full if less than ten, says MOS
  • "were connected by a very good system of paths" is the "very good" necessary?
  • "The economic affluence of Zagori's past is still reflected in the admirable architecture" admirable sounds POV… leave it out?
  • In the image caption "The village of Monodendri, in dense vegetation and Vikos Gorge in the background" the way it is worded, it sounds like the village is in the Gorge
  • 'being high during the winter months" avoid the noun + ing (see here)
  • "drought period of 2 to 3 months in summer." numbers in full
  • "mean minimum annual temperature, exceeds 40 C." remove comma, add convert temp to Fahrenheit. Convert needed a couple of sentences later as well.
  • "up to an elevation of about 1500 meters." needs convert, and the Brit Eng metres was used previously. Same applies a couple of sentences later. Would prefer if this section was written in paragraph style rather than point form.
  • don;t think species needs to be linked, but maybe wildflowers should be
  • "5,8%" period, not comma
  • why is taxa italicized? Similarly, taxon is italicized a paragraph later (and linked, although it should be linked at 1st occurrence)
  • "The park's forests are abundant in species associated with the cool local climate, such as Ulmus glabra, Campanula trachelium, Aesculus hippocastanum and Tilia platyphyllos." Consider giving the common names and piping links to the scientific ones, or at the very least, tell us that they are trees.
  • link biologically active
  • "local plants and herds is exhibited in the local natural museum" herbs; what is a "natural museum"?
  • "use the area the whole year around."
  • "(Rupicapra rupicapra balcanica)" italics
  • "Numerous fish, such as brown trout, roach, and barbel" fish->fishes (since several species are being referred to
  • "A total of 121 bird species has been observed" has -> have
  • "twenty six" hyphen
  • "The bird communities are considered among the most complete in Greece; important species include" how are "important" defined?
  • "Regarding invertebrates species, the forests, due to their structural complexity and the co-existence of various small biotopes, i.e. streams, ponds, forest openings, rocky sites, dead trees, old pollards, coppices, support a very diverse fauna, especially at the various ecotones, including often very specialized species." long sentence that would benefit from splitting
  • "Vipera ursine" italics; taxon need not be linked again
  • "while the land provided mainly for pastoralism and firewood for the local needs." sentence structure seems a bit awkward to me
  • "so called" hyphen
  • "while abandonment of the traditional rural economy and the land use system has affected the cultural landscape." unclear: was the land use system also abandoned?
  • the hikers walking caption does not need fullstop
  • "… dangers to the park include land erosion, landslides, wildfires which threaten the local flora and fauna." missing "and"
  • "An evolution analysis has begun by taking an as detailed as possible picture of the territory covering at least the following items:" awkward
  • link orography
  • why is Geographic Information System capitalized?
  • "Specific objectives of ecotourism development include the reviving of traditional activities such as small-scale farming and stock-raising,[57] as well as the establishment of a 'network of communities of chamois biotopes'." remove passive voice (i.e. the reviving of -> reviving; the establishment of ->establishing
  • "which lasts approximately 6–7 hours" -> "six to seven"
  • "On the other hand, several viewpoint are accessible only on foot," hiking was mentioned in the previous sentence, which I assume is by foot, so the contrast isn't needed here
I gave the article a thorough copyedit this morning, changing all the usage to US English, and so on. Hope it's ok now. Athenean (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • please ensure that there's nothing in the lead not mentioned in the article text. For example, the following aren't in the article body: no mention of the 100,000 visitors/year; core of the park being 3,400 hectares; 1800 species of flora, etc. Once that's done, you can probably remove citations for these facts from the lead, as they will be cited later. See WP:Lead for more info. Sasata (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • watch out when using the convert templates that you don't introduce more significant figures than was intended by the source. For example, the article says "... the gorge measures 900 m (2,953 ft) deep and 1,100 m (3,609 ft) wide"; the source says "at one point measures 2950 feet (900 metres) deep and 3600 feet (1100 metres) wide". This can be fixed by using the "sigfig=" parameter in template:convert. Should check usage throughout the article. Sasata (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Article needs an intervention: issues with WP:Copyvio and WP:Close paraphrasing
  • article: "Steep slopes and precipitous rocky cliffs dominate in the middle and higher zones respectively. Numerous gullies dissect both sides of the gorge and the weathering action of water down its walls creates extended screes." Source: "Steep slopes and precipitous rock cliffs dominate at the middle and higher zones respectively. Numerous gullies dissect both sides of the gorge and the movement of water detaching various rocky materials creates extended screes." (page 11 of the source, not the cited page 21)
  • article: "Studies on the non-vascular flora recorded the presence of about 150 moss species in the area of the national park, including one newly described taxon." source: "Studies on the non-vascular flora recorded the presence of about 150 moss species in the area of Vikos including one newly described taxon."
  • article: "The local tourism industry has been favored by national and European funds and provides modest accommodation and tourism services, with respect to the local tradition and culture." source: "The local private tourism industry has been favored by national and European funds and provides nowadays modest accommodation and high quality tourism services with respect to the local tradition and culture". I stopped looking after this third instance.
  • I also found several instances where statements were not backed up by cited source.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasata (talk • contribs) 06:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Laser brain 21:41, 21 November 2010 [13].

All I Want for Christmas Is You

[edit]
Nominator(s): CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 04:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to meet all FA criteria. CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 04:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The lead alone contains spelling errors ("It's"), many instances of awkward wording ("In the United States, due to current rules at the time of its release, it was unable to chart on the Hot 100"), and unattributed quotations. Similar problems abound in the rest of the article. Articles should not be brought to FAC with such basic problems.

    This isn't the first time problems like this are coming up in FACs from this contributor; I hope it will be the last time. Ucucha 04:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was 1 instance of the "It's", not a big deal. And that other thing is not grammatically incorrect. Anyway its been changed.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 04:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 'current' is either redundant or incorrect, though. That's poor writing. --Golbez (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I know, current and at the time are opposites. I've fixed that though :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, there are still grammatical errors in the article ("due to suggestion", "a change in Billboard stipulation"). And that is just the first layer—even when the grammar at least is correct, the prose does not reach the standard set by criterion 1a. Please review for WP:LQ compliance. By the way, I am watching this FAC; no need for further posts on my talk page. Ucucha 05:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the only two instances of that, as with songs you place the comma outside the parenthesis. The other two are fixed as well. Tomorrow, Legolas will do a copy-edit, so I'll let you know after so you can re-consider. Thanks.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still some problems:

  • The Harvnb links to Nickson (1998) are broken.
  • The "Background and writing" section contains material irrelevant to the background (like that the song became successful).
  • The quote in this section looks like it is about the album, not specifically this song.
  • "It was written in order to contrast the album's strong religious anthem, giving it a "fun and mellow" vibe."—ungrammatical
  • "Due to her desire, Carey and Afanasieff spent hours in the recording studio throughout the summer of 1994, during which the song was conceived."—awkward
  • LQ errors, like 'Roch Parisien of Allmusic called the song "well-crafted,"'.

More later. Ucucha 12:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Needs to be proofread with a fine-tooth comb, the article is not FAC-ready. Here's a sampling of errors from one section:
  • "The first and most commonly seen is a home video that shows Carey celebrating Christmas with snow, presents, and loved ones." Really? It's a home video? Or is it a music video filmed so as to give viewers the impression it's a home video?
  • "Outdoor scenes shot in New Jersey at the Fairy Tale Forest." First, the sentence is missing a verb; second, the organization of the paragraph is awkward.. the prior and succeeding sentences describe what's happening in the video, and this sentence seems to be misplaced.
  • "Carey's then husband Tommy Mottola made a cameo appearance as Santa Claus is the video." is -> in
  • "It finishes with Santa Claus, played by Mottola," the paragraph already told us two sentences ago who played Santa
  • "For a 1960s look, the video was filmed in black and white, with Carey in white boots and teased up hair; adding to the 1960s theme." these should not be joined with a semicolon
  • Jermaine Dupri and Lil' Bow Wow should be linked at their first mention, rather than later on.
Even if these specific errors get fixed up, the underlying prose feels ... underwhelming. Please hook up with someone experienced in crafting words to help the prose sound more professional. Sasata (talk) 07:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the FAC community would appreciate it if you had your articles proofread by an experienced copyeditor before submitting to FAC, like the example you gave. Bringing poorly-prepared articles to FAC drains limited reviewer time. Sasata (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if Wikipedia weren't full of rude pessimists such as yourselves I could get that kind of help. Unfortunately, there aren't any that I have found that could give me the kind of proof-reading your looking for.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"You're". Sasata (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an FA nom article, so I don't need to be proofread :P--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL, please. wackywace 17:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, admin in training. Sasata (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • "...and the top-ten in various other countries." - top ten doesn't need a hyphen
  • "Its Theme of wanting nothing more than her love for Christmas truly fit the emotions in their marriage at the time." -theme doesn't need a capital t, but whole sentence could do with a rewrite
  • File:Mariah Carey - All I Want For Christmas Is You.ogg is of too high a quality
  • Merry Christmas II You should be linked
  • Surely there are more reviews of the song!
  • Billboard Hot 100 should be Billboard Hot 100
  • There are two instances of "U.S." which should be "US"
  • English translation of "29-sai no Christmas"?
  • "It sold in excess of 1.1 million units on the Japanese record chart" 'on the Japanese record chart' → 'in Japan'?
  • 'Music videos' section could do with more linking.
  • It seems more logical to put this section after the 'Remixes and 2010 version' section
  • tours should be linked. In fact, run through the article and wikify, there is quite a bit of underlinking
  • What's with the Merry Christmas II You track listing?
  • Link charts
  • References need formatting - some are italicising inappropriately, while others have the parent publisher before the worker

Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Adabow thanks. All things have been fixed. However, note that some things have been linked in the lead already, so they aren't underlinked. Everything else was addressed. Thanks :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments

:*It says in the lead the video was filmed at xmas in '93 but this isn't mentioned in the music video section at all. Is this definitely true? :*There are a lot of very short sentences which makes it quite awkward to read at points, e.g. "Instead, the entire video is filmed in animation. The style of the animation is based on a scene in the video for Carey's "Heartbreaker" (1999)." Can this be made into one sentence? (Also is it correct to say "filmed in animation"? :*For the foreign language references, I think you should include a translated quote in the reference of the relevant part of the source. (not done, but realise it doesn't need to be) :*References 34-37 are to Amazon.com - this is not a suitable source for any article, let alone an FA - if independent sources haven't commented on the song being in these albums, then we shouldn't be. SmartSE (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hi Smartse, thanks for your comments :). So I've fixed everything, except the last one. I mean, Amazon may not be reliable for bio's, but I'm only referencing a track list on an album, I'm sure they can reference that don't ya think. Thanks!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. The sentence short was only an example though and you need to work on improving the prose in general.
  • I'm still unsure about using Amazon, personally, I see stuff like this as OR, because if no one else has written about the song featuring on the albums, we shouldn't be. I've had a look through the WP:RSN archives to see if this has come up before but couldn't find anything. Perhaps someone else can give their opinion. SmartSE (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that Amazon may be used to confirm the existence of an album, track, DVD etc, but no more than that. I have not yet checked that these citations to Amazon pass muster on that basis, but if they do I think they can stand. Such citations have been accepted in other music FACs, for example this and this and this. Brianboulton (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, I won't argue if it's been ok before. SmartSE (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Direct quotations need to be cited, even if they are given in the lead. There are two such quotations.
  • I have not yet carried out a full sources review, but I think Rap-up is a print source, so it should be italicised.
  • It's a small point, but three successive sections begin with the album's name. It would be good if you could vary the style.
Note: This point appears to have been overlooked, including the mis-titling in the third section. Brianboulton (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back with a sources review shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review:

Citations to Amazon

I am concerned that these citations to the Amazon sales site do not provide full support for what is stated in the text. Can you look at these again?

Other sources issues
  • Ref 10: About.com is part of The New York Times Company, not part of the paper itself. Therefore, "The New York Times Company" should not be italicised
  • Ref 11 lacks publisher details
  • Ref 20: indicate this is in Danish
  • Ref 51: indicate in Norwegian. This also looks like a subscription site.

Other than these issues, sources and citations are OK. Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 04:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other two issues are still pending. Well the first is sort of, but there are still issues with sourcing track listing, including unsourced and sourced (album liner notes are cited for a UK CD single) and the charts for the different years need to be like the FA article Candyo32Hey Ya!. Candyo32 04:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 04:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As stated before, the album liner notes are irrelevant to the sourcing of different tracklistings. This isn't the album tracklisting, these are CD singles, etc. I don't see how the album liner notes prove this. Candyo32 00:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Neither of the non-free images pass WP:NFCC and hence the article fails WP:FA Criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important comment for FAC directors I have addressed the issue he pointed out and have asked him twice to come back and check it out. He removed my notice twice and refuses to respond. It isn't fair and mean of him to do. Here is the first time and the second time. Thank you--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • What do you mean? There is only 1 non-free, which is the screen shot for the music video which many FAs DO have. he other two are from commons so they are free to use without problems.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Both non-free images must only be used if they are subject to critical commentary; for example in the instance of the still image from the video, you must state the significance of the scene in the video. Back up critical commentary with sources which analyse the video—if there is no critical commentary on the non-free media, it does not increase the reader's understanding of the article. wackywace 19:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Mariahcarey alliwantforchristmasisyou.png is the other non-free image, which requires suitable analysis. Why were those colours chosen for the cover? Does the design reflect the content of the song? Is the design reflective of the characteristics of the singer's music? On another note, while you did add analysis of the video in the text, it would be better suited as an addition to the image caption. You could still simply have that in the text and not require the non-free image. wackywace 20:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, every article has a cover. I mean you guys are pulling stuff out that isn't fair. Every FA music article has an album or single cover. I added info about it anyway. About both.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please assume good faith. We are not trying to find every little niggle about the article; we are pointing out issues that make the article one that is not up to the FA criteria. There is little doubt the article you have written is good, but there is no point in passing an article that is not up to scratch. We are not at all attacking your work; we are trying to make it better. wackywace 11:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely oppose the removal of the single cover. As the nominator pointed out, yes you are somehow pointing obvious facts. An article about a song, which was released as a single, will have a sigle cover, such as afilm article will have a poster. Now whether it pertains to the color she chose , and whether such information is available or not. I admit the music video image needs a critical support for its inclusion, but please lets not waste time in going through obvious facts. If such reasons are the conditions of your oppose, then I'm afraid it is vestigial. Same goes for Fasach Nua. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have never opposed the article, and have never supported the removal of the singles cover. I was merely attempting to inform the nominator of Fasach Nua's position. I do not think that the points I raised were "obvious facts"; if they were they would have been addressed before the nomination. However, they appear to have been addressed, and I am happy to support the article. The nominator has my sincerest apologies if he considers my opinions to be in bad faith, but I hope they can understand that, in posting my comments, I was attempting to make this article better. It is a well-written article. Good work. wackywace 07:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you very much Wackywace! Its very much appreciated :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for concerns on use of non-free media:
    • File:Mariahcarey alliwantforchristmasisyou.png: There is somewhat of a concensus for the use of non-free material for the identification of a subject (albums, video games, books) if there is no suitable free replacement, so this image could satisfy the non-replaceability criteria. What is concerning however, is the source. WP:CITE#IMAGE requests for a specific source (url or publication information). "The cover art can or could be obtained from Columbia Records" does not satisify this; it is obvious the image was not obtained from the Wikipedia article on Columbia Records. Neither is there contact information on who to contact at Columbia Records or such (did anyone actually tried calling the record company to acquire this image?).
    • File:12 All I Want For Christmas Is You- Extra Festive.ogg: "To demonstrate song in article" is too vague. What specific aspect of this sample is required to help readers understand something written in the article? Why can words not help the reader understand this aspect? These should be mentioned in the rationale.
    • File:Mariah Carey - All I Want For Christmas Is You.ogg: The same for this music sample.
    • File:Aiwfciy.jpg: "To view or show the music video screenshot of Mariah Carey's single 'All I Want for Christmas Is You'" is simply decorative—failure of WP:NFCC criterion 8.
These should be resolved by either through properly fleshing out the fair use rationales or removing any unjustified images. Jappalang (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi. I removed the music video screenshot and added allot of new info for both "purpose" on both samples. I believe thats what you asked for. I don't see what you expect to be done for the cover photo though. Its the same as all other FAs, so I don't see what your expecting of me.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. Corrected one external link that redirected. --PresN 19:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other issues—I noticed the critical reception section is completely positive—it may be a good idea to offer some published negative criticism, if any—of course, you don't want to give that POV undue weight. Also, a general "Reception" header, with "chart performance" as a level two header underneath, would look a lot better. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 22:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two sections called Chart performance—these should probably be integrated. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 22:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey so I took your suggestion with the headers etc. However, I could not find any negative reception for the original song, but as proof, I have criticism for the 2010 version, in case you didn't read that. So while I couldn't get criticism on the original, I found and had already there for the re-make. I also tried my best to fix the grammar further. I hope I addressed all you concerns. Thanks!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No major issues. In the background section, "last studio album Music Box..", "previous studio album" would be better, I guess. In remixes section, "Becky Brain from Idolator gave the song praise..." - wouldn't "praised the song" suit more? Just my opinion. Novice7 Talk 10:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Novice7 Talk 10:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:38, 16 November 2010 [15].

The Tale of Mr. Jeremy Fisher

[edit]
Nominator(s): Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has had some considerable work in the past few days and is ready for FA in my opinion. Please enjoy the read and I welcome your feedback! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.The new pic is crisp, vibrant, and cleaner. Thank you! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check typos: Linder, Leslie (1971), A Hostory…
  • "Jeremie Peche-a-la-Ligne" Amazon isn't highly reliable here. Try a bibliographic database. The national deposit library of France or Canada, or the provincial deposit library of Quebec?
  • Image comments (maybe more if I have time, I've still got the battered copy of this I read as a kid and I'm tripping on nostalgia.)
    • The images all look good, but for the illustrations from the books, you really should explain why they specifically are PD in the US but not in the home country (shouldn't take too long, since you can copy-paste it to the other pages and it's a pretty simple explanation.) The other images are all from the same site and suitably abide by CC-by-SA.
    • On their use in the article: first, the illustration captions really should be quoted so readers know exactly where they are from. Secondly, the images are all awesome, but they start cluttering up the text by the sheer weight of them (i.e., being placed where they have no real relevance to supporting the text.) Perhaps the best idea is the use one image where the illustration is specifically discussed, and then have a gallery at the end embedded?

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This is as good an article on this subject as one could wish. Delectable, in fact. It certainly meets FA criteria 1, 2 and 4, IMO. I leave the images to the criterion 3 specialists, and assuming they have no problems I shall be pleased to see this article on our front page. Tim riley (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments There are a few instances of what look like typos:
    • "again, an hops"
    • "her journal enteries for"
    • "to the Jermey Fisher"
    • "Sir Isacc Newton"
    • "Jeremy ,ade a cameo"
    • "sought licencing rights" [participle = licensing]
    • "Isaac Newton was releasd for"
    • "granted licencing"

Tim riley (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you! And sorry there were so many! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of drive-by comments.

  • First, while the pictures are good (PD in the US or CC from good old Geograph) the sound file sadly is not- it is a reproduction of something that is PD in the US, but not in the UK (the book's source country) and so should not be hosted on Commons. It can be hosted on the English Wikipedia, as it is PD in the US, but should be deleted from Commons. Perhaps you could upload it locally, and then the Commons version can be nominated for deletion? (I do, however, think the use of an audiobook like that is wonderful).
Done. Uploaded locally and hope the explantions are correct. I have no experience uploading sound clips and hope I've done the right thing here. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks, I have made a couple of small fixes to the local file page, and nominated the file for deletion at Commons (see here). J Milburn (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perth (in an image caption) is a dablink. omnibus and audio CD (Reprints and translations) are also dablinks.
Done. Corrected. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time for a full review right now, but I would certainly like to give it a full review at some point. At first glance, this is an absolutely wonderful article on a lovely subject. J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should avoid using templates (like the green tick) on this page, as it can slow loading
  • Macintosh — should be capitalised, follow the link (two occurrences)
  • stickleback might be a better link than the one to the family
  • males-only — reads oddly to me, I'd be inclined to put "male-only"
Done. I followed Potter's spelling in the text on Macintosh (with lower case m) but have changed to capitalized M as should be. Thank you for the three spine stickleback -- I wasn't aware! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have time for a more thorough read now.

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "uncrowded designs and Potter's economical, eloquent line." Again, a bit POV
    Done.
  • "on the banks of a river."[27][26]", "annual, Comical Customers at the New Stores of Comical Rhymes and Stories.[31][14]" Again, not something that really bothers me, but the footnote numbers should be in order. There may be other examples.
    Done. I'll look for others. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have not found others. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally absolutely wonderful- the development and publication section was a fascinating, the subject matter is lovely (and of interest to a local like me!) and the use of the sound file and pictures is great. I think the background needs a trim, a few areas need a little bit of a rewrite/NPOVing, and a couple more sources in the last section wouldn't go amiss. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I still think the background section could do with some trimming, but I understand why you have put it there. For what it's worth, I've written a short article on Moss Eccles Tarn; hopefully it'll be hitting DYK at some point soon. J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great article on the Tarn! and Thank you for your support! I've trimmed the Background section here and there and removed mention of the relationship between Potter and Norman Warne. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi Susanne, nice work. I wonder if it jars a little to suddenly have a large section about Potter in the middle of the article. I think I'd either leave that out, or make it very much shorter. And I'd probably place it after plot. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi SlimVirgin! Thank you for the comments! The layout I've followed is that suggested/recommended by the WikiProject Novels with the Plot first, followed by a Themes section, Background, etc. I've moved things about a bit. I don't know where to shorten the Background section. I've already cut some info. Everything one needs to know that led to the composition of this book is included here.
  • I agree that the plot should come first after the lead. Personally I would leave out the section about Potter, but if you're going to have it, I would place it after plot, but wherever I placed it, I would shorten it a great deal -- down to one brief paragraph probably, summary-style. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to take a look at revising/trimming this section later. The Caldecott info could be moved to Development and publication. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it might be worth adding some in-text attribution where you're closely paraphrasing, e.g. "Kutzer argues that ...". For example:
  • Wikipedia, citing Kutzer, p. 121: "It is possible her relocation to Sawrey and Hill Top farm may have produced in her a willingness to accept the silliness of the middle class and the eccentricities of the upper class without being overly judgemental."

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kutzer, p. 121: "Once Potter moved to Sawrey, she seems much less judgmental in her appraisal of English social life, willing to accept the silliness of the aspiring middle class as well as the eccentricities of the upper classes."

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would make sense to add the name of the source wherever you're closing following someone's writing or arguments. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I revised the scholarly comments section to reflect this. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lear, p. 47: " ...Beatrix enjoyed copying his pictures, unconsciously absorbing his light-toned palette, ecomony of line and use of white space. Much later she admitted that she had 'tried in vain' to copy Caldecott. 'I have the greatest admiration for his work – a jealous appreciation; for I think that others, whose names are commonly bracketed with his, are not on the same plane at all as artist-illustrators.'"
  • Article, citing Lear: "She copied his work, unconsciously replicating his light-toned palette, economical line, and use of white space in some of her own work. She admitted, 'I have the greatest admiration for his work – a jealous appreciation; for I think that others, whose names are commonly bracketed with his, are not on the same plane at all as artist-illustrators.'"

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lear, p. 27: "The summer of 1871 was the beginning of a decade of summers Beatrix spent at Dalguise ... it was this landscape against which she would compare all others, and upon which she would base her aesthetic value of nature."
  • Article, citing Lear: "The Potters would summer at Dalguise for the next ten years and for Beatrix the landscape became the one upon which she would base her aesthetic value of nature."

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lear, p. 212: "Her letter to Eric provided a story line that was sure to amuse a child and give opportunity for both artistic and literary embellishment."
  • Article, citing Lear: " ... the plot was one not only certain to amuse a child, but one to provide plenty of opportunity for artistic and literary development."

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whew! I'm embarrassed there are so many! I've taken care of them -- adequately I hope! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing them. Can I ask you to check the offline sources too? I'm not able to see everything on Amazon or Google. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using my word processor to rewrite a bit and to trim the background section. Will bring it along soon. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not keen on how some of the sentences from The Story of Miss Moppet have been copied here. Two examples (there may be more):
  • "Potter confidently asserted her tales would one day be nursery classics, and part of the process in making them so was marketing strategy.[47] She was the first to exploit the commercial possibilities of her characters and tales with a Peter Rabbit doll, an unpublished Peter Rabbit board game, and a Peter Rabbit nursery wallpaper designed between 1903 and 1905.[48] Similar "side-shows" (as Potter termed the spinoffs) were conducted over the following two decades.[49]"
  • "Helen Beatrix Potter was born on 28 July 1866 to barrister Rupert William Potter and his wife Helen (Leech) Potter in London. She was educated by governesses and tutors, and passed a quiet childhood reading, painting, drawing, tending a nursery menagerie of small animals, and visiting museums and art exhibitions."

I'm reworking the background section and the birthdate has been eliminated. I've created an Influences section about Caldecott and her father's sport fishing. It's based entirely on what is in the article. Just moving blocks of text sbout and maybe a bit of new info about Caldecott. It's too soon to bring this to the table -- it's yet to be completed. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been two recommendations that the background section be trimmed. The revised background section has been installed. Much has been cut but the section retains crucial info such as why she chose a small format for her books, the Hentschel process, her familiarity with small animals, etc. These are the things readers may want to know about what led to the creation of Jeremy Fisher. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the amount of copying word from word (or very close to it) from the sources without in-text attribution. Another one (I see you just reworded the first one slightly):
  • Macdonald: "In Jeremy Fisher Potter celebrated and preserved the leisurely lives and characters of her aquatic acquaintances in the country she was growing to love."
  • Article, citing Macdonald: "Potter celebrated and preserved the leisurely, unhurried lives of the pond inhabitants she was beginning to know and appreciate in the environs of Sawrey."

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • MacDonald, p. 98. "One cannot help but suspect that Potter modeled these gentlemanly activities after those of her father and his friends at his club. Their sole concern in life was how to occupy their leisure time, and the activities they invented to do so were pursued sometimes to the point of absurd obsession.
  • Article, citing MacDonald: "It is likely Potter modelled her characters on her father and his associates at the Athenaeum and the Reform clubs in London. The sole concern for these wealthy gentlemen was to fill their many leisure hours with interesting activities and to pursue those activities with a passion bordering on obsession."

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't feel I can support this, Susanne, sorry. I've found too many examples of the source's words being used and not your own, and that's without access to most of them. If it had just been a couple, it would be fine to tweak them, but it's too many, and fixing each one as I point it out is leaving it to me to find them. I can't do that on my own because I don't have the books; I also don't want to be in that position. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should remain Neutral. In opposing and throwing your hands up in despair, you've damaged this article beyond repair. It will always be suspected as something of a copyvio 'cut and paste' job rather than a good faith attempt to create a serviceable article for Wikipedia. I hope you will not do this sort of thing to others. I've cooperated. I've revised the words and phrases you considered too close to the original and am willing to continue. Any relatively new editor (like me) can paraphrase without striking the right distance from the original. It's a process, an evolution -- trying to maintain the writer's original intent and meaning while creating a distance from it. All the sources used are available in public and university libraries so I don't view continuing this review as impossible. I'm willing to continue. There is still much time before the final stretch and if you cannot invest the time in continuing the review than you should remain Neutral rather than Oppose. This is not fair to me. I am being punished because you want to drop out. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Susanne, there are many articles at FAC needing review, reviewers are stretched thin, they don't have time or the responsibility to fix everything they find-- indeed, they shouldn't be doing that as it ties them up unnecessarily and the nominator has access to the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so how would you feel if your kid needed help with his homework, and you said don't bother me I've got other things to do? :) I understand but the issue for me is "the vote." SlimVirgin should not Oppose but Withdraw or remain Neutral. I'm involved in a similar situation with a GAN. I want to wash my hands of it and I can do that by Failing it. I shouldn't do that tho. The nominator of the GA is working along nicely with me and the issues involve some not so terrible things. But I'm busy with other stuff and don't have the time or interest to complete the review. The subject of the article is a book and I've gone so far as to order it at Amazon.com in order to properly review the plot! I'm only looking at the article every few days, but it is unethical for me to Fail it just to get rid of it. Reviews take time and the object is to polish an article to a certain level. I took the GAN on and I should stick with it until it's finished. But the point here is, "the Vote". In this case, withdraw or neutral is the appropriate response, not oppose. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry you feel that way, Susanne. You're right that it can be difficult to juggle straying too close and too far from the sources; there's an essay at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing that might help. The difficulty with my continuing to help is that most of the sources aren't online, so I'd have to order them. But I've seen enough to suggest that there's an issue, so I wouldn't feel right about remaining neutral. I'm sorry it has upset you. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should order the sources and continue with the review. The sources are available in public and university libraries. Call or email the library, ask them to pull the sources and have them ready at the front desk, have a friend pick them up if you can't. Reviewing means polishing an article to a certain level. I was counting on your help and feel abandoned. I'm making a good faith effort in writing this article for Wikipedia. I don't need an FA award for bragging rights. I just think Potter is a great author and needs some well-developed articles here. Anyway, I really appreciate your help as far as you decided to go. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne, you may be misunderstanding a bit; reviewing does not "mean polishing an article to a certain level". The reviewer's task is only to determine if an article meets WP:WIAFA. The nominator is expected to bring the article to FAC in compliance-- reviewers only check to see that it is, and can't be expected to actually do the (often long and difficult) work needed to bring an article to standard. Considering the amount of paraphrasing issues Slim found, would you like to continue the nomination while you work on this, or withdraw and re-nominate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What good would renominating do if no one is checking the paraphrasing? I'm making a good faith effort but I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. I would like to remain in the queue but how will I ever know if my paraphrasing is acceptable? I feel I've been hit in the back of the head with a cement-filled stocking on this. I'm reading the essay on paraphrasing and looking at my work and the sources. I think my work is acceptable. I thought I was paraphrasing in an acceptable manner. What am I doing wrong? What am I going to do? Keep me in the queue. Maybe someone will have the balls to stick with me on this. Thanks! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't have time to check Miss Moppet immediately. Send Miss Moppet to AfD or blank the page. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:32, 16 November 2010 [16].

Hill 303 massacre

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 03:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article. It has passed both GA and a MILHIST A-class review. —Ed!(talk) 03:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, leaning oppose Well maybe I should piped up on this earlier on this sequence of Korean War articles, but there doesn't seem to be any scholarly books used in this article, although this seems similar to this sequence of articles, with the sources apparently being popular history writers in popular-type presses that print a lot of "old war story" type stuff on Korea and VN, or stuff printed under the auspices of the US Military rather than university academics. I'm rather leery of having an article about war crimes being sourced only to popular historians and those that are not fully-third party. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be glad to find a few of these sources. Are there any specific books/kinds of authors you're specifically looking for? I've tried to use a variety of sources I thought were scholarly to keep it as balanced as possible. —Ed!(talk) 12:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Analysis on source: The US Army source, aka Appleman, has been certified to be the most important/reliable scholarly source available on Korean combat operations, so I don't think an reliance on Appleman's work should be counted against this article. The same can also be said about Ecker and his research into US casualty numbers. Catchpole's book has a rather unknown reputation/impact in the Korean War research, so I would be cautious on giving too much weight to his work. Chinnery's book has been noted to be "superficial and naive" on analyzing the POW issue, so it's conclusions of the event should not be relied upon. Alexander and Fehrenbach's work, although important and notable, were written from dissatisfied Korean grunt point of view, so their point of view could have a somewhat skewed revisionist touch, and I would suggest to use another source, such as Allan Millet or Clay Blair to cross examine their findings. McCarthy's report is a primary government source, thus it needs a secondary source for interpretation. Varhola is a tertiary source that should only be used to support uncontroversial facts. And finally Millett's work currently represents the most up to date scholar studies on Korean War. A more detailed review of what sources to use on what Korean War topic can be found on Millet, Allan R. (2007), The Korean War: the Essential Bibliography, Dulles, VA: Potomac Books, ISBN 9781574889765. According to this list, the war crime issue could only be best explained with unpublished documents from US Judge Advocate General's Corps in 1954. Jim101 (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What does "has been certified to be the most important/reliable scholarly source available on Korean combat operations" mean? "Certified" according to what and by whom? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • He is certified at least according to the reviews by Prof. Allan Millet, David Halberstam, South Korean Ministry of Defense, etc, in which Appleman's research provided the definitive theater level account of the Korean War from the outbreak to the start of the stalemate period. He and S.L.A. Marshall has been recognized as the two leading experts on US Army operations during the Korean War, although S.L.A. Marshall did not wrote books on the entire history of the Korean War like Appleman did. Jim101 (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The official histories sponsored by the US Army from World War II to the present have a very good reputation for scholarly rigor and the historians were able to write and reach their conclusions without being influenced by the Army. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I'll note I did a google scholar search (quick, but on a few permutations of "Hill 303" with korea/war/crime/massacre) and didn't turn up anything beyond what sources are given in this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments relating to 1c: I was asked to specifically attend to the issue of HQRS in this, and other Korean War articles coming forward. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not highly esteem the works of McCarthy, Joseph; Karl E. Mundt, John L. McLellan, Margaret C. Smith, et. al. (1954) on matters of fact. (Also, 2c: semis versus commas)
      • Joseph McCarthy is known as a notorious liar, slanderer, and distorter of facts. This public knowledge is accurate and taints any capacity for McCarthy or any body he was involved with in a fact determining manner, to determine facts. McCarthy etal (1954) should only be used for matters of clear opinion. It should not be used for facts.
    • Millett, Allan R. (2010) and Appleman (1998) are beyond reproach; UPs and modern military historical scholarship by a military press.
    • Alexander, Bevin (2003) is reliable due to expertise overcoming any problem with his publisher being a general non-fiction publisher. Treat as HQRS. Catchpole, Brian (2001) is published by a reputable commercial non-fiction press, it is of adequate length to be considered a high quality reliable source in this context. Ecker, Richard E. (2004), is published by a non-fiction specialist with a scholarly publishing wing. Ought to be reliable as a Tertiary. Fehrenbach, T.R. (2001), This Kind of War is a highly republished "popular" work, the fact that it has been acclaimed by popular readers, and is not published by a partisan press, puts it that one rank above Korean Atrocity!: reliable but not high quality. Michael J. Varhola is a professional (but not an academic) historian, Varhola, Michael J. (2000), Fire and Ice is published by a respectable non-fiction publisher.
    • Chinnery, Philip D. (2001) is published by a partisan press (an institute formed of retired US service people, to advance their political interests), in effect the press is a Trade Union of retired naval servicepeople. Korean Atrocity!: Forgotten War Crimes, 1950-1953 is not a reliable source: it is produced by a partisan press and fails to meet the standards of the relevant discipline (it doesn't cite based on archival, primary and secondary sources). Support any points with another source, or double up citations.
    • I'm a little concerned that the standard South Korean academic history of the war doesn't seem to have been consulted or used. Korea Institute of Military History etal. The Korean War Vol 1 University of Nebraska Press, 2000.
    • I'm not surprised but saddened that there is no adequate North Korean or North Korean focused history to use.
      • Actually, I'm surprised to say The Korean War Vol 1 didn't mention the massacre (though it mentioned Hill 303). The book has very little to say of war crimed in general. As to Chinnery and McCarthy, I think I only used them as secondary sources to supplement the main info which is already cited by other sources. —Ed!(talk) 04:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unexpected! Normally KIMH Korean War is my go to. Maybe they found it impossible to present within the confines of their 2000 edition (they stripped out the... uh... partisan stuff when revising the earlier Korean editions for modern scholarly publication). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo, I appreciate the source analysis. Can I get some clarification, please, on how this affects the article? Have the nonreliable or nonpreferred sources been replaced or doubled up? Karanacs (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll act on this today. Thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1c is good following edits made by the article nominator Fifelfoo (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC) I have concerns which lead me to Oppose on 1c grounds, I have not mentioned trivial or uncontroversial or correct ("for attributed opinion") uses of the two sources as these uses are correct uses of non-reliable sources, or are not concerning to FAC:[reply]
Use of Chinnery, a work identified as lacking Reliability due to being published by an involved press and by failing to meet HQRS standards in the appropriate discipline:
To solely support the unusual claim of first hand experience that, "The prisoners were taken to a road…and told…in Seoul."
To solely support a novel claim in contradiction to a HQRS that, "Another US survivor…claimed the two were beaten to death with entrenching tools."
To allege without attribution that, "North Korean troops…became agitated, fearing they would be captured…"
To claim, only supported by another unreliable source, that "50 guards present climbed to the top of the gully around the line of prisoners."
To claim, Two of the [at least three] North Koreans were Kim Kwong Taek and Chong Myong Tok, conscript replacements, members of 4Co 2/206 Mech Inf; that the commander of 4 2/206 had lead the executions; that Heo Chang Keun claimed only 20 North Koreans fired weapons.
These uses are concerning and a grounds for opposition on the basis of 1c: quality of research. They are claims derived from a partisan press, they appear to be claims derived from primary sources or a source compilation. These are unique historical claims which are not supported from the core texts cited elsewhere in the article.
Use of McCarthy etal. McCarthy, Korean War Atrocities Report of the Committee on Government Operations is a US government publication of a parliamentary committee run by a notorious liar and falsifier. The public stain of McCarthy's lies fall on this source. As such it should be used only for the opinions of the US Government and / or US Congress. Where the use of McCarthy etal was supported by other reliable sources, I have not complained, someone might get value from looking up the report there.
To claim that on 17 August, "Several more American prisoners were added to the group during the day, bringing the number of prisoners on Hill 303 to 45."
To claim that, "The officer ordered the men shot," on 17 August at 14:00. (This is a particularly bad thing to source from McCarthy etal.)
To claim that the survivors from the Ravine shooting incident survived by hiding under the dead bodies of others.
To claim that, "Following the incident…American troops were also less apt to take prisoners themselves."
These uses are concerning as they are statements of fact dependent upon Joseph McCarthy's capacity to be factually correct in a political matter related directly to Communism.
While the sections quoted from McCarthy and from Chinnery are almost certainly Witness Statements or Oral History Inteviews, neither McCarthy nor Chinnery are acceptable at converting these into reliable sources. Chinnery fails to display basic conventions of the appropriate discipline in sections related to the article I read, and was published by a partisan press. McCarthy is McCarthy. While a historian such as Appleman or Millett may be able to rescue such primary source accounts from the jaws of McCarthy or from the popular-press failings of Chinnery, Wikipedia is not a historian. Also, given that this is a pretty typical prisoner killing incident by what appears to be a frightened gutless junior officer, the statements above are probably correct in fact, but they're not demonstrably correct in fact from reliable sources to the satisfaction of wikipedia policy. Similar evidence which is obviously from interviews with soldiers who were present, cited in Life Magazine or Time Magazine are unconcerning: these news outlets have to the satisfcation of wikipedia policy fact checking standards in place in ways Chinnery and McCarthy don't.
The uses outlined above are grounds for opposition to this article being Featured. Other uses of McCarthy and Chinnery are acceptable: they are either trivial, cited with support from Reliable Sources or HQRS, or are permitted opinion / fact from otherwise unreliable or primary sources. (ie: that in late 1953 the US Senate Committee on Government Operations…conducted an investigation). Were the following problem points cited in duplicate against HQRS, there would be no problem. The FAC nominator should feel free to ping my talk page if they manage to fix these. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response I am happy to say that the Chinnery source was added after the ACR only for additional detail. As all the points you mentioned above aren't really that important to the article, I have just removed the details since they are not substantiated by any of the other references. As for McCarthy, the things you listed above can all be cross-referenced by other sources (I would have done so already but I feared over-citation) and so I have replaced the refs in question with other sources that say the same thing. I hope this eliminates your concern, just let me know if anything else needs changing. —Ed!(talk) 02:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good now. Sadly this is one of those issues where Wikipedia's requirements are stricter than, for example, the rights of a historian or journalist. We're not allowed to evaluate sources and critically read the truth out of their inadequacies. It might be something to watch in future with your Korean article series, when considering the encyclopaedic benefit of humanising colour versus the HQRS requirements at Featured Article candidates. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with the caveat that I'm not reviewing sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Comments[reply]

Image concerns:

  • File:Hill 303 Memorial.jpg
    South Korea does not permit commercial freedom of panorama. That said, I think tombstone (creative elements of helmet and base) qualify as de minimis to the subject (paying respects), so it is not an issue to me; however, I am listing it here for additional discussion (in case someone else has different opinions).
  • File:Waegwan Bridge.jpg
    It is not really "labeled as US Army photo" at the source.
    The book does not label the photo as a "US Army photo". "Mrs. Norma Heacock Sherris assisted in finding suitable illustrations for the volume."[pp. xii–xiii] "Illustrations are from Department of Defense files."[p. xxiv] This could be a South Korean aerial photograph instead. Jappalang (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is overly draconian. First of all, only US Far East Air Force conducts aerial reconnaissance in Korea during the war. Second of all, the book explicitly stated that this picture is the property of the US government. Third of all, even if it is an South Korean photograph, it is just two months shy to the "50 years after made public in the name of an organization" condition according to the South Korean copyright law. Jim101 (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to have to agree. The images were licensed to the US Gov when they were published in the book. Any qualms about South Korea's copyright were waived when they allowed the images to be published, and any other copyrights should have expired in the 60 years since. From my interpretation they are clearly in the public domain. —Ed!(talk) 16:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last three images are more concerning. Jappalang (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I changed the license tags on all three images to just "US Gov source." Though they come from an Army book I understand they aren't definitively taken by Army photographers. I also corrected the link for the last two images, same site and same book, just a different page. As for the first image, it was taken and published by the US Government with the knowledge and consent of the South Korean government. —Ed!(talk) 00:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:46, 14 November 2010 [17].

Internet linguistics

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lai eric (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the field of Internet linguistics is expanding rapidly as more people across the globe becomes connected to the Web. My team and I from Nanyang Technological University, Singapore have put in a great deal of effort in researching and putting together information and research materials about this relatively new branch of linguistics. We started off working on this page when it was a stub and through our collaborative effort, we believe that the article has met the criteria of a featured article. We look forward to suggestions and contributions from the rest of the Wikipedian community in the collaborative spirit of knowledge sharing. Thank you. Lai eric (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sorry, looks like rather interesting subject matter, but the whole article needs to be proofread and checked for MOS compliance. Here's some random samples of problems from a cursory skimming. I think the article would benefit greatly from peer review and sending it to GA first, where most of these problems can be spotted and fixed. (P.S. if you take it to peer review, you might want to give Rjanag a ping, he has experience with both FAC writing and linguistics). Sasata (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • lead is too short to properly summarize the article
  • article title shouldn't be repeated in headings
  • shouldn't be spaces between punctuation and citation
  • why are the "Perspectives" capitalized?
  • "four main perspectives for further investigation - The Sociolinguistic Perspective" should be a dash, not a hyphen
  • "The four perspectives are effectively interlinked and affect one another. Starting with the examination of Internet linguistics from the sociolinguistics perspective, it moves on to the educational and stylistic perspectives and eventually leads to the applied perspective…" what does the "it" refer to?
  • "SMS Text Messaging" what is SMS?
  • "These concerns are neither without grounds nor unseen in history – it surfaces almost always when a new technology breakthrough influences languages" awkward
  • too many short paragraphs
  • "… suspect that widespread mistakes in writing is strongly connected to Internet usage …" is->are
  • "This is what makes blogs stand out because almost all other forms of printed language has gone through some form of editing and standardization." has->have
Thank Sasata for your valuable feedbacks. We have worked on the points raised, and have listed it in the Good Article nominations section. We hope to have the article back here after further improvements. We would greatly appreciate your kind review. Lai eric (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on sourcing

  • I notice many uncited POV statements. Examples:-
    • "Despite the on-going debate, there is no doubt that Twitter has contributed to the linguistic landscape with new lingos and also brought about a new dimension of communication."
    • "These developments in interactive blogging have created much more new linguistic conventions and stylistics, with the number expected to rise in future."
    • "The result of a move towards more formal usages will be a medium representing a range of formal and informal stylistics."
    • "The number found through the search engines are more than three times the counts generated by the British National Corpus, indicating the significant size of the English corpus available on the Web."
    • ...and many more, throughout the article.
  • Why are none of the long list of "Books dealing with Internet Linguistics" used as sources in the article?
  • Many of your citations lack publisher details. Information such as "Online article", "Research Paper", "News article" etc is not adequate. See, for example, 3, 4, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and many more.
  • Ref 58 is a dead link
  • There are minor MOS nitpicks relating to reference formatting, but these can be picked up when the major issues, above, have been addressed.

There are also several disambiguation links to be fixed (use the toolbox, upper right on this page, to identify. This article has no review history or talkpage discussion; FAC should not be the initial review stage. The article is clearly unready for FAC and should be withdrawn. It needs to be carefully reviewed in the Peer Review process before returning here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Brianboulton for your valuable feedbacks. We have worked on the points raised, and have listed it in the Good Article nominations section. We hope to have the article back here after further improvements. We would greatly appreciate your kind review. Lai eric (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is evidently not up to FA standards; I suggest taking it through a thorough Peer Review and GA nomination before returning here. Don't get me wrong, this has the potential to be a very good article, but it is not there yet. wackywace 10:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank wackywace for your valuable feedbacks. We have worked on the points raised, and have listed it in the Good Article nominations section. We hope to have the article back here after further improvements. We would greatly appreciate your kind review. Lai eric (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is an interesting topic, and a good deal of work has gone into it, but there is just too much that needs fixing for it to be done here. i can only agree with the suggestion that it's honed elsewhere before returning to the bear pit.Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank Jimfbleak for your valuable feedbacks. We have worked on the points raised, and have listed it in the Good Article nominations section. We hope to have the article back here after further improvements. We would greatly appreciate your kind review. Lai eric (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:30, 14 November 2010 [18].

Petitcodiac River

[edit]
Nominator(s): EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC), Michael Glass (talk) [reply]

The Petitcodiac River is located in south-east New Brunswick, Canada, and was once home to one of the largest tidal bores in the world (from one to two metres high). The area around it was inhabited solely by the Mi'kmaq people before 1698, when Acadians from Pont Royal, Nova Scotia arrived. The river also went through the Great Upheaval, various industrial booms, and is currently the subject of a controversy regarding the construction of a causeway in 1968 (which is currently in the midst of being removed). This is the second nomination of the article; the first saw a lot of helpful and constructive criticism, which I find has now been addressed. Thanks in advance for reviewing. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from /ƒETCHCOMMS/
  • The previous FAC was closed only about a month ago. Please summarize what has been improved.
    • With pleasure. One of the greatest concerns during the nomination was the quality of the sources. I did some research and found verifiable and reputable sources to use for the article, which had me expanding the article as a whole. Two issues brought up by Karanacs, namely the lack of information on the original indigenous population and verifiable effects the Battle of Petitcodiac had on the later survival of the Acadians, were addressed. Per concerns brought up by Ruhrfisch, I improved the Resettlement section to shorten the time gap between it and the Causeway Controversy, explained the final thirty years of the gap with a bit on how the river became neglected by the 1930s, expanded the Wildlife section to address the presence of land creatures, and wrote a sentence on how the surrounding population and consequential land development affected the river's state. Finally, I requested a copy-edit from the WP:GOCE, which was completed yesterday. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should put the IPA inside the parentheses for the first sentence. A sound file of the pronunciation would also be nice.
  • Do you really need accessdates for book sources?
    • The accessdates refer to the date I retrieved the Google Books printing online (the book title is a hyperlink to it). If that's not necessary, then I can gladly remove them. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: There was a bit of copy-editing going on in the past few days, but future reviewers can rest assured that the article is now stable and in compliance with 1. (e). EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Finetooth: The article is in many ways excellent, but some sections still fall short. Here are three four sets of issues to consider:

Lead
  • Shouldn't the lead include at least a brief mention of geology and wildlife?
  • "In 1968, a controversial rock-and-earth causeway... " - Should causeway be linked on first use?
  • "silt was deposited in the 4.7 km (2.9 mi) of river beneath the causeway in the first three years following construction" - "Beneath" doesn't seem possible. Would "downstream of" be more accurate?
  • All three are Done.
Not yet.
(1) The brief mention of geology and wildlife in the lead was written, I think, before you expanded the geology section. The "over 250 million" claim came from the original weak source, but your more recent stronger sources suggest that some of the rocks exposed on the surface in the watershed are more like 500 million years old. I wouldn't use a specific figure in the lead since the main text section says only Precambrian or early Paleozoic; alternatively, you could help readers out a bit by adding an approximate date (about a half-billion years old) to clarify Precambrian or early Paleozoic in the main text and then re-decide how much to say in the lead.
Oh, shoot. Good eye. Fixed (although I'll probably expand the lead a bit after the expansions mentioned below).
(2) The "beneath" claim also needs to be fixed in the "Causeway controversy" section. I'd just fix it myself, but your note about keeping a separate version of the article in a sandbox worries me a little. If you overwrite the public version with the "stable" sandbox version at some point, it will wipe out possibly helpful edits to the mainspace version. Would you be willing to eliminate the sandbox version and just let us all work on the mainspace version? Finetooth (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It became a worry for me as well since yesterday's major edits by several people. If an admin would want to delete the sandbox, they can do so. I was just worried that the constant copy-editing would have been a problem for the stability of the nomination. It pretty much made it worse. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to remove the container; just delete the sandbox text. Finetooth (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Geology
*The material in this section is awfully thin and begins with claims that, while supported by the Petitcodiac Riverkeeper site, look suspicious to me. The opening two sentences of this section say, "The valley which forms the Petitcodiac River was carved during the Mississippian era, over 250 million years ago. Numerous volcanic eruptions during the last glacial period affected the topography, and are believed to have been the source of the wide variety of minerals in Albert County, near the shore of the river." I know virtually nothing about New Brunswick geology, but I would not expect the very brief geology subsection of the Riverkeeper site to be complete or necessarily accurate. The last glacial period ended in the Holocene, about 12,000 years ago, unlike the vastly more ancient Mississippian. What of geological importance happened to New Brunswick between these two periods? Should this section include something about the Acadian orogeny? Can you find a highly reliable source that supports the recent volcano claim? I don't mean to be too hard on you. Much of the article seems excellent to me, but this section needs more detail and more reliable sourcing. To find answers to questions like this, I'd try to track down general geology books about New Brunswick. Beyond that, Googling a bit turns up a ref to this article: "P. Wilson and J. C. White, "Tectonic evolution of the Moncton Basin, New Brunswick, eastern Canada: new evidence from field and sub-surface data. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, December 1, 2006; 54(4): 319–336." I don't know what's in it, but the title makes it sound possibly useful. If you nose around, you'll find more, and some of it may be highly relevant. What is the source of the uranium mentioned in the "Water quality" section? Does other mining or drilling affect the river?
  • The bulletin you cited is not available to me at all, unfortunately. However, my library has three books I eyed out, and I'll be checking those out soon, preferably during the long weekend. I'll try to expand it, but I sort of avoided it altogether due to my limited knowledge of the subject and its terminology. The uranium mining's source was the Riverkeeper's Top 10 pollution sources document, which entails two paragraphs on its effects (clearly sourced in the article prose). The CBC also has a small article on the controversy. No other mining is prevalent near the river. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Oh, I don't mean the source document; I mean the source rock. Where in the watershed are they looking for uranium, and how did it get there and when? You don't have to become a geologist to research and write this section, but the article should include at least a brief overview of the most important geologic aspects of the watershed. It's a bit like writing the human history. You can't reasonably be expected to read everything ever said on the subject or work it all into an encyclopedia article, but you can read enough to assure yourself that you understand the essentials and that your summary covers the main points. You never know what you might find. For example, the CBC article you link to above mentions that "Two councillors noted they've already tried to stop oil and gas exploration in the city's watershed." This makes me wonder where they are finding oil and gas (which rock formations) and where in the watershed. Finetooth (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, that makes more sense. And wow, I didn't even notice that sentence during my first reading. I'll check that out. I also know that it's not exactly the hardest subject to understand, but I suppose I may have seen the most complicated aspects of it (namely geological maps). I'll see if I can get a better foot on the material. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The Geology section has been re-written with WP:RS, but as you mention, it would probably be nice to look up older history than what we have right now. I'll work on the other concerns first. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The new geology section is much much better than the earlier version. Not only does the Petitcodiac basin have an unusual tidal bore and a disturbing contemporary causeway but really ancient rock formations and a remarkable cave complex. I know you are working hard on this and have much to consider, but I'm assuming that you still plan to find something more about the uranium, the oil, and the gas. Finetooth (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article you gave me has a little bit on precisely the oil and gas. For the uranium, I'll have to grab some of the CBC articles (I have them already at Turtle Creek (New Brunswick)). EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, as mentioned below. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 06:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wildlife
  • "The Petitcodiac River watershed is home to various insects and arachnids alien to New Brunswick, such as the black-footed spider, the beech scale, the white-marked tussock moth, and the mountain ash sawfly. Plant species with similar status include the Mother-of-Thyme, the Japanese barberry, the Scotch Broom, the yellow flag, and Canada bluegrass." - What about the native species? What plants live in the river's riparian zones, hold the banks together, and keep the water cool? What do the fish feed on? What animals inhabit the riparian zones?
  • As much as I would love to answer this, I know that there is absolutely no sources for me to rely on other than what was given to me by the Riverkeeper and the Watershed Alliance. No books pop up to me on my library's online catalogue and nothing at all on New Brunswick wildlife online, let alone the Petitcodiac's. The sad reality is that this little river is not well documented or studied in comparison to, say, the Saint John or the Miramichi. Hence why it was so hard to confirm the riparian zones' degradation; never mind which species inhabit(ed) it. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unconvinced. I don't think it's necessarily easy to track down this stuff, but after quite a lot of Googling, I find this description of the trees in the Petitcodiac River Ecodistrict: "Forests are dominated by Red Spruce in mixture with Balsam Fir, Red Maple, White Birch and Trembling Aspen. Also commonly found are Tamarack, Eastern Hemlock and White Pine. Sites with organic soils are characterized by Black Spruce. Jack Pine is common in fire disturbed areas. Tolerant hardwoods of Sugar Maple, Beech, and Yellow Birch are found on ridge tops. Aspen dominates the lands adjacent to the Petitcodiac River which have been disturbed by a long period of human settlement." The source document, is "Greater Fundy Ecosystem Research Project, Chapter 1". The quoted bit appears on the last page. I reckon somebody reliable will have written about the bird life along the river, but I don't have source for you. Adding details about the trees, shrubs, birds, and animals in the watershed and near the river will give a more complete sense of what the river is. The Googling for trees led me, almost accidentally, to some other finds and thoughts. For example, would it be good to mention that part of the Trans-Canada Traiil runs along the river in Moncton? This leads to other questions. Do people use the river for recreation? Do they swim in it, fish in it, boat on it, ice skate on it? Also, It would be a good idea to include the source and mouth elevations for the river so that readers can tell whether it is fast-moving or sluggish at its source. Its lower end is well-described, but what's it like at the headwaters? It might also be helpful to identify the highest elevation in the watershed and to add a bit more about the topography; is it rolling, flat, ringed by mountains? Finetooth (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Petitcodiac River Ecosystem" is one I had never heard before. I'll get some more research done tonight, to see if I can pull anything up on the subject. The study you sourced seems to have a nice abstract of the ecosystem, and, for example, I found two paragraphs on mining in the region (Chapter 2). This is very useful, and I will use these in the article for sure. (EDIT: reading through, it has an enormous amount of applicable information.) As for Riverfront Park, I did not know about it until that link, strangely (even though I biked through it once). These are great suggestions, and while it would have been nice to have thought about them before this nomination, I'll try to get all of this done before it ends up like the first. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finetooth (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinates and sources
  • I didn't notice this until last evening. The convention for rivers is to list the mouth coordinates as the identifying location. The existing article uses the coordinates of the causeway, and that should be changed to the mouth coordinates. This leads to a question about information sources. What is your source for the many coordinates used in the article? At first I thought that the sources listed in the tables for each item would include coordinates, but they don't seem to, although I did not check them all. A good source for at least some of the coordinates would be the The Atlas of Canada. If you type "Petitcodiac River" into the search engine on the Atlas main page, it returns a page that includes the coordinates: 45 51 58 N 64 34 28 W. These differ slightly from the coordinates you list in the geobox. Since the Anagance mouth is the same as the Petitcodiac source, you can determine the river source coordinates for the Petitcodiac by typing "Anagance River" into the search engine. All of the coordinates should be checked and sourced to an RS. Finetooth (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ruhrfisch. I was a very reluctant opposer last time this was at FAC, and have some comments now. While this looks much better, I agree with everything Finetooth said above, and still have some concerns about the comprehensiveness of the History section, as well multiple minor issues. I will point them out as I read through and will also make some copyedits when I see something minor.

  • Lead I am glad that geology and biology have been added to the lead, but this has created a new problem sentence: Its geological history spans over 250 million years and is home to a diverse population of marine and land species. The subject (geological history) cannot be home to a diverse population of anything living. Also, since this is a river, and is fresh water in at least some of its length, is "marine" really the right adjective (I think of marine as oceanic)? Wouldn't "aquatic" or perhaps "riparian" be better?
    • I hadn't realised it had a different meaning. Aquatic should be fine and more succinct. The "is" in your first comment was probably meant to have had "the river" as the subject. All fixed. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is an "established tributary"? Ten established tributaries join the river in its course toward its mouth in Shepody Bay. I can see "ten major tributaries" but do not know what established means in this sense. I raised this in the previous FAC, but I find it hard to believe there are no more than 10 tributaries for a 129 km long river, although I can believe there are only 10 named tribs or 10 majors tribs.
  • I think the lead should at least mention the 200 plus years of history between the Acadians and the 1968 causeway in some way.
  • This has not been fixed (beneath the causeway??) An estimated 10 million cubic metres (13 million cubic yards) of silt was deposited in the 4.7 km (2.9 mi) of river beneath the causeway in the first three years following construction.
  • As you know, my main concern in the previous FAC was comprehensiveness in the History section. While I recognize the importance of the causeway in the history of the river, I am still concerned that there is essentially no other history mentioned after 1929 besides those events related to the causeway. Reading the Geography section, I can see several things that could be mentioned in the History section. There are three bridges mentioned in Course (Route 106, Route 1, and the Gunningsville Bridge). There are 10 bridges and the cursed casueway listed as crossing the Petitcodiac in the table at the end of the article. The Gunningsville Bridge article gives some nice details about its history, several of which could be incorporated into this article. I assume at least the dates of construction for the other two major bridges could be found as well. Just a Google search gives the date of construction of the covered bridge (1929 - see here for a RS), which could also be mentioned.
    • I didn't think crossings would qualify as history, beside the Trans-Canada. I'll get on it soon; there seems to be much editing going on right now. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just from reading the Gunningsville Bridge article, the tidal bore made a lumber ship hit the bridge in the 1920s, which seems pretty closely related to other topics already covered. My guess is that part of why the cursed causeway was built was because the G'ville bridge was so rickety (stop traffice so a bus can cross it?!). I see bridges as fairly intimately connected with the rivers that cross them. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can reason with that rationale. Sidenote: A quick look at the index of my exemplary of Resurgo gives me reliable sources for each of the claims in the article. Good to go, right off the bat. :) EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 05:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the same theme, the Watershed section mentions Moncton's growing population as a concern for the health of the river - again since the history traces small numbers of early settlers, it seems as if it could also briefly mention some of this population growth in the 20th century.
  • The Water quality section lists several things that seem like they should at least be mentioned in the History part. What are the Memramcook and Shepody causeways and when were they built? How about 20th century developments in agriculture and consequent pesticide usage? Surely a sentence or two could be added on uranium exploration in the region?
    • As I told Finetooth, his research pulled a very helpful article which elaborates on mining in general, which is what I was working on before you posted. Agriculture is there as well. The Memramcook and Shepody causeways have nothing to do with the Petitcodiac itself, as the rivers they are located in are distinct from it. The water quality section simply lists the Riverkeeper's Top 10 list, which merges the Petitcodiac and Memramcook watersheds (as I noted in the Watershed section). I can still mention them if you want, but I would find it off-topic and of better use in an appropriate article. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I quoted those causeways because thy are in the article. If they are not even on the Petitcodiac or tribs of it, I am not sure they should be in this article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see. I simply placed them there because it would have been awkward to have nine reasons from a "top ten" publication. But I see where the confusion could lie. I've removed it. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 05:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. Added effects of agriculture, uranium, gas, and oil searches in the area. Haven't integrated them into the lead yet as it is 3 am right now. G'night :) EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 06:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Watershed, I think the river and its drainage basin are entirely in the three counties, but this makes it sound like they are not: Most of the watershed is in the Caledonian Highlands, within the Kings, Westmorland, and Albert counties in south-east New Brunswick.[25][27]
    • I have removed the "most" and "Caledonian Highlands" bit, because apparently the Highlands are barely even in the vicinity of the watershed, let alone the river itself. Confusion should exist no longer. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely E. coli should be italicized?

More to come, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the moment, the text reads,
The river measures about 129 km (80 mi) from its source near Petitcodiac to its mouth at Shepody Bay; its source derives from the confluence of the Anagance and North rivers in western Westmorland County. The Anagance River arises from its tributaries, Hayward Brook and Holmes Brook, and drains 81 km2 (31 sq mi) to the right of Petitcodiac River, while the North River drains 264 km2 (102 sq mi) to the left. From the confluence the river...
I believe that this could be more simply expressed like this:
The river measures about 129 km (80 mi) from its beginning near Petitcodiac to its mouth at Shepody Bay; Its sources are the Anagance and North Rivers. The Anagance River arises from its tributaries, Hayward Brook and Holmes Brook, and drains 81 km2 (31 sq mi) from the south-west of Petitcodiac River, while the North River drains 264 km2 (102 sq mi) from the north. The Petitcodiac River arises from their confluence and ...
This wording has the added advantage of mentioning what directions the feeder streams came from. I am bringing this up here because I would like to have other comments on this slight change of wording. Michael Glass (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the original wording. Beginning seems more ambiguous than source when referring to a river (I believe the source of a river has a specific technical meaning and doesn't have the usual connotation). I made a map which should aid the description of this section anyway, if someone would be kind enough to remove the appropriate map(s) and insert the new one, found in the Petitcodiac River category and suggest and tweaks/improvements for it. Also, please find a source for the correct length of the river which is 80 km (50 miles). The same goes for the watershed area which is currently quoted as 2800km2, but is more like 2000km2. The source for 2800km2 shows that it includes the watersheds of the Memramcook river (around 450 km2) and other rivers which flow into Shepody/Chignecto Bay, south(/west) of Petitcodiac river. Cornforth (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume we're talking about this image, correct? I have to say, that is a very good map, but are you sure it's accurate? Also, we would need some some of attribution (in the Commons image description) to the actual map creator to verify that your map is able to be released under a free license. Agreed on the watershed area, but I originally had problems with it because I could not find a population estimate for just the Petitcodiac watershed (they always included the Memramcook's). I've fixed it now, but it's a little sloppy until I find an estimate as I'm using the term "Greater Moncton" to depict the people. As for the river length, you'll have to provide a better source. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eric, page 978 of Rivers of North America is devoted to the Petitcodiac River. The authors don't give a length, but they list a basin size of 1,360 square kilometers, so even Cornforth's estimate is too large. I would consider Rivers to be highly reliable. I'd be glad to change the number in the geobox if you like and add the full citation. The page lists some other interesting things such as "major fishes", "major aquatic vertebrates", "major riparian plants", and says the river has the "highest natural concentration of suspended sediments in North America". The book was published in 2005 and is probably still correct on most points. Your library might have a copy. If not, I can share info, maybe on the article's talk page so as not to further complicate the discussion here. Finetooth (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, your source clearly says 2,400 square kilometers, and I'm not seeing anything obvious that would account for the huge difference from source to source unless the 2,400 is a typo for 1,400. Meanwhile, I agree with you about Cornforth's map. It does not identify the source of the base map or the source of the information used to construct the map. The Rivers page has a watershed map; it includes the Memramcook in the Petitcodiac basin, and its shape differs considerably from Cornforth's. Finetooth (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As two editors have expressed a preference for using the word source I won't push my preference for that wording. I still think that the following wording would be preferable for describing the streams as coming from the left and right. Here is the present wording:
The river measures about 129 km (80 mi) from its source near Petitcodiac to its mouth at Shepody Bay; its source derives from the confluence of the Anagance and North rivers in western Westmorland County. The Anagance River arises from its tributaries, Hayward Brook and Holmes Brook, and drains 81 km2 (31 sq mi) to the right of Petitcodiac River, while the North River drains 264 km2 (102 sq mi) to the left. From the confluence the river...
The wording that I suggest would replace left and right with descriptions of the direction:
The river measures about 129 km (80 mi) from its source near Petitcodiac to its mouth at Shepody Bay. Its source is at the confluence of the Anagance and North rivers in western Westmorland County. The Anagance River arises from its tributaries, Hayward Brook and Holmes Brook, and drains 81 km2 (31 sq mi) from the south-west of Petitcodiac River, while the North River drains 264 km2 (102 sq mi) from the north. The Petitcodiac River ...
Any further comments? Michael Glass (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


(od) Finetooth: I would love to see what type of information River would have on the wildlife, as I was planning to begin to work on that section tonight ("tonight" as in "September 13 UTC time" tonight...) If you can give key information with the page numbers, I'll handle the rest and integrate it into the prose. That would be excellent help (and I actually feel like I owe you as much).

As for Michael, I wouldn't mind that change. I just didn't want you to change the wording for the "left" and "right" tribs, as that is something we have to be consistent about. I'll probably do that now. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making that change, Eric. One other thing I have noticed is the following statement in the third paragraph of the article:
An estimated 10 million cubic metres (13 million cubic yards) of silt was deposited in the 4.7 km (2.9 mi) of river downstream from the causeway in the first three years following construction. This gave the river a brownish tint and prompted many residents to call it the "Chocolate River".
A check of the sources failed to back up the assertion that the name "Chocolate River" came from the effects of the causeway. Unless such evidence can be produced, this statement should be changed as it has been changed in the Etymology section. Perhaps the wording in the third paragraph could be changed to something like this:
Sedimentation in the river gave rise to the nickname, "Chocolate River" due to the brown tint.[1] When the Petitcodiac River Causeway was built, an estimated 10 million cubic metres (13 million cubic yards) of silt was deposited in the 4.7 km (2.9 mi) of river downstream from the causeway in the first three years following construction[2].
I hope that helps. Michael Glass (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does, thanks. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new iildlife source: Western Shepody Bay is an Important Bird Area. There is a map here (need to click and zoom in to see it), which seems to show it extends into the mouth of the Petitcodiac. The IBA information for Shepdy Bay gives some details on bird species and ecology which could probably be added to this article. Since Shepody Bay is already mentioned prominently in the article, I thought this would help. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may sound funny, but birds are exactly what I needed right now. I had a small source for two species, and it was really a stretch to put in, but this should do very nicely, thanks. Should be done in about 15-20 minutes. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All done. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should've included the source data info for the map. I have now added it. Unfortunately a map is rarely accurate, and I don't believe this one to be entirely so, but I think it is more accurate than the two currently on the page, and clearer than the Petitcodiac Watershed Alliance one. The 2000 km2 drainage area given by the PWA website comes close to the 2014 km2 area calculated for the watershed layer calculated by the GIS software I used. The shape of the watershed in this map is also very similar. I would like to see how the Rivers of North America one differs. I could check the area that is different for inconsistencies with other data sources. I am certain the length of the river from the mouth to the confluence where Petitcodiac begins is 80 km. I have measured it with GIS software and Google Earth. It could be possible that the 129 km value refers to the length of the river all the way up to the end of North River but this should be clarified. Cornforth (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cornforth, the main difference between the Rivers of North America map and yours is that the Rivers map labeled "Map of the Petitcodiac River basin" includes the Memramcook river basin and at least part of Shepody Bay. On the question of length, when I try to calculate it using a map scale and ruler and the Rivers map, I get a very rough estimate of no more than 80 kilometers. My estimate is not, however, a reliable source. I wonder if a second reliable source can be found to corroborate the 80 km. Finetooth (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now searching peer-reviewed articles for a good reference for the length of the river. So far I've found one stating the distance from the mouth to Salisbury is 55 km and that the combined length of the river upstream from the causeway, and its 5 main tributaries is 175 km. I found good references for the watershed area though. In "The Damming of the Petitcodiac River: Species, Populations, and Habitats Lost" by Locke et al., Northeastern Naturalist, Vol.10 (2003) it says the watershed drains 1360 km2 upstream of the causeway (explaining the area given in the book). In "Zooplankton communities of a dammed estuary in the Bay of Fundy, Canada" by Aube, Locke and Klassen, Hydrobiologia, 548 (2005) the total drainage area is 2071 km2. Cornforth (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the article now states that abnormal sedimentation led rise to the name Chocolate River. In fact, there is evidence that the river always carried a large amount of sediment, as can be seen by Mi'kmak legends. One stated:

In the beginning, the waters of Pet-koat-kwee-ak were clear and sparkling. But one day Eel swam down from the headwaters, his great body pushing everything before him into the cold of the great bay. Turtle told Glooscap that something had to be done about Eel. So Glooscap instructed Lobster to fight Eel. Lobster drove Eel out into the bay, but so great was the struggle that the once-clear water was disturbed and muddied forever.[20]

This is fairly strong evidence that the river always was muddy, so the name "Chocolate River" could have arisen quite independently of any later pollution. Therefore to claim that the name came from abnormal sedimentation we need direct evidence of the connection, and as I have stated before, none has been produced so far. In fact, some evidence is to the contrary. One website says this:

This drive follows the circuitous path of the Petitcodiac River, nick-named “The Chocolate River” because of its perpetually brown water. The brown water is not due to pollution but rather to the large quantities of mud and sediment carried upriver by the highest, fastest tides in the world.[21]

Now I am not in a position to decide whether this is a reliable source, but it certainly is evidence to the contrary that the brown tint of the water was caused by abnormal sedimentation. Michael Glass (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "abnormal" in relation to other rivers. Sedimentation is a common effect when tidal fluctuations are high, but the Petitcodiac is "special" in this domain. I wasn't sure how to better phrase it. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your problem with wording. Unfortunately, using the word 'abnormal' in the context of discussing the causeway will immediately suggest that the causeway was to blame. Here is a way to get round this problem:

  • Remove all mention linking the name "Chocolate River" with the causeway or with abnormal sedimentation.
  • Add a sentence about the brown tint of the water, pointing out that this is alluded to in Mi'kmaq legend and in the nickname," Chocolate River". It would read something like this:
The Petitcodiac River is noted for its brown tinge, which comes from the heavy sediment load that it carries. It is alluded to in Mi'kmaq legend[3] It is also alluded to in the nickname, "Chocolate River."

See what you think of it when I make this change. Michael Glass (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reference to the Mi'kmaq legend is more than an allusion (to allude is to make an indirect reference cf. L. ludere, to play) as the link between mud and brown is quite direct, as is that between chocolate and brown. I'd also like to recommend 'derives' instead of 'arises' because derives is a good word for rivers. Cornforth (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the watershed area and maps. I have never added a wiki reference before so I don't know if it's done right. I noticed the population statistic of 126k is given as for the Greater Moncton Area but in the reference it says 126k is the number of residents in both the Petitcodiac and Memramcook watersheds. The actual 126,424 figure refers to the Moncton CMA (which is closer to the Greater Moncton Area mentioned here but I think is actually bigger); two thirds of it covers three quarters the watershed, the remaining third covers surrounding areas incl. the Memramcook watershed area. I don't think a reference for the population living within the watershed will exist so would a calculation using Census dissemination block 2006 data and the watershed outline suffice? Cornforth (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comment: Perhaps some of this discussion might better take place on the article's talk page rather than here. Debating everything here makes for a long, baggy FAC that is difficult to follow and respond to, and it makes a long slog for the editors who have to decide whether consensus has been reached for promotion. Might I suggest moving the debate about the watershed boundaries to the talk page and not replacing one map with another until the boundary question is settled? Would the "chocolate" debate also better be worked out on the talk page and changes related to that debate be held off until consensus is reached? Finetooth (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree very much withe this suggestion. I like the improvements and have some suggestions / comments on wording, but will make them on the talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note; this FAC has been up for more than two weeks, still has comprehensiveness concerns, and has no Supports yet. Also, I don't see yet a spotcheck of sources, for WP:V and WP:COPYVIO. I suggest work adjourn to article talk, and the FAC brought back as soon as Ruhrfisch or Finetooth agree it's ready-- if that is sooner than two weeks, that's fine, since the backlog isn't too bad right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:30, 14 November 2010 [22].

Magnum Rolle

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all the requirements. The prose was greatly improved with its recent peer review. It is very comprehensive; it is stat-heavy, but this is a basketball article we're talking about. A "playing style" section was proposed, but I think the article adequately summarizes it in other sections. Also, there is no image, but I could not find a free one to represent him. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Jujutacular talk 14:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Seems decently well-written to me. A few notes:
  • Born in Freeport, Bahamas, Rolle did not play basketball until his freshman year in high school; his coach at St. George's High School, Darrel Sears, taught Rolle the fundamentals of basketball. - Inconsistency here. In the second part of the clause, after the semicolon, you say "his coach" but then say Rolle. They don't agree.
  • and grabbed 13.6 rebounds per game while enrolled at that school. - Seems a little too informal. Maybe a stronger verb could be used?
  • Rolle quickly developed his basketball skills and competed in track and field events. - What does track and field have to do with basketball? You could mention these in separate sentences, perhaps, but I don't see why track is mentioned.
  • Coming into the 2006–07 season, the Tigers returned four starters, including Glen "Big Baby" Davis, and LSU fans hoped that Rolle would replace the shot blocking of Tyrus Thomas, who had left early for the NBA. - Shot blocking skills might go better here. ceranthor 16:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still think stability is an issue. Since this FAC was started, Rolle has been waived by the Pacers, and as a borderline NBA talent, it's likely that he's going to bounce around a lot. I've always thought that if you want to take a basketball player to FAC, it's much easier to write about someone whose career is finished. Zagalejo^^^ 07:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Editorofthewiki, your sig makes this FAC very hard to read; please see WP:SIG and consider altering it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I shortened it a bit. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • is a distant cousin - the source indicates that the Rolles "believed" that all Rolles are distant cousins, that's OR reword or remove.

Secret account 18:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More than three weeks up, no consensus to promote, unresolved sourcing issues and unclear image review. Please work those out and bring it back in a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:30, 14 November 2010 [23].

Taare Zameen Par

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ωphois

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is now up to FA standards, especially after the recent copyedit. I normally only focus on TV articles, but after watching such an amazing film, I felt it deserved a high-quality article. Ωphois 00:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Nice to see the new Rupee symbol, but you use both the symbol as well as "Rs." Please be consistent and use only one.
  • I think the first paragraph of the lead devotes too much text to name people who worked on the film. I don't think the name of the visual effects studio, claymation artist, and lyricist are too important for the lead.
    • Since this was the first time claymation has been used in a Bollywood film, I think the claymation artist is important. The lyricist also won an award for one of the songs. Ωphois 17:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead concentrate more on the plot. For one thing, I don't think the film is about the relationship between the two, but rather is a portrait of the boy. Right?
  • The last sentence of the lead is very vague (you need to read the Slumdog section to make sense of it); could you probably combine it with the previous sentence to make your point clearer?
  • Can the plot be condensed into a tight 3-4 paragraphs? It's a little rambly now, with the short, stubby paragraphs and the names of all those famous dyslexic people etc. Don't go into too much detail.
  • Woah, you quote eleven people for their positive reviews in the critical reception section! (including two from the Beeb, and Kashyap.) Since they all mostly say the same thing, you think you can cut down to just 5-6 uniquely worded reviews? Further, have the positive reviewers offered any words of complaint against the film? It might be useful to add that info in the negative reviews paragraph.
  • If successive sentences in the same paragraphs are referenced by the same citation, you don't need to cite every sentence, just the final one. (especially in the Children section).

Comments:

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving these last out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I want to know, in the first paragraph, what the title means, in English.
  • UTV Home Entertainment released a DVD for Indian audiences in 2008. A few years later Walt Disney Home Entertainment released an international edition DVD titled Like Stars on Earth, marking the first purchase of distribution rights for an Indian film by a global company.
There is no such thing as a "few years" between 2008 and November 2010. A "few" might range from two to four and passibly stretch as far as five, but to describe a period of one-and-a-bit as a few is not appropriate. Besides which, a little research will surely give you a precise date!
Amandajm (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not fixed! Give us a real date. Disney [24] gives the date of release as 1-12-10. The only problem with this is that this date appears (to me) to be in the future. However I believe there is some strange American custom of putting the month before the year in numerical dates. So whether this date should be read as 1st December 2010 or 12th January 2010 I am at a loss to know. But I am almost sure that a little research would give you a better answer than "later". Amandajm (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is written in British English, not American English. The Disney release date is detailed farther down into the article. The lead serves as a summary, and does not require every detail. Since the Disney version was released in three different regions on different dates (one in 2009, and two in 2010), I feel it would be too much unnecessary information. If you want a more specific phrasing, perhaps "Less than two years later" would work? Ωphois 04:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem that I mentioned with reading the date doesn't relate to a date in your article. It's the date ofn the Disney webpage.
Givn what you said here, I think that "later" or "less than two years later" is fine. Amandajm (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I think I understand what you mean. The date listed on the Disney website is using American English, and means January 12. This is for the Region 1 release, which Disney released second. Anyways, I have changed the sentence to "less than two years later". 15:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Support All my concerns have been addressed.—indopug (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More than three weeks up, no consensus to promote, and I don't see a spotcheck for WP:V or WP:COPYVIO; please bring the article back in a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:49, 9 November 2010 [25].

Everything That Happens Will Happen Today

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I put a lot of work into it and it appears to pass all FAC criteria and is consistent with other featured album articles. This article has been GA for over a year and any changes that would be made to it at this point would be relatively minor. I will watch this discussion and make any necessary changes. Note that the last nomination was hastily closed when someone brought up a question about sources. It was listed for source review and that was taken down without investigation or comment. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: My knowledge of music sources is rather limited, and it might be a good idea for a well-informed editor to glance through the less well-known sources, and confirm that they can be accepted as high quality and reliable. I have queried a few, below, along with a list of mostly minor points:-

  • It isn't necessary to add locations for online sources, e.g. "London. The Daily Telegraph" and several more.
  • Refs 35 and 36: I think the publisher is Minnesota Public Radio rather than the program name.
  • Ref 38: Apart from access problems (I kept being redirected to a short film), I can't see where this source supports the statement that "Byrne's lyrics ended up being hopeful and spiritual". Can you help here?
  • Ref 45 et al; Why is Leo Abrahams's web diary a reliable source?
  • Ref 56: why is Blogcritics Magazine a reliable source - who publishes it, and what is the extent of editorial supervision?
  • Ref 61: publisher lacking
  • Ref 67: Christgau should be indicated as publisher as well as author
  • Ref 74: Why should Tiny Mix Tapes be taken as a high-quality reliable source? Have you read the site's "about" page? Fine as satire, but...
  • Ref 77 lacks a publisher
  • Ref 92 lists the source as "Slang Magazine" (the correct name would produce a blue link)
  • Ref 103: Italicise Chicago Tribune
  • Ref 145: What is the connection with Topspin? And can Flckr really be called the "publisher"?
  • Ref 147: What makes this reliable? Camn you clarify the publisher?
  • Ref 154: "BBC" is not really adequate. "BBC Radio 6 Music" would be more descriptive.

Otherwise the sources look in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I have fixed all of the issues that you raised, except:
  • Locations were added by User:RjwilmsiBot. The bot is not unimpeachable, of course, but I assume that Rjwilmsi knows what he's doing--at the very least, he knows better than me about this. I honestly don't know who is "right" in this situation, so I simply completed and wikified the Location= fields.
  • {{Cite episode}} doesn't have a Publisher= field. (re: #35 and 36.)
  • Re:#38: I'm not sure about that redirect, but the article reads in part: "'uplifting, hopeful, and positive' results. 'Life is long if you give it away,' he says in a Christ-like philosophical inversion... a song about Hurricane Katrina according to Byrne but which seems really to be about being a musician, which, through allusion, chord structure and a kind of wan hopefulness..." As you might imagine, the entire article from Beliefnet is about how the album has spiritual themes.
  • Re:45 et al: Abrahams worked on the album.
  • Re:74: Tiny Mix Tapes is widely used as a source for reviews; it is not a print publication (a la Spin or Rolling Stone), but has the credibility of other online review sites like Pitchfork Media.
  • Re:145: Topspin is a media company that handled the marketing and online distribution of the album (see #Marketing); I suppose Flickr is a platform for self-publication more than a publisher... Would this be better as an external link or something?
  • Re:147: C|Net is the owner of Download.com, which is itself a subsidiary of CBS (and consequently Viacom.)
Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know who added the Done comments above, as they are unsigned. Further, adding dones to every line only adds to the page size; why not simply add one line at the bottom saying all is done except ... <whatever>? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops I added them and didn't use the proper amount of tildes. I have rearranged it for your benefit. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Should there be a track listing template for the songs? I don't know if it is required or not, but it seems like every featured album uses this template to showcase its songs. BV talk 20:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Track listing templates are not required by WP:ALBUM and looking at the first three (in alphabetical order), their usage is not universal: 1987_(What_the_Fuck_Is_Going_On?)#Track_listing, Achtung_Baby#Track_listing, and Adore_(The_Smashing_Pumpkins_album)#Track_listing. Personally, I don't like them, so I didn't add one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please expand This one is tricky for me--of course, I included the abbr tags to make the article more accessible and to conform to HTML standards. The way that browser vendors choose to implement abbr is up them: for instance, a browser may take <abbr title="United States of America">USA</abbr> and make an output like this: US (short for "United States of America"). How most (all?) of them presently do it--amongst browsers that even support the tag--is to have something like this: USA with some hover-over text that expands the abbreviation. None of this is demanded by HTML 4.1. Anyway, is there anyone else who has an opinion on this matter? Does abbr help in the manner it's intended? Thanks for commenting. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is if you write [[Foo|<abbr title="Bar">Foo</abbr>]] (Foo) you will have two conflicting tool-tips occupying the same screen-space. In this case the inner one will supersede the outer and interfere with usual inspection of the link-target (by hovering over it). It also turns the text black, making it non-obvious that a hyperlink is even present (unless one’s client is configured to underline all links, in which case the link’s underline obscures the dotted underline used to identify <abbr> elements and realize things aren’t what they seem).
Usual caveats apply. I would not, under any circumstances, store non-trivial data in the tool-tip. For example, given something like <abbr title="Russian: Мари́я Шара́пова​">Maria Sharapova</abbr> one must visit the wiki-text or html source simply to copy the Cyrillic “hard-to-type” characters to the clipboard.
Actual abbreviations like <abbr title="January">Jan</abbr> may be acceptable in a table where space is limited. I would say just link to the month if you think enough readers are too clueless to figure it out, but “consensus” seems to be against doing that (condescension or no). But I really do dislike seeing these used as some kind of “non-link link” way to say we acknowledge that the meaning might not be obvious, but we still don’t want to help you navigate to it.
There is also the issue of browsing via Lynx or a cell-phone, or by reading a print copy, etc. where hovering over anything becomes physically impossible. But even in a normal browser I figure any content one cannot appreciate by simply looking at it (short of audio) should probably be reconsidered, saving that hidden text gag for web-comic punchlines and stuff.
But I guess as long as the information is available elsewhere the <abbr> tags can remain mostly harmless clutter to the few readers who accidentally notice them.
―cobaltcigs 02:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right I understand what you're saying, I'm just saying that tooltips are a way to render abbr and although popular, are not the way to do it. For that matter, I know that {{circa}} has a link and tooltip that displays the link style cascading over the abbreviation style. If you know how to do that here, I would certainly appreciate it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rendering the tool-tip is pursuant to the title attribute of a tag, not to what type of tag it is.
On the circa template only the tool-tip for the <a> element (link) is accessible. If you turned the tags inside out, only the tool-tip of the <abbr> would be accessible. That is, unless you made the outer element extend beyond the edge of the inner element. The perspective is akin to a solar eclipse. Moreover the html source reveals that both title attributes say the same thing—<abbr title="circa"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circa" title="Circa">c.</a></abbr>—so I don’t know what the creator meant to accomplish by that. Surely the #switch statement should have dictated whether to use one tag or the other, not to use both.
In actual practice, I’ve been happy to spell out the word “circa”.
―cobaltcigs 05:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the WP:FAC instructions and avoid overuse of templates for color coding-- they cause the FAC archives to exceed Wiki's template limits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image comments. There are three non-free use images in the article - the album cover; the unusual and (if I have read correctly) award-winning three-dimensional packaging of the deluxe edition, which is quite different to the standard cover; and a detail of the album insert graphics. The article text discusses these items explicitly, and that discussion appears based on reliable sources. As such the fair use of the images appears generally sound. I can see there might be debate whether the third image (File:Everything That Happens Will Happen Today closeup.png) is truly necessary, in the sense that the words in the article might adequately convey what the image shows (fair use requires that it is not possible to sufficiently describe in words what can be shown in the image). I would either seek other reviewers' comments on this, or the nominator might eliminate that image in order to simplify the discussion. I'm happy either way. The remaining images appear in order, including one free one from Flickr that has had an administrator review, and the other that came flickr i went and checked that there was indeed an appropriate licence there. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:59, 9 November 2010 [26].

Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak

[edit]
Nominator(s): Basket of Puppies 05:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has undergone both a peer review and a successful Good Article nomination. I have worked with Ironholds on IRC who suggested many incremental updates which I now believe satisfied the FA criteria. I look forward to working with the FA team on this. Basket of Puppies 05:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Epidural_blood_patch.svg appears to be a derived work, have you copyright details of the work it is derived from? Both links for File:Meninges-en.svg are dead, and the copyright cannot be verified! Are there any ethical issues regarding the use of File:Bopbrain.jpg? Fasach Nua (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Epidural_blood_patch.svg was greated by User:Gurch and the image it is based on is linked the source. I do not have any specific information for the meninges images, but I assume they can be redone with a compatible license if the original links cannot be found. Regarding the image of my brain, I have released this image under the relevant license, but I do not know if there is an ethical issue. While I have taken several biomedical ethics questions I am certainly not neutral, so I will let someone else answer. My feeling, however, is the image is fine as i) it is mine and ii) I remain anonymous due to editing under this pseudonym, thus preserving my privacy. Basket of Puppies 07:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you annotate that you are the subject of the MRI, then I would be content that issue has been resolved, my primary concern is patient consent Fasach Nua (talk) 11:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I annotated it in the file talk page, but maybe I should do it elsewhere. Where do you suggest? Basket of Puppies 15:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The article mixes many primary sources, with some interesting secondary sources. The change of sourcing from primary to secondary sources is a prioritary work which would need quite a lot of time to rework. As an example in the signs and symptoms section in this version there are 8 different sources of which refs 11, 13, 14 and 17 are great, 12 and 15 are single-case report (with the 15 being used 4 different times) and 16 is a primary study. Most proably the reviews already in the article, or other reviews, could be used to source almost all the article and help avoid overuse of primary sources. In addition I feel that sections are a bit short, however I have to say that I know nothing about this condition so maybe the fact is that there is not much more to say. As a minor comment at some points many different refs are given for a single statement (classification section for example): these kind of sourcing is clearly excessive. I see in the talk page that the author wanted to enphasize the conclussion since it is controverted. However this should be better worked in other way: if all reliable sources now agree in such statement leave only one of the refs. If there was a past or present controversy then it should be commented while saying that sources favour X.--Garrondo (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that a vast majority of the refs in this article are primary sources (published articles in peer-reviewed journals) and only a few are secondary (from neurology textbooks). The textbooks almost directly quote the journal articles and add very little knowledge, but that isn't surprising since the condition is rare and only recently has been well described and better understood and the textbooks simply haven't been updated/evolved to the point where they can accurately describe this condition based on the primary sources. Afterall, journal articles are published much more frequently than textbooks. Would the heavy use of primary sources lead to a FAC failure? Regarding the multiple refs used for certain statements, this is in order to demonstrate that the perception about certain factors of this condition simply is not reality. What might you suggest as how to approach these two issues? Basket of Puppies 15:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All wikipedia articles should preferebly use secondary sources since an encyclopedia is a tertiary source and should not draw its own conclussions, but summarize the conclussions of others. In the medicine field this is covered by the WP:MEDRS guideline, which I greatly encourage you to read. In summary it states that medical articles should be mainly sourced to secondary articles, which in the field are both text books and reviews in peer-reviewed journals. Primary sources should only be used in very specific cases and with great care. Since you say that the condition has only been studied recently I would recommend reviews in scientific journals, since as you say they are more updated. Schievink, W. I. (2008) is a great example of the kind of sources that should be used. On the other hand I still believe that quantity of content is low for a medical topic. I would recommend you to take a look at several medical FA such as multiple sclerosis or huntington's disease (I have greatly contributed to both) to see the use of secondary sources and depth of coverage expected in a FA. Another very interesting article is Osteochondritis dissecans since it is a rare and mildly studied medical condition, but still I feel that more complete than this article. While I have already stated that I know nothing about SCF I think I am going to read some of the secondary sources in the article to see if my feeling of uncompleteness is accurate.--Garrondo (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a quick look at Schievink, W. I. (2008) and I believe there is a lot of potentially useful info missing in the article which hinders the possibility of it becoming a FA. Some missing info may be: indications suggesting the heritable connective tissue disorder, diagnostic criteria, more coverage of diagnostic methods, info on the conservative treatment... and this only comes from reading a single article. From my point of view this article is not ready yet to be a FA, albeit it has potential.--Garrondo (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, the issue of connective tissue disorder is stated in the article as it the diagnostic criteria and imaging, in depth. Basket of Puppies 17:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least there is no explicit mention of the existence of diagnostic criteria (although info from them may be integrated inside the diagnosis section). Regarding connective tissue: I suppose you refer to this line in the causes section: Various scientists and physicians have suggested that this condition may be the result of an underlying connective tissue disorder affecting the spinal dura.[18][19][13][20] I doubt a single line can be considered an in deph treatment of the issue when in the article commented talk about it almost a whole page. Nevertheless these were only examples directed to point that the article is in general short in coverage in comparison to what is the norm in FA about diseases.--Garrondo (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment: Reference formatting needs to be made consistent. Some author initials are followed by fullstops, others aren't. Some sources give page ranges (as they should), others only the first page. Some give pages ranges in abbreviated format (1113–23) others in full (111–121). Some journal titles are given in title case (proper) others in sentence case; same for journal article titles. Sasata (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A vast majority of the refs are using the {{cite pmid|#}} template which automatically fills out the references, so I think you're not referring to those. Are you referring to the non-pubmed references, such as the few textbooks I've used? I'll have a look at them. Basket of Puppies 17:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they are books you can also use diberri's tool: you paste the isbn and gives you a citation on the same style that pmid references.--Garrondo (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments from /ƒETCHCOMMS/
  • Seems kind of choppy prosewise. Too many short paragraphs and sections.
  • Refs should be in order numerically (I see "[25][8][9]").
  • "between 1992 to 2003" sounds better as "between ... and ..." or "from ... to ...".

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Templates removed; please respond below reviewer comments and sign your entry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural side comment: graphical templates such as  Done are discouraged in FAC (they increase loading time): better simply say "done" and let the reviewer cross the comment if he truly believes that it has been fixed.--Garrondo (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Garrondo, and suggest withdrawal and review by WP:MED (noting that the GA review does not inspire confidence that this article is prepared for FAC). There are multiple recent secondary reviews listed in PubMed, yet we find only about a half dozen uses of two of those citations in this article, suggesting that a survey of the literature hasn't been adequately conducted. Also, please see the WP:FAC instructions and remove the templates (above) as they cause FAC archives to reach template limits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With great respect, the article underwent a lengthy peer review by WP:MED editor Delldot, which greatly improved the article. Basket of Puppies 17:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that is helpful (and reassures me about the cursory GA review), but still doesn't address the use of primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several (many) of the references are indeed published in peer-reviewed journals, but they include "literature reviews" within the articles, thus they act as secondary sources. I was talking to a friend who has an MLS (Master of Library Science) and she indicated she disagrees with the Wiki view that a journal article is a primary source as the journal itself edits and reviews the data, much like a textbook. Do you think it's possible that the Wiki position might need updating? Basket of Puppies 18:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Such "minor reviews" at the begining of a primary article can be used sometimes as reviews (if there are no better sources), but most commonly full reviews are much better surveys of the literature. Regarding your question: surely it does not need to be updated: the fact that a source is reviewed is independent of the fact that it is primary: it only means that while it is not self-published as opposed to a web site, it still communicates findings of and individual research group and experiment which should be put into context weighting them with other findings. This weighting can only be properly done in secondary sources. Nevertheless this is not the place or time to discuss this issue. If you really think that it has to be changed you can try, but the change is as plausible as changing one of the 5 pillars of the wiki. Finally I hope you take this withdrawal recommendation in a constructive way, since they are for the better of the article and the encyclopedia. --Garrondo (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to have a chat with the librarians locally and see as to their opinion on a published journal article being considered primary vs secondary, as I just don't see how it differs from a textbook where the results from the studies are simply reported (in fact, one of the neurology textbooks I cited quotes Mokri by name and reports nothing new). I understand you feel this is not to be changed, but I need to check into this for myself. I'll be back. Basket of Puppies 19:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a check and you are right- scientific articles in a published peer-reviewed journal is a primary source. Basket of Puppies 19:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might have found the same info by browsing the talk archives of WP:MEDRS; it was a very well-developed guideline page that received broad review and feedback. GA does not have the same standards wrt WP:MEDRS and survey of the literature that FA has (at least I don't think they do), but nonetheless, all medical articles should use primary and secondary sources correctly, so I still question the GA status of this article and would like to see it depend (except in specific, justified circumstances) primarily on secondary reviews. I still suggest withdrawing and re-working off-FAC. 21:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I would say this is an adequate GA, but not a FA.--Garrondo (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you need comment on how to procceed towards FA feel free to contact me, since I am quite interested in neurology articles.--Garrondo (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:45, 4 November 2010 [27].

Roger Waters

[edit]
Nominator(s): — GabeMc (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating Roger Waters for featured article because I feel after it's GAN and Peer Review it is ready and worthy of FA status. — GabeMc (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, previous nom. Image review needed, sourcing clarification needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time SandyGeorgia, I will happily make notes for every double cite, I just don't know how at the time.
Question - Can you please show me the wikicode to acccomplish this using the citation system currently used in the article, aka Harvnb? — GabeMc (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the only double cites that remain in the article are ones that involve a variety of sources, i.e., a primary and a secondary, or a secondary that has two cites, one from a book, the other from a magazine. Why would I have to write, (for Mason on "the last sentence see p.233-245, and for Blake on the last sentence see p.336-335)? Why is this not good enough; or, can you please show me how this needs to be done in terms of wikicode, cause I am willing to write the notes, you just have to show me how. — GabeMc (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote the lyrics to the five Pink Floyd albums preceding his own departure, starting with The Dark Side of the Moon (1973) and ending with The Final Cut (1983), while exerting progressively more creative control over the band and its music.[4]

  1. ^ "The Chocolate River". Petitcodiac Riverkeeper Inc. 2008. Retrieved 6 July 2010.
  2. ^ "Impacts of the Petitcodiac Causeway". web page. Sentinelles Petitcodiac Riverkeeper. 2008. Retrieved 13 November 2010.
  3. ^ "First People - the legends, the chocolate waters of the Petitcodiac River". web page. Retrieved 14 November 2010.
  4. ^ Mason 2005, pp. 106–107, 160–161, 265, 278; Blake 2008, pp. 3, 9, 113, 156, 242, 279, 320, 398

Please, show me how to do this the right way. — GabeMc (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As of now there are no more double cites in the article, how do I request an image review? — GabeMc (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If one doesn't show up within a few days, you can post a request to WT:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate your help. — GabeMc (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Loder, Kurt (14 April 1983). is not correctly linked
  • Date out of style: Billboard Aug 27, 2005. Billboard. 2005-08-27.
  • 1c, an opposeable issue: The cover of Mojo 193 (Mojo Music Magazine Issue 193 Roger Waters cover. Mojo Music Magazine. December 2009. Retrieved 2 October 2010.) fails to sustain the quotation "The loss of a father is the central prop upon which (The Wall) stands. As the years go by, children lose their fathers again and again, for nothing. You see it now with all of these fathers, good men and true, who lost their lives and limbs in Iraq for no reason at all. I've done 'Bring the Boys Back Home' in my encores on recent tours. It feels more relevant and poignant to be singing that song now than it did in 1979."
    • Perhaps you meant to cite an article inside Mojo 193? And give a page number for where the quote was found?
    • The citation of the above is incorrect
    • Not a correct citation of a news or magazine item: Cooper, Emmanuel (25 January 2001). "Judy Trim". London: The Independent. Retrieved 2 October 2010.
Is it okay for a cite web? — GabeMc (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is The Independent a newspaper regardless of its mode of publication? Yes. Does the publication location come before the title of the containing work in Wikipedia Cite style? No. I have resolved this for you Fifelfoo (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for your help, I guess this should be applied to the Kurt Loder cite as well then, or no. — GabeMc (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fifelfoo, thanks for your specific suggestions, I believe I have fixed the issues now. — GabeMc (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you hadn't in the case of subtitles requiring colons and the correct citation of an article from The Independent. FAC, and citations, can be a frustrating process. It is okay to be honest about what you've done or not done, and to ask for help. 2c now looks good. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look back on the archive, you'll see that I have been asking for help for two weeks, but had about given up, so thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if I said I fixed it it means I thought I fixed it, not that I am a liar. — GabeMc (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support pending image review. I left comments on the previous nom, all of which have now been addressed. Nice work. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your comments were very helpful, thanks for improving the article, thanks for the pronunciation of Ca Ira. — GabeMc (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image you removed is the only one of the five members together, and there are no free pics of the early band on commons. Also, it is being used at Pink Floyd, why can't it be used at Roger Waters in the section about Pink Floyd? — GabeMc (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The use of non-free images must meet our non-free content criteria. The fact it is used elsewhere (whether that is legitimate or not...) does not automatically mean it can be used here, and the fact it was added to the article without even an attempt at a non-free use rationale... J Milburn (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well darn, edit conflict on my image review. Well, I'm going to post it anyway so there.
    • File:Roger Waters 18 May 2008 London O2 Arena.jpg I believe you need to be more explicit in the summary that this was cropped from the other photo, and then provide a link to the original source on Flickr in addition to linking to the photo it was cropped from. The author should also be linked like it is in the original.
I expanded the summary to include the fact that the pic is a cropped one, the file page already links to the original file, so could you please help me with anything that needs to be done with the file. — GabeMc (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be good now, thanks. --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All other images look fine. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed File:Astoria (Péniche).jpg and File:Roger waters.jpg. — GabeMc (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pinged all previous reviewers. — GabeMc (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources comments - this is a nice, well-written article. No dabs and the external links are fine. On the sources, from this version:
    • Ref 45: the cite templates have an |author= or |last= and |first= fields for a reason – use them! :-)
    • Why is ref 54 using {{cite document}}? It should use cite web.
    • No need for a location in ref 60, it's a newspaper. A link to said paper might be nice, though.
    • Current ref 70 should use {{cite journal}} for a magazine, and should cite the article name for |title= , not the magazine title. see below comments
    • "In 2007, Waters became a spokesman for Millennium Promise, a non-profit organisation that helps fight extreme poverty and malaria, he wrote a commentary for CNN's website on the topic." -- not a sentence.
    • Ref 77 does not support the canceled concert sentence.
    • Ref 78 should use Wired News as the publisher, I believe.
    • Ref 81 should link to Marketwire.
    • Refs 82, 83, and 84 will eventually be updated. These either need to be replaced with new sources or a link to a specific date from the Internet Archive. Why do they even need a source? Are they contentious statements? — GabeMc (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's special about Cinema for Peace that makes it a notable award?
    • Ref 86: same as ref 60, no need for a newspaper's publishing location. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the specific suggestions, I think I have fixed all the issues you mentioned above. — GabeMc (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome. A few more: ref 53 needs .com removed from "Allmusic" for consistency, and are you sure that the work/publisher is right? Allmusic and Billboard? If it's the latter, why isn't the information on their own site?
  • Ref 70 is still wrong. You need the actual individual article's title, the magazine name, date published, and (a) page number(s). "Google Books" isn't needed because it's a convenience link.
  • There are still some issues above as well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 77 is there to support that he was to play there. — GabeMc (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It can't support that the concert was canceled due to the Mumbai attacks, however. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to source that the shows were cancelled or delete the info?
The source you have is fine for anything pertaining to "Roger Waters was going to be here on x date for Live Earth 2008", but because your source says nothing about the show being canceled, you need an additional reference to cover that information. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because its contentious that the shows were cancelled because of the attacks? — GabeMc (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added source for why the show was cancelled. — GabeMc (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now the only problems are refs 83 and 84. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is wrong with refs 83 and 84? — GabeMc (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The information that you are attributing to 83 and 84 (through the use of the two endnotes) will not always be there, as websites of major artists tend to be frequently 'updated'. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see, I think I have fixed 83 and 84 now. Thaks Ed, great suggestion. — GabeMc (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. This has seen a vast number of edits since nomination; somewhat daunting for reviewers to try and assess a moving target, but perhaps understandable given the early comments before the restart. Reading the lead now, it looks to be in good shape, and my structural concern expressed earlier has been addressed. Just starting a review now and will comment further after that. PL290 (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... which so far are:

*He invoked the "leaving member clause" in his contract - I know that phrase is a quote within a quote later, but it doesn't really add here or tell us anything about the legal wrangling surrounding the decision; is it not sufficient for the lead simply to say he decided to leave the band?

  • Waters' or Waters's? Both are acceptable per MoS; consistency is needed.
  • They took the name Sigma 6, and included Waters on "rudimentary" lead guitar, - again, why the scare quotes? Needs to make a clear factual statement.
  • They had managed to secure some recording time through a friend of Wright's who worked at a studio in West Hampstead, and let them use some "down time" for free. - same again. These quoted terms are not encyclopedic.
  • I don't think bandmate or lightshow are words in British English; please check.
I changed bandmate to be sure but the BBC used it in much the same way I was using it. Look here. The BBC also uses the word lightshow, but I changed that also, to be sure. — GabeMc (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although several of Barrett's friends, Waters included, claim to have tried to help him - any reason not to simply say they tried to help him? The phrase claimed to have is loaded language here, and should not be used without justification (and cited explanation).
  • It was selling over 8,000 units every week as of 2004 and is the, "second best-selling album of all time, worldwide, and the 21st best-selling album of all time in the United States."[15] - the quote really adds nothing and is a distraction in the prose; it would improve flow to paraphrase instead. (I noticed one or two other examples of this; please check.)
  • Pink Floyd has sold over 200 million albums - should be "have", as in the lead
  • In 1983 the last Waters–Gilmour–Mason collaboration, The Final Cut, was released. The sleeve notes describe it as "The Final Cut: A requiem for the post-war dream by Roger Waters, music performed by Pink Floyd". - the quote would be more effective without including the repeat of the album title.
  • The David Gilmour-led Pink Floyd released two studio albums - we've already been introduced to Gilmour; why the first name here?
  • Please check for underlinking; for instance, When the Wind Blows and Amused to Death are linked in the lead, but never in the main text. Per MOS:LINKS, "links should be included where it is most likely that readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, the openings of new sections, ...".
  • The album had one hit the song, "What God Wants, Pt. 1", Amused to Death, which reached number 35 in the UK - not sure what's going on with this sentence; should Amused to Death be there? Needs punctuation or word after "had one hit" anyway.
  • Jeff Beck played lead guitar on many of the album's tracks, which were recorded with a "stellar cast" of studio musicians - those quotes again; either needs attributing to a speaker or stating plainly.
  • Miramax announced in mid-2004 that a production of The Wall was to appear on Broadway with Waters playing a prominent part in its production. - unfortunate repetition of production.

Looking generally good; will review last few sections tomorrow. PL290 (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your specific suggestions, the article is much improved due to your edits and input. I did my best to fix everything you mentioned above. As per underlinking, during this FAC SlimVirgin told me to link on the first mention only, so I deleted many, many links at his suggestion. — GabeMc (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that may have been a misunderstanding if it left some things only ever linked in the lead. However, if it wasn't a misunderstanding and others disagree, I will not press the issue for this FAC, but the guideline I quoted just above is clear enough on the question, and its advice appears to me to be sound: MOS:LINKS, "links should be included where it is most likely that readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, the openings of new sections, ..."
  • as of 2005, Waters is engaged to filmmaker Laurie Durning. - but it's now 2010.
  • Before the restart we discussed the lack of detail on his singing and musicianship; I gather from your response then that it's because there simply are no sources for that detail. That is unfortunate, but if it is the case then we have to accept that it's not an actionable objection. Other than that, I am now mostly nitpicking or finding things that come down to individual preferences ...
Thanks for your specific suggestions, the article is greatly improved due to your input. — GabeMc (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: I'm wondering why you don't really have any information in the article about Waters' playing style and reputation as a bassist. I realize that he is primarily known as a singer-songwriter, but there is literature out there about Waters as a bassist. For example, several articles have been published over the years in Bass Player magazine, and you don't seem to have included any of them. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I don't have any of those sources, but my short answer would be that most of the good bass lines on Floyd stuff is Gilmour, or a studio musician, and not Waters, who, by his own admission, can barely play. Waters joked that he thanked Gilmour whenever he won a best bass player poll. As far as I know, his reputation as a bassist is not notable, expect that he is not very skilled. — GabeMc (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, that's actually very interesting, Gabe. Do you think you could source that and add it to the article?—indopug (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. FWIW GabeMc (talk · contribs) notified me about this FAC at my usertalk page - I had already been familiar with it due to having passed the article as a GA. Due to writing quality at the time of GA Review I had recommended a peer review, and I am glad the nominator took that to heart. ;) After another check of the article, writing quality appears to have improved, past GA-quality and on to FA-worthy prose. -- Cirt (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I read through the lead and first section and saw some recurring problems - too much detail in some areas and lack of clarification in others (what a conundrum!):

  • Too much detail in the lead. Do we need to know the dates of his marriages and divorces, or even the names of his wives in the lead? do we need to know in the lead that he "played The Dark Side of the Moon in its entirety for his world tours of 2006–2008"?
  • There's no source for the first paragraph of the Early years section...
  • Do we need to know that Eric Fletcher Waters was the grandson of a coal miner and prominent labour party leader, or how he was known? That seems more appropriate for the article on Eric Fletcher Waters, unless these details impacted Waters' development (which doesn't appear to be the case).
  • Do we need to know in this article where David Gilmour lived and went to school? I am unfamiliar with the area, and this seems irrelevant to me.
  • Can we spell out what YCND is? I've never heard that acronym before
  • The article implies,but doesn't clarify, that Waters attended the Regent Street Polytechnic school of architecture. Did he graduate from there?
Thanks for the specific suggestions. The detail in the lede is there at the direct request of another FAC reviewer, and in an effort to be sure to adequately cover the artcle. As far as his Dark Side tours in the lede, it is the most notable thing he did during that entire decade, why is it not notable enough for the lede? Do you know when Waters quit Poly? Cause the sources are as vague as the article, IMHO, correct me if I missed the date, I can't find it. This process is beginning to feel like an infinite feedback loop, i.e. "there's too many cites", "you need more cites", "there is not enough detail in the lede", "there is too much detail in the lede", etc...I fixed what I could. — GabeMc (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I hope to give this a closer read over the weekend. But for now, I suggest incorporating "Marriages and children" into the general biography. Also, the article is big enough that you could rationalize splitting off his discography into its own page. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your specific suggestions, I have incorporated "Marriages and children" into the general biography, and split off his discography into its own page. — GabeMc (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could someone review the linking? I see tearoom and Klose (linked not to Bob Klose, just Klose) linked. In Classic period, the various Pink Floyd albums are linked on multiple occasion, but often not in the first occurrence. I'll try to give a more detailed review in a couple of days.—indopug (talk) 06:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOSLINKS, "links should be included where it is most likely that readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, the openings of new sections, ...". If you see under, or overlinking then please, be bold and fix it. — GabeMc (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not liking the newly added information about the specific instruments he played, in the lead (i.e. "He briefly played a Höfner bass ... acoustic guitars in recordings and in concert.") That's too much detail for the lead, and not of any interest to casual, non-musical readers. Besides, the instruments are already listed in the lead in the infobox.—indopug (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The info was added to the lead at the request of other FAC reviewers, so that the lead summarized the whole article. — GabeMc (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed what I could, so as to be less specific and detailed. — GabeMc (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - my concerns were addressed before this nomination was re-started. This is a well-written, engaging and comprehensive contribution. Waters is a difficult subject because there is no official, or unofficial, biography. The facts given in the article are pretty much well established and are unlikely to be contended. The article satisfies the FA criteria IMHO. Graham Colm (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ucucha:

  • Does the great-grandfather who was a prominent Labour leader merit a (red?) link?

Ucucha 13:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd say, if he was prominent. Who was he? He has now gone, and is not mentioned in Fletcher's article, which he should be. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the source (Blake) does not use his great-grandfather's name, it only mentions him in passing. — GabeMc (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Nearly there, but:
After the very early days there is really nothing describing his or the band's musical style. The sources must have plenty of quotes that could be used. It has changed a lot over the years & needs to be covered.
Shouldn't that be covered at length at Pink Floyd, and is there really a need for me to repeat the info here? — GabeMc (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the article isn't shy of going over other stuff covered at PF, & he has been out of them for a long time. Johnbod (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just personally disagree, there is enough detail in the article already IMHO. — GabeMc (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on here with the [] in quotes?: "family life versus "[T]he call of the wild".[49] In the end the character, Reg, chooses love and matrimony over promiscuity. The album featured guitarist Eric Clapton, jazz saxophonist David Sanborn, and artwork by Scarfe. Rolling Stone's Kurt Loder described The Pros And Cons Of Hitch Hiking as a "[S]trangely static, faintly hideous record",[50] Rolling Stone rated the album a "[R]ock bottom" one star."[51] Mike DeGagne of Allmusic praised the album for its "[I]ngenious symbolism" and "[B]rilliant use of stream of consciousness within a subconscious realm", rating it four out of five stars.[52]"
Fixed.
I agree with Andy Walsh above that if he is actually not much of a player this needs to be mentioned.
Point me to the sources, since if I mentioned his simplistic bass playing style it would be original research, and my opinion. — GabeMc (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my job to point you to the sources, but to point you to problems with the article. In fact Andy Walsh pointed you to sources above, which you declined to follow up. I can't in fact believe the subject is not addressed in the rack of band biographies already being used. It doesn't seem an exceptional demand that an FA on a professional musician should include some assesssment of his competence and style as a performer. Johnbod (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't own the sources Andy mentioned, nor do I know exactly where to find them. Bass Player magazine is a bit vague. I do in fact own EVERY source listed in the references, and NONE of them, to my knowledge, discuss Waters' bass playing, or performance style. It might not be your job to point me to sources, but it's not my job to go on assignment for every editors whim either. I am happy with the 6 supports I already have. — GabeMc (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Waters is a tuff subject, since there are no bios on him. Gaps in the sources should not be filled in with editor opinions. — GabeMc (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Small point, but I would add links at: "Bo Diddley meets the 007 theme."[11] Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
GabeMC hasn't edited since the 24th, he may well be indisposed. Parrot of Doom 09:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was busy attending Roger Waters The Wall Live, I will address the latest comments tonight. — GabeMc (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
  • I was wondering if the following could be summarized to avoid the list of quotes:

During the recording of The Wall, Waters, Gilmour, and Mason became increasingly unhappy with Wright's lack of contribution to the album.[29] Gilmour said that Wright, "[H]adn't contributed anything of any value whatsoever to the album—he did very, very little," and he "didn't seem to be pulling his weight."[30] Mason said, "Alas, Rick's contribution was to turn up and sit in on the sessions without doing anything, just 'being a producer'."[31] Longtime Pink Floyd studio engineer Nick Griffiths said, "by the time of The Wall, Rick Wright had lost interest in the idea of the Floyd. He was more interested in his leisure time—sailing around the Greek islands and enjoying the life of a rich rock 'n' roll star."[32] Gilmour would later say that Wright, "wasn't doing the job he was paid to do" and he "got the boot because he wasn't contributing in any way to anything."[32] Waters added, "he was not prepared to cooperate in making the record," and "it was agreed by everybody ... either you can have a long battle or you can agree to this, and the 'this' was you finish making the album, keep your full share ... but at the end of it you leave quietly. Rick agreed."[33]

I like the detail there, it is one of the most contentious points in Pink Floyd's history, and it deserves to be told accurately. I prefer to quote here, so readers know what the other three Floyd's had to say about Wright during the recording of The Wall. Wright's departure is usually blamed on Roger, so to set it straight is important. Also, weren't you telling me to add detail a couple weeks ago? Now you want me to remove detail. Didn't you also complain that the article was overcited, now you want cites added? — GabeMc (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall asking you for more details. I did ask you not to add large numbers of refs after each sentence, but it's not a question of overall numbers, but of citing appropriately. If you want to keep the list of quotes, I'd suggest adding them to a footnote, and summarizing something like this: "During the recording of The Wall, Waters, Gilmour, and Mason became increasingly unhappy with Wright. Gilmour said Wright contributed very little to the album, and Pink Floyd studio engineer Nick Griffiths said Wright seemed to have lost interest in the idea of the Floyd. In the end it was agreed that Wright would finish making the album, then leave quietly afterwards." SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is another of your opinions and preferences that are not actionable in an FAC. — GabeMc (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source query:
  • "During Dennis's brief tenure the band was regularly referring to itself as The Pink Floyd Sound, a name which was, according to Mason, created by Barrett on the spur of the moment when he discovered that another band also named the Tea Set were to perform at one of their gigs." Sourced to Blake 2008, p. 43
I can see that page here, but can't see where it makes that point. Could be a ref got moved into the wrong place. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see the sentence was copied over here from this section of Pink Floyd. The source is Mason's Inside Out, p. 30. You mention that source after the next sentence, with different page numbers; perhaps a different edition. It might be worth mentioning that, in the source you cite for that sentence (Blake 2008, p. 43ff), Dennis has no recollection of them being called the Tea Set, and according to Mason there's confusion regarding when the name Pink Floyd emerged. Because of that I wonder about the accuracy of the next sentence: "Sometime during the late summer to early autumn of 1965 Waters co-founded Pink Floyd with Barrett, Wright and Mason," cited to Mason, pp. 33–37. Perhaps worth tweaking it to make clear there's confusion, and checking the page numbers.SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blake page 43 supports when the name Pink Floyd was first used, during Dennis's tenure, and that it was Syd's idea, so I am not sure what page, or book, you are looking at. I added a cite from Mason p.30 to the paragraph. — GabeMc (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering where "Sometime during the late summer to early autumn of 1965 Waters co-founded Pink Floyd with Barrett, Wright and Mason" came from. It suggests there was some kind of restart, whereas the sources seem to be saying there was a fluid situation from one name to the next, and people coming and going. Blake p. 44 says the Pink Floyd name was first used in February 1965, though on the same page it says the issue is cloudy because Richard Jacobs says it was used in 1963. So who is saying Pink Floyd was co-founded in the summer of 1965? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mason p.30 says "Throughout the Autumn (1865) we played on, usually under the name, the Tea Set, but we now had an alternative name, created by Syd" According to Mason p.36, "Pink Floyd Sound reconvened in London after the summer break of 1966." I think that Mason makes clear that the name came about in the Autumn or late Summer, of 1965, and not sooner, at least, according to Mason, who is Richard Jacobs anyway?. Maybe I will change the verbiage to avoid using the word "founded". — GabeMc (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe, there is either a source for the sentence "Sometime during the late summer to early autumn of 1965 Waters co-founded Pink Floyd with Barrett, Wright and Mason," or there isn't. Is there is, please add it.

This has now been fixed I think. — GabeMc (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand frustration at the end of a long FAC, but you've been biting people's heads off since before the restart. It means things aren't being checked, and I'm not sure copying material into this article from Pink Floyd without attribution [28] was a good idea, because it means someone else's writing, sourcing, and context has been added here. That might be fine, but it's hard to be sure, and if we ask for clarification we get told off. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this unbecoming behavior from the nominator, and am moving it to talk. GabeMc, if there are any more posts to reviewers of this nature, this FAC will close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Gabe has posted another attack on my talk page, including the comment "SlimVirgin, is case you didn't know, Waters changed the film in his show, and the star of David is no longer juxtaposed with a dollar sign," whatever that's supposed to mean. [29]
On what grounds? Is there an issue with the article that needs to be fixed? — GabeMc (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article when brought to FAC had writing and sourcing issues. It has improved during the course of the FAC, but this has been achieved in part by lifting material from Pink Floyd, slotting it in here and editing it. Gabe's responses to straightforward requests have been very aggressive since the beginning of the FAC, which means the article is not being reviewed thoroughly. And I don't know what the Star of David reference is about, but I doubt it's a good thing. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't I use passages from Pink Floyd, I am a major contributor there and some of the passages in the article were in fact written by me. — GabeMc (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was inclined to oppose this when I first saw it, but didn't because I saw people were working on it. I opposed it a few minutes ago, but that was after a personal attack and that's not the right time to do it. I also don't want to put the delegates in an awkward position. So I'm withdrawing the oppose, and I won't comment here further. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gabe has now turned up with multiple posts to Talk: Death of Ian Tomlinson, [30] one of my FAs, and has so far added seven cite tags to the article for material that is sourced, including in the lead. [31] This is very inappropriate. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this FAC. At a time when we are lacking reviewers and need more scrutiny at FAC, we cannot have the kind of posts GabeMc made on SV's talk page, or this kind of behavior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous, SG is accusing me of anti-semitism, and closing the FAC based on comments I made on another reviewers talk page. SG, my father was Jewish, I am 1/4 Polish Jew, and here you close my FAC and accuse me of anti-semitism? — GabeMc (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 21:21, 3 November 2010 [32].

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Taerkasten (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The film whose article is currently an FA candidate is an account of the tragedy which befell a group of young friends. This film was to become one of the most notorious and controversial films of all time. This is the legend of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. I am nominating this for featured article because after many copyedits, and more than two years of work, I believe the article now meets FA criteria. The Taerkasten (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved questions and comments

  • Limited support for prose only, and only in the introduction and Plot, Casting and Filming. All my questions are resolved. after these questions are addressed. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Resolved 03:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just noticed this statement: "The filmmakers discovered at least 100 cannabis plants at the back of the farmhouse; they belonged to the person renting the house at the time.[17] The local sheriff was called to investigate, but did not arrive and the discovery of the plants was never reported." - It's plopped right in the middle of text discussing the effects used in the film. For one, this has nothing to do with the effects in the film as far as I can tell..lol. For another, I'm not sure of the relevance to the section or the article. As it stands, it comes across as something trivial that you'd find on IMDb. More of an anecdote than production info. Unless it's trying to allude to the idea that the budget was so low they had to rent the home of a pot grower just to film the movie....but that would require a source stating such.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed it.--The Taerkasten (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.--The Taerkasten (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, replaced.--The Taerkasten (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is just information on the home media release of the film. It is not a review.--The Taerkasten (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced.--The Taerkasten (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask you to put your replies on separate lines .. so it doesn't look like I made those comments after the sites? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry abou that. No problem--The Taerkasten (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I am not an expert on film theory, but the section on legacy looks very light for a film that I know has had an enormous amount written about it. I asked someone I know to take a look at the sources listed, and one immediate omission they noticed was Carol Clover's "Men, Women and Chainsaws". I would think the bibliography of that book would also be worth consulting. Mike Christie (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was actually planning on making a subarticle about the themes and analysis, considering the article's current length and content, although I suppose it could be expanded. I hope this won't fail because of that particular section. --The Taerkasten (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I misinterpreted the "legacy" section for themes and analysis, although I still believe it is quite comphrehensive. But again, it can be expanded, possibly, however, I do hope the FA won't fail because of it.--The Taerkasten (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if that section is to be expanded, it should be done in a sub-article. If you take a look at FA films like Halloween (1978 film), the length of this article is already much longer. – S Masters (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you rephrase that please? I don't understand what you're trying to say.--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the license it is copyrighted, but are only words, that is no original enough for a copyright, see {{pd-text}} TbhotchTalk C. 19:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But this is a screenshot from the film, which is copyrighted. That's why it's under a fair-use license.--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could theoretically just write up the narration into a quote box and present it that way. It would eliminate any confusion over the copyright status. But, what Tbhotch is saying is that regardless of it being a screenshot, the shot itself is just of text on a plain black background. There isn't anything original about that image, thus it would fall under "public domain" for that particular shot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, what should be done? Can it be left there? --The Taerkasten (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either change the copyright tag to PD, or if you question if that's right change it to a quote box.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which PD tag would be most appropriate? --The Taerkasten (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{pd-text}} or {{pd-ineligible}} TbhotchTalk C. 21:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will work on it tomorrow.--The Taerkasten (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed this to {{pd-text}}. – S Masters (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's greatly appreciated.--The Taerkasten (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello. I don't believe it's necessary to include the sub-section of Cultural impact. That section should be merged into the Critical response section for a couple of big reasons. First, the Cultural impact 's section is nearly entirely filled with critical viewpoints. It's contains almost the exact same content as the Critical response section. Second, the Critical response section seems quite a bit light on content by itself. It actually requires the other section's content to make it more complete when taking into consideration status for an FA Article. One other issue; is there a play-by-play weekly readout available for the box office information for when the film came out in 1974? For instance, if a reader would like to know in what place did the film end up in it's 3rd week of release and which film topped the charts beating it out if it didn't end up in 1st place; etc. I checked on Box Office Mojo and The-Numbers.com , and was unable to find any. But if it is available on other sites, such as the Hollywood Reporter, then maybe you should insert that and re-create that Box office sub-section. DeWaine (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there isn't really a lot of box office info on the film, and I didn't see a play-by-play readout of its box office performance. But I could be wrong. I think the merging of the cultural impact and Critical reponse section wouldn't be a good idea. The response section is about the initial reaction to the film, and then also discusses later reviews. The impact section discusses more the legacy and influence of the film, although it does share similarities. Although, I'm willing to compromise on a merged section, without losing too much detail, but I feel they should be kept seperate.--The Taerkasten (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Response Well, it's a tough call. Indeed certain elements of the Cultural impact section are not reviewing critique, so I suppose you could leave it. But certain individual sentences containing the following content:

Mark Olsen of the Los Angeles Times described the film as being "cheap, grubby and out of control", and that the film "both defines and entirely supersedes the very notion of the exploitation picture".[147] Don Sumner called the film "classic 1970s horror that influenced an entire generation of film and introduced to the world an iconic villain."[154] Tony Magistrale believes the film "...opened up the possibilities for viewing horror as a vehicle for articulating twentieth-century pessimism." Scott Von Doviak of Hick Flicks called it "one of the rare horror movies to make effective use of daylight, right from the gruesome opening shot of a decaying corpse splayed across a cemetery tombstone".[158] In the book Horror Films, one critic's opinion of the film was that it was "the most affecting gore thriller of all and, in a broader view, among the most effective horror films ever made", and that "the driving force of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is something far more horrible than aberrant sexuality: total insanity.”[160] Christopher Null of Filmcritic.com said, "In our collective consciousness, Leatherface and his chainsaw have become as iconic as Freddy and his razors or Jason and his hockey mask."[161]

should probably be merged into the Critical response section. They are identical to film critic reviews from someone say, as Roger Ebert. DeWaine (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK will work on those sometime tomorrow. I appreciate it--The Taerkasten (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeWaine is right. I will help to move some of these as well. – S Masters (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just re-read this section. Would changing the heading from "Cultural impact" to "Genre impact" fix this? It might make more sense, and then we probably do not need to move anything. – S Masters (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response - I think that's a close call. But it's really just a simple copy and paste job. Besides, as I noted earlier, the Critical response section is just a little short on overall content. Let's wait for TaerkastUA. DeWaine (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much the copy and pasting, but the point of the section. The film has certainly had an impact on the genre. OK, will wait for TaerkastUA. – S Masters (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ok, I did some moves from the Impact section into the Response section along with some pertinent box office sentences into the Release section; as well as those accolades to the more relevant Impact part. I think the information is now correctly displayed in their proper categories. DeWaine (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I don't have much time at the moment, I'll have more later today. But you can move some things around, if you wish. It is important to distinguish between critical reception of the film, and discussion of it's legacy and influence. The Christopher Null quote seems to me more like an influence one, than simply critical response, as does the Horror Films, Mark Olsen and Don Sumner one, to me. But there are things in there which can be moved to (and possibly from) the critical response section.--The Taerkasten (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments for BIGNOLE - Hello. I see some of the changes you've made, and I just have a few quick comments about that. First, in regards to the image resizing; I can't say I exactly understand what you mean, or what the issue is. Indeed, I resized those images because they appeared too large for the page. When you say: "then you have to question whether it's necessary for the section" - I don't see why I have to do that. I resized the image to properly outline the paragraph. The Gunnar Actor image looks a bit large and awkward. It looked fine before you changed it. Also, the image with the Black Screen piece; I wasn't the one who inserted it to begin with. I think that one looked fine before too. As far as the See also section is concerned, I'm sure the Massacre Franchise page is linked, but should a reader who's viewing the page for the first time have to search for it throughout the article to find it? It's much easier organized in that section. And the 1974 in film link; I raised a similar issue about that myself in a previous FA nominee for Saw VI. It was noted that recently, some FA articles list that type of a link. I'm sure there were hundreds if not over a thousand films that came out in 1974, and none of them would appear to be relevant. You could leave that one out if you'd like. It's questionable. But lastly, the film portal which you also ended up deleting belongs in the See also section too. You should revert some of those changes. DeWaine (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ImageSize, by fixing an image size you are restricting the image to a particular size that suits your monitor resolution layout. That layout may or may not coorespond to the layout of the average reader. By leaving images as "thumb" or say "upright" you get a size that defaults to whatever the pre-selected size is. For you and me, it's whatever we set, for non-registered users it's a static size. The question would be, "Why did you want to shrink the image down to a 145px size?" If it was to fit in the section it's being used, then you have to question if the image was necessary to begin with (i.e., was there enough text to support the need for an image?). If an image needs to be bigger to see, a reader can click it to make it full sized.
With regard to the "See also" section. You're right, a reader shouldn't have to search for the link because it should technically be in the lead. I didn't notice this before, but the lead doesn't link the mentioning of the franchise article. I have corrected this issue so it's now very visible in the first paragraph of the lead. The film portal link was a mistake. I didn't realize I deleted it. I have replaced it and the proper place for portal links when there is not an appropriate "See Also" section in existence is the External Links section. You wouldn't create a "See also" section simply for a portal link.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Response - Well BIGNOLE, it appears I stand corrected. I suppose I might have forgotten some of the technicalities when it comes to page viewing. The image does look odd on my screen. For me it's not a static size, it's a setting which was set on my computer. I guess it's the same when formatting the references section. It could be set as one of the following:
  • reflist
  • reflist|2
  • reflist|colwidth=30em
  • Or a scrolling box. (See HTML formatting on the editing backend for the code not visible here).

As far as everything else is concerned, I suppose it'll do. DeWaine (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not following the comment above-- references cannot be in a scrolling box (nor should anything else be). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, DeWaine was just commenting about about how different settings (our discussion was about image layout, but DeWaine likened it to the reflist) appear differently to each user based on their monitor settings.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Additional Response - Well I was going to say Sandy, unlike BIGNOLE's reply, this time I don't stand corrected. I believe References can be in a scrolling box. I had an edit which was reverted on The Revolution Will Not Be Televised page. It was changed, as was a similar edit I believe at one time in the past on the Avatar page. Here is a link to that edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Revolution_Will_Not_Be_Televised_(film)&diff=380838929&oldid=379947241 DeWaine (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can do anything you like, but this article won't pass FAC if the article uses collapseboxes or scrollboxes, because FACs have to comply with MOS. See MOS:SCROLL. - Dank (push to talk) 16:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any other issues? --The Taerkasten (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Response - I'm lending a Support, but just a couple of quick things. First, in the Plot section; in the first paragraph, it states: Franklin tells Kirk and Pam about a local swimming hole, and the couple head off to find it. Is there a detail missing with that statement? I'm not sure I see what the connection is to the story. I thought they were going to visit a home and a cemetary. And just one last thing, in the Release section, shouldn't the sub-section titles be changed to Comics and the next one to Sequels and adaptations? Because the adaptations section contains only comics and not other media like books or magazines and the other section for sequels contains sequels but also film Re-make content too. It's not just the sequels in order following the original film. The Re-make in 2003 is also a bit of a departure from the 1974 film. It doesn't contain many of the same details. It's a slightly new take on the film. DeWaine (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it should say the group arrives at the house first, where Franklin tells Kirk and Pam about the swimming hole. If you'll look in the first paragraph of the "adaptations section", it mentions the video game adaptation for the Atari 2600. It would probably be best to classify the 2003 film as a "reimagining" or a "loose remake".--The Taerkasten (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I sort of clarified it, they arrived at the old Hardesty house where Franklin tells them about a local swimming hole, and they instead find another house nearby.--The Taerkasten (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Response - Ok, I think it makes more sense now. Just one thought however; there was an edit which you made, please click on this link: she didn't really argue against it, rewrote, one of the words that were changed was spelled as the following: aruges. I'm guessing the word was supposed to be argues. Was that a fairly recent change? And if not, how did the article pass a copyedit if that content was in the article from a long time ago? DeWaine (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a fairly recent addition, long after major copyediting was done, I added it during this FA, in fact, it was a typo.--The Taerkasten (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any other comments, or support or opposes? --The Taerkasten (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm going through the article today. I'll try to have my review finished before the end of the day. Right now, I'm leaning toward support, but as soon as I have time to finish reading everything I'll post on here which way I go. So, if Sandy or someone comes by, don't close it just yet (in case you're thinking about it).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow up - The reception section stills comes off as a bit muddled. The first paragraph largely talks about how the film was viewed in 1974 when it came out. Then the second paragraph talks about how critics started to change their tune over time. Then the third paragraph talks about how after 36 years people have started to change their opinions about the film. The second and third paragraphs both contain reviews from the past few years, but are presented in a manner that suggests both are introducing new information. They're not. They both contain information from the same time period, so the section should be tweaked to reflect that concept. In addition, the reception sections contains way too many quotes. We should be paraphrasing what these critics are saying, and not simply quoting snippets of their viewers. Just having partial quotes here and there comes across like the back of a DVD box.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - I can't say I entirely agree with that assesment. Personally, right off the bat, I think the biggest problem the article had was the placement of content within it's relevant category and subject matter. Basically, a large portion of the content concerning Reviews, Accolades, Box office stats and the film's Lasting legacy on media were all mixed up in those categories. They were not organized at all. As an example, the sentence with the 36 years can be fixed by just placing it in the Cultural impact section. That's where it belongs to begin with. The same way as I pointed out earlier, a general critic's review doesn't belong in the Cultural impact section. It's belongs in the Critical response section. Originally, as I looked at the Critical response section, I thought the content was well short of an FA article in terms of comprehensiveness. But then, I had a look at the Cultural impact section and saw that all the content was there instead of in the Critical response section. It was a matter of transferring the info to the correct category. But as far as the snippets subject, I think many FA promoted film articles contain just that. General quotes from critics. The purpose of the article is not to give a paragraph-by-paragraph review from every film critic. The reader just needs the Highlight point of the review. Granted it may come off as being a snippet from say a DVD cover, but the article would be well too long for a standard sitting. DeWaine (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the only thing you disagree about is my assessment of the "snippets", because I'm not saying that anything in the criticism section needs to be removed just better organized so that it isn't making it out to be 3 different eras of critical response when there's really only 2 eras. As for the snippets, I don't now what "recent FAs" you're referring to, but any 4 different editors can have a page promoted when it may or may not meet standards. If we're writing an encyclopedic article why are we simply quoting all our text from other people? We're suppposed to paraphrase what they say. I don't know where you get that the reader just needs the "highlight" from the review, as that is not stated anywhere on the film project that I'm aware of. In fact, who is to gauge what said "highlight" is when you just quote some random text. Paraphrasing overall opinions of the film is better. I don't understand this "paragraph-by-paragraph" logic you're referring to. You can see Friday the 13th (2009 film), A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film), or even The Dark Knight (film) for how paraphrasing is not "paragraph-by-paragraph" reviews. Paraphrasing is also far more professional than simply acting as a mirror and copy/pasting info to our pages. You get a far more well rounded understanding of the opinion someone had for the film that way as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not optimistic about this FAC, and I had my doubts whether it would ever pass it. Thanks to everyone who helped improve this article.--The Taerkasten (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what the state of this FA is atm, or whether it'll pass. As for the critical response section, I'm not sure what to make of it. It might need improvement, I think it's OK but that's only my view. It'll probably I'm not sure whether it should stop it from passing this FAC, though.--The Taerkasten (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The simple rewording you did has helped a lot, but the quick quotes that dominate the critical reception are the issues I have with it. It's not difficult to read a review and paraphrase what they say in a couple of sentences. You can still quote, but it looks and reads better when you quote less and paraphrase more. It shows you put in a lot of work (which you already have in the rest of the article) to make that section stand out. Anyone can copy/paste. For example, the TV Guide source. The first sentence in the review is what is CP'd into the article, yet when reading this very short review I find the information about, "examine the darker impulses, fears, taboos, and repressed desires found in human beings and to purge them from our collective subconscious" far more informative. It looks deeper at the film than simply "it's intelligent and violent". If you could take the former statement and paraphrase that for readers (you can even tack on...."also thought it was an 'intelligent' film in its 'bloodless depiction of violence'") it would strengthen the article so much more. I'm sure that's the same for the other reviews. If you look at the examples I provided above, when you read their critical response section you get much more knowledge about what a critic feels about the film. It's usually far more than just quotes to grab attention like you would if you were trying to sell it. I love the article. I think it's definitely right there at FA. It's comprehensive. It's well sourced. The writing is good, but it could be better in some areas. One of those areas is the Critical Reception. I think that section doesn't do the page itself justice. Even the Cultural Impact section has far more parphrasing of information (BTW, just noticed that there were some inappropriate positioning of quote marks and punctuation...remember, if it's not a complete statement then the periods/commas go on the outside).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, I'll try and clear it up, although I don't know how much longer this FAC will go on, I hope long enough to let me clean up those sections, other FACs also seem to be going on for weeks.--The Taerkasten (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm determined for this article to pass FAC this time round.--The Taerkasten (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I know what is needed, I will try to work on the paraphrasing this week. – S Masters (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - I'm giving weak support because I still feel that more paraphrasing needs to be done in the reception section, and if/when this occurs editors should keep a close eye on the edits because I've gone in an fixed some copyediting errors that were created when some of the other paraphrasing took place.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC) (Redacted 16:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC) following issues being addressed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks, --The Taerkasten (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll see what happens.--The Taerkasten (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm concerned about now is that this might fail, and I have to wait a long time before nominating it again. I'm really determined to do everything to make it pass this time.--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - I'll reiterate a support. I saw your last message with that copy-edit response. It would appear the article is limping towards the finish line on two crutches, but the overall improvement in the past 10 days are noteworthy. DeWaine (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the instructions at WT:FAC; debolding second support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick question. In the Plot section, is there any particular reason to link the following phrases: straight razor, desiccated and slaughter house? For those who can read and speak English, I don't believe it's necessary. For the same reason, you also wouldn't link other words in that section like: gas station, freezer or chainsaw which appear too. DeWaine (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delink all by "disiccated". Not a common term, so most people wouldn't know what it was.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any other queries for us to try and address? Or support/oppose?--The Taerkasten (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just make sure there are no other unnecessary words. For instance, I removed a few "that", which you typically don't need in the ways they were being used as the sentence doesn't change and it's grammatically correct. I didn't notice a lot of this when I first reviewed (honestly, I forgot to look for them cause I'm guilty of doing it a lot), but I just did the critical response section because I assumed I might find some in there with the new paraphrasing. Just keep an eye out. If you can read a sentence without a particular word and not lose any meaning, it probably doesn't need to be there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have re-read this article again and it is now in a much better shape, especially when I first copy edited it. I'm giving this my support. – S Masters (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that although I am quite busy at work at the moment, I am watching this page and will try to help fix any other issues that crop up. – S Masters (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


You guys did a commendable job on the article. SMasters, BIGNOLE and Taerkasten; you deserve credit for your tireless effort and work. DeWaine (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you do. I'd like to thank everyone who helped for their tireless contributions to this article. If it passes, it's certain that without your help, it would've taken even longer for it to reach this stage. No matter where it goes from here, I'd just like to thank everyone involved. This was a collaborative effort, everyone deserves praise.--The Taerkasten (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for all your input and hard work. I am pleased that all issues have been resolved, and that now we now have consensus. Cheers! – S Masters (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image of serial killer Ed Gein is fair use, and the subject is deceased; the picture of Hansen is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported; and the picture of the text on screen is not eligible for copyright because it is not original enough, and is considered to be in the public domain. So, there are no image issues in this article. Hope this clarifies. – S Masters (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Reviewing free images and Reviewing non-free images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding a lot of prose redundancy, awkward phrasing, passive voice, repetitive phrasing; unless someone else gets to it, I will give examples tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this article isn't meant to be FA. It doesn't seem like its problems will end. But tough scrutiny is needed for the article to be perfect.--The Taerkasten (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review concerns:

  • File:TheTexasChainSawMassacre-poster.jpg: There is a concensus that certain commercial products can use official materials (posters, covers) to identify an article's subject if there are no "free" images available to do so. For movies, posters generally fit the bill. However, cookie-cutter short phrases like "For use in article's Infobox to represent the film, an important work in the history of the horror genre." do not help to establish why this image will fulfill all ten criteria of WP:NFCC.
  • File:Edgein.jpg: Yes, the subject is dead. However, he is not the subject of this article, the movie is the subject (nor is the movie about the subject). Seeing the visage of this man does not help readers in further understanding the movie; there is little or no indication that the appearance of this man was an important factor in the film. Therefore, this image is an outright failure of WP:NFCC #8.
  • File:Texaschainsawopening.jpg: This is a copyright violation. The concept of copyrights not given to text is for fonts (typefaces) where meaningless or short phrases are used. It is not applied to swathes of text where a story is presented with creativity (otherwise scanning books and putting them on line without permission would not be copyright violations).

The first can be improved with rephrasing of the fair use rationales. The second does not qualify for inclusion in this article unless contextual significance is established. The last has to be deleted. The second and third should be resolved before any promotion of the article to FA can be considered. Jappalang (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second and third have been taken care off. Any suggestions on the first? This FAC appears to be hopeless, and in a week's time I will be too busy with real life stuff to thoroughly work on the article, which makes it likely that the article, if it fails FAC, will remain a GA for the indefinite future.--The Taerkasten (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at rewriting the rationale for the first image, but feel free to improve upon it as you wish.--The Taerkasten (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image concerns are usually the last to be looked at since we are so short on knowledgeable image reviewers at FAC, and it's not a productive use of their time to review images before other issues are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From a general point of view, where does this FAC currently stand, consensus-wise and other?--The Taerkasten (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image concerns must be addressed, and see my comments above-- unless someone else gets to the prose issues before I can, I will have to dig in and list them myself. A tighter ce is needed. Also, I usually like to see some content experts with experience at FAC weigh in; Steve (talk · contribs) is long absent, Erik (talk · contribs) hasn't weighed in, and you might ping DCGeist (talk · contribs) or David Fuchs (talk · contribs), or ask Tony1 (talk · contribs) or Laser brain (talk · contribs) to look at the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note on Erik's talk page, and I can see you already informed him of the FAC too. The best thing to do would probably notify the others.--The Taerkasten (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two more problematic images have been removed. The poster's rationale has been improved (although I think could be further improved) but I guess it is sufficient for its identification purpose. Aside from the poster and the "free" camcorder shot, there are no other images, so all seems okay on the image front. Jappalang (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate the help. Thanks, I'll take care of that query.--The Taerkasten (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do all the other actors, but not William Vail, meet notability?

If he meets notability, he should be redlinked: see WP:RED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind: found and linked William Vail (but even if he didn't have an article, he should have been redinked). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • COPYVIO, I will temporarily blank the text until someone sorts this. See the Plot section and this source, which I just stumbled upon while working on William Vail.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to this, if you put in bbcnewsamerica.com, the domain was created in February 2010, making it eight months ago. (Compare this to bbc.co.uk, which was created 14 years ago.) It's reasonable to assume that the website and its related pages were created after the diff, but a double check is welcome. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An admirable amount of research has gone into this article. As Sandy suggests, the language needs to be tightened throughout. I can go through and give it a copyedit over the coming week. Six queries so far:

  • [Infobox:] "Budget: $140,000."
  • [Lede:] "Hooper produced the film on an estimated budget of $140,000".
  • [Development:] "The crew exceeded the original $60,000 budget for the film during the editing process, eventually spending a total of $140,000." Resolved.

This claim that the film cost $140,000 is cited to a single source: Joe Gross's "Movie News" column in the November 2003 issue of SPIN magazine. However, we find in Adam Rockoff's major history of the slasher genre, Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film, 1978–1986 (2002), "[C]onflicting reports place The Texas Chainsaw Massacre's final budget anywhere from $93,000 to just under $250,000" (p. 42). Do you have any reason to believe that the number Gross offers should be considered definitive, rather than one example of those "conflicting reports"? It appears the article's coverage of this matter would benefit from some more research.

OK, you are right about that. Since the budget of the film varies from source to source, it would probably be best if the budget paramater was removed from the infobox, and instead explained in the development section. Thoughts?--The Taerkasten (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the matter would indeed bear being treated in some detail in the Production section. If you can track down a couple more of those "conflicting reports", it would help flesh things out. You mention the Development (sub-)section, which actually currently combines into one narrative elements that might better be split on the basis of chronology: say, the first three paragraphs in their current position as Development and the last two (with the addition of the discussion of the film's ultimate cost) as Post-production and distribution, following the Filming sub-section.
As for the infobox, I wouldn't cut the parameter, but rather put "Less than $250,000". Similar phrasing could be used in the lede.—DCGeist (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to put that in the infobox though, as it might look a bit messy. $140,000 seems to be the most stable figure of the final budget. So perhaps, "generally accepted" or otherwise? --The Taerkasten (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see nearly enough evidence to find the claim that it is a "generally accepted" figure credible. I looked at the Halberstam source you added. The figure evidently comes from an interview by John McCarty with an actor—notoriously unreliable sources for such movie production data. In the context of what Halberstam provides, it is entirely unclear if the actor is providing his or her impression of the film's original budget (which is what they are likely to have heard about when they signed on) or its final cost. Our article currently says, "The crew exceeded the original $60,000 budget for the film during the editing process". How plausible is it that this particular actor was keeping track of things during the editing process? So...Halberstam picks up this figure from what an actor told McCarty, and then Gross—who I'm guessing did no original research on a 19-year-old film for his SPIN "Movie News" column—picks it up from one or the other. OK, it passes our verifiability standard for inclusion, but how much weight should be given to it? And again, how do we know it even refers to final cost, rather than nominal budget?
Here's a figure I find substantially more credible: "under $300,000." That's from the March 1974 issue of Texas Monthly (p. 9). The lead item of Richard West's five-page-long "Texas Monthly Reporter" is devoted to TCSM. West interviewed Hooper and Henkel. Given the timing of the interview, the reference is clearly to the final cost. Does anyone else use this figure, or something like it? Yes. I can see in Google snippet view that Karl French and Philip French in Cult Movies (2000) write that TCSM "was produced around Austin, Texas, for a mere $300,000."
In sum, it simply appears incorrect to prioritize $140,000. (I disagree that adding an English word or two to the infobox budget line would "look a bit messy", but that's a minor point.) Do Farley and William Knoedelseder, who clearly did a lot of research on the film's finances, offer nothing pertaining to its production cost?—DCGeist (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we'll go with the less than $300,000 figure.--The Taerkasten (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I just did the same for the B movie FA. However, I assume this is not your final edit on the matter. None of the three sources you now have actually mentions the $300,000 figure. You plan to add the West, right? And, oddly, you cut the Halberstam cite, which clearly explicates the origin of the $140,000 figure, in favor of the derivative SPIN cite. I'm not clear on the logic there.—DCGeist (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the solution you just came up with for the infobox is excellent.—DCGeist (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I'll fix the other budget stuff in a moment.--The Taerkasten (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Lede:] "It originated several elements common in the slasher film genre, including the use of power tools as murder weapons and the characterization of the killer as a large, hulking, faceless figure." Resolved.

There are two claims here (TCSM originated the use of power tools as murder weapons in the slasher genre; TCSM originated the characterization of the killer as a large, hulking, faceless figure in the slasher genre), both of which are dubious and neither of which is supported by sourced discussion in the main text. Claims that any given cinematic trope "originated" in a particular film are usually (though not always) overstated and must be strongly sourced; it is usually easier to source a claim that a certain film "popularized" or "established" a trope. Aside from that, as I said, it appears that there is no discussion, let alone sourced discussion, in the main text of the influence of TCSM's use of these particular tropes.—DCGeist (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added the supporting statements, as [36] in this diff. It's in the cultural impact section.--The Taerkasten (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the choice of how to style the film's title, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, conflicts with the style of the poster visible in the infobox and that of many of the cited sources (Chainsaw), an explanation for the choice is called for somewhere in the article, even if just in a note. See, for example, how the Elvis Presley FA handles the "Aaron" vs. "Aron" question. Resolved.—DCGeist (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:ITALICS, the wiki-universal style for films is italics. Posters are not going to matter, I think, since most posters do not italicize anyway. That would not mean we would avoid them in the article body. In addition, the article just follows WP:ITALICTITLE for overall consistency. I think it would be amiss for this film, which is conventional in structure, to avoid italics. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears I should have been clearer. The question does not concern the use of italics, which is of course appropriate. The concern is the orthographical variation between the two-word Chain Saw favored by the article and the one-word Chainsaw seen in the poster and many of the cited sources.—DCGeist (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! :) You're right; that's a tricky situation. I would support a note, perhaps in the lead sentence, that said something like "Also commonly known as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". Erik (talk | contribs) 23:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DC, is this what you're wanting?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I added a supporting reference to the film's copyright registration.—DCGeist (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Themes and analysis:] "Critics argue that even in exploitation films in which the ratio of male and female deaths is roughly equal, the "lingering" images will be of the violence committed against the female characters." Resolved.

The source for this, Barry Keith Grant's The Dread of Difference: Gender and the Horror Film, does not purport to represent a consensus critical view—Grant appears to be speaking for himself. I would not be surprised at all to learn that critics plural share this view, but the source does not support that claim. Either the claim must be recast or more research performed.—DCGeist (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've added two sources for this, which is great, but you eliminated the Grant cite here, which further supported it. Why?—DCGeist (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know.--The Taerkasten (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Infobox listing of stars:] Burns, Partain, Neal, Siedow, Hansen
  • [Lede listing of stars:] Burns, Hansen, McMinn, Vail, Neal, Partain Resolved.

The logic behind the infobox listing is evident: it exactly matches that of the original theatrical release poster. What is the logic behind the different selection and sequencing of names in the lede?—DCGeist (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • [Infobox:] "Distributed by/United Kingdom: Blue Dolphin." Resolved.

There is no mention, sourced or otherwise, of Blue Dolphin in the main text, nor a direct citation of the claim in the infobox. Please source the claim one way or the other.—DCGeist (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It probably came from here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I imagine so. And as we all (should) know, that's not an acceptable source.—DCGeist (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a and 2a:
    • As DCGeist noted above, there are two important claims made in the lead that are neither written about nor sourced later in the article: the "power tools" claim and the "large, hulking, faceless figure" claim.
    • The writing is mostly OK, but I dislike the propensity toward quotations in certain sections. The "Critical response" and "Cultural impact" sections are strung-together quotations with little real writing. Unless the quoted source is worded so profoundly as to defy paraphrasing, we should write it in our own words.
    • "This left Henkel and Hooper with 45% between them" Are you saying they were equal partners? If not, what was the distribution?
--Andy Walsh (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, firstly, the first issue you pointed out has since been dealt with. The second issue could use some rewording possibly, yes, as for the third issue, it means exactly what it says. They were equal partners in the corporation (Vortex).--The Taerkasten (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick reply—I'm glad to see the 2a issue cleared up. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to make that part clearer. But in actuality, MAB owned half the picture and half the profits. This section details how the other half is to be split up. So perhaps these numbers should not add up to 100% but to 50%? (MAB actually owned 50% and Vortex 22.5% and Pie in the Sky 9.5% and the cast and crew 18%). What do you think? --Diannaa (Talk) 19:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're right. That should be the correct figure. And I will work on the second issue Andy raised, the quotes. It only serves to improve this article further.--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went cross-eyed after the first mention of 50%. I'm sure whatever you work out will be fine. :) --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, so did I. And like I'll said, I'll try and take care of the writing stuff tomorrow. Thanks for your comments, it really helps.--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They also later sold part of Vortex to Skaaren and he got part of the Vortex share plus 3% right off the top. Don't forget David Foster took 1.5%. My brain hurts. If no one objects, I think we should leave it as it now stands. I am going to do some more work on paraphrasing the quotes and then I have to go out. The two sections will also need a tightening up once we are done paraphrasing. See you in a few hours. --Diannaa (Talk) 19:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. See you. Hard to believe this FAC is almost as long as the article. Longest film FAC, perhaps? And thanks to everyone, I honestly didn't expect this level of support for the article. Thank you so much.--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image of actor Gunnar Hansen is squashed, can we get this fixed?--Tempest429 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, it is what it is.--The Taerkasten (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Tempest that the image is not great. I would recommend including this specific picture from the film article and looking for a new picture that could be licensed to Creative Commons. There are quite a few pictures of Gunnar Hansen at Flickr, and you can make a request for the photographer to freely license it; see WP:FILMSHOT#Images. For example, File:Alex Tse.jpg was acquired this way and is being used at Alex Tse. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't really the best quality, I agree. It wouldn't stop it from passing FAC, though would it? I should hope not. I'm not the best person to deal with sorting such licensing stuff out.--The Taerkasten (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found an image on Flickr with an acceptable license, uploaded it to Commons, and put it in the article. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I really appreciate it. As I said before, I honestly didn't expect the level of support this article has been receiving. It's just so amazing. Thank you, everybody.--The Taerkasten (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Five queries:

  • [Themes and analysis:] "Film critics and scholars have interpreted it as a paradigmatic exploitation film, in which the female protagonists are subjected to brutal, sadistic violence." (Before I copyedited the sentence, it read, "Film critics and scholars have interpreted the film as a classic exploitation film, where the female protagonists are subjected to brutal, sadistic violence, which borders being sexually sadistic, at the hands of the primary antagonists.")

There is no page ref for the 25-page-long article by Robin Wood cited as the source for this claim, so it is not possible to verify it. Please provide the ref so we can check it.

Added page.
  • [Themes and analysis:] "Scholars have described the film, and the slasher genre as a whole, as being 'sexually violent'".

This falls flat, as the film's violence has already been described earlier in the paragraph as "sadistic", which conveys its sexual dimension. Assuming that earlier line is retained in substantially its current form, this line should either be recast or simply cut.

Removed the line.--The Taerkasten (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Themes and analysis:] "Some critics argue that American reactions to the Watergate scandal, as well as the 'delegitimation of authority in the wake of Vietnam,' are reflected in the art of the era, particularly the American horror film."

Once again, the source adduced does not satisfactorily support the claim that "some critics argue X", merely that one specific critic—Sharrett—does. The passage must be recast or properly sourced. In addition, the ref must be renamed—it currently looks as if Grant is being quoted. Grant is merely the editor of the anthology. Sharrett is the source, and his name must appear in the cite.

Add Sharrett, but his name is being quoted in Grant's book, and it's being cited multiple times.--The Taerkasten (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Themes and analysis:] "Some film historians and critics argue that the horror film, particularly since Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960) and The Birds (1963), and George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead (1968), poses questions about the 'fundamental validity of the American civilizing process'".

Multiple problems: Yet again, the source does not support the claim about "some film historians and critics". This is the same misnamed ref as the previous; in addition, the pagination of the ref ("300") is incorrect—the information overlaps pp. 300–1 (indeed, the actual quoted phrase appears on 301). Finally, Sharrett does not mention Night of the Living Dead in this passage—or, for that matter on either page 300 or page 301.

Fixed, add Sharratt as being quoted. Add 301, as page ref, too.--The Taerkasten (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Development:] "Hooper worked as a professor at the University of Texas at Austin."

A professor of what?

Ah. I have accessed the putative source. It does not support a single element of the sentence for which it is cited.

Replaced source, he was actually an assistant film director at the University.--The Taerkasten (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A request:

When you resolve an issue, could you please make a note of that here? And when the correction involves a change in a different spot in the article (like providing main text support for a claim in the lede), providing the diff here makes the verification process a lot more efficient. Thanks.—DCGeist (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: While a lot of work has gone in to this article, it seems very clear that the requisite FA-level scrutiny was not applied to the citations and sources before its nomination. I'm finding way too many serious sourcing errors (a few of which I resolved directly, without even mentioning them here). I'm going to stop work where I am—about 30 percent of the way through the article—until I see that rigorous vetting of all the cites and the claims based on them has taken place, whether that happens during this FAC (if time permits) or after.—DCGeist (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I hate to say it, I give up. Could somebody close this FA please? --The Taerkasten (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, if this were to fail, it will remain GA for the indefinite future, as my time will severely limited after this. It's OK, though, I was expecting this. This article will never be FA.--The Taerkasten (talk) 09:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anymore, I hope it passes, because in my view, the article has been significantly improved since it came to this FAC, and that's what should count alongside other things. I am trying my best here, with a very short amount of time left, and I don't know if that matters to anybody.--The Taerkasten (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your time and effort surely matter to everyone—this project would be nothing without the time and effort of editors. However, the FA criteria unfortunately don't include measures of time, effort, and the delta between its nominated and current states. If problems have been found with the sourcing, that is a serious hurdle. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll see how this pans out. I'm trying to sort out the problems, and I don't think there should be any concerns in the Reception or possibly the Release sections. I'll go over the article again.--The Taerkasten (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I guess this is good for the article, really. I mean, if it fails now, it may be easier 5th time round.--The Taerkasten (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm sorry Taerkast, but I have to remove my support of the article. I'm not outright opposing it, but I did not do my responsibility in checking the information against the sources nad DC has pointed out a lot of flaws in the sourced information that need addressing. The reason I'm not outright opposing is because I'm going to try and go through the article source by source (which might take me a moments time) and try and confirm the info or fix any errors in the info that was cited. Don't give up. There are editors here that are going to help you....though we may end up going to a 5th FAC because of this.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you have nothing to apologise for, nobody has except for me. I'm sorry for making somewhat pessimistic comments towards the later part of these FAC (as apparent in my struck-out comments). I know that they will only better the article, and it shouldn't matter if this fails. So thank you to all. I am determined this one day becomes FA, be it on its 5th or 100th nomination. Thank you to everyone, once again, your comments will contribute towards making this article great.--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just following up on one matter that Bignole and I discussed directly and that the Taerkasten partially addressed:

  • [Casting:] "There were few or no previous film acting credits among many of the cast members..."

I see this was changed from the previous "There were few or no previous acting credits among many of the cast members". So...there's been some improvement, but aside from the still-awkward locution, the fact remains that the cited source simply does not support the claim.

The source in this case is Screen Memories: Hollywood Cinema on the Psychoanalytic Couch (1994), by Harvey Roy Greenberg. Here is the relevant passage (p. 149), quoted at length:

Shot on low budgets, employing unknown actors and waning Hollywood luminaries, many cruel films piled up fortunes on the drive-in/exploitation circuit. The best — or most notorious — of these frightful cheapies are Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), Night of the Living Dead (1968), The Hills Have Eyes (1977), Last House on the Left (1972), and, more recently Halloween (1978), Friday the 13th (1980), A Nightmare on Elm Street (1985), and sequels.

First, let's point out that the passing mention of TCSM in this sort of list is not exactly a model for high-quality sourcing of production information on a specific film.

Second, the passage does not even say that the TCSM cast was limited to "unknown actors" to the exclusion of "waning Hollywood luminaries", who, of course, would have many film acting credits.

Third, even if one argues that we may otherwise conclude from the context that TCSM's cast was limited to "unknown actors", that does not mean they had "few or no previous film acting credits". An actor can have played major roles in a dozen independently produced, poorly distributed B movies and remain "unknown." An actor can have played bit parts in two dozen Hollywood studio films and remain "unknown."

Conclusion: The article can not claim that the TCSM cast members had "few or no previous film acting credits" unless a source is found that says that...or says that most of the cast had little onscreen experience...or says that it was the first feature film appearance for most of the actors...or language in the source that actually supports the claim.—DCGeist (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be best to remove that particular passage entirely.--The Taerkasten (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:34, 3 November 2010 [37].

Ronald Skirth

[edit]
Notified: User talk:Jim Sweeney,User talk:BinksternetUser talk:David Underdown, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WPAFC, Wikipedia talk:MILHIST

I am nominating this article for FAC because I feel it meets the FA criteria. Although it is fairly short for FA, I have seen other similar FAs that are not substantially longer, for example Edgar Towner. I have benefited greatly from the help of a GA reviewer in bringing the article to GA status and would now like to bring it to FA status if possible. Dwab3 (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note this was originally listed as an FAR so I have moved it to FAC and fixed the incoming links. I should be able to look at the article soon. Regards, Woody (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for this listing error on my part, and many thanks to Woody for sorting it out.Dwab3 (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm very concerned that this has been written largely from an autobiographical source. Additionally, no page numbers are given in the citations, so this is impossible to verify or check for plagiarism. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these helpful comments. Finding page numbers is no problem - I didn't know this was required. Also, I didn't realise that primary sources were an issue, but this can actually be very easily fixed as there is a secondary source (Barrett, Casualty Figures - cited in the article) which I think should cover all but a handful of the references. I will go through and find the appropriate page references in that secondary source (plus occasional refs in the primary if necessary) and edit the article accordingly, some time in the next couple of days. Dwab3 (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the basis of 1a; this article is rather poorly written in my opinion. A few examples:
    • "A self-confessed 'dreamer' with a romantic sensibility, Skirth was very fond of literature, and in particular poetry; he took with him to the Western Front a much-annotated copy of Francis Turner Palgrave's Golden Treasury, and his favourite poets were John Keats, Percy Bysshe Shelley and Lord Byron." Run-on sentence, as given away by the "and" in front of "his favourite poets".
    • "... and so for the rest of his army service he made deliberate errors in targeting calculations". "So"?
    • "After the war, Skirth's remained a convinced pacifist for the rest of his life". "Skirth's"?
    • "He believed that Britain should not have declared war on Germany in 1939 and claimed that he would rather surrender and face occupation by a hostile force than take up arms against them." Germany is not a plural noun, and neither is "force".
    • "... having requested for the process to be expedited". Why not "having requested that the process be expedited"?
    • "Skirth saw action in the Battle of Messines, where two of his closest friends, Bill and Geordie, were killed." A battle isn't a place. Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I've corrected most of these errors and I'll take a look at the rest of the article shortly. Wasn't too sure how to best fix your 4th point though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will fix point number 4. Thanks for your keen eye. Dwab3 (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Original Research due to reliance on PRIMARY: reliance on "Ronald Skirth; Jon Snow (16 April 2010), Duncan Barrett, ed., The Reluctant Tommy: An Extraordinary Memoir of the First World War, Macmillan, ISBN 978-0230746732" a primary historical and biographical source for a historical and biographical article. The reading of primary historical sources, is by its nature, original research. Comments 1c/2c.
Thanks for this. See above.Dwab3 (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Not Forgotten: The Men Who Wouldn't Fight, Channel 4, 2008" needs to be fully cited (episode numbers, first broadcast date if a broadcast was used).

Ok, will look into this. Dwab3 (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This citation's date is out of style for your article, ""Flanders turned Ronald into the Reluctant Tommy", Bexhill-on-Sea Observer, 29 April 2010". Citations of newspaper titles are inconsistent, some are italics, some are roman. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will have a look at these and try to standardise.Dwab3 (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:34, 3 November 2010 [38].

Daydream (Mariah Carey album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all FA criteria. Thanks everyone for reviewing and supporting ;) CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ucucha 23:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the audio samples to the "Composition" section, where the songs are discussed in terms of recording and composition, so the samples do help there. As per those 2 photos, I mean aren't all photos just eye candy? I would understand the one on the swing, but the one for "One Sweet Day" I believe shows the whole concept if you watch the video. Would these 2 images really have you hold it against the nomination? Anyway, see what you think of at least 1. If you still refuse, then I will remove them.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, eye candy to a degree but hopefully aiding in the reader's understanding by illustrating a concept. In the case of non-free media, we need to be extremely careful to ensure we have strong rationales for inclusion. I've looked around at several other album FAs (such as Silent Alarm; you'll note the album cover and the audio clip are the only non-free media there), and it seems like one audio clip would be prudent, that best represents the album's musical style. As for the images, I don't think they aid in reader understanding at all and should be removed. Surely the reader can understand the concept of Boyz II Men standing with Mariah Carey without an image? --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed both images and removed a sound clip. Now all we have is 2 audio clips for composition. Is that ok?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm really torn, because on hand those are two important songs that were hugely popular if my memory serves. On the other hand, you don't really discuss them enough musically to warrant both samples. Can you add any additional discussion of the musical elements present in those two songs to make for a stronger fair use case? As it stands, I still don't think the reader needs to hear them to understand anything you've said in the text. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well here is how I view it. We discuss the TomTom sample for Fantasy is depth, and then have the sample that shows how it was incorporated into the song. The for "One Sweet Day" we have discussion about its production, writing, lyrics, message and then have a sample. I mean they aren't completely unwarranted like before, when they were in the singles section. They are only 2, do you see why I think they need to be there? Thank you--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 14:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lead is difficult to read, because it's all "Number one here, top five there, biggest selling single of all time in Japan for 32 weeks and 1 day by a non-Asian artist." The readers' eyes are likely to glaze over before they reach the end. And it doesn't tell us much about its contents. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand the issue. Every FA or GA I've seen works the same way as I put it. Either 3-4 paragraphs, 1st overall information, 2nd talking about who worked on the album and writer etc. 3rd is the albums commercial success and 4th is the success and info of the singles. Whats the issue? What more would you like to see?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe there's a standard for FAs about albums that I'm not aware of. I'm just saying as a reader that the lead is hard to read, because it's just a list of superlatives. The best this, the highest selling that. Would it not make sense to put the stats in a separate section, perhaps with the most important ones pulled out for the lead, but otherwise to tell us a bit more about the album? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, can you point me to a recently promoted FA about an album so I can compare? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, so I dont remember off hand. I know your probably thinking I'm BSing you, but I mean it. Anyway, I could remove some misc sales info and charting, ad replace it with more info. However, I still plan to keep 4 paragraphs and 2 would be as indicated above.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think you're BSing me, so don't worry. :) I don't want to advise you to do something that most album FAs don't do, so I'll take a look around and see what best practice is. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some FA album leads to consider: Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album), Supernature (Goldfrapp album), Rumours, Pinkerton (album), The Dark Side of the Moon. More here. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Slim. hanks for your suggestions :D I fixed up the lead considerably, so I think its better. Is it alright now? hanks :). Just so you understand my view on its current status. 1st paragraph talks about its background and inside info. paragraph 2 talks about its recording, writing and production, as well as some controversy. 3rd paragraph discusses the tour and the singles. 4th talks about the albums critical and commercial success. I hope that covers it :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nathan, I'm commenting again because you left a note on my talk page. I'm sorry I can't support this, but it needs a fair bit of work. Examples of problematic prose: " ... the friends and family her fans had lost along life's journey." And "As Carey's career and work continued to mirror the way she saw fit ..."
I suggest withdrawing the nom, then: (a) creating a strong structure for the article (the one you have in place is not bad); (b) removing any unnecessary detail if readers might think it's too much fancruft (which I know is hard to judge in an article that'll be mostly read by her fans); (c) making sure the text reflects the sources, but doesn't copy what they say too closely; (d) removing unattributed quotations, such as "The chorus was sophisticated and natural, with each following line 'cascading onto one another,' something that would have proved difficult for a 'less skilled vocalist.'" But be careful either to rewrite or give the attribution; don't just remove the quotation marks. And (e) doing a last very thorough fix of the prose to make sure the text flows well, and that the grammar is good. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Needs a thorough copyedit. Here's a selection of errors from one random paragraph: Sasata (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Daydream proved to be one of the best-selling and most acclaimed album of 1995." album -> albums
  • "When the "Grammy Award" nominees were announced" why is Grammy Awards in quotes?
  • "Together, alongside Boyz II Men, she sang a live rendition" Together is redundant
  • "the television cameras continued to zoom up on Carey's face" zoom up -> zoom
  • "Carey hadn't won a single award." avoid contractions in professional prose
  • "Interestingly enough, while Carey was nominated again the following year," The encyclopedia shouldn't be telling us it's interesting
  • "she didn't perform at the awards" another contraction
Fixed! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend finding a good copyeditor to go through the prose line by line. It's difficult to see your own mistakes once you've worked on an article for so long. Some more examples I saw while skimming through.

  • 'while it's composition"
  • "allot of texture"
  • "However, she wasn't about to"
  • ""Open Arms" receieved a negative review"

Ping me when someone not involved with the article has gone through it with a fine tooth comb, and I'll reconsider the oppose. Sasata (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Haven't really glanced through the full article but I can see that it says "It also topped the charts in New Zealand and peaked within the top five in Australia, Canada, France, Ireland and The Netherlands." When it said in the actual One Sweet Day article it says it topped the Canadian chart.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes your right, its a mistake. It did top the charts in Canada, I just corrected it. Thank you :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been correcting very small spelling and grammar issues for you but I'll point out others an example is "Always Be My Baby performed moderately overseas. The song peaked within the top five in Canada, New Zealand and the UK, but charted outside the top-ten elsewhere" Canada is not overseas =D Maybe saying "Always Be My Baby performed moderately in other commercial markets." is better.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, you got me again! All done :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Number of problems, needs significant rewriting—

  • The lead is far too long; album-article leads are normally a paragraph or two shorter than this. Cut down the detail on the individual singles, and concentrate on the album as a whole. You can also remove some info about the collaborators and charting/sales info (for eg: sales in Japan).
  • The order of info in the lead is also weird. Eg: why is her failure at the Grammys in the same paragraph as the one that discusses her music?
  • A Background generally sets up the scenario of what happened before the album's recording began. So do not summaries about the album's impact do not belong here ("The album saw Carey grow and find herself as an artist"). On the other hand, more needs to be included about the situation after her previous album. (Check out In Utero (album) for a good background section).
  • That second para is very critical of Mottola. You better explicitly quote opinions such as "Since the time of Carey's debut, Mottola had controlled nearly every aspect of her career..", instead of making it seem like fact.
  • Recording: Woah that's a huge quote, about just one song. Trim it down. In fact, the incorporation of so many big quotes from a single source might construe copy-vio (I think, not sure).
  • Also, the entire section focuses in too much detail on the recording of individual songs (which can go to the song articles) instead of the overall recording of the album.
  • Reception: do not mix up contemporary reviews from 1995 (NY Times) with retrospective reviews that came later (About.com). Cut down on the amount you quote these sites due to copyvio concerns. Try to find more reviews (Spin, Billboard, NME)
  • Why do Singles and Music videos have their own sections when the songs have their own articles?
  • Are those chart succession boxes necessary? Also, they are unreferenced.
  • Prose needs thorough copy-editing: "some of whom adding that it is her best record", "critics believed Carey would be one of the nights big winners", + you tend to overuse the word "album".
  • Avoid citing consecutive sentences with the same ref. Just one at the end would do. (for eg, just use ref #49 once at the end instead of the four times)—indopug (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand some of your mentions, but some I argue against. So, the lead is the correct length under Wikipedia rules. While you may not see it in other album pages its how its done. Look here for the rules of lead length. It says an article with over 30,000 characters should have 3-4 para. This article is around 72,000 characters, so its more than appropriate.
I will move the Grammy info and cut some lead out.
I will do as you ask for the background.
I will quote more on what I said about Mottola. PS none of the things are particularly negative.
For recording, I'll cut down some of the quotes etc. Songs are what make and comprise an album. It is essential to discuss their composition. I have never had a problem with that before.
I will cut down the quotes, but I see no issues with having them there together, they are both accepted.
Because they are still part of the album. I'm not going to remove everything except its background and sales.
I never had an issue with them, but I will remove them if you wish.
I was told to do that, so there is no issue of "unsourced material".--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 15:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since the time of Carey's debut, Mottola had controlled nearly every aspect of her career," is very very critical of Mottola, and would best be attributed as a quote. In fact, the whole article has quite a bit of POV that is passed off as fact; you need to attribute these to their sources, even if it is the biographer who says so ("the television cameras continued to zoom on Carey's face, who was finding it more difficult to retain her smile . . . The disappointment on her face was painfully obvious.").
  • Critical reception: it is vital to separate contemporary and retrospective reviews as it indicates how the work has been received over time. For eg: while initial reviews for the early Led Zeppelin were almost unanimously scathing, as time wore on, critics began to realise that the records were all, in fact, classics.
  • For the Recording, Singles and Music videos section: even if an album is comprised of its songs, on Wikipedia these songs can have their own articles. So there is no need to discuss them in detail here; just their importance with regard to the album as a whole. The music video section, in particular, should be excised completely, as nothing in it has anything to do with Daydream directly. All the info is about singles from the album.
  • I'm pretty sure there is no need to cite every consecutive sentence, if they are referenced by the same source.
  • The Recording and composition section is meant to discuss the music on the album, not heap praise on it. ("The song's writing and production were "superb,"", "Having Holland on the record proved to be wise, giving the song a genuine and unforced gospel feel.", "The song displayed subtle vocals from Carey, as well as an undeniable richness.")
Overall, I think there's too much that needs to be done within the scope and timeframe of FAC, and would suggest withdrawal.—indopug (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:34, 3 November 2010 [39].

Albany Pine Bush

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gyrobo (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is well-written and well-sourced, comprehensive, interesting, and recently became a GA.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Ref 5, 17, 31: "Save the Pine Bush": This appears to be a volunteer pressure group. As such, it is hardly likely to qualify as an impartial source. What are its credentials as a high quality encyclopedic source?
  • Ref 7 Likewise "The Stockade Association of Schenectady, New York, Inc.", which is also a preesure group. The page is well presented and informative, but no author is given; how do we know it is reliable?
  • Ref 15: ancestry.com - these sites are not written by historians and there is no vouching for their accuracy. As this is a double citation, is it worth keeping?
  • Ref 16: Several issues:-
    • The original edition of Moby Dick was published in New York by Harper & Brothers
    • You do not cite a page number.
    • A description within a novel does not seem convincing, encyclopediclly. How do we know that Melvile wasn't exercising poetic licence? On balance I would recommend withdrawing the sentence and the citation.
  • Ref 23 would not link for me
  • Ref 24: the publisher information is not in accordance with the link (Bartlett-Orr Press)

Otherwise, sources seem OK. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I tried to address your points in the following ways:
      1. Save the Pine Bush has its own article, and I feel it has enough refs to be notable.
      2. Likewise, the Stockade Association is referred to by third parties [40], [41], [42]. I see no reason to doubt that the site in ref 7 belongs to that organization, or any reason the information would not be accurate.
      3. I've removed the ancestry.com ref, you're right, it's not necessary.
      4. I've changed the wording of the Moby Dick sentence and added a page number.
      5. Ref 23 is a document that's within a Java-based reader, I've added a |format=Java parameter.
      6. I've fixed up the Stvdies for Albany ref.
    • --Gyrobo (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is not whether Save the Pine Bush or the Stockade Association are "notable" per Wiki definition; they no doubt are. It is whether they can be considered as independent and neutral, which is quite difficult for pressure groups. Are there no alternatives that support these statements? Brianboulton (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've found another ref to supplement the Stockade ref, it says pretty much the same thing but it's by Don Rittner, the author of another ref. I've found some new sources that could supplement/replace the Save the Pine Bush refs, but that Wolcott one is pretty much the definitive source I have for what happened following the 1912 study. I could keep looking tomorrow.
      --Gyrobo (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to see Stockade and Save the Pine Bush refs covered by additional refs. A couple of Pine Bushes still need cover. Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced most of the Save the Pine Bush refs, but one of the refs I'm using is purportedly a Times-Union article that's been copied verbatim on the Save the Pine Bush site. The Times-Union online archive doesn't go back far enough to cover it, but an incomplete version of the article is available at [43], so I don't see any reason to doubt the authenticity.
--Gyrobo (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard that, Camelbinky managed to find the Times-Union link I was looking for.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, the only information the ref still covers is a one-sentence assertion that the thruway and a brush manufacturer were built on Pine Bush land. Would it hurt this article if the sentence was removed completely?
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the Save the Pine Bush ref with a 1954 New York Times article describing the construction of part of the Thruway. It includes a map traversing the Pine Bush. I viewed the original article as a PDF via ProQuest.
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't believe it to be in the public domain. We might be able to use it under fair use but is it significant enough to be worth doing so?©Geni 22:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It represents the logo of an organization, Save the Pine Bush. I put it in an infobox on that page, it seems encyclopedic to keep it.
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping Jappalang (talk · contribs) for another look at the images. File:Pine-pitch.gif may be a copyvio and NFCC No. 8 needs further input before it can be used under Fair Use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked over the image and its caption, and in retrospect I agree that it really doesn't add significantly to the article. I've removed it, though the image still has license problems and is still being used on Save the Pine Bush.
--Gyrobo (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:34, 3 November 2010 [44].

Albany City Hall

[edit]
Nominator(s): upstateNYer 21:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was recently elevated to GA, though because the review came with no comments, I felt it necessary to initiate a peer review as well, which just recently finished. I believe this is a complete article; I have exhausted available mainstream sources, including accessing a couple books from the local library system. The building is listed on the NRHP, so its nomination form offered much of the content, though numerous local history books supplemented that. upstateNYer 21:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

(inset) If you are saying that it's OK to use this template without attribution because other articles do, that doesn't wash. Neither does the "implicit" argument. I repeat: there is more than one authoritative procedure for computing present-day value. It is essential that your general readers (not just other Wikipedeans who know about inflation templates) should know where your present-day figures come from, and the basis used. All you need do is add a note in your notes section which gives them this information. The argument about whether CPI inflation is appropriate for capital goods is a separate issue from proper citation, which is what I am concerned with here. Brianboulton (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwises all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments 2c: 2c is beautiful except for a bug lodged with citemap on failing to meet documented style with terminal fullstops. I tried handrolling a fix, but citemap throws breaking spaces. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the issue with the map citations? upstateNYer 03:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Newly introduced material (ie: stuff only cited in the notes), ends with a terminal full-stop/periods. The map citations are newly introduced material but don't end with terminal full-stops. Placing a full-stop after the {{cite}} doesn't work, because the {{cite map}} template throws forced spaces after the final entry in the template, leading to it looking like "Author Data ." instead of "Author Data.". cite map's documentation claims it uses terminal periods, but it fails to do so correctly, see example five in the template's own documentation. I've lodged a bug with the template's talk page. Given that this is an issue outside of control, which should be fixed when they fix the template, it shouldn't be construed as a blemish on the great 2c work here. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments 1c: Opposable on Inflation. Capital goods cannot be inflated by a Consumer Price Index. {{inflation}} is relatively honest about what it does, it "applies to [a price] the country's consumer price inflation until "recently"". Capital goods can't be inflated by a consumer price measure. 1832 capital good (land) $10,295.95.; 1832 capital good (building construction) $92,000; 1927 (carillon) $63,000. You also have three other capital goods costs for architecture and construction in the 1880s and shortly thereafter. Remarkably, Measuring Worth has just the device to calculate this measure, "Share of US GDP", Measuring inflation on a project "A "project". If the amount you are asking about is the construction of a church, the cost of a war, or a new highway, again the context is important. If the question is how much it cost compared to the present cost of materials or labor, you would use the GDP deflator and/or the wage or earning index. However, you may be more interested in how important this project was to the community or the country. In the past there were less amounts of materials and labor available for all projects. So to measure the importance of this project (compares to other projects) use the share of GDP indicator." We aren't talking about the cost of rebuilding the object today, but the social opportunity cost of investment. For the 1832 figure, Samuel H. Williamson (April 2010) "Seven Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a U.S. Dollar Amount, 1774 to present," MeasuringWorth. calculates the 1832 cost of $10,295.95 as a share of the US GDP in 2009 terms as $131 million dollars. The figure given in the article is currently $210,000 based on a CPI. The next time I see commercial land investment in my consumption bundle, I'll remember to eat some dirt. (I won't get into the problem of market non-existence here, but 1832 is just late enough, and your setting is sufficiently marketised and monetised for me to avoid this moment of pedantry). The solution is to go to MW using Share of GDP, and cite MW correctly, and indicate the calculation method used. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Inflation templates removed. While I think they are a positive attribute of the article to offer the casual reader a better understanding of the content, it's not worth failing an FAC for it. Now, can we get back to the real content of the article, please? upstateNYer 23:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment
I haven't read everything that is written here. I'm just going to crash in and disagree with the following:
Save for the bold asymmetrical placement of the tower (which is a prime example of Richardson's disregard for architectural correctness and known for being one of his best tower designs), the building is noted for its general simplicity in design. The entranceway is a simple triple-arch loggia; other design elements on the front façade are limited to its windows and a quadruple-arch balcony off the Common Council chamber. The building is simultaneously noted for its general simplicity and care for small details, especially its intricate carvings.[18] The entranceway is flanked by multiple tiers of relief sculpture and gargoyles.[23]
  • The tower is stated elsewhere to be Venetian in inspiration. Under those circumstances one would expect it to be asymmetrically placed. Hence it does not show Richardson's disregard for architectural correctness. It demonstrates Richardson's use of his architectural vocabulary to place the tower at the point at which it is going to have the greatest impact on the streetscape. The profile Of Albany City Hall juts forward a little from the other buildings on Eagle St. This adds to its effectiveness. The tower forms a counterpoint to the corner pavilions of the New York State Capitol. This is not accidental. Richardson is creating a tension between the buildings. Its a pity he didn't grab the corner building on the other diagonal axis and come up with something equally dramatic.
  • General simplicity in design. No. As far as Romanesque goes, and as far as Richardson goes, this building is not simple. In form maybe, since it is almost a cube, with a tower ang gables, but certainly not in its achitectonic devices.
1. The whole surface is heavily and elaborately rusticated. The rustications on the tower form a regular and pre-planned pattern which gives a great overall richness of surface.
2. All the architectural features are in contrasting stone of a rich colour.
3. There is an additional parquetry of stone in the gables and over lintels.
4. Every window in the building is of a complex form, and these forms vary, not only from floor to floor but from face to face of the building and across the same level. A comparison with the NY State Capitol shows that in this latter building the same main window shape is repeated over several floors.
5. The architect has utilised all the significant decorative features available within the Romanesque vocabulary. The deep portals have strongly projecting shafts around the supporting piers, which create rippling light and shadow. The upper loggia has clusters of shafts, rather than simple smooth pillars.
6. Each colonnette has a richly carved capital. The columns of the lower loggia rise into richly sculptured moldings.
7. Above all the larger arches Richardson has invested the building with decorative drip mouldings, finished with carved bosses at every terminal or joint. Even the little roof over the stair turret at the corner of the tower is equipped with a circlet of bosses.
The caption to an illustration reads City hall has intricate stonework, but because of its small size, it is a secondary design feature compared to the generally simple overall building design.
  • When one refers to "stonework" this ususlly means "masonry". I think you mean stone carving.
  • It isn't a "secondary design feature". The carvings are integrated with the forms that they decorate. ie. Wherever there is a boss (at every corner of a moulding) it demands to be carved. Likewise, wherever there is a capital (on the top of every on of those colonettes) it demands to be carved.
  • This sentence again states that the overall building design is "generally simple".
Let me emphasise again that while the form of the building is a basic box, nothing else about it is "simple", not even its roof structure, which is far more complex than it probably needs to be. This building has an abundance, one might almost say an over-abundance, of architectonic elaboration in the Romanesque manner. All the design choices that the architect has made, such as the shafts, the mouldings, the parquetry, the varied windows, have led to elaboration. As ones eye moves across the building, there is no point of repose.
A telling comparison is with Cincinnati City Hall, a much larger building, also rusticated and polychrome, but with very much simpler treatment of its many windows.[45] Royce Hall at the university of California is a good example of simple Romanesque REvival on a large scale.[46]
If the building is heritage listed, then someone at some time has probably written about this.
Amandajm (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:34, 3 November 2010 [47].

Albert Stanley, 1st Baron Ashfield

[edit]
Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An exceptional administrator, Stanley was running the Detroit tramway system at the age of 20, the New Jersey tramway system at 32 and most of London's railways, buses and trams by 38. From 1916 to 1919, he was a member of the British cabinet as President of the Board of Trade. In the 1920s he was the driving force behind the creation of London Transport and led it through its "golden era". For something to do in his spare time he was a director of the Midland Bank and ICI.

This is a renomination. It was nominated in August, but ran out of time. DavidCane (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • For someone with such a varied career, the lead seems rather short;
  • "In 1907, his management skills led to his recruitment by the struggling UERL which he quickly helped recover from a financial crisis and then managed during the London Underground's greatest period of expansion between the two World Wars." seems a bit of a clumsy sentence to me; any way it could be split up?
  • "Stanley was given responsibility for time tables when he was 17" is a bit unclear; does it mean he was responsible for scheduling the services, or that he was responsible for designing/distributing the printed timetables?
    • It was the scheduling of the services, both Tiltman and the ODNB indicate that his responsibility influenced the shift times of the workers. I have adjusted the sentence slightly to make this clear. --DavidCane (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that he served in the US military, does that mean he was a US citizen (and had to jump through all the renouncing-of-citizenship hoops when he took a British title), or did he retain his British citizenship and serve in the US forces as a foreign national?
    • None of the sources indicate that he had taken American citizenship, or that he had to renounce it later. I also found no record in the naturalisation lists in the London Gazette of a re-adoption of British citizenship, so I think he must have kept it when he emigrated.--DavidCane (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick alert! The caption "The first Underground map from 1908 showing the UERL's lines and those of the other tube companies and the Metropolitan Railway" is unclear—I suspect most people will read that as either "the first-ever map of London's underground railways", or "the first map to show both the UERL and the Metropolitan Railway's networks", rather than the (correct) "the first map to use the 'Underground' branding for all services regardless of ownership";
  • Nitpick alert (2): "Only the Metropolitan Railway (and its subsidiaries the Great Northern & City Railway and the East London Railway) and the Waterloo & City Railway remained outside of the Underground Group's control" is slightly misleading, to readers who aren't familiar with the London transport network and its spectacularly complicated ownership. The MR and the W&CR were the only non-UERL companies which were later sucked into the London Underground network, but there were many other railways in London not to be sucked into LU (such as the North London Railway);
  • "After the War, changed priorities and funding shortages led to much of the Northern line expansion plan being cancelled" isn't really true. The Northern Heights scheme was cancelled because the Metropolitan Green Belt legislation meant homebuilding in the areas around the new extension couldn't go ahead so there was no point continuing with construction, rather than any changed priority on London Transport's part.
    • I've added a bit about the green belt. The green belt was part of the cause, and affected the extensions to Bushey Heath and Denham, but it didn't cause the dropping of the Northern Heights sections between Finsbury Park and Alexandra Palace and from Mill Hill East to Edgware.--DavidCane (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, sort of—the Alexandra Palace and Mill Hill sections were dropped because they were predicated on Aldenham Works becoming a train-shed to handle the increase in rolling stock, and with the abandoning of the expansion into Hertfordshire due to Green Belt legislation, Aldenham was left unconnected to the Northern Line tracks and there was no suitable site along the existing route. I can't imagine anyone except me, you and possibly Redrose actually cares, so it's certainly not something I'd oppose over. – iridescent 19:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The post-1933 section rightly mentions about Ashfield and Pick's drive to improve the electric passenger network around London (the Piccadilly Line extension, the Northern Heights scheme etc). It could probably also do with a mention of the less glamorous, but equally significant, ruthless slash-and-burn approach to those parts of the network which didn't fit their vision (the rationalisation of the stations on the Piccadilly Line, the closure of the outer sections of the Metropolitan Line, the withdrawal of first class and Pullman services, the deliberate running-down of freight services). – iridescent 11:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Ealdgyth checked out the sources at the last FAC and there have been no changes that I can see, so sources still OK. Brianboulton (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – In Return to the Underground, there is a very long quote that takes up an entire paragraph, which by itself seems to have no context. You have to go to the prior paragraph to find it. My thinking is that this would be the perfect place for a block quote, due to its size (five lines on my computer) and what comes before leads into it nicely. If you don't want to use a block quote, the paragraph in question should still be changed so the quote doesn't stand alone like it does now; moving some material would be the easiest remedy. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - concerns now adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns:

  • File:Lord Ashfield by William Orpen.png
    Firstly is "circa 1925" a creation or publication date? Secondly, "based on contemporary photographs of Ashfield" implies it could be derivative of those photographs. What is the copyright status of the photograph this potrait was based on? Thirdly, Orpen died in 1931. British copyright law grants 70 years of copyright protection. That means on 1 January 1996, the work was still copyrighted in the UK. Therefore, publication before 1977 would mean that the work enjoys 95 years of copyright protection (still in force) in the US.
    I guessed at the date of creation as being around 1925 based on a comparison of photos of Ashfield from that time. His ODNB article indicates it was probably painted in 1930. The image itself was a presentation photograph in a folder signed by Ashfield, so probably from the same period. I'm not sure what the issue with the copyright period is - why 95 years? Another image by Orpen has been accepted in the past with the same copyright banner and has been on the main page.--DavidCane (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The 95 years of copyright is for possible US copyrights. Both Commons and Wikipedia are on US servers and hence, the media stored on them have to abide US copyright laws; those on Commons also have to be in the public domain in their country of origin. See commons:Commons:Licensing and Wikipedia:Image use policy. The US is a signatory to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), which bestows a US equivalent copyright to foreign works published before 1977 (without compliance with US copyright laws) and were still copyrighted in their countries of origin before 1 January 1996. See http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm. Jappalang (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. So we appear to have the distinctly perverse situation of a painting by a British/Irish artist that is in the public domain in the UK where it was created, but is still copyright in the US. Looks like it will have to go then and I'll have to find another.--DavidCane (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Might I suggest using File:Lord Stanley by Hugh Cecil.jpg? Cecil also shot one of Stanley scribbling at his desk (facing left) here but the image quality is kind of poor. Jappalang (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent. I considered that one, but couldn't be sure that it had been published in the US. This is the reverse of the Orpin: copyright in the UK because Cecil didn't die until the 1970s, but not in the US. From the UK, I just normally just get the snippet view of most google book, but with a proxy, I can see the whole thing. I'll have to see what else might have been lurking behind the veil. Many thanks for finding that. --DavidCane (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Tube map 1908-2.jpg
    Why is authorship stated unknown when "Johnson, Riddle & Co Ltd London, S E" is printed at the bottom right? Was the company contacted to make sure that "the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry" (per the wording of the PD-UK-unknown template)? Why is the title of the source 1910Map? Is this map a 1910 or 1908 version? Any way to corroborate the date of publication? Even the rear of this map show no obvious signs of its date.
  • Butting in, but this is an area in which I do have some knowledge: from the "Underground" logo, that's the 1908 map. Official London tube maps were always uncredited, until a few years ago. The copyright would have been held by UERL; Johnson Riddle would just have been the firm who printed the map, rather than the artist. (In this period, the printing contract flipped back and forth between Johnson Riddle and Waterlow's.) London Underground didn't use a named artist until Macdonald Gill and Fred Stingemore in the 1920s; before that, it would just have been the publicity department. – iridescent 22:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Iridescent. The titling of the web page is an error by the site. The smaller view here gives the year as 1908. In addition, there are a couple of indicators in the stations shown. The two Wood Lane stations (next to the grey box marked exhibition) opened in 1908 to serve the Franco-British Exhibition and "Gower Street" and "Bishopsgate" on the red line were renamed Euston Square and Liverpool Street respectively in 1909.--DavidCane (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends how you define "present owner". UERL was bought by the London County Council (although not nationalised) in 1933 and merged into the London Passenger Transport Board. The LPTB was nationalised in 1948 and became a part of the British Transport Commission. The BTC was abolished in 1963 and their London operations (including what had been UERL) became a government department in its own right, the London Transport Board. The LTB was handed over to the Greater London Council in 1970. The GLC was abolished in 1986, and rather than give the tube trains to the GLC's successors, they were re-nationalised as London Regional Transport. In 1999 LRT became the quasi-autonomous Transport for London. In 2003 TfL, while retaining formal ownership, leased the operations to Tube Lines and Metronet. Metronet then went bust, leaving three of the lines operated by Tube Lines and the remainder operated by TfL directly, and TfL then bought out Tube Lines bringing the network back under unified control. Ultimately the "present owner" would be the Commissioner of Transport for London on behalf of the Mayor of London, but with so many back-and-forth changes of ownership, the archives and histories are hopelessly complicated and spread across multiple sites. Certainly No Need to Ask!, which is the definitive history of early Underground maps, reproduces and discusses this particular map (p.50) with no information other than the printers, which strongly suggests to me that details of the original artist are lost (since a significant element of NNTA! is the comparison of the styles of different cartographers). – iridescent 09:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lord Stanley and daughter.jpg
    http://www.photoarchivenews.com/newsletters.html states that the L.N.A is with the Press Association. Were they contacted about the copyright of this photograph per "[ascertaining] by reasonable enquiry"?
    As indicated above, I hadn't been able to find out who had taken over the LNA's archive. Now that we know it is the Press Association, I'll see whether they can provide any information, though the image does not show up in searches of their online archive. --DavidCane (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "A similar image taken at the same time appears in the London Transport Museum photographic archive and is also credited to an unknown photographer" does not help the case since a publicity event would have various photographers at the scene (different agencies).
    Agreed, I was using that as an easy corroboration for Nikkimaria of the event and date only.--DavidCane (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I sent an email yesterday to the Press Association asking if the image is one of theirs and for any information they may have on the photographer. A response is awaited.--DavidCane (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These should be resolved before the article should be considered for promotion. Jappalang (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:00, 2 November 2010 [48].

Hit 'Em Up

[edit]
Nominator(s): Theornamentalist (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is well sourced, thorough and complete. This is also my first nomination, looking forward to the process. Theornamentalist (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, 1c (well-researched) for now. I did one source check, on the fairly bold claim that it "has been called the greatest diss song of all time". I'm assuming the sentence in the body meant to back this up is: "Those in the rap industry have referred to it as the best diss record."? The citation given does not appear to contain any information backing that claim. I retrieved the December 2006 issue of Spin; I was initially confused because your citation gives p. 85 and your entry in the Biblio gives p. 120. Which is it? At any rate neither of those pages contain anything written by Jennifer Tzar. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • XXL Magazine named it number one in their list of the Greatest Diss Songs of all time. Unfortunately, I could not find a free reliable source for it, and the link I gave only reveals numbers 11-20. I will check again. Regarding the statement from Spin, [here]. I mistakenly listed the photographer as the writer, and I'm going to change what it read. I initially had another source that claimed other execs/producers viewed it as the best, but for now I will simply list exactly who said it (which I should've done at that time anyway. As for the page listing, in the bibliography I included the number of pages of the source; figured it would help. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. It's clear a lot of work has been done and a lot of source material found but I think there's a few issues. A lot of wikilinks should be there but aren't, e.g. East Coast hip hop, "Don't Look Any Further", Johnny "J", Bad Boy Records, "Who Shot Ya?". Should comb through and link anything that's relevant. There's a lot of redundancy in the text: "responded in kind ... diss songs of their own", "has itself been called infamous as well", "Part of the controversy surrounding ... is due in part", "entirely authentic" and "in no way an act", "threatens retaliation in "Hit 'Em Up"" - no need to mention the song here. The article also didn't mention that 2Pac's real name was Tupac Shakur and that The Notorious BIG's was also known as Biggie. I removed "who sat beside him on a stool" which seemed weird. I took the liberty of fixing some of these (but may have introduced other badness).

    I think there needs to be more info on this East Coast - West Coast rivalry and more background info. The article is hard to read for people without any knowledge. For example, the November 30, 1994 shooting should be expanded, perhaps more about Tupac and Biggie's early relationship. I think the relationship between Tupac's death and the song needs to be expanded. It's unfortunate that the lyrics touch on so much topics but without the info, it's hard to understand. Some other sections also seem small, like the music section and the final paragraph - what did the academics find, where was it used as a lesson and what does "define anger in rap music" mean?

  • I'm not sure what this woman Tiffany (full name?) is doing. There's no mention of her in the rest of the article.
  • "The ferocity of Shakur's raging vocals,[6] as said by long time collaborator and producer of "Hit 'Em Up" Johnny "J", was entirely authentic." - this is not a good sentence and basically duplicates the following one.
  • "He explained that Shakur was initially fueled by his anger against Biggie and used this adrenaline, which he described as "superhuman", to attack the other East Coast rappers." - Not sure what this means. I take it means that he was at first primarily angry at Biggie, but in his anger, his attacks spread to other rappers.
  • "The second verse is performed ..." - not sure but maybe move up to where it describes the first and third verse.
  • "Biggie carelessly released" - not sure what carelessly means here.
  • "particularly with his .44 Magnum" - did he threaten the children with anything else?
  • Also was the song released unofficially before 4 June 1996?
  • Some of the info seem to be in the wrong place: "The original cover for the single had Puffy's head on a snake body, and Biggie's head on a pig's" after the release of the song in Nu-Mixx Klazzics, when re-releases were talked about in the above paragraph.
  • I take it the video of "2 of Amerikaz Most Wanted" used actors who impersonated Biggie and others and were again used in Hit Em Up video, but don't think the sentence is clear enough.
  • "ensured that he had nothing to worry about" - did they remove him from the set?
    • Unfortunately I do not know, Google Books limits that page for me, here. I know sometimes it has to do with a certain amount of pages being viewed before the preview ends. On page 132 it cuts off right at the point where he tells that he is armed. Maybe... I can stop in a bookstore this week and see if I can find it. - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "surpassing the song and video for Tha Dogg Pound's "New York, New York" in popularity" - why is this comparison being made?

There's lots of oddities and things being said when it's not clear how relevant it is and things not being explained. Also a lot of minor things like grammar and style but those can be sorted out easily. On the other hand I like sentences like "Shakur calls Biggie a "fat motherfucker"" and "You claim to be a player, but I fucked your wife". By the way this is my first review on FAC so forgive me if I did something wrong or said something people didn't understand. Would be good if an experienced reviewer looked over my comments to see if they're sound and not a figment of my imagination. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another problem found: The next reference I checked was Jenkins. You give Vol. 19, Issue 1, which does not match up with January 2000, which is Vol. 16, Issue 1. There is no Jenkins article in that issue; I'm assuming you mean January 2003? Since I've found two errors in two tries, I'm not sure what to make of the sourcing here—it seems not to have been carefully checked before coming to FAC. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. My mistake, it is supposed to be 2003, not 2000; the rest of the information is correct. As far as the remaining sourcing information, I checked over each twice when writing, I'm very surprised you found those errors. - Theornamentalist (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More - I'm sorry but this is looking bad. I believe you put a lot of work into this and I'm assuming good faith, but I've now checked four of the sources and found four instances of incorrect citations or misrepresentations. That's enough for me to question the sourcing of the entire article, which doesn't appear to have been done carefully. It appears that you may not have a good understanding of how to cite sources. The next two:
    • Gilmore. First, what edition to you have? You gave the ISBN of an unbound, out-of-print edition? Anyway, I checked all editions for your "Shakur's raging vocals" statement that's sourced to p. 460. Well, page 460 of Gilmore is in the middle of a chapter about Frank Sinatra. In fact, there only seem to be a handful of brief mentions of Shakur in the whole book, and none of them seem to come anywhere near the statement you are citing to Gilmore.
    • Golus. Forgetting the fact that this books seems only marginal journalism (Lerner is a publisher of children's books and this seems to be a children's "fan" book about Tupac), the page number is actually correct this time but it doesn't say anything close to the statement you are sourcing to it. You write "He also felt that Biggie carelessly released the song 'Who Shot Ya?', and although it did not mention Shakur's name, he felt it was mockingly directed towards him." The only thing in that sentence that Golus supports is that the song didn't mention Shakur's name. Later, you cite this same page for a statement about the Outlawz, who are not even mentioned on this page.
Ah, I think you ought to withdraw this. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, it might be in my best interest to go over this again; I apologize, I did not realize that it had so many errors, and I'm sort of embarrassed. For the record, I believe that the first Gilmore mention may have gotten moved into the wrong position, and unfortunately Gbooks has limited the views on that edition for me, and I cannot recheck that. In fact, it's not even showing page numbers anymore.. As for Golus, p. 58. the last sentence of the same paragraph is "In response, Tupac released the single "Hit 'Em Up" with his new side project, The Outlawz". I will not be able to address these issues tonight, but I think I can improve it if given a few days. If this does not belong in FAC until then, or it can wait is in your hands. But in case, thank you all for the reviews, and I believe this will pass eventually. :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the issues raised above. I've had a look through the sources and the comments in this FAC and it does look under-prepared. It is obvious that you have put a lot of effort into this article, but I would absolutely suggest addressing the concerns with the references, and then trying GAN before nominating it here again. Don't let the comments above put you off contributing—looking through your contributions you look like a very competent editor—but FAC is designed specifically to be a very tough process. Good luck improving the article, and if you need any help then feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. wackywace 19:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:57, 2 November 2010 [49].

Coat of arms of Albany, New York

[edit]
Nominator(s): upstateNYer 01:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete article regarding the coat of arms of the city of Albany, New York. In writing this article, I believe I have completely exhausted the sources on the topic and have created a concise, yet complete history and description of the past and current coats of arms of the city. This is a relatively short article, so reviews shouldn't take that long if you're looking for a quickie. :)

FYI, I realize that no alt shows for the infobox image, but it doesn't seem like that template offers an alt field. I have text in the infobox code for an alt, but it's just not being used. There are no other coats of arms FAs, so I had no precedent to look at with regards to a missing alt on the lead image.

Happy reviewing. upstateNYer 01:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 2c: Munsell, Joel (1865) lacks a location; is the location unknown? It also appears to be a self published source being used for a statement of fact, is the fact non-trivial or is Munsell an expert? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Location added. Munsell was a high-profile publisher in the mid 1800s in Albany. He was also the Albany city historian and author of many books. The fact that he was both was essentially coincidence. upstateNYer 01:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy, the right kind of SPS (expert, credible) and a very mid 19th century thing to be a person of many talents. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments
  • The infobox I've used at Canadian heraldry does take an alt parameter;
  • There are images sandwiching the text between them; this is bad for readability;
  • Is there a reason that you are using a mix of blazon and plain english to describe the arms?
  • That being said, I don't agree that the escutcheon is party per fess; it looks more to me like a chief; I'd probably blazon something along the lines of gules two sheaves of wheat Or, in chief argent a beaver (gnawing?) a tree (don't know the heraldic term for a felled tree) both proper, but would suggest checking with someone like Tamfang or WP:WPHV for a proper blazon. And upon closer inspection, your source here includes an attempt (though not a very good one) at a blazon; why didn't you use it?

That's just a quick look. → ROUX ₪ 01:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made the reference to the Albany Institute more explicit. That was the source for 90% of the text in that section. I include plain English because most people don't know the technical terminology. As for it being party per fess, that comes from the same reference you source. Not knowing what that meant when I originally wrote this, I went searching and thought the example matched what I was looking at. Apparently 'blazon' means something more than I thought. Can you be more explicit? I didn't use the terminology fully from the source so I wouldn't plagiarize, but then again with the limited terminology, that's not easy. Template:Infobox heraldry doesn't include the detail of the template I used. I'd rather be missing an alt for a while than the necessary detail of the article (i.e., what's more important to the article?). upstateNYer 01:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly acceptable to quote verbatim as long as proper attribution is given. Blazon has two basic meanings: first, a blazon is a description in heraldic language of a given armorial achievement. In fact, it is the blazon that is actually awarded; any depiction of the arms contained in the blazon, so long as the elements are reproduced faithfully, is correct. The easiest way to explain it is that the blazon is a recipe; there will always be variations in the cooked product, but any competent person given the recipe will create something that undeniably is what was intended. Secondly, blazon is the heraldic language, derived mainly from Norman French. 'Party per fess' means 'parted in a fess' (using the image you quoted above, you can see why the arms as illustrated in the image don't appear to be per fess; party per fess is an equal division of the field. given the source however, it would appear either that the illustrator was not entirely competent, or that the source itself is mistaken). In addition, 'armiger' means 'bearer of the arms' in this case the City of Albany (or whatever the official name for the body is). I think perhaps you might be well served by getting some of the folks at WP:WPHV to go over this article before you try for FA. → ROUX ₪ 02:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is actually a pretty small part of the article, so I'll ask them to weigh in here. upstateNYer 02:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:51, 1 November 2010 [50].

Ulnar collateral ligament (elbow)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hipnotic88 (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because revisions, edits, and updates have been made to improve the ulnar collateral ligament page. Hipnotic88 (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Please see WP:PR; this article is significantly underprepared for FAC.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/November_2010&oldid=399618717"