Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2007

Beijing opera

I have been working on this article for about 2 months. I now feel that it is just about ready for FAC. The topic is Beijing opera, the most famous type of Chinese opera. I think I have covered everything about this topic, without going into detail that could best be put in a sub-article. It has been in peer review for over 10 days, but I don't think it is going to get any more comments. Thanks in advance.--Danaman5 17:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I forgot that articles shouldn't be at peer review and FAC at the same time, so I have now archived the peer review.--Danaman5 19:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Support - as I can see that the Peer Review has been "taken care of" I have to say that this is a good and well-referenced article. Booksworm Talk to me! 20:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Support - All expectations have been addressed. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Is there a reason for the lack of citations in the lead? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 09:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have always been a bit confused about citations in the lead. Some people say it is required, others don't. Look, for example, at the featured article on the Main Page today, Dhaka. No citations in the lead. However, look at the article Yosemite National Park, recently on the main page. Citations in the lead. So which is it? If you can direct me to some policy or some kind of discussion on this issue where there is a consensus affirming the need for citations in the lead, I will add them. Otherwise, it just seems redundant to me.--Danaman5 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Citations added.--Danaman5 06:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment; there seems to be a slight confusion between haushan and haudan in the Dan section: "a haushan combines the status of the qingyi with the sensuality of the huashan" doesn't make sense. Is the second haushan supposed to be haudan? Other than that, this is a fine article. Laïka 12:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you.--Danaman5 16:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Support; an interesting and detailed article. Laïka 16:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Waisale Serevi

Is about the famous Fijian Rugby sevens footballer. I believe this article meets FA criteria, is well referenced, comprehensive, notable. Thanks. (self-nom) - Shudda ^talk 07:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Some of those refs can be combined. For instance;

  Fiji advanced to the semi-finals where they faced New Zealand.[61] During the match Serevi was tackled late by New Zealander Amasio Valence.[61] Fijian player Marika Vunibaka ran 50 metres to punch Valance and a brawl then started.[61] Fiji ended up losing the game.[61]

  As the one source is describing the same game, this need only be sourced at the end of the description of the game rather than the end of each sentence.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 22:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I will go through and change this. - Shudda ^talk 05:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Please let me know if there are any others you would like me to remove. - Shudda ^talk 09:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Question? Why is the article at GAC and FAC at the same time? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, nominated for GAC before FAC and forgot to remove GAC nomination. Have fixed this. - Shudda ^talk 23:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support - article is well written and comprehensively researched about one of the worlds most reknowned rugby player...--Cometstyles 14:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Just read it all, very comprehensive and well written, nice work. Support to FA status. Goldman07 15:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - It has all necessary information about Serevi. Well written and extensive, it deserves to be featured. Deco16-10 17:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - well written article for a man who is a legend in his field MB 20:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

2012 Summer Olympics bids

Self-nomination – This article is under the scope of the Olympics WikiProject, of which I am a member. Yet I only started to contribute to its improvement after a peer-review request was open for it, by another member. Since then, I've been the main editor and I believe this article has reached a very high level of information and, in general, it follows the style guidelines and the criteria needed to reach featured status. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 20:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Since I was one of the editors who got the article up to GA status, I'll abstain from voting, but will just comment and say that the article is a great overview of the 2012 Olympic bids candidate cities, like London and Paris, and of the progression of the bid in general. In all, the article is well sourced and contains a whole bunch of encyclopedic information in a logically progressive and flowing way. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  20:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. A lot has been put into this article since it was last edited by myself. This article has been copyedited numerous times, and the editors have finally started settling down on a good copyedited version. I believe this article is great, and I think I can now, without bias, give my support for this article's FAC nomination. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  14:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I participated in the peer review and I am currently copyediting the entire article. It has shades of poor prose and layout here and there. On the whole, this is a very visually pleasing and informative article that has a lot of potential. However, a subject like this needs a little more referencing that it currently has. I'll try to highlight specific "trouble spots" that you might want to address:
  • "They were granted the right to use Olympic symbols and the label "Candidate City" (or "Ville Candidate") in their campaign literature." This sentence should have a citation to the official IOC rules regarding this.
    • Added citation and rephrased. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 04:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Originally, London was seen lagging behind Paris by a considerable margin, however this started to change with the appointment of Sebastian Coe as new head of London 2012, on May 19, 2004." This sentence needs a reference if it is not covered by your wrongc ref.
    • Added reference. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 04:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "After the Games, the East London region will have of one of Europe's largest urban parks created in decades and will be home to the Olympic Institute, a centre for sports medical centre and a place to study the Olympic ideals." This sentence is hard to rework considering I don't really know the details. In general, could you try to get the fluff out of these cit bids sections? Make them read like a Wall Street Journal report, not an IOC bid pamphlet ;-D.
    • Well, I didn't write these bid summaries, but I'll do what I can. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 04:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I think I solved it and I referenced that "largest urban park" part. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 04:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "The bid committee also proposed the London Paralympic Games, which would be as important as the Olympic Games." Same thing here. "As important as the Olympic Games?" According to whom? Who says the Olympic Games are important or not important? This phrasing has to go unless it's specifically stated in the official literature of the London bid in which case you'll have to put quotes around it and mention who said it from a NPOV.
    • I simply deleted it as I couldn't find refs nor did I find it necessary to stay. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 04:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "London was considered by many to be second favourite for the bid after Paris, but last-minute intense lobbying by the bid team in Singapore probably swung the votes in their favour." By whom were they considered? If you find a source for this sentence, I suggest rewording it to this: "...but intense lobbying by the bid team at the later stages of the bid process in Singapore swung the votes in their favour." Careful with words like probably. Remember: According to whom?
    • Added reference and your suggestion. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 04:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Following the success of the bid there were further developments and announcements, including reactions to the security fears highlighted by the 7 July 2005 London bombings." This definitely needs a citation and you need to figure out where you want to put it. Don't leave it sitting out there on its own as a one-sentence paragraph. Avoid one- and two-sentence paragraphs.
    • Added reference and rephrased. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 05:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Paris's plan was very compact, with the placement of several sports in the Northern and Western Clusters and the Olympic Village between the two clusters." What do you mean by "compact?" I mean, I know what you mean, but reword it better and say that they were going to be placing several sports facilities in the...
    • Rephrased that sentence. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "The plan had gained high technical merit due to the city's well-maintained transport system, its ability to handle a peak number of tourists with plentiful accommodation, and very high support for the bid among Parisians and the nation. I understand the first two for technical "merit," which should be referenced, but I don't understand how the last one fits in. The whole thing needs to be referenced. If you have access to the IOC review of Paris, that would suffice, but be sure to say in the prose "...high technical merit from the IOC."
    • Added source for that and explained better. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Paris also planned to build temporary venues for some sports that can be moved and reused elsewhere after the Games (dubbed "pre-cycling")." Reword and reference this sentence.
    • Added reference and reworded it. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Its rich cultural and Olympic heritage were also emphasized. All of these items placed Paris in a very strong position." Now don't get me wrong, I like this sentence because it is, obviously, true. However, my problem with it comes with the use of the words "rich cultural...heritage." Paris is a fantastic city with a rich cultural heritage, but the way you word it in this sentence makes it seem like the other cities didn't have this going for them. Reconsider it unless you can find a direct IOC review reference.
    • I've included it in the above copy-editing. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Madrid, Spain's capital city, beat out Seville to represent the country on the international stage." I'm sure it's easy to ref this one. It might be something people want to look into, so give them the news story.
    • Added reference. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Madrid presented an above average bid, with almost all sports contested in three clusters, all within very close proximity of each other." I don't really get this sentence. What were the sports contested? How did that relate to the bidding process?
    • Rephrased and fixed the ambiguous meaning. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "The public transport infrastructure would have been able to accommodate the hundreds of thousands gathering in the capital, and this positive situation was coupled with the use of renewable energy and hydrogen vehicles." This sentence needs a reference and it needs clarification. Do other cities in the world not have renewable energy vehicles? I live right next to NYC and I know I've seen some driving around.
    • Added reference and rephrased. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Madrid had also organised several high-quality European and World championships, accounting for the city's hosting experience. The bid gained resounding support among the city and national population and was helped with the support of former IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch, who was lobbying votes for the Madrid bid." These two sentences are POV and need citations and a reworking.
    • Removed POV terms and referenced. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "New York City was selected over San Francisco as the sentimental favourite during the United States competition, in 2002." Could you please reference the "sentimental" favorite part?
    • Added reference and removed that POV part. (I didn't put it but I also didn't proofread it earlier) Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "The Olympic X Plan was the main concept proposed by the NYC2012 Bid team: two primary transportation lines would have strung the several individual clusters in Manhattan, Queens, and Brooklyn together." You have to really reconsider using so many colons. They can really begin to hurt prose if you overuse them. Was it at any point officially referred to as "NYC2012" or is this your shortening? You should call it by its full name or "the New York City bid." Why is "Bid" capitalized? Was this the entire plan?? If not, rework the whole section to make it flow better.
    • I also didn't write this part but I tried to cleanup a little bit. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "By combining existing world-class facilities such as Madison Square Garden, Yankee Stadium, Central Park and the National Tennis Center, with new venues like the Brooklyn Arena, Greenbelt Olympic Equestrian Park, and Olympic Regatta Center, the city hoped to show that it was worthy of holding an event of such magnitude." Who says MSG is world-class? Can you provide wikilinks to these other proposed facilities? If not, can you reference them? Can you really consider Central Park a "facility?" Rework the rest of this section to remove fluff and stick to official terms. Don't just call the plan "X." Get more refs.
    • References added and reworked prose extensively. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Moscow's River Plan called for every single competition to be staged within city limits, making this one of the most compact proposals ever." Again the word compact I find weird in this context. The proposal wasn't compact, but the layout was, right?
    • Rephrased. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Despite the high support from the entire nation and invaluable experience..." This phrase in the Moscow section irks me. It sounds like more fluff from Moscow's concession speech.
    • Yeah, I rephrased it to sound less propaganda :P Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Similar allegations were repeated by several members of the Paris 2012 delegation." This needs a citation. In general with a section as controversial as this one, you need lots and lots of references that clearly point to verification of the claim. Right now there are scattered citations that have been used throughout the article and are probably general sources. Try to find the specific stories here and source them.
    • Removed that unsourced sentence and added every possible reference to each statement. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Probably the most controversial move by London 2012 was its initiative to offer incentive packages for participating athletes (including free flights, economical accommodations, food and vouchers for long distance calling) and immediately after announcing it, London 2012 withdrew it. This U-turn was probably a result of President Jacques Rogge raising concerns because it could have started a "bidding war" if not withdrawn." Needs a citation.
  • "Paris 2012 also claimed that the lobbying by Tony Blair would have broken IOC rules." Needs a citation.
  • "This was strongly denied by Downing Street." Needs a citation.
    • Citations added for the last three points. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Shape up the whole last section just in general. I like the referencing you have done so far, but there are some one-sentence paragraphs in there and it's overall clumsy. Get someone to copyedit it once you've finished. Just one last note: perhaps you should have responded in the peer review before bringing it here and this list might have been shorter ;-). JHMM13 01:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I joined paragraphs, copyedited the prose and unlinked some words to make it more readable (check on this please). Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This article is getting really close. I've copyedited the entire thing twice now and the main editor and I have coordinated on getting some of the facts straight. I'd like to see a few other people sweep through it before I support it, but right now I would say it's 90% of the way to a FA with my efforts exhausted through copyediting and other stuff. My reccomendation to anyone thinking about flat-out objecting this article is this: this user really has put forth a tremendous effort on an article that is not only very visually pleasing, but also very informative and well-sourced. English is not his first language, so try to give him the benefit of the doubt. If you find any mistakes here and there, try to reword it a little better and we'll all get this thing up to FA status. JHMM13 05:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Ref #42 is broken.--Rmky87 01:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed reference. Thank you for pointing it out. So many refs to put can lead to this. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 01:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment—It's quite well written, but please fix such things as:
  • "hotly-contested"—no hyphens after "-ly".
  • "3rd"—spell out single digit numbers.
  • "Paris's plan also"—ungainly possessive, plus remove redundant "also". Need to reduce or eliminate possessive apostrophes for cities, e.g., "Paris's and London's delegations"—yuck.
  • Tony Blurr is linked twice; once is certainly enough.
  • "Prior to the election,"—what's wrong with "before"?
  • "tensions had started growing between"—This is WP's very own disease, which I call startitis. "tensions were growing".
    • Fixed all examples, except the Blair links (the same happens with "Jacques Rogge"). The first instances are on the lead, but the second ones are on a subsection almost at the bottom of the article. I don't think it is that unnecessary or useless to have these names wikilinked two times, as per WP:MOS-L. Anyway, thanks for catching with some bugs that escaped previous copy-edits by English speakers. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 01:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• That's from a cursory look; more attention is required throughout. In terms of content, I find it lop-sided (Criterion 1b) that there's no mention in the "Controversies" section of the clearly documented corruption that goes on with Olympic city competitions. Tony 00:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You're talking about corruption during THIS bidding process or in general? I don't know if this article is the adequate for the latter option. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 01:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I have added two more topics to the Controversies section (one I don't even know how I could overlook!). I'll ask for copy-editing on these new additions. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 03:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the big green ticks are one thing, but I can't change my Oppose until the whole article is spruced up. Tony 03:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think I can do better than this, as far as writing style and prose is concerned. Although I believe I have a good English vocabulary, I'm no native English speaker. Therefore, I can only rely on those users who are. The article has been copy-edited twice by User:JHMM13 but I've already requested help from other users. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 03:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Please let me know when it's ready for another look. Tony 22:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It's too hard to read this thing with all this color-coding and green marks; would it be possible to get rid of them? It seems to be a convention taking hold this week, and it would be really good to stop it. They don't mean anything; reviewers strike objections when they consider something done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • So sorry! I've removed them all now. I apologize for the disturbance. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 02:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment/Appraisal Let me start off by first saying I find this article an interesting read? I didn't think zo much controversy would go on for the 2012 Summer Olympicz. The titles "Tony Blair's Olympic pitch", "Ivan Slavkov corruption scandal", "French recriminations following vote", and "Mistaken voting controversy" wre intriguing to me. I'll break it down like this.
  • Pros-article is interesting and a great overvew of what has happened. You wrote sections on the Bidding process (Evaluation of applicant cities, Evaluation of candidate cities, Final selection process). It was solid but more kinks could have been added. It sort of sounds too formal. Instead of "it begins", it could it started or what not. The Final selection process was explain well and brief. I like/approve of the short tables to save space for the 52kb article. The canduidate cities sections were explaine accurately and brief to fit the article.
  • Cons-Not much, article is very accurately sourced and arranged. Just for the Bidding Process and the Ivan Slakov scandal add more links or shorten up. And add more links to the article in general.
    • Overall, very good article, overview and is worth a look.Showmanship is the key 00:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your review and comments, Supershow. You say it needs more links overall — you mean wikilinks? I'll see what I can find out that deserves to be linked, though I sense I've already linked pretty much what deserved to be linked; don't want to overlink. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 02:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I am now convinced that this article is worthy of FA status. JHMM13 03:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The captions of the logos up to the section titled "Candidate city overview" contain the critical commentary in part necessary to establish a solid claim at fair use. The logos included after that do not. They appear decorative to me. I recommend that they be removed and viewed if and when the reader clicks the "Main article" link? --Iamunknown 08:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree. I think they do add a nice sectioned quality to that part of the article, and further shows that that candidate has a logo which is representing it. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  11:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • We don't entirely disagree, then. They do have a nice sectioning quality, but that is a decorative, uninformative quality, which is an inappropriate use of non-free content per Wikipedia:Non-free content. --Iamunknown 11:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Despite considering that they look nice there, this isn't a proper motif to keep them, according to the non-free content policy item #8. Besides, the photos for each city section also have an example of the bid logo, so there's actually no need to have the complete logo again. I shall remove them, to comply with the free content rules. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 15:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
        • The other images are appropriately used, my concerns are now addressed and, I should say, the article is excellent. --Iamunknown 18:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I'd love to support this article, but I'm currently concerned about the use of the logos within this article - there is no need for the candidate city logos unless you are discussing the use or design of the logo. Laïka 13:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Support; the copyright issue has been addressed, and this is now an excellent article. Laïka 16:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Object - Non-free images lack article-specific fair use rationale, per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#10. Pagrashtak 22:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • To all above, I agree now that they were an unnecessary fair use vio, and so I'm perfectly fine with the removal. To the above editor, I would encourage you to review your objection accordingly. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  22:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I will review when either the images have been removed or article-specific fair use rationale has been added. Pagrashtak 00:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't consider that, Pagrashtak, but I agree that the fair use rationales are considerably lacking. I would recommend scrapping the fair use template and directly addressing the points detailed at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. --Iamunknown 00:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If you mean scrapping the {{fair use rationale}} template, I completely agree. Pagrashtak 00:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • (Wow, I've been causing mass confusion today.) Yes I mean scrapping Template:Fair use rationale. --Iamunknown 04:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've added article-specific fair use rationales for the non-free logos. For the London bid, I even replaced the SVG version (inadequate for copyrighted logos) for a smaller resolved PNG version. As for the photo on the Moscow section, I've replaced it for one with a proper license (CC-BY) that I found on Flickr. Can anyone check if everything is solved now? Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 20:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Objection struck. Thanks for your work. Pagrashtak 05:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Asser

Passed GA; I have since copyedited and reorganized to try to improve flow and quality of prose. I think it's fairly thoroughly sourced and feel it's ready to try to get to FA status. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• At first glance the lead would need to be expanded twice or maybe thrice to satisfy WP:LEAD. Isn't there an image (carving, figure, drawing, painting, whatever) of him you could put to illustrate the article? --Ouro (blah blah) 06:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded the lead somewhat; sorry -- I meant to do that before I nominated. Take a look and see if you think it's an improvement. As for an image, I know of nothing depicting Asser himself, and I am sure there's nothing that even claims to be an accurate depiction. There was an image of a book cover showing a Penguin edition of the Life, but I replaced it with the manuscript image after discussion with a GA reviewer. Mike Christie (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I will try to take an in-depth look tomorrow, Mike, I didn't have time today. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 20:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• It ssems quite good to me. I like the discussion of the manuscript sources. One request though, I would like to see the shelfmark of the Cotton manuscript listed, even though it is no longer extant, it is still an important part of identifying the manuscript. Dsmdgold 14:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I should have thought of that. I've added it, with some minor associated copyediting. Mike Christie (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Support now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmdgold (talk • contribs)

• Comment: Cite 17 seems to be broken; it's trying to find <Ref Name=CE_Asser>, but there's no other cite with this name. Laïka 11:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Took me a second to figure it out; the first cite was meant to be named that, so it's just a reuse of the first Catholic Encyclopedia cite. Mike Christie (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no further comments, so Support. You could add Persondata to the article, but it's completely optional, and as his date/place of birth and his place of death are unknown, it may not work that well with this article. Laïka 11:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Nice work. Compact, informative, interesting. Meets FA criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Jerusalem

Peer review, First FAC – restarted by Raul654 03:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Self-nomination The Jerusalem article is comprehensive and very well-referenced, fulfilling all of the featured article criteria. There was some objections over some material in the lead during the previous FAC, but since then those matters seem to have been straightened out and the article stabilized. The article presents the city of Jerusalem in a neutral light with "brilliant" prose. The article does not use any fair-use images and it does not appear to violate any standards set forth by WikiProjects and Wikipedia in general. Before anyone gawks at the length shown when hitting the edit this page link, I would like to note that there are only about thirty-four kilobytes of readable prose; that is well within the "rule of thumb" established by Wikipedia:Article size. -- tariqabjotu 04:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support- well referenced and good use of free use images. I think there could be some sections that could be trimmed a little, but that is not a major flaw. Thunderwing 14:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think some of the statements with multiple refs that are not used elsewhere can be consolidated into one ref which carries the multiple citations. As you've done on ref [4]. See: [45][46], [62][63], [67][68][69], [96][97][98] and [100][101].-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I took care of one of the triple references. The other one included a reference used somewhere else in the article. I left the double references alone as they're not really a huge problem. However, I would not make a big fuss if someone were to combine them. -- tariqabjotu 21:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Object I am not sure why I am supposed to repeat the objections raised during the previous nomination, but I will. The lead does not conform to WP:LEAD, as it does not adequately summarize the article; for example, the history is condensed into one, largely meaningless, sentence; the third paragraph smacks of recentism, many sections are not covered at all, while the description of the Old City is given undue weight and so on and so forth. The section of history is replete with POV and errors, as already discussed. Possibly, it is the result of the section relying mainly on one website, which appears to be wholly based on Britannica (a note at the bottom says "Source of written material: Britannica.com"). In general, the quality of sources is nowhere near what is required of a featured article: there are literally hundreds of supreme quality books and acholarly articles on Jerusalem, but none of them appears in the article, which is mostly sourced to miscellaneous websites and newspapers. I could point out further inaccuracies, especially in the "Religious significance" section, but I don't think it's worth the trouble at the moment. Beit Or 18:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It's impossible to please everyone on the intro, as seen in the previous FAC. However, note that the intro does not need to cover every single section of the article. It is, however, permissible to cover the current state of the city (using current population figures, the fact that it's the capital of Israel, and its disputed status as capital of Israel); I'm not sure how that's recentism. I can't see how you can say "The section of history is replete with POV and errors, as already discussed."; you have not said anything about what you see as the section's bias. During the last FAC, you claimed the section was not comprehensive enough, and we pointed you to History of Jerusalem. You pointing out one thing about the Pact of Umar. After we changed it accordingly, you alleged that was not good enough, but refused to reveal your issue with the piece. You are wrong that any information comes from ; it comes from , a different location which does not mention Britannica at all. Not all of the information comes from that source anyway. I have had enough of this now Beit Or; unless you start listing some specific, real objections, I'm just going to ignore this. You have made it quite clear that there is nothing in the world one could do to satisfy your objections to this article; we change one thing, you complain about another. I'm not going to bend over backwards for you. -- tariqabjotu 20:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Well spoken. During the last FAC, Beit Or refused to acknowledge any changes we made based on his advice. He spoke only in generalities, and refused to mention anything specifically wrong, or offer his own version of what things should look like. nadav 05:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Tariq, your threat to ignore my objections rings hollow, since this is what you have generally done; any changes that were made did nothing to improve the article or to address my concerns. When I say it's unacceptable that the history of Jerusalem is jammed into one, mostly meaningless sentence in the lead, you dismiss me for not raising any "real" issues. Sorry, but I'm afraid this discussion has become pointless. Beit Or 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Hope you don't mind if I join your discussion; the lead has been discussed very extensively, much work has gone into balancing the details and IMO it is now an acceptable compromise. With a topic so hotly debated, one cannot expect anything better without running the risk of reigniting the flamewars. Kosebamse 04:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written, well-referenced, nicely illustrated with free images, good size, and it manages to steer through the contentious issues with an even hand. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Rlevse 20:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Well-balanced article. Axl 20:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Given a complex and contentious topic with millennia of strife and discord, this interesting and informative article presents a good summary in a balanced and neutral fashion. Crum375 20:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support, per nom. nadav 05:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support, it's a great article (disclosure - I've been a minor contributer to the article). okedem 09:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Very balanced. JFW | T@lk 15:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• SupportSumoeagle179 19:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, since it appears that objecting is a waste of time: What will we learn when the article, once featured, will become a POV battleground? I hope I'm wrong, but I anticipate that it will be locked within hours of being featured and will probably not get stable for months.--Leifern 20:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Who said objecting was a waste of time? If you have an objection that can be addressed, you are free to bring it up. However, you cannot object just because the name of the article is "Jerusalem" and it sounds like there might be an edit war in the future. To be honest, there is very little about this subject that's controversial. It's a city. With documented history. Etc, etc. The problem is that articles like this one tend to attract people who can see bias in the number three. Ultimately, I think you're being too pessimistic. -- tariqabjotu 20:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Proabivouac is right - objecting is a waste of time, because the article was relisted mostly - it seemed - for the benefit of those who support its being featured. My view is not speculative - take any article that touches on the Arab-Israeli conflict - even tangentially - and there is huge controversy. I am all for recognizing well-developed, stable articles by featuring them; but not if having them featured is likely to lead to the article being less stable and subject to even more contention. I certainly appreciate the ambition of wanting it featured, and as I said, I hope I'm wrong and ultimately too pessimistic. But if the amount of noise created by the first FAC is any indication, I'd be remiss in not issuing a warning. --Leifern 14:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      • ..the article was relisted mostly - it seemed - for the benefit of those who support its being featured That notion is completely unfounded. -- tariqabjotu 18:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Look, I'm not trying to make an argument here. I have some minor issues with the article but not enough to make a stink about it. My point is that - no matter how good the article is - this is a topic that invites controversy, and featuring it will invite even more of it. I'll support a Good article nomination, will gladly give you and other kudos for your contributions, but I must warn against the fallout of featuring an article that has ongoing, current, and vitriolic controversy. Maybe you think that's beside the point, but I think it's relevant. --Leifern 19:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I responded to Leifern's previous comment here Raul654 23:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
            • ...which is a bad faith response, as was the accusation of vandalism. In any event, I have noted my response here and would hereby like to register my dissatisfaction with the way Raul654, who has been entrusted with an important responsibility, is handling this issue. --Leifern 15:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
              • A bad faith response? No... not at all. You downgraded your statement to merely a comment here, but on the previous reincarnation of this FAC, you objected "simply because the article - like the city, it sadly seems - will never be entirely stable, and will never be free of NPOV arguments and partisanship." You have not raised any objection to the article's current state, and I get the impression that you do indeed believe it is of supreme quality (given that you said you'd "support a Good article nomination, [and] will gladly give [me] and other kudos for [our] contributions". Thus, your "objection" is in direct violation of the FAC rules: Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it. You may not have exactly said "this article can never be a featured article because..." but that's clearly what you're essentially saying. Don't go throwing spurious accusations of "bad faith" and removing the comments of others because you can't understand that kind of objection is invalid. -- tariqabjotu 15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                • So you know now, what I can and can't understand? And that isn't bad faith? The objection I noted was specific and addressable. As far as I can tell, there is no policy or rule that says that any article can and should be featured once all the objections are met. Now, I could have been less upfront and more obstructionist by listing all kinds of shortcomings in the article; but instead I raised an issue that we should earnestly confront, which is whether featuring an article about a highly controversial topic is wise, considering the involved risks. I think this is a valid concern, if our objective is to a) promote Wikipedia as a stable and informative source of information, and b) we should avoid inviting acrimony. --Leifern 20:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                  • How is it addressable? I can see no way of "fixing" the fact that this is a controversial article. Raul654 01:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• • [The following was incorrectly posted on the archived page in response to Raul654:] First of all, I never said "this article can never be a featured article because..." so I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. Second, I think it would be in good form to not direct people to ignore others' opinion. You may disagree with my point, but to discard it without further consideration is an act of bad faith. Third, we may have an unwritten policy that any article, if written well enough, can be a featured article, but I certainly think it's legitimate to raise the risk that featuring it might lead to its degradation. --Leifern 15:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I suppose the notion that objecting is a waste of time comes from the fact that this was immediately relisted after the last FAC.Proabivouac 05:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • My guess for the restarting of the FAC was that it had been unclear whether the objections raised had been satisfied and threads were very lengthy. Let me clarify that Raul had merely blanked the FAC and started it anew. I merely split the histories to two different pages (with Raul's permission). So, it may not be entirely correct to say one FAC failed, and another was created immediately afterward. I will ask Raul for the rationale behind his move, but I seriously doubt it was because he just wanted steamroll over objections. -- tariqabjotu 18:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • What I noticed was that the first FAC was quickly overrun with the same kind of debate you'd see on an article related to this subject. --Leifern 19:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Object—1c. Unnecessary Israeli bias has not been addressed. Tony 03:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry for having to take this approach again, but this is just becoming increasingly obnoxious. People keep saying there's bias in this article, but no one will state where that bias is. Instead, they point out obscure segments of the article and claim bias based on misinformation about what a capital is, simple differences in word choice ("extends" vs. "may be found"), or the fact that certain information meant for other articles is not mentioned here. Quit inventing bias, and provide real examples. -- tariqabjotu 04:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I think Tariqabjotu brings up a good point - POV is subjective, so people objecting that it's POV should be prepared to present compelling examples. Raul654 04:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support succinct, comprehensive, well-written. Is neutral enough for me. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Probably needs a good scrutiny to check that WP:MoS issues are ok. The very first sentence is structurally wrong. A "nbsp" (or the use of Template:Convert) is missing when the area is mentioned. A number followed by an unit should have an non-breaking space (unless the said template is used). During thr first FAC, edits were done in the body of the article so that nbsp or the convert template is used. It's not good to see same mistake in the lead during the second FAC.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I added the non-breaking spaces, as you requested. Was that all you meant by "structurally wrong" or was there something else? If you believe there are more violations of the Manual of Style, please point them out (or just fix them). -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes I meant the lack of nbsp by "structurally wrong". I read the whole article during the first FAC. Have not read it now. So do not know if there are more such instances. But an incorrect structure in the very beginning (after a long stay in the FAC) gives an impression that the article needs one thorough scrutiny for such issues. In case I come across such deficiencies, I'll definitely fix them. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Bearing in mind that the MoS is not mandatory ... SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Bearing in mind also that the non-breaking space MoS violation is not the most glaringly obvious, I think the "impression that the article needs one thorough scrutiny for such issues" is a bit presumptuous. But a double-check would be nice anyway. -- tariqabjotu 19:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes MoS is not mandatory. And non-breaking space MoS violation is not the most glaringly obvious, probably that's why it was missed. It is a very tiny issue. However, "A featured article exemplifies our very best work" and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 2 says that the article should comply "with the manual of style". Anyway, I have read some portion of the article, and it seems to be perfect.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Great article, well developed deserves the status. Flymeoutofhere 19:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. It is a good article that is as much POV free as any I have seen regarding the Middle East. All of my issues had been addressed in the last peer review. --יהושועEric 19:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Very interesting and informative read, I see no problems, meets all criteria. Cricket02 19:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There are a few more citation problems I found in this article that I tagged with ^{[citation needed]}. I would like them to be sourced before this article becomes featured.--Sefringle 20:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You tagged some trivial and well known facts, like that it's the location of several holy sites, or what towns surround it. Not every single word needs a specific source. okedem 20:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If it is so trivial, add a source. But if this is to be a featured article it should be completely verifiable. Trivial stuff should be sourced as well. Otherwise it is origional research.--Sefringle 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be writing new policy here. Not every trivial statement (like location - every Israeli knows that the statement is true) needs to be sourced, and certainly not statement which are easily verified (and sourced) if one just reads the linked articles. okedem 20:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me where in the policy it says non-trivial stuff doesn't need sources? According to WP:NOR#What is excluded?, "Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."--Sefringle 20:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you trying to claim that saying the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is in Jerusalem is original research? Almost all the things you tagged are well known facts, and have been published in numerous reliable sources. The very link you provided says what "counts as original research", and the things you tagged do not fit the description. okedem 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, that's a misinterpretation of the policy. I agree that some of the items may have needed a source, but we don't need one for every trivial statement. Do we need a source that says Jerusalem is a city? Or that we spelled Jerusalem correctly? No, of course not, and "common knowledge" can also be applied to a few more situations. -- tariqabjotu 21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Well developed article, POV free. FA material, Good work for Wikipedia to show off. Max ╦╩ 21:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Object As before, a number of POV specifically relating to the conflict:
• Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is the capital[iii] of Israel and its seat of government. As i've mentioned before, simply referring to it as seat of government will suffice in the intro for npov. However , its status as capital should be explained within the context of the conflict. This is a controversial issue people, and I cannot imagine any credible encylopedia introducing Jerusalem in such a way as this article does. Just look up Brittanica and Encarta for examples.
• Israel's annexation of the primarily Arab neighborhoods that form East Jerusalem (captured as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War) has been particularly controversial since it is seen by Palestinian Arabs as the future capital of a proposed Palestinian state.[8] Thus, the status of a united Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal capital"[9][10] is not widely recognized by the international community. - "particularly controversial", this seems a bit weasily to me. Why is it controversial? What are the most signficant points surrounding its controvery. I understand this is just an intro, but this wording seems to sidestep the issue. Also, "not widely recognised" is again too general. I suggest mentioning "Palestinians and the United Nations" instead as the two most signficant.
• Any description of why Palestinians dispute Jerusalem's states is severely limited throughout the article. All we are repeatedly told is that it is "seen by Palestinian Arabs as the future capital of a proposed Palestinian state" (intro) or "However, East Jerusalem has been seen by the Palestinian Arabs as the future capital of a Palestinian state." (State of Israel) or "the Palestinian National Authority sees East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state" (Palestinian claims). Nowhere are we given any depth to these 'claims' or how Palestinians 'see' it. Why do they dispute it, how signficant are their claims, who supports them? etc. I'm not saying devote a whole section to this conflict, just that the article does not try to sidestep it through vague and ambigous descriptions, or minimise the scale of the dispute surrounding the city. I believe what I highlighted is as Tony stated, part of the subtle and not so subtle pov issues which run through this article. --A.Garnet 00:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll address your objections on order:

• It is the capital. This has been discussed many times on the talk page. I'm sympathetic toward your desire to mention the capital conflict earlier; I thought we reached a compromise on this earlier. In particular, I like the last suggestion in the compromise section. Regardless, I don't think removing capital is a good idea because Jerusalem is Israel's capital regardless of what the UN says (likewise, Isreal is a sovereign state regardless of what [insert one of several Arab countries] believes). See also: Positions on Jerusalem, linked in the footnote.
• I added the United Nations as an example, as you requested. Regarding the controversy, see Positions on Jerusalem, linked in that sentence.
• See Positions on Jerusalem, which I just added as a main article under #Palestinian claims. -- tariqabjotu 02:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Good even-handed summary, well-written. I see 2 objects which boil down to it being too "pro-Israel", and 2 objects which boil down to it being too "anti-Israel", so it has probably hit the exact right balance. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Heh. It does well on a Gaussian function then! JFW | T@lk 04:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support overall well written and would make a good featured article.--Sefringle 02:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• One very minor quibble: East Jerusalem is already in the intro and should therefore not be linked again under "see also". A note: ignore the complaints about a perceived future lack of stability, it's impossible to please everyone here. A FA stamp would be great as it provides a reference point for any future debates. Another note: don't fiddle any more with the lead, it's a good compromise now. Otherwise, congratulations to all the patient editors. Support. Kosebamse 04:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support — smooth authoring style and interesting, well-written content; almost certainly worthy of the status of one of the encyclopedia's best productions ~ AGK 18:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Further comment to my objection on the basis of 1c (POV): the prose needs a thorough audit to be awarded a gold star. For example, in the lead, my eyes fell on the following issues at random.
  • The first sentence is a problem: "Jerusalem ... is the capital[iii] of Israel and its seat of government"—the capital of Israel and the capital of its seat of government? Can easily be fixed (there are two simple ways of doing so), but how this has escaped previous reviewers who've gushed about the writing beats me.

    I have fixed the grammar issue. -- tariqabjotu 14:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I've pointed out already that "storied history" is a problem, but was brushed off by one of the main contributors on that one. The word "history" is cognate with "story", and indeed contains the word within it. Not only is there semantic repetition, but phonological. Very poor. Most readers will not know what it means. And what history is not full of stories? Absurd construction.

    I have changed this to "extensive". -- tariqabjotu 14:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Why "10th" and then "nineteenth"?

    I've fixed that. --Dweller 11:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • POV: let's take something obvious—the order in which the races/cultures/religions are placed within the lead. The Israeli thing occupies the entire first paragraph, and thus occupies the powerful point of departure of the whole article. The rider to the Israeli claim is relegated to a position right at the bottom of the lead. In between, the text is constructed around five lists. In all but one—the briefest—the Jewish/Israeli claim is given first position.

The holiness of the city to each religion. Judaism is the first of three.

That one at least seems reasonable, as it's the holiest city in the world for just one religion. --Dweller 10:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sections of the Old city: Jewish is the third of four.

Sites: Jewish is the first of three.

Sections of the modern areas: the Israeli is the first of two, and framed in terms of national ownership, with extension outwards towards "the country's" other urban areas; by contrast, the Arab section "can be found" somewhere.

Some of the arguments supporting this angle appear to draw on the notion that possession is nine-tenths of the law. Wikipedia should not, IMV, be endorsing this by promoting the article. Tony 10:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You are reading too far into the order of the religions. In the second paragraph (and much of the article), the religions are mentioned in chronological order of their creation – Judaism, Christianity, Islam (I have changed one of the lists to match the order of the others). This same order is used at Abrahamic religion, among other locations, on Wikipedia and elsewhere. The list beginning with Armenian... is in alphabetical order. Other parts are merely arbitrary, perhaps done for flow and reasonable transition. -- tariqabjotu 14:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Object until Tony's valid criteria concerns are addressed. LuciferMorgan 11:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, Tony, but I laughed when I read these comments. It was the only reaction I could muster. Let me address your points as I see it.

• It takes a lot of effort to misinterpret this sentence the way you wrote. As is usual with pronouns, the its refers to the last noun, which is Israel in this case. There is no ambiguity. The reason no one caught this "mistake" til now is because nobody has thought of this creative misreading.

  I have fixed this; it was bad wording even though we all knew what it meant. -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• For the life of me, I just don't understand what you have against the word storied. I suspect you were just somehow unfamiliar with its usage. I already pointed out this definition. It's a very common word. As per your more esoteric objection of "semantic repetition", storied here is used to indicate that the city's history has been retold and celebrated in may books, narratives, treatises etc. As for the phonological repetition, as you call it, to me it sounds poetic.

  I'm tired of having to deal with this minor "issue", so I just changed it to a different word. -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• 10th/nineteenth - you have a point here
• This point was addressed before discussion was restarted. You are reading way too much into it when you make these comparisons in the lists. Note that the city is the holiest city in Judaism, whereas in Islam it is third, so it is sensible that Judaism be mentioned first in the first list. Regarding placement of the annexation, this has already been discussed at length. I got the impression that many think that since the controversy requires a rather long treatment to be comprehensible, it would be too recentist to place that whole issue right in the first couple of lines. nadav 11:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You should resist your urge to laugh at a reviewer—I find it offensive. Was I rude to you? There's nothing in your attempts at rebuttal that I can agree with, and I hold to my original critical examples. I will return with further objections, which you should take seriously and respond to substantively rather than by resorting to personal criticism, such as "you are reading way too much into it". Tony 12:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comments:

1. I don't think anyone will read it as you have, but let me remind you that the "seat of government" was added due to objections about having the word "capital" there, raised in the first FAC discussion. Anyway, it can be easily solved - just call it capital, and be done with it.
2. "storied" is a fine, often used word, and I see no problem with it. It is not repetition, and even I, as a non-native English speaker, had no problem with it.
3. "The Israeli thing occupies the entire first paragraph" - No, it occupies a part of it (the other part being the location and history). It is under Israeli control, and serves as the capital. The "Israeli thing" should definitely be first. When comparing reality, and demands for some future changes - reality wins.
4. Judaism should be mentioned before the other religions, for, as others have said before, Jerusalem is the holiest city to Judaism, and not the primary for the other religions. Also, it was the center of Judaism, and was home to its temples long before the birth of Christianity, and very long before Islam.
5. Jerusalem is part of Israel, and so that's the way it's written. It's claimed by Palestinians, but not by any sovereign state, so what do you want us to say? You work so hard to read political content into everything, but don't even suggest another way to phrase it. okedem 12:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A main issue, Tony, is that if we change the order to some other system, someone else would just come along and say now it's pro-Arab, pro-Palestinian, pro-Muslim. There's only so far we can go; if an order sounds logical, it most certainly can be used (even if it will mean the Jewish or Israeli perspective will often come first). -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, if you change the order of one or two of those lists, it will be a good gesture towards a "balanced" treatment, where the orders are mixed. It's a minor, but significant way of being more inclusive at the top. I think the last bit should come after the first bit, as the end of the opening paragraph. As I've implied, possession should not be regarded as nine-tenths of the law here: the topic is unique. Tony 21:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

strong support, there are only minor issues here. Remarkably well done for a controversial article. Here are my minor quibbles with the article. My main concerns are with the occasional use of footnotes to prove the point to other editors. A common problem on controversial articles... and so perhaps I'm a bit too picky, but please recall that my vote here is "strong support". I don't mind if all my objections are completely ignored, I'm still voting strong support.

1. Footnote 4 and 5 are very long and they are only backing up a very simple claim. Are the quotations actually that helpful? They seem more addressed to fellow Wikipedians than to a reasonable reader of the article. Convincing other editors is fine... on talk pages, and one can use HTML comments in the article body to direct editors to relevant discussions in talk archive X, but this should be hidden from the reader. The article text should only have the footnotes that helps a reasonable person verify the information, and it should be genuinely helpful to him. Here, I think this has gone to far.

   You are far from the first person to say this. See this. There is one person in particular who just will not tolerate someone removing references, even though you must be the fourth or fifth person to say they're excessive. -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

   I can fully understand what and why he thinks that way. It's a deeper problem with how Wikipedia works, and not a problem with this article. I just wish it were sufficient to post all the evidence on the talk page, but the world isn't perfect. --Merzul 15:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

   We had a very similar situation with the definition of atheism, but I very brutally trimmed it down :) I think situations like this is what Wikipedia:Citing consensus is trying to address. --Merzul 23:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

2. "Thus, the status of a united Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal capital"^[9][10] is not recognized by the United Nations and much of the international community." The footnotes are redundant. There is a note early on, when the capital is first mentioned, where this is discussed. Currently, there are two refs about the statement, and no refs about it being disputed my most of the international community! I think there should be no refs at all here. Collect all such notes in the endnote about the capital, or in the section about the capital status. (You can add more HTML comments to avoid "citation needed" tags).
3. Three footnotes on the name of Jerusalem, again... what are they supposed to tell me? One would be enough to verify the fact...
4. Please remove all retrieve dates for books. I don't care when you looked at the book :) It doesn't change, it doesn't go off-line. This information is redundant and confusing.

   Retrieval dates for books (and all media) are standard in referencing styles. -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Actually, that's not correct. If you want the retrieval date removed from the cite book templates, I would suggest proposing its removal on Template talk:Cite book. -- tariqabjotu 19:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

   Based on the examples at Template:Cite book, it looks like the accessdate field is optional and should only be used for books with an online version, and where the online version was the one consulted. This makes sense since the online edition might change or be updated with time (though the paper edition obviously won't). nadav 19:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

   Actually, I looked at most of the books I cited through Google Book Search (I'm not sure if that counts as "online"). Another thing I notice is that the accessdate, according to the template, should not be shown unless the url field is entered. I could go fix that, but I'm unsure if the pre-requisite was intentional. -- tariqabjotu 19:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

   I fixed the template. -- tariqabjotu 19:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

   I would venture that Google books is not really an online version, since it is just a scan of offline books, so you don't have to include the accessdate. But I don't think it can hurt in any way to include it. nadav 20:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

5. The alternative etymology of Jerusalem seems to lack a secondary source, the footnote links directly to the Bible. I'm not sure if this is standard view or our own original analysis. It probably isn't original, as the second paragraph below is repeating this view, or a view very similar too it.

   I added an additional secondary source and reworded the relevant sentence. -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

6. I really couldn't see much in terms of NPOV violations. There is one small phrasing problem, and it's the statement "The non-binding United Nations Security Council Resolution 478..." Now, adding the phrase non-binding gives me the impression of a bit of a POV, because it is perhaps too dismissive. In what sense is this less binding than any other UN Security Counsil resoulution? I understand the article on that very resolution answers my question, but I think using non-binding as the single description of the resolution is perhaps too dismissive of it. Perhaps, a more nuanced explanation of what non-binding means would be good -- a footnote or endnote would be nice.

The rest of the article seemed almost flawless, and nicely balanced in my opinion. I'm afraid I don't have much more time to pick on any more details, and since I'm not opposed this activity is perhaps just adding noise here.

1. I'll agree with that. Certainly gives an appearance of POV. --Dweller 14:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

   6. Non-binding is the accurate term, to differentiate it from binding resolutions, which carry the threat of sanctions against the offending country (like the resolutions about Iran's nuclear program). It's just a technical term, I don't know how else to phrase it. okedem 14:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

   As Okedem said above, I'm not sure how this could be a biased term. It was a non-binding resolution, which is why El Salvador and Costa Rica have maintained their embassies in Jerusalem for twenty-six years since then without the UN caring. -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

   Ah, ok... I'm probably not familiar with the legal terminology, and so since I didn't know what non-binding specifically meant, I thought using it there without explaining might give the wrong impression. There is a simple solution: wikilink to Non-binding resolution, then the blue link will indicate it is a technical term, and not a POV-assertion. --Merzul 15:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with this FAC. --Merzul 13:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Can someone tell me what meaning "storied" adds to "history", in the lead? What does it mean? It's in a prominent position, and I don't believe this is a logical or idiomatic usage of the word. So: "history" vs "storied history". Difference please? Tony 22:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It probably means the same as it means here, and what it means in these books. That it is a history with many events worth recording? --Merzul 23:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I noticed this had been solved, sorry. --Merzul 23:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Very well done. Nitpicks:

• "David's reign ended around 970 BCE when his son Solomon became king of Israel" - Add "according to the bible" at the beginning of the paragraph. It must not be confused with the truth.

• I thought this year was generally accepted. If someone does not get to it first, I'll search for a source to corroborate that (or add the qualifier if that is not the case). -- tariqabjotu 15:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there's basically no evidence for the existence of Saul, David, Solomon, or the whole Unified Monarchy other than the bible. There is evidence for the Jews/Hebrews/whatever, but not detailed enough, and they don't mention the Unified Monarchy. There is good evidence for the successor kingdoms, by the way. okedem 15:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The relevant thing to read is Davis#Historicity of David. Historians generally agree that there was a Hebrew king called David who founded a dynasty. However, the bible is the only source for the year of his death, so I agree with the change. nadav 15:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• "In May 2006, Jerusalem had a population of 724,000, of whom 65% were Jewish, 32% were Muslim, and 2% were Christian, with a population density..." - Change "with" to "and" per subsequent sentence.

• This change is not grammatically correct. -- tariqabjotu 15:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• "With" is already used in the subsequent sentence, and appears to be a poor connector in this context. Michaelas¹⁰ 15:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• "...with nearly three quarters of them arriving from the United States, France, and former members of the Soviet Union" - "former members of the Soviet Union" isn't a country.

• Yes, "former members of the Soviet Union" isn't a country... but how is that a problem? -- tariqabjotu 15:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, sorry, misunderstood "members". Michaelas¹⁰ 15:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• "In 2005, the total number of residents in Jerusalem grew by approximately thirteen thousand (1.8%) — also well above the Israeli national average" - Remove "also".

• I don't think this change is necessary. We mention another "well above the national average" figure at the conclusion of the previous paragraph (hence the also in this section). -- tariqabjotu 15:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• "New York City, USA (1993)" - Remove bolding.

• I have removed the bolding. -- tariqabjotu 15:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Michaelas¹⁰ 11:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Great work.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• In my objection above on the basis of 1a, I provided only examples of problems throughout the text. There seems to be little concern among the contributors for weeding out bad prose. Why is it easy to find issues such as the following at random, sprinkled through the text? These examples come from a small window I happened upon in the middle of the article. Please don't just fix these alone. Find someone distant from the text to do an audit.
  • "Sieged"—it's not a verb.
  • Why is the simple year "1917" linked? Leads to stuff about the Royal Bank of Canada and an anti-prostitution drive in San Fransisco. There are many high-value blue links in the article; please ration them to reduce the untidy scattering of blue and avoid this dilution of high-value links. Check whether the other year links have anything to do with the topic; I'm sure they don't.
  • Redundancy: "the construction of new garden suburbs"—why wouldn't they be new?
  • Redundancy: "the establishment of institutions of higher learning such as the Hebrew University, founded in 1925"—Choose "establishment" or "founded", but not both; rationalise the wording. "The founding in 1925 of ...". Tony 22:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• "siege" is also a verb, per this.
• 1917, or any year, being linked, can give the reader an easy perspective of what was happening around the world at that time - it doesn't have to be a 'related topic', in fact it's more interesting when it isn't.
• "the construction of new garden suburbs" - it could also be renovated - this implies 'brand new'.
• "the establishment of institutions of higher learning such as the Hebrew University, founded in..." - this is fine as it is - it implies "... which was founded ...".

Crum375 23:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• No, it is a verb. Coming off storied isn't a word, I think it's time you update your dictionary, or simply look online. -- tariqabjotu 23:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• This is not an error, but a matter of preference. From WP:DATE: Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text. In this case, I don't think every single year is even linked.
• Again, this is not an issue really. There's nothing wrong with the sentence; rather, it's stylistic preference, per Crum375.
• Not an error; a stylistic preference at best. In my opinion, your proposed wording is awkward, especially because it comes in the midst of a sentence, not the beginning of a sentence as you make it seem here. I don't see this as an error.

-- tariqabjotu 23:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest that you use a more widely accepted dictionary than dictionary.com, which is pretty crappy. But have it your way. My advice is that "seiged" is ungainly.
  • dictionary.com is based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, a very reliable source. And do you also dislike [Merriam-Websters]? Really Tony, this is too much. nadav 03:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I have a feeling sieged is only acceptable in American English (it's not in the Cambridge Dictonary, for instance). On the other hand, I believe besieged is used in all dialects of the English language and means the exact same thing. -- tariqabjotu 03:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Why not link every word then, if you want to provide unfocused, "interesting" diversions? Every single word. Smearing the whole thing with lots of blue makes it so easy to read and attractive on the screen.
• Brand new garden suburb? Brand makes no difference—you don't construct existing suburbs. Remove "new" or use a more descriptive eptithet. Otherwise you're wasting the readers' time.
• I repeat, "establishment" and "founding" should not both be used. Choose one, or say here what additional meaning the use of both adds.
• Your last two points are impossible to understand—which examples do they relate to?

If you're going to take a belligerent attitude, we'll have to fight it out through every sentence of the article. Will take a great deal of time. I'm not at all satisfied with your rebuttals. Tony 23:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I am not sure if you are referring to my response or not. In any case, I was not trying to be 'belligerent' but to respond to your points. I think that dictionary.com is a pretty widely accepted resource. A language is what is actually spoken and written, not what is specified in some old rule book. As far as the year, I think that linking years provides a nice service to our readers to easily gain a world-wide perspective. Linking every word as you suggest would be an overkill and would create a messy clutter. Clearly we have to use common sense, and I think linking years is well within most people's common sense. As far as "establishment" and "founding" - I think it is clearly a style issue. The first is generic and talks about all institutions, whereas the second refers to a specific instance. Yes, the words are similar in meaning (though I can see some distinctions), but that is really a matter of style and I see no harm in it. Regarding the garden developments, there is a point being made about 'new' as in 'brand new' vs. 'new' as in possibly renovated. The verbiage used implies 'brand new'. Thanks, Crum375 00:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Martin Brodeur

This article should've been nominated a while ago, I was just lazy. It has a lot of references and some really good content. If you're comparing it to the likes of Wayne Gretzky, I think it should be FA-status.

• Support Per nom. Sportskido8 16:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. A few comments:

• • This sentence doesn't seem to flow too well:

In his 13-year tenure, he has led the team to three Stanley Cup championships and has taken them to the playoffs all but once since his NHL goaltending career has begun.

Surely 'since his NHL goaltending career has begun' is redundant, due to 'In his 13-year tenure'.

• Is it worth mentioning Brodeur's father in the lead? After all, the lead is supposed to sum up the article, and I don't see any mention of him later down in the article.
• Where's the information on Brodeur's early life?
• I'd recommend an infobox header, and a more detailed caption for the infobox image. Most readers won't have a clue when this picture was taken.

Just a few comments to keep you busy! I'll add more comments later. CloudNine 16:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I fixed the first sentence. I could take his father out of the lead but family lineage is usually considered important so that's why I put it there. I do not believe, however, that an infobox image needs to be captioned. If viewers want more information from it, they can click on it. The early life should probably have a section I guess. Sportskido8 20:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

With the image infobox caption, what happens if I want (or a reader wants) to print out the article and read it? Object per criterion 3. Infobox image needs a caption. CloudNine 10:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not an objectionable objection infobox pics do not require captions, criteria 3 is meant to refer to in-text pics. See FA's such as Michael Jordan, Sandy Koufax, Wayne Gretzky, Tony Blair, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Damon Hill, Paul Collingwood, Adam Gilchrist, Ina Garten, etc. I'm going to assume good faith and assume you didn't know that. Quadzilla99 19:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I have done some work on the article, though not nearly as much as Sportskido. I think it is well-rounded, sufficiently referenced, and a good example of a hockey FA. Anthony Hit me up... 12:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add a caption but I could not find a way to add a caption in the infobox. I would consider this unactionable. Michael Greiner 01:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. As a huge Devils fan, I'm very happy that our guys appear to be the only ones doing anything FA-worthy. I like this article, but it could use some tweaking. I know it's a general statement, but the article could use some POV copyediting and some more referencing. I wish I could do more for you guys, but I'm really, really, really swamped with work. Here are a few examples:
  • "He finished 2nd in goals-against-average and 4th in save-percentage during the regular-season, which was surprising for a rookie goaltender. He was not originally chosen as the starting goalie, but he played so well when called upon that he overtook Chris Terreri as the Devils' #1 goalie." Is GAA really written like that? I can see the first hypen, but the second one doesn't seem to make much sense to me. I don't think regular season should have a hyphen and I'm going back and forth on save percentage, but I think it should either. I don't like the "which was surprising for a rookie goaltender." I know it was (he was/is awesome!), but unless you can source that claim, it might be better left out. "He played so well" screams POV to me and the second part of the sentence is a bit awkward. I would rephrase it as, "When the season began, he was the backup goalie, but due to his performance, head coach Jacques Lemaire awarded Brodeur the starting job." Others are free to tweak it a bunch. This sentence also could use a source.
  • Damn it, I really wish I had time to do more. Another few suggestions: don't excessively wikilink. Do something about that hanging sentence at the end of the lead. Get someone with no idea what hockey is to do one more copyedit. For instance, you might find out that you need to wikilink things like goals against average, which according to our page has no hyphens, as I thought. Try to shape it up some and I'll reconsider my conditional. JHMM13 22:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed a couple of your concerns. These are some minor things that I overlooked when I wrote the entire structure of the article over back in the day. But rest assured, they will be cleaned. Sportskido8 01:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Support But I think the second paragraph in the Personal Life section could use a source. Also, I noticed goals against average written with no hypens, hypens, or just GAA. So choose one and make it consistent. Finally, since this is a Canadian player, we should use Canadian spelling, so I'm gonna go through and see if there is any 'U-less' words; I already spotted one earlier. Nathanalex 21:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support I was very impressed when I first came across this article a couple months ago and it has only gotten better since then. I've made some minor changes on it (mostly making sentences clearer if they could be and editing stats and such) and would love to see it be featured. It covers a lot of bases and is very well-written. Bsroiaadn 05:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Support I found and uploaded a couple nice pics for this article from flickr (they're in the commons box and the one where he gets ready for action) so I'd like to see it do well, but there is no mention of his early life, it's as though he appeared on the earth as a goaltender. That's a glaring omission. Quadzilla99 09:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There are other prose related issues but I'm not going to list to take the time ot list them if the article has no early life section. Quadzilla99 09:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll put an early life section in later today. I just wish somebody had mentioned this at some point in the past year so that I didn't have to do it while it's up for an FA-nomination. Sportskido8 19:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Nice work on that, I've got a couple of other issues I'll list them here and you can deal with them one by one. Feel free to strike a line through each one as you get to them:
        • This direct quote is without a source:"Brodeur is arguably the top goaltender in the world right now. Fresh off a World Cup win in 2004, and another strong performance at the 2005 IIHF World hockey championships. Also, he's still among the best puck-handling goaltenders in the game, though the NHL's new rule changes may somewhat alter that effectiveness." All quotes should have a source.
        • Sometimes when you use the cquote template you put the citation after the quote and sometimes after the colon preceding it, just put in on the colon each time to make it consistent.
        • "He then "backstopped" Team Canada", backstopped is sports lingo that probably needs to go.
        • " According to Brodeur's book, Patrick Roy, the team's starter, demanded to play every game, and he has never forgiven Roy for doing so." This sentence could use a citation, along with a page number. Also kinda choppy and poorly worded.
        • "He was also a first Team All-Star, a starter in the NHL All-Star Game, and a finalist for the Hart Trophy yet again." Yet is slightly POV just make it again.
        • "His name was used by the Loisirs' directors to create a golf tournament named after him." Name is stated twice redundant. How about "a golf tournament was created in his name" something of that sort.
        • "Entitled Brodeur: Beyond the Crease, it hit the market in October 2006." "hit the market" is not very formal could be released, or some other term.
        • Talking about things he's on pace to do in the lead, might be a little WP:CRYSTALish, but I guess it's okay.
        • "Brodeur was drafted in the first round, 20th overall, from Saint-Hyacinthe, in the 1990 NHL Entry Draft by the New Jersey Devils,[14] for whom he has played since the 1991-1992 season." The "for whom he has played" makes the sentence choppy also is probably unnecessary as you're going to make it clear he's played for them all of his career as the article goes on.
        • "The next season, which was shortened to forty-eight games due to a four month lockout that plagued the NHL with salary cap issues, the Devils finished tied for 9th overall, 5th in their conference, and were not considered a Stanley Cup contender." I'm not the biggest hockey fan, but wasn't the strike due to the owners trying to implement a salary cap? This sentence needs re-wording, it's unclear what the strike was actually about reading it.
          • That's all I see for now, I'll look again later. Quadzilla99 18:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Fixed 'em all. Sportskido8 19:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Great work! Although I unstruck the pace thing as that wasn't addressed—but as I said that might not be too big of a deal, it is verifiable. Here's a couple more:
                • "However, in 1994 Brodeur achieved notoriety when he won the Calder Trophy, an annual award for the best rookie in the NHL, after leading the Devils to 2nd place in the NHL and the 3rd round of the playoffs, where they eventually lost to the New York Rangers in seven games.[16]" Why did he achieve "notoriety"? Shouldn't it be publicity or even better recognition? Am I missing something?
                • "His netminding career" same deal as backstopping, sport lingo not formal enough.
                • It's also going to need WP:DASH work throughout, see the two edits I made, those dashes appear in the box down below when you edit. The only things that shouldn't be changed to the current format are the titles of articles as they use a standard keyboard dash. I've asked another use to look the article over and she knows a lot about the policy. So (if she has time) perhaps she can elaborate better than I can. Quadzilla99 19:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
                  • Fixed the first two things. I will have to read up on this dash stuff though. Sportskido8 20:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
                    • One or two more things, the refs aren't formatted correctly. There are several repeated refs such as this one: If you put the ref in like this <ref name="Bio">normal ref info here.</ref> then each time you repeat the ref you just put in <ref name="Bio"/> the refs won't repeat. Quadzilla99 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
                      • I think I fixed all of them. Sportskido8 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
                        • Great! I struck that. The refs are also going to need author info, any time an author is named in article their name should appear in the ref, also if a report is an Associated Press, Reuters, or Canadian Press wire report that should be noted as well. Additionally I'm not too familiar with templates (I do refs manually) but I think some should be cite news that are cite web. Any thing like an online reprint of a newspaper article I think uses cite news. Quadzilla99 20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
                          • Also like I pointed out in one of my edit summaries (see the edit summary in the article history for more detail) 1st should be first, 2nd should be second, etc. Quadzilla99 20:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
                            • Actually my edit summary referred to dates, here's what I'm referring to:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers in words. Quadzilla99 20:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
                              • I'm not 100% sure regarding that actually (1st or first) so just hold off on that and if you can add author info in the refs. Quadzilla99 21:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
                                • Oy, that might take a while. Sportskido8 00:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(reset margin) I can help today. That will probably be my last objection. Quadzilla99 05:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed all of my objections and changed to support. All of the info in the refs is now there (Pub date, auhtor etc.), although some might not be right template the info is there which is enough for me. The dashes are done to the best of my understanding (if the editor I referred to looks it over she'll know for certain). Here's one or two more things that could use tweaking:

• • "and had a playoff total of 7 overall, breaking Dominik Hašek's not-so-old NHL record of 6" not-so-old is clunky, I would have fixed it myself but I couldn't think of another wording.
    • Fixed this myself, removed the reference to how recent the record was set. If you want to re-insert it you could say "recently set NHL record" but I think it's smoother without any of that. Quadzilla99 08:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "With one of the most impressive playoff performances of his career, Brodeur guided the Devils to their third Stanley Cup victory after dramatic seven-game series wins against the top-seeded Ottawa Senators and the surprising 7th-seeded Anaheim Mighty Ducks." This might be considered a little POV (not by me but others, as I've learned in the past) replace "most impressive" with "standout" or memorable. Or just say it without using an adjective. Acclaimed (with a ref) would be great.
  • I removed one or two lingoistic phrases, "He notched his 85th career shutout" try to make these are all out and formal terms used in their place.
  • As I commented on the talk page previously, since his name is pronounced "Mar-tan Bro-door" maybe you could add a pronunciation breakdown to the opening sentence.
    • Another editor fixed this according to policy, although I don't know how many people can read IPA. Quadzilla99 18:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Prose could still use slight polishing overall, you might want to look it over, but it's not enough for me to oppose.

Okay the article is very nice now and you should be proud of it. The reason all this stuff, which might seem minor, is important is first off that it's policy, but also if the article becomes an FA (which seems highly probable now) people will look to it as an example and therefore it should be formatted correctly so any mistakes aren't repeated. Quadzilla99 07:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Object; numerous questions about reliability of sources.
  • I am not comfortable that a statement like "His 38 consecutive Devils wins to start the season are an NHL record.[47]" should be referenced to http://www.fannation.com/fannation/about — that kind of statement should be referenced to an official source, such as the NHL or the print media.
    • I'm removing this as it is false. Nathanalex 18:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • What is the source for career statistics?
  • I'm not comfortable with the lack of citation in personal life. BLP's must be cited to highest-quality sources.
  • Hockeygoalies.org is used to cite a lot of the article. Convince me how http://www.hockeygoalies.org/about/about.html rises to the level of reliable sources?
    • Here's an article from the Dallas Morning News that mentions it positively: Just a blurb though. Quadzilla99 19:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't find any info on their website to convince me that the Hockey database is a reliable source: http://www.hockeydb.com/faq.html Help me out here?
    • Check the Credits http://www.hockeydb.com/credits.html Definitely reliable. Nathanalex 18:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I think she was referring to a third party evaluation of it I found this: The first one is very solid—it's Sports Illustrated/CNN article. Quadzilla99 19:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't find any information indicating reliability or authorship on http://www.hockeynut.com/default.html
  • Couch potato hockey ? http://www.couchpotatohockey.com/

Website's sources - Michael Greiner 17:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but these just don't appear to be reliable sources. Unless you can convince me why these are good, I'll need to strongly object. We can't have featured articles based on Joethe HockeyFanSaidSo.com SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm, the 38 consecutive wins for a single team to start the season are an NHL record (He got 38 before Clemmensen got 1). I'll source it from somewhere else though, Nathan. Hockeygoalies.org is an extremely reliable source Sandy, read the "About the page" section and you'll see where the guy gets his references from. As for the other ones, maybe they don't have a big name like ESPN or Sporting News but they're entirely devoted to hockey. Couchpotato and hockeynut both reference things that I can find elsewhere so that's not a big issue. (And there are only a couple of sources with them anyway). And the career stats don't explicitly have a source because his player profile is referenced a few times and you can find them there easily. Sportskido8 19:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ping me when it's all sorted out so I can have another look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed two of those references. The HockeyNut ones are still there but I don't necessarily think that's a bad source. Sportskido8 17:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry... I guess I misunderstood what it meant. I thought you were implying he won 38 games in a row, but I think you mean that he won 38 games for his team without another goalie getting any wins in between... That could be reworded somehow to make it more clear. Nathanalex 03:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrote sentence as; "The Devils first 38 wins of the season were all with Brodeur in net, leading to a NHL record for most consecutive wins for a team." Michael Greiner 22:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support as it has been rewritten and overhauled to pass FA standards. Kaiser matias 21:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Object Brodeur is an athlete whose career essentially started along with the rise of the internet. Every important game should be cited with a box score and/or recap. This will be a lot of work. I will be doing this for the 2007 season for Barry Bonds as I have begun to do. If I were the lead editor of Bonds' page or wanted get it promoted to FA I would do so historically. I am going to try to do this with all athlete pages I get involved in. For example, when you say he broke Dominik Hasek's shutout record, you should have a box score citation for each shutout since there are only seven. Going forward I will be opposing athletes on this basis whenever I pass by FAC. You are not being singled out and I just started doing this myself when I nominated Chris Young (baseball pitcher) for GA. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous already. Are people TRYING to find ways to object to this article? One guy above objected it because the infobox didn't have a caption, and now you're objecting for a reason that I've never seen been given before. The Hasek reference comes from CNN SI, which is a perfectly reliable source. I'm sorry for taking my frustration out on you, but this article is very close to passing FA status and I can't understand your reasoning when all of the references are from well-known sources. Why does it matter if it's to a box score? Sportskido8 21:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry Sportskido that doesn't seem actionable. Summaries of every single significant game (however that would be determined) of an accomplished player's career would seriously violate WP:Summary style. We're not writing a biography here, you still have my support as above. Quadzilla99 21:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Sportskido, there doesn't seem to be much that could be added through box scores. Hockey is (obviously) a very different game from baseball, where box scores would be of more interest. It's very nice that Tony is going to oppose sports articles based on his own made-up criteria, but it doesn't seem to be an actual policy. Nathanalex 01:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing and given that people have complained that citation density can get out of hand on some of these FACs to source an article which says so and so his a game winning shot and then add a box score (which won't say that) is illogical. Citations aren't for further reading on a subject. Quadzilla99 02:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to find a way to object. I just went through my first successful WP:FAC and WP:FLC processes last month (totalling over 800 edits). I found that although I did not like each thing people were adding. They almost all made my article better. Anyone who is a sports fan knows that quick access to a box score or game recap can improve the encyclopedic value of an article. Despite comments above, I see nothing at WP:Summary_style#Citations_and_external_links suggesting that there is any consensus that adding box score links would detract from the article. I tell you what. I will add your first box score as I think should be added and you tell me whether you think it adds to your article. Keep in mind that most knowledgeable hockey fans will wonder about things like how many saves and power play opportunities did a goalie have to defend. I know that you as the writer are a hockey fan and thus I know that you know those are the first two things you want to know about a shutout. I am not trying to be mean. Your article will be better. It is not just my baseball articles that are improved by box score citations. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I added two games (48th 2007 win, 7th 2003 post season shutout). I also noticed that for hockey ESPN.com only seems to go back to the 2002-3 season. I think USAToday.com goes back about 15 years, but I have not checked in a while. However, playing with the URL to get to their old pages is a challenge because I do not quite understand the syntax. If you want to find games you can find them though. Generally, I use sports.yahoo.com and espn.com. I haven't pushed myself to find older games from the 90s. Before the 90s you probably can't link to the net. I would not push for a print citation before about 92, but I think you can find box scores online going back that far. I would encourage you to find other important games. Clearly the last 5 seasons are on ESPN.com. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add box score sources that's fine, but I don't think there's a reason to object the article because of the fact that they're not there. You should base your decision on the current Wikipedia criteria, which seems like an easy support to me. Just my two cents...Sportskido8 18:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:WIAFA 1(c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the related body of published knowledge. Claims are attributable and supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)" I am contesting under this. If you go to Kobe Bryant and look at the citation for the game where he had 81, a citation exists. If it Kobe were up for FA, I would say the citation does support the 81 claim, but it is a piss poor citation. Give me an AP box score and recap. Sure you can pass with any old citation for a claim. Here there is a chance to have good ones and I am encouraging that. I encourage a quality box score and recap for each important game (especially over the last 5 years). TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I just added an external link to Yahoo Sports which includes a game log dating back to 1999 which has box scores available. Michael Greiner 21:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If the statement in an article is that so and so made a game winning shot then a ref stating that is what is necessary, often times a box score will have no mention of who made a game-winning shot. Also we're employing summary style here, Wikipedia is not expected to carry recaps of every significatn game a player ever played. To oppose until your personal preferences are met is not what WP:FAC is about. Quadzilla99 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Greiner, I am not sure what you are telling me you did. Is it in the article somewhere? Anyway, I have confirmed www.USATODay.com box scores back to 1995. Here is the 250th calendar day in 1995 (I think) URL= http://www.usatoday.com/sports/scores95/95250/95250.htm I am not asking him/her to add recaps. I am asking him to link to recaps/box scores where possible. I can only find box scores going back to 1995. I can not find recaps or game logs. I have not looked that hard yet. Do you want me to go through the article and enumerate every other game that I think needs a box score/recap. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I see what you did. I oppose a game log. It is to individual box scores as external links are to inline citations. Please seek important box scores for important games. They can be found. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

COmpletely wrong Tony the score of the game is there it's completely unnecessary to get an individual box score. Quadzilla99 17:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent)Objection (cont'd) I continue to believe this article is undercited. It seems that a lot of what you are including comes from martinbrodeur.net. I am not sure of the propriety of such a resource. I understand hockey is harder to source than the other major sports. If some of the requests are difficult to find maybe I can help track some down. I would like an alternate source for as much of the following as possible:

1. only goalie in NHL history with six 40-win seasons
2. Brodeur was drafted in the first round, 20th overall, from Saint-Hyacinthe, in the 1990 NHL Entry Draft by the New Jersey Devils.
3. He finished 2nd in goals against average and 4th in save percentage during the regular season, helping him eventually land the starting job over Terreri.
4. The next season, which was shortened to forty-eight games due to a four month lockout that was focused on salary cap issues, the Devils finished tied for 9th overall, 5th in their conference, and were not considered a Stanley Cup contender. However, with the leadership of Brodeur, they defeated the Boston Bruins in the 1st round after shutting them out in three of their four wins. Brodeur had another stellar performance in the second round against Pittsburgh, where he gave up only eight goals and helped the Devils soundly defeat the Penguins in five games. In the third round the Devils defeated Philadelphia in six games, giving them their first Stanley Cup finals appearance in franchise history, opposite the heavily favoured Detroit Red Wings. But the strong play of Brodeur and the Devils' infamous "trap" method would make this series lopsided in favour of New Jersey, who would go on to sweep the Red Wings while holding them to only seven goals in four games.(each sentence)
5. Brodeur played in 77 (of a possible 82) games, setting a single-season record for most minutes played by a goalie, while having the 2nd most shutouts in the league.
6. In the first game of the series on April 17, 1997, with the Devils up by two goals late in the game, Brodeur fired the puck the length of the ice and into the Canadiens' empty net to ensure a 5–2 victory (box score if possible).
7. Brodeur was runner-up for the Vezina, was named to his second all-star team, and had the lowest goals-against-average by a goalie in almost thirty years, earning him the Jennings Trophy. He also had 10 shutouts and a .927 save-percentage.
8. In the 1998–99 season, the Devils finished first in the Eastern Conference for the third straight year, with Brodeur winning 39 games. He was among the contenders for the Vezina Trophy and started in the All-Star game, making his fourth appearance. However, Devils lost in the first round of the playoffs yet again, this time to the Pittsburgh Penguins.

(I am only half way through the article. I will get to the other half later today or tomorrow). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 17:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Object. But this is dang close. I've added one cn tag. In the Early Life section, there are no indication of years/age of subject. Also, the copy reads awkwardly, claiming that his father was an important factor in his success, before backtracking and saying 'well, actually'... However, great job. Sports bios are tough to get through FA. Drop me a line when you've addressed those comments and I'll happily review. --Dweller 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph with the cn tag as I can not find any sources. I'm not sure what you mean by no years in the Early Life section as everything has the year it happened. (Having both the year and his age would be redundant) Also, I don't see where it says that his father didn't help his success. (unless you are counting the fact that he started as a forward) Michael Greiner 21:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Support - conditional on addressing the new {{cn}} tag I've added. I still had a problem with the father-success issue, but I've fixed it myself. Feel free to amend if it's not right English for Canadian article, but you'll get the sense. One last thing - did the placard really read "Alimony demanded from your wife"? Surely it should have read "...by your wife"? --Dweller 18:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Added citation where cn tag was added. Michael Greiner 19:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. My support stands... interested however, in response re the placard. --Dweller 20:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to have your support. As for the placard, the source says "from" so I guess we'll have to use that. Sportskido8 00:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support I'm not really much of an ice hockey fan and I hate the NJD, but I found this a very enjoyable read. I'm pretty sure this would be the first ice hockey player article to earn Featured status. Buc 20:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Actually, Wayne Gretzky is an FA, and was even featured on the front page a while ago. The more you know. Kaiser matias 06:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct. This would be the first goaltender article featured, if it were to pass. Sportskido8 08:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support, its a really good article, really heavily sourced, almost too much I would say but if that's what it takes these days. As hockey articles go this is definitely up there with the Gretzky article. Some of the objections raised in this article are just ridiculous, its not like we are showing these Featured Articles to our cruel dictator and have to have it 110% perfect. With all this over-editing, it does nothing to prevent in later days afterwards for other editors to come along and diminish the article's quality, as is the case with all FACS. Once again, good job Sportskido8, your doing a really good job with these Jersey-related articles. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 13:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support, as per Croat Canuck. --Krm500 21:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support As complete a biography as I have seen. Well sourced, well organized. Good quality images. The suggestion that seven citations to seven box scores to "prove" that Brodeur set the record for most playoff shutouts is required when one reliable source stating same exists is completely ridiculous. Resolute 00:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Object, non-free dust cover of autobiography does not have a fair use rationale. --Iamunknown 22:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm...ok...Sportskido8 22:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the fair use rational. Quadzilla99 23:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Drafting comments on the image talk page. --Iamunknown 23:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• See Image talk:Brodeurbook.jpg for further comments, I currently maintain my objection. --Iamunknown 00:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How about if we remove the image from the article, would that change your objection? --Krm500 00:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason why we can't have a book cover with a good fair use rationale in the article. Sportskido8 22:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I never objected to the use of the image in the article and, unless someone would provide a diff suggesting that I did, I would appreciate it you forever dropped the matter. I think that the fair use rationale could certainly be strengthened and I've detailed my comments in an clear, actionable format at Image talk:Brodeurbook.jpg. --Iamunknown 06:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support - The article was fun to read, and is very topical too : )

I added Brodeur's profile on the Hockey Hall of Fame's Legends of Hockey site into the external links section too. ColtsScore 07:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• This page corroborates Martinbrodeur.net (although possibly one mirrors the other). Is it possible to convert this to an inline citation reference where applicable since so many factual claims are referenced from this source. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the only part of that site that this article mirrors is the early childhood section? Wherever they got their info, it was from somewhere else because a lot of sites have a similar description. Sportskido8 01:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Pluto

This article was recently promoted to good article status and is very well referenced and it looks ready to become a featured article. Note that I have made minor contributions to the article as well as having previously nominated it for GA on 2 occassions. Watch37264 22:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Comment — I gave the article a quick run-through and it seems pretty good. However there are a few small issues that I'd like to see addressed:
  • The pounds in "five pounds" should be linked to the monetary denomination, so it is clear this is the meaning. [fixed]
  • I don't believe that m in the sentence, "Pluto's mean apparent magnitude is 15.1 m with a maximum of 13.56 m" has any meaning as a unit. It should be removed. [fixed]
  • The two images in the "Mass and size" section are colliding, creating a gap in the text. Can this be fixed?(talk) 19:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC) [fixed]
    • Now the two images at the top of the "Physical characteristics" section are colliding. — RJH [fixed- although it looks a bit stupid]
      • It looks good on my browser. — RJH (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "(C2H6)" should be written "(C₂H₆)", and "(CH4)" should be written "(CH₄)". Also ethane should be wikilinked. [fixed]
  • The following sentence contains two 'however's: "However, his own published writing ... cleared their neighbourhoods, however, he..."
    • Not fixed. — RJH [fixed :0)]

(talk) 19:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I was all ready to give my support, but a quick read-through revealed some more issues. (Also a couple of the issues above are not really fixed.)

• The first paragraph has too many sentences that begin with "it". [fixed]
• In multiple locations in the text, dashes are used where &mdash;'s would be more appropriate.[fixed- at least as far as I can tell]
• "over 50°" is not a quarter of an orbit. That would be 90°.[fixed]
• Can this be tightened up so it looks less awkward? "These can principally be divided into arising from one of two further mechanisms" => "These arise principally from two additional mechanisms." [fixed]
• "This is a consequence of the Kozai mechanism" does not explain anything, at least for me.

Someone will have to contact Spiral Wave about that. Serendipodous 19:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That sentence isn't meant to explain anything, it's meant to inform the reader what's responsible. The Kozai mechanism is tricky, and is wikilinked for the reader to follow up as they wish. I'm not sure what can be done about it: without meaning to sound facetious, the Kozai mechanism is responsible, but I don't believe it should be explained in and of itself, any more than a mention of gravitational interactions elsewhere require an explanation of Newtonian physics; just a link to gravity. I've tightened up the sentence to try and reflect why it's responsible, but I'm not sure I can do any better than that (maybe someone else can?). Spiral Wave 20:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Spiral; I'm sure that will be enough. Sheesh. This is rough. I'm beginning to feel like Scatman Crothers acting in The Shining; "What do you want Mr Kubrick? What do you want?" Serendipodous 20:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I usually get beat up for mentioning technical facts that require advanced, pre-existing knowledge on the part of the reader. So that's why I flagged it. Sorry this is proving difficult; believe me I can relate. — RJH (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a problem, knowing where to draw the line is always a bugger, especially in articles that are both as technical and mainstream as this one. Spiral Wave 22:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So it's not clear to me that it's ready yet. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: looks pretty good, I'd be very glad to support once some minor things have been taken care of. Apart from the above, I'm a bit worried by the layout (misplaced pictures cause a lot of white space in my IE) and the high number of references. I'd be happy to help, but right now I'm a bit busy since I just nominated Moon (another one in the Solar System series). Nick Mks 17:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think that this article is good, but I have some comments on the prose. I will add more later as I have time to go through the rest of the article.

• There is some repetition in the history section.
• Was it a "false prediction" or an "incorrect prediction"?

What do you think about "Fortuitous mistake" as a heading? Awadewit 17:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Potentially misleading; a lot of people, particularly Indians, are trying to retcon history to claim that they "discovered" Pluto before the evil Americans. I want to make it absolutely clear that whoever was first to make a prediction, the only person who discovered Pluto was Clyde Tombaugh. Serendipodous 20:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I just wanted to try to make the heading reflect the section a little bit more, but I see where you are coming from. Awadewit 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Under "Mass and size": I like your comparisons, but what is the actual mass of Pluto?
• Observations were able to determine Pluto's diameter when it is at occultation with Charon[31] and its shape can be resolved by telescopes using adaptive optics. - awkward - two different verb tenses

*Observations were able to determine Pluto's diameter when it is at occultation with Charon. - "were . . . was" or "are . . . is." Awadewit 17:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• When it returns to a closer proximity to the Sun, the temperature of Pluto's solid surface will increase, causing the nitrogen ice to sublimate into gas—creating an anti-greenhouse effect. - verb tenses
• Pluto's temperature is 10 kelvins less than they expected - 10 kelvins fewer
• The current best hypothesis is that the south pole of Pluto came out of shadow for the first time in 120 years in 1987, and extra nitrogen sublimated from a polar cap. - "current best" sounds odd; also, unnecessary comma
• In October 2006, the spectroscopic discovery of ethane on Pluto's surface, presented by Dale Cruikshank of NASA/Ames Research Center (a New Horizons co-investigator) and colleagues was announced. - awkward passive
• The MIT-Williams College team of James Elliot and Jay Pasachoff and a Southwest Research Institute team led by Leslie Young observed a further occultation of a star by Pluto on 12 June 2006 from sites in Australia. - why not place this with the other occultation information? it seems out of place right now
• Pluto's orbit is markedly different to those of the planets. - "of the [major] planets" perhaps?
• The previous time around, between 30 April 1483 and 23 July 1503 this situation persisted again for around 20 years similarly to the 20th century. - very awkward
• Although this may suggest a regular structure in the short term (measured over several millennia), Pluto's orbit is in fact chaotic. - It is usually best not to begin a paragraph with "this" because its referent can be unclear.
• Indeed, the part of Pluto's orbit that lies as close or closer to the Sun than Neptune lies about 8 AU above the ecliptic - perhaps "Neptune's orbit"?
• I was also thrown by the white space. I don't mind it between sections, but it is distracting in the middle of a section. Would moving some of the pictures to the other side of the page help? Awadewit 23:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Addendum: There is only lots of white space when I view the article using Internet Explorer, not Firefox. Unfortunately, most people seem to use IE (at my university, it is the default (and sometimes only) browser on many library computers, for example). Awadewit 16:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Responses. Re: the number of refs. These were required for this article to pass GA status. It would be somewhat awkward to have to reduce them again for FA status. Re: major planets. According to the IAU's definition, dwarf planets are not planets, so "major planets" would be misleading. As regards the empty space, personally I think the best thing to do would be to make an image of the chart and upload it onto the Commons. Without the empty space, the picture of Pluto just eats into it and obscures the data. EDIT: re: empty space. Moved image two paragraphs down, as it deals with Nix and Hydra more than with Charon. Serendipodous 12:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

More comments Overall, I thought that this article was quite informative and it did an excellent job of explaining scientific concepts that many lay readers may be unfamiliar with. Here are the rest of my comments.

• In "Other factors governing Pluto's orbit," I would use "first" and "second" rather than "firstly" and "secondly."
• Some of the ashes of Pluto's discoverer, Clyde W. Tombaugh, are aboard the spacecraft. - This sentence was oddly placed and perhaps not relevant to the Pluto page.

Could the sentence be integrated into the paragraph better, then, if you really want to keep the information? Right now the paragraph jumps around a bit as it is; this sentence just adds to that feeling even more. Awadewit 17:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Pluto's official status as a planet has been a constant subject of controversy, fueled by the past lack of a clear definition of planet, since at least as early as 1992, when the first Kuiper Belt Object, (15760) 1992 QB1, was discovered. - awkward - perhaps move date earlier "has been a constant subject of controversy since at least 1992..."
• although there was no official consensus at the time on whether to call it a planet - "whether or not to call it a planet"
• stating that "the definition stinks" albeit "for technical reasons." - I find this an odd construction - shouldn't a scientific definition fail for "technical reasons"? This suggests that it fails for insignificant reasons to the lay reader.

Perhaps you could find a more precise quotation from this person?

I already did. :)Serendipodous 20:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Awadewit 17:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• The page should either be written in American English or British English. Some sections appeared to be in AE and some in BE. Please choose a dialect and standardize the page.
• Some of the footnotes are incorrectly cited (3 is missing the journal publication information, for example, and 4 has some odd italics going on). Please look through the notes carefully and fix them up. Also, please standardize them; decide whether you are beginning with the author's last name or first name, etc.
• The "Further Reading" section seems rather thin. First, please cite all of the sources consistently and fully. Second, what if I really was curious about Pluto and wanted to learn a lot more? Where would I go? You seem to be referring me to two pages in one book and an article in the Times and one other book. Surely there are better sources out there!
• I would also cut down on the "External links" - the NPR segments, for example, seem unnecessary since you have explained that material in the article. I would only link to sites that are going to provide significantly more information that is directly related to Pluto. For example, the bibliography of science fiction which is set on Pluto belongs on the "Pluto in fiction" page, I would think.
• One question: is the image of Pluto at the top of the page supposed to look pixalated? It seemed odd to me (maybe I'm missing something). Awadewit 16:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could say in the caption why it is pixellated. Awadewit 17:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Response: I've addressed some of your comments (personally I find the whole "firstly" thing a bit pedantic, but it does seem to be a niggle with a lot of people, so I changed it). I don't really see the point of standardising this article's English; all that will happen if someone picks one type is that eventually someone else will alter it or add material in their own style. The little addendum about Clyde Tombaugh's ashes being on the New Horizons is a nice little fact that links the latest exploration of Pluto back to its discovery. I'd keep it. And if you want an image of Pluto that isn't pixellated, then you'll have to wait another eight years or so. Serendipodous 07:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles should use the same spelling system and grammatical conventions throughout. Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. - WP:ENGVAR. "Firstly" is incorrect, by the way. I'll reread the article again later. Awadewit 19:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I dissent. I am also British, which means I use British spellings. And given that the majority of English Wikipedia users are American, and given that many Americans have reverted my BE spellings as errors, I can only imagine the result if I standardised this article to British spelling. If there has to be a standard spelling, let it be American. It's easier. Serendipodous 07:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles in BE on wikipedia, but do what you think is best. I am almost ready to support. See the remaining issues above. Awadewit 17:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Support This article is well-written, well-sourced and (as far as I can tell, but I'm no expert) comprehensive. I was particularly impressed with its ability to convey difficult information to a lay audience. I really learned a lot about Pluto by reading this article and I actually remember it. Nice job. Awadewit 16:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Small etiquette point: Please do not strike out other reviewers' comments - it is changing their statements and only they are allowed to do that. I had to go through the whole list of my comments again and see what I had agreed was taken care of and what the pluto editors believed had been taken care of. I quote from the talk page guidelines: "As a rule, don't edit others' comments." The exceptions to that rule do not apply in this case (e.g. personal insult, libel, etc.). Awadewit 16:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry :(. I was hoping to make sure that anyone logging on here for the first time would know which topics had been addressed. I should have been more considerate. Undone. Serendipodous 16:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I think that it is more common for editors to write "done" or "fixed" under each comment or some sort of response to indicate that it has been addressed. Awadewit 16:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Interesting and well written. I'm a bit confused why "[the surface] is composed of over 98 percent nitrogen ice, with traces of methane and carbon monoxide." and yet the diagram on the RHS shows "frozen methane" for a crust. This this nitrogen ice a very thin layer on top? Colin°^Talk 12:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC) [fixed]

• Oppose It's excellent now!—Not yet up to the required "professional" standard of writing. I looked at the first couple of paras, which didn't fill me with confidence. Please find someone else to copy-edit carefully throughout the text. Don't just fix these examples.
  • Why "second-largest" but "tenth largest"? Both in the opening sentence, too. And why is there a hyphen here: "one-fifth the mass of the Earth's Moon"? Better "a fifth".
  • Rather than force your lay readers to travel the link to "AU", why not gloss it here and put in parentheses afterwards? ("The distance from the Earth to the Sun", isn't it?) [fixed]
  • "during a portion of its orbit"—plainer, please: "during part of its orbit".
  • "so Charon is currently regarded as a moon of Pluto"—If you want to indicate that this view is temporary/unstable, better to be explicit. Otherwise, remove "currently" as redundant. [fixed]
  • "several of the natural satellites or moons"—Is that an equative "or"? If so, at least use commas around "or moons". Several is unencyclopedic: how many? Let's give our readers precise information. [fixed]
  • "From its discovery by Clyde Tombaugh in 1930, Pluto was considered"—The first word is ambiguous, and our readers shouldn't have to get half way through the sentence to disambiguate it. "Since"? [fixed]

Tony 08:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Response: good call on a few of those. As regards portion vs. part, I think I can rely on the vocabulary of the average reader to be above a first grade level. As regards the opening sentence, I don't see anything wrong with it. Serendipodous 14:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: now that Moon has passed, I could try to help here a bit. Are any of the above comments still unadressed? Nick Mks 16:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed everything except the bits I didn't agree with. There are a few external links that were reccommended for removal that I decided to keep, plus the British/American English issue is unresolved. The Further Reading section is also unexpanded. Serendipodous 17:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really much I can do then... I did look at the external links, and must agree that it's a bit weird to have articles from news sites there, they could probably be used as refs. Also, I guess the EL need to use the cite template as well, to include author, publisher, full title, date and last access. I'll try to take care of that. Nick Mks 17:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the white space I had gotten out has returned somehow. Also, many inline refs will need the full citation parameters like I did for the external links yesterday. Nick Mks 18:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The citations all look fine to me. If you mean that they don't have "last-first" in their formats than that's OK; I got the Solar System article featured without that. Serendipodous 21:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, some don't have a date or last access. But that's just nitpicking, for me this doesn't prevent a support. Nick Mks 17:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't it help with the way-back machine if people are forced to use that to verify your information at some point in the future (say, it disappears from the site - one of the dangers of using web sources)? Awadewit 17:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So they say. I didn't use them in the past either, since I thought that refs in FAs should always be current and updated if necessary, and these dates therefore redundant. Nick Mks 17:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Article is well written, well sourced. Pictures are wonderful.--Indianstar 03:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support: enough of this, it's more than okay now. Nick Mks 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I couldn't find a problem with it when I looked at it. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 16:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: There are a lot of pictures that distort the text which is a pain. However, that does not mean that I think that there should be no pictures. --88wolfmaster 02:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support well written and referenced, another great planet article (although only one isn't in very good shape, must be... because of jokes). igordebraga ≠ 17:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comments:

• "Originally considered a planet, Pluto has since been recognised as the largest member of a distinct region called the Kuiper belt." According to their respective pages, (136472) 2005 FY9 and (136108) 2003 EL61 both have larger radii than Pluto.

If they do then they're wrong. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"In the late 20th and early 21st centuries however, many objects similar to Pluto were discovered in the outer solar system, most notably the trans-Neptunian object Eris, which is slightly larger than Pluto." It even contradicts itself.

Eris isn't a Kuiper belt object. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Indeed, Pluto is smaller than seven of the Solar System's natural satellites." I believe this would be easier to read and understand if it said something about moons, not Natural Satellites.

OK. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• At the top of the discovery paragraph, it mentions "Tombaugh's work was to systematically image the night sky in pairs of photographs taken two weeks apart, then examine each pair and determine if any objects had shifted position in that time." It does not say what method he used. I remember seeing somewhere about a machine he used to flick the photos back and forth. Can someone please find this, and link to it?

It's called a blink comparator. I can work it in if you want. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• It mentions (At the bottom of the discovery paragraph) that the predicitons were near where Pluto turned out to be. It does not mention that Percival Lowell is sometimes incorrectly credited with discovering the planet. I am not sure how to say that in an article, so will someone please put that in there, along with possibly finding an incorrect reference saying Percival Lowell discovered it.

Seems a bit irrellevant to me; that Percival Lowell gave a false prediction for Pluto's position seems enough. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• "The name Pluto was first suggested by Venetia Burney (later Venetia Phair), a twelve-year-old girl from Oxford, England." This makes it sound like she is still 12 years old.

• "Pluto's distance from Earth makes in-depth investigation difficult. Many details about Pluto will remain unknown until 2015, when the New Horizons spacecraft is expected to arrive there." This makes it sound like the New Horizons craft will be a much more extensive missions than it actually is.

Given how little we know about Pluto, it doesn't need to be very extensive. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• It does not mention under the appearance and composition sections wether or not it s visible to the naked eye.

Actually, it does. It says that it appears star-like even in large telescopes, which pretty much rules out seeing it with the naked eye. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Pluto's atmosphere consists of a thin envelope of gas, most likely a mixture of nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide, derived from the ices on its surface." Most likely does not sound very encyclopedic.

Fixed and cited. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• some minor things, but "From the rate of dimming, the atmosphere was determined to have a pressure of 0.15 Pa, roughly 1/700,000 that of Earth." 1. wouldn't this read better as "the atmospheric pressure was determined as", and 2. Is there are particular reason Pascal is not spelled out? Both of these also occour here: "Surprisingly, the atmosphere was estimated to have a pressure of 0.3 Pa, even though Pluto was farther from the Sun than in 1988, and hence should be colder and have a less dense atmosphere."

Ok... Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Relative to Neptune, the amplitude of libration is 38°, and so the angular separation of Pluto's perihelion to the orbit of Neptune is always greater than 52° (=90°-38°). The closest such angular separation occurs every 10,000 years." The 52° (=90°-38°) part is confusing. Should those parenthesis be there?

90-38= 52. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• under the section on Charon, I think there should be more information on what the tidal locking means, like people on one side of Pluto would never see Charon, Etc...

OK. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Astronomers now believe Pluto to be the largest of the Kuiper belt objects." Again, the largest part, which has been disproven

• "Eris (see below) is also larger than Pluto but is not strictly considered a member of the Kuiper belt population." This is the only place I have seen this (that Eris may not be a Kuiper Belt object) mentioned. It is not mentioned in the see below section, nor is it mentioned in the Kuiper Belt article.

Well the Kuiper belt article's a mess. Eris is a scattered disc object. Added it to the Kuiper belt article. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to leave now, so that's it from me. Wow... This is the first time I have ever said anything on a FA candidate, and in my opinion, I said a lot... Just an interesting note: the date of the most recent star occultation and the naming of the 2 new moons was only 9 days apart, and the moons were discovered less than 1 month before the occultation. Megalodon99 _(Talk) 19:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Anybody else still awake here, or do I take over? Nick Mks 20:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Serendipodous did good work, and I like it now. Megalodon99 _(Talk) 21:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Climate of India

Peer review

This is how I found the article last month; it was moth-eaten, since unreverted vandals had been randomly removing references and words. Thanks to some great feedback by Dwaipayanc and Nichalp, it's been repaired and expanded. All comments on things like prose, regional balance, comprehensiveness, etc. welcome. Saravask 02:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Despite its position within a high-latitude belt at 55–75° S (as opposed to its current position between 5 and 35° N), latitudes now occupied by such places as Greenland and parts of the Antarctic Peninsula, it likely experienced a humid temperate climate with warm, frost-free weather, though with well-defined seasons. This sentence is tough to understand at one go. Can it be modified? The "it" - what does it stand for? India or Pangaea?
• four major climatic groupings predominate, into which fall seven climatic zones.... But the image India climatic zone map shows six zones.
• However, once the dry northeast monsoon begins in September, most precipitation falls in Tamil Nadu..'. Is the norteast monsoon called "dry"? AFAIK, the northeast monsoon passes through only some parts of India (eg Tamil Nadu) and brings rain from the Bay of Bengal. The rest of India does not receive the norteast monsoon, and that's why remains dry during the winter months.

More comments later. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the comments.

1. "[I]t" is India.
2. I know the answer, since I traced that map. The original map merged the "semi-arid steppe" and "semi-arid" regions; meanwhile, they kept "arid" separate. The seven-zone classification is sourced from the LOC.
3. It's a common misconception that all monsoons must be humid monsoons. It's also mistakenly though that all monsoons must be noticeable. All the maps I've seen (including this one) show the NE monsoon winds advancing towards all of India. Page 118 of Caviedes 2001 has an even better map that shows the NE monsoon wind arrows placed throughout India. It goes on to state on page 120 that "[a] fundamental distinction exists between summertime sea-to-land airflows that are humid monsoons, and monsoonlike flows that are dry."

Hope these help. Saravask 19:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's on the way, but needs a full copy-edit by someone who's unfamiliar with the text. Some turns of phrase can be rationalised. I presume it's in BrEng, not AmEng (watch "kilometER", etc). I've done the lead. Tony 23:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I've added {{copyedit}} to the article, which will hopefully rustle up some volunteers. Meanwhile, I'll see what I can do by removing redundant words and editing out my usage of American spelling and idioms. Saravask 23:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I think the tag won't do anything (might antagonise reviewers here, though). Best to approach WPians individually; research the edit-history pages of related articles (esp. FAs) to find people who've done good work. Show them you're familiar with their work. In any case, this is worth doing to build a collaborative network for future nominations. Tony 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The top is image heavy. I suggest removing Uttaranchal, haystacks, one of the two images in =tropical dry=. The Haji Ali image does not add much meaningful value either. Will support once copyediting issues are resolved. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Object. TN (and most of south India by extension) gets most of the rainfall through NE monsoon. The north gets most of the rainfall from the SW monsoon. This disjoint weather system is one of the reasons why India is called a subcontinent. The article however gives a different impression with incorrect self-generated maps. You can verify this with any second-hand geography primer textbook. By the way, where are the Spring and Autumn seasons?

No mention about tsunami and the dramatic effect of sea (rather than hills and deserts) on climate. 3% share of world is not quite a vast coal reserve, is it? Acid rain in India is certainly original research. Thar Desert plays a role in attracting moisture-laden southwest summer monsoon winds - this if true must be a wonder of the world as it defies meteorological science. Deserts are the effects of climate change, not the causes. Indian agriculture does not quite depend on monsoons anymore despite rhetoric thanks to irrigation. Also on a lighter note, it would be nice to add a paragraph about the yet-unexplored surface tension phenomenon that made elephant idols appear to drink milk nationwide!

Anwar 18:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- A map with the NE Monsoon wind patterns could help here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the object by Anwar — "This disjoint weather system is one of the reasons why India is called a subcontinent." — this needs reference. Acid rain in India — please put citation needed tags if you feel necessary. The Thar dessert sentence has adequate inline citation. That Indian economy (and agriculture) is very much dependent on monsoon is evident in several sources, like this, this, this and BLACKLISTED LINK REMOVED. "elephant idols appear to drink milk nationwide"— I don't know much about this, but don't think it was a climatological phenomenon. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Further reply to Anwar's object— That the coal reserve is indeed vast has been referenced now. India has the fourth-largest coal reserves in the world.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the object by Anwar''. Tsunami is nothing to do with climate conditions. North east monsoon has been incorporated now in the article. However his comments about significance of Thar desert to India's climate seems to be valid. That sentence seems to have been written based on references in some old books about Thar desert's role in India's monsoon. Reliable sources about Indian monsoon does not attach any significance to Thar desert.

Few months back,I raised this point in India article. --Indianstar 06:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support the Photos on this page a Amazing, Good Work on giving this page new life after it had become "moth-eaten" lol Max 06:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Good work and another POINT violation by Anwar. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Under "Sutropical humid", "Winter rainfall—and occasionally snowfall—is associated with..." Does subtropical humid region gets snowfall?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support- Article is comprehensive. Pictures are wonderful. Article can mention more about North East Monsoon which brings rainfall to Tamilnadu, Andhra, Orissa and West Bengal . Himalayan glaciers retreat causes flooding in Ganges,Indus and Brahmaputra whereas article mentions only about Brahmaputra.--Indianstar 03:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the references. The northeast monsoon coverage has been updated. The effect of Himalayan glacier retreat on Indian major rivers has also been updated. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support • A great comprehensive and illustrated article.--Wolf ^{talk | हिन्दी | বাংলা} 15:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support A great article, with 87 references it's validity cannot be questioned. Mayank Abhishek 07:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Well done--Blacksun 09:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support The pictures, graphs and amount of refrences are top-notch! A pretty deserving article. Felixboy 12:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support; an excellent article, although I'm not sure whether Image:Hajiali.jpg really helps the article; it is so obviously edited, and further more, I can't tell whether the sky actually is clear (the image shows very obvious artifacts in the sky which resemble clouds. Why not use this Indian sunset instead? Laïka 11:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the suggestion. The image has been replaced. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Excellent work by Saravask. The maps are perfect, referenced, and among the best works in Wikipedia. The statistics section nicely portray numerical difference between the climate of the various sectors of the vast country. Seems to be comprehensive. The FAC helped improve whatever deficiency the article had. Language may not be brilliant, but pretty well written. Uses reliable sources and is verifiable. Complies with Manual of style. So, an emphatic support. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support, excellent and in-depth information is disseminated in a very accessible manner. My only gripe - the images are way too good. I kept sifting through them rather than reading the article :P --soum (0_o) 07:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support- Umhhh... No problem with the content and citation but the page needs to be properly wikified. Sushant gupta 11:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The article has followed WP:MoS. Could you please specify where the article needs wikification?--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support-Nice photos, maps, and properly cited text and covering all the essential topics, this article has all the components of becoming a FA. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 10:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Fritz the Cat (film)

The article is concise, well-written, well referenced, is not missing important information, excellent prose, focuses on a film with great importance in the history of animation, all of the images have fair use rationales. I worked on a great deal of the article, although many of the improvements have come from others. A lot of work has been done, and I think that it's good to go. (Ibaranoff24 18:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

• Nominate and Support. (Ibaranoff24 18:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC))
• Comment — The article is currently listed at requests for proofreading. Any problems concerning copyediting should be cleared up. If this is your only objection, you can go ahead and vote "support." (Ibaranoff24 13:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC))
  • Comment — The article has undergone copyediting by User:Galena11. (Ibaranoff24 17:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC))
• Support just skimmed through, didn't check any of the references or the usual stuff, but at a 10 minute read it looked quite good. I expect a lot from a film FA, such as plenty of context and encyclopedic coverage of the broader topics related to the film, not just a glorified plot summary, and this article seems to have all of that. --W.marsh 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• opposing for now Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of” Max 06:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• *Support I like many of the Changes that have been made it is now looking like a FA article. I do find the Article a little bazaar, but not in a bad way just different, and that is what makes Wikipedia so great even the most far out Articles can Become FA with the right stuff. Max 20:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment — "some" appears only twice, and its use in both instances is appropriate. (Ibaranoff24 13:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC))
• OpposeSupport — The whole production section could be re-organized better. "Ralph Bakshi majored in cartooning at the High School of Art and Design. He learned his trade at the Terrytoons studio in New York City, where he spent ten years working on theatrical and television animation." Very awkward intro to the directing section, starting with a bio of Bakshi, goes off-topic please put it into context. The whole directing thing goes off topic and talks about Bakshi a little too much out of the context of the film on the whole. Also since writing is also about Bakshi whay have two sections? I would say rid the section of the sub-sections and just call it productions and go chronologically. Aaron Bowen 12:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment — The "directing" section discusses Bakshi in terms of being a director and in being an animator. The "writing" section discusses the screenwriting only. I reedited the "directing" section into two paragraphs, and made the kinds of cartoons Bakshi worked on before directing Fritz the Cat more clear, so that readers get a better sense of the fact that he was directing children's animation but wanted to make films for adults. (Ibaranoff24 13:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC))
    • That's not really the directing of this movie though, so I moved it to background. It works better there, since it provides context for the producers seeing potential for his plans to make animated films. I think the reader will still remember it when he or she gets to the directing section. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I changed to support per the work of Caesar, it reads much better now. Aaron Bowen 10:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support I saw potential in this article while on wikibreak, and I think it's there. I did some restructuring, but the real-world material is fantastic. And just as good- no bloody cast list. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support I'm going to support this article. Good work by the main editor.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 15:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Object -- the plot synopsis isn't written very well: it's very hard to follow and choppy. I suppose the film is a bit disjointed plot-wise, but still, I would like to see that section focus more on giving a clear overview than in summarizing every scene. Mangojuice^talk 18:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment — Well, unless you want to give a go at rewriting it, I don't see how it could possibly get any better than it already is. It's been worked on by several writers, and it's already gone through a copyedit. (Ibaranoff24 18:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC))
    • It goes into a lot of unnecessary detail. A few examples - skip the construction worker urinating, skip Fritz's lamenting quote (and BTW - is it really "wrecked"? "wretched" would make more sense), skip Fritz's silent comment, et cetera. It seems like a lot of moments are being described because in the movie, they were funny... but the humor is lost in writing it down. Also, the text is choppy: many short declarative sentences one on top of another with identical structure. It's also not comprehensive. The text focuses almost 100% on specific events, without covering any character development or emotional story. I found it really confusing: maybe that's because I haven't seen the movie, but for a featured article, that shouldn't be necessary. The rest of the text (outside the plot section) is better. (BTW, shouldn't this section be a "synopsis" section? It should aim to be more than a summary of the events, it should be a summary of the movie.) Mangojuice^talk 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I've tried to deal with some of the things you've mentioned. Are there any more problems that need to be addressed? (Ibaranoff24 20:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC))
    • (A couple of additional notes - the opening sequence, as pointed out by a few critics, is an example of how the filmmakers feel about hippies. And yes, "wrecked" is what's said in the film. The original comic by Crumb reads "racked.") (Ibaranoff24 20:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC))
      • • I'd love to help more but it's difficult without seeing the movie. You addressed a couple specific poinst: I suppose it's better for that, but it's the style of this section I'm objecting to, I really think it should be redone, almost from scratch. Maybe it should just be a lot shorter: see for instance Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (film)#Plot, another movie in which the actual events aren't so essential. Mangojuice^talk 13:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
          • True, but that's not a featured article. I can't really write about the characters' development without getting into original research. The current revision evolved from a plot summary that was really bad (mistakes, over-describing the film, slang, etc.) - I tried to get it where it would only present a medium-sized summary of the film's story. I don't really think I could come up with something that's much better by going back and writing a new synopsis. I can't really get an idea of what you have in mind if you don't actually watch the film, and give me specific ideas on what to do with the synopsis, or rewriting it yourself. I really don't know what you want here. (Ibaranoff24 16:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC))
            • But its plot section is better written than this one. I did some web searches on the film and what I found never summarized the movie in as much depth as the writing in this article. But on the other hand, they were all much more clear about what they did say. And the choppy text remains a problem however the summary is written: that at least you should be able to fix. Here are a few examples of clearer but shorter synopses out there on the web: , . Some summaries I read talk about Fritz trying to find himself or define himself: that's the kind of thing I was looking for when I said this wasn't complete. Mangojuice^talk 20:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
              • I tried to base the style and layout of the article on that of some cult films that have recently attained featured article status, but it was hard looking for a comparison, since all the previous featured cult film articles thus far have been horror films (Cannibal Holocaust, Night of the Living Dead, Halloween). But all of these have much longer and more detailed (or perhaps equally detailed) plot summaries. (Ibaranoff24 21:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC))
                • Also, I don't think the film is really about Fritz trying to "define himself" or "find himself"; the character, as the Netflix description states "embraces every new experience that crosses his path" - he's all about living for the sex, drugs, and cheap thrills. (Ibaranoff24 01:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

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

Atheism

previous fac (May 31, 2006)

After copious discussion and overhauling, this article looks very little like its former self (compare to a month ago, or tot the last FAC attempt a year ago). The article has underwent ridiculous amounts of deweaselfication and prosification, and multiple sections have been rewritten from scratch (e.g. workspace for rewrite of "Reasons" section). It is now fit to be Featured.

With the help of the regular editors of the article (who have provided excellent discussion and input), I will bring this article to Featured status. If you have any objections, please clearly explain what you believe is wrong and how you suggest to fix it, as I intend to resolve any and all objections, and implement any other improvements suggested here.

• Emphatic support. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 15:12Z
• Comment It's got an NPOV tag on the criticism section, does this article meet the stability criteria? Aaron Bowen 15:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose- Something must be done reagarding the N:POV tag. -凶 15:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops. I added that tag, and forgot to remove it after I was done cleaning up the weaselness. My bad :) — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 16:02Z
  • Support -Taken care of. -凶 16:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support. Could use copyediting at places, but it's good.
  • A bit puzzled with the referencing in the article, maybe rename "Footnotes and citations" to simply "Notes"?
  • Always capitalize "God" when used singular.
  • ...and even reject the existence of a personal, creator God.[6][64] but in recent years - Remove "but" as it doesn't oppose the prior statement. Capitalize the sentence beginning.
  • He argues that atheism is a superior basis for ethics than theism - a more superior basis?
  • It is argued that a moral basis external to religious imperatives is necessary - By who?
  • Rename the Psychological, sociological, economical arguments section to Psychological, sociological and economical arguments.
  • ..and that therefore atheists have the advantage of being more inclined to make such evaluations - Remove "that".
  • The most direct criticisms made against atheism are claims that a god exists, and thus are considered arguments against atheism - "and thus" wouldn't work here, how about "The most direct criticisms made against atheism are claims that a god exists, which thus are considered arguments against atheism".
  • They argue that if there is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, then why is there evil and suffering in the world, and why is God's love hidden from many people? - Avoid questions in context. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 20:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your suggestions. I'll update here as I've made these changes. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 20:59Z
    • Done: I made all of your suggested changes, except for adding "more superior", since replacing "superior" with it's definition, "of higher grade or quality", still made sense. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 23:39Z
      • As I've said, it could still use copyediting at places. I will not retract my original weak support for now. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 17:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Can you be more specific? I and a few others have copyedited the grammar/style of the article thoroughly since your original vote. Where does it still need copyediting? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-11 17:47Z
          • I still see problems in the article's early sections:
            • such as secularism, empiricism, agnosticism (in the case of weak atheism), or the Brights movement - No need in bolding here.
            • According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a weak atheist or a strong atheist. - Either a weak or strong atheist.
            • It has been contended that this broad definition includes even newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas - Remove "that" and "even".
            • They argue that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is not compatible with a world where there evil and suffering, and where His love is hidden from many people - "There's", "and omnibenevolent", uncapitalize "His". Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Done Thanks for the suggestions! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 13:22Z
    • I'm not really clear on why you say that "god" must always be capitalized when used in the singular form. Speaking generally about a deity does not necessitate its capitalization. One could make the argument that referring to the specific Christian god-concept might should be capitalized, but if use of "proper" names of deities is required like that, then it follows that references to the Jewish god should be changed to Yahweh and the Islamic god to Allah. Whitney (Talk) 11 April 2007 22:26 (CDT)
    • I disagree with the change of "Footnotes and citations" to "Notes". "Notes" isn't sufficiently descriptive: it should be kept clear that this section is full of citations. How about "Notes and citations"?
      • Maybe, but it should be noted that "citations" are equal to "references". Some of the notes lead to the actual references, so it wouldn't be justified to label them as such. Michaelas¹⁰ 14:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree that god should always be capitalized in the singular; it should only be capitalized when it refers to the specific individual referenced at God, rather than to deities (or male deities) in general. So, for example, whether "the existence of a god or gods" should be changed to "the existence of a God or gods" is debatable, especially considering the "a".
      • It's debated, but so far it appears to be the standard in religion-related articles. Perhaps move the discussion to WT:MOS? Michaelas¹⁰ 14:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree (as BRIAN0918 did) with the redundant and erroneous change of "superior" to "more superior". In this context, such a phrasing is as ungrammatical as "more better", and it is moreover inaccurate, as Baggini doesn't consider theism to be a "superior basis for ethics" (even one that's not quite as "superior" as atheism); in fact, he considers it to be an inferior, weak one to an extreme degree, not merely a "less superior" one.
    • I disagree with the removal of "that" from "and that therefore atheists have the advantage of being more inclined to make such evaluations"; this removal changes the argument from one of Baggini's to one of Wikipedia's, and Wikipedia should not take sides on such issues. -Silence 08:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The word "that" is already used earlier in the sentence. As Julian Baggini doesn't argue two separate things, repeating the word twice would be redundant. Michaelas¹⁰ 14:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support.
  • In the third paragraph, "conforming to the broader, negative definition of atheism." was ok, but now its undefined since the negative def is not introduced in the lead. Perhaps the neg. def can be omitted and the explanation reworded, because I am not sure how significant the neg. def is in the cited literature. But if its really needed here, perhaps it can be introduced and defined at the end of the second paragraph, with respect to the change in scope. Modocc 00:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Corrected, by omitting and simplified by paraphrasing the sources. Modocc 01:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The Implicit/Explicit section and its article seem unbalanced, and that some opposing view(s) of affirmation recognition should be included in these.Modocc 18:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • What sort of opposing views? The Distinctions section is more for explaining the different classifications. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 18:37Z
      • This section includes rational for the classification, "infants are atheists", either this should go, or the prevailing view that "infants are not atheists" should be included to add balance.Modocc 18:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
        • The "prevailing view" is not the only view. The purpose of the section "Implicit/Explicit" is to record one way in which definitions of 'atheism' differ. What you contend to be the "prevailing view" is the "Explicit" definition. The idea that newborns are atheist would fall under the "Implicit" definition. johnpseudo 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, and the explicit view is given no attention, after considerable attention is given to quoting original views expressed under the implicit def.Modocc 19:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I've made a minor change to the section. Let me know what you think. The reason "implicit" has less prose than "explicit" is because the classification system is easier to define in that way- the mention of newborns serves to define the limits of implicit atheism. johnpseudo 19:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Better, at least the weight, especially if the references also make it clear that the implicit view is less common. Its sterile. But, at least it puts their work into perspective. Thanks. Modocc 21:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment leaning toward Oppose: Why the need for a separate "Criticism" section? It's much better to incorporate criticisms throughout the article in the appropriate sections rather than casting them into the troll-magnet ghetto of their own self-contained world. I'm hesitant to support any FAC that includes such a section as a violation of Criterion 1(a). — Brian (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Because of the pejoritive history of "atheism", the article actually contains a lot of criticism in sections other than the "Criticism" section. I actually thought the same thing as you in the past about how criticism should be put in appropriate places throughout the article, instead of being dumped in one section, but after my 2nd Featured article almost didn't pass FAC because there was no Criticism section, I just believed that's how it's supposed to be around here. Let's see what others have to say. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-11 12:56Z
  • Actually, after reading Wikipedia:Criticism, I'm now more inclined to disperse the various contents of the current Criticism section to their relevant parts. Watch for upcoming changes to the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-11 13:01Z
    • Good to hear. It's otherwise looking very nice. — Brian (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest to spread the criticism into the whole article, but leaving a "criticism" section that drives the reader pointing to the main critical arguments of the article.--BMF81 03:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Much better looking than last time this was a FA Candidate good work Max 06:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support A significant improvement indeed. The article demonstrates the best of what Wikipedia offers, with all sides of a controversial philosophy well represented. All research is properly supported and referenced. I'd like to see this work carried into related/sub articles. -- Scjessey 13:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Neutral Support This is a major improvement. BRIAN0918, I really like the work you have put into this, especially to simplify and clarify the article and put more emphasis on the interesting issues. I really like what has been done. I will try to see, if I can't help with anything in the days to come. For now I just want to say, great work! --Merzul 14:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • While I still think this is a major improvement, I was certainly too hasty to support FA status. I'm naturally not opposed either, but at the very least the citation system must be made consistent before this is featured, and personally I think User:Silence's approval is important. --Merzul 14:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think one user should have the final say over any article. Most of his suggestions are attempts, as johnpseudo put it, to turn mostly good prose into brilliant (or better) prose; such suggestions are fine, but they shouldn't prohibit featured status. If you can make specific suggestions, I'll be happy to address them. What is wrong with the current citation system? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-19 14:25Z
    • Done As you know, the citation system has been made consistent. Will you change to Weak/Strong Support now? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-20 14:55Z
      • I'm essentially back to support, but there are a few minor things left, and I will try to address some of that myself. I will post below. (re Silence, I would just personally like his approval of the article, it's not something that should block the FA process). --Merzul 23:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Very good article. However, I would suggest to move "Atheist organizations" to the end. That way the prose wouldn't be disrupted by this rather long list and I personally consider the two sections below more informative and interesting. -- EnemyOfTheState 17:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for the suggestion! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-11 17:35Z
    • On a second look, I think there is a problem with the naming of the "Notes" and "References" sections. "References" appears like a "Bibliography" to me, while "Notes" seems like the actual references section with direct citations, should probably be renamed to "Footnotes and references". Also, throwing both (explanatory) footnotes and references/sources together into one section is not ideal imho; I personally prefer to keep them separated. -- EnemyOfTheState 13:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Please read WP:LAYOUT. Also, if all of the sources listed in References weren't actually used in writing the article, those that aren't sources should be moved to a Further reading or External links section (with a *very* good reason needed for adding an External link that isn't used as a source). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Emphatic support. What a vast improvement! — Whitney (Talk) • 11 April 2007 22:32 (CDT)

• Oppose. Please fix the section headings (read WP:MSH). Also, please read WP:NOT re: Atheist organizations sections. Wiki is not a web directory. There are also WP:DASH problems throughout. A fresh set of uninvolved eyes should run through the entire text. Vast improvements in an article isn't reason for featuring it; meeting current standards is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Done I've made your suggested changes. Thanks for the help! I'm not sure what you mean by "fresh set of uninvolved eyes"; AFAIK, the following users were uninvolved with the article before supplying their Support rationale above: Dark Dragon Flame, Michaelas10, BrianSmithson, Grosscha, EnemyOfTheState, Dwaipayanc, and WhitneyGH. If you have any more suggestions, please list them. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 14:42Z
    • That was fast. Now, please spend some time cleaning up the messy footnotes. See WP:CITE/ES. Websources need publisher, author and date when available, and last access date; your inclusion of that kind of info is spotty and inconsistent, and it's not clear if all websources are WP:RS. Examples only, starting from the botton of the notes list: The BBC websources have last update dates on the pages, which aren't included. Date on the Harris Poll? Data on the Nature article? A zpub source linked to EB ? Who published the Price article, full date pls. Why is allrefer.com reliable? Publisher on the Stein article? I didn't review the top 50 notes; these are samples. By fresh set of eyes, I mean an uninvolved editor who will critically analyze the prose and structure of the article rather than support it for FA because it's much improved over a month. I found some awkward prose, but I'm not good at analyzing prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
      • In progress. Your suggested changes are currently being made. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 15:27Z
        • I'll check back tonight; appreciate the fast work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Done I'm fairly sure that all the refs have been fixed as you requested. Please let me know if you have any more suggestions. As for "an uninvolved editor who will critically analyze the prose and structure of the article rather than support it for FA because it's much improved over a month"... the following users in their Support mentioned nothing about the improvement: Dark_Dragon_Flame, EnemyOfTheState, Dwaipayanc. And who's to say that the ones who do mention the "vast improvement" didn't check out the prose? If you can cite problems, I'll fix them, but please don't oppose for no reason. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 17:09Z
            • I'm continuing to pick away at cleaning up the references. It's not clear that all websources are reliable sources (e.g.; what is rationalrevolution.net), but it is clear that there are 1a, copyedit issues. Sample prose:
              • Following the French Revolution, atheism rose to prominence under the influence of rationalistic and freethinking philosophies, and many prominent 19th-century German philosophers denied the existence of deities and were critical of religion, including Ludwig Feuerbach, Arthur Schopenhauer, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche (see "God is dead"). And, that usage (see [link]) throughout is indicative of prose problems; the links should be worked seemlessly into the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
                • Done I removed the useless SeeAlso's and incorporated the useful ones into the text. I also removed the RationalRevolution source and the relevant unsourced (and not very useful) text. Thanks for the suggestion! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 14:13Z
                  • Referencing and sourcing concerns resolved. I'm relieved to see the parentheticals removed from the lead and the See also parentheticals removed from the text, but I'm surprised that Tony approved of the prose. I'd suggest continued work. One example is two one-sentence paragraphs at the end of Early Indic religion. (Would you mind removing the green checks? It is up to reviewers to indicate when concerns have been addressed by striking them.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
                    • Thanks, much better now :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Further on the topic of dashes, can you please check the page numbers in the Radhakrishnan and Moore reference (currently ref 48) and then put an en-dash there, if appropriate? —xyzzy_n 16:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Done I verified those page numbers, and converted the page number hyphens to ndash's. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 17:09Z
            • Most page numbers already had en-dashes; you just replaced them with HTML entities. Please revert . And what exactly does 227–49 mean? −178 pages? —xyzzy_n 17:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
              • I've clarified the page # confusion (227 to 249). According to WP:DASH, you should use the HTML entity, but typing in the endash directly is alright as well. The revert isn't necessary. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 17:36Z
                • Thanks for disambiguating to 249. As for WP:DASH, ‘avoid typing their related codes (e.g., &ndash; for en dash) to display dashes’ seems quite unambiguous to me. —xyzzy_n 18:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
                  • It also says, above that, "Use the HTML entity &ndash;". The reason for your quote is just clutter. Either one is fine. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 18:48Z
                    • Actually, the main reason is that my way doesn’t involve an additional layer of code, which means that editors see the same thing in the edit box and the rendered article (instead of having to know/figure out entities). The saving of five bytes per instance isn’t very big (although I expect Sandy might disagree…). —xyzzy_n 19:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
                      • Late to the party. xy, I'm lost. Type in the ndash, or use the actual character from below the reply screen? I've never been clear on that. The article is *VERY* slow loading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
                        • Those HTML codes have nothing to do with speed with which the article loads. See how long this page takes to load: User talk:Brian0918/test. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 19:30Z
                          • Goodness, this page is slow to load and hard to work on. I doubt it's the dashes, but it sure could be the Harvard ref notes: I converted another article which used this system long ago as it was impossibly slow to edit and work on the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
                            • DONE! The ref/note system has been ditched, and the article loads much faster! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-24 13:42Z

• Support—Well-written. But please change "utilize" to "use". I'd prefer "people" rather than "man", as inclusive of not just 49.5% of humans—even though the philosophers referred to would have used the generic male. Tony 22:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Done Thanks for the suggestions! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 23:07Z

• weak support because of the very impressive restructuring. There are still some style issues with the wording, but the re-organization is really well done! Oppose The prose is awkward throughout the article, although it does improve near the end. Much of the philosophical discussion is wrapped in jargon, and there are far too many long sentences with many clauses. My specific problems include:

1. Why is there a History of Typology section and a Historysection? This isn't the only place that different parts of the article echo each other in unconnected, somewhat dissonant, and still repetitive ways.

   Done I restructed the whole thing, eliminating the "History of typology" section, moving any useful bits to their relevant places, and deleting any redundant content. It's much improved. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 13:52Z

2. The parenthetical lead section. Parentheses usually a poor way to present information, and in this case I had to read that second sentence a few times to get what it meant. When I pull that sentence apart, each bit is clear and concise, but as a whole it is very difficult to process.

   Done It's been split up with semicolons and em-dashes. If this not sufficient, please suggest a better alternative. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 04:14Z

   How about "Definitions of atheism vary in range from disbelief in specific conceptions of God to disbelief in anything supernatural, in degree from absence of belief in gods to positive belief in nonexistence and in recognition from the implicit unbelief of an infant to an explicit statement of disbelief." I tried to edit this myself but was defeated by the huuuuge notes. See below. Enuja 04:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

   Shouldn't there be some sort of punctuation between "range/degree/recognition" and "from"? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 12:01Z

   The current version, without all the details, is wonderful. Enuja 18:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

3. The fact that the term orginated as a pejorative is repeated too often; it appears 1) in the lead, 2) third paragraph in Etymology, 3) beginning of History of Typology 4) in Classical antiquity, last paragraph 5)Modern Advancement, opening sentence. Also, why does the History of Typology section have a "further information" link to Discrimination against atheists?

   Done It took a lot of work, but I restructured the whole thing, and moved the separate parts of the "History of typology" section to their various places (deleting a lot of repeated, unnecessary text in the process). It's much improved. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 13:48Z

4. Why is there a section named ""typology", especially as the rationale for atheism could also be called a "type" of atheism and is a different section? I looked up what a "typology" would be, and I'm not convinced that this a clear and useful heading.

   Done I restructed and renamed the whole thing, removing the redundant bits. It's a lot better now. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 13:49Z

5. Bourne quote in Practical versus contemplative. I had to read it several times to figure out what it meant, and I don't think it's doing any good there. You do need a source to say that "the existence of serious, speculative atheism was often denied," but a primary source isn't even a good way of sourcing that type of thing.

   Done That quote was annoying me too. I've removed those sentences, since they're not very useful and largely unsourced. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 13:55Z

6. In the Association with a positive assertion section, agnosticism does not "result" in weak atheism. I suspect that parentheses is trying to communicate that agnosticism is a euphemism for weak atheism.

   Done I changed "resulting in weak atheism" to "in the case of weak atheism". — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 04:19Z

7. In Strong versus weak, I don't think that a speech archived on the web is a good source for "strong atheists rarely claim to have certain knowledge that no deities exist"

   Done I removed that whole sentence. No good source and not likely to have one. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 04:23Z

8. Other distinctions is, in fact, just about Richard Dawkins. I'd cut it entirely. ("Yet other distinctions exist." is a particularly poor sentence, especially to lead off a section with, so if you keep this section, do improve it.)

   Done I also thought it should be removed, but wanted to see what others thought. Gone. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 04:25Z

9. The practical atheism section of "rational" is strangely unconnected to the practical vs. contemplative section of the History section. This is more of that "echoing" problem I mentioned in pt #1.

   Done I restructured the whole thing and deleted the redundant bits where necessary. It's a lot better now. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 13:51Z

10. Also in the practical atheism section:"Within the scientific community, practical atheism is exhibited in the form of methodological naturalism—the "tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it."" implies that all members of the scientific community are practical atheists
    • I've attempted to reword the sentence a bit; it only applies to those who practice methodological naturalism. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 14:41Z

    I've reworded it myself; now that sentence feels like maybe the idea should be in the bulleted list below, but at least it's more concise. Enuja 18:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

11. At the end of the Early Indic Religion section, I'm skeptical that Taoism is the "rejection of a personal, creator God." Did the concept of a personal, creator God exist before Taoism? I'm also a bit surprised and taken aback that a Chinese tradition is mentioned under a category of "Indic Religion."

    Done I removed the Taoism reference. It never had a source, and when the section was renamed to "Indic religion", it became completely out of place. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 04:28Z

12. What's with the long quote from Lucretius in the Classical antiquity section?

    Done Moved the quote to the Notes section. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 04:32Z

    I think it's almost as bad in a notes section: see below.Enuja 04:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

    Done I've removed the quote from Lucretius. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 14:09Z

13. In Atheism, Religion, and Morality, the sentence "Atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have argued that Western religions' reliance on divine authority lends itself to authoritarianism and dogmatism." is cited only for Harris, not for Dawkins.

    Done Removed mention of Dawkins. I've heard him say similar things before, but I'm not sure where it can be found in writing. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 04:34Z

14. Most of the captions on the pictures are far too long. Many of them would work as picture of the day extended captions, but as small text that goes under a picture, they are just hard to read. If you have lots of text that goes with a picture, put the text in the article and the picture near that article. Instead of being illustrative and a nice rest for one's eyes, the over-captioned pictures are actually wordy and intimidating.
    • People read through articles in different ways. Some only read the lead section, some skip around a lot, others go straight to the pictures. I had the last group in mind when I put in pictures with interesting, detailed captions. The captions are used to pull those readers in to reading the rest of the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 14:00Z
    • Done? Several of the captions have been reduced in length substantially. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 14:15Z

    Much better. Some of the captions are still a bit long, I can live with it.

That's what I found with about one and a half read-throughs. I had a very hard time reading all of the way through, as we supporters or objectors are asked to do, because it really is thick reading. I was able to get through it by writing down problems, and then getting back to the text. I certainly commend you for greatly improving the article, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily ready to be a featured article. Anyway, good luck! Enuja 03:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Added #14 Enuja 04:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Struck out most of the points, changed from Oppose to weak support. Enuja 18:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestions! Many of the parts you cite as problems were edits made after I nominated the article for FAC. I'll let you know how it goes. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 03:59Z

Okay, I've read over the article again, and I'm going to stick with weak support. The prose simply isn't up to snuff, and that's not the kind of thing you can improve by following specific comments that specific editors have. It needs a nice, long bath in grammatical clarity, given when it isn't on featured article review and isn't on, about to be on, or just on the main page. In other words, this article needs to be content stable, then it needs a bunch of work before it should be grammerical stable. It is a very complete and explanatory article on a tough to write about subject, though. Enuja 04:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, but it'd be better if you could list actual problems you encountered while reading through the article. Which sentences were unclear or in need of rewriting? Please be more specific. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-21 04:14Z

• Comment I'm new to this Featured Article Review stuff. Personally, I don't think that long footnotes with prose or long quotes are very encyclopedic, but for all I know the consensus could be against me. Is there such a consensus, policy, or guideline? I can't find one. Personally, I think that footnotes should have only references, but that might be going to far. If clean, clear, short, readable footnotes is important for a featured article, then this article needs some serious pruning. Lots of long footnotes also make it very difficult to read and edit the text. Enuja 04:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The quotes provide some useful context at times, although some are probably unnecessary. Given that most users don't have access to most of the sources (at least the ones that aren't online), it's useful to provide some quote to give context. However, I think there are excessive examples in Atheism, and I'll work on trimming them down. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 14:18Z
    • Enuja is on to something; since Dr pda wrote his prose size script, I can't recall seeing an FAC with such a high ref size for such a low prose size (Prose size 28 kB (4272 words); References (text only): 19 kB). The numbers do argue that a lot of prose is in the footnotes. If that much explanation is needed in Footnotes, it makes me wonder if the text can't be written more clearly. The ref size is the same as the extensively-cited, much-longer prose size article, DNA. Based on the numbers, this may be something to address. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • That's not really the case here. The "prose" in the footnotes is for the most part just text copied from the sources to give context. A lot of it is unnecessary and can be removed, I believe. You can't equate the size of the footnotes section with a statement about the quality of the article, given that the footnotes are just copying/pasting what other people have said to provide supporting evidence. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 15:22Z
  • I've removed several of the long unnecessary citation quotes, and attempted to restructure the edit screen text for readability. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 16:32Z

• Comment: Oh, my, are we back to those obnoxious green checks again <yikes> ... they are so disruptive, and don't mean anything until the original reviewer strikes objects. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
  • I actually use them to keep track of what I have done and what I haven't. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 14:38Z

Francium

I've been working on this article for quite some time now, and I've poured information into it from every reliable source I could find. It quickly passed GA, and it has had a long and productive peer review. I feel that it is the best possible Francium there could be, and for that reason, I have nominated it for featured article status. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Avoid phrasing like this: "This missing element became the focus of many researchers, and several false claims were made that the element had been found before an authentic discovery was made." Many researchers? Several claims? Can you reference this? Sweep through it again to check for this kind of stuff. JHMM13 03:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've rewritten all weasel phrases, or at least all the ones I could find, as best I could. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  Nice job. Support from me. Nice read. JHMM13 15:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Weak Support- I suspect not very much more could be added given what the subject matter is. I think it satsfies all criteria but the prose is abrupt in places and there are lots of short paras. However, I admit nothing jumps out as an alternative rightaway. I'll have a look if I have time and I think this should get over the line during this FAC as it doesn't need too much tweaking. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any glaring examples of abrupt prose? I know all too well where the short paragraphs are, but there's little to be done about those. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That's just it. I've read through it again and it's very concise and succinct...maybe a little too so I dunno. I think it must be that the subject matter's so dry...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 14:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The article is short compared to most featured articles, but I attribute that to the topic. It is already longer than the treatment in most chemistry books and encyclopedias. There's probably no much else to say about francium without getting into really esoteric trivia from the original literature. --Itub 15:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. I've read through this article a number of times and closely tracked its development, aiding when I could. I believe it now requires only a few minor touch-ups before it is ready. These are:
  • A re-solution of the solution issue, see the talk page.
  • In my last round of copyediting, I left a number of comments inline where the text contains minor ambiguities, or needs a bit of clarification. Fix 'em.

Once these concerns are addressed, I shall eagerly support. Good work Cryptic! -- Rmrfstar 22:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)