Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2007

Central Coast Mariners FC

I believe this article meets the featured article criteria. A "good article" since November 28, it follows the club pages manual of style and is fully referenced.

As a note, it had a peer review at the end of November, which mainly focused on structural issues at the time.

In my opinion, one of the best parts about this page is the images, which are generally so lacking in most sports articles. A lot of time and effort has gone in to securing free images from the club and photographers, all of which have permission archived in the OTRS system.

Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ref #33 is missing.--Rmky87 13:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  Indeed it is - it somehow got lost. Restored from history, so  Done. Thanks for that. Daniel Bryant 06:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Support. Very good overall. Excellent prose I must say. Throughout comments:

• Image:Dean Heffernan2.jpg has a watermark, which is generally disallowed in Wikipedia images.

   Done, with the removal of Heffernan from the section which the image was in, the image went also.

• Image:Central Coast FC.gif doesn't have a fair use rationale.

   Done

• "The Marinators also have a Mariners fans forum and web site." - 1) "web site" > "website". 2) Rather trivial information, anything it's notable for?

   Done; not really, no - it is, in effect, unreferenced, so I've removed it.

• Separate the notes section from the references, seeing as the first note contains improperly formatted references. It might also be confusing for the readers.

  May I ask, how? Use {{note}}? I wasn't sure how to do this.

  Yes. Take a look here. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 18:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

   Done. Looks much better, thanks. Daniel Bryant 08:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Lacks references for achievements, records, and personnel.

  Doing.

   Done for Achievements. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

   Done for Notable players; also note the expansion of text is in this section. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

   Done for Records during the convert-to-prose. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Socceroos" > "Australia national football team players". ...coping financially.[19] but after forming > No need in a punctuation here, move the reference to the end of the sentence. "They participate in the A-League, and are one > Remove the comma. ...local businessman John Singleton the clubs financial worries were eased - Add a comma after "John Singleton". The Mariners have been able to secure > The Mariners secured. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

   Done. Thanks very much for raising those (I've converted your comment into dot-points for ease of use, I hope you don't mind). Any advice on what to use for the ref/note split would be great. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I must have missed the peer review for this one. A few (mostly minor) things before this can get my support:

• Why is Hefferman listed as a star player?

   Done. I don't know, exactly :) I originally thought when it was added he was a Socceroo squad member, but on further checking he isn't. Removed (with the picture, see above).

• A rivalry with Newcastle United Jets is mentioned in the lead, but is not included anywhere in the body of the article.

  Should I create a separate section for rivalry, or include it in one of the existing ones? I can't see which existing one I could put it in, but on the flip side, The Mariners are only two years, and SFC and NUJ are the only rivals (ie. "F3 derby" and "NSW Cup").

   Done, moved to History section. Daniel Bryant 07:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• The use of tenses is mixed in places (I might fix this one myself in the next day or two)

  I would be very greatful if you could - I am hopeless with stuff like that :)

   Done, I believe. Oldelpaso edited this to make some minor copy-editing changes; I presume this was to fix these tense problems. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• The Colours and crest section is a little thin. The second paragraph is a description of away form, which is not connected to the kit itself. The use of "clean sheet" in this context seems odd. Don't know if its different in Aus. Eng., but in Br. Eng. the term is nearly always used when talking about the defending team. Either way, "failed to score" is easier for a non-sports fan to understand.

   Done for the wording. There isn't all that much information on the strip, hence your concern. The most notable part about it is actually the 05-06 away form with the strip, hence why it's there. I'll look around for a little bit more info regarding the colours/badge.

  Haven't been able to find much else, sadly. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Why is the Central Coast Leagues Club "the home of the Mariners"? Oldelpaso 22:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

   Done, removed. It is, really. Directly across from Bluetongue, all post-match stuff occurs there. However, because I recognise that it is really a POV, as such - the CCM offices are at Wyong - and because the reference doesn't point to that info, I've removed it. Thanks for all these suggestions, and I would greatly appreciate it if you could offer some suggestions regarding the comments I made above. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  Nearly there now. My one concern is that some of the prose in the history section isn't cleanly presented. "Media speculation prior to announcement of the franchises in the new league suggested that the Mariners bid may be favourable due to its new blood, and backing from former Australian national team player and club technical director Alex Tobin, as well as Clean Up Australia personality Ian Kiernan, who would act as club chairman" is the biggest example of this, and should be two or three sentences rather than one. Oldelpaso 20:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  That particular sentence is Y Done; however, I'm trying to arrange a copyedit for the full section from an unrelated person. Thanks for that. Daniel Bryant 08:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A good article from a fantastic editor! Believe me, nobody, more than myself would like to see a Central Coast article featured, however their are a few things I believe need to be fixed up.

• The lead mentions a rivalry with the Newcastle Jets, yet their is no further detail in the prose. If their is more to add then it should go into the history. If not, that paragraph should be move to the history.

  This issue is mentioned above. I'm actively considering doing as you mention and moving it to the history section (with an appropriate rephrasing), which should solve the problem. The only trouble is, will this make the lead too short?

   Done exactly what you said, see above. Daniel Bryant 07:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• The notable players section lists five players and in its current format shows a POV. I believe this section should detail why and what these players are notable for. The references in this section are also all for either the CCM website or the ALeague website. If these players are indeed notable, then shouldn't they be mentioned in a reliable external source. I personally find it hard to believe that a 2 year old club has had so many notable players.

  I have reworded this section so it clearly states the bar of inclusion in that list is playing international football. This list includes 5 players (: 4; : 1). I will try and find a couple of references, probably at the same time I add a little bit of content outlining that players' international (notable) career in <two sentences :)

   Done for notable players/personnel; also note the expansion of text is in this section. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• One thing that this article is definately good for is references. However they are in the wrong places. Achievements and Records should have at least a refernece each, and they should be from an external source. In addition, does the Achievements section need to be completely bolded.

  As noted above, I'm in the process of doing the further referencing. Regarding the bolding of achievements, I'm not exactly sure what you mean (note: MOS). I'd appreciate some further clarification on that point.

   Done for Achievements. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

   Done for Records during the convert-to-prose. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article, yet more to do. In the meantime Oppose. SUPPORT.Todd661

Thanks for the input. I'll try and clean everything up over the next couple of days. Daniel Bryant 10:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Conditional Support. Good article, but a few things:

• "The Mariners have a strong rivalry with Newcastle Jets, often referred to as the "F3 derby".[6]" May be a bit biased, but I can't believe that a two-year old derby is that "strong". I'd recommend that the Newcastle Jets rivalry information be included in the fans section, by the way.

   Done, moved from lead.

• "The Central Coast Mariners' bid for the Football Federation Australia's (FFA) new A-League aimed to fill the space for one regional team in the competition.[8]" I don't understand that at all. I presume it means that the Mariners looked to fill the franchise spot designated for a certain area. But that's not clear from that sentence and needs rephrasing.

  Indeed, it isn't the best wording. Will sleep on it.

   Done, I think that should read better. Daniel Bryant 03:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Prior to the 2006-07 season, the Mariners secured the services of then Australian international Tony Vidmar from NAC Breda for two years.[31] This was the Mariners' first marquee signing, following the lead of Sydney FC (Dwight Yorke) and Adelaide United (Qu Shengqing).[32]" What defines a "marquee player" sounds like a bit of arbitary description to me.

  A marquee player is one whose salary falls outside the salary cap. Each club can have one designated marquee player. This is explained in references like (probably the best for an article reference), , , and . I appreciate the concern, and will continue searching for the perfect reference to add to the article to clear up this issue. By the way, I've looked into it, and can link "marquee player" to two places: Salary cap#A-League or A-League#Clubs. Each is unreferenced, but I'll fix that :)

  I think if you just wiki-link "marquee player" to Salary cap#A-League that'll be fine. Cheers, HornetMike 17:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

   Done, too easy :) Daniel Bryant 02:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• ""We all follow a yellow football team" (as the Mariners wear a primarily yellow strip when playing at home)." That can be cut down to "(a reference to the colour of the team's kit)" HornetMike 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

   Done. Thanks for that, and all the other, suggestion. I would love a response regarding the marquee player, though. Cheers, and thanks again, Daniel Bryant 07:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, been offline a while so missed an opportunity perhaps, but overall this is a great article. I have only a few very minor comments which you can look at as you see fit.

• The use of WP:DASH, e.g. the en-dash, for seasons such as 2003-04 ought to be 2003–04.

   Done. Ah, yes, the dashes. Thanks for that.

• Highest attendance - against whom, was it a significant match, when was it?

  Y Done, added details; they were in the records anyways, but can't hurt to add it there as well.

• "..only one football manager.." - it's a clear football article so I'd ditch "football".

  Y Done

• Records section, this would be nicer in prose rather than a simple list. See Arsenal F.C. for a good guide on what I'm looking for.

  Will do; I like Arsenal's much better than the present CCM one. Added to to-do list.

   Done, I've converted the recors to prose. I estimate that the Records section is currently at 80% completion; I still want to add a paragraph about how they hold the A-League record for longest undefeated streak at home (nearly 12 months), which recieved a lot of media attention. Shouldn't be too hard, I'll do it in a couple of hours' time. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

   Done fully, see below. Daniel Bryant 10:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Refs 1, 11 & 44 are in the wrong place if you follow WP:CITE strictly. And the citations in the notes section.

  Y Done for 1 (and 2), and 44. 11 I can't seem to see anything wrong with. I've also fixed the notes section.

  Y Yes, ref 11 is fine, don't know what I was talking about. The Rambling Man 08:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• In the supporters section there feels to me like an overuse of parentheses, it detracts from the excellent prose.

  Y Done, fixed.

Hopefully some of that makes sense and/or helps. Great work, all the best. The Rambling Man 19:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it helped lots, thanks so much. I'll get to work regarding the Records, and if you could have a look at Ref 11 for me, that'd be great. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me know when you've rewritten the records section and I'll add my support The Rambling Man 08:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you a ping when I've done the last 20%, per above. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done, I had to scrap the last 20% because I was mistaken...thank goodness for WP:V :) Notified as per request. Daniel Bryant 10:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work, so now, as promised, I offer you strong support. The Rambling Man 10:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, and thanks for all your suggestions (and help, with the en dashes - I still hate swapping them over, despite all the practice I'm getting :D), Daniel Bryant 10:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Support. Great article. Only one comment. Would it be possible to write something about the clubs ownership. Thanks. Kyriakos 12:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Regarding the ownership, I believe that this has been covered in the History section. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. Before we jump to conclusions ("excellent prose I must say"), let's take a proper look. I've chosen at random the "Colours and badge" section, which I see comprises three stubby paragraphs.

• "The Mariners home jersey is yellow with a navy left sleeve and stripe on the right sleeve. The companion shorts have a yellow cut up the seam and are matched with yellow socks. Their away uniform is similar, with white jersey and socks and slightly different shorts." Apostrophe missing from the first word. "A" before "stripe". "Running" before "up". "Away" seems very loose in this formal register; is there another word you could substitute for non-expert readers (maybe not)?

  Apostrophe missing from "The"? I don't understand

  I would guess he means the second word - i.e. Mariners' The Rambling Man 09:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  That would make sense, I guess.  Done. Daniel Bryant 11:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  Stripe  Done

  Running  Done

  No, "away" is a formal term in this situation, quite clearly meaning "playing away from home".

• "Away strip"—Do you mean "trip"? Sounds as though they performed a naked display, but that would be reserved for the calendar, surely. This link might be piped to the specific subsection in the related article.

  "Strip" is the common Australian English word for "Playing clothes". WP:ENGVAR; do you know a term which works for all, which admittedly would be better than the current situation.

• "Whilst"—nowadays, "while" is the norm; please use plain English.

   Done

• "It is within walking distance of the Gosford railway station"—Remove "the", which is unidiomatic here.

   Done

Then further down:

• "Stadium" section: lots of subby paras.

  I dispute this; I (and the others above) believe that the paragraphs here are of sufficent length. Instead of waffling to increase the, concise wording was applied. However, I will try and see if there's any more info related to CCM to flesh out the second and third paragraphd (which are shortish).

• "membership based group"—hyphenate the double epithet.

   Done

• "and have sponsorships from local businesses in the Central Coast region"—"Have" is ungainly here; where else would "local businesses" be but in the CCR?

   Done

Please don't just correct these issues; they're examples of why a thorough copy-edit is required, preferably by someone who's unfamiliar with the text. Tony 00:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this has already been done. However, I am currently trying to find at least one more copyeditor to have a look. Cheers, and thanks for the comments, Daniel Bryant 03:06, 31 March 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.

Mayan languages

Nom restarted (old nom) Raul654 16:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Support More citations have been added to this article, which I am happy to see. It would be nice if they were all cited the same way (why is that so difficult?), but all things cannot be achieved. This is a well-written, well-sourced and at least appears to me as a comprehensive article. I am not an expert in Mayan languages, so I cannot really speak to its comprehensiveness. I greatly appreciate the work that the editors have done to make it more accessible to those of us who want to understand their work. Awadewit 22:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Support with Comment - I supported the initial nomination, and am very impressed with the newer version. My only concern (and I don't know if it was dicussed in the archive - there's a lot to go through there) is the high number of single-sentence paragraphs. If these could be condensed with associated text, that would be great. -- Oaxaca dan 22:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments: I've not waded through the previous nom, but the article certainly seems to have improved for it.

• I think the third paragraph of the lead section could use some work - possibly the removal of the second, third and fifth sentences? These are fairly jargony for the non-specialist. This material (the link with the Mesoamerican linguistic area) doesn't appear to be treated in the 'geneaology and classification' section' - in fact it appears to be contradicted by the statement "Mayan languages as a family are unconnected with any others."

• This is a technical issue a linguistic area is not afamilial unit in a linguistic sense - a linguistic family is a group of languages with a shared ancestor - the languages of the mesoamerican linguistic area do not have shared ancestry but have converge only because they were spoken in the same area - sort of like english loanwords in chinese for example do not imply a shared ancestry between chinese or english. This is very basic linguist so it will be hard to specify in the article without writing very longwindedly.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• You might read the old nomination as there was a rather extensive discussion regarding the technical level of the lead already. Awadewit 17:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've tried to read the previous nom, which sheds some light on it, but I stand by my comment. I think reducing the lead section by a few sentences and expanding the Genealogy or possibly Grammar sections by a few more would make the article considerably better. The Land 22:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think there are some very short paragraphs that can be merged. However I wouldn't go too far down that road, as short paragraphs are best when dealing with technical material.
• Could the number of present-day speakers be made more immediately clear - for instance, in a table? It's just a thought.

that is why we made the List of Mayan languages·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, that's an impressive table - I can see why it's not in the main article!! The Land 22:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Overall, very impressive article and I look forward to supporting it shortly. The Land 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Avala 16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very impressive. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support as before --Miskwito 01:29, 31 March 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.

Final Fantasy XII

Self-nom — hello again everybody. This article has been the result of a couple months of "chipping away" by no fewer than ten members of WikiProject Final Fantasy. It is the second most well-referenced Final Fantasy title article, as well as one of the most comprehensive. Hopefully, all that remains are minor issues that can be weeded out via this discussion (peer review yielded only one response, which was taken care of). Although there is another FA nom up for this WikiProject, it is more narrow in its contributors' scope, so it is not a major tax on our manpower, in my opinion.

The history of the article is a little complex, so I'll skip over that. If the rest of the team who worked on this article could co-nom below and add their comments, that would be great. As usual, the no spoiler tags for the plot section is part of the WP:FF's belief system since last year, and part of the compromise being struck on the project talk page. Images issues should be all set, so the issues should (hopefully) only come from the prose itself. Let the discussion begin, and thank you for taking the time to add your voice to this nomination. — Deckiller 23:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Co-nom and support, a lot of work went into this article and it's quite impressive. I, too, am hoping that this FAC will be a good opportunity to improve the article. If this passes, it will be the fasted turnover from release to FA status of any FF game so far. Axem Titanium 01:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Things...

• The comma in the second sentence seems unnecessary (I might be wrong).

• I'm a bit of a comma fan, so it doesn't really bother me. — Deckiller 02:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Is the serial comma the standard for this article? It jumps back and forth.

• Yeah; that should be standardized. I've always found the serial comma more intelligent and professional and less old school, but that's just me :) — Deckiller 02:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Should "Gambits" be capitalized?
• Should "Summoning Magic" be capitalized?
• Should "License" be capitalized?
• a mysterious phenomenon known as "Mist" exists and is the key energy might sound better as a mysterious phenomenon known as "Mist" is the key energy or even a phenomenon known as "Mist" is the key energy.
• Last sentence in the "Battle system" section seems awkward (again, I might be wrong). --- RockMFR 02:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm feeling a little sick right now (24 is really starting to make me frustrated, plus the brown bread), so I might not get to them quickly. — Deckiller 02:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I capitalized "Gambits" for now so it's uniform, and I reworded the mist part. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 03:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I just took a look at my game and decapitalized "summoning magic", "gambits" and "licenses" because they're common nouns. "License Board" remains because it is proper. Axem Titanium 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I believe all issues have been addressed. Feel free to find as many as you can! Correcting fixable errors on FAC (except the nonsense 5MB source/spoiler tag/plot length debates) not only improves the article, but helps everyone spot these mistakes at a later date.— Deckiller 15:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You may want to double check your fair use rationales. It seems the ones of the screenshots are refering to cover art in a couple places, and I'm not sure what the intent of those lines was. Jay32183 19:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've fixed what I saw. Anything else? Axem Titanium 23:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That was the only problem I could find. So I support. Jay32183 03:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your support. Axem Titanium 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• The ref for the "Square Enix Product Blog" bit at the very end of the article used to point to some blog source or some crap like that. That site referenced another site, which in turn referenced the SE blog. I've changed it to point directly to the original source, but I can't read Japanese. Someone with that skill should check to make sure the original blog actually says what we are saying it says, and maybe try to get an author name. --- RockMFR 05:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• During my edits, I updated the Game Rankings score, and in doing so, I noticed that FFXII has dropped to the fourth highest FF game, so I removed the bit about being second highest. It's not really noteworthy anymore, so you might want to move the Game Rankings score into the table and then merge the remaining stub paragraph up or down. --- RockMFR 05:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I wish my articles would look like that. Some random stuff I found:
  • ..are complete and will be available soon - specific date?
    • Sorry, the ref doesn't give a specific date.
  • "Final Fantasy XII US - fansite" and "Final Fantasy Wiki" - Remove per WP:EL as non-reliable websites.  Done
  • ..a special Final Fantasy XII package, which included - "which contained" would be better in this context.  Done
  • ..brand in Japan - ..Japanese brand.  Done
  • ..commercially available on March 7, 2006, in Japan - ..commercially available in Japan on March 7, 2006.  Done
  • No need in an English indicator for the second external link, as the first is the only non-English one.  Done
  • ..it was the fourth best-selling PlayStation 2 game of 2006 - was?  Done
  • ..most released and upcoming Final Fantasy games up to the newest releases - "up to the newest releases" redundant.  Done
  • Any references for the Japanese and Australian release dates? Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 16:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not a fan of including references in infoboxes, unless it's controversial, but I'll definitely find some to include elsewhere in the article.
      • I've interlaced the things I've tried to address within your comment above. If you have anything else to add, please do. Axem Titanium 21:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support looks good enough. It's impressible the polishing of FF pages (all of the main series are GA or FA...). igordebraga ≠ 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support. Axem Titanium 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose because of lack of notability of the topic. 69.140.155.148 02:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Not a valid objection. All articles that come to FAC are assumed notable enough to avoid FAC being another AFD. Jay32183 03:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • My sentiments exactly. That said, do you have any actionable objections? Axem Titanium 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • If I remember correctly, IPs can't participate in these discussions anyway. — Deckiller 04:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
        • There's nothing in the rules up at the top of the page about it, IPs just never seem to make it to this page. (No vote, I want to play this game sometime so I'm not reading the article) --PresN 17:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Well done, PresN. That's the kind of self-control I wish everyone had. Axem Titanium 21:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support after reading it over several times, it looks like FA material to me. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Firm, well written prose with a multitude of interesting facts and a comprehensive, yet uncrufty treatment of the gameplay. My only objection is to the review table but as that's a personal preference, this nomination has my full support. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very well written and easy to follow. It's about time this article joined all the other FA Final Fantasy articles. ZenSaohu 06:11, 31 March 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.

George Washington (inventor)

This was my idea for a perfect April 1 article — a switcheroo of a major historical figure for a quirky nobody. So, in the Main Page box we could say, "George Washington was an early inventor of instant coffee, and ensured a full supply to soldiers fighting at the front lines", and similar sorts of absurd, but vaguely historical-sounding things. Well, that was the idea, anyway. It's hard for me to judge if in its short development time this article has really reached near FA quality, but I've spent way too much time on it in too short a space not to submit this now. Of course, any further improvements would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.--Pharos 07:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Looks nice. I haven't any major things prepending FA status (and I agree it'd make a fantastic MP one for April 1!). there are a number of little things that should be fixed,though:
  • Multiple uses of the same ref should be collapsed (see Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing_a_footnote_more_than_once about that)
  • Full dates (i.e. in references) have to be linked for User preferences to work properly
  • Maybe the patents should be listed on 2 or even 3 columns? They take an awful lot of screen space.
  • There are a number of one-line paragraphs. They have to be refactored.
  • The parallel to Ouspensky looks unnecessary and distracting to me.
• Overall, though, I'll be glad to support after those are tweaked. Circeus 21:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've now cleaned it up per your suggestions.--Pharos 02:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Made a few tweaks to the refs, and I think it's all good now.Circeus 15:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Good job!! Do you subscribe to newspaperarchives.com? BlueLotas 05:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I do indeed have university database access; not sure if it's through that company. It would be impractical, I think, to keep decades of newspapers in my basement.--Pharos 05:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment My feeling is that it's too short to be a FA. It could also conform closer to {{Biography}}. -Malkinann 08:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Congratulations on writing such a comprehensive article in such a short space of time. The output is exceptional, and deserves FA status. Bensmith53 10:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Can we mention that he invented this after the Boston Tea Party? (In this case, several decades after the Boston Tea Party, and not as a direct result, but we can leave that out.) My wise-guy comments aside, here's a couple questions: "There have been several "American Party"s in history — in 1920, former Texas governor James E. Ferguson actually ran under that label." This is confusing. I don't think this is a fact about George Washington at all. Similarly, is the following quote from a Brooklyn polician about George Washington, or James Ferguson? Other than that, I don't think I have any major concerns. Even though this is a quirky article about a relatively unimportant topic, it can get to FA status. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've relegated Ferguson to a footnote. The Brooklyn politician was talking about George Washington, in a joking context that reflects the color of the time period. I hope it's clear that the nomination of Washington was entirely non-serious, and that Washington didn't even know about it till the New York Times reporter tracked him down.--Pharos 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Can we get a picture of him? Raul654 17:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• If a picture of him is not found, I recommend using a crop of the can in Image:Washington_Coffee_New_York_Tribune.JPG. --- RockMFR 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Looks pretty good. Since we're on a tight schedule, I've made a few minor changes myself and will probably make a few more tomorrow. --- RockMFR 21:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Excellent article done in a short space of time, though some of the prose could be tightened. I've tried searching for a picture on the web, but its a complete nightmare - George Washington, George Corbin Washington (politician) and George Washington Carver (also an inventor) complicate matters, and the fact that along with the above two this inventor also had a surname beginning with c conspired against me. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 22:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, based on a tip from RockMFR, I found a rare photo :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha, ha, that's an effective crop.--Pharos 16:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I like this, too. But I suggest uncropping a bit to show the entire right forearm, and perhaps to show the entire helmut. GW looks better as a soldier in uniform. :-) --74.14.18.41 16:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What I was trying to do is to hide both the spoon and the words "prepared coffee" so it is more ambiguous. But also keeping a square 100x100px image that is commonly used on the main page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I've been lending a hand, and ferreting around the article, but not adding substantially. Looks good. Carcharoth 11:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support — despite the apparent lack of dates. I have a few comments if you really have nothing else to do:

• 29 March 1946, 4 January 1920 - Change to constant formatting.
• Create a new "Notes" section to avoid confusion with references, see here as an example.
• ...and also attained - "also" redundant.
• At this time > At the time.
• He died just three years after his company was sold, on March 29, 1946,[2] after an illness, at the age of 74. - Reword the sentence. Remove "just" for NPOV.
• Link all full dates at the image captions. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 16:49, 31 March 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.

Cholangiocarcinoma

Having worked on developing this article and requesting a peer review (which provided many helpful suggestions), I think it's now ready in terms of completeness, stability, referencing, and style to be considered for featured-article status. I'm happy to address any deficiencies or suggestions mentioned here to improve the article further. This is essentially a self-nomination. MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Except for the staging section, metastasis isn't mentioned anywhere. Metastasis significantly influences prognosis and operability so I think this should be added (even though cholangiocarcinoma rarely has metastasized at the time of presentation). --WS 22:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Distant metastases are rare, and it seems that it doesn't really matter if you have locally advanced disease or metastatic disease; basically, if the tumor can't be resected for whatever reason, the outcome is poor. Do you have refs for metastasis specifically affecting prognosis? I haven't found any but I'll keep looking. MastCell ^Talk 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Only for lymph node metastasis: PMID 17278119 PMID 17006609 PMID 11224627 But it is also interesting to mention what the most common sites of metastasis are and like you say that distant metastasis is rare. --WS 13:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Another comment: after resection a five year survival of 17% is mentioned. Both emedicine and the oxford textbook of surgery pu it at 40%. Any idea which would be more correct? --WS 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done There are a range of survival statistics, depending on the location of the tumor and which series you look at. I've expanded the section considerably to reflect the varying estimates of long-term survival - please take a look. MastCell ^Talk 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Better now. Support --WS 13:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well done. The lead could use some additional context to make it more accessible to the average reader. A large percentage of readers would not know where the bile ducts are or what they are. The second sentence tell us they're in or near the liver, but that would be better in the first sentence to ease the reader in. The picture helps, but not quite enough. In the sentence mentioning the left and right hepatic ducts that wording is really only useful to medical practitioners. It's particularly important that the lead is as accessable to everyone as possible. Need to reduce the number of short, one and two sentence paragraphs. There are several throughout. Otherwise looks quite good and I'd support with all that fixed. - Taxman ^Talk 17:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. See what you think. MastCell ^Talk 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Still needs much more on merging or expanding the short paragraphs, I think I saw about 6 or 7. Now the lead has one. But that simple fix did make the lead more approachable. Now just expand it a little bit. - Taxman ^Talk 22:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through and tried to merge these. I think the short paragraphs don't look as awful or eye-catching to me because I'm using an 800x600 monitor (stone age, I know). It only takes a few sentences to fill the screen. If you see some more that are sticking out to you, feel free to merge them. MastCell ^Talk 22:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments very good, needs a couple of tweaks though:
  • When you say 'higher prevalence among Asian people', you should specify that (I presume) you mean people in Asia, not people of Asian ethnicity who live elsewhere.
  • I didn't think of this before, but the existence of HIV infection as a risk factor is only mentioned as a possible explanation for increasing rate of occurrence, but it's not strongly supported by the risk factors section. Is the mechanism for this known?
  • Did you manage to dig up any images? The pathophysiology section would be clearer with some pictures.
  • The very last sentence is very long and stringy; break it up into two (or note the use of a semicolon ;) Opabinia regalis 00:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done I think. Take a look. As far as HIV, it has only been mentioned as a risk factor in one (fairly large) study. It did hold up as significant in multivariate analysis, but I think there's still a question as to whether HIV is directly involved or whether it's a marker for increased risk of hepatitis B/C and cirrhosis, which are clearly linked to cholangiocarcinoma. The mechanism by which HIV might predispose one to develop a cholangiocarcinoma is unknown, as far as I could find in my reading. Images: unfortunately, so far we've got what we've got, unless someone out there has something to upload. MastCell ^Talk 23:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support with the suggestion that the epidemiology section call HIV a 'potential risk factor' or somesuch. Opabinia regalis 04:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done MastCell ^Talk 15:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments Thorough, well-written article, nicely organized into sections and with neat, uniform citations. Here are a few suggestions, though, which are really just some loose ideas, because the article is very good as it is currently.
  • The article was understandable to a reader as unfamiliar with the subject as myself, but, as FAs are intended for a wide readership, I'd still recommend a few tweaks for accessibility. Perhaps more in-article explanation of technical terms would help. It's not a major concern, though, and the wiki-linking of technical terms already present in the article is very helpful.
  • The only national incidence statistics under the "Epidemiology" section are for the United States. Perhaps more data from such countries as Canada, the U.K., and Australia would be useful for comparison (although the difference between incidence in the Western and Eastern world is clear). Perhaps these data could be assembled into a table, which could be right- or left-aligned, if there was a concern that integrating this information into the section's prose would interrupt its flow.
  • Some illustrations of particular locations where cancer can develop in the bile ducts might help readers to better understand the points relating to the different effects that these different locations can have. This could be as simple as taking the bile duct diagram and adding a coloured dot. -Severa (!!!) 01:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done for the table. It's my first table, so I'm sure if it helps or hinders the article, but we'll see. I tried to de-jargon the article a bit. As far as the illustration, I've seen a couple of beautiful illustrations of the various sites at which cholangiocarcinoma can arise, but all such images I've seen are copyright and not freely available. I don't have the skills to create one on my own, but I'll keep looking. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, very helpful addition. Support. Although further reccomendations for the table would be to rearrange the country statistics in alphabetical order, formalize abbreviations like "U.S.A." to the full country name, and wikilink the names of the countries. This is the standard I've witnessed on articles that feature by-country tabulations of information. Maybe if you asked around WikiProject Medicine, someone might be able to help you find an illustration, or even create one. I'd do it myself, but I'm afraid my illustration skills are far too amateur to be of any use in creating anatomical diagrams. -Severa (!!!) 21:09, 30 March 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.

Armament of the Iowa class battleship

This article was spun off of the current Iowa class battleship article to help reduce the page size. It just cleared A-class on the Military History Wikiproject, so I am now fixed on getting it promoted to FA class. One minor note: I am in school at the moment, so if I appear slow to respond have patience; it is likely school work has me tied up. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support, excellent article. Kirill Lokshin 00:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Well-written, lots of citations. Very well done. --Bryson 17:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support Support Well written and coherent. Some claims need to be referenced, "Main battery" section needs some organization (sub-sections), there's only a mention in passing that the battleships have been decommissioned which might warrant a section or at least "see also" on what has replaced them. Some of the specifications of weapon systems might possibly be more appropriate on its respective page than on this page, use {{see also|}} templates. Madcoverboy 22:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a rather large section on the main Iowa class battleship page that discusses battleship reactivation vs battleship replacement through the eyes of the USN, Congress, and other parties privy to the discussion. Also, I can not cite your uncited claims if you do not mark said claims with {{fact}} or some other template to that effect; note that some claims contained in paragraphs have their citations at the end of the paragraph since one source was used for the section. I will look into the other suggestions forthwith. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I went through and cleaned up a lot of spelling mistakes (in Mozilla's spellcheck, at least) and started to throw some fact tags on (see Discussion). I would also get a spot copy-edit job to verify the grammar, verb tenses, punctuation, and other style issues that can crop up, though nothing specifically jumped out at me. Madcoverboy 00:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Fact tags have been more or less addressed. I will check for Spelling and Grammar when my laptop recharges. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support This is very well writen congradulations. Tirronan 21:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose This article needs to have information about the year and preferebly month when each of the Iowa class battleships was fitted with or lost the arnaments mentioned in this article. This article omits another weapon the commander of this battleship had at his disposal - Marines and armed sailors, how many small arms (pistols, rifles, hand grenades, machine guns etc) were on board a Iowa class battleship? Mieciu K 12:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a two parter, so for the sake of convience I will split it into two parts to answer the questions: 1) In broad strokes: New Jersey lost her 40 mm AA guns when reactivated in the late 1968 for the Vietnam war, and all of the Iowas had all of there AA guns yanked between 1982 and 1988 and replaced with the missile systems and CIWS systems mentioned in the article. The exact date that the refitting occured isn't mentioned in this article in part becuase that information is considered part of the ships history, and could be better presented in our articles on each of the individual ships, and in part because the dates offered only reflect the times in for the modernization. I will take a stab at finding exact dates, if you wish, but I do not hold much hope of finding exact information. 2) The nature of this question caught me off guard, I didn't figure anyone would raise any interest over thess particular types of weapons, so I didn't do a thorough look into it. Off the top of my head I known that Missouri had 40mm grenade launchers and 25mm chain guns installed in 1987 when called up for Operation Earnest Will, and as you pointed out I would assume that the battleships would carry firearms for marine use. I will do some reasearch into this, and if I can gather enough info create a section for your pistols, rifles, hand grenades, machine guns, etc, I will add a section to this effect; however, it may have to wait until the end of next week because I have upcoming tests I need to study for. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Whoa. The small arms of the Marine detachment on any man-of-war are NOT part of that ship's "armament". It's irrelevant and distracting to the nature of the article. The presumption that because the Marine detachment was aboard, it was at the "disposal" of the ship's captain is dubious at the very least for an Iowa class BB.--Buckboard 10:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support A great article. Qjuad 09:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. References are not fully formatted in any consistent bibliographic style. For example, Do battleships move sideways when they fire? is a website link, indicates no publisher, last access date, or author/publication date if available. Examples of reference formatting can be found at WP:CITE/ES, or cite templates can be used. If footnotes are manually formatted, at minimum, publisher should be identified on all sources, and last access date should be given for all websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs)
  • Well, that was...unexpected. I didn't figure that folks would call me for the refernces. I have taken steps to adress the issue; as far as I can tell, I got them all, but you may notice one or two that need something else. PS: don't forget to sign your posts! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:38, 26 March 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.

Characters of Final Fantasy VIII

Self-nom — hello again everybody. I'm also a little nervous nomming this article, because something like this has not quite been done on FAC; it's uncharted waters for everyone. As always, I'd like to provide a brief overview. Character coverage of Final Fantasy VIII was initially spread out among eight character articles and a list of minor characters, all with little or no citations. Approximately two weeks ago, I started a sandbox entry with the goal of merging all the character pages with the minor character list. After this was accomplished, I placed it in namespace. I looked at some old versions of the Final Fantasy VIII page, and noticed an extremely large, sourced development section. I took this and added it into a new section, and then I went to these sources and found information for even some of the minor characters. This allowed the article to have an out of universe perspective. But even better, Teggles added a merchandise section and found image sources. A reception and criticism section was soon created, and more information was trimmed; following this, Axem — one of the people instrumental in the latest surge of project activity — performed a very nice and much needed round of consolidation and copy-editing while expanding on several concepts. Several other editors contributed to the effort as well.

Another Final Fantasy FAC may be coming soon — Final Fantasy XII. I understand that projects should not spread themselves too thin, but we should be able to withstand two fronts (we have done it in the past with Final Fantasy VI and Final Fantasy VIII).

The article itself features a two paragraph lead; it helps establish the notability of the game as a whole, how the characters were received, and a brief overview of the cast. This is followed by a development section, which outlines the inspirations for creating these characters from the perspective of the game designers. It uses sources that are reliable in relation to this subject at hand, and many are used in current FAs. This section is followed by an outline of the major characters; Axem helped organize the information here so that we had three paragraphs for most major characters, and not four in some cases. Two other character sections follow, and the aforementioned merchandise and reception and criticism sections follow suit. An external link is provided to the Final Fantasy Wikia's FF8 character category, where extreme details of this game's characters belong. Anyway, I'm being long-winded like Laguna Loire, so let the discussion begin! — Deckiller 15:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments on tense — past tense is used to depict events occuring before the game, during flashbacks. Present tense is to depict events occuring during the non-flashback parts, or when introducing a character. This is for clarity. — Deckiller 16:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• After reading through the whole thing, I'm very impressed. I would've liked to see a "groups" section (with SeeD, Galbadian Soldiers, etc.) and a "cosplay" section, but I realize these are very difficult to source. One problem I *think* exists is that you bring up people/events/things without explanation. In Squall's paragraph you bring up Seifer and Rinoa for the first time, and fail to explain who they are - Seifer could be called a "fellow student", but I'm not sure what to do with Rinoa. Can you also explain what a Limit Break is? This seems to occur later on as well, but I don't think the problem is too big. Another small problem is the merchandise image - it could be free use. Do you think you could talk to the owner of the site about it? Anyway, although I've just presented you with a bunch of suggestion, I'm still going to support - this article is well referenced, well written, has a good use of images, and is quite comprehensive. Well done. --Teggles 23:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the comment. The groups section will probably fall under "World of Final Fantasy VIII" when it is started (usually factions are kept separate from the characters). That'll allow locations and factions to be wikilinked. I was thinking about a cosplay section too, but it's so hard to find enough material. As for the image, I can just replace it if it continues to be an issue brought up. I believe Limit Break is linked the first time it appears, as are the other names (the protagonists and main characters are explained in the lead, with wikilinks provided). — Deckiller 23:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Wow, I'm not sure how I didn't spot that. I previously did a search for Seifer and Rinoa and the first results were in Squall's paragraph. I was wrong about the Limit Break too. My apologies. :) --Teggles 23:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, you were spot on about the limit breaks; I added that in after your post. Speaking of a World of Final Fantasy VIII article, I'll start it up in my sandbox. If we can follow something similar to a combo Spira (Final Fantasy X) and Locations in Spira article, with more out of universe information, we might have a chance at another GA. — Deckiller 23:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support for this impressive article. I can't find any reason why it shouldn't be an FA. Not only is it an interesting read, it has been well copyedited by Deckiller and Axem. Well done to all those who edited and created this article. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 01:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support — Likewise I see no reason it should not be an FA. I would, however, like to see how the past and present tenses are used in the article explained within the prose. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 01:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, can I open a little discussion about the use of past tense? While copy-editting, I also noticed how the shift seemed a odd from a reader's perspective. Would it be possible to shift the past tense into present if it is explicitly denoted (somehow) that it occurs in the "past" of the game? Axem Titanium 04:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that might work. "During the sequences" and whatnot might work. — Deckiller 04:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I changed Quistis' beginning section back to past since it would sound awkward otherwise. The intention is still quite clear though. Axem Titanium 13:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• I suppose anything I say would have to be a co-nom and support because of all the time I've invested in the improvement of this article. Large kudos to Deckiller for initiating this; all I did was brush up the edges and put a nice pretty bow in the top. BTW, this is quite possibly the best character page on all of Wikipedia (that is until we get to all the other FF character pages, mwahaha). Axem Titanium 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good. --- RockMFR 04:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I wish that every character article looked like this. Clear, concise, OR-free, and so well sourced that the reference section is longer than half the articles on WP. I wish I could write articles like this. --PresN 04:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well you can! Are you tired of scrounging the bottom of the editing barrel? Well, just buy my 12 hour training video for 3 easy payments of $99.99 & you'll be able to write FA's like the pro's! But wait there's more! If you order now, you'll also recieve my special somputer software valued at $39.95 absolutely free! That's right, free!!! Just call 0800 65-555-789 to recieve the oppurtunity of a life time & be the Wikipedia editor you were born to be! -- Spawn Man 06:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Hands down support - Great article, no quarrels here whatsoever. I wish more game articles were like this... It's just so great! -- Spawn Man 06:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, the only FF's I played were the SNES ones, but the article is great, illustrated, referenced and well-written... however, I must Comment: why in the FAC and not the WP:FLC? igordebraga ≠ 14:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, Deckiller and I felt that this article transcends being a simple list of the characters because it also includes information about their design and development, their reception, merchandise and a million other things that make it less like a list and more like a full-fledged article. Axem Titanium 14:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed; this is an article, not a list; lists have much less prose content, and are usually for organization. Thanks for the support! — Deckiller 15:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support This article meets the criteria for featured article. Flubeca 18:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for the support everybody! — Deckiller 18:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Question Are you aware that Image:Ff8-squall.jpg is marked as not having a source? Jay32183 00:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• The no source tag has no merit. Apparently the tag was added because the location of the original publication of the image was not provided. --- RockMFR 01:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that he source tag has no merit. The website clearly states that they are character designs are from Nomura. We state that in the image file. If we had to be that strict with images - providing a source of the source of the source - we might as well completely de-feature all our content. I'll go ahead and change the resolution, if people are really that nitpicky about images. — Deckiller 12:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• In case AMIB still has issues, I sent a message to the webmaster.— Deckiller 12:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment on images — from image policy: "Their origin must be properly referenced. In the case of an image not directly attributed to its creator (e.g. in the case of reproduction of ancient artwork or artifacts), it is not sufficient to merely indicate the image's immediate source (such as an URL), but the identity of the image's content (author, manuscript, museum id) must be given (see also Wikipedia:Reliable sources)." The author is provided both on the image link here and the website, so there should not be a problem. Again, if there are still issues, I contacted the webmaster. — Deckiller 12:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As I suspected, the webmaster e-mailed me back and said that the original uploader stated they were from the V-Jump Art Book. He's in the process of obtaining a copy to verify for himself, but I think it's clear that this is not an issue. — Deckiller 02:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. An article that proves character pages need not be lists or guides to be helpful. Much better than List of Metal Gear Solid characters, which itself is featured. Nice job! Nall 06:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Great work. I'm not sure how you managed to get 100+ references for this, but that's super. I can tell a lot of work has been put into this. I think this deserves featured article status. Mahanga^{Talk to me} 02:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Full Support Like I mentioned in the GA-nom for this article, going for FA-class is, to me, merely a formality. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 03:53, 27 March 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.

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon

Queen Consort of George VI of the United Kingdom; Mother to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Support Self-nominated There were some problems with POV raised at Peer review, but I hope that these are now resolved. DrKay 09:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Support- the work done by DrK has surely brought it up to FA status. Astrotrain 09:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Support- Wow...I don't think I could be more impressed. Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Support- Factually accurate,well researched,well presented.An example of what a FA should be. Lemon martini 14:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Good article, well written. However, after a quick scan I'd of like to have read mention of the following from Woodrow Wyatt's diaries and other sources about Bowes-Lyon's views of the commonwealth, and African efforts to end apartheid . Which is one of the few things that sticks in my mind when I think of her as a person. Of note is ....

• that she supported apartheid era President PW Botha of South Africa.
  • Or, that she supported the few liberal policies introduced by Botha: interracial marriage – which had been banned – was legalised; the constitutional prohibition on multiracial political parties was lifted; the Group Areas Act, which barred non-whites from living in certain areas, was relaxed; constitutional reforms granted limited political rights to "Coloureds" (South Africans of mixed white and non-white ancestry) and Indians; and he was the first South African government leader to authorise contacts with imprisoned ANC leader Nelson Mandela. DrKay 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• that she often drank a toast at the end of dinner to Margaret Thatcher who opposed sanctions against South Africa.
  • It is also said the Queen and Thatcher didn't like one another, so would be unlikely to drink a toast to her. Mrs. ThatcherAndrew Neil once said to Brian Walden and Woodrow Wyatt, whilst they were discussing the animosity between the Queen and Mrs. Thatcher: "The problem is, the Queen is the kind of woman who could vote SDP." Wyatt's comments should be judged with the knowledge that Wyatt was a supporter of Thatcher himself, and that the Queen Mother might say something complimentary to charm Wyatt, and Wyatt might have read too much into it. DrKay 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• that she scolded black Commonwealth countries which had been pressing for sanctions.

**Perhaps because she felt that by imposing sanctions the worst hit economically would be the black African population? (I'm not defending that position, I'm just saying that others held it) DrKay 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) I can find no evidence in Wyatt that she scolded any Commonwealth countries for demanding sanctions. DrKay 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• that she described Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia as "an idiot" for demanding sanctions.
  • She may well have described him as an idiot, but not necessarily for demanding sanctions. It could have been for the far more mundane reason that, when dining with the Queen and much to the Royal Family's amusement, Kuanda drank from his finger bowl. DrKay 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If this has already been discussed then forgive me. If not, then perhaps it should be.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 20:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Given that all these comments either jar with other recorded comments made by her (such as "I love communists") or can be taken two ways, I think it best to avoid them. DrKay 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Also she had no role in politics, so any views that she may have aired are of no real relevance. Astrotrain 10:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The exclusion of these points shouldn't bar the article from reaching featured status, as DrKay is correct to note that they are debatable. However, Be warned that the exclusion of various verifiable details on the basis that perhaps she meant something else - or that they could be judged in a certain light by us - is problematic. If I've spotted possible ommisions at first glance, then be sure that others will in the future. It may be worth pre-empting that by adding a sentence or so briefly covering these points in an NPOV way, rather than seeing some POV hack coming along and making a mess of it after it reaches featured status. In response to Astrotrain, all major British royals have a role in politics whether they like it or not, and their political views are of notable interest to articles.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Good article, very readable. As far as POV language goes, I found only one pressing sample: "Her ceaseless smile, endurance and longevity gave a consistent impression of stable continuity." The only other problem I have is with the image QM Arms.png, which is of too poor quality for a FA. Tweak the wording of that one sentence and find a larger/higher resolution image, and I'll gladly support this as a FA. Caknuck 01:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a better quality image of her arms- unfortunatly it was deleted when the coat of arms pages were all deleted by that stupid Orphanbot. Astrotrain 10:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Support Oppose POV issues and other problems.

• "Her ceaseless smile, endurance and longevity gave a consistent impression of stable continuity."
  • Sentence removed. DrKay 17:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• “During the war, her seemingly indomitable spirit provided moral support to the British public,” - that’s an opinion/perception stated as fact. It needs to be stated in terms of an opinion popularly put forward rather than “the truth” .
• ”Although the King was initially reluctant to support Churchill, in due course both the King and Queen came to respect and admire him for his courage and solidarity.” => for what they perceived to be his courage and solidarity.
  • This sentence is supported by two sources, neither of whom feel it necessary to qualify this characterisation of Churchill. DrKay 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• “Her birthdays became times of celebration” – for who?
  • Phrase removed. DrKay 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• “she helped to stabilise the popularity of the monarchy as a whole.” Needs elaboration and clarification. How did she help stabilise public opinion? And is there any tangible evidence other than the opinion of Lawrence Goldman in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography?
  • Reworded as "regarded as…help[ing] to stabilize the popularity of the monarchy…". DrKay 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• “Despite her reputation as holding conservative family values (after the U.S. President Jimmy Carter kissed her on the lips, she said "No man has done that since my husband died."[72]), she held liberal views on homosexuality.” I don’t think the US style political dichotomy “liberal – conservative” is appropriate here. What are “conservative family values” and how do her comments about Jimmy Carter relate? The evidence provided re:homosexuality proves that she was tolerant of homosexuals, not that she “held liberal views on homosexuality”.
  • I'm not sure tolerant is right either. She was more than tolerant - she was supportive of her homosexual staff when it was suggested they be dismissed. Perhaps we can use gays in the military as a comparison - the "conservative" view is "sack gays", the "liberal" view is "gays should have the same employment rights", the "tolerant" view might be Clinton's compromise: "gays should keep their sexuality a secret". On this scale she might be "liberal". I've rewritten the section, so as to avoid using these labels. DrKay 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• You have included the criticisms from unreliable American hack, Kitty Kelly, yet as of now there is still no inclusion of the verifiable analysis I have provided above by Francis Wheen, a prominent British journalist.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 20:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • But Wheen is a left-wing writer with an obvious political motive, which does not apply to the biographers¹ used as main sources. There are already about twice as many citations to left-wing newspapers as to right-wing ones in the article (which is understandable - it accords with my own reading preferences). I am not personally convinced that the current balance between sycophantic hagiographers and their socialist opposers is weighted one way or another. Nevertheless, I may gain access to a copy of Wyatt's journal on Wednesday evening, and I would like to assess that before considering whether to make the edits you've suggested in your comments above. DrKay 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

¹I do not include Kelley in the term "biographers", but I think it would prove problematic to remove that material. I imagine other editors would wish to re-insert it. DrKay 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your changes, DrKay. I still worry about the "ceaseless smile.." and the "admire Churchill for his courage.." lines, the first just doesn't read like an encyclopaedic entry. As her smile obviously wasn't ceaseless, it reads as more of a platitude or a Daily Mail caption. The second needs to be phrased in a way emphasising that Churchill's "courage and solidarity" was in the eyes of the subjects. Regarding the Guardian piece, I don't particularly like articles that use random criticism from journalists, and I personally can't stand Wheen but I still feel that his piece represents a notable perception, one that I was well aware myself. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, after that accusation I can either claim that the Daily Mail is clearly an underused source of superlative quality, or change the sentence. I've changed the sentence. DrKay 17:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've decided I'm not at all impressed by Wheen's reading of Wyatt's diary. The actual conversation on South Africa reads,
[Queen Mother]: How disgraceful it is that the press is trying to involve the Queen in the row about sanctions and whether some states might leave the Commonwealth.
[Wyatt]: Is there any truth in the story that she [the Queen]'s at odds with Mrs. Thatcher?
[Queen Mother]: None whatever (vol. I p. 167)
So, she does not say that she is against sanctions. What she actually says is that she is against the Queen becoming involved in politics. The passage "She thinks it is awful how the BBC and media misrepresent everything that Botha is trying to do." (vol. I p. 101) is accurately reported by Wheen, but as I said before that could be in relation to his few liberal policies. These are the only mentions of her in relation to South Africa in the entire 3 volumes. In fact, on reading the journal, it is Wyatt who is revealed to be a right-wing racist, not her. When he rubbishes the blacks by saying that they are not like us, her contribution is, "I am very keen on the Commonwealth. They're all like us." (vol. II p. 547) I'm more than ever convinced that Wheen's comments are unrepresentative and bias, and should not go in the article. DrKay 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello DrKay. Thanks for getting hold of the diaries. I'll bow to your better judgment on this and put it down to a typical Wheen slur, of which he has become increasingly associated with. I thought about the Churchill sentence, it still reads as though his "courage and solidarity" is a given. I'm not sure the Kurds would agree; "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes" etc.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello! In my reply to your request for qualification of Churchill's character I very nearly wrote a second sentence along the lines of: "Indeed, I could claim that 'courage and solidarity' could easily read 'bravery to the point of foolhardiness, and bloody-minded obstinacy', and still be an accurate representation of his character." But then I thought better of it and decided to be polite. Anyway, this is a long way to say, I shall add your suggested qualification. DrKay 16:54, 29 March 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.

Ipswich Town F.C.

This article has undergone a significant improvement drive recently and has been improved in a number of areas. Several images have been added, all claims have citations, the recentism that afflicts most football club articles has been eradicated and all-in-all I think we have a very good shout for elevation to featured status. The Rambling Man 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support (of course). (As a contributor, I declare a COI) --Dweller 19:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Looking at the title of this article and the Central Coast Mariners FC article below, I think there should be some consistency in how the FC / F.C. is displayed. Has there been any discussion on which is preferred so that one can change? Cheers, darkliight^[πalk] 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  I know sheer weight of numbers isn't always the de facto guide to the right answer, but the Mariners article is the only one which says FC and not F.C. After all, F.C. is an acronym for Football Club so ought to be punctuated correctly. But that's just my opinion. Despite the FC vs F.C. issue, what do you think of the article? The Rambling Man 21:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  Most football club articles are at F.C. There was some weight behind the idea of changing them all to FC (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive6#F.C._or_FC.3F), but it didn't get off the ground. Could be worth a bot request at some point though. Oldelpaso 22:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  Traditionally, Australian clubs have used "FC". CCMFC legally recognise themselves as FC (see this), and basically every reference made to CCM using the full name (FC/F.C. included), which is rare, uses the non-dots version. If Ipswich is F.C., the Mariners isn't changing because FC is more common. There is no real need for consistancy because they are basically unrelated (country, league etc.), and regardless, judge both articles on their merits, not their names. Daniel Bryant 08:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  Calm down, I wasn't judging the articles at all. It just seemed a bit odd that one article was using punctuation and the other wasn't. I thought it was just a consistency issue between our articles, not that some clubs used it 'officially' while others didn't. darkliight^[πalk] 09:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  My apologies if I came across abrash or incivilly - it wasn't my intention. This is an issue that, sadly, I feel relatively strongly about on Wikipedia. Sorry again, and cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  No problem at all. darkliight^[πalk] 10:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Good article. Could perhaps do with a sentence or two more about the imoprtant Robson period, Arnold Muhren, Frans Thyssen - the first real European stars of the English game - famously beating Man Utd 6-0 in 1980(?). It is overshadowed presently by the unremarkable Llyall period. Then I'd support.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 22:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Done
• Oh, and support, my second-favourite team in English football is done justice by this article. Daniel Bryant 08:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Despite it being very good already, I have given it a very light copyedit. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Van De Kamp

Ok, I've worked on this one a bit and I've tried to keep it within WP:MOS. The biography is as succinct as I could make it without losing meaning, and I've interjected out-of-world perspective where possible without disrupting the flow per guidelines. I did a google search on Andrew and trawled through all 37 pages for critical material - all but three articles have been worked into the article. I've gone through it on paper and copyedited it. I think it's ready. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support thoroughly referenced, well organised and constructed, and very good prose. A great article about a wonderfully psychotic character --User:Ahadland1234 17:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional support needs 2 fixes:
  • References WAY overlinked. Only one instance is necessary for each episode, preferably the first.
  • Episode titles should be enclosed by double quotes.
• Otherwise looks pretty good. Circeus 00:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE says page numbers should be included for books where posisble. It seems a logical extension that times should be given where possible for episodes. I've put all episode titles in quote marks in the main text. Did you want them in the references as well? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I a referring to wikilinks in references, not the moment citation.Circeus 02:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I get you. All fixed. It look ok now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It is. Regarding the cite episode debacle. I'm not myself overly fond of that particular template (after all, I don't see anybody requesting people {{cite video game}}, for some reason...), but maybe you could convert only the first instance, and let the others as abbreviated refs? Would that make a good compromise? Oh, and full dates (in the refs) have to be properly wikilinked because user date preferences otherwise don't work. Circeus 14:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

On that issue, my qualm is not the actual usage of the template but rather the style, I my self am perfectly content with a consistent style, even if you do not actually use the template to output that style. Matthew 14:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The ref format is fine. If you want to make templates standard go here: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Many editors (myself included) despise the templates. But if there is some objective criterion regarding format that the current refs violate point it out. Aaron Bowen 09:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are actually fine witha consistent style, why have you opposed for it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it isn't. Matthew 19:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhuh. Circeus, I've wikilinked all the dates in the refs for you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think that the image in the infobox does not qualify as fair use. The rationale states that it is of a fictional character, but it appears to be an image of the actor not during performance of the role in question. The source website for the image lists it as the bio of the actor, not of the character. I would normally tag this image for this issue, but I'll leave it here for a short time to allow resolution first as FAC is pending. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The official website has the image as both the actor and the character. Certainly Shawn Pyfrom does not look like that outside desperate housewives. It seems to be meant as a publicity photo for both. Is this not ok? Someone else put that image there to update it from this one - would you rather that? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim to be a fair-use expert, so I'm happy to be over-riden by someone who knows better, but I actually do find the screenshot to be a preferable image, for the following reason. I think that the screenshot leaves no doubt as to the character being protrayed, whereas the current image, to me, is of questionable fair-use status. I should note that I don't remember the character ever looking like the image in the promo shot on the actual tv show, but I don't have a DVR or anything to check on. I really don't mean to fuss about this, I just would like to have the fair-use status of the image cleared up by one of the "image experts" to withdraw my opposition. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have switched the image while I clarify the other's one status. Anything else keeping you from supporting? ;-) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Change to Support. Dev920 has changed the image and listed it for comment regarding WP:FUC and I know that he will follow consensus there. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 06:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, episode refs should use {{cite episode}}, combined with usage of the name="x" parameter. I'll have a go at tasking this if I get the strength. Matthew 11:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't. Cite templates are irritating, fiddly and sometimes don't even work. The article consistently uses only one referencing format and I'd appreciate if you'd stick with it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please show me an example where they do not work. They work fine, if used properly, they enable consistency among articles, I'd certainly appreciate your help in converting it though, it'll be a bit of a task :\. Matthew 12:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, I'm not going to bust a gut to change every single reference, which are consistently formatted throughout the article, to an arbitrary template I detest when I don't even need to. I would appreciate it if you would refrain. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support - looking over it, it's all very impressive. Would anybody like me to standardize the episode citations? I don't think it's necessary to cite each one to the minute. Can't you just use the <ref name=Whatever/> tag loads?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, WP:CITE says page numbers should be included for books where posisble. It seems a logical extension that times should be given where possible for episodes. Look, the references are fine, OK? They're accurate, consistent, and took me hours to do. Why is everyone so keen to take them apart when it is pointless effort? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Another great article from Dev90.--Yannismarou 13:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - until converted to {{cite episode}}. Matthew 13:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE says "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged by this or any other guideline." and makes it clear that this is purely an issue of personal preference. As the main editor to this article, and as I despise cite templates, I must decline to address your objection. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be doing it my self if I get the time, I advise you to read WP:OWN as well, by the way. Matthew 13:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Tenses need fixing as well, as per WP:TENSE. Matthew 14:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support I don't like templates either and when refs are formatted properly (as these are) there is no reason to insert them Incidentally don't throw around WP:OWN every time your minority opinion doesn't get dealt with Matthew. Aaron Bowen 09:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Great article Dev, I saw it when it was barely more than a stub, and it's amazing how much you've improved it. The references are okay too -Matthew, recheck WP:CITE. If the info that has to be there is provided, it's useless to go changing every single ref with a cite template just because of your personal preference. More than useless, it's horrible, tedious work. I believe you have no basis for your objection to the article. Cheers Raystorm 14:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Consistency with citations is paramount, every (nearly) other television related is using consistent citations styles. Matthew 14:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The referencing is utterly consistent throughout the article. All the previous supports have been made with the current citation style, and I would appreciate if you would cease changing it. WP:CITE says "Follow the system used for an article's existing citations. Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor." Please obey it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support good article. The reason for weakness of support is that I am not sure this is the right model for fictional characters. Is this following some established template? Homer Simpson, which is a GA, takes a different track and with less quotations, more readable. --ppm 18:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support good article, meticulously referenced, exactly what one needs to know about this character. Polymathematics 03:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment
  • The main image is still tagged as unlicensed.... can that be removed, as a fair use rationale has been placed there with an appropriate tag?
  • Doesn't the introduction contain spoilers? Looking around at some other high profile TV characters (Jack Bauer, Jack Shephard, Alan Shore) there doesn't seem to be plot twists/details revealed in the intro? In this article it's revealed Andrew is bisexual, that he is sent to a delinquent camp and that he says he is gay just to get out of camp. It also reveals Bree throws him out and that he comes home under Orson's advice.... need I go on? There just seems to be too much detail without a spoiler warning (which wouldn't look very good at the top of the article I know). Couldn't this intro be cut down a bit?
  • As far as the citation is concerned, I might as well chip in whilst I'm rambling! Matthew, WP:CITE clearly states that citation templates are optional and unless a consensus is reached by the article's editors to change anything, no rogue editor should just insist upon using them. As far as I have read here everyone is happy (including myself!) with the current format and it does indeed seem to be consistent. This democratic approach would seem to override the warning of WP:OWN that all content shouldn't be submitted unless you're willing to have it "edited mercilessly," nor does support of the current format constitute a tag team. Mentality 10:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed the image tag - discussion on the previous image at IfD continues. I'm not so sure about the spoilers though, I checked other character FAs like Palpitine and Amidala and they both have fairly major spoilers in the leads. The spoilers in the lead are over a year old anyway, so does that really matter? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think with those articles spoilers are necessary in defining the character properly in the intro - and no doubt spoilers will be required here. However, my ex-bf got me into desperate housewives a couple of months ago and I only just finished watching Season 1 last week!! If I had read this article a few weeks ago, I would have found out Rex Van De Kamp dies before I'd seen it, which is quite a major event and would have, quite frankly, pissed me off! I'm not saying remove information, just limit it in the intro. His sexuality for example, well that's required. But does the whole thing about him saying he's gay to get out of camp have to be mentioned? And the vanilla/choc ice cream quote?

That said looking through it again it doesn't reveal as much as I thought it did. I guess it's appropriate to refer to someone as the "late" <so and so> but it would have definitely spoiled it for me. All in all I guess it's not that big a deal, it's still a superb article so if you don't think it's worth it, I won't make a fuss! :P

I do think it would be more appropriate to link to the Bisexuality article with the word 'bisexual' rather than the quote about vanilla/chocolate ice cream though. And wikilink the word 'atheist' too. Mentality 22:22, 29 March 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.

Freak Out!

Self-nomination. I did a lot of work on this article to bring it from its original state to its current level of quality. I think that I've done a very good job with it. (Ibaranoff24 04:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

• Nominate and Support. (Ibaranoff24 04:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC))
• Support. Very well written, clearly there's enough cites, music samples, chart info, track listing are all here. This is a quality example of a FA-status album. Good job! Anthony Hit me up... 19:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is potential for a good article here, and I enjoyed reading it, but a lot of work needed would be needed to bring it to FA standard:

• Lead contains six short sentences (see WP:LEAD). Three is more usual, four is acceptable if topic requires a lenghty introduction.
• Many stubby one statement sentances through out the article.
• Block quotes squeezed between short paragraphs.
• Audio file would benefit from a caption.
• The section "Response" is underdeveloped and lacks insight, considering so much has been written about the album by so many. The fact that Gronening bought his copy "from the record department of a grocery store" is wholly trivial and irrelevant.
• The inline cite in the first sentence is unnecessary.
• Cites based on interview with Zappa should credit the interviewer as author, not the interviewee.
• A number of statments are double cited. Why is this, are they paticularly controversial?
• Needs a thorough copy edit:

• "debut double album" - The word debut here is confusing, why not just 'first'.
• "Wilson signed The Mothers...to a record deal on the pretense that they were a white blues band" - Change 'on the pretense' to 'in the belief' - have different meanings.
• "expanded their music to a wide range of original material" - with a wide, or to include.
• "initial guitar player Elliot Ingber" - 'initial' here is awkward, plus it is used again in the following sentence.
• "Although the album was poorly-received when it was initially released in the United States, it was a success in Europe, and gained a cult following in America." - drop 'it was', switch 'initally' to first. Why is the order of the sentence USA, Europe, USA.
• "The album also influenced" - 'also' is redundant.
• Why is audio documentary in double quotes.
• The factoid about the ale is amusing, but too trivial for the lead.
• These are all taken from the lead, can you please check the remainder of the article for similar issues. Ceoil 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've taken care of some of the issues you have brought up. Please take a look at the current revision and re-review. (Ibaranoff24 22:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

• The entire text, as I've mentioned, needs revision: "The first song recorded for the album was "Any Way The Wind Blows." The second track recorded was "Who Are the Brain Police?"[2][10] ". Again, one statement sentences, double citations. A larger issue is that the current article lacks insight and context. Ceoil 00:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Took care of the sentence. (Ibaranoff24 01:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Comment: Have been following edits to the article, and my openion is that it reamins outside of the criteria. Ceoil 23:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Object Not what I'd call a well written article. There are simple grammatical and spelling errors throughout the article ("attented", "It was also as one"). Please make sure to copyedit the whole article, not just fix these examples. Other things at random:
  • America as a whole Occurs twice.
  • In the early 1960s, Frank Zappa met Ray Collins, who was supporting himself by working as a carpenter, and on weekends sung with a group called the Soul Giants. Last part of that sentence is ambiguous. Was it Zappa or Collins? If the latter, use parallelism, as that makes for a much less awkward sentence ("by working as a carpenter and singing...).
  • about the Watts riots Link?
  • However, in a 1968 article written for Hit Parader magazine Not seeing the contrast that would indicate a use of "however"
  • Zappa is quoted as saying Where, when, context? Why is this huge quotation plopped down here? Quotations are good to sprinkle around to add some zest to the text, but here, the first three paragraphs of Album production are dominated by quotations.
  • Nothing in Album production about when/where they recorded the album? There's Some songs, such as "Motherly Love" and "I Ain't Got No Heart" had already been recorded. But, what does that mean? Were they recorded before the Freak Out! session or something?
  • posthumous release I'm assuming posthumous refers to Zappa?
  • "Wilson was sticking his neck out..." Who said this? Context?
  • at approximately 11 minutes and 39 seconds That doesn't seem too approximate to me...seems pretty specific.
  • "...at the time, it was, you know,..." Another quotation with no context. Who said this?
  • "it would be best to bring along a Suzy Creamcheese replica who would demonstrate once and for all the veracity of such a beast." You have this in quotations, but it's not cited. Where are you taking this from?
  • neither a commercial or Neither/nor
  • When citing books, you need to give page numbers. Gzkn 01:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• All of your concerns have been addressed. Please take a look at the current revision. (Ibaranoff24 20:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC))
• Oppose Every image in this article is at a high resolution. Each needs to be shrunk so that the longest side is no larger than 400px and then tagged with {{subst:furd}}. ShadowHalo 04:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that this edit cannot be accomplished, as the current revisions of the images in the article are already at an appropriate low-resolution size. (Ibaranoff24 06:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC))
    • They most certainly are not low resolution. For Wikipedia's purposes, 696x683 (the size of the first image) is high resolution. To comply with fair use, our use of copyrighted material needs to be as little as possible and just enough to be used in articles. There's no way we need a 696x683 in an article. Plus, we can't be providing high resolution covers that people can use to produce illegal copies. ShadowHalo 06:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Done. All of the images are currently at a proper resolution. (Ibaranoff24 17:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC))
        • Image:FZ-studio-FO.jpg and Image:FO-era Mothers.jpg still need to be scaled down so that the longest side is no more than 400px. ShadowHalo 20:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Looks good now. ShadowHalo 01:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Lucid, concise and well-sourced desription of one of rock history's important non-mainstream releases.--HJ 12:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Well written article about an important album. Dan M 04:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The prose of this nomination needs scrutiny before promotion. Overall it's not badly written, but there are glitches. Here are a few examples at random.

• "poorly-received" - no hyphens after "-ly"
• "and on weekends sung with a group" - Wrong tense: "sAng"
• "said to have been made circa 1965" - Please replace the Latinism with a plain English word.
• "Freak Out! was finally released with the band's name now changed to" - spot the redundant word.
• "Featured" twice in two lines; "got" and "get" too close together up top; "released" x 2. Repetition needs to be audited. Tony 21:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I took a look at the issues you've addressed, and I've taken care of them. (Ibaranoff24 23:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC))
  • I've listed the article at requests for copyediting. (Ibaranoff24 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

• Oppose - It just doesn't do it for me. Note that this is an inactionable oppose & therefore shouldn't be counted in the end tally - just noting that the article doesn't have the X-factor needed IMHO. Thanks, Spawn Man 05:20, 28 March 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.

Norte Chico civilization

An interesting topic with a side-order of academic mud-slinging. Thanks to Jmabel for help with Spanish, and Sandy for ref formatting. I don’t usually post long nominations, but I’m anticipating some concerns, so:

• Images. Yes, I’m relying on a picture of anchovies (a nice one!). If I can’t find any I’m confident of for the PD, I can’t find any, so don’t hold it against the article. Reviewers can tell me what they think of pics from here. I’m not sure what our consensus is on press kits.

• Prose. It’s a bit clunky because I have done prose attribution (BBC has reported, Shady argues, etc.) all over the place. I felt I had to with this one.

• Comprehensiveness. Everything I could find in English is here. I realize it's not exceptionally long, but there isn't too much out there for now.

• Neutral and stable. There is serious dispute over this topic, including over its name, and who should be credited with discovery. (This is why I’m attributing everything in-sentence.) I think it's handled well. People can follow a couple of the links to form their own opinion of the "Research controversies" section. Marskell 17:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Should Haas be introduced earlier than the Research controversies section since his name is invoked extensively in the text prior? Cramer is mentioned once before as well. BuddingJournalist 02:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have added first names to all first mentions. Marskell 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support (I made some extremely minor contributions.) Well-written, well-referenced, structurally sound. Marskell has addressed the controversy very well, and this appears to be the best info on the net covering this topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Needs map. Will support when it gets one. I cannot tell precisely where this civilization was from the text, because one of the boundaries given is a redlink. --Golbez 19:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, I agree it needs a map. But if I can't find one suitable for the public domain, how can this be held against the article? Marskell 20:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That which does not exist must be made. Find a map of Peru and shade in the appropriate area. But again, since I don't know what the appropriate area is, I cannot do this myself. So look at the lack of the map as indicative of a larger problem - the bounds of the region are not adequately expressed in the article. (Though it's the redlink that's the problem, so it's the lack of a proper outside article) --Golbez 20:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I just added "160 km north of Lima," for now. I agree and disagree, more generally. I absolutely agree that this article would be well-served by a map and better graphics generally; I anticipated that concern and said so in the nom. But I disagree with the contention that a lack is an oppose basis. WIAFA wording and general practice has never said you must have X graphic. At the same time, the prose should definitely allow you to "place the place" in your head. Is "160 km north of Lima" sufficient for the timebeing? Marskell 21:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Suitable enough for the time being, I switch to a Weak support. I'm amazed I'd never heard of this civilization before. --Golbez 21:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, so am I—at least a couple of paragraphs in the history of the world need to be rewritten, given its age. I very very vaguely recalled the CNN/BBC type stuff from 2001 ("Crazy old Civ discovered in Peru!") but heard no more about it in the mainstream media. And then I picked up the Mann book over Christmas and thought "holy sh*t, why isn't this on Wiki!" :). I'll be really curious to see how Brittanica treats it. They don't have anything yet. Marskell 21:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thorough, detailed, well-referenced, would look good on the front-page, support Ahadland 22:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support excellent, fascinating article. A few little nitpicks -
  • 'derived an identical list in their survey further north, while adding...' - so it's not identical, is it? ;) Needs another phrase here.
    • Indeed.
  • First sentence of the maritine civilization section is very awkward. Actually, the same for the cotton section.
    • The first on cotton was a real clunker--changed. I'm guessing you don't mean the first on MFAC, "It is the role of the maritime dietary component that has aroused debate", but the second "Much early fieldwork (prior to the realization of the full scope and inter-connectedness of the civilization) was done in the region of Aspero on the coast." I moved the subordinate clause out of the bracket.
      • Sorry, that's the one. Although I'm not actually a big fan of the first MFAC sentence either, it wasn't the one I meant to complain about ;) 'Role of the component' is kind of weak, and why 'maritime dietary component' instead of 'the role of seafood...'? (Maybe I lack imagination, but I can't think of any 'maritime dietary components' that aren't considered seafood...)
  • In the economy and government section - what is 'significant capacity'? Hundreds of people? Thousands? Several football stadiums?
    • None of the sources hazard a guess as to total population or total groups of workers on one site. It bothered me too, but it will have to remain general. "Significant capacity" was redundant with "considerable power," so I shuffled things.
  • 'a unique emergence of human government, one of two alongside Sumer (or three, if Mesoamerica is included as a separate case)' - why not include Mesoamerica separately? Is the contention that Mesoamerican government derived in some way from the Norte Chico, or just that the presence of government in Mesoamerica is disputed?
    • I'll reply to this one fully when I have the book in front of my again.
  • 'two confirmed shore sites in the Norte Chico (Aspero and Bandurria) and possibly two more' - very awkward phrasing.
    • Is "Aspero and Bandurria are the only two confirmed shore sites in the Norte Chico (two others have been suggested)..." any better?
      • Much better.
  • 'In 2004 Haas et al. would write...' - where the et al doesn't include Shady, presumably. This is clear from the reference text but not from the main text, where this comes right after discussion of Haas, Creamer, and Shady as coauthors.
    • But doesn't "...while only noting Shady in footnotes" make clear she wasn't a coauthor?
      • Well, yeah... you just have to trust the reader to hit the end of the sentence and remember the beginning. That's not always a given.
  • Should Shady's article include mention of this controversy? Opabinia regalis 01:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, it probably should. I haven't paid as much attention to the blue links as I ought to have. I would worry about one general wiki-problem: a "Controversy" section creating a lopsided BLP.
      • It seems like this is probably a major aspect of her professional work, though, which would merit a mention.

Thanks for the comments. I've been wondering where everybody is... Marskell 15:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's odd which articles people pick to review, isn't it? Opabinia regalis 02:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - the intro claims that the culture "was largely without art". That probably needs to be reworded. Even if we take "art" to mean narrowly visual representaions, there's no way of knowing whether little "art" was found because they produced little, or because it wasn't made of lasting materials. Zocky | picture popups 16:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• • "Largely without" was already a re-wording of an apparent absence. I agree with you. I'd worried that saying they did not have art so far as we can tell now might be OR. I've qualified this with no "archaeologically apparent" art, (in brackets) in the intro. Note, near the end of the page, a similar point is made: they did, apparently, have instrumental music, so "no art" doesn't hold. Marskell 21:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support — another solid work by Marskell. — Deckiller 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support attribution isn't too distracting and the article seems to make the most of the meagre information available. (Love the anchovies picture, maybe a picture of a shoe horn next to it would help) Yomangani^talk 17:30, 26 March 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.

Kansas Turnpike

Because the old nomination had no outstanding objections, and per user:SPUI's request, I'm renominating this (previous FAC). Raul654 03:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support- Personally, I believe that it fits the criteria. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. What a freakin' article. It's not the most exciting topic in the world (to me, at least), but it's very well done. Fantastic job. JHMM13 05:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Don't see any problems meeting the criteria. Manderiko 13:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Warhol13 16:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: In "early history" the paragraph on funding could be improved, and in the next paragraph, "After considering..." doesn't have a subject. Perhaps use a synonym to avoid "... travellers travelled..."? When talking about the speed limits, it says 80 was fixed, then the next sentence says it "would not be enforced anywhere again until..." I was confused - was 80 changed at some point? Might be nice to wikilink "trumpet" once in each subsection of interchanges - the link is at the start of the section but this might be easier on readers. Gimmetrow 17:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The sentence "After considering a number of different alignments, including one bypassing Topeka via the present route of I-35, an "airline" route was chosen between Wichita and Topeka" does have a subject, "route" (see italics above). I've clarified the speed limit section and fixed "travellers travelled". Trumpet links have been added. I'll have to think about ways to improve the funding paragraph. —Scott5114↗ 20:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • NE2 has further revised that sentence. —Scott5114↗ 21:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support About time USRD gets another featured article, but ultimately, this article is ready.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 21:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Map has no context. Maybe it might be better to show the entire state and/or to add labels for major cities. Also, I think it might be useful to add an exit table (or put a prominent link to an existing one at the top of each subsection of the Interchanges section). --Polaron | Talk 22:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a more detailed map with city names in the Routing section. Also, it did once have an exit table, but was converted to the interchange section, which provides more detail than just a flat table.—Scott5114↗ 05:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That second map you're referring to is useful only once one knows the context. The map in the infobox is still useless. At the very least the entire state of Kansas and parts of neighboring states should be shown. A featured article is aimed at a general and global audience. Something similar to what Ridge Route currently has with the entire US shown might even be more useful here. In terms of the exit table, I personally find having to read through lots of text cumbersome. Tables make it easier to just quickly pick up the key points. A "See also" link to exit tables in the Interstate articles is probably sufficient for this purpose. It is a well-written article and deserves to be featured but at a minimum the map needs to show more context. Exit tables are not critical. --Polaron | Talk 15:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • A map showing the entire USA has been added. —Scott5114↗ 09:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, great article, with terrific sources. It is also well written as well with good pictures too. -- J-A10 ^{T · C} 2:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The lead looks a thin to me. The prose length should put the lead at about two - three paragraphs. Morphh ^(talk) 4:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose, fails 1c, reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and should not be used to reference another article—Wiki articles are used numerous times as sources. Numerous sources indicate no publishers, and references are not consistently formatted. See WP:CITE/ES, or the cite templates for examples of how to format references. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The references to the email on the wikipedia talk page are a problem. Refs to National Bridge Inventory should perhaps have an explanatory text saying "a database available at xyz.org". Gimmetrow 01:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, just found a reference to a Usenet post, not a reliable source: Ben Prusia, New East Topeka, KS Turnpike Exits Open Today SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
      • All refs use the cite templates. This was addressed in the other FA. The email is from the Kansas Turnpike Authority -- if KTA isn't a reliable source, then what is? No wiki articles are used as sources. I'll see what I can do about the Usenet post. —Scott5114↗ 05:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I think what User:SandyGeorgia could be referring to are the links in the references to Wiki pages (the maps, etc). In our defense, those aren't articles, they are images attributed and sourced. But I am not that user, so I cannot say what they mean. --MPD ^{T / C} 05:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I have to agree with MPD here. I don't see any reason why referencing an uploaded picture is a problem. Unlike a Wikipedia article, an uploaded file is effectively static. Raul654 19:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Also don't see a problem with a link to an image. Gimmetrow 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
          • [ec] Usenet post replaced by a KDOT press release. I'll see what I can do about replacing the KTA email, but finding that kind of information is difficult at best. —Scott5114↗ 05:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The links to Wiki images are problematic for the following reasons:

1. We should directly attribute our sources, not link to Wiki which *then* links to another source that needs to be evaluated for reliability. As an example, the second referenced image in the article is to an image that comes from http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/ so that site should be listed as the source.
2. Reliability of sources for images; for example, what is ajfroggie.com—is that a reliable source for this info?
3. ajfroggie is public domain ?

Terraserver-usa.com should be identified as publisher on maps, and there is a blue-linked reference that should be expanded ( http://www.route56.com/photobrowse.cgi?photo=10112 ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If the image is being cited to support some fact, then the source of the image could be given along with a link to the image. In general, if an image were being displayed in the article, it would need to be hosted on en or commons, and the source information would normally be on the image description page. How is this really different if the image is linked in a footnote? The authenticity of such an image is a separate issue, and would be the same issue whether it was displayed or linked. Gimmetrow 22:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support I think it now satisfies the FA criteria. --Polaron | Talk 16:44, 26 March 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.

Archaeopteryx

From the People who brought you Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, Compsognathus & many many more, comes Archaeopteryx, hopefully the next Featured Dinosaur! Seriously though, this is another great article from the Wikiproject Dino team & it has come a long way in the last month or so & I'm proud to be able to nominate it. It has 34 inline ciations & many more references. It is informative, thourough & easy to read. It has pictures to boot & is one of my pet projects. But enough about my opinion, I'll just let you make your opinion up on your own... Thanks a bunch! -- Spawn Man 06:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support as a contributor and helper. I feel the article is as comprehensive as it can be and the prose is good. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support: it is comprehensive, well illustrated, well referenced and well written. ArthurWeasley 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article is good but lacks information on the ecology/lifestyle of the birdie in question. While this is some cases speculative it is at least speculation by the people actually studying it. For example, there has been debate as to whether Archaeopteryx was a ground living or a climber, or both. What it actually was is a separate question to what it evolved from or hiow flight evolved. More importantly the islands that it lived on around are well described, being semi arid with little ground cover, so its unlikely it was principally a glider from trees. I think it needs a bit of this type of information before I can support. I have been collecting info on just this so I will try and add it myself, if you like. I'm just sort of swamped, which is why I haven't done it yet. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well if you can do it, that would be great, but we'd prefer to have no guessing in the article unless it's cited. A quick reference to your point in the Paleobiology section would be great if it's referenced, but I don't know if the other guys have any books on the subject - maybe why it would be better if you would be able to do it or lend us the book or something. Thanks, Spawn Man 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My last FA had 60 refs, so I understand the importance of refs! That's why its taking me some time. I'll try and do it this weekend. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, sounds great. We can go over it once you've added it to make sure it's all polished & acceptable. Thanks SS... :) Spawn Man 00:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support now that the section on paleoecology is added. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support: I gotta say, you guys do excellent articles. Very thorough, yet not overly verbose, grade-"A"vian work! The only suggestion I have is in the summery section in the taxobox, where the "see text" line could be changed to a quick-link within the article ([Archaeopteryx#Summary|see below]) just to make things more accessible. Just a little quirk that isn't required; you have my support regardless. Nall 23:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support, kiind words & for the great suggestion. I've made a link in the taxo box now. :) Spawn Man 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comments - in the lead the article compared the size to a magpie - that name refers to about 20 different birds which is confusing for the "international" reader, could we have a more specific comparison (the exact magpie species) or just mention the wingspan and length in the lead. Second, the taxobox says that the article is about Archaeopteryx lithographica, but the lead says that there are 11 species identified so far. Is it an article about the genus or the species? If it is an article about the whole genus then it could use a list of the accepted species. I think the paleobiology section will be a great addition. --Peta 04:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree about the magpie. Will tweak to reduce ambiguity. The article refers to 11 specimens (as opposed to species) which are 11 individual fossils not species. Now that you've pointed it out maybe fossils is a better term here. Spawny? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So is there just a single accepted species currently? --Peta 04:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I agree we should make it plain in the text that there is only one recognized species. ArthurWeasley 04:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol, why are you looking at me Cas? I only write the articles... ;) Erm, not quite sure what to do here, but I know the article is about the genus, not the species as the article is Archaeopteryx, not Archie lithographica. Other than that, I'll leave it to the people who can tinker around with that sort of thing as I'm not that experienced, sorry guys... Peta - "I think the paleobiology section will be a great addition" - The article already has a paleobiology section? Erm, maybe you were refering to the environment section that's going to be added by sunbird? Never mind though... :) Thanks for your comments... Spawn Man 08:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I believe there may be copyright issues with the photos of the Oxford University Museum reconstruction. This is essentially a sculpture, and would be assumed under copyright, unless it is very old.--Pharos 17:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time we have come across this argument at FAC, though there are ten prior Featured dinosaur articles which use images of fossils and life reconstructions. Drawings and paintings of fossils are certainly protected under copyright law (as long as they are not copyright-expired) because they are an artistic interpretation of what the specimen looked like. Casts and moulds of fossil bones require no artistic skill (only excellent technical ability in reproducing the fossils faithfully), and the assembly of moulds of fossils is based on scientific evidence, not artistic effort (though artistic licence may come into play with less well-preserved genera, such as Protoavis). The feathers on Archaeopteryx are preserved in the fossil record; the sculptor is basing his or her work on actual fossils. Another sculptor who created an Archaeopteryx sculpture based on the same fossils and who ended up creating a very similar model would not be infringing on copyright because both artists based their work on the same fossils, which themselves are not under copyright protection. A photograph of a cast, mould, or sculpture of fossils is a derivative work. But the work it is derived from, unless artistic licence used to great extent, is a technical representation (a rigorous skeletal reconstruction), not a work of creative art. The only portion of the model which is clearly, undisputedly artistic in nature (based entirely on artistic interpretation) is the coloring of the feathers, since the coloring has not been preserved on any specimen. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that some image copyrights may have been dealt with poorly in the past. I think it is clear that any sculpture involves significant artistic talent and license. Look, if Madame Tussauds makes a realistic waxwork of Queen Elizabeth, one based on photographs providing far more definite background info than that available for a fossil species, is not that sculpture copyrightable? It is a strange idea that a 3-D sculpture would be less creative than a 2-D drawing.--Pharos 21:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This analogy appears sensible, but it is not apt: for this to be a good analogy, Madame Tussauds would have to base their reconstruction on moulds of Queen Elizabeth's skeleton, something they probably will not do. Reconstructions of dinosaurs are based on moulds of the bones and preserved fossil evidence. Skeletal drawings are artistic interpretations of the bones, not castings and impressions of actual fossils. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

But this is a sculpture, not a casting. I think you're tripping off of the idea of "artistic" work. Copyrights don't just apply in an art gallery — the same copyright falls on creative scientific work. This type of reconstruction require myriad real human decisions, that could never be automated. That constitutes real serious creative work.--Pharos 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, you've convinced me; this is indeed a sculpture, not a casting, so your point seems correct. As such, this issue deserves attention. I cannot find information on when this piece was created, and it seems likely to me this sculpture was created after 1922. There are indications Australian law allows "sculptures or works of artistic craftsmanship that are on permanent public display (in a public place or in premises open to the public) may be reproduced without the permission of the copyright owner" but I didn't find much about U.S. copyrights on derivative works (where Wikimedia's servers are located) or U.K. derivative works laws (where the sculpture is held) for sculptures which are on permanant public display. I must then assume a "fair use in.." rationale might be more appropriate. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Came back today to this rather unusual discussion. Yes they are sculptures. However they have been donated for use of the museum. The question is, does the museum permit photographs of those sculptures? If the answer is yes, then that is a form of free use liscencing as the museum has allowed you to take pictures of the art work. If the answer was no, then the images would count as illegally aquired images & would not be allowed to be shown anywhere else. I know for a fact that in most cases the museum in which the sculptures where taken does allow photos for this kind of display & therefore have waved their copyrights. Plus, many other examples of this go on throughout Wikipedia & unless a huge overhaul is made, it will continue to do so. So I hope this answers your concerns, but no, these are legal & there is no need for you to worry Firsfron... Thanks, Spawn Man 04:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Allowing picture-taking in the museum is not carte blanche for allowing unlimited numbers of freely-distributed copies of those photos to proliferate on multiple web sites, some of which (Wikipedia) are non-profit while others (some Wikipedia mirrors and data-scraping sites) are for-profit entities. I think perhaps a fair use rationale should be established for these images, especially when considering these images would appear in a Featured Article: no copyvio (or perceived copyvio) should make it through FAC. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be the case if it was an oil painting or the like (which is why you're not allowed to take photos in galleries) But if a mueseum makes public their sculptures, then it is allowed to be reproduced to an extent. A possible resolution would simply be for someone to go to the mueseum & say "Hey, is it okay if I put 1 or 2 of these on wikipedia? Thanks"... They are not fair use, as the photographer created the photograph & it is not entirely of the sculpture or work. Let's face it though, when someone donates a scuplture to a public place, they know it's going to be photographed. What about street sculptures that have been recently added to streets? Are they under copyright too? No, the reproduction of the exact same sculpture is illegal, but taking a photo of it is not. Taking a photo & saying it is your sculpture is, but giving credit to the artist is not. And besides, I've seen this argument before on here & I'm making the same points which they were... Spawn Man 05:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, this whole debate is silly. If I take a photograph of a sculpture, it doesn't matter how old the sculpture is or who made it. My photograph of it constitutes a brand new work and is copyrightable to me not the sculptor. Here is what our very own Featured Article Director has to say on the subject (from Wikipedia talk:Copyright FAQ):

James and I wrote the Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ to give people a basic understanding of copyright law. It's a bit confusing in this case -- basically, pictures of 2D works old enough to be in the public domain (created before 1922) are also public domain, regardless of when the picture was taken (because a picture of a public domain picture is still public domain, according to the Bridgeman case). However, for 3d objects such as statues, taking a picture (which involves deciding what angle, among other things) involves creative input. This creative input is large enough to warrant a new copyright. Thus, picture of 3D objects are copyrighted.

So there should be no problem whatsoever with the photos of the life reproductions, provided the photographers have released the images under free licenses. And the casts? Those aren't art; those are things that were found in the earth and dug up. — Brian (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A little further reading down that page, and it seems that the case isn't quite as clear-cut, but it appears that the laws of the UK do follow the "photo of 3D object on public display is new piece of art" argument, so we should be OK here. — Brian (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear this work required as much creative input as any art piece. The "freedom of panorama" in most counties applies only to the outdoors; it is broader in the UK but the legal wording is a bit unclear. At first I was skeptical, but after a fair amount of research at Artlaw, I believe that UK freedom of panorama does indeed apply to all permanent 3-D exhibits in galleries and museums (even those that charge admission, apparently). I'm very glad to have learned of this, as it could apply very broadly in the UK, to artistic works as well as scientific ones. Therefore, I drop my objection to the photos in this article, assuming that the archaeopteryx model was on permanent exhibition. Please note, however, that almost no other country (maybe Austria) has freedom of panorama laws that liberal.--Pharos 17:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, Pharos, and Spawn Man. Brian, I really appreciate your clearing this up with the link to the FAQ. This is very good to know (and I don't think the discussion was at all silly), and may prove helpful with later Dinosaur FA Candidacies. User:Ballista took many of our photos of dinosaur life sculptures in UK museums, and although we always thought there was no problem using them, it's good to know we really can. That is a huge relief. Last night, I attempted to add a fair use rationale to the first picture, when I discovered it had been uploaded to WikiMedia Commons, which obviously doesn't allow Fair Use images. The image would have been deleted as a copyvio; it could have been moved back to en.wikipedia, but this is much better. Anyway, thanks everyone for the input. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha! I knew I was right, even if my wording was a bit off... :) Spawn Man 23:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, as it happens you were wrong. If this model was being exhibited in any country other than the UK, the image would not be free. Please keep that in mind.--Pharos 00:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No I was talking about the UK (Erm, yes... of course I was...), so therefore I am right. ;) God, no need to nit pick on who's right & wrong Pharos... Gosh! :) Spawn Man 01:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just trying to discourage you from considering all stuff in museums PD. No ones-upmanship intended, I assure you :)--Pharos 03:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support as a contributor and helper. I didn't want to support until individuals from both WP:Birds and WP:Dinosaurs had worked on the article and added their input. Now that that has happened, I feel comfortable supporting. This is one of the longest dinosaur articles, and it appears to me that all the important details have been covered: each of the specimens is discussed, there's a synonomy section which discusses the taxonomic mess, the Hoyle and Protoavis controversies are touched upon (but not given undue weight). I cannot judge the prose, as I'm too familiar with the text, so I will leave that to be judged by someone else. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support yet another good article on prehistoric animals (since this isn't technically a dinosaur...) igordebraga ≠ 17:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha! All birds are dinosaurs; just not all dinosaurs are birds. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

God, not this debate again - I had enough of it during the Dinosaur FAC... ;) Spawn Man 04:10, 28 March 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.

FairTax

This GA article has gone through an FA Drive and Pre-FA review on WikiProject Taxation, had two peer-reviews, and a prior FAC. I believe we've handled all points and issues presented. Morphh ^(talk) 14:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support It's an excellent article. CloudNine 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support I agree. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 19:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support looks good to me, although I would like to see more images on tax code compliance section, like a nice little graph. Other than that, great article, well done to everybody who contributed to it --User:Ahadland1234 21:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support I recently reviewed it from the POV of a non-American, and had my minor points speedily addressed. It's a comprehensive article. Winklethorpe 21:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support from a liberal economist. I find this article fascinating from an economic point of view, though I wish it could have just a touch more info on the impact on major accounting firms since they employ so many people in this country. What programs might the government put in place to get these people new jobs? For the last hour or so I've been trying to do calculations on the progressivity of this tax, and it looks good so far, as long as assumptions about the MPC and MPS hold true. If people actually are going to consume as much of their income as they do now, this looks very, very interesting. JHMM13 23:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comments Looks pretty good, but I have a few concerns:
  • I think it's a bit too internal-links happy (I count well over half a dozen of them). A well organized article needs no internal links, and certainly none to previous sections.
  • Also, when linking to a section in another article, the link should make that clear, in the form foo#bar, not bar
  • There should be no such things as "main sections" (under "predicted effects")
  • I'm not too fond of two headers following each others directly. Some buffer text summarizing the section (much like the lead is a summary of the whole article) shouldn't be difficult to add.
  • Circeus 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide a MoS link that discusses these points. I'd like to understand this further as I don't remember reading anything regarding them. Personally, I find the suggestions to be reader unfriendly but I'll go with it. Morphh ^(talk) 1:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

None of them are actually covered by the MoS (Do we need to justify every single comment on FACs via the MoS? That's a new one.), but in the case of, say "main sections" if people are still reading instead of having gone to read the Main article that covers the parent of these sections, they don't need to be reminded that such a main article exist. The section links is a usability basic concern: links in the form xxx makes people expect that they are going to an article titled "xxx", while the "#" makes it clearer that the link is to a section. Circeus 02:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to address the section linking by using ": " instead of the "#" and linking the entire title (not just the section title). While a strung together link with a "#" in the middle is certainly clear to us, I'm not sure how clear it is to the normal reader. I wouldn't expect to see such formating in a paper encyclopedia when it makes reference to a subsection of another article, but I understand your point and have tried to address it. I've removed the "main sections" statement and I've added summaries to the double headers. So I feel I've addressed points 2-4. I disagree on point 1 and have not made this change. This would assume that people generally read an article from beginning to end and in order, which I know that I rarely do - I skip to particular sections of interest. In some cases, it would also assume that the reader understood all the concepts and was able to link similar effects/impacts, which usually takes time. Minor internal links that reference the details of points made earlier or later in an article can be very helpful. I don't see the drawback. If this is a big issue and there is more consensus, I'll make the change. For now, I hope that you will still support the article for FA. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 19:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. No, no, no. Please tell us how "Fair Tax Blog" is a reliable source ???? And many of the sources seem clearly partisan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the blog source. It was mainly used as a secondary source to validate that proponents make the claim. It was a well written article and it only validated an proponent opinion, but I understand your point. I'm not sure I'd say that many were partisan, but many are from proponent or opponent sites. Americans For Fair Taxation (non-partisan org) puts out much of the proponent research. I've tried my best to weigh all the good neutral sources to the top and with the most references, but a lot of the detailed research is found on proponent or opponent sites. You don't find a WSJ article going into detail on such issues so to get any comprehensive article, you have to use such sources. I'll take a second look to see how I may be able to ref things better but this may never be achievable. I certainly see many FA articles that use citations from proponent and opponent sites - otherwise such articles would get little detail. Please tell me how I can fix it to your satisfaction. Morphh ^(talk) 1:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the blog is gone, and I'm going to be traveling, I'll trust you'll clean anything else up, and strike my Oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support An excellent example of how group consensus can produce an unbiased article about a subject which is easy to take a position on. Should be promoted on the front page. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Is there a rationale for the fair use image at the top of the article? The book whose cover is shown is only one reference about this issue. A cynic (who, me?) might think the purpose of the image in a feature article is to advertise it. The cover page of the bill submitted from thomas.loc.gov would be public domain and serve a similar role in the article. Also, I see some POV issues with the revenue chart, which shows everyone paying the same or less at a marginal tax rate of 23%, without showing the impact of a 28% or 36% rate as discussed in the text.204.186.60.102 20:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The rational for the Fair Use is discussed on the image page. The book was a NYT bestseller for several weeks and remained in the top 15 of Non-fiction for quite some time (both hardcover and paperback). The book is co-authored by the bill author, Congressmen John Linder and it is the most known and recognizable image of the FairTax plan and appropriate for the article. We don't have any source data in regard to the 28% rate suggested by Gale to formulate an impact (though it would still be lower then the current average marginal rate of 32.53%), nor do we have the data for the 36% rate by the JCT, which was not an analysis of the FairTax plan. We also have to take into account undue weight policy. This section is a summary style and more detail can be found on the sub-article. I replied to your earlier comment on the article talk. Morphh ^(talk) 21:28, 29 March 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.

Actions along the Matanikau

Respectfully submit this article on a World War II event for featured article consideration. Self-nomination with helpful assistance from other editors in the military history project. Cla68 03:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support, thoroughly excellent article, as usual; all the issues raised during the peer review have been dealt with. Kirill Lokshin 04:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Per above.--Yannismarou 08:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just a prose comment:"These two particular engagements, the first taking place between September 23 and September 27, 1942, and the second between October 6 and 9, 1942 were two of the largest and most significant of the Matanikau actions." Is here the repetition of "two" necessary? Couldn't it just be: "These particular engagements, the first taking place between September 23 and September 27, 1942, and the second between October 6 and 9, 1942 were two of the largest and most significant of the Matanikau actions."--Yannismarou 14:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cla68 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• question: Why the ridiculous disambiguation?? Circeus 00:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the dates in parentheses in the article title? That's to distinguish these actions from several others that took place in the same geographical area during the Guadalcanal campaign. Cla68 00:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)<

Well... I don't see a disambiguation page at Actions along the Matanikau, nor at a possible Battle of the Matanikau, so it appears to fit the bill for "no need for disambiguation". Circeus 02:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The other Matanikau actions are, or will be, articulated in the Guadalcanal campaign article. Cla68 03:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Then there is clearly no needfor the lengthy page name,as there will be no other similarly-named articles. A disambiguation link at the top of this one should be more than enough.Circeus 03:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cla68 09:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support: To keep the references section uniform, put <div class="references-small"> and </div> around the other subsections: books and web. Cheers, S.D. 00:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Aye, I think it is good. Thanks for giving it a better name. The old one gave me a headache.--Pupster21 16:10, 26 March 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.

Metabolism

A broad overview of the chemical basis of life, dealing with metabolic processes in microbes, plants and animals. Self-nomination. The article is 78 kb in total size with 43 kb of readable text. It has recently been peer-reviewed. TimVickers 19:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments Dr pda returns less (34KB) prose size; oh, my, those External links! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also just added a "Further reading" section. TimVickers 04:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support After reading this article for peer-review (along with Zephyris and BirgitteSB), I'm more than convinced it meets FA criteria. It is comprehensive and not long-winded, uses summary style throughout as needed, is very lay-accessible in my humble opinion and is nicely illustrated, something I find important for such a topic (ooh, pretty pictures! ;) Fvasconcellos 14:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support very well-written and well-organized, as usual ;) A few comments:
  • Examples of proteins: fibrous and globular, but not membrane proteins? I know they're just examples, but it's still an odd omission.

Added transporters.

• • I like the glucose animation, but can it be slowed down a bit? I'd be surprised if anyone watching could follow what was going where without watching many iterations.

I can't do that myself, but there is Image:Glucose Fisher to Haworth.gif, would this be an improvement?

I think the one in the article is 'nicer' - the animation is smoother, and there's no weird antialiasing issues when it rotates - but hard to 'get' without watching for a long time unless you already know what's happening. It's up to you - I thought there was a way to set the frame rate for an animated GIF, but I also know nothing about animations. Opabinia regalis 06:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put this in as a request to the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab. TimVickers 15:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

...and then withdrawn it, since I worked out how to do it myself. Slower animation substituted. TimVickers 20:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• • These section headings seem a little strange: why 'coenzymes' by themselves, and then group cofactors with minerals? The latter is almost all about inorganic ions anyway. Also in this section, the first sentence ending with 'minute concentrations' could mention that these are nevertheless crucial; currently the importance of trace elements doesn't come up till the last paragraph.

Reworded. Coenzymes are separated from cofactors as these two classes of molecules play very different roles in metabolism. I wanted to emphasise this difference as it is not usually discussed well in textbooks.

• • 'The amino acids or sugars released by these extracellular enzymes are then pumped into cells by specific active transporters' - mention that the transporters are proteins.

Reworded.

• • In the proteins section, there's no definition or wikilink to alpha-keto acid, and I wouldn't expect that to be something most readers are familiar with. Actually, in the nucleotides section, the same for 'pyrimidine' and 'purine' - just a link to pyrimidine etc. would be good, as I think the distinction is described earlier.

There's a link in "The amino group is fed into the urea cycle, leaving a deaminated carbon skeleton in the form of a keto acid." was this the section you were meaning? Purine and pyrimidine links added.

• • Three notes numbered in the hundreds is long and crowded in the text - maybe condense refs 119-121 to one note, since they aren't reused.

Done

• • Are any of the images unusually large in file size? This page loads rather slowly for me, though other pages are loading normally.

I don't think so, this is 81kb in size now. Perhaps we should remove the animation?

No, I like the animation - I'm the only one with the problem so far. Opabinia regalis 06:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• • All of the external links seem to be well-chosen; this section is long, but useful. Opabinia regalis 01:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! TimVickers 03:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support -- quite well written--ppm 22:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support (non-expert). This isn't an overview of or introduction to metabolism that is fully accessible to the general reader. However, such a big topic would probably require an article the size of a book to achieve that. Reading through (which took me over an hour) I did learn and I was amazed at the complexity of life. I dare say that if I concentrated on a section and followed more of the (over 600) wikilinks I could learn a fair amount. The technical words and phrases are all wikilinked – it is great that there are so many articles to support it. Colin°^Talk 13:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support This is very difficult subject to cover in a general encyclopedia article. Well done!--BirgitteSB 13:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Minor suggestion:

• Nucleotides act as coenzymes in several important group transfer reactions. (a reference would be great)

Anyway I'm going to support it as a perfectly referenced, well illustrated article. Really one of the best works of Wikipedia. Well done, Tim! NCurse _work 20:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Added specific ref for this and a general textbook ref for several other things in this introductory section. TimVickers 20:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Thank you! NCurse _work 21:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. "Multicellular elephants" sounds a bit strange. It forces one to contemplate the existance of unicellular elephants, if only breifly. Not sure how one would rephrase that sentence though. Kaldari 01:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Slight rewording to "...the unicellular bacteria Escherichia coli and huge multicellular organisms like elephants." TimVickers 03:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional support. A great science article that includes substantial scientific detail (or summarizes and links to more detailed pages for those who care) but also in a style and with enough introductory material that makes it accessible to non-scientists as well. Couple of concerns:
  • Image placement quirk: images are in the section before the section describing them, relying on layout/wrapping to place their associated text next to them. At best, that "works, sort-of, on most standard browsers". Better to place the image in the relevant section. I fixed one case, but it looks like a general problem throughout the article.

I've moved the right-aligned images down, but this is the best option for the left-aligned images in subsections. If you put a sub-heading over a left-aligned image then it is separated from the text it refers to and looks like it is a title for the image.

• • Image+table layout problem: a left-side thumb followed by a table forces the table to be to the right of the image, even on narrow monitors. That means side-scrolling...yuck :( Fixed.

Thanks.

• • Fisher projection problem: In the ring/chain image, the convention for a Fisher projection is to place the backbone vertically—otherwise the implied stereochemistry is confusing (and may even be enantiomer for this specific case).

Replaced with different animation.

• • Anabolism intro section confusion: The text describes two types (autotroph vs heterotroph), the flowchart finds six types, and the table has four. Are photoautotroph and chemoautotroph subtypes of autotroph, or is "autotroph" a completely separate thing, or is autotroph both a superclass and a catch-all/"other" subclass of itself? Would this thing be clearer as a tree with tri-state branching ("light", "inorganic oxidation", "other") from each of autotroph and heterotroph roots? Or as a table with rows for light/inorg/other and columns for auto/hetero? Or is this whole flow-chart un-necessary, since a single additional sentence in the preceeding paragraph could explain it all, like: "Organisms can be further classified by ultimate source of their energy: photoautotrophs and photoheterotrophs obtain energy from light, whereas chemoautotrophs and chemoheterotrophs obtain energy from inorganic oxidation processes."

I never liked that flowchart much - ZAP! It is gone. Your text added. Thank you.

• • Pedantic biblio formatting stuff: Some References and Further reading cites use "and" and some use "&" in author lists, and some use periods after first initials while others do not. There's also some inconsistency in what text is the hyperlink, especially for web publications (Buchner's Nobel lecture, for example), presumably as a result of using "raw" formatting instead of the {{cite}} templates. I wouldn't hold up this FAC for failure to use the templates, but at least need to be consistent if doing it manually sometimes. For articles with a PMID, the PMID automatically links, so an additional explicit url that takes one to the same place seems redundant. Only really makes sense if the article is subscription-only via PMID but is available free from some alternate/reprint site.

I've directly linked only the articles with free full-text access, to make it easier for the majority of the readers who don't have web subscriptions to see at a glance what they can access. Fixed formatting for the journal I found. Unfortunately the book cite template produces a slightly different output than the journal cite! TimVickers 16:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Lanosterol synthesis image: The methyls at C13 and C14 look skewed...probably "correct" in a ChemDraw/geometric sense, but would look better being completely vertical instead of slanted due to the 5-membered ring. Also the color-coding is weird...indicates bonds not atoms, so a place where a blue line meets a red one is an atom of indeterminate origin. If we believe the lanosterol page (which is questionable, since the lead structure is wrong?!) biosynthetic and if I follow the colors correctly here, the C14 methyl is the wrong color. DMacks 06:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I vectorized the image, so I'll take responsibility for the "skewed" methyl groups—those are due to ChemSketch's auto bond angles, I'll fix them if you like. The color coding wasn't mine, so I'll steer clear of that one :) Also, I can't believe the lead structure in lanosterol is wrong; that's not one of mine, but I'll fix it anyway. Fvasconcellos 15:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • • Lanosterol fixed. Walking away now... :) Fvasconcellos 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm thinking something like Image:lanosterol-synth.png. Coloring fixed to match monomer origins based on the mechanisms on the squalene and lanosterol pages. DMacks 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think the original is one possible pathway, as DMAPP and IPP can condense to form geranyl-PP, two molecules of geranyl-PP condense to form farnesyl-PP and then two molecules of farnesyl-PP condense to form squalene. However, several pathways are possible, see link. TimVickers 17:57, 29 March 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.

Ridge Route

• previous FAC
• FA review
• peer review

This was recently demoted for being not very good. I received a book through interlibrary loan and rewrote it. I feel it is now ready for FAC, and the book is due back in a week, so I would like to know before then if anything should be added or expanded. Thank you. --NE2 21:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• The lead should be a little longer per WP:LEAD as it doesn't currently summarize the whole article the way an ideal lead should. Don't make it too long of course, that's worse. Otherwise it looks really good, nice work. Without time to evaluate in depth, I'll still conditionally support. - Taxman ^Talk 02:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the lead summarizes the key points; what do you think is missing? --NE2 03:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:LEAD calls for 3-4 paragraphs, so expand a little bit on all of the most important topics in the article. - Taxman ^Talk 17:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I will look into that, probably tonight. --NE2 00:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I had an expansion written, but accidentally hit refresh and lost it. I'll give it another go after a short break. --NE2 22:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The intro text should mention the current status of the road. Is it still used as a through route or local route, or is it closed to traffic completely, or is it now a park? I haven't read the rest of the article yet but I'll post comments later. --Polaron | Talk 15:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • After reading through the article, I am voting to support as it looks complete and well-written. --Polaron | Talk 20:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• I never expected that I would enjoy an article about a road that much! I would like, of course a wider variety on sources, because the article relies on 90% on one book. But ... as I said, I like it very much; therefore I support.--Yannismarou 15:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written and all around a good article. --MPD ^{T / C} 01:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. With two Featured article candidacies and a review, this article sure has been through a bumpy road of its own, but it seems to have arrived here fine. Nicely done, a good read. Nall 07:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'd like to see a little more information about the current uses of the road, or at least the segments that are left. The talk page seems to indicate that part of it is in use as a fire road. Also, when it says, "the old Ridge Route has been largely covered by construction of the Ridge Route Alternate and Interstate 5", does "covered" mean that the old road was literally buried underneath the alternate and the Interstate, or does "covered" mean that traffic is now routed onto those roads and there's no reason to use the old Ridge Route any more? Overall, though, it looks like a solid article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: If you look at the overlay map, portions of Ridge Route were/are now underneath I-5. Ridge Route was a two lane highway that became Highway 99 and eventually I-5. I-5 is interstate freeway with a minimum of four lanes on each side of the median that covers portions of the old routes. Ronbo76 20:12, 26 March 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.

Tom Pryce

I've been working on this article since the Autumn of last year after seeing his horrific death on YouTube. I first saw Pryce's article was, to be it at best, a stub. I'm very happy about the way the article has taken shape now and I do hope it'll pass this FAC. The only concern I have is the fact that a majority of the references come from David Tremayne's book, The Lost Generation. My "excuse", if you like, for this is because the other usual resources I use, such as F1 encyclopedias and a book by Murray Walker only mention his death and only have either in the encyclopedia's cases: a paragraph and in Walker's book: a single sentence in the profile for Alan Jones - Oh and websites, except BBC Wales' article, are the same as well, either sourcing the Wiki article or just talking about his death and his potential to become a World Champion. Tremayne's book, however, goes into such detail about Pryce I needed to pick out the important bits! Anyway, hopefully that'll excuse the article's dependance on (almost) a single source.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 09:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Nominate and Support --Phill ^{talk Edits} 22:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comments: I think it reads well and is just about the right length for the importance of its subject matter. I don't think that the issue of limited source material is important, as one of the reasons that The Lost Generation has been a success is that there was previously very little available on any of the drivers featured. However, I can't help feeling that there must be a few more/better images available. The photo of Pryce in the infobox is great, and the circuit diagram is informative, but the Lotus shot is completely spurious and its captioning is tenuous at best. Can we have a shot of a car that Pryce actually did drive, rather than the could have, should have, would have reasoning for the Lotus' inclusion? Pyrope 11:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: I've added a FU image taken at the 1975 British Grand Prix. Is that okay, Pyrope? --Phill ^{talk Edits} 12:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Those two images are a great addition, exactly what was lacking before. Pyrope 13:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Problem; based almost entirely on one source. Also, pls review WP:DASH and correct throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure that's going to be actionable. The Lost Generation appears to be by far the best source for details on Pryce's life. I've gone through the material relating to the 75 season against a good hard copy reference for that year, and found that although I can partially replace a couple of the references, I'm really only doing it for the sake of variety, not because it's a better way to reference. By way of reassurance, comparison with other sources confirms the material in the article. The only inconsistency to date is, I think, a mistake in my source, not in The Lost Generation. Cheers. 4u1e 23:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Was there an inquiry or some other investigation (eg coronial) which established the facts as they arose on the day? (Even one or two lines would address this, or careful editing of what's already there). This is the only gap I can see - the rest seems very sound to me. Orderinchaos78 02:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: As far as I can tell from the chapter on Pryce's death, there was no report for his death in Kyalami, unlike the other two drivers mentioned in the book: Roger Williamson (There is a hell of a lot on him) and Tony Brise (A aircraft crash report). I believe Tremayne interviewed the people in question to get a picture of what happened on that day, such as George Witt (The chief pit marshal); Jacques Laffite and Hans-Joachim Stuck. Sorry if that doesn't answer your question Orderinchoas. --Phill ^{talk Edits} 22:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Provisional, 'cos I've got a few questions, but no serious concerns:
  • I'd love just a little more detail on how Pryce got into motor racing - I assume it was a racing school he went to at Mallory Park (pls clarify), why did he decide to go then?
    • No - Pryce had his first "taste" of racing at Mallory Park. He then went onto a series of school races run at Brands Hatch and Silverstone by Motor Racing Stables.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • But what made him do it then? 4u1e 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Ah, sorry, I misunderstood you. Pryce got into motorracing driving a baker's van. It's in the "Personal Life" section, second paragraph.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 09:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "wasn't too happy" about winning the Grovewood award - I've put in quotes - can you confirm that this is a direct quote. I assume so from the language used.
    • I've moved the inverted commas and rephrased a bit.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • OK - thanks. 4u1e 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "then found himself racing in the F2 series with Ron Dennis' Rondel Racing outfit" - How did this come about?
    • This came about after Pryce and Royale's successes in F3 and Formula Atlantic, however the plans never succeeded. Soon after Pryce recieved an invitation from RR to test the Motul M1 and after an impressive test, Tom was given a racing seat.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Which plans never succeeded? Did Royale have plans to compete in F2? 4u1e 19:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, Royale's plans to go into Formula 2 never suceeded. I've had a go at trying to put that in the main body.
          • Excellent, thanks. 4u1e 10:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a bit of a logical gap at the start of the Token section. Pryce competed in both F1 and F2 that year, but I'm not clear from the article how that came about. Could you expand slightly on the sequence of events?
    • Pryce drove for Team Baty with James Hunt as his teammate, he was replacing Hiroshi Kazato, who died in a car accident at Mount Fuji.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Pryce didn't compete in F2 until June and his first F1 race with Token was in April so did he not have a race deal at the start of the season? 4u1e 19:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • In F2? No. He was given a place in F2 because, as I said before ;-), Mr. Kazato's death and also because of his performance at Monaco.
          • But he didn't have a deal in F1 either (not at the start of the season, which began in January). What I'm getting at is that you have a young, obviously talented and successful driver but at the beginning of the 1974 season, he doesn't seem to be driving for anyone - despite having shown a taste for competing everywhere and anywhere in earlier seasons. It might be, for example, that he already had his arrangement with Token, a very small team, and was just waiting for the start of the rather limited season such a tiny team could put together. Or it might be that he had no deal to race for anyone at the start of the year, and was keeping himself free for whatever F1 offers came his way. That's what I don't understand! :D 4u1e 10:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I've had a go at it. Sorry, it's kind of confusing for me too!--Phill ^{talk Edits} 12:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "BRDC International Trophy 1974" - retired after 15 or 16 laps? This site says 16, you have 15.
    • The sentence(s) in question, "...until a spin on lap 15 prompted a pit stop [...] He retired in the pits a lap later..." But the thing is, does "a lap later" mean "a lap [the leader made] later" or after Pryce made another tour around the circuit to see if the car was okay. I think what happened was the former.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 12:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, interesting question! When you retire on a lap, whose lap is it?! Hmmm..... 4u1e 13:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
        • How about restructuring so it says 'Pryce retired after a spin/gear linkage failure (which was it?) on lap 15?' That way we don't have to establish which lap he retired on, just which lap the incident occured. 4u1e 13:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 1977 Argentine GP - says pitted with gear linkage failure on lap 45, but suggested he continued afterwards. The results show him as having retired on lap 45. I've edited out the bit about continuing, but can you check and revert me if he did.
    • Well the line in question read this: "...until the gear linkage fell apart on the 45th of 52 laps. After a long pitstop he was too far behind to be classified...". I believe your revert was correct.
      • OK 4u1e 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 1977 South African GP - First practice was on the Wednesday and Qualifying was on the Thursday? This is unusual, can you elaborate slightly in the article?
    • Well, a rather nice picture on the 232nd page had this caption, "A wet road can be a great leveller. During Wednesday practice at Kyalami Tom was uncatchable, outrunning second fastest Niki Lauda by almost a second". So - Yes - Practice was held on a Wednesday.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • But nothing to say why this unusual timing was followed? 4u1e 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • There was a 6 week gap from the previous race, something I read on a forum (see post 22) suggests the teams were there testing for a week or two before the race; That would explain the running on Wednesday - anything to support that in the book? 4u1e 12:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, about a paragraph.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 12:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
            • How about a footnote to say 'Although normally qualifying and practice sessions were held on the Friday and Saturday, with the race itself on the Sunday, on this occasion teams were testing at the circuit for two (?) weeks ahead of the race, taking advantage of the warmer weather.' This would avoid going into the minutiae in the article, but provide a response for readers who know that practice on a Wednesday isn't normal. 4u1e 13:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "For reasons that were never explained" Pryce made a poor start. Is there any significance to this?
    • Well, Tom started on the grid 15th of a 23 car grid. By the end of the 1st lap he was at the back of the pack.
      • If there is no particular significance - other than he made a bad start - I suggest removing "for reasons that were never established" as it implies something odd happened and a poor start isn't all that unusual, for any driver. 4u1e 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Removed.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 12:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Thanks. 4u1e 13:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "missing Bill by a matter of millimetres" - Is this a direct quote? If so, who from? Hard to substantiate otherwise (Yes, I have seen the video, but even so).
    • No - It came from this line by Tremayne, "He missed Bill by millimetres...".--Phill ^{talk Edits} 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I suggest putting it in quotes (i.e. Tremayne reports that Pryce "missed Bill by millimetres"), then it's unarguable. It's the sort of thing that makes picky people (like me!) say 'that can't be true' (if it was only millimetres the aerodynamic forces would likely have sucked him into the car). It also can't have been measured, so can only be someone's estimation and no-one was that close. 4u1e 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I've changed this - happy? 4u1e 12:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Indeed, thanks 4u1e :D.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 12:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The quotebox from Stuck ("As we got to the top...") says 'sense' where I would expect 'sensed'. Is this a typo or is that the word Stuck (not a native English speaker) used?
    • No, your right it was sensed.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • OK. thanks. 4u1e 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Death was almost certainly instantaneous" Is this a general belief, or can it be attributed to a suitable expert?
    • No - It's general belief, but I guess the fact that it's a head injury kind of supports that belief.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Can we get a quote from someone saying that death would have been instantaneous?
        • No, I think someone might of included that claim, because I can't seem to find it here.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 12:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. 4u1e 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article, Skully, I've enjoyed finding out more about Pryce. Cheers. 4u1e 01:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a very comprehensive article on someone whose career was cut severely short. I have a few things, mostly stylistic, which I think could improve the article:
  • Sir Max Aitken, 2nd Baronet is linked as Sir Max Aiken.
    • Corrected.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 10:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The Grovewood award could do with a stub article to turn the link blue; also, could it be explained why Pryce thought it a jinx?
    • No, all Jack Pryce said was that Tom thought the award had a jinx, no reason was given.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 10:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • When reporting the refusal to allow Pryce to compete in the Monaco Grand Prix of 1974, the word "inexperienced" is italicised for no reason.
    • Corrected.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 10:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If memory serves, "Jansen Van Vuuren" was the marshall's full surname and "Frederick" was his first name, rather than "Frederick" being an unused name, "Jansen" being his usual name, and "Van Vuuren" his surname.
    • I've had a go at trying to re-word it. But I've kept "Jansen" in as it's the version that people widely use.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 10:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer 15:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the changes. I now support featured status. Sam Blacketer 11:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

William Monahan

Self-nomination: Hello. This article is about the recent Academy Award winning American Screenwriter for Best Adapted Screenplay, William Monahan. It's a GA currently. I have previously brought the Aaron Sorkin article to featured status. I hope to do the same with this article. They follow a similar template, so you may find making comparisons between them useful. My hope is that Monahan's previous career as a man of letters will receive more attention if this article reaches featured status and appears on the main page. He has had an interesting career and I have enjoyed researching it. So let me know what you think. This article is also a part of the nascent Screenwriters Wikiproject.-BillDeanCarter 19:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It's discouraging to see an article come straightaway to FAC from passing GA; four hours before your nomination, the reviewer who passed the article GA recommended a thorough and independent copyedit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Many articles need a copyedit, but I believe this article has reached the quality of a featured article. I hope that the reviewers here at FAC, will help give the article a copyedit if they feel it needs it. Other than User:Fvasconcellos suggestion that it receives a copyedit, all his others suggestions were met and appreciated.-BillDeanCarter 20:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Oppose 1a, 2. In addition to the copyedit concerns, the section Further information is a jumble having no relation to WP:LAYOUT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      •  Done Thank you for your comments and taking the time to read the article. I addressed your concern about the "Further information" section, but I'm not sure exactly what your concerns are in accordance with the rest of criteria 2. I think I took care of 2c and 2b by modify the "Further information" section to be a clearer "Further reading" section. How specifically does the article not meet criteria 2?-BillDeanCarter 02:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      • On 1a - The article has to date been improved according to many independent copyedits at this point but as more criticism comes in I plan to make further improvements. All the facts are there though. Are there any sentences that jump out at you? Maybe one or two that you could point out?-BillDeanCarter 02:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It is well referenced, so I don't think there is any trouble about unsourced material on a living person. I'm not an english major, so I cant say it has 'amazing prose' or whatever the criterion says but it wasn't stop and go or abrupt; rather all the sections seemed to go in a logical order. KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 03:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 15:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Quick comments
  • The lead still needs improvement, particularly stylistic. Also, a redlink in the lead immediately throws me off; IMHO, mentioning an ongoing event in the lead is not a very good idea, but if you want to keep it, it would look better if you delinked the film title and added a little bit of context (e.g., "He is currently working on the screenplay for Penetration, an adaptation of...in collaboration with director Ridley Scott.")

 Done I did a copyedit of the lead and removed mention of the ongoing event.

• • The article has improved, but more copy editing is the way to go here. After another read, I find this article to be nicely comprehensive, but the overall style is still lacking; the first criterion to define a Featured Article is "the prose is compelling, even brilliant."

It's true. I'm running out of vocabulary for this article. That's what I've enjoyed seeing from other editors, the addition of words that I know but wouldn't have chosen. I hope others can continue to help me out in this area.-BillDeanCarter 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• • The amount of redlinks bothers me, especially since they are to terms I would like to see explained! Production write-through contract, turnaround deal... I can infer meanings from the context, but readers shouldn't have to infer anything.

I removed many of the other redlinks, because they will most likely never be filled in and probably shouldn't be. As for the two redlinks you would like to see explained. I would too. But they're entertainment lawyer-like terms, which I've notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Law about, and they filled in one of the redlinks: first-look producing deal. The two remaining entertainment lawyer contracts will possibly remain in the red for a while. I don't want to de-link them, but I also can do little to fill them in.-BillDeanCarter 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done Well, done as in the amount of redlinks is no longer an eyesore. I put together a stub for production write-through contract. The other one will hopefully be forthcoming over time.-BillDeanCarter 22:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• • In "Becoming a producer": "Scorsese had originally hired in 2001 former Rolling Stones writer..." don't you mean Rolling Stone magazine? :) Also, the prose in this sentence is a pretty good example of what needs work here.

Thanks. I corrected the spelling of Rolling Stone magazine. This paragraph is basically about deals, and Monahan's production company. I'll work on it. I think the solution might be to condense the last two paragraphs into one, and improve the prose from there.-BillDeanCarter 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done I completely rewrote the section. It's significantly improved. Hopefully up to par with the rest of the article.-BillDeanCarter 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• • There are some pretty unnecessary links in the "Writing process" section, such as to screenwriter, motion pictures, film director, etc.

 DoneI de-linked some of the terms, especially motion pictures, but the other two you mention are very important terms for the section. The writing process section is about screenwriters and how they work with film director and studios.-BillDeanCarter 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• There's more, but I'll have to read the article again more thoroughly. I'm very busy today, so I'll see what I can do later. Fvasconcellos 13:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your many comments. The problems seem to remain in the prose.-BillDeanCarter 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment The nominator of this article asked me to look over its prose. I would suggest that this article be sent to the League of Copyeditors or that the editors find a trusted wikipedia editor to copyedit for them. The prose needs a lot of work. I will give detailed examples from the lead and the first sections only.

• Monahan moved to New York City to pursue a career as a journalist, writer and critic. He went on to contribute to the New York Press, as well as the magazines Talk, Maxim and Spy. - These two sentences suggest that Monaham went to NYC to be a jounralist and then moved on to write for these particular magazines - that doesn't quite make sense. Didn't he write for them because he was a journalist?

This was someone else's copyedit. I changed it to "After graduating from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, where he studied Elizabethan and Jacobean drama, Monahan moved to New York City to pursue a career as a journalist, writer and critic. He wrote for the New York Press, as well as the magazines Talk and Maxim. He was also a writer and editor at Spy magazine in its final years."

A lead is supposed to summarize, so how about: ""After graduating from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, where he studied Elizabethan and Jacobean drama, Monahan moved to New York City to pursue a career as a journalist, writer and critic. He wrote for the New York Press, Talk, Maxim and Spy magazine."

 Done Okay. I put exactly that in there. He was also an editor at Spy but I guess that's for the text.-BillDeanCarter 17:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Monahan broke into Hollywood in 1998 - "broke into" is too colloquial for an encyclopedia

I changed the sentence to "Monahan went to work in Hollywood in 1998, when Warner Bros. bought the film rights to Light House: A Trifle, which had not yet been published, and contracted him to adapt it to the screen."

How about: "Monahan moved to Hollywood in 1998 when he was hired by Warner Bros. to adapt his novel, Light House: A Trifle, for the screen." (if that is still correct)

 Done I don't know that he moved to Hollywood. He may have been living in a hotel, and commuting back to the North shore. I believe he lives in MA still.-BillDeanCarter 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• released to theaters in 2005 - "released in theaters"?

 Done Okay. It's consistently "released in theaters" throughout the article now. Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• His second realized screenplay was The Departed, a film which earned him a WGA award and an Academy award for Best Adapted Screenplay. - "realized" is unfamiliar diction for many people; also was it the film that earned him the award or the screenplay?

"realized" was someone else's copyedit. I reverted to "produced screenplay". I mention how he won the award for Best Adapted Screenplay. Both awards were for Best Adapted Screenplay. Is it not clear? Does the WGA award seem to stand alone?-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is implied that he won for the screenplay, but the sentence actually states "a film which earned him..." - should it not say, "a screenplay which earned him..."? By the way, is there another word for screenplay? It appears a lot in this article. Nothing is coming to me at the moment, but perhaps you know of something. Is a script different from a screenplay?

"Shooting script" is good, "first draft", "rewrite", but screenplay is the best word to use when the script is over and done with. Maybe there is a synonym. I can't think of one. You never know.-BillDeanCarter 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Monahan strongly believes that writing should be authored and is not a fan of the collaborative model in which multiple screenwriters write competing drafts for a film. - doesn't quite make sense; all writing is authored; try starting the sentence with "Monahan strongly believes that screenwriting should not be collaborative but rather..." or something like that

 Done Okay. I did the reversal.

• He had a Catholic upbringing and lived all over the North Shore of Massachusetts with his mother and sister. - how about simply, "He was brought up Catholic" and what does "lived all over" mean?

 Done Okay, I changed to "He had a Catholic upbringing. Over the years he frequently moved, living in many of the suburban communities of the North Shore of Massachusetts with his mother and sister."

How about "his family frequently moved" (then you can cut the mother/sister stuff out)

But what is the family? Is his sister and mother, because he wasn't living with the father. It's also more informative. Now you know he has a sister.-BillDeanCarter 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• The "Early Years" section is choppy - some sentences could be joined together in order to make the narrative of his life flow more seamlessly.

Could you point out an example of two sentences that could be joined? I guess these two sentences, "His interest in movies began at age seven, when it occurred to him that a screenwriter was behind the story in Lawrence of Arabia. Monahan wrote his first screenplay at age twelve." could be tied together, but it doesn't quite work for me. What do you think?-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How about these: "He regularly visited his father's home in West Roxbury, and would read frequently from his father's extensive library. Monahan particularly enjoyed reading Shakespeare." into "He regularly visited his father's home in West Roxbury, where he would immerse himself in his father's extensive book collection; Monahan particularly enjoyed reading Shakespeare's plays." (might change meaning a little - be sure it is accurate)

 Done No, it's accurate. Okay, I put it in. Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• After graduation, Monahan's ambition was to be a man of letters, which required a commitment to essays, criticism, reviews, novels, poetry and biographies. - "which required a commitment to" is vague - what about something like "which would have required him to master the genres of the essay, the review, the novel, poetry and the biography" or something like that

 DoneI word for word put in your copyedit. It reads better. Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• six months later, he wrote another article at the alternative weekly newspaper that has distinguished him as the only person to solve the Unabomber's lexically-based targeting methodology before the bomber was caught - verb is awkward - perhaps "distinguishes him as"? although "distinguish" is not really the right word here

I changed it to "distinguishes". Classified him, marked him, came to mind but they don't quite fit as well. It has distinguished him. No one else, not even the FBI figured out what he did. Do you have a better verb?-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"establish"? is a good online thesaurus (you mentioned you were running out of words)

 Done I've been using a thesaurus here and there. Establish doesn't work for me. I would use "marked him" but to me it sounds like he got involved in witchcraft. From my adventures through the thesaurus "distinguish" seems to be the most apt word.-BillDeanCarter 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• The next year, Monahan wrote a provocative article at the Press on heroin. - what made it provocative?

I changed this to "The next year, Monahan wrote an article at the Press on heroin that provoked a rash of letters from readers."

This still doesn't explain why it was provocative. What were the readers writing in about?

Probably pro and con the article. This is a secondary source that mentioned his article. I'd love to read it, but atm it's not available.-BillDeanCarter 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• It looks to me like you don't do justice to his novel. A novel, especially a "critically acclaimed" one, as you say this one is, is difficult to write. It is not on the same level with magazine stories.

I later on mention more about the novel in Screenwriting career, how it got delayed, and later in writing process I talk about how he prefers movies to novels because you have a cultural effect. His novel was acclaimed but probably had the readership of one of his magazine articles. He eventually took the novel off the market.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, but I still feel it is downplayed. Perhaps a quote from a review?

 Done Okay. That's a good idea. I changed the sentence to this: "In 2000, Monahan's first novel Light House: A Trifle was published and garnered critical acclaim; The New York Times wrote that "Monahan's cocksure prose gallops along," and BookPage Fiction called Monahan "a worthy successor to Kingsley Amis." I'm unfamiliar with the proper use of a semicolon so I hope I got the sentence right.-BillDeanCarter 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to have copied sentences directly from the article into the lead - try to summarize in the lead.

Okay. I'll see what I can do.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please integrate his marriage into the chronology of his life rather than relegating it to a little line after his list of works.

This was done in the Aaron Sorkin article and it wasn't me but another who thought it was the way to go. I've since followed that style, and I want to keep the layout of my trilogy of articles on screenwriters similar.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a big feminist debate here, but it is awfully condescending to relegate his domestic life to this little line at the end of the article. If this were an article about a female screenwriter or director, I have a feeling that her marriage(s) would not be placed so inconspicuously (I have noticed a strong trend in biographies of nineteenth-century dead, white men to do this same thing but in biographies of dead, white women, to prominently feature their marriages). If you don't agree with this argument, at least consider that, structurally, it breaks the continuity of the article (which is strongly chronological).

The thing is that his family life doesn't fit in with Screenwriting career. I would have to pop in with comments like "he got married this year," and "first baby here", and "second baby here". There isn't much to say about his Personal life. It comes together better if you can read it all in context in a section. I can't see how women or men are slighted by having the family stuff gathered into a section, or brought up in the other sections organically.-BillDeanCarter 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

See Johannes Kepler for a good example. My point is, women's biographies do not usually separate their careers from their families while men's biographies often do. That's what makes it sexist - the overall pattern. Awadewit 07:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

But Kepler is then an exception to this overall pattern? The thing is with Kepler there's 2 marriages, and there's a lot to be said. Monahan's wife's name is unknown, and all that's known is that he has two kids. I will give this some more thought.-BillDeanCarter 18:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please say that I am hearing you wrong. Please tell me that you didn't mean that you want to follow the sexist pattern just because it is a pattern. Just because there is not very much information does not mean you cannot work it in. Awadewit 19:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am coming to a method in which I could include this marriage stuff. His daughter was born during the production of Kingdom which I talk about at length. His son was born during his man of letters years, and he got married before or after the deal for Kingdom which might have had to do with achieving that success. But am I against newborns? Am I against wives? No. And saying that this is sexism is a huge generalization. I would like to hear what others think about whether this should or shouldn't be done before I make these modifications.-BillDeanCarter 21:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm generally in favor of including it in the body, especially if you can connect the events to changes in his life and not just as standalone facts, though I understand that it can seem out-of-context to talk about children when we're discussing someone's life in terms of their stylistic periods. MarkBuckles (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

<outdented>There are 4 facts that would have to be weaved into the body. The 1998 birth of his son, which would be out of place in the list of articles, novels, etc... he did in his man of letters years. Then the 2001 wedding, which could go in many places. His daughter's birth, is the only fact that has a place, alongside the production of Kingdom. The fourth fact, is where he resides, which I can't quite position anywhere in the text yet. Is it really worth it to break up the family of facts, and haphazardly spread them around the article? I mean, Awadewit talks about a kind of sexism, but what about breaking up the family? This way, you see in an orderly and contextual fashion exactly what kind of people he has around him; his family. I have tried briefly to put together an edit that works, but it seems clumsy. If it is really a simple matter of style then I won't do it. But if there really is something wrong here, with writing up a section about his family then I'll change it. What's the general consensus among Wikipedians?-BillDeanCarter 23:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done I incorporated his family into the body of the text. Let me know if it flows, and if it doesn't and you can help please edit the article with choice words you think will help. It really does improve the article. Whether or not the article was ever sexist is still up for debate. The facts were placed as neatly as I could, but I remain unable to place where he resides. I kept the "Family life" section, because why not? It has a bit more information, and it's interesting. Brings everything together.-BillDeanCarter 05:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's not continue with this debate. We can continue with it on talk pages, if you wish. I happen to think it is important. Let's make it a debate about style. Sections with two sentences? I do not think that sections with two sentences have been making a go of it here at FAC. A section has to have a better reason to exist than that. The section looks wimpy, if you will. Awadewit 11:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• On a side note, what do you think of including still frames from the movies?Awadewit 06:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't justify it. I did what you're talking about in the Aaron Sorkin article and during FAC I had to remove 10 images down to 0. Eventually User:ShadowHalo and I found free use images and the article is as it is now.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps ShadowHalo could help you again. I'm not quite sure why single frames are not fair use. I mean what percentage of the movie are they? How many thousand/million frames are there in a movie? Anyway, I thought that it would add to the page. Are movie posters fair use? At least that would add some color. The quotation boxes are a nice addition, by the way. (Insert rant on copyright law here.)

I don't think it would improve the article. It would only make the article look pretty. And I'm scared of the "fair use" debates that would flare up.-BillDeanCarter 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw my name, so here's my input. I think ten images was excessive, but I think it would be easy to justify using one or two. For example, there is more than sufficient critical commentary on The Departed to use a cover (or film poster, I'm not sure how films are usually treated). I'll go ahead and write up a fair use rationale for the image if you'd like to add it. ShadowHalo 08:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. That would be good. I guess the quote in the section "Working scripts through production and after" would move to the "Writing process" section to make room for the poster or whatnot.-BillDeanCarter 17:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there's room there. I added it in to show what I mean; if you'd rather put it or the quotation somewhere else, feel free. ShadowHalo 01:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

<outdented> Done It looks good. I didn't think there would be room, but there is. Thanks once again for the help.-BillDeanCarter 18:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Made some minor copyedits myself. It looks to me llke this has been pretty heavily copyedited since some of these comments were made. It's starting to look like a FA. I'd still like to be able to have stubs for any redlinks - it won't make main page with those there.MarkBuckles (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done I filled in the last two remaining redlinks which were turnaround deal and Penetration (film). I like the "Family life" section. It's an improvement, as were the copyedits. Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 01:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• More comments on the language.
• Tragically, the theatrical release of Kingdom of Heaven was pared down from Ridley Scott's original 3-hour cut after a preview screening convinced Scott the film was too long. - is it really "tragic" that a movie was cut down? tragedies usually involve death (in the theater, as I am sure you are aware, tragedies end with death and comedies end with marriage)

 Done Tragic can be used to describe a sense of tragedy, and in the most dramatic of terms it was a tragedy that a good film was butchered by it's own director. Clearly not encyclopedic so I did a copyedit that clarifies things.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• The film was poorly received by critics when it was released in theaters in 2005. - can you find some other place to put the date and tell us what the critics said?

 Done part of the copyedit.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ridley Scott would later remark that he got carried away with cutting the film in the editing room and learned that "the enemy is previews" because it's tantamount to asking an inexperienced group of people to be film critics. - I think you need to add the word "screening" into Scott's quotation or outside the quotation or something because the general reader thinks of previews as the little trailers before the movie

 Done I clarify that "the enemy is previews" because these test screenings are tantamount to...

• Kingdom later got a reappraisal on DVD, in the form of a director's cut that contained an additional 45 minutes of material that came from Monahan's shooting script. - "got"?

 Done Kingdom was reappraised on DVD...

perhaps Kingdom was reappraised by critics when it was released on DVD? Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done I reworded to, "Kingdom was reappraised by critics when it was released on DVD in the form of a director's cut that contained an additional 45 minutes of footage previously shot from Monahan's shooting script."-BillDeanCarter 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• The director's cut earned the critical acclaim that the truncated version was denied. - odd use of the passive here - you act as if it was entitled to the critical acclaim (but of course if it was truncated and crappy, why should it have been praised?)

 Done I paraphrased a critic.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Critics can still write poorly. :) Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Monahan's second produced screenplay was The Departed. Monahan never watched the Hong Kong thriller Infernal Affairs that he was adapting, and instead opted to work from an English translation of the Chinese script in order to create an original interpretation. - I have no idea what you are talking about here. I have not seen this movie, read about it or heard about it (I live in a bubble). Why are we now talking about Interal Affairs? How is it connected to The Departed?

 Done

• Jack Nicholson, who played the part - "who was going to play the part"?

 Done made the change

• post-sexual - is that a word? find it somewhere and I'll retract my objection

 Done it's a word. it's used all over the internet but I changed it to "jaded with sexual intercourse".-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Monahan gives credit to Nicholson's notes for improving the character of the mob boss Costello by sexualizing him. - awkward - most important part of the sentence is "sexualizing him" - make it more prominent

 Done Monahan credits Nicholson's notes for sexualizing the character of the mob boss Costello.-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• As of 2007, Monahan is working on a film treatment for a follow-up to The Departed, which may be a prequel or a sequel. - sentences requires the "either...or" construction - "which may either be a prequel or a sequel" OR, if you don't like to split infinitives "which may be either a prequel or a sequel"

 Done used the split infinitive.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• which gives the studio the first right of first refusal on any films produced by Henceforth - is the first "first" necessary? it seemed confusing

 Done I thought it was confusing too, but it's saying the first ROFR. You can have second ROFRs and third ROFRs. It's more accurate this way.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

How weird. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Monahan is passably familiar with the various stages of the filmmaking process - "passably familiar" is something you say when you want to deprecate someone - is that what you want to do? perhaps "has some familiarity"

 Done I see no evidence that "passably familiar" is used in a deprecating sense. In fact all my google searches show that it's used in exactly the context I've used it. But "has some familiarity" sounds less stuffy. I made the change.

Well, there are a lot of poorly written webpages out there. I've would've been more convinced if you had said The New York Times uses it this way or something like that, by the way. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• raising the finances - there is a better way to phrase this, but I can't think of it right now

There may be, but it's a common phrasing and I even found it used in this exact context.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Monahan will be the one adapting - "will also"?

 Done sure.

• Monahan will executive produce and write the - is this a verb? why not just "produce"? or "will be the executive producer and writer for.."

Executive produce is a verb, and it's different than produce. He's writing the adaptation and executive producing the film. The sentence sounds best as it is.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it just sounds weird to a reader not familiar with filmspeak. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• It is Monahan's second adaptation of a Hong Kong film. - is this typical filmspeak? is it like saying Bollywood film?

Hong Kong films are in a league of their own. It's more familiar filmspeak than Bollywood film.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I wikilinked into the FA on Hong Kong action cinema. As further proof there are stubs for Hong Kong film actors/ HK film directors / HK film producers. There's even a nice article on the Cinema of Hong Kong which with a little work could be an FA as well.-BillDeanCarter 16:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• The Long Play is the creation of Mick Jagger, the lead singer of the popular English musical group The Rolling Stones. - "the popular English musical group"? even I who know NOTHING about popular music AT ALL know that the Rolling Stones is one of the most popular bands in history; this seems to be underselling them

 Done retitled them the influential British Invasion group.

• that the entire second half of Monahan's shooting script was based on the first 105 pages of his book, as well as noting that Kingdom of Heaven is the title of the second chapter in his book - awkward

 Done broke it up some.-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Do you know why Reston didn't file a lawsuit? I saw this story when it came out. You make it sound as if Monahan and Fox were not at fault and that is why no suit was filed. But I remember reading that Reston decided not to file, not because he believed that Reston and Fox were not at fault but because he believed he couldn't win.

I couldn't find any mention that he came to some decision. He simply didn't pursue the matter. He never filed charges. Reston made his claims, and 20th century fox made their counter-claims. I searched and found nothing. Reston doesn't talk about it in subsequent interviews. What can you do?-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• he ended up in Hollywood to adapt his first novel into a film - "ended up"?

 Done "went to"

• His perception is that a writer can retain the authorship of their screenplay if a powerful film director supports the writer, and if at the same time the writer has strong enough ideas that he can successfully advocate his vision, even in the face of the inevitable influences of actors, directors and producers. - "perception" seems a bit odd, how about "view" or "opinion"; also, sentence is a bit long and convoluted - make it strong and clear

 Done changed sentence to "Monahan's view is that a screenwriter can retain the authorship of their screenplay if they have the support of a powerful film director and successfully advocate their ideas, even in the face of the inevitable influences of actors, directors and producers."-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• He prefers writing screenplays over other forms of writing - how about "He prefers writing screenplays over other genres" - gets rid of repetition of "writing"

 Done as you worded.

• he has reached a level of ability where he is no longer self-conscious about his writing - "level of ability" is odd - in fact, this whole idea is strange - the quote from him would be nice

The quote is, "As far as getting notes is concerned, I‘ve spent thirty-odd years studying English drama, so I’m personally at a point where I’m post-conscious about craft, but that’s a pricey personal evolution, that’s a thing I chose to do, and you have to remember not everyone’s had time for it, any more than you can expect some other guy off the street to know kung fu or biochemistry." I'd like to summarize how he no longer second guesses his writing decisions. Is there a traditional way of describing such? I'd like to not paraphrase or quote.-BillDeanCarter 20:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I would include at least the word "post-conscious" - that is an odd word. Hard to paraphrase that. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done I reworded to, "He has studied English drama for over thirty years and has stated that because of those efforts he has reached a level of ability where he is "post-conscious about craft." I find level of ability is apt. I considered skill level, but it doesn't sound right.-BillDeanCarter 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

These words prefixed with post- are his style of writing. He uses that and some other words quite often. So probably in this article any post- prefixed word should be paraphrased henceforth.-BillDeanCarter 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would move the "List of writings" back over - the list is not that long yet.

The list is 3x - 10x as long. The hope is that some will derive a measure of pleasure from adding to the list. It's a mess atm, and my idea is to make it a featured list eventually.-BillDeanCarter 15:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Perhaps list it as an imcomplete list, then? Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done I did what other incomplete lists do, I put {{expand_list}} templates where the part of the list is incomplete. Actually, the practice has been to put one incomplete template in the article and be done with it, but I placed a few of them in the sections that were incomplete, so that at least it's apparent which parts are complete. If there were a {{expand_list-sect}} template I'd use it instead. Anyways, I was looking for a way to do exactly that. So it's good now.-BillDeanCarter 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole piece is getting better. Revision is hard work. Awadewit 11:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. All comments addressed. I'm going to take a small wikibreak of a day or so and then check back in with this article and its nomination to see how it actually looks.-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Support This article's prose has greatly improved since its first appearance here due to the editor's tireless efforts to revise it for clarity and accessibility. I cannot speak to the page's comprehensiveness since I do not know about the subject, but there is certainly a lot of detailed information here about Monahan's films and theories regarding screenwriting. While this article does not reference any scholarly sources, I do not see that as a reason to object to this article becoming an FA there are no scholarly sources yet on this person (I did a search of all of the major databases, JSTOR, MUSE, MLA, etc.) It will be a few years before scholars have a chance to publish on these films. The information is thus well-sourced from the sources available. (There does not seem to be a policy to wait for the research to come out or anything like that.) Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Support Phew, that was a tough one. Kudos on your work—the article has improved a lot. I still think the prose could use more work, but I can't put my finger on anything specific. Perhaps a final once-over by the League of Copyeditors would be a good idea? Anyway, after a more thorough read, I found all my concerns have been addressed, and one thing is undeniable about this article: its comprehensiveness. I think we can safely say that, despite its (now very minor) shortcomings, this article has become an excellent resource. Fvasconcellos 16:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments. Some remarks to a generally very nice article:

Thanks for the comments Yanni.-BillDeanCarter 05:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• "He had a Catholic upbringing." This too short sentence in the middle of longer ones makes the prose a bit choppy there IMO.

 Done I reworded to, "Monahan was born in Dorchester, Boston to an Irish-American family and was raised Irish Catholic." Irish Catholic... maybe the Irish sounds redundant but it's in fact a specific thing.-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• "six months later, he wrote another article at the alternative weekly newspaper that distinguishes him as the only person to solve the Unabomber's lexically-based targeting methodology before the bomber was caught." I'm not a native English speaker, so I may be wrong, but I'm wondering: is there a mixture of tenses here or am I wrong? And why "the" alternative weekly newspaper? Is there just one alternative weekly newspaper? Or is New York Press an alternative newspaper? And why don't you say that in the previous sentence?

 Done This was brought up above by User:Awadewit and so the tenses were changed. I could write it with either tense, so I'll let someone else chime in here. Originally I used alternative weekly newspaper just to spice up the language. I reworded it so that alternative weekly newspaper goes in the previous sentence as information, and replaced it with the shorthand Press. So here it is, "He moved to New York City and contributed to the alternative weekly newspaper New York Press and the magazines Talk, Maxim and Spy.[3][4] In 1995, Monahan wrote a cover story for the New York Press that used the crimes of John Salvi to attack the Catholic Church's teachings; six months later, he wrote another article at the Press that distinguishes him as the only person to solve the Unabomber's lexically-based targeting methodology before the bomber was caught."-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Monahan ended up winning two Best Adapted Screenplay awards for The Departed from the Writers Guild of America and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences." "Monahan's second produced screenplay was The Departed, an adaptation of the Hong Kong action film Infernal Affairs." I have a sense of repetition here. You tell us exactly the same things in the previous section, and with almost the same wording. One section is not seperated from the other. Alltogether constitute the same article, and they must interweave and co-exist in harmony.

Hmm, tricky. It was a previous suggestion that I mention his awards in the previous section. It was a word-for-word copyedit from the talk page for the article. It has to be in the section 'Working scripts through production and after'. Should I remove it from the previous section then? It was Fvasconcellos who made the request. The previous section is meant to reflect the workload he picked up before any of his movies were made. So it's not necessary to mention his awards, or reflect on how things turned out in the future. I could remove them. What's the consensus?-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Personally, I would leave them in the previous section, and not repeat them again in "Working scripts", but this may just be a personal preference.--Yannismarou 15:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be most relevant in the working scripts through production and after. You get to see how he hired a publicist to ensure he got those awards.. or at least had the best chance of getting those awards. And then voila!, he gets them. Without the voila! the paragraph becomes significantly neutered. So I would have to remove them from the previous section, if at all. I'm ambivalent about this.-BillDeanCarter 21:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• "In return Henceforth received the film rights to produce John Pearson's true crime novel The Gamblers, which Warner Bros. had acquired the rights to." Maybe a bit repetitive the prose here, but not a big deal of course.

I'm working through the many possible permutations of this sentence. I'll get back to you on this.-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• "The project originated at Mick Jagger's production company Jagged Films.[52] Martin Scorsese became involved while the film project was at Disney. In 1999, Jagger and Scorsese hired Rolling Stone magazine writer Rich Cohen to research and write the first drafts for the Rock and Roll story.[53] In the intervening years Matthew Weiss did several rewrites of the original drafts. Scorsese recently negotiated a turnaround deal to bring the The Long Play from Disney to Paramount.[52]" IMO the prose is getting a bit choppy here.

 Done I reworded to, "Monahans' other assignment is to rewrite a screenplay about the history of the rock music business called The Long Play. The Long Play is the creation of Mick Jagger, the lead singer of the influential British Invasion group The Rolling Stones, and was nurtured at Mick Jagger's production company Jagged Films. Martin Scorsese became involved while the film project was at Disney but recently negotiated a turnaround deal to bring the The Long Play to Paramount.[52] In 1999, Jagger and Scorsese hired Rolling Stone magazine writer Rich Cohen to research and write the first drafts for the Rock and Roll story.[53] In the intervening years Matthew Weiss did several rewrites of the original drafts, and Monahan will now do a rewrite of his own."

I'll see what I can do here.-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Personal life": I don't like this section. For the following reasons: 1) It is toooo stubby. 2) It is incomplete, and its purpose is not clear; you repeat the same personal info spread in the previous sections about his personal life (marriage, children). By this spreading you initially gave the sense to the reader that he will not have to read a "personal life" section (actually, while reading I was thinking: "why doesn't he makes a proper "personal life" section, and spreads the info around?). But suddenly, the reader sees the section with partial repetitive information he already read, and wonders: why didn't the writer collect all the info about his personal life here, and spread it around, and then to repeat it here again? At least, this is what I wondered!--Yannismarou 21:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear on which position you take. Should I remove the information from the body of the article and place it only in the "Personal life" section? Or should I kill off the "Personal life" section altogether? If I kill off the "Personal life" section I am contemplating summarizing it very briefly as a last sentence in the lead. What do you think?-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done I went ahead and did this. Check out the edited clearly labeled "I could be reverted"-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

QUESTION: When I talk about his writings in the "Man of letters" section does it sound like these were the only articles he wrote? Or does it sound like I'm only mentioning the notable ones?-BillDeanCarter 05:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I get the impression that you are mentioning the notable ones, and he may have written more of them.--Yannismarou 15:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh! And I support. I think that despite some minor issued still open, this is a very nice article.--Yannismarou 15:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support since this article is well-written and well-referenced; it's a job well done. Cliff smith 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support I was reading the article, and I thought "this should be nominated"... then I checked the talk page.--Orthologist 15:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Devil May Cry 2

There's no doubt in my mind that the Devil May Cry 2 article is close to, if not meets the requirements for Featured Article status. Having recently been promoted to Good Article class, as well as having addressed the concerns raised in the Peer Review, I feel there is no other path for me to take than to present this article for review as a Featured Article and address any and all concerns other editors may have.

Thanks in advance to anyone who comments. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose — some issues, including: Support, most issues addressed.

• Inline queries — I added several queries for statements that need clarification.

• The inline queries were removed; the only one not stated below involves this sentence: "In contrast to the rest of the gameplay, the style judging system used in the game has been cited as the hardest in the series to impress." Clarification or another word may be necessary; is the word "impress" referring to the style judging system, or the player?

• Reception section — a paragraph of positive criticism needs to be added to balance out all the negative. Also has some referencing issues (see below)
• References — they need to be formatted properly (author, date published, etc: try to fill out as much of Template:Cite web as possible). Additionally, GameFAQs is usually not considered a reliable source; try GameSpot instead, because their reviews are edited and not user submitted, which makes them automatically more reliable down the line. Also, don't cite GameFAQs user reviews. Cite professional reviews by, say, GameSpot, IGN, and so on. See the reception section for Final Fantasy VIII or Final Fantasy VII for a good model. Another questionable source is the wii60 fan forum review, because it is not a published review with an editorial team like IGN, GameSpot, GameRankings, etc. Both of those sources are being used to cite the "black sheep" comment, so perhaps you should just omit that and say something along the lines of "the game attracted negative criticism in comparison to the first game".
• Spoiler warnings — generally redundant for sections labeled as "plot" in my opinion, although this is entirely subjective and based on the main editors' preferences, and not the guideline or the reviewers' wishes.

Overall, a good start. Positives are succinctness, most bases covered (except audio — did the game have a soundtrack?), and lack of fancrufty subarticles. It will still need an hour of work or so to attain FA status. — Deckiller 19:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment After a bit of thought, I agree. The "Black Sheep" comment has been excised for now (though I'll add it back if I can find a more reputable source for it). Additionally the marketing section has been restored to make room for information regarding the release of the soundtrack, which will also cover the audio information. The Reception section is in the process of being updated to cover a more positive spin, and going through to take care of the citations and fill them in as much as possible is in progress as well. Cheers, Lankybugger 20:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional Comment The first inline question you raised has been addressed by rewriting the sentence. Cheers, Lankybugger 20:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Looks good. I stuck that part off earlier. — Deckiller 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Looks like I got everything. I've finished with formatting all the remaining references. Cheers, Lankybugger 04:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support if considerations above are carried out. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 20:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Basically what Deckiller said. --- RockMFR 20:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Also, Image:Dmc2diesel.jpg needs a source (it has the copyright status and fair use rationale, but where did it come from?) --- RockMFR 20:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Image:Dmc2diesel.jpg has been sourced. Cheers, Lankybugger 01:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment my restructuring of the "black sheep" comment was reverted by a user. My oppose will unfortunately stand until those two sources are replaced by more reliable ones, or the sentence is restructured to provide a general overview of reception and criticism. — Deckiller 20:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support It's is rather surprising to see how an article about a game regarded by some as a "lowpoint in the series", is the best article about the series here, the nomination has my support although the article could have a few small changes to improve like tha addition of some pre production artwork, its format looks good and it's well referenced. -Dark Dragon Flame 00:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Chensiyuan 01:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support the prose is alright, well-referenced, and after the gameplay pics were added (since there weren't any in the GA nom), I can help this nom. I only suggest to do a table of reviews (included in most VG FA's), and use more of "publisher" in the {{cite web}} template. igordebraga ≠ 17:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Mostly Support. The Article is good, I can see minor work that could be done on it, other then that, I say: Yes. It's good to go! --Majinvegeta 22:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Informative, well sourced, and well organized. -- The Hybrid 23:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Actually, I have one more consideration: do you think you could add a 'characters' section to join with the plot, maybe under a new major heading? I think it would help to keep the people straight in the summary. Just a thought. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 23:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't want to create a characters section as it's already done in the Characters in Devil May Cry page. Maybe more wikilinking? I don't think it links to Matier's entry in the current article. Cheers, Lankybugger 03:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, scratch that then, I didn't see you had already linked to it as a See also bit. I mean, perhaps you could have Characters, a description, with the Main Article > character pointers, but that's just personal preference to me and doesn't affect my consideration one way or another. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support I like what I see. Manderiko 13:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Trivial stuff - This is mostly nitpicking, as the article is otherwise quite nice.
  • The development team is uncited.
  • For cite #1, IMDB is a lousy source, especially for game staff.
  • Describing the controls is a bit excessive; is this necessary? It hasn't been done in other video game FAs.
  • Does ref #26 support the entirety of the first paragraph of Development? That ref only seems to say that he was disappointed, not when he was informed or that CPS4 wasn't involved in the development of DMC2.
  • "Instead, the sequel was granted to Capcom Production Studio 1 and Hideaki Itsuno, the team responsible for Capcom VS SNK 2." Ref?
  • Ref #29 does not justify "Due to the focus of Devil May Cry 2's action on style," as it makes no mention of Capcom's reasoning.
  • Ref #35 does not justify "however, the game still received decent scores from professional reviewers." It's just a list of statistics, and that is an evaluative statement drawing a conclusion from those statistics. Additionally, the evaluation is a tad iffy; many of those publications listed on that page panned the game.
  • All of Reception attributes evaluative claims to "players," then backs this up with citations to professional reviews. I don't have a problem with the content or the cites, but wouldn't it be stylistically better to say that reviewers mentioned these concerns?

  These concerns shouldn't be a big deal to resolve. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • • To address your points in order...
      • Dev team is now cited.
      • IMDB ref has been switched to a Moby Games ref.
      • Controls have been shortened and instead described in a more general manner.
      • Yep. A little further down, Kamiya states that the first notice he got about Devil May Cry 2 getting a sequel was when someone from another team (presumably Itsuno from CPS1, though it's not stated) asked Kamiya for the original Devil May Cry design documents because he was doing the sequel.
      • So ref'd.
      • See (what is currently) Ref 30. It mentions that Capcom sought the partnership with Diesel, beginning with the lead "Given the Devil May Cry series' emphasis upon style above all else". I suppose I should move (what is currently) Ref 29 down so that both Refs support the paragraph as a whole.
      • I've reworded the comment from "decent" (which is POV) to "mixed" (which is accurate). I'm going to be adding a review table per igordebraga, so that can speak for itself.
      • So changed. Thanks again for taking the time to review the FAC, and if anything else catches your eye feel free to throw it out there for me to handle. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 22:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• ACK. If you add a review table, I'll just add it to my list of nitpicks. It's never necessary to have a review table; it's just a bunch of arbitrary numbers. If a review has something relevant to say, add the comment to the article and cite it. If it doesn't, we don't need its arbitrary number score. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. I was sort of iffy on the review table myself. I was about to add it when I realized that I hadn't covered the sales figures for the game. At four paragraphs (which I'll be reducing to three soonish) it's getting pretty bloated. I think I've covered the bases of most people's opinion. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 03:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Nitpicks mark 2 - Reception edition. Consider any of my nitpicks above resolved, unless I bring them up again. I'll number these for easy reference.
  1. "Many fans of Devil May Cry were disappointed with this sequel;[37] however, the game still received mixed scores from professional reviewers." - Um. What? The change to the second half of this sentence makes it make little sense. Perhaps a rephrase? Also, why are we citing a 1up review (ref #37) as "many fans"?
  2. "Chief among the complaints was that the difficulty was lower than it was in the original game." - Complaints from whom? You mentioned fans of DMC and reviewers in the previous sentence, and it isn't clear what this is referring to.
  3. "The combat system is considered less refined" - "Is considered to be" is almost always useless weasel wording. This is a circuitous way of making a claim without atributing it to anyone, and I'm sure it could be rephrased.
  4. In fact, the rest of the first paragraph suffers from this vague attribution, with lots of "reviewers felt" or vague/non-existent attributions. Dig in an attribute the claims to authors and publications; this is common practice in film and book articles. Make it more like the second paragraph (where PSextreme should be italicized, BTW), but attribute the review authors as well. "Matt Cassamassina of IGN felt..." instead of "Reviewers felt..."
  5. Put the ref at the end. Twice that I noticed (refs #41 and #45), you put the ref in the middle of a sentence when the whole sentence is being attributed to that ref. There's no good reason to do that.

  Getting there... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Iffy Support. Even though the art is, in fact, a great article, with all point in peer review covered, there are still a lot of points left to be covered. We need more information and less cruft. If someone else has said this, this makes 2. I own the game, and I will work on the art furhter to improve it. Then, maybe, we can stay featured. Quatreryukami 03:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment in response to Deckiller...

Yes, I agree there is little cruft, but for FA shouldn't we go for NO cruft??? Although I agree with the rest of your statement

• Further Comments

I took a night to sleep on it, and have decided my cruft accusations were not correct. I am now retracting earlyer accusations and changing my vote to Full Support. I would cross out earlyer votes, but dont know how...Quatreryukami 17:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is hardly any cruft in this article. The plot synopsis is four relatively short paragraphs, and the gameplay covers the major aspects, from what I see. — Deckiller 03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Quatreryukami, could you point out the things you feel are crufty? I might be missing something, but nothing in the current version of the article strikes me as fancruft. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 03:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

History of Minnesota

I originally started this article as a section within Minnesota when we were getting that article up to FA status. Ravedave decided that the text made a better History of Minnesota article than what was currently there, so I began the process of expanding the article to its current status. It isn't all my own work, though. I'd like to recognize the contributions of Mulad, who wrote many sections that are now in the article, Appraiser, who has helped out with several topics, and others in Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Uf-da. Just looking at the article, without reading it, is there any way to cut down that lead section? It's really big and moderately ugly. Grandmasterka 06:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Although after looking through a couple featured "history of" articles, I note that the introduction in these kinds of articles is very hard to write without sounding awkward. I'm thinking about how I might help this one, by merging some of the intro content into the lower sections. and cleaning up the prose. Grandmasterka 06:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I did some wordsmithing on the introductory sentence and the first few paragraphs. Let me know what you think. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 14:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object. Not enough inline references - there are many some unreferenced paras. The lead is indeed a little too long (fails my 'rule of thumb' - doesn't fit on my screen). Glacial history of Minnesota should be moved from see also into a separate section - it is notable and related enough to be discussed in the article, I feel.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree on inclusion of either the contents or a summary of Glacial history of Minnesota in the article. Undoubtedly that is significant, but it is not part of the scope of this article. The candidate article is about History in the conventional sense of that term, i.e., human history, not natural history. Kablammo 19:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I think including stuff about glacial history in this article would be silly. This is clearly an article about human history and is more than large enough without throwing in all sorts of crap that happened before there were any people in Minnesota. As to my original comment (not an objection, but a comment) I'll have to review the article again, but it does seem that there might be no good way to cut down that intro. It summarizes the rest of the article nicely. Grandmasterka 19:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've updated the introduction, based on the discussion on the talk page. I also went through and found specific references to the MNHS TimePieces series for the uncited paragraphs. Much of the older content of the article came from TimePieces, and I think I was just using one generic citation for several paragraphs in a row. I've now linked to the specific articles within TimePieces. As far as Glacial history of Minnesota is concerned, I disagree that it should be included. The content doesn't really fit within the scope of a general article on the history of Minnesota, since it's at a finer level of detail. Some topics of specific detail, such as this or Sioux Uprising, or the history of Saint Anthony Falls, are better treated as their own articles. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 02:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Good progress, but I cannot support as long as there are unreferenced paragraphs. Please see this for an example of what I consider sufficient density of citation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• I support now that the intro has been cut down. As to Piotrus' third objection... It's clear to me after reading it that the "unreferenced" paragraphs begin an idea ended in a referenced paragraph. There's no need to litter this thing with a lot of redundant references, even though I do it sometimes. Grandmasterka 05:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I've only read the article through the "Territorial foundation and settlement". I've found the following issues, but asides from those the article looks good to me. I'll read the rest of the article within the next few days.
• "Minneapolis grew from the waterfall's power, and by innovating milling methods, became the "milling capital of the world."" That sentence sounds a bit odd to me. What waterfall? How does a city grow from a waterfall's power?
• "The Great Depression brought [...] trouble in labor relations" That's POV. Leftists might not consider strikes to be trouble, but rather as evidence for "class consciousness" or whatever. "Tensions" or something like that would be a more appropriate term.
• "The site may be one of the oldest known archaeological sites in the Americas" That sounds ambiguous to me. I'm assuming you mean that what is being researched there dates that far back, but the sentence could also be read to mean that scientists have been researching there longer than anywhere else in the Americas.
• "The practice of depicting people and animals by carving into rock faces emerged, continuing well into the 2nd millennium." The second millenium BC or AD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carabinieri (talk • contribs) 12:11, 27 February 2007.

Thanks for the suggestions on wording -- I've incorporated them into the article. As far as the second millennium is concerned, I'm not even sure whether it was BC or AD, and the reference doesn't say, so I just lopped that sentence out. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support with caveat - I am on wikipeoject:MN and I contributed a couple sentences. I re-read the whole article (phew thats long!) and it looks good to me. I hate to bring it up, but might it be worth splitting the article like History of California? I am guessing it would be a ridiculous amount of work considering how the article is written by topic rather than time period.-Ravedave 07:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: the prose quality is still lacking. I've gone through a section hitting some high points, but more work is necessary. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 06:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Changing to Support --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC). Object, I'm afraid. Wonderfully thorough, but needs improvement in prose quality, and organization.
  • "Following the American Civil War and the Sioux Uprising, the state's natural resources were tapped for logging and farming." Implies the latter is a consequence of the former.
  • Native American inhabitation section starts with distinct tribes, even to 1855, then suddenly goes back to 9000 years ago? Needs reorganization
  • "Meanwhile, trouble was brewing in Minnesota as the Sioux Uprising of 1862 broke out." - conversational
  • "tribes of Ojibwa" and - "group of Ojibwe" - not obvious you mean the same people. Pick one term.
  • "white traders" links to European people?
  • Sporadically, the fort imposed new restrictions, forcing the squatters to head downriver.- clumsy, rephrase. Unnecessary broken with inner clause, and the combination of "squatters head downriver" made me chuckle, surely not what you had in mind.
  • How did Eliza Winston get freed when Dred Scott wasn't, at basically the same time and circumstances? Needs at least a comment.
  • St. Anthony needs a wikilink, same place.
  • Fort Snelling section, starting with 1805, is earlier than Minnesota Territory section, starting with 1783, Lousiana Purchase in 1803 in latter section also explains why FS was built in 1805. Reorder these. In fact, does one fort deserve such a big subsection to itself? It has its own article, after all.
  • Early white settlement is in the Early statehood section? How's that again? Surely white settlement precedes statehood by quite a bit!
  • 439,000 - needs a closer cite
  • Populist, Ignatius L. Donnelly - no comma
  • but by 1900, Minnesota mills were grinding - either one more or one fewer comma
  • middlings - wikilink uncommon term
  • Jesse Ventura section has no citations whatsoever, and could use another sentence or two about why specifically he was important - one of very few third party governors, and the only former professional wrestler ever. Mondale/Coleman needs a cite.
  • Why does Guthrie Theater lead off Arts and Culture section? Why not chronologically? In fact, why is Arts and Culture between two "postwar" subsections? Reorder.
  • Putting Northwest Airlines in the Postwar Economy section implies it wasn't that important before then - clearly untrue from their article. Reorganize.
  • Our Camp Savage article doesn't say it was for "Japanese-American soldiers", rather to teach Japanese to American soldiers.
  • One of the reasons the Depression hit hard in Minnesota... - the rest of the paragraph doesn't specify why it should have been particularly hard on Minnesota.
  • Hotbed of medical care - Ow! Terrible mixed metaphor
  • Dr. William Worrall Mayo emigrated from ... - don't you think you should say "founded the world famous Mayo clinic" pretty darn early? I had to click on his article to see why he was important, and only then found the Mayo Clinic link in a completely different paragraph. Reorganize, possibly by just shortening from 3 paras to 1. They each have their own articles after all, this is supposed to be the section on medical care in the whole state, instead it's about one family and two hospitals. If they're "it", then the state isn't much of a medical care hotbed (ouch again).
  • The Homestead Act in 1862 facilitated land claims by settlers, which was regarded as being cheap and fertile. - The act was regarded as cheap and fertile? The claims? The settlers?!? (I got to get me to Minnesota...) Rephrase.
  • Falls of St. Anthony, Saint Anthony Falls, or St. Anthony Falls? Pick one, throughout. Possibly first use is forgiven as an archaicism, but not the mixture other two.

This isn't to say there aren't more issues, I'm just tired. Good try, very thorough, but needs a re-edit and re-organization. In fact, it may be too thorough - if some of the details were shortened, the organization task would be easier. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've done some reorganization and rewording as you suggested. In particular, I've clarified that the modern economy (including Northwest Airlines) and that arts and culture aren't strictly postwar developments. I also reworked and shortened the Mayo Brothers paragraph (it's no longer a "hot bed"). I want to address a few points:

• I've linked middlings, but I need to write an article for it (because featured articles shouldn't have red links).

• Actually, I wrote an article on middlings purifier instead. It turned out to be a better explanation of the topic.

• The article on Camp Savage was unclear about the fact that they were teaching Japanese to Japanese-Americans (Nisei). I've fixed that article.
• The settlers must have been fertile, or else the population wouldn't have grown. (Just kidding. It was a statement about the soil, and I fixed that.)
• I've standardized the name of Saint Anthony Falls, Saint Paul, and Ojibwa throughout. I don't know for sure if Father Hennepin used the words "Saint Anthony Falls" or "Falls of Saint Anthony", but I'll check.
• As far as the importance of Fort Snelling is concerned, I think it deserves a section as big as it is. The fort wasn't just a fort to itself -- it spurred the development of Minneapolis, via its proximity to Saint Anthony Falls, and Saint Paul, because of the squatters who were forced to move downriver.
• I couldn't find any references that said why Eliza Winston was freed while Dred Scott wasn't. Any speculation on my part would be original research. In any case, Eliza Winston wasn't a major figure in Minnesota history like Dred Scott was, so I removed the section on Eliza Winston.
• I'll have to find references I can cite for Jesse Ventura. I think the few sentences there are a summation of news stories that we've read over the past several years, but to someone outside the state, it isn't obvious.

• I rewrote those sentences using citeable references. It turned out to be more fact-based that way, instead of being just observations from four years of news stories.

Thanks for your comments. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Much better, I've struck the objection. I still think the Fort Snelling section is too big for what it has in it, it may be important, but the section doesn't say that. For example, the word Minneapolis isn't anywhere in it, (though it is in an image caption way up, it's not connected, and uncited) Mendota is mentioned without explaining that it is important due to being one of the oldest settlements still around, and Taliaferro and Dred Scott's wife are both mentioned but not connected. The mention of Saint Paul is stuck in the middle of a paragraph about some wandering squatters, so I barely found it. Rephrase so it leads the paragraph. Parrant is just a name-drop without mentioning he was the first white settler. And so forth and so on. Tighten all that, fix my remaining nitpicks that you didn't get to above, the few new ones below, and I'll support. By the way, I notice the Dred Scott business isn't even mentioned in the Fort Snelling article.

• In 1846, he prevented Iowa from including... In 1847, he kept...- how did he prevent or keep? Why was he such a MN backer, being from IL?
• tourists from southern climates sailed up the Mississippi - what does this have to do with the Civil War? If you're trying to say that tourism was a big industry in MN, move it to the economic development section - as is, it's the only non-war sentence in a section on 2 wars.
• Say a few words about the Twin Cities being twin, and the most important cities in modern MN.

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Supporting, you got basically everything. I'm still not sure how or why Douglas stopped Iowa from taking Ft. Snelling, etc., but presumably from some kind of political maneuver, no big deal. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. It's not bad, but needs sifting through to correct problems in language and logic. Here are just a few examples from the top.

• What is "a more prominent state government"?
• "the state today is a center for banking, computers and health care." Health care is everywhere; what does this mean? Do people travel to Minnesota for treatment? Computers, likewise, are everywhere; what exactly does it mean?
• "around the year 7500 BC" - remove "the year" as redundant.
• "Subsequently, extensive trading networks began to develop in the region." I see a lot of this expression "began to ..." on WP. Get rid of it: "... networks developed in the region".
• "native people transitioned from hunting big game toward smaller creatures" - what, the native people became smaller creatures?
• portions of what is now Michigan, Wisconsin, and Canada"; match US states with Canadian provinces, please.
• "At the time of European contact, the region was inhabited by" - Does this refer to the many centuries of Eur. contact, or the initial contact through invasion? Tony 22:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I made revisions to the sections you mentioned. I had to revise the big-game hunting reference a little more than that, because the source said that large animals (such as wooly mammoths) had become extinct, whereas this article just made it sound like they changed their preferences. As far as the references to portions of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Canada, this source just gives portions of southern Canada, without mentioning provinces specifically. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Tornado

After nearly a year of improvements, a complete re-write, and several branch-off articles, I think it's finally ready for FAC. Fire away! -RunningOnBrains 19:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As of the present version, many references need fixing. There are some citations which are just link to external sources. These need to be fixed, that is properly cited, with title, author name, publisher, date of access etc. Again, a few of access dates are not properly formated. Apparently looks to be a very informative article. Will read it soon. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Is there a need for nineteen images in this article? It corrupts the formatting. Also, footnotes need to go directly after punctuation. Slof 05:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I could remove a few images to help the format, but for a very visual subject such as tornadoes a fair amount of images is necessary IMHO. On the references, I forgot to fix them before bringing the article to FAC...I'm fixing them as we speak.-RunningOnBrains 05:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Very nice article. However, seems to be low in inline citations. Please provide more citations, especially in sections like "Life cycle", "Shape", "Appearance", "Extremes". And I support your view of containing a fair number of images. Their impact is great. The blank space to the right of the list in "See also" can be used for accomodating one or two images in case those become hard to incorporate in main body of the article for formatting problems. Regards. --Dwaipayan (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand that there are a few sections which could use a few more citations. However, there are some sections where I purposefully omitted references because they contain a wikilink to the subject, and that wikilink provides the needed sources. In my opinion this reduces clutter, but I don't know how the rest of the editing community feels about it. It's quite hard to interpret that "where appropriate" statement in the FA criteria. -RunningOnBrains 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you. The sections I mentioned are quite professional and its imperative that those are based on easily verifiable sources. "Where appropriate" is somewhat vague, especially for the main author of the article. If you say, I can go and add some citation needed tags where I feel inline citations are needed. You can just check them and provide citations. What do you say? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be great. Unfortunately, I don't have guaranteed internet access until Saturday (they're "fixing" the internet where I live) but after that I should have no problem doing the research. -RunningOnBrains 18:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the number of pictures in this article is adequate, and they serve to illustrate the subject very well and to explain the difference between tornado types. One nitpick: A few of the references are just bare URLs. They should be cited with the {{Cite web}} format. Also, there are several paragraphs in a row that don't specifically cite a reference, but then there's a reference at the end of the series. Does that imply that all of those paragraphs have the same reference? (I suspect it does, but you might want to make those references explicit). As far as the content and readability goes, I support the article fully. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have finished fixing the refs to {{cite web}}. I also introduced a few more refs (or just added more footnotes for refs already on the page) in sections that were a bit sparse. If you see an area where you think there still should be a reference, let me know, or just slap a {{fact}} tag on it. -RunningOnBrains 20:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Have added several citation needed tags in the article. Please address those. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed all of the {{fact}} tags aside one, which I must take issue with. It seems to me that it's common knowledge that dust kicked up by the winds of the parent thunderstorm, heavy rain and hail, and the darkness of night can make tornadoes impossible to see. I don't really see why that needs a citation. I suppose I could dig one up if you really think it needs one. -RunningOnBrains 07:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I peer-reviewed this article and I still think that it needs more references, specifically print sources WP:ATT. There must be a lot of published research on tornadoes, so surely some of your research should come from the scientific literature? Also, I also still think that the "Further Reading" section could be expanded. If it is only going to have one book, you might as well delete it. Also, there seem to be an excessive number of internal wikipedia links and external links - can you prune just a bit? I am almost ready to support this article. As I said in the peer-review, I do think it is quite good (and, by the way, I also think the images are very instructive). Awadewit 09:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Went to the library today, and ordered as many good books as I could on Inter-library loan...unfortunately they wont be here til end of next week. Not sure if you just want to wait it out until then, but I will get more print resources in the article.

Also, I'm not sure if you have noticed, but most of my sources are NOAA, AMS, or other official government (US and international) sources. I'm pretty sure these are just as good, if not better, than print sources. Additionally, I did prune the external links a bit, let me know if you think more need to go.-RunningOnBrains 07:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I did notice that. I know that those are reliable sources but websites change over time which can make it difficult to be sure that the information you cited is still there and asking readers to dig up cached versions is, in my opinion, needlessly time consuming. Awadewit 08:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A good point. While I'm sure I will not be able to find a print source for everything, I am sure that I can get rid of about half of the online refs. It may take me a week or more, though, since I don't actually have books to work with yet. -RunningOnBrains 09:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that everything has to have a print source. I would think that definitions and the basic descriptive facts would, though. I love ILL, don't you? Awadewit 10:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment... Sorry about my recent absence...First, I was waiting to receive print sources from other libraries (which I now have), secondly, my computer was self-destructing, but I believe I have it in tip-top shape right now. I will start work on the article first thing tomorrow. -RunningOnBrains 06:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Runningonbrains, I believe you accidentally substituted the Template:cite book using {{subtst:cite book|...}}. I have changed this. --Kevinkor2 21:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Coeliac disease

Previously nominated 2005-10-08 (old nom). Over the last few months there's been a lot of work on this article, initially from myself but later with the help of Samir and Pdeitiker, amongst others. It now has a lot of supporting content, bags of references, and is fairly well organised. When I'd one a lot of editing, I asked for external expert review by Prof Paul Ciclitira of King's College, London (the author of the UK guidelines on the disease and also principal contributor to the American/AGA guidelines); it was reviewed by one of his researchers and found to be in good form. I think it's ready for featured status. JFW | T@lk 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support from nominator. JFW | T@lk 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Appears excellent, after a cursory look (I will read it more thoroughly later). I am, however, slightly troubled by the seven unsourced statements I counted (tagged with {{fact}}). I'd also like to see more of the redlinks go, such as avenin, zonulin, radiation enteritis (is that a distinct entity? If so we should have an article on it :) and prolyl endopeptidase, even if just stubs. The prose in the third paragraph of the "Genetics" subsection could also use a bit of polishing IMHO. Fvasconcellos 00:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Most of those articles are on subjects I personally don't know a lot about. I'll have a look at the genetics bit. Generally, this tends to be technical stuff that is exceptionally hard to explain in layperson's terms. JFW | T@lk 01:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the quick stubs, you don't have to create them yourself if you're not familiar! I'm more concerned about the unsourced statements, and I get that the Genetics bit is difficult to explain—it's not bad at all, I just felt it could be better. :) Fvasconcellos 02:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done Stubs were easy. I'd just been lazy. Any help with the unsourced statements and the genetics stuff is appreciated. JFW | T@lk 02:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I've added some quick citations for the Screening subsection, thanks to this nice review and a PubMed search. I hope they're appropriate, as I only had access to abstracts. I'll see what else I can come up with tomorrow. Fvasconcellos 02:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - it's a great article, congrat for the writers. Only some suggestions:
  • "approximately 5% of patients diagnosed with IBS may have underlying coeliac disease." (I couldn't find a reference for it)
    •  Done JFW | T@lk 01:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The Malabsorption-related section, the Epidemiology and the Screening and case finding sections contain several citation needed templates.
    •  Done. Most of the poorly sourced content was speculative anyway. JFW | T@lk 01:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The reference No. 19 belongs to the whole Four serological blood tests exist for coeliac disease subsection?
    • This needs work. Seen a good review recently? JFW | T@lk 01:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    •  Done Reworked completely with a useful in-depth reference. Avoided number crunching. JFW | T@lk 00:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Many doctors consider coeliac disease..." (weasel words?
    • Simply calling for a source. JFW | T@lk 01:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    •  Done I've killed it. This practice is nefarious. JFW | T@lk 00:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints section, there is an external link that should be a reference.
    •  Done Removed two poorly sourced religion sections. JFW | T@lk 01:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional external links? the leading charity working for people with coeliac disease; www.celiac.com; Celiac Disease Foundation
    •  Done JFW | T@lk 01:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank in advance. NCurse _work 15:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It is a very comprehensive article, and well referenced. It is, however, a bit dry to read. There's a lot of detail but perhaps not enough sentences that summarise or conclude. So the reader has to work hard to extract the information and may miss things. Some of the "Blood tests" section may be too detailed for a general reader. The 2nd bullet-point in particular is eye-glazing and overlong. The "Pathophysiology" section is tough going and may put readers off reading the later sections, which are easier and important (could it be moved). It would be helpful to have an intro paragraph in "Genetics" for the lay reader that avoids the long strings of letter/number codes, which just make you want to skim. I suspect the information in the third paragraph is beyond and of little interest to those without specialist medical genetics training – and therefore should be greatly simplified and/or some detail dropped. Most readers won't persevere with this section and so come away with nothing, whereas I'm sure there are many points they could grasp. Some of the linked refs (and eMedicine articles) are easier to read in places, despite being aimed at professionals. Perhaps a copyeditor can make the language more engaging and expand the audience. Colin°^Talk 23:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. Your help is appreciated. Perhaps you could identify the worst examples of dry prose and lack of summary. It always remains hard to gauge exactly how much we can expect from the general readership.

     The driest prose is generally found where bullet-point-lists are used rather than paragraphs, and where there are single-sentence paragraphs. It reaches PowerPoint terseness occasionally. For example: "Miscarriage and infertility", which isn't a sentence. This teases the reader with a hint of information but is unsatisfying. I'd want to know how common and serious those problems are, and whether they go away on the diet. I think almost all of these bullet lists could be changed to prose (an exception is the Marsh classification, which is an ordered list). Merely eliding the bullets to form one paragraph won't fix it, though. The style needs to change from just listing facts.

     An example of inadequate summary is Diagnosis. It currently says "There are several tests that can be used to assist diagnosis." This is too vague. From reading the whole article, and some of the refs, there are some main points to get across:

     • Blood tests are cheap, easy, sensitive and specific. This is often done first (I haven't manage to find why the "order of the tests" might be different. Perhaps if there is little doubt, it is only required for establishing baseline levels).
     • A small intestinal biopsy is widely considered mandatory to confirm the diagnosis. (Clearly this is an unpleasant procedure)
     • There are several blood tests. More than one kind may be required. Older tests were not as reliable.
     • The tests must be done while the person is on a gluten diet (as currently noted).
     • Both the blood tests and the biopsy may be repeated after starting the GFD to confirm its effect.

     (If I've got some of those wrong, it is not important for this discussion.) I think it would help to look at each section (e.g. Genetics) and consider what key points you want to get across. Explain these points, rather than expecting the reader to collate and weigh the individual micro-facts. Colin°^Talk 17:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  2. Most of the serology content is not adequately sourced. I will work on this. That will also be a good opportunity to make the prose more digestable.

     Follow-up: I've emailed Dr Dieterich, first author of the study that identified tTG as epitope. She recommended PMID 12959764, of which I will order the fulltext as soon as possible. JFW | T@lk 21:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  3. Pathophysiology should remain where it is. I agree the genetics material is technical (Pdeitiker seems to have a research interest here), but the "treatment" section makes no sense without it. JFW | T@lk 01:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I see a lot of work still needed, some which can be guided by WP:MEDMOS (for example, there's no prognosis section). Some of the sections are unnecessarily inaccessible to laypersons. Attention to Wikilinking is needed (the first I noticed was IgG—the first occurrence isn't linked, although it is linked later). An independent copyedit may help; for example, the and clause doesn't flow well here in the lead—Symptoms may include diarrhoea, failure to thrive (in children) and fatigue, but these may be absent and associated symptoms in all other organ systems have been described.) It would be helpful if a section heading other than "Miscellaneous" could be found. Prose problems in this sentence: However, the variety of gastrointestinal symptoms that may be present in patients with coeliac disease is great, and even constipation is seen, in some series comprising up to a third of patients. Several sections are listy and could be converted to prose. > could be replaced with greater than. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd appreciate some help in putting through relatively simple fixes (wording, stylistic, links). I could prosaify lists only if the items were conceptually related. At the moment the lists are not in the majority and I feel no changes should be made. I have revised the constipation sentence because I was unable to source it. JFW | T@lk 16:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done Most recommendations adopted. I wish to defend the use of "miscelaneous"; the article states quite clearly that these symptoms have an unclear causative relationship with villous atrophy. JFW | T@lk 00:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• One more comment I've had another read, and the article has improved quite a bit—I especially like the complete absence of {{fact}} tags :). I would have no problem supporting it, if it weren't for the "Genetics" section, which is still cumbersome and makes for very dry, "clinical" (obviously, no pun intended) reading. I realize there's probably not much that can be done about this, but I'd like to see someone have a go at it. Fvasconcellos 15:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Will have a stab at this later on today. I'd really like this to go to FA. JFW | T@lk 14:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Great, I'll have another look later. Fvasconcellos 14:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• OK, looking better. There is still room for improvement in the "Genetics" section in my humble opinion, but the prose is cleaner, and the section is (to me at least) entirely comprehensible, although I don't know how it would read to someone with no biomedical "background" whatsoever. "Tissue transglutaminase" could also use some more wikification. I like the recent fleshing out of "History", by the way, and am leaning ever closer to a Support :) Fvasconcellos 22:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I think it looks good, except for the extra "o" you put in "celiac"... MastCell ^Talk 03:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Heh. That's the O from gluten-free Cheerios. JFW | T@lk 22:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support --WS 11:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - It looks good for me too. Nice job JFW! NCurse _work 18:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Western Chalukya Empire

The article was nominated for peer review two weeks back and did not receive any comments. The article however is fully compatible with recent successful India History FA's. It is well cited, the citations are in the correct format, the format of the sections follows recent India History FA's closely. The Western Chalukyas played an important role in the history of South India in general and Karnataka more specifically, especially in the field of architecture and Kannada literature.Dineshkannambadi 22:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Why Western? Eastern should be differenciated in the lead.

Reply-->If the question is why they are called Western Chalukyas, this is what many historians call them to differentiate from the contemporeneous Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi. Equally they are called "Kalyani Chalukyas" , sometimes "Chalukyas of Kalyani" and only ocassionally "Later Chalukyas". I have differentiated between western and eastern in the lead now.thanksDineshkannambadi 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Text should not be in parenthesis in the lead. Bad flow

reply-->removed parenthesis. working on flow.thanksDineshkannambadi 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• The fall of the empire could be expanded. How did they lose out?

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• 8th century etc. would be more readable if spelled out.

DoneDineshkannambadi 00:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Imperial eq to metric would be useful

Corrected terminology of measure. Its grains not grams.sorry. added linkDineshkannambadi 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Tungabhadra river --> River should be in cap, rem link

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Too much blue: Remove excess linking of common nouns, (leopard) and duplicate links

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Non-breaking space needs to be used between a number and unit. (&nbsp;) -- See WP:MoS

Done by User:Dwaipayanc.thanksDineshkannambadi 02:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Infobox seems to be missing some data.

Reply-->not sure what is missing. A pointer would help.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ramayana, Mahabharata, Bhagavata, Puranas and Vedas. -- rem italics

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• The Balligavi image would look better if moved to ==Notes==

Done'Dineshkannambadi 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC) =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply--> I shall look into this tonight.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 21:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments The "History" section ends with Chalukya dynasty was ended by the Seuna rulers who drove Somesvara IV into exile in 1189. But the infobox tells that Somesvara IV was followed by Veera Ballala II of Hoysala Empire. Did not Seunas rulers become next kings? This portion needs slight clarification.

Reply Good question. When the Western Chalukyas weakened, four empires emerged from their ruins. The Hoysalas, Seunas, Kakatiyas and Southern Kalachuri. There was a time frame between 1150-1185 when the region which is todays northern Karnataka and Southern Maharashtra may have been in flux untill the Kalachuri themselves (having been the earliest to have taken control of Kalyani) vanished into oblivion by 1190.Then the fight for control of this region between the Seuna and Hoysalas continued when the Chalukyas were still around. Each of the four empires were responsible for the down fall of the Western Chalukyas and I should include names of all kings who brought them down. Kakatiya Prolla took Chalukya Tailapa III captive and released him, Hoysala Narasimha I killed Tailapa III little later, the Seuna drove his successor out of Kalyani. The Kalachuri's were the first to draw blood by taking over Kalyani itself in ~1150 for about 20 years. The reason I mentioned only Hoysala Vera Ballala II is because the Hoysalas essentially succceded the the Chalukyas in Karnataka. But the Seunas did control northern Karnataka (north of Krishna river) for significant periods and should be mentioned too. I will take care of this.thanksDineshkannambadi 21:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. I have left out the Kalachuris because they too went into oblivion at the same time as Chalukyas, though they were the first to capture Kalyani.Is that ok?Dineshkannambadi 02:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Western Chalukyas minted punch-marked gold pagodas with Kannada and Nagari legends... What does Pagoda mean. I thought pagoda means Pagoda! Could not read the whole article, will comment later. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply->I shall find a definition for this if I can.thanksDineshkannambadi 21:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply I believe the usage of the term Pagoda came into existance because of the presence of temple like designs on reverse or obverse of the coin. Please see this link for an explanation. The author, Govindaraya Prabhu is a well known numismatist from Karnataka.Dineshkannambadi 22:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Could not get this - The first song ever written in any Marathi text is in praise of Buddha avatar, in the Sanskrit work Manasollasa. If it a Marathi text, how can it be in the Sanskrit work?--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply This info was originally brought in by Admin User:utcursch. What it perhaps means is that some of the poems in the writing Manasollasa may have been the earliest Marathi language poems (songs) written in Sanskrit (Nagari) script. I will read the linked web page in the citation and see if I can bring more clarity. If it is not clear what it means perhaps we should remove this citation.Dineshkannambadi 13:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I believe the Literature section should be used to write only about

great literary classics and poets (a few, given the limited space), important literary developments and traditions.Dineshkannambadi 16:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC) The Manasollasa is a famous Sanskrit language work.Dineshkannambadi 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I verified from my sources that Manasollosa is indeed a Sanskrit writing (Sastri 1955, p315), (Kamath 2001, p114), (Thapar 2002, 393) (Dr. Jyotsna Kamat ). In the citation#84, Dhere may have been refereing to a poem(s) in this otherwise Sanskrit literature.Dineshkannambadi 21:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Question Shall I rename this article "Western Chalukya Empire"?Dineshkannambadi 21:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

reply IMO Western Chalukya empire is better, because it is more clear. --Dwaipayan (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

reply If I just made the name change with the "move" option, how would that effect the FA nomination. I guess I would have to go to FA:WAC and change the name there too, right?Dineshkannambadi 22:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just make sure that the link in the title points to the correct article title. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Well sourced, interesting, whatever minor errors may be present are those we can safely assume will be taken care of by Mr. Kannambadi.Bakaman 02:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support Very good article Tomer T 13:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support Excellent article, very well written and well sourced. The flow has been impressive. - KNM ^Talk 21:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Concerns were properly addressed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It would be much easier to locate a specific source if they were alphabetical by last name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support Fantastic work. Sarvagnya 10:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Durian

Previous FAC

Self-nomination. The article was prematurely nominated in July 2006 by another editor and failed. Since then I have been working to fix the problems and it appears to be completed now. Any objection will be responded promptly. --BorgQueen 16:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• comment for now WP:UNITS needs to be applied to this article. Gnangarra 04:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done I think it has been taken care of now. Please check if I missed anything. --BorgQueen 05:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I now fully support the article and they really do taste great 8) Gnangarra 14:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment...just reading about it makes me queasy. I gagged, couldn't hack the smell which was to me like armpit mixed with asparagus (yechhh!). But seriously, I think it fulfils all criteria but I am concerned about the flow of language in the lead, especially the first para - the sentences seem clunky. I feel teh label 'King of Fruit' should be in the first 1-2 sentences as it highlights the reverence this fruit is held in in SE Asia - something really highlighting how you either love it or hate it. I am happy to have a tinker but won't unless given permission and you want to try it first. I was also wondering whether teh lead should be a tiny bit longer given the length of the article but was unsure what else should go in it. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure, you are welcome to lend a helping hand and edit the lead yourself (if that is what you meant). Although I am a bit nervous that you spell the as teh. :-D But I wouldn't mind if you are willing to fix the lead yourself. --BorgQueen 11:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

hahaha - ok, there. I know I mention smell and taste twice but I was trying to encapsulate what the key points are in the first sentence or two. With this plant i feel no text can overemphasise the issue on smell/taste....(feel free to tweak more) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it looks quite good now, and the lead has three paragraphs, which is the standard for a FA (as far as I know). Thanks for your help.  Done --BorgQueen 12:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I like a bit of botany (which is why I added the sentence in the lead to show what economically important plants it is related to), actually the article is a little light on the botanical side of things but not enough to oppose. Sorry as I write this I am musing on the lead still to see if it is nice and tight yet. I might have to ruminate a bit..but it's improving. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Support oh sod it - I keep playing around with it in my head and I can't see a better way of reworking the lead. I am happy now. Congrats (well, hopefully) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support Support. Got to taste it once, very strange.

• Some apparent OR on unreferenced paragraphs, including in the "Durian customs" section and third paragraph of the lead.

 Done BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• ...and even cappuccino - POV.

 Done Removed "even". BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Some durians really do have almost no spines - Reword to Some durians have shortened spines.

 Done The sentence, uncited, has been replaced with a cited one. BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Alphabetize interwiki links.

They are already alphabetized, beginning with bg:Дуриан, da:Durian, de:Durian, eo:Durio,... and ending with zh:榴槤. BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Ok, I got what you meant. I organized the links according to the order posted here. Please let me know if I missed anything.  Done --BorgQueen 02:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• ...creamy, slightly alcoholic - "alcoholic" improperly linked.

 Done The internal link has been removed. BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Reference USDA Nutrient database in the nutritional value chart using a regular reference rather than an external link.

 Done BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• ...some distance before excreting it, the seed being dispersed as the result - Change second part to ...with the seed being. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 19:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm a little confused. Does this article about the fruit durian also represent the genus durio? --Idda 03:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just like the article about the black pepper also represent the species Piper nigrum. --BorgQueen 06:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. P. nigrum as a species is synonymous with black pepper. If I understand correctly, durian fruit is not a characterizing feature of the genus durio, albeit that is what its most known for. My point is the plant itself should the subject. Not that the fruit shouldn't comprise most of the article but I think as it stands the tree (genus) is given short shrift in the lead. --Idda 07:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - See WP:NC (flora) for guidelines on articles that deal with botanical products. This article is excellent for its subject matter, but I'd remove the taxobox and create Durio to cover some of the material presented in the "Species" and "Cultivars" sections, then rewrite those in summary style (though they're pretty close as it is). The taxobox is a bit misleading, I think, since the article is about the fruit product and not about the genus. Of course, creation of the article Durio is not a requirement for my support of this article for FA status, but I think it would help make the focus of the article a bit more clear with two separate articles and use of summary style in Durian for genus-related topics in the article. Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 08:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I tend to agree that a separate article on Durio as a genus in its strictly botanical sense would be helpful for the reader; above all, we have a huge load of material available on its cultivars (actually I had created a big table for the cultivars in 2006 but removed it because it was a bit overwhelming) and the current cultivar section is a summary, which means there is nothing much to be taken out of the current article even when the article about the genus is created, except the plant infobox. --BorgQueen 10:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support now this is fixed. Weak Oppose, solely on part of the 'Medicinal Uses' section. "It is recommended as a good source of raw fats by several raw food advocates,[30][31] while others classify it as a high-glycemic fruit and recommend to minimise its consumption.[32] David Klein, a certified health consultant, instructs those with colitis or Crohn's disease to temporarily discontinue eating durian in his "vegan healing diet guidelines", classifying the fruit as one of fatty, high-protein foods". I'm not sure the sources for this section are medical or nutritional authorities. Do differing points of view amongst different sorts of vegans (quacks or not) really warrant inclusion here? If so, they probably shouldn't be in a 'medicinal' section. Otherwise, very good article, I will eat dozens of them on public transport next time I am in Singapore. The Land 16:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've renamed the section to "Nutritional and medicinal". Will this do? And why do you have to torture those poor Singaporeans that way? :-D --BorgQueen 23:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • In addition, I edited out the David Klein part and reworded the sentence. Please check if it is better now, in your view. --BorgQueen 12:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Simeon I of Bulgaria

I've devoted quite a lot of time to the article, bringing it from this to its current state. It is extensively referenced using authoritative sources, thorough and, I believe, exhaustive, well-illustrated with media such as own-made SVG maps, miniatures, quotes and a family tree, accurate, neutral and stable.

Very importantly, the article is up-to-date with the modern historiographic treatment of the more obscure moments of Simeon's life (such as the 912 coronation and the proclamation of the patriarchate), for which I consulted Ian Mladjov, an instructor at the University of Michigan, via e-mail. As I'm not a native speaker, I requested a copyedit, which was carried out by Bcasterline, in order to meet the "well-written" requirement.

I chose to have footnotes in the lead section because I generally like to have even the general observations and summaries referenced. The article has had a peer review (though, unfortunately, by only a single person). Todor→Bozhinov 18:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support - well-written, extensively referenced, has the requisite nice pictures. Also informative, as it's on a topic the general reader may not be familiar with. Biruitorul 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. One comment after reading this interesting article: instead of writing "(In German)" or "(In Bulgarian)" in your references section, I believe it is standard practice to use the language icons like this: {{In lang|bg}} for (in Bulgarian) and {{de icon}} for (in German). JHMM13 03:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  Hm...perhaps not. It appears to be a problem with the citation template. Oh well...nevermind what I said then. :-D JHMM13 05:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support - Wow! I've never seen an article with that many references before! Puts my Archaeopteryx above to shame! And considering it was in that state not long ago - this is a wonderful article. 10/10 for me - This deserves to be a FA. Well done. Perfect in almost everyway I can see. Regards, Spawn Man 06:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support -this is really splendid article : ) It has good range of maps and contemporary images which perfectly illustrate the well-written and informative text. --Gligan 09:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - very well put-together and thoroughly polished. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support per above. A benchmark. Manderiko 13:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against --Poemsnewly 16:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)removed as sock by Bonaparte.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Suspected sock puppet, now blocked. He should have at least provided some arguments, so I could work to improve the article... and to match his standards :) I'd appreciate it if someone strikes the vote. Todor→Bozhinov 19:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Per nom.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Domitius 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• An opponent of the Byzantine empire?!! Agrrrr!!!! Well, you know ... I'll support, because it is a great, great, great (I want to make that clear!) article. Just a suggestion: Todor, it is not nice to have 3 or 4 citations in a row as you do in two occasions. You could combine these citations in one in various ways: just check what Sandy did in Tourette syndrome, me in El Greco, and Cla68 in Battle of Edson's Ridge. Just a suggestion you could think about.--Yannismarou 21:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for your support! I really like your suggestion and tomorrow I'll revise the citations so as to leave only one footnote at each place and no rows of two or more. The bullet way to do that (as in your impressive El Greco article) seems most appropriate and neat, particularly where I have three or four citations and simply listing them separated by commas might be somewhat confusing. Todor→Bozhinov 22:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

   Done, though I decided to only merge clusters of more than two citations (per your suggestion), because if I'd merged those of two only, that would have required too large a reorganization of <ref name> tags and at the same time wouldn't have been of too much help. Thanks! Todor→Bozhinov 17:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Absolutely amazing. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 17:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Few nitpicks: 1) "Boris, who had retreated to a monastery" - do we know which monastery? 2) "punish Vladimir" - how? 3) possible article to be stubbed (I notice the article has no red links - this is not good, as it discourages creation of new articles): assembly in Preslav, Gavril, Nikephoros Phokas, Byzantine navy, Leo Magister, Constantine Doukas, Leo Phokas, Mihailo Višević, Theodore Sigritsa, Marmais, Pavle Branović, Zaharije Pribisavljević, George Sursuvul 4) "Simeon's two encounters with the enemy in Northern Dobruja were unsuccessful" - was he defeated? Sounds 'weaselish' 5) "which was largely what Simeon had planned to do" - how? 6) some language is a little unencyclopedic: lots of 'annihilations', 'desperate pleas' amd such. I'd say that the article is very pro-Simeon, but as I have little knowledge of that period and place I will not object based on my fillings - but are all sources presenting him as such a great and wise rulers? Is there no criticism? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1. No, I don't think we know the name of the monastery.
2. According to some sources, by blinding him, but I don't think this is relevant in the context of the article. We have Vladimir of Bulgaria, after all :)
3. In the past I've been criticized for leaving any red links, and some of the figures you've listed, while notable, are very scarcely attested, so I don't think we could have anything more than stubs on most of them.

   Well, I am criticizing you for not enough red links :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

4. Yes, he was defeated, but I thought my wording makes it clear... it seems like I'll have to reword.  Done
5. This is mentioned several times. E.g., by betrothing his daughter to the infant Constantine VII, by forcefully conquering Constantinople...
6. Romanos' pleas really were desperate. Would you like some? :) He says he "wouldn't fall silent, would clatter, would constantly remind [of the peace] and reprimand, until Simeon's heart opens for sympathy" and he "wouldn't spare neither gold nor silver nor precious garments nor any other necessary thing", as long as Simeon agrees to peace. As for the annihilations, that's what the sources say, and I'm inclined to think they really were such. The Byzantines themselves say they were "infamously slain" at Anchialos, for example.
7. Yes, there was criticism, mainly related to the "Byzantineness" of Golden-Age Bulgarian culture and its supposed shortage of originality, as well as to the endless campaigns towards the end of his reign, which according to some exhausted the Bulgarian state. But notice I haven't said he was wise and great anywhere :)
8. And... thanks for the support! Todor→Bozhinov 10:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support — a very impressive article (note: I formatted the References section). Happy editing, S.D. 23:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! Are you sure references have to be small? I was so accustomed to seeing them in standard size that they look somehow weird to me now ;) Todor→Bozhinov 08:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Feel free to change them back (I was just following El Greco). Cheers, S.D. 11:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please eliminate the jump to an external website in Legacy and popular culture; it can be added to external links or cited as a reference, but external jumps shouldn't be in the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Done Todor→Bozhinov 08:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Campbell's Soup Cans

Many of the objections to this article have been rendered moot, and I'd like some fresh opinions, so I'm resetting this nomination. (old nom) Raul654 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Mostly sSupport, just two issues left about which I’m not quite happy: the Phases and Today sections are too short (merge under a common heading?) and the sentence ‘Most of the images on this page are from that phase.’ should be removed outright. —xyzzy_n 21:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion.  Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The following section, from the lead

The combination of the semi-mechanized process, the non-painterly style, and the commercial subject
initially caused offense, as the work's blatantly mundane commercialism represented a direct affront
to the technique and philosophy of Abstract expressionism. The Abstract expressionism art movement
was dominant during the post-war period, and it held not only to "fine art" values and aesthetics
but also to a mystical inclination. This controversy led to a great deal of debate about the merits
and ethics of such work. Warhol's motives as an artist were questioned, and they continue to be
topical to this day. The public commotion helped transition Warhol from being an accomplished 1950s
commercial illustrator to a notable fine artist, and it helped distinguish him from other rising pop
artists. Although commercial demand for his paintings was not immediate, Warhol's association with
the subject lead to his name becoming synonymous with the Campbell's Soup can paintings.

needs citations. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• • These sentences are summaries of the article that follows (because the lead is basically suppose to summarize the rest of the article). The first sentence is a sentence from my brain. The second is some help from Tyrenius. I don't know who contributed the others, but suspect that some of the help came from solid copyeditors TheQuandry and Ceoil.
  • At one point I was told either to include one citation in each para of intro or none in any. Full inline citation of summary items from an indepth article are possibly a bit much to ask because even some sentences are combining thougthts of many cited statements below. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Sentences in the lead do not require inline citations, a lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. It is assumed that the statements are sourced elsewhere. If they're not, then that's a problem but unsourced statements in the lead are fine. Quadzilla99 00:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support (previous objections have been addressed) ShadowHalo 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support (previous objections have been addressed) Johnbod 00:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not clear as to the relations of the first 2 section headers with the topic (especially seeing the length of "New York art scene"). Also, it sounds like they should be merged into a single "Background" or "prior career" section. Circeus 00:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merged  Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support as fair use issues have been addressed.Balloonman 03:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Mostly Support as that seems to have worked well above. :-)
  • devolped?
    •  Done Heh. Either word works in the context, but I’ve picked ‘developed’ over ‘devolved’. —xyzzy_n 17:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why is the juice box under Motivation, when it's not referred to there (it's apparently first referred to under Pop art)?
    • moved  Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • premier -> premiere, several places
    •  Done —xyzzy_n 17:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • minor variation in the lettering of the variety names - too much space is spent on describing trivial distinctions. Condense to a few sentences and examples, please.
    • A matter of taste. Another editor may choose to reedit. I will stand pat on this. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Pop art section seems overcited. Are these facts so controversial and likely to be disputed that every sentence needs one or two refs?
    • Most of the citations are navigational and directional in the sense that they either send people to internet or text resources for further details on the specific fact. It is really little harm to have a few superscript numbers sprinkled in to give direction on further details. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • responsorial? It's a word, but it doesn't mean what you think it means ...
    •  Done …more or less; couldn’t find a really good word that wouldn’t involve changing the sentence structure, though. —xyzzy_n 17:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • West Coast debut of Pop art; Warhol continued painting other pop art; ... - pick either upper or lower case Pop, and use it throughout the article
    • Pop -> pop  Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • (according to Marcel Duchamp)[48] - end of a sentence needs a period somewhere
    •  Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The Abstract expressionism art movement - don't capitalize the A, see that article
    • Abstract -> abstract  Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • (his career went through three distinct phases in which he expended a great deal of effort in this area) - vague and wordy. Rewrite, or just strike; it's explained in more detail in the article body.
    • reworded  Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. (Have copy edited the article). Per reasons give in my support of the previous nomination. Ceoil 19:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support excellent stuff. Manderiko 13:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 14:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Angel of Death (song)

I worked on this article over the past month, where it was a unreferenced stub. Since then it's had two peer-reviews, GA review (passed), has been copyedited by Ceoil with LuciferMorgan providing useful feedback on improving the article. I think it covers the song well and ready for FAC, if you have any objections i will deal with them promptly, thanks. M3tal H3ad 07:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. What an interesting read, especially the controversy section. Well-referenced, well-written, and well-illustrated. One comment, though: I wonder if it is possible to accomodate those of us with smaller screens and drop the Mengele picture down a paragraph because right now there are about 4-5 lines of empty space below the compositions and origins heading. Thanks, JHMM13 09:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support As a contributor at both peer reviews, and as a fellow member of the Slayer Wikiproject. LuciferMorgan 13:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Angel of Death" appears on the live compilation Ozzfest: Second Stage Live, so add this info to the "Appearances" section. LuciferMorgan 14:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The description of the image in the infobox says it's from a single. Should {{Infobox Single}} be used instead then? ShadowHalo 16:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• The song indeed isn't a single; I've corrected the description. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Okay. There are a few small things that could be adjusted (nothing enough to oppose):
  • The name of the album doesn't appear in the infobox.
  • Hanneman is instroduced as "Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman" in the "Compositions and origins" section. It might be better to make the first mention that he's the guitarist in the lead so that the context is clear to readers.
  • Image:JosefMengele1.jpg is pushing down the text. You can fix this by moving it directly after the infobox (the image will stay where it is and the text will move up) or by aligning it to the left.
  • It'd be good to have a better caption for the audio sample to give the readers something for which to listen. ShadowHalo 19:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• All done; though I'm not not quite sure what you've meant by a "better caption", nevertheless I've corrected the song's name. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 19:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fuck the Millennium is a good example. It shows what the sample is illustrating so that readers have some idea of what to listen for. Based on the title of the link, it has to be a sample of "Angel of Death"; instead, you could rephrase or summarize the sentence "Araya bursts out his piercing scream, with Lombardo performing at an average of 210 beats per minute." Plus, it helps the fair use claim even more (not that there otherwise wouldn't be one). ShadowHalo 20:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done as well. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 16:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• And the change is now original research, which is a problem. You cannot describe a song without quoting a critic. LuciferMorgan 04:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Comprehensive and well-written. I would fix any concern myself on behalf of the WikiProject. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 20:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Well-written, comprehensive, a good read overall. ShadowHalo 23:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• I feel bad because I think I pulled something like this on the Slayer FAC... but alas, the source doesn't back up the claim "The lyrics detail Mengele's surgical experiments on patients at the Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II" (I changed "track" to "lyrics", but the source doesn't even mention Slayer). I came to notice this because the one defect I could find with the article was it doesn't really cover the actual lyrics in detail. It just says they're about "Mengele's surgical experiments"... in what way? Do they mention specific ones? Do they say anything else? An article about a song should contain some direct information about the lyrics, I think. I'm sorry if this seems pedantic... this is a really good article otherwise. But this one sentence should probably be 2-3, and have a better source. I'll look into it myself hopefully, if no one else does. --W.marsh 02:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The reference was there for the things he did at Auschwitz, not that Slayer wrote about it, but i see your point and changed it slightly and added some references provided by Lucifer (thanks). M3tal H3ad 06:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. (as a Slayer WikiProject member): happy that the article meets the criteria. Ceoil 10:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

George B. McClellan

I believe that this passes all criteria. It's extremely well-written, the only problem might be references. I personally think there's enough (at least 1 in every paragraph), but it that's a huge problem I'll add some.--Wizardman 03:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Combine the "Controversial legacy" and "In memoriam" sections into a single "Legacy" section, perhaps? The latter of those two should really be turned into a sentence or two of prose, rather than a bulleted list, as well. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done.--Wizardman 04:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, support. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support- Appears to be well written, indeed. There aren't areas where a citations is absolutely lacking. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 20:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. It looks very well-written to me.--Yannismarou 15:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is far too long (64kb). I see two major problems:

1. The article overuses quotations. This is an encyclopedia article, and not a full biography. Much of what is said in the quotations can be summarized in the text of the article.
2. Much of the text goes into too much detail. Specifically, much of what is said in the "Peninsula Campaign" section is (or can be) covered at Peninsula Campaign. Likewise with "Maryland Campaign and the Battle of Antietam"/Battle of Antietam.

That being said, I think the article fails to meet Featured article criteria #4, and I cannot support its promotion. Caknuck 16:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just a remark I regard as necessary: 64 kb is not long! Many currently promoted FAs are way over 80 and sometimes 90 kbs. Some of them exceeded even 100 kbs without this being a problem. After all, what matters is mainly how long is the prose, and not the whole article. Article with less than 50 kbs prose are usually OK. And I think that this article is OK on this issue. So, there is no reason to shorten the article IMO, since its length is fine. If it was really big, I would suggest WP:SS, but in this case I don't see such a necessity.--Yannismarou 18:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm well aware that WP:SIZE is a guideline that is often disregarded w/ respect to FA's. Some topics can't be squeezed into 32kb, even with forking. My point is that the article is unnecessarily long to the point of affecting its readability. What sense is there in needlessly duplicating a description of an entire military campaign when a link to the main article (suprisingly not included in the relevant sections until several paragraphs in) would do the job more elegantly? Caknuck 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, WP:LENGTH is not "often disregarded" on FAs, nor should it be. I'm aware of about five FAs that pass the recommended guidelines for readable prose, and those were all hotly debated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• The link may, indeed, be better placed nearer the top; but there's a limit to how much the material may be further condensed. Keep in mind that this is not aiming to present the entire campaings in question, but only McClellan's (significant) role in them; the articles on the campaigns themselves, meanwhile, are necessarily broader in scope, and would thus be poor replacements for the relevant sections here.
• (The prose size is only about 52 kb, incidentally, which isn't that long for a major figure.) Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment 50KB of readable prose is long, but within WP:LENGTH guidelines, so I won't oppose, but hope the article doesn't grow. Please complete the final reference, by including (at least) a publisher and last access date. (McClellan Society website) Samples can be found at WP:CITE/ES. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done.--Wizardman 00:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Homer's Phobia

I've been working on this article for a while. Originally it was modelled after Pilot (House), which is a FA. And is in the same format as the recently promoted Cape Feare. It is a GA and has been peer reviewed. I will try and fix any objections that might come out. Gran² 07:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support I support this acticle because it has a lot of detail... and very good article! Nice work! Fr⁴zer 12:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support The article meets the criteria exceptionally well. It uses proper citation templates, is detailed, is written from a NPOV, its prose is brilliant, features transwiki links, contains appropriate images and has excellent structuring.--Orthologist 13:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose While I would otherwise support (and not just out of my love for the show or this episode in particular), I don't like the lead at all. The second paragraph should be placed in the body of the article, as the point of the lead is to summate an article; this paragraph is not a summary and its contents are never really mentioned again. I also hate the third paragraph of the "Production" section. It does not have any wikilinking, and the DVD commentary is actually referenced too many times, including twice in the same sentence (which only contains a single clause). In fact, five times within "Production", the same reference is cited twice within a sentence, which is completely unnecessary. If these problems are fixed, I'll gladly change to support. -- Kicking222 16:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the uneccessary citation and changed the tone a little, and, although I agree with integrating the second paragraph of the lead section to the rest of the article, I can't think of where it should go. Any suggestions?--Orthologist 16:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've linked South Korea, and removed another uneccessary citation. I think the lead is fine, I added that part in so that it was longer and I don't see what's wrong with it. If it has to go, then there is no point in intergrating it, just delete it. If it does go then any other ideas as to expand the lead are welcomed. Gran² 16:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the second paragraph of the lead is important, as it references to previous episodes of the Simpsons and is quite general, stating that the episode was the first to have homosexuality as a centeral issue. It seems it is fine where it is.--Orthologist 17:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks to great work by Maitch and CanadianCaesar to fix up the lead and section, all problems that you cited have now been fixed. Gran² 04:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment What about this solution? The lede should summarize the main points of the article. That section wouldn't have to be at the bottom - wasn't sure where to put it. Also, we need to create stubs for any redlinks. MarkBuckles (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As I said above if the paragraph can't be in the lead, I really see no point in it being there at all. And creating stubs to remove redlinks is not the best idea, especially as I can't find any information about them at all, just remove the links. Gran² 07:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Change to Support While I still don't like how often the same source is cited in that one paragraph, the layout of the article is considerably better now, and the lead is much improved. This is an excellent article. -- Kicking222 19:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support: I think it is wonderful that an article about a single episode is up to such a good standard. It is brilliantly well written, and well referenced. A little short, but I honestly think that much more would ruin it, as I don't think there is much mroe relevent information. Good job. J Milburn 23:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Almost forgot to vote. I've looked this article over several times and I am finally satisfied with it. Good job Gran. -- Scorpion 00:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I think this is excellent work and I can't think of anything to add. --Maitch 12:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Fantastic article, well done. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Of excellent quality and culturally significant.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Wonderbra

Self-Nominated: After two months of work and very helpful feedback and contributions from the Wikipedia community, I think this article is ready for a hard look by the FA editors. I believe it meets the functional criteria of Featured Article status, so the question is whether the content is compelling enough, and writing is good enough to be featured. I think the content is compelling for a couple of reasons:

• While the details of the history of this famous brand are available, they're usually glossed over by the hype of various PR machines. We have done some digging into older newspaper articles and academic studies to explain the varied and interesting history of this product and the people who brought it to life. While this is not original research per se, this article may be the most comprehensive compilation of available material since Henry Mintzberg's seminal 1984 work on the history of Canadian Lady.
• The topic itself is both fun, and compelling as a business story. We've included links to rich media where appropriate.

Whether or not the writing itself meets the hurdles of "Brilliance", well, that's not for me to suggest. We've tried to be concise where necessary, and offer some flourishes to bring some of the story to life. This was a balancing act, but I'll let you all be the judges of that.Mattnad 18:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. As it is, the article looks great, is formatted rather cleanly and makes sense, though I have some personal preferences that could be changed with the article. IMHO, the pic in the "History" section might be better off right-aligned than left. The external links section might be more appropriate after the references section. The wonderbra women section could do with some expansion, plus references. The "current licensing structure" section should probably be merged into the history section, as it seems like recent history of the brand. Shrumster 18:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I moved the "Current licensing" section so it's adjacent to the history section but didn't go as far as to merge it. I wanted to avoid conflicts between the section titles and the content. The external links section has been moved to the end. The "Wonderbra women" section is a very old holdover from the origins of the article. I'm hoping the wikilinks to the related article for the women will suffice for reference. Each article mentions the woman's experience as a Wonderbra spokesperson, but if pressed, I'll dig up external references. I've left the Canadian Lady logo in the history section as is. I did this because on wide screen monitors, it works better with the left-justified table in the preceding section. Mattnad 01:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support and Comment --Nice Job but please can you get another picture of a woman in a 1950's bra than the current picture. That woman looks anorexic. :) Mercenary2k 21:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support, though I think there's a certain amount of irony in voting "support" for a garment that's designed to support. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object Both Image:Canadian-Lady-Logo.jpg and Image:Wonderbra-TV-1975.jpg are copyrighted images being used as fair use. Yet they're both bigger than my wallpaper. Shrink both to a low resolution (less than 400 wide) and add detailed fair use rationales to those images and Image:DiciBox.jpg. ShadowHalo 01:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Lower resolution images have been substituted for Logo and 1975 TV screenshot. More detailed explanations of fair use rationale have been provided.Mattnad 02:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In the future, you can simply upload one image over the other by clicking "Upload a new version of this file" underneath the file history (no big deal though). ShadowHalo 02:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: I'm not a fan of the typical Wikipedia pop culture section and this one is particularly redundant. Aside from being entirely unreferenced, the facts about Rammstein and Ali G. seem pretty random and totally unnecessary. The whole section should be cut, while the "Greatest Canadian Inventions" trivia - if there is a source - could be put into the text elsewhere. Jaqu 01:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally fine cutting that section out. This article has become much more of a business story than entertainment. However, this section and the equally lightweight "Wonderbra Women", contain long-standing elements that I didn't want to remove based on my whim -- the Rammstein reference dates back to the article’s creation. Before I take this step, I would ask for other comments either in favor or opposed to this move. Regarding the "unreferenced" criticism, I wouldn't mind an explanation of how links to specific wikipedia articles that support the material do not represent a reasonable source. It's pretty easy to copy their references, but isn't that reinventing the wheel?Mattnad 02:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• I recommed cutting out the pop culture section, too. Its wholly unnecessary and fairly trivial. Wickethewok 22:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Given there are no defenders of that section, I've removed it and incorporated the CBC television show details into a new section called "Recent developments" with a reference citation. Mattnad 01:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Object I think this is an outstanding article and close to FA, but I have concerns about OR or what appears to be OR because of unreferenced comments that come across as OR. I'm afraid I'm short of time, so here's just a few "drive-by" suggestions of some of things that jumped out at me. Please take them in the positive frame of mind in which they're made. I'm happy to reconsider, especially if I'm wrong on any of these. Equally, as I say, I've not yet read this as thoroughly as I'd have liked, but I promised a few days back to contribute.
• 1. "Israel (Hi) Pilot designed an improved cup" implies that he improved on an earlier design. Which earlier design? If not, suggest "Israel (Hi) Pilot designed an innovative cup that improved on..."

Changed language, added references. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• 2. "cutting the fabric on the bias" is a bit too jargony for me. I didn't understand.

Clarified meaning. Added reference. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• 3. "Under the Wonderbra brand, this bra became the most popular style for years in Canada. " definitely needs a citation - without, it smacks of OR and POV

It's a true statement (per the curator of the McCord Fashion museum), but removed for now, pending verifiable support. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• 4. "In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the majority of women were still wearing highly-structured undergarments." Majority? The stat that follows is 40%.

Stat is for unit sales - in that period, there was a girdle sold for every bra. At any rate, found a reference supporting statement. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• 5. "Nadler learned that women wanted 'less bra', not 'no bra.' " Dodgy punctuation. Sounds like a quote, but unreferenced.

Corrected quotes and clarified source. That was from the Mintzberg book. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• 6. "The ads were revolutionary for North America in that they included a man." Without a ref, sounds like OR.

Removed sentence, pending verifiable support. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• 7. "The U.S. Wonderbra advertising campaign also generated mild controversy for the objectification of women's breasts. Ultimately, this narrow focus on breast enhancement meant that the American Wonderbra would become a fashion accessory for women among their broader arsenal of clothing. Following the 1994 re-launch, Wonderbra remains popular around the world as a product, and a part of our cultural lexicon." No references make this OR City, I'm afraid.

Added references for latter part of this paragraph. Removed sentence on "narrow focus" for now. This is accurate (Wonderbra was promoted as a bra, rather than lingerie line for years), but will need further research to find references. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• 8. ""spokes-model."" Quote? Reference? Last named is either nn or should be wikilinked. In any case, the section may well be POV and perhaps the article should point to a separate List article, which would inclusively have all such models listed, rather than trying to pull out the most important, in a subjective manner.

Removed this section. It's been with the article from it's more pop origins, but difficult to support in the new context. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hope that's helpful, albeit disappointing to the outstanding and hard-working contributors, notably Mattnad. Sorry :-( --Dweller 21:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Youtube as a source, pls read WP:DASH and make corrections throughout (particularly em-dashes), and please clarify hyphenation of product name early on in article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Added details on the evolution of the "Wonder-Bra" to "Wonderbra" trademark. Took a hard look at the hyphenation and made adjustments. Regarding the em-dashes, these are used for parenthetical statements or phrases in the text, and in one case, are used where a period would be too strong of a break between ideas. The article your recommended suggests these uses of em-dashes are acceptable in Wikipedia. I'm not sure how to handle the comment about YouTube as a source. In this application, the links to wonderbra ads hosted Youtube are not intended as a source. These links to the ads bring to life parts of the brand development which are well documented in the article by the Mintzberg and Goodis books. The ads are self-identifying (yep, it's a Wonderbra ad when you see it) are really there for illustration of facts already confirmed by reputable and verifiable sources. The ads are also available on various blogs and other sites. Is the issue simply that Youtube is hosting the ads? If the reader were referred to other sites with the ads, would that alleviate the concern?

I corrected all of your em-dashes, worked on your references (you hadn't employed named refs at all, and you repeated every book reference—pls check page numbers). The problem with YouTube is not only that it's not a reliable source, but that WP:EL says that Wiki should never link to a copyright violation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. You did a LOT of work on those references (and now footnotes). Re: Copyright on youtube: I have a media lawyer friend checking into the copyright status of those commercials. There's a very high probability that they no longer have U.S. copyright protection because they were (a) Canadian, and (b) it's more than than 27 years since the were first used. I was told that when the commercials were produced, the U.S. copyright law only granted foreign motion picture media of this type 27 years of protection. Although US law was later changed granting longer copyright to foreign work, the extension would only apply to these Wonderbra commercials if Canadelle had registered them in the U.S. (not likely, but we're checking). Mattnad 11:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

US$1 billion Youtube lawsuit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to Sandy who has contributed a lot to the article, I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with an objection to the external links. To some degree, Sandy has raised an Ad Hominem objection to Youtube, but has not demonstrated any Copyvio for these old commercials. I still defend the links to the commercials as very helpful illustrations of verifiable facts, from reliable sources: Wonderbra produced these ads as part of their brand development. Moreover, there's no evidence of Copyvio. The fact that they are on Youtube is not enough to assume Copyvio, and asking for proof of no copyvio on external links is a test that goes beyond Wikipedia guidelines, and well beyond the law. -- Mattnad 16:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've removed my objection above. Matnad's done a lot of work on this article. I can't go so far as to support at this stage, as I've not reviewed the article, but he's certainly dealt with the problems I raised. --Dweller 13:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Regarding the images: Are we sure about the copyright template used on Image:Diagonal Slash Patent.jpg? This would appear not to be the work of the US Government, but work for hire by attorneys working on behalf of the patent holder. I'm not an expert on US copyright law so it might be PD anyway. I would strongly suggest that Image:Original WonderBra Model.JPG be cropped and zoom in on the bra itself. The model's face is far too prominent and distracting. On a seperate note, you might want to check for mentions of Wonderbra in other articles and wikilink them, as this article has a surprisingly low number of incoming links. --kingboyk 15:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Right you are on the public domain attribution for the patent image. It may not technically be a work of the US gov't but it IS allowed because it's part of a patent (see this wikipeadia image of a patent for the licensing). For the life of me, I can't get that {patent} licensing template to work. If someone out there can help out, that would be great. For the other photo, the recommendation to focus only on the bra is understood, but it could be polarizing. Take a look at the discussion archives of Brassiere to see what I mean. For some readers, it's an unsettling way to crop a photo of a woman in a bra. Did a search and wikilinked "Wonderbra" in a few more articles. Mattnad 22:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Found a working template. - Mattnad 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

1991 Hamlet chicken processing plant fire

Back when I nominated this for GA status, I was reccomended to send the article to Peer Review and, all going well, then nominate the article here. The only comment at the Peer Review (here) covered only minor problems, all of which were addressed. That comment was seven days ago; nothing since. Consequently, I am pressing on and nominating here. What do you make of it? Is it good enough??? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Some stuff that might help along: The pics could use some enlarging of some sort. Right now, some of the pics are overpowered by the length of their captions. The lead could use some sprucing-up/prosing-up. Right now, imho it kinda reads like a sequential facts, not necessarily connected to each other. Also, while I can't pinpoint any particular thing that bugs me about the section titles ("fire"?), I'm thinking some of them should be sub-sectioned under parent sections. In addition, I'm not sure what WP protocol is regarding disaster articles but would a list of those who perished be inappropriate? Hope these help. Shrumster 06:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly useful comments. I shall rewrite the lead per your comments, and I have made "Emergency response" a subsection of "Fire" and "Recommendations" a subsection of "Investigation". I'm not at all sure how to resize the pics, but I shall draft in someone who does to see to that. As far as a list of the deceased goes, I know in the previous case of Comair Flight 5191, it was decided in a combination of here, here and here (the latter one of which I actually weighed into to have removed! Small world, huh? ;-) that we shouldn't list them. While discusion seemed to be less generalised than simply "disasters" (more like "airliner accidents"), it is still relevant and I think shows why such a list would likely be quickly removed. And now, I've waffled on long enough - let's see who I can track down for those images! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to rework the lead a bit. How's it now? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Unless there's been a long string of equally notable chicken processing plant fires in Hamlet, NC, I'm assuming the article could be moved to Hamlet chicken processing plant fire. Peter ^Isotalo 16:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Whilst that is a common assumption in relation to disaster articles, over at WP:DM have decided on a naming convention which contradicts that. It was halfway to being officially adopted as a guidline, but talks here, here and here stalled for some reason and nothing ever came of it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest this as the applicable guideline in this case. If there is no other "Hamlet chicken processing plant fire" to disambiguate it from (heh) then clearly, the "1991" is just padding. The title strikes me as being the result of an overindulgence in guidelines rather than intuitive naming.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gotta admit, WP:IAR is my favourite policy. I'm now neutral on this; I shall put it up for discusion on the talk page and, if no-one objects, perform the move. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I'm impressed with the detail (all well sourced) and the neutrality of this article. Lucidly written as well. Hydriotaphia 18:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. —Scott5114↗ 17:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, you got most. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Oppose until the below are fixed - mostly trivial issues, but a lot of them, and References need noticeable work.
  • resuplying?

    Can you clarify what is wrong here? Maybe I'm just being blind, but I can't get what the problem is. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Needs a p or something. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

      Sorted Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The department was comprised of - which dept, the local, or the nearby?

    Sorted Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • of an ethnic minority. - specify minority

    Sorted Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • minus 28 degrees - specify units (C or F) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement

    Sorted Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

    • minus 28 degrees Celsius is not 82.5 °F! Check your calculator again. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

      I had not hit the 'minus' properly, and calculated for a positive value! Sorted now, and got one we both missed earlier (the cooker temp.) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • psi, gallons, yards - similarly

    Sorted Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • John Brooks was not the state Labor Secretary!!!

    Sorted Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Recommendations - cite the report here.

    Rather than use a ref tag after *every* one, I added an external link to the report at the start of the section. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Negative air flow - link or explain uncommon term

    Sorted Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • whilst? A quote from John Brooks, no doubt... :-)

    Actually, whilst is a perfectly valid word. However, as it is aparantly mainly Brittish English, I changed it anyway as the article is on an event in the US, and is chiefly of US interest and signifigance. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Yes, it's poetic or old fashioned in US usage. On those lines: "vaporised. This vapour" ... Search for "ised" and convert to "ized", and "our"->"or". --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

      Fixed them, too. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • $808,150 - see WP:$, you're close...

    Sorted (if I'm reading the MOS right here) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Heh, I was actually thinking of using US$ - but your solution is a creative interpretation, I guess will pass. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The quote from Essential Criminology doesn't say anything the main article doesn't say already. I'd just list the names of the testbooks, "as cases in text books such as..."

    Sorted Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • On January 9, 1992, the then - WP:DATE and get rid of "the"

    Sorted Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Within two years of the accident insurance companies and the North Carolina business lobby collaboratively introduced legislation - did it pass? We have to say.

    Looking at the ref here, it certainly suggests it was passed - otherwise why make a big thing of it? Is there any way of confirming this, and if not, is the hinting of a pass by a source sufficient to say it did? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Abbie Covington red link - will the mayor of a city of 6000 really qualify for a future article?

    Sorted Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • many survivors had passed away, mostly due to complications from their injuries - In 9 years? Wow. How many?

    I can find no reference that says - sorry. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • References need authors, dates, etc. For example, what you call Fedlink seems to be a 2002 Washington Post article by Wil Haygood - all that is imortant. See {{cite web}} and relatives, fill in as many of those as you can.

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • The references still need improvement, with authors, dates, titles, publications, etc., like the {{cite}} templates. I have to keep opposing until that's done. Some of the other things may be minor, but this isn't acceptable for FA. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

      It is on my to-do list, I will se to it that it gets done. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

      Sorted Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. Seems good, though I see multiply minor issues that require some attention.

• POV'ish sentences and words:

• "Tragedies", "claimed lives", "so..." (covert to "as a result"), and anything to informs the readers of issues in adding information or the writing progress (e.g. "although too bulky to list in full").

• Remove the last sentence in the "Fire" section as a duplicate of a summarily fact already found in the lead.

Sorted Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 07:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sole years or months altogether shouldn't be linked per WP:DATE.

Sorted Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• "References in popular culture" needs to be converted to a complete paragraph.

Why? That's how similar sections are layed out accross Wikipedia. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Under the "Recommendations" section remove the link on "final report" and convert it to a reference instead in the end of the paragraph.

Sorted Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Adding a collection of other fire disasters you consider to have also killed "a lot" under the "See also" section is POV. Instead, list articles such as Industrial disasters and Disaster.

That's not at all how the "See also" is layed out - as it says in the article, "All of the tragedies above involved people being trapped behind locked doors or windows, or doors that could not be pushed open." Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 07:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What would be better is start a new section and link those disasters to the development of the fire codes and regulations in the USA and other countries. Better context than a straight list. In other words, it is better to briefly describe why you are mentioning the articles, rather than a group rationalisation - groups of articles are better dealt with by categories. You could create a category to put all those articles in and add this article to that category. Carcharoth 17:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• The first sentence of the article should contain a brief explanation of what the disaster is (e.g. "The 1991 Hamlet chicken processing plant fire took is an industrial disaster that took place at the...").

Sorted Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Immediate aftermath" - Since aftermath is long-term by definition, this should either renamed it to "Controversy" or "Reaction". Following the rename change the second section to "Aftermath".

Sorted Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 07:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• If a paragraph relies on a single reference, add it only at its end. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 17:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)