Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2012

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

March 2012

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 13:55, 31 March 2012 [1].

Stones Brewery

Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it received good article status and I feel like it may be worthy of Featured Article status. Farrtj (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: this version

  • Major reference cleanup issues
    • 3, 50: missing page numbers
    • 26: No author, author, publisher. Title is 1996
    • 22, 48: bare links
    • 53: Title is "untitled"
    • 30: The Times, 4 October 1965, p. 17. No article name. No author
    • 45: What is "Runcorn Brewery: The Unofficial History of a Corporate Disaster" ???
    • 55, 56: p61 v/s p. 5 Inconsistent
    • Many references do not have author, publisher, date and are generally formatted as [url Title]

I suggest formatting all references with templates {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} and filling up at least page numbers (not web), title, author, publisher, date. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have not read the article yet, but I don't think the opening paragraph works well at the moment. To begin by saying that Stones Brewery is a brewery is surely a statement of the obvious. Also, to try to cover the foundation, takeover and closure of the brewery in one sentence is perhaps unwise. May I suggest that you alter the paragraph text along the following lines:

Stones Brewery (William Stones Ltd) was founded in 1868 by William Stones in Sheffield, West Riding of Yorkshire, England. and purchased by the Bass Brewery in 1968. After its closure in 1999 its most famous brand, Stones Bitter, was continued by the Molson Coors Brewing Company.

Another point: why do you need to show latitude and longitude? A brewery is a group of buildings with a postal address, not some remote geographic location that needs to be identified by coordinates. If the answer is that other similar articles have them, my reply is, don't repeat the follies of others. Also, at a glance, there may be problems with certain referencing formats, e.g. 22 and 48 are bare urls. Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Ah, I see that another reviewer has picked up several referencing issues) Brianboulton (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 13:48, 31 March 2012 [2].

Andranik Ozanian

Nominator(s): Yerevanci (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andranik Ozanian (1865-1927) is considered to be one of the most prominent Armenian military personals of modern times. I think that this article deserves to be featured. --Yerevanci (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not ready, but an excellent start. Some scattershot points:
  • Parts are far too hagiographic.
  • Lead is much too short and does not summarize the article.
  • "Early life" is far too short - if it can't be expanded, it should be merged.
  • Some chunks are uncited (for example, the second half of the Ottoman Empire section).
  • Placement of footnotes vis-a-vis punctuation is inconsistent.
  • Just knowing a bare minimum about the ethno-politics of that region of the world, I'd be surprised if he doesn't have enough detractors that their perspectives warrant mention.
  • Article relies too much on quotes, and in particular on long blockquotes.
  • The lists at the end should be incorporated into text (mentions in film and song), split to separate articles (statues), or transwiki'd (quotes about him).

I'd suggest withdrawing and taking it to WP:PR, then WP:GAN. Good luck! Steve Smith (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the review. I agree with most your points, but I have some questions.
Parts are far too hagiographic. Do you mean that the article is too focused on him??
Placement of footnotes vis-a-vis punctuation is inconsistent. Are you referring to the notes or just references in general??
The lists at the end should be incorporated into text (mentions in film and song), split to separate articles (statues), or transwiki'd (quotes about him). Do you mean that the statues part should be made into a new article (e.g. List of statues of Andranik Ozanian) and the films/songs should be merged??--Yerevanci (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. You're doing a good job, but you're in the wrong place; the article was assessed as not meeting Milhist's B-class criteria, and you're going to need a lot of help with the prose ... but not yet. The people who watch the military history articles at WP:GAN don't in general require that articles go through WP:PR first, so if you like, you could put it up both places at the same time ... you'll get a lot of helpful feedback. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 17:21, 29 March 2012 [3].

Edward Trifonov

Nominator(s): Galapah (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Edward Trifonov is a remarkable and highly significant scientist in Israel (e.g. the founder of the first bioinformatics group in the country back in 1970's). But not only that. He is a significant scientific person worldwide especially due to his contribution to the field of chromatin structure and sequence patterns in the DNA in general. Most recently also due to his research in the origin of life. All these topics are hot nowadays but he had already been working on them for decades.Galapah (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for substandard English throughout: "in [the] USSR", "he made aliyah [explain] to Israel", "His life-long scientific ideal [?] is Johann Gregor Mendel", "at [the] Moscow Physico-Technical Institute". According to the talk page, the article has never been reviewed or peer-reviewed; you may want to start off at WP:PR. - Dank (push to talk) 12:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. The articles corrected to my best knowledge. Galapah (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably say "nonstandard" rather than "substandard" ... most countries have their own English dialects now with their own style and usage, and of course it's a good thing that we have so many contributors from so many countries. But at FAC, we try to follow WP:MOS and the more popular style guides. Peer review and WP:GAN should go quite a bit better than FAC, and you may find co-writers along the way who can work on the prose. - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest withdrawal I think this article has the makings of an FA, but there are more problems than we can be reasonably expected to fix here. As well as prose, there are MoS issues (incorrect reference placement, suspect capitalisation, hyphens rather than ndashes in page ranges are just those I spotted on a quick read-through), not all information is referenced, and there are hidden assumptions — I know what A, G, C, T and U mean, I doubt that all your readers will. This could do with a second pair of eyes, preferably someone with copy editing and MoS skills, rather than a subject expert, before it returns. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 16:09, 28 March 2012 [4].

We Found Love (music video)

Nominator(s): Aaron • You Da One 17:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I have worked on the article extensively and it is very stable. I believe it is a very good article. It has been copyedited by a few editors as well. Aaron • You Da One 17:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some initial Comments on first glance, it looks like some more copyediting may be needed to get up to 1a quality.
  • I'm not sure the bold in the first sentence is needed: (WP:BOLDTITLE}.
  • "After physical violence and having enough" Having enough of what?
  • You might think about linking to Youth pastor instead of Pastor.
  • You have a mention of Rhianna stripping before you summarize the plot of the video, maybe put it after.
    Now, because this happened before. Aaron • You Da One
  • "She filmed scenes, wearing A bikini with the pattern of the American flag" I presume the capital was an accident, or is that a type of Bikini?
  • "but photographers or fans being could not see." Looks like a typo here.
  • "Extras for the shoot were not told what was expected of them until last minute" looks like you're missing a word here.
  • "When posed with this question," What question?
  • "while brief scenes of Rihanna and her boyfriend prepare to have sex." This sounds like the scenes are preparing to have sex :)
    Lol. Aaron • You Da One
  • "After having enough and finding him passed out on the floor of his apartment" Having enough of what? The drugs?
    Well, everything. Lol. Aaron • You Da One
  • "Chris Coplan of Consequence of Sound praised the production of the video, noting that its cinematic feel and that it shows" I think you can remove one "that".
  • "Coplan compared the video in its entirety to the film Blue Valentine due to its sexualized content" You could probably tighten this up by removing "in its entirety". See Tony's exercises.
  • "Vena, alike Coplan, also noted that the song has a cinematic feel, calling it a "mini-movie", and similar Ramirez..." This sentence should probably be rephrased a bit, or maybe broken up into two.
  • "Dobbins noted that the list of illicit and frowned upon activities may once again aggravate parents and committees because of the explicit nature of the video" I don't think the list she made will bother them, it's more the things from the video that are listed.
    I don't get your point? I don't mean a handwritten list, I mean the list of things that they do. Aaron • You Da One
  • "Also writing for New York magazine is Charlotte Cowles, who commented that" You switch between present and past tense here, try top avoid that.
  • "Jamie Lewis of the International Business Times noted that the video is likely to cause controversy amongst different groups of the public due to the "multitude of illicit and illegal acts",[20] and condoned the activities that the singer appeared to be partaking in" It sounds like you're saying Lewis condoned the activities? Also, "different groups of the public" reads a bit awkwardly.
    Yes that is what he is saying. Aaron • You Da One
  • "The Rape Crisis Centre in the UK—an anti-rape organization which helps victims of rape" Could you try to avoid saying "rape" three times in a row like that?
  • "The video was also scrutinized Brandon Ward" looks like you left out a word.
  • "Ward analyzed as to why the video is immorally unjust and how it does not conform with Christian beliefs and morals" That reads a bit awkwardly.
  • "Ulster Cancer Foundation, an anti-smoking campaign organization, dismissed Rihanna for smoking in the music video" What do you mean that they "dismissed" her? Was she a member of their group?
    I don't know, it wasn't me who added these words lol.
  • "critics commented on the resemblance between Rihanna's ex-boyfriend Chris Brown and the her featured love interest in the video" Should probably remove a word here.
  • "it displayed Spears drowning in a bathtub as a result of a successful drug overdose." Forgot the capital here. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done all. Thanks. Aaron • You Da One 16:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I respect the effort that Calvin/Aaron has put into this, I must suggest withdrawal and a detailed copyedit/peer review, as well. I applaud the nominator for being responsive to our comments, but I see at least four errors introduced in this edit alone--so I think this probably isn't the right time for an FAC and Oppose the current nomination.
  • "having enough of the relationshipf,"
  • "photographers nor fans where allowed to watch"
  • "Ward wrote how he though the video is immorally unjust"
  • "an anti-smoking campaign organization, condonned Rihanna for smoking in the music video". Mark Arsten (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Other problems include:

  • This back-to-front sentence "A monologue given by fashion model Agyness Deyn begins the video."
  • A strange comma usage "for Rihanna's portrayal of having sex while under the influence of illegal drugs, not being a role model to young girls"
    It's not if you had of continued the read the sentence, you will see that there is a third point I made. Aaron • You Da One
  • A fused participle "ahead of Rihanna embarking"
  • A missing word "Pictures of Rihanna leaked onto the internet the same day"
    ? Aaron • You Da One
  • Redundancy "The shoot location was moved to a closed set in Titanic Quarter, Belfast, on September 28, 2011, where the filming continued, but photographers or fans being could not see"
    Shortened. Aaron • You Da One
  • More redundancy "in order to keep the content of the video as secret as possible"
    I don't see how this is redundant, as it is a reason as to why they were not told. Aaron • You Da One
    The "in order" part is. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a restrictive or non-restrictive clause "Matsoukas jokingly stated that the scene which displays O'Shaughnessy drawing a tattoo"
    ? Aaron • You Da One
    Either add commas around this clause--"which displays O'Shaughnessy drawing a tattoo"--or replace "which" with "that". In this context, "that" would be appropriate. Simple guide. This was discussed in the "S&M" FAC. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think delivered' is meant here "The video begins with a monologue given about love and heartbreak"
    No, that sounds worse. Aaron • You Da One
  • I think this should be unconscious, "she is also seen passed out on the street"
  • Again here "After having enough and finding him passed out on the floor of his apartment, Rihanna leaves him." And enough of what?
    Everything. Aaron • You Da One
  • Missing word "Critics were divided on opinions of the video"
  • False contrast "from accolades to criticism"
  • Not English "the her featured love interest in the video"
    What do you mean "Not english" ? Aaron • You Da One

Oppose and I suggest withdrawal and a thorough copyedit from top to bottom. Graham Colm (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The nominators rushed attempts to improve the prose are just introducing more problems – "condoned" means "to approve of" btw, and its spelled incorrectly – and errors that have been explained several times in the nominator's other FACs are present. The nominator's inability to spot rhetorical questions, which are commonly used devices in FACs, is frustrating to say the least. These poorly prepared nominations are sapping our reviewers' strength. FAC is not the place to get articles fixed. Graham Colm (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Close it then and go see someone about your attitude. You are extremely rude. Aaron • You Da One 19:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Calvin999. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to concerns raised above, sorry. I did a copy edit to this article quite a while ago, but it was a simple one. A more serious and thorough copy edit is needed for the prose to be polished to perfection. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 16:09, 28 March 2012 [5].

Darren Osborne

Nominator(s): D4nnyw14 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because i feel the article could be a featured article having already reached GA status. The article has been through a peer review were several points were brought up and addressed. D4nnyw14 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't need to bracket ellipses unless there's an ellipsis in the source
Done.
  • The name of this source doesn't appear to be "Cross examiner"
Done.
  • Check capitalization in footnotes
Done.
Done, removed both as they aren't reliable and don't add much to the article.
  • Ranges should consistently use endashes
Done
  • Watch out for typos (ex. FN 50)
Done
  • Use consistent formatting for print magazines and newspapers - compare for example FNs 48 and 53
  • Don't write titles in all-caps
Done.
  • FN 96: formatting
What's the problem with FN 96? D4nnyw14 (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seem to be relying quite heavily on Digital Spy spoilers. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, replaced portion of digital spy refs with other sources. D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by MayhemMario

Hi I was going to do this at the PR, but as it is now closed, I will address my points here:

Done.
Done.
  • As a reader, we know this happened, but is there a source to confirm this:
    • "Dawson re-joined Hollyoaks in August 2003 after AllSTARS* split up." - He may have rejoined for other reasons.
Done, rephrased so it doesn't suggest he came back because they split up just after they had.
  • "Darren's personality has a taken a number of twists and turns over the character's duration." - Not a fan of the phrase "twists and turns", unless that is a direct quote, so " " is needed.
Done.
  • "Darren begins a "Bonnie and Clyde partnership" with Jessica Harris (Jennifer Biddall) which producer Bryan Kirkwood described as "very funny"." - Source?
Done.
  • Like Nikkimaria said, the article relies too much on Digital Spy.
Done, replaced portion of digital spy refs with other sources. D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link 'Bonnie and Clyde'
Done.
  • "Darren proposes to Hannah that they stay married, Digital Spy chose this proposal as their "picture of the day" feature." - Bit of a small addition- not really needed, as this feature is not that significant.
Done.
  • I dont know if its just me, but im getting slightly confused about how all the "relationships" are muddled. For example, before the reader has got to the "Nancy Hayton" section, the reader reads,
    • "Cindy begins helping Darren plan his wedding to Nancy Hayton (Jessica Fox). Waring felt Cindy's feelings had been "reawakened" through this storyline, adding that they never "fully went away". Waring opined that Darren asking Cindy to help plan his wedding made her feel "needed and wanted"."
I don't know what is confusing you or how it could be fixed, the relationships all happened around the same time and all intertwine, there isn't anyway the relationships could avoid introducing characters who haven't had their relationships explained yet. D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reader does not know how Darren got with Nancy, etc. I would suggest If I were you, I would merge the wedding to Nancy to one paragraph, and the surrounding events, but then that would ruin the relationships section. Leave it for now, and if another user brings it up, then maybe take some action. MayhemMario 12:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i know what you mean but if i moved the stuff out of Cindy's section about the wedding and her relationship being retouched on then it wouldn't really belong in the Nancy section as it isn't about Nancy. D4nnyw14 (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did think of maybe going under a subheading 'Marriage to Nancy', but I do not know whether that would be better or worse. Leave it for now. MayhemMario 16:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only other solution is to have the relationships set out by time so it could be 2007-2009, 2010-2011 etc. which i don't think would work either, if others are finding it confusing then i'll find a solution. D4nnyw14 (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "Darren and Nancy begin a relationship when Darren, Texas, India and Nancy begin online dating in December 2010." - Who is India? Who is Texas?
Done.
  • "The storyline is resolved when Cindy pays Suzanne £200,000 to return to Spain so that she can have Darren to herself. Suzanne accepts the money and leaves, taking Francine and Jack with her and leaving Darren heartbroken." -Source?
Done.
  • "Darren arrives in Hollyoaks with parents Celia (Carol Noakes) and Jack from America." - Link Jack, add actor name.
Done, further up page. D4nnyw14 (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not much division, or even mention, of the recast, and which parts were played by whom.
There isn't much information, this was back when Hollyoaks wasn't one of the big soaps and it wouldn't have received media coverage. D4nnyw14 (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to respond or have any queries about my points, tell me on my talk page. Good luck! - MayhemMario 17:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review Images are good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 16:09, 28 March 2012 [6].

Sacrifice (2008)

Nominator(s): WillC 13:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second nomination for this article. I nominated it long ago in 2009 when I was still a beginner at expansions. Since I've expanded around 50+ articles being mainly title lists and PPVs along with several title belts. Improved my skills a bit by expanding Turning Point (2008) with a different format. Turning Point recently became an FA thankfully, so I've redone Sacrifice to match its format. I started from the ground up completely. I don't believe there is anything left from the original version. I believe its improved an extreme amount. Perfect example is the change in length of the Storylines section. I added a larger Reception section, a Production section, and an On-air employees/Miscellaneous section. An issue with past nominations is the sources. I'll place below why each source is reliable and in the context they are used. I ask if you review this article and have one up for nomination as well that you leave the link as I'm willing to review in return.--WillC 13:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References
  • Pro Wrestling History: Used once, a site which gathers its information via magazines, books, news reports, promotions, etc. Its used to cover one issue and one issue only that being the attendance of the event. TNA hosts events at the Impact Wrestling Zone, formally known as the "TNA Impact! Zone". Due to holding so many events at the arena, attendance figures are no longer posted since the attendance has become common knowledge unless a show is held elsewhere. As such this site is used to only cover this non-controversial fact since the Impact Zone is a soundstage.
  • Total Nonstop Action Wrestling: The company holding the event, I.E. a primary reference.
  • WrestleView: A long standing wrestling news site which has been covered by the SLAM! Sports: Wrestling section of the Canadian Online Explorer. Reports information released by TNA as well as by Pro Wrestling Torch, Wrestling Observer, Slam Sports, and other wrestling and non-wrestling publications. Staff go through a training and background program.
  • Canadian Online Explorer: Should speak for itself.
  • Pro Wrestling Torch: See here, its a longstanding newsletter turned website connected to the industry in a variety of ways. The link should tell the blunt of it all. It was created by Wade Keller.
  • Figure Four Weekly and Wrestling Observer: Merged site of semi-wrestler Bryan Alvarez and longtime wrestling and MMA journalist Dave Meltzer, who has been interviewed and covered by Slam Sports, mentioned by wrestlers such as Bret Hart in his bio, featured in documentaries like Beyond the Mat, etc.
  • For Your Entertainment: Used to cover DVD release date.
  • About: Used for event results, owned by The New York Times I believe.
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Wrestlinglover. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Not that happy with the condition of the prose. Some issues are listed below; please consider getting some copy-editing help, as I'm sure this isn't a comprehensive list.

I'd assume it would have a bit to fix. Hopefully my fixes and replies help put the issues to rest.--WillC 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was the fourth under the Sacrifice chronology and fifth event in the 2008 TNA PPV schedule." Move "event" to before "fourth"?
    • Well its like that due to an issue in the TP review, where the word "event" was used to a large extent. It matches the format used there. Willing to do it as long as it doesn't seem like the article becomes repetitive.--WillC 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add "were" to "two of which for championships".
    • Same as above, "were" comes directly after that statement, so it was removed to be direct in an effort to avoid being repetitive.--WillC 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "25,000 was the reported figure of purchasers for the event by the Wrestling Observer Newsletter." I don't like seeing numbers starting sentences, but the whole sentence is structured oddly. How about this plainer version: "The Wrestling Observer Newsletter reported that 25,000 (people, households, whatever the appropriate term is) purchased the PPV telecast of the event."?
  • "the same as the 2007 event's ranking also by Sokol." The "also" is redundant and interferes with the flow of the sentence. Would be best to remove it. Same issue exists in the body.
    • I disagree, but removed.--WillC 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: "TNA released a poster to promote the show sometimes prior...". "sometimes" → "some time"?
    • Wow, you are the first to catch that after 20 PPVs. Fixed.--WillC 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is meant to be citing the first paragraph of the Storylines section?
    • Added ref. A bit of a debate whether it needs to be cited or not. Appears since you mentioned you think it should, so just went ahead and added it.--WillC 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the period after "on the April 17 episode of Impact!"
    • Actually needed since stylization of Impact is "Impact!".--WillC 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same after "on the April 24 episode of Impact!" and "on the May 1 episode of Impact!" Also a couple of these in the Aftermath section.
    • See above.--WillC 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Main event matches: "and ODB. ODB...". Try not to have a repetition like this from one sentence to the next.
  • Reception: "which was overall 'interesting'". Feels like it would make more sense if "overall" was put after the quote.
    • Done--WillC 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now there's a space after "overall" that needs to be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The TNA Knockouts Makeover Battle Royal and The Latin American Xchange versus Kip James and Matt Morgan bout was given his lowest of 6 out of 10." "was" → "were". There are two bouts being referred to, not one.
  • Missing word in "while the Tournament Final 2 and a half stars out of 5." Giants2008 (Talk) 02:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not exactly, as that was my intention but added "received" to help.--WillC 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still think this needs outside copy-editing help. I know it's probably hard to find people willing to work on wrestling articles, but I feel it's necessary to make the effort in this case. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll try to find someone.--WillC 05:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Happy enough with the copy-editing to drop the oppose, but I'd like to see another editor vet the sources before going any further. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Alright, sounds good to me. I'll let you know when the sources are brought up. Same ones used in Turning Point which passed recently just to mention.--WillC 17:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started a copyedit of the article, at first glace it looks like the prose could be tightened a bit. A couple questions though:
  • I'm not too sure if Miscellaneous is a good subsection title.
    • It was originally "On-air employees" but has grown to include more information than just the employees, so I changed it to "Other" then to "Miscellaneous" as it seems more appropriate for a Featured Article, as it is with Turning Point.--WillC 23:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about its DVD release is in the Reception section, I'm not sure if that's a good place for it (though I don't have any better ideas). Mark Arsten (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, its pretty much the only place besides "Aftermath".--WillC 23:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 7 and 22 (as of this revision) don't seem to mention Sacrifice, so I think using them to compare Sacrifice to other events may be original research. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 7 is covering TNA's previous PPV Lockdown, so its used in the background as well as the Reception. 22 is to compare another industrial event at the time to give a better idea of how well Sacrifice was received. This is similar to movie series articles which compare ratings, revenue, etc with each installment.--WillC 23:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I see what you're going for. Are there any sources that directly compare Sacrifice's numbers to other events though? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not that I know of currently. PWTorch releases articles at the end of the year about the events of the year, but not really about reception, moreso about storylines, etc.--WillC 06:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Working my way through, some tightening and copyediting, but nothing too egregious, really. I found this sentence a bit difficult to parse (and hence copyedit) though: "A storyline connected this match involved Cage and Rhino having received concussions from the attack by Booker T after their previous match." Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could be changed to "Prior to the contest, TNA commentator announced Cage and Rhino had received concussions due to the earlier attack by Booker T, in the storyline." It worked into the match and was entirely scripted.--WillC 02:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later, Styles held Homicide in a small package pin attempt until Salinas distracted the referee." Should there be a hyphen here? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, not from my view.--WillC 02:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't think that phrases such as "bashing Kip in the face" or "Laveaux's head was legitimately busted open" were encyclopedic language, is this a convention of the wrestling wikiproject? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well "bashing" can be changed to "hitting", but I've used bashing in several articles. The second one is because in wrestling a thing called blading happens. Its where a wrestler will take a bad fall or get attacked by an object. Something that logically would cause a person to bleed. They would pull out a hidden razor blade from their wrist tape or somewhere. Cut their forehead a few times to draw blood without the crowd or anyone seeing this taking place. Laveaux did not blade, instead she was legitimately bleeding due to the match environment.--WillC 02:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, if no one else objects, I guess "bashing" is fine. My issue was more with "busted open", maybe "cut open"? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, sounds good. "busted open" is usually a wrestling term, its more so promotional use.--WillC 06:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I finished my copyedit--I think the prose is in decent shape at this point, probably within striking distance of 1a. These are my changes. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the copyedit.--WillC 06:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm leaning support at this point, but I'd like someone else to review the prose (since it's tough for me to judge my own copyedit). Mark Arsten (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thats up to you, I'm sure someone else will review it eventually. Giants will probably take another look at it soon.--WillC 21:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I took some time off of the article and it was copyedited by MathewTownsend, as well. I'm almost ready to support, remaining quibbles:
  • "Super Eric lifted Kong and slammed her onto B.G. in the ring." doesn't really flow well to me.
    • Already been re-written before I got to it, but worked on it a bit myself.--WillC 16:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before the contest, the TNA commentator announced that Booker T's attack on Cage and Rhino had caused them to have concussions in the storyline." Did the commentator announce that it was "in the storyline"? Might want to make that a parenthetical note or something.
    • It should be assumed they were storyline injuries as wrestlers are never medically cleared to wrestle with concussions.--WillC 16:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reception section is a bit heavy on quotes, maybe try to paraphrase a few of them.
    • In what way?--WillC 16:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The decision to remove Kurt Angle from the Sacrifice main event was not made until the day of the show. Angle was expected to be sidelined for at least one month" Try to clear up the chronology here, did they begin expecting him to be sidelined for a month on the day of the show. (And didn't he win a gold medal with a broken neck? He's getting soft in his old age...) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Report isn't exact on when they believed it but sometime around Sacrifice would be believed. Either way it doesn't matter as Sacrifice was on May 11 while Slammiversary was on June 8. So its below a month no matter how it is looked at. Angle's been having alot of neck-injuries. He's been taking more risks.--WillC 16:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review Images are good to go. The NFUR is acceptable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 16:09, 28 March 2012 [7].

Fellows v. Blacksmith

Nominator(s): Savidan 21:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a very good article about an obscure, yet important case. Decided the day before Dred Scott, it represents the first Native American land rights victory in the U.S. Supreme Court (possibly the first judgment in favor of a Native American from that court in any area of law). It has been a good article for over a year. The first nomination resulted in substantial improvement to the article, although no reviewers ended up supporting or opposing the article. Savidan 21:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod
  • Preliminary comments We must surely have some images of Native Americans of about the right sort at about the right time, as well or instead of all those be-whiskered lawyers? Johnbod (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • An image of Ely Parker is already included. I am somewhat open to the inclusion of others, with this caveat: Not just any Native American from the time period will do. Anyone other than a Seneca, and probably anyone other than a Tonawanda Seneca, would push the bounds of relevance. Savidan 06:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, this is pretty indigestible, even by the standards of law case articles. I think I would need a fair number of changes to make it more accessible by explaining the concepts before supporting. The first two sentences of the lead get the article off to a daunting start, and the lead does not contain any summary of the facts of the case, which it should, and which would give the lay reader something easier to hold on to. Many brief explanations in simpler terms should be added to the existing text, which gives the impression of covering the subject well, not that I'm in a position to judge.
    • I have reworked the intro to add the facts more prominently. I am willing to work further with you on this concern, but you will have to be more specific. I am absolutely open to using the simplest possible terms that can be used without sacrificing meaning. I am also possibly willing to add more context and explanation, as long as the flow of the article is not broken by discussing general topics. To use the example of the first sentence, of which you have complained, a reader who wants to know more about the Supreme Court of the United States or Native Americans in the United States generally will probably have to click those links. I am not willing to add explanation along the lines of: "The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States, located in Washington, D.C." or "Native Americans are the descendants of the indigenous population of the United States prior to European colonization." Savidan 19:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have to be more specific, really. I could just walk away and leave it, which is what I probably will do. It is a pervasive problem, though the changes to the first para show you know what to do. Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should have been more specific. If you want me to understand and address your concern, you will have to be more specific. Savidan 21:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it always a Supreme Court "opinion" here? Isn't it a decision or judgment?
    • The opinion is the text written by the court. The decision or judgment is just the disposition, i.e. "judgment for the plaintiff" or "affirmed." Savidan 19:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the talk of "Marshall Court" etc, with a link to the bio of the Chief Justice, normal? It would seem better to expand at least the first mentions.
    • If there were an article for Marshall Court, that would be better, but there is not. That section of his article is the best we can do now. Since this article is a case decided by the Taney Court, and there is already substantial summary of the Marshall Court's relevant decisions in the background sections (and a {main} link to Aboriginal title in the Marshall Court), I am hesitant to add more. If you can be more specific about what you would like to see, perhaps it can be done. Savidan 19:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh! Is there actually any reason not to say "the Supreme Court under Chief Justice whatever Marshall's name was"? Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only word economy. It's not that uncommon of an expression, much like "Obama Administration." See Warren Court or Roberts Court, for example. The fact that there is no a "Marshall Court" article really can be attributed the presentism bias of Wikipedia more than anything else, as it is probably the period of the Court most referred to in this manner. "Marshall Court" on Google Scholar. I'm fairly certain this expression is understandable to non-lawyers, as it is a common staple of general interest journalism about the Court. "Roberts Court" on Google News.Savidan 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't bet on that, certainly outside the US. It's not implausible that there should be a "Marshall Court", given the various legal meanings of the word. The meaning wasn't immediately clear to me when first reading it. Too much concern for "word economy" may lie behind the main issue with this article. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have created an article at Marshall Court. While it is not possible for the meaning of every phrase to be "immediately clear" to every reader, I hope the bluelink will resolve your concern about this particular phrase in an article about U.S. legal history. Word economy is not just a matter of saving space. Few articles on any topics could be expected to remain concise and keep their flow if not permitted to use proper nouns that are extremely well-known in their subject areas. The more time an article spends clearing its throat, the lower the proportion of actual content. Savidan 17:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review Images are good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 16:09, 28 March 2012 [8].

Finnish parliamentary election, 2011

Nominator(s): Lihaas (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because per a previous nomination the requests/suggestions are now fulfilled, criteria was fulfilled by nom (me) last time. Lihaas (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I haven't read the article yet, but at first glance dead links appear to be an issue. Also, the Financial times should be noted with a subscription required template. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do yu check for deadlinks? and put subscription data in the template? Aparentl subscription=yes doesnt workLihaas (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the link to the link-checker, it is not showing them all now for some reason, not sure if it's working right. I use the {{subscription required}} template to mark subscriptions, just put in in right after the reference template. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okey, all done with tag on FinTimes and links. Just 1 issue left over the "agenda finland" source which i asked another finnish editor (who worked with me on the article). Guess ill wait for a few days to come up with that or else remove the passage?Lihaas (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, I don't speak Finnish. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Typo on access date - "Retrived"
  • Don't italicize publishers
  • Be consistent in whether you use "Ministry of Justice of Finland" or just "Ministry of Justice"
  • Who publishes this source?
  • This link triggers my anti-virus software
  • 404 error
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods, italicization changes, etc

I can't evaluate reliability due to language issues, but formatting needs some cleaning up. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting it done. The agendafin worked for me. I use Norton.
Also just italicised the publishers because the other review said to do so...
What other formatting needs cleaning up other than the ones listed.
therwise seems all set?Lihaas (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. For example, compare italicization on FN 32 vs 33, multiple other instances. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okey doing, before the weekend should be done.Lihaas (talk) 06:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 16:09, 28 March 2012 [9].

Freddie Mitchell

Nominator(s): Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that after working on this article for several months, it is now ready to be looked at as an FA. While I am currently competing in the WikiCup, this article will not be used for it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup judge note: the majority of this article was written in 2011, so it is not eligible in this year's competition. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has already noted that. Interchangeable|talk to me 18:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors will not review WikiCup FACs, so I was hoping to make certain these editors realize it is not one. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – First off, glad to see a new face at FAC, as we can always use more of those. Here are my early impressions after reading part of the article. If I can find time, I'll try to come back for another look later.

  • First off, the reliability of sourcing as a whole seems reasonable, but what makes Deadspin (ref 169) a reliable source? If I recall, it's a blog, which isn't generally reliable. Does the author have any special qualifications?
  • "and he voiced his frustration on and off the field." From a technical standpoint, he only voiced frustration off the field. On it, the article only says he made gestures, which isn't voicing anything. If he yelled at Donovan McNabb at some point that would be different, but the article doesn't say that.
  • The lead is best done with at least some facts from each of the sections in an article. At the moment, there's nothing from the personal life section. You should be able to glean at least a sentence from the section, which is of a reasonable size.
  • Early years: Minor point, but I'd spell out RBI, as the FAC people like it when all of the abbreviations are defined.
  • College career: As an FAC regular, I've seen sports article after sports article after sports article get called out for having too much jargon in it. Since I'm a sports fan, I often fail to detect issues myself. One that I am worried about here is whether the average (non-sports) reader will understand the concept of redshirting. Maybe adding something saying that he didn't play that year would help to clarify things.
  • Redundancy here: "Starting in place of the injured Farmer for his first career start". We have "Starting" and "start"; try modifying it so there's one fewer of these.
  • There's a massive paragraph describing his 2000 season that weighs in at 20 lines on my widescreen. This is really long and can surely be chopped in two so it doesn't look like a massive wall of text.
  • What is the Fred Biletnikoff Award for? I'd expect it to be for best receiver in the country, but that's the type of fact that should be included so the reader doesn't have to click on a link.
  • "Mitchell caught what appeared to be a touchdown in the corner of the endzone". Minor, but I thought end zone was two words.
  • The one general comment I have so far is that there seems to be an excessive amount of detail regarding his performances, at least in the college section. It looks like every game from the 2000 season is included in some way, which strikes me as a little bit of overkill. I know comprehensiveness is desired, but it's questionable to me whether a routine seven-reception, 65-yard performance is significant enough to be mentioned.
  • Pre-draft: "Mitchell was also criticized by scouts for his small frame and character concerns." The scouts had the concerns, not Mitchell, right? Prose is a little ambiguous on that at the moment.
  • Is there a known reason why Mel Kiper downgraded Mitchell in his draft projections? Giants2008 (Talk) 03:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Deadspin: The article (I've just learned) was written by Will Leitch, who is the founder of the website and later wrote for the New York Times.
  • Re: excessive minor statistics: this was also brought up in the peer review for the professional career section. I'll work on it.
  • Re: character concerns: I'm not too sure how to rearrange this, but I've given it a shot.
  • Re: Kiper: I would guess it's because of other players' draft "stock" rising after their Pro Days or something, but I don't believe there is information on the true details.
  • Besides these, I believe I have addressed your concerns. Thanks for the review. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've now appropriately addressed Mitchell's "drop" down Kiper's draft board in the article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning oppose: This looks a very comprehensive and generally well written article, which covers his career very effectively. So far, I have only read the first couple of sections in detail. However, I have some concerns about a few aspects at the moment. My main worry is that this is probably fantastic if you are a football fan, but not if you are a general reader. My knowledge of American Football is slim, and I found parts to be hard going. An FA needs to be accessible to the general reader (although not every single aspect of the sport needs to be spelt out), and we are not quite there yet. However, it should not be too difficult to sort out one way or another. (I think a few of my comments echo those by Giants above, but I only realised afterwards) --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • The first paragraph of the lead could do with being a little stronger. As someone who has never heard of him, I would expect the first paragraph to let me know more about his achievements, and more of an overview of his career, not just the first years of it.
  • Also, I think the lead goes into too much detail over his career, at the expense of other aspects of the article, such as Early years and Personal.
  • For idiots like me who aren't too familiar with the sport, maybe link "reception", "touchdown", "touchdown pass"?
  • "and caught only twelve passes the entire year": I'm assuming this is bad, but maybe it could be made a little clearer (e.g. "considered poor for XXX")?
  • "After Freeman left before the 2003 season, Mitchell became the slot receiver once again." Not quite sure about "after…before" here. Maybe "After Freeman left prior to the 2003 season…" or maybe even "Mitchell became the slot receiver once again during the 2003 season, after Freeman left".
Early years
  • "Mitchell earned The Ledger second-team all-area honors": Not quite following what it was that he earned here.
  • If he was drafted, what happened to his baseball subsequently?
  • "Mitchell visited the University of Florida, Florida State University, the University of Miami, and Michigan State University before he committed to the University of California, Los Angeles to play football for the Bruins.": Seems over-detailed to me, but if this is significant, it could do to be spelt out.
College career
  • Reading this section, I am a little concerned that it is almost impossible to read, if you do not understand football terminology, without following a lot of links, which is rather distracting and discouraging. For example, "He had one rushing attempt for 30 yards on a reverse, 78 yards on three kickoff returns, and 17 yards on three punt returns." is almost impenetrable for me, even clicking on "reverse". While I obviously would not expect every part of this biography to spell out rules and terminology, for a FA it is better if the reader can discover most of the relevant information without clicking and clicking. And each term would only need to be explained once, and then used freely throughout the rest of the article. This is the way that most current sports FAs operate.
  • "Mitchell sat out the 1997 season for the UCLA Bruins by taking a redshirt." Although this is linked, I think it would help the reader more if it could be explained briefly in the text without having to follow a link to discover what "taking a redshirt" means.
  • "four catches for 108 yards and one touchdown pass (79 yards) from quarterback Cade McNown": Again, without expecting a description of the rules of football, I think that here, where this terminology is first used, a long-hand explanation of what this means would really benefit the non-specialist reader.
  • "one rushing attempt for 30 yards" Link?
  • "He was named the Pac-10 Offensive Player of the Week for his efforts in the game": Again, it would be nice to know what was this award, for what reasons was it given, and by whom was it awarded, without clicking links.
  • "after a "remarkable" recovery": Who said it was remarkable? Press? Doctors? Team-mates?
  • "Mitchell and Poli-Dixon worked out with Minnesota Vikings receivers Randy Moss and Cris Carter": Does this mean trained, or worked in a gymn, or something else?
General
  • Although I have not read the complete article, I notice that there is no section on "style" or "technique". Most sports FAs have something about this; even if there is not a dedicated section, there is information throughout the article (I apologise if it is there and I haven' seen it). For example, what was his style of play? Why was he successful? How did contemporaries rate him? What did the press or other critics say? I'm not sure listing awards is enough as these do not comment on his play. Scanning through, there seem to be some bits from coaches, etc, but I am not getting an impression of how he played or what people thought of him.--Sarastro1 (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, I'll try to address your concerns. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your suggestion for a "style" or "technique" section, American football is not cricket. Of the three American football biography FAs (Tyrone Wheatley, Scott Zolak, and Jim Thorpe), not a single one has this section, as there really is no "style" or "technique" for American football players. Maybe quarterbacks, but certainly not wide receivers such as Mitchell. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I wasn't thinking just about cricket. Many baseball and ice hockey articles that I have reviewed have this section, but as I said above I would not insist on an actual section. However, there must be something on his technique, or what made him good. Was it speed? Catching ability? Throwing (Sorry, I'm probably just betraying my ignorance here!)? What were the skills he practised which made him effective? Please feel free to argue! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can find and I'll get back to you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been 18 days since this comment. Any progress to report? We can't leave articles at FAC indefinitely, and this is slipping toward the bottom of the page, so there needs to be some kind of response soon. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been busy IRL. I'll be working on the article again tomorrow but may end up withdrawing if I can't find more time. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have addressed several points in the comments above. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 16:09, 28 March 2012 [10].

Stephen Hawking

Nominator(s): Fayedizard (talk) 11:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria as I understand them. Until very recently it was one of those wonderful articles that had arisen through many thousands of editors making one or two changes. Since then I nominated it for GA, which it passed following review from Binksternet, and has also had a peer review from Finetooth (with continuing useful comments from Binksternet)- both these processes have improved the article immensely. I'd like to shepherd it thought the next stage towards FA. :) Fayedizard (talk) 11:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't know much about FAR, but for what it's worth: the second paragraph in the speech synthesizer section sounds a bit like OR. Would it be possible to cite sources which talk about his public appearances? The TED video has maybe one usable line. Hope that helps, SPat talk 00:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, good catch - that one has appeared to slip though the net, sources added and content tweaked :) How does it look now? Fayedizard (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books
I've replaced all book refs (with one exception) with references generated by [11] - this should have addressed the above recommendation as a side effect :) Fayedizard (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, though a couple (ex. ref 32) appears to have lost their page number(s). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
Books where going the opposite way to everything else - have fixed this now. Fayedizard (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 22, 28, 39, 69, 74, 75: publisher?
So I'm a little unsure of myself for this one - I had to make my best guess for publisher of some of these, and I suspect you might have some follow up recommendations... Fayedizard (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For 28, the publisher appears to be "Charlie Rose LLC", otherwise alright. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed :) Fayedizard (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for consistency in italicization
I've fixed a few problems with this (mostly the guardian) - I ran into a little bit of a problem with this recommendation - my understanding is that italicization depends mostly on if the text appears as a 'work' or a 'publisher' in the template, so I'd generally be inclined to move all the sources to use 'work' whereever they can, even if it's a bit of a judgement call (for example, BBC news might not necessarily be a 'work', and the BBC documentary listings are even less so). On the other hand, moving everything over to use 'work' instead of 'publisher' conflicts a little with your previous suggestion so I've clearly confused myself a little - can you go into a bit more detail on this recommendation?
Basically, if you're using a publication name it should be italicized, if you're using a URL it can either be italicized or not (but should be consistent - either all are italicized or all aren't), anything else shouldn't be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - this should have mostly been sorted out by the other changes, but I'll keep looking Fayedizard (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how online news sources are notated
I've made some changes that I think you were thinking of - but I've got a nagging feeling I've missed some - have I missed something obvious?
Well, you've got some that look different still - compare 31 and 75, or 30 and 71, or 55 and 57, or 69 with pretty much anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Made a bunch of changes :) Fayedizard (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced Famousscientists (and in the process, improved the year) - dropped the O'brian content, and sourced the discover channel mention - thank you for finding the simpsons reference! :) Fayedizard (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't repeat cited sources in External links (and that section could stand to be trimmed)
It's been cut down - some repeated links have gone (such as IMDB) because the source has disappeared - It appears logical to keep his homepage even though some info is sourced to it - can we talk about this some more? Fayedizard (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the homepage is an exception to the redundancy rule of redundancy - feel free to keep it. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further reading and Bibliography format should be the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced all book refs (with one exception) with references generated by [12] - this should have addressed the above recommendation as a side effect :) Fayedizard (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thank you for checking - these all look very sensible and should be quite quick to deal with - although I've been called away unexpectedly so, assuming it's okay by you, I'll work these (and hopefully other changes suggested by more reviewers) in tomorrow evening :) Fayedizard (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Support. Nice work taking the initiative to carry this through GA and the FA process, especially in light of it being an article that was gradually built up by a variety of editors over time. Polishing articles like these takes a lot of effort. With the changes you've made here I think this very important article meets the FA standards. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Support from Cryptic C62, provided that the concerns from Binksternet are addressed. My big concern is that much of the language is not written in an encyclopedic manner, and that there are far too many instances of irrelevant trivia. The first paragraph of Illness is not really about Hawking so much as it is a collection of tidbits. Phrases like "Worried that he would lose his genius" should be rewritten in a more formal tone, and then there are things like "Hawking married his personal care assistant, Elaine Mason (who was previously married to David Mason, the designer of the first version of Hawking's talking computer)". Blagh! I encourage the authors to ask themselves "Does this actually help the reader understand the subject?" whenever they are tempted to pepper the prose with such factoids. Here are some other nitpicks:

I've dropped the tabloidish bits about David Mason and Mensa, and also I've been quite harsh with the opening paragraph of illness.
Definitely looking better, though there is still some polishing to be done. I will continue to keep an eye out for trivia, and I hope that you will do the same. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the lead should make more of an effort to explain why he has been bestowed so many others rather than simply enumerating those honors. I would say that much of the information in the third paragraph should be moved to the first, and even that would not be enough to fully explain how influential this man has been.
So... I've moved quite a bit of the lead around now - very sensible to put the honours after the things he did to earn them! It's now three paragraphs of roughly 'Scentist-honours-celebreity' - I'm happy to take direction on parts you might want expanding... Fayedizard (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to avoid extremely short paragraphs, particularly the two-sentence nugget in the lead. Such paragraphs should be expanded, merged, or deleted.
So the lead should have been addressed per the above - I've done some more merging and dropping of various parts today - is it looking a little bit better? Fayedizard (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Illness section seems to assume that the reader is already familiar with the fact that Hawking has an illness. This section is also written out of chronological order, which is confusing.
made some revisions today that I think should have dealt with this....Fayedizard (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During a TED Conference talk, it took him seven minutes to answer a question." A much more revealing statistic would be one which states how many words or sentences he produced in those seven minutes. As it is currently written, this sentence doesn't give the reader any indication of how difficult speech synthesis is. I have been asked questions which have taken far longer than seven minutes to answer and I can speak perfectly well.
Hmm I'd like to open a bit of a dialog on this... as you know from the AAC article you reviewed, this is a difficult thing to measure - sticking to the sources I've got one that says 15 words a minute http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/09/stephen-hawking-voice_n_1193692.html - but also much less - also very much depends on what he's talking about and so on - how would you feel about "it took him seven minutes before he started answering a question", which I think addresses the ambiguity and makes the point slightly better? Fayedizard (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a fan of the list format for the Publications section. If these publications are notable enough to be mentioned here, shouldn't their significance be described in some way? Some of his books and papers are arguably among the most influential scientific writings ever produced, and yet here they are presented with equal weight given to his children's books.
I've dropped the technical list as a start - on the grounds that his influential science stuff has been talked about in the influential science section. This makes the section much more about his popular writing, which I think is an improvement. I'd be quite happy to drop all of the lists to be honest but I thought this was a natural step to see how people felt.... Fayedizard (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, it appears that the list format is fairly standard for subjects with a large number of publications. Struck. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some discrepancies between the infobox and the body. The infobox claims that Hawking worked in the field of "Applied mathematics", and that he is known for "Quantum gravity", yet neither of these two terms appear anywhere else in the article. The first is not necessarily an issue, since this may be referring to the singularity theorems, though the broad term "applied mathematics" might be a bit misleading if this is what it refers to. The second is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed, either by adding content related to quantum gravity, or by removing the claim from the infobox if it is not factually accurate.
Whoops - bit of a relic from the peer review - I'd updated the text but not the inforbox - done. Fayedizard (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hawking was passing, but his unimpressive study habits resulted in a final examination score on the borderline between first and second class honours" I'm assuming that both first and second class honours require passing grades, yes? If that's the case, why does the sentence start with "Hawking was passing"? If he was on the borderline between first and second honours, he must necessarily have been passing. This construction might mislead some readers into thinking that he nearly failed the course.
DoneFayedizard (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't clear to me why the Extraterrestrial life subsection is placed in the Career section. The information presented therein does not seem to be career-related, and would be better suited for a Personal beliefs section or something similar.
So my reasoning here is that it follows very nicely from the zero-g flight, and I think it would look best with those two sections together - I can see, for example moving the pair of them into a section called, say, 'Space' but I might want someone to suggest a much better name first... :s Fayedizard (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just use the Personal life section? Extraterrestrial life is fairly similar to Religious views, ironically enough. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved - looks okay in personal life... :) Fayedizard (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Hawking, a German V-2 missile struck only a few streets away." Relevance?
Dropped as trivial (also another reviewer has commented on same sentence) Fayedizard (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the outcome of this FAC, I wish to thank Fayedizard and his cohorts for the work they have done thus far. I would be happy to conduct a more thorough review if it is deemed necessary. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your review! Very sensible and well-thought out stuff - I'm going to do my best to argue you down to 'weak oppose' 'weak support' but there's no doubt that the article will be the better for the process :) Fayedizard (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet comments
  • The V-2 "few streets away" sentence is a little vague. Context places it in London but right now it's puzzling rather than smoothly flowing. Do we know if the nearby V-2 strike occurred before the Hawkings left London? Was it the catalyst for the move, or was it later, and more like proof of the wisdom of the move? Or is the bit unnecessary?
Dropped as unnecessary (also another reviewer has commented on same sentence) Fayedizard (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is ambiguity in this sentence: "Inspired by his mathematics teacher, he originally wanted to study the subject..." The previous sentence is about the interest in science, so the reader may mistakenly think the maths prof inspired young Hawking to enter the field of science, but we find later that the inspiration was for maths.
Reworded Fayedizard (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can we say "maths" in place of "the subject"? Binksternet (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Regarding University College, when referring to this body do we say "it" or "they"? In the US it's usually "it" but the British way is usually "they", right? (Forgive me my parochial Californianity.) The relevant phrase is "it would not accept applications".

Reworded Fayedizard (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This question came up at Talk:Stephen Hawking/GA4, and was dismissed as unimportant to GA. For FA, let's nail it down for sure: Does MOS tell us to "silently correct" Berman's Oxford-ized spelling of "realized" to fit the article's non-Oxford UK spelling style? It would become "realised". Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - I've asked over at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Query_from_FAC to get a solid answer...
They agree that realised should stay as is. Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the beginning of the "Career" section, the first sentence should include the surname Hawking swapped for one of the instances of "he".
DoneFayedizard (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any sources commenting on the assessment of Hawking's chance to live, stated at the time of first diagnosis? Did Hawking have a period of significant depression—did he initially give up? Or did he charge forward with his life despite the disease?
  • In the highest sorts of literary sources, the sentence starting "Hawking was elected as one of the youngest Fellows" would be trimmed to "Hawking was elected one of the youngest Fellows".
DoneFayedizard (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the word "namely" needed?
DroppedFayedizard (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This bit is really passive: "discussions with Neil Turok led to the realisation that the no-boundary proposal is also consistent with a universe which is not closed". Can we get a glimpse into Hawking's involvement with this adjustment to the proposal? If the development did not involve Hawking it could be elided.
  • Regarding the Thorne–Hawking–Preskill bet, the article says there was a subscription to Penthouse involved. Of course, Hawking's biography article cannot carry all the details of the related articles, but this seems to be a significant lack which could be mentioned quickly along with the other conditions of the bet. Alternatively, to keep this biography streamlined, the encyclopedia can be presented as only one of the wager loss conditions, not the whole thing.
  • The phrase "announced his plan to take a zero-gravity flight in 2007" should probably replace 2007 with "later that year" as the year was already named.
DoneFayedizard (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the next sentence, "for the latter" makes no sense to me. (What was the former item?)
Rewritten the surrounding textFayedizard (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyperbole: "This was the first time in 40 years that he moved freely, without his wheelchair." You know, there was not much difference between Hawking weightless and Hawking floating in bathwater. The point is that Hawking was not suddenly able to bound off of walls or anything really amazing.
DroppedFayedizard (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unnecessary: "The fee is normally US$3,750 for 10 to 15 plunges, but Hawking was not required to pay the fee." This whole sentence is not needed, since we already know Branson paid.
Rewritten so that it is clear that Branson promised to pay for the virgin bit, rather than the vomit comet bit.
Can we provide a synonym for one of the instances of the word "fee" in the sentence? Perhaps "The cost is normally"... Binksternet (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have dropped one of them :) Fayedizard (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DoneFayedizard (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the 20 April 2009 hospitalisation important enough for this FA? The brief crisis resulted in no lasting damage, no difference in long-term prognosis.
Dropped (and now the paragraph finnishes much more pleasingly… Fayedizard (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the 20 April 2009 hospitalisation stays in the article, its current placement is awkward. It does not flow from the previous idea. Or maybe just its wording is awkward. Perhaps the paragraph would flow better if we say Hawking continues with his luck, or that the "gloom and doom" prediction was dodged again in April 2009 when a chest infection was swiftly overcome.
  • A firmer word is needed: "Asked why he has still kept the same voice after so many years, Hawking mentioned"... This "mentioned" is actually "answered", isn't it? Or "replied", "responded".
I went with 'stated' Fayedizard (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (On a side note, I am curious to find out how many text-to-speech synthesizers of his preferred model are in his possession. Certainly there would be more than one, and a consideration of how many different places in his house Hawking would want to communicate while not in his wheelchair brings to mind the bath and the bed, at the very least. How many wheelchairs are there—the best back-up one would need its own box. And how many boxes are on the shelf waiting to be called to duty; how many on the workbench waiting to be fixed?)
It's an interesting angle and certainly something we can have a chat about - but most of my information is ancedotal and it's a fairly undersourced area with quite a lot of conflicting information :( Fayedizard (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who? "...interview with Hawking's technician indicates that he is still using"... I bet it is Hawking that is still using rather than the technician. Or recast the troublesome part as "Hawking's technician indicates that an older synthesiser is still being used with circuitry dating from the 1980s"…
I replaced 'he' with Hawking…Fayedizard (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statues: was the 2007 Cambridge statue of Hawking moved to Cape Town in 2008? Or is the Cape Town statue a second casting from the same mould?
I dropped the mention entirely - looks like something has slipped by - I couldn't find any evidence of the statue at all… Fayedizard (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stephen Hawking Building in Cambridge opened on 17 April 2007." I think this needs to start with "The".
Done Fayedizard (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hawking has stated that he did not see much point in obtaining a doctorate if he were to die soon." This needs more context, such as when he said this or at least what period of his life he was referring to (his 20s, of course). Establishing the time frame is especially necessary because the next sentence starts with "Hawking later".
have reworded somewhat…Fayedizard (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The spelling of "led" in "US-led" is American. British style is "lead", pronounced the same. Perhaps the wording can be changed to avoid the led or lead construction. In the same sentence, the two quotes must be cited. This Associated Press article (cited here in the article) says that one of the quoted phrases is other than what is in our biography: we have "based on lies" which is AP's paraphrasing, but Hawking is quoted directly as saying "The war was based on two lies. The first was we were in danger of weapons of mass destruction and the second was that Iraq was somehow to blame for September 11th." Another point with this quote is that we are not seeing Hawking speak out before the war started which is one impression the reader might take away; we are seeing Hawking's disgust with the war after 1.5 years of it. His public disgust was targeting the US 2004 presidential race in an attempt to reduce the votes for incumbent president Bush who strongly pushed for that war. When the Trafalgar Square demonstration is mentioned in the next sentence, it seems as if it an extension of Hawking's earlier anti-war stance, but the sources establish Hawking's anti-war comments as occurring at the demonstration. If there is an earlier anti-war stance established by Hawking it needs its own cite.

    I don't recommend devoting more space to this theme but we should either summarize Hawking accurately or get the quote right.

I've reworded and reduced slightly - could you take another look? I'm not entirely sure I've got this right… Fayedizard (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two clunky instances of "name"-root words in the same sentence: "When asked to name a teacher who had inspired him, Hawking named..." This is followed shortly by a third. How about "sponsored one of the four"?
Reworded. Fayedizard (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He has visited it"... Visited what? The subject is not clear.
Changed. Fayedizard (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too passive: "It was announced by the BBC that he..." The "he" is also weak, as we have not been discussing Hawking in the previous sentences but his voice. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've reduced this Fayedizard (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stronger word needed: "he presented a mathematical basis for his assumptions"... This bit has Hawking making assumptions about alien life but he is not assuming as much as he is theorising or projecting.
Dropped the segment, was never a massive fan… Fayedizard (talk) 14
02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Not descriptive enough; inaccurate: "Hawking theorised on the existence of extraterrestrial life..." I think Hawking differentiated between possible types of extraterrestrial life.
It's now 'Hawking discussed the existence of' Fayedizard (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interviews with a documentary? "His 2010 book The Grand Design and interviews with the Telegraph and the Channel 4 documentary Genius of Britain..." How about this: "In the Channel 4 documentary Genius of Britain, in his 2010 book The Grand Design, and in interviews with the Telegraph, Hawking has clarified…"
I like it. Done. Fayedizard (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His ex-wife, Jane, has stated he was an atheist." What period of time did she mean? The sentence uses past tense, so we are left wondering what is the time frame of Hawking's atheism. The next sentence also uses "has stated" which is clunky writing. Further clunkiness is evident with one more "stating" in the paragraph.
reworded, only one stat* left...
DoneFayedizard (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • British "lead" or US "led" again? "led him to write".
  • Is this intentional? "accessible to an wider audience"
  • In general, I think references should go at the end of a sentence unless there is a compelling reason to put the reference after a certain fact or interior quote. I believe that refs inside sentences do not aid in reading flow. The most egregious example of this is the ref following "which didn't turn out well for the Native Americans" followed by "he said." There may be others.
  • That's my in-depth run through the prose. Binksternet (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is a poor choice, the deletion of several sources saying Hawking is an atheist. The information is important, in my opinion. If consensus here overrules me, then the category about being an atheist is orphaned. I would rather see his atheism mentioned in the article. Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, while several reviewers have focused on prose, citation consistency, and MOS issues (1a, 2, and 3), I have serious concerns about focus, comprehensiveness and sourcing (1b, 1c, 4), which I don't think this article can overcome during the tenure of a FAC. I'll be typing up my review over the next few days, but can't get to it today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose by User:SandyGeorgia, and suggest withdrawal. Concerns over tone, comprehensiveness, sourcing, and structure/organization of this article. While I appreciate that several good reviewers have combed over the prose and the citations for consistency, I don't believe the more important matters of 1b, 1c, and the structure of the article can be addressed within the timeframe of a FAC. The tone of this article-- containing much poorly organized trivia while never really addressing the scientist or the person in depth-- seems more fitting for a pop celebrity (if even that). Organizationally, the article bounces all over the place, reading like a collection of trivia developed piecemeal over time by a collection of writers personally fascinated with Hawking the "celebrity", but never comprehensively addressing the man, his career, his personal life, or his significance as a scientist. It is so easy to find information about Hawking on the internet, that for a featured article, one expects an indepth look at an important scientist-- not a collection of trivia. In fact, while the New York Times bio on Hawking tells us in the first line who he is and why he's important as a scientist, this article's first sentence presents Hawking as a "celebrity", and that tone and focus persists throughout the article. We never get the same clear sense of why Hawking is important that we get from one paragraph of the NYT. This bio gives a sense of why he's significant, and we can also compare with this one.

I suggest serious review is needed by members of the Math and Physics WikiProjects, to better account for the significance of his work as a scientist over the focus on celebrity.

Organization: it's all over the map, and not easily fixable. For starters, "Career"-- which we expect to be a large part of the article and well-developed-- is but a fraction of the article, which bounces around (Early life isn't-- it covers through college, Lists are interspersed in what seems a random fashion, later we come back to Personal life, which is short on discussion of the man, long on trivia, "Career" begins with a discussion of his illness, which is covered again in another section, etc.) I don't understand why there's an entire section devoted to his speech synthesizer or to the bet. Or to each of the choppy sections in Personal life-- none of those sections contains more than a paragraph.

By the way, prose, "Hawking is said to be looking for a replacement since ... " Why "said to be"? By whom? Why leave the reader guessing about why the sentence is phrased that way?

Prose again, "His ex-wife, Jane, has stated he was an atheist.[63] Hawking has stated that he is ... " Was or is? Why the switch frm past to present tense? Did something change, or is this just a grammatical problem?

1c, thorough survey of relevant literature: The Larson biography is hardly used, the Ferguson biography and the White and Gribbin biography are not used, and the Jane Hawkins memoir is mentioned, but not used as a source. We get almost no information about the man in this article, yet there are four biographies that are scarely used. It looks like there's an emphasis on easily accessible information from the Internet and lesser quality sources like newspaper articles. This lack of a serious literature review and reliance on easily digestible newspaper sources seems to have resulted in a piecemeal article that gives undue weight to certain tidbits such as the zero gravity flight, his views on extraterrestrials, discussion of his voice synthesizer, interviews given to students, but short discussion of the significance of the man as a scientist or his work, and no critical evaluation of his contributions.

Uncited text, samples: "He left Oxford for Trinity Hall, Cambridge, where he engaged in the study of theoretical astronomy and cosmology." and "Hawking's daughter, Lucy, is a novelist." and "He has visited the school to deliver a lecture of his own and has also granted a lengthy interview to pupils working on the school magazine, The Albanian." (why do we care????)

Source check, not supported by source, samples only:

  • Article: Hawking was elected one of the youngest Fellows of the Royal Society in 1974, and in the same year he accepted the Sherman Fairchild Distinguished Scholar visiting professorship at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) to work with his friend, Kip Thorne, who was a faculty member there
    • Source: [13] 1974 Stephen was inducted into the prestigious Royal Society on May 2. The family spend the year in Pasadena, California, where Stephen held the Sherman Fairchild Distinguished Scholar visiting professorship at the Caltech;
      • no mention of being the youngest ever Fellow or of Kip Thorne
  • Article: He supplied a mathematical proof, along with Brandon Carter, Werner Israel and D. Robinson, of John Wheeler's no-hair theorem – that any black hole is fully described by the three properties of mass, angular momentum, and electric charge.
  • Article: Subsequently, he became research director at the university's Centre for Theoretical Cosmology. He is also a fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, and a distinguished research chair at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario
  • Article: A Cambridge scientist built a speech generating device that enabled Hawking to write onto a computer with small movements of his body, and then have a voice synthesiser speak what he typed
    • Source: http://www.hawking.org.uk/living-with-als.html
      • The source credits a Californian scientist for developing the computer software and "David Mason, of Cambridge Adaptive Communication" for creating a hardware solution that was portable.
  • Article: Hawking's belief that the lay person should have access to his work led him to write a series of popular science books in addition to his academic work. The first of these, A Brief History of Time, was published on 1 April 1988 by Hawking, his family and friends, and some leading physicists. It stayed on the British Sunday Times best-sellers list for a record-breaking 237 weeks
  • Article: The DECtalk DTC01 voice synthesiser he once used, which has an American English accent, is no longer being produced. Asked why he has still kept the same voice after so many years, Hawking mentioned that he has not heard a voice he likes better and that he identifies with it. Hawking is said to be looking for a replacement since, aside from being obsolete, the synthesiser is both large and fragile by current standards. Although a mid-2009 corporate press release said that he had chosen NeoSpeech's VoiceText speech synthesiser as his new voice
    • Source: http://www.gizmag.com/go/2708/ - a press release
      • No mention of a Dectalk voice, of its accent, or that it is discontinued. No mention why he had kept the same voice or that the synthesiser was large and fragile.

Infobox: Ending with some easy things that shouldn't be happening at this stage, the infobox has numerous items that are cited nowhere in the article. Even if some of this information was cited, it wouldn't belong in the article anyway. There is a long list of "Doctoral students" in the infobox, none of whom are mentioned or cited in the article, several of whom are not red-linked and may not meet notability, and even if they did, why do we care? Unless there is something worth writing about them specifically because they were his doctoral students, why are they mentioned at all? And if they're worth mentioning in an infobox, they're worth mentioning in the article. The infobox also states that Einstein influenced Hawking, but this is mentioned nowhere in the article.

Why is Introduction to quantum mechanics in See also? Why aren't those items worked in to the text? If they're worth mentioning in a featured article, there should be text.

Summarizing, in spite of several people combing through the prose, the article falls short on significant issues of sourcing, comprehensiveness, and a thorough survey of the relevent literature; for a featured article, we should know much more of the significance of Hawking's work and life than that he spent a few seconds of it weightless and that he wasn't charged a fee for that. These are samples only: I suggest withdrawal, reorganization, better sourcing, a more comprehensive look at the man and his work, less emphasis on trivia reported by the media, and review by math and physics WProjects. I just read above that Lemurbaby said "especially in light of it being an article that was gradually built up by a variety of editors over time" and the nominator said "articles that had arisen through many thousands of editors making one or two changes"; that's exactly how it reads, that is the problem, and that is not easily fixed in the timeframe of a FAC. I also wonder if some of the sourcing problems are due to the number of hands in the pot over time. At any rate, it will take some time to replace the inferior newsy sources with the number of biographies that have not been tapped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, thank you so much for the detailed review - you clearly put a lot of work into it and it's also excellent to get a review from someone who is quite so experienced in FA :) I'm going to put a lot of work into this this week - I'd like to get to a place where your position was 'Oppose, but not necessarily withdraw'. Looking through the detail of the review there are very few places where I think the issues are undeserved, many of them I was 50-50 about myself and left them in on the basis that I didn't want to start an edit war with an interested party (I'd particularly agree that the many editors over time is the basis for things like sources getting detached from the right bit of text...). Also, once again, thank you for raising the issue on the relevant wikiprojects - I suspect you will get a much better response than I did.Fayedizard (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Thank you, Sandy, for your spot-on review, you have clearly expressed what I was thinking. I am probably going to provide a review later on. In the mean time, I am hoping for substantial reorganizations of the article, filled with substance and background on his scientific achievements, though I am deeply skeptical. For now, this is a straight "oppose" from my side. Nageh (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Did WP:WikiProject Physics and WP:WikiProject Mathematics get notified and invited for review, as suggested by Sandy? Nageh (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nageh, great to hear from you :) I'm really looking forward to your review - I've made a number of changes based on SG's review and I'm just now waiting to find out if they would be happy with inline replies so I can talk a bit about the steps I've taken to address issues. As it happens, the article has been up at Physics for almost a month - I'm really hoping that Sandy's badgering might encourage more reviewers than mine did... might try maths as well but as I'd posted to Bio, disability, and physics I was worrying about spamming...Fayedizard (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realize you were waiting for a response from me. I don't think you can get there from here, with or without inlines. It is unfortunate that so many other reviewers spent time on polishing the prose, when the piecemeal article does not fulfill the basics of 1c, a thorough survey of the relevant literature. You can't just fix what I've listed by resourcing a few items from the laypress to the available bios; the article needs a complete overhaul, and that is best done off FAC. I suggest withdrawal and a complete rewrite after consulting the serious literature and the WProjects Math and Physics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 16:09, 28 March 2012 [14].

Broken-Hearted Girl

Nominator(s): Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I like the song and I have worked a lot on the article. It has also been copy-edited by another editor and I am very thankful to him. I will be very happy to make the corrections needed. Your help and suggestions are most welcome. With the essential being said, "Help me put an FA icon on it". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Jivesh boodhun. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is not my area of expertise, but at the nominator's request I ran an eye over the prose, and found nothing to grumble at. As far as I can see, this article is comprehensive, well-balanced, and the nominator's enthusiasm for the performer has not led him into gush. It seems to me to meet FAC criteria. Well done! Tim riley (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Excellent AmE style compliance, I couldn't find anything significant to comment on in the lead. Some nitpicks:

  • I don't think it's all too necessary to wikilink production here
    • Completely re-worded sentence due to concern raised below. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and gain some perspective" Anything in particular the perspective was to be gained on?
    • I didn't find anything related to this in the body of the article so this part of the sentence was removed all together. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will read through soon. Auree ★★ 23:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, done reading through. I made a light copy-edit, please review. The article is generally well written, but I have some concerns:

  • "I suppose many of our songs are in minor keys. We probably lean towards more a moody, melodic expression. It's what comes most natural[ly] for us." Has the quoted text here really been modified for reader convenience, or has it been corrected? If the latter, consider using [sic] instead.
    • I removed the "[ly]". However, I did not add a [sic] because I didn't think it is a very obvious error that will intrigue an average reader and I think we can get away with it because it is an interview. I can add the sic if needed anyway, though. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph of Writing and production, there are three consecutive sentences with the same inline citation; citing only the last sentence would suffice.
  • Is it correct to address the music video protagonist by "Knowles"?
    • I've copy edited the section. Instances of "Knowles" and "the singer" have been replaced with "the protagonist", "the woman" and "Knowles' character". Let me know if this is confusing. I'll be happy to re-work it. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better, although a few "she"s here and there wouldn't hurt either
  • Replaced one instance with "she". I tried not to overdo it due to repetition. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 02:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she is desirous of spending" Tighten to "she wants to spend"?
  • "produced a new version of "Broken-Hearted Girl" to be marketed in European territories." Slightly awkward
    • Re-worded to "... produced a different version of "Broken-Hearted Girl" that was released in Europe." —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a "maxi single"?
  • We read ""Broken-Hearted Girl" received a favorable response from most music critics, who appreciated Knowles' vocals and the piano backing, but were unimpressed with the production", but quite frankly, the following doesn't quite tell us in what ways they were unimpressed with the production. What exactly is meant to be said here?
    • Good observation. I only found one review which dismissed the arrangement. I re-worded it to a more neutral "... who commented the vocal performance, lyrics, and arrangement." I did a similar thing in the lead. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nissim concluded that "the emotion-filled vocals offer yet more proof that [Knowles] is one of the finest pop singers of her generation", but "Broken-Hearted Girl" is unfortunately not as catchy as her best work" The latter part with "unfortunately" is unquoted, but reads like editorial opinion. Either include that part in the quote or remove "unfortunately".
    • I added an "although" before the quotation and removed "but unfortunately". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The repetition of "on which it" in the Chart performance section gets a bit tedious after a while. Can we add some variety here?
    • Added variety with re-structuring. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, check throughout for stubby, closely related sentences that could be combined (e.g. "In Australia, "Broken-Hearted Girl" debuted at number twenty-eight on the ARIA Singles Chart on September 21, 2009.[55] The following week, it ascended to number fifteen.[55]" and "On October 5, 2009, the song reached its peak position at number fourteen, and remained there for an additional week.[55] It lasted for nine consecutive weeks on the chart.") Again, watch out for duplicate consecutive inline citations.
    • Have thoroughly checked and combined sentences and checked for repeated redundant citations. Any citation that was consecutively placed three or more times was fixed. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any notable negative reception of her music video? Auree ★★ 01:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I did a search and found nothing from highly trusted reliable sources. I'll see if Jivesh finds anything.
      A huge thanks for a great review and copy edit. I think your suggestions have helped a lot for the article's best. Thanks. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, all of your changes look good and have much improved the prose. I'll be happy to support in due time, although I would like to see some input from other reviewers before doing so. Good luck! Auree ★★ 01:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing negative about the video. Seems like Beyonce won the critics with her panda eyes. :) And thanks Auree. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It might be worth noting that some of the refs require having iTunes to access
  • May I know which ones Nikki? I don't think there are ones like that. All of them work irrespective of having or not having iTunes. I don't have iTunes, yet they work for me. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was trying to open FNs 33 and 34, to see why they looked exactly the same. 34 loaded normally as a website, but for 33 I got a message saying it was trying to connect to iTunes. There are several other pairs of iTunes refs that look the same - I just tried 35 and 36, and 36 opened my iTunes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found FNs 34 and 36 to require iTunes so I put "iTunes required" in the format parameter. But I'm not sure if these coincide with references that you found to be connecting to iTunes. If that's the case, would you suggest a "may require iTunes" for all iTunes references? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need more - do we know who the authors are, what the site editorial policies are? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For both? I thought I was clear enough for the second. It should not be regarded differently just because it is not a website based in the US or the UK. I can remove the first nevertheless. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, I have removed the first one. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comments

(Resolved comments from Two Hearted River moved to talk page)

  • I have strong reservations about the utility of reference [11] – it seems to be riffing on general themes in Knowles' music and not describing this song specficially
  • It describes the song and her music in general. Well, I won't doubt someone having written for BBC for ages. What you think about an established writer does not matter. Let alone the time you claimed what an established filmmaker said about "Single Ladies" was false. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion of this writer, I'm only considering his words. The only indication this article is about BHG is the title. And in the first sentence he says he's going to "plot out the arc of an entire relationship using just Beyoncé and Destiny's Child songs as narrative", and then he does it. We don't know what parts are about this song particularly without original research. You should not use this reference. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 16:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not removing. I suggest you read the ENTIRE article again. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Is it possible, do you suppose, to plot out the arc of an entire relationship using just Beyoncé and Destiny's Child songs as narrative? To the extent where you could make a film of it, without any dialogue, just songs, and it would all make sense? ... [This song will] take place shortly after things have really started to go wrong, but before they go really REALLY wrong. ... He'll be out, doing her wrong, and she'll be at home, curled into a photogenic corner..." – This song's video only shows her in a car and on a beach, so apparently the writer plucked that image from another song. Which parts of the article describe this song specifically? Without original research, we don't know. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 14:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For heaven's sake, he is talking about the song itself. Not the video. He only put a link to the video. Nearly, all critics do that. At least, he only left a link to it while others post the video itself in their review. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if he never watched the video, I don't believe we know without original research that only BHG is being described. Anyway, you can leave as is and when we've finished going through the entire article I will restate my concern for the FA director/delegate to consider. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 16:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if he never watched the video - where is the relation? And I won't believe what you believe is right. I will only go by what the critic said. And he clearly wrote this sentence, This song, thankfully, won't be part of that hour. No, it'll take place shortly after things have really started to go wrong, but before they go really REALLY wrong ... and then started to describe the song. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(More resolved comments from Two Hearted River moved to talk page. This review is not yet complete – need to scrutinize a few more sections...)

Next round:

  • The first three sentences suggest that each concert on the tour was virtually identical, but the references only describe individual shows. How do we know nothing different happened at the other hundred shows?
  • If anything different or notable happened, it would have received coverage. There may be hundred shows but there are more than hundred newspapers around the world. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the reader supposed to take away from the fact that she was wearing a white dress? And why do we care what she changed into for the next song?
  • What wrong in having some details? Do you want this to read like a shopping list? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lack of useful details doesn't mean we fill the void with fancruft. But I wish you would answer my original questions, because I am open to the possibility that this is not cruft. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 15:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The outfit descriptions are to synopsize the performances. But I guess they come across as irrelevant and crufty. They can be removed. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 16:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references from the second paragraph are describing specific shows, yet it reads like every performance was identical. I'd say the specific shows being described should be mentioned.
  • Because they are. The song formed part of a set list for a world tour. She will always wear the same costume, have the same band, everything will be the same. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your assertion is original research. A band that I'm interested in, The Black Crowes, posts their setlists after every show, and they are always different. How do we know Knowles' setlists are always identical? Or that she wore the same thing for every performance of a given song? Or that a reviewer would describe each and every performance of the song the same way? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 15:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do the reviews of Lamonte's performance tell us about the song?
  • The review exists because of his performance of the song. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, but this article is about the song. The reader can infer from the mention of the cover that this song has made something of an impression on people. Solid info, there. But you go one step further to tell us what a reviewer thought of the performance, and I don't know what the reader is supposed to take away (about the song itself and not Lamonte) from that tidbit. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 15:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kyung-lim's radio program is...based in South Korea?
  • Some credit tweaks I'll suggest: "vocals recorder" -> "recording engineer (vocals)"; "mixer" -> "mixing engineer"; "mixer assistant" -> "assistant mixing engineer"

Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 03:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind changing that oppose to comments? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what happens with these last few sections. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 17:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comments - Sorry Jivesh but the prose is below FA standard. I made a few edits in an attempt to reduce redundancy and overlinking [15], but I think your contribution stills needs a lot more work. The prose seems to me clunky and rushed. I know English is an evolving language, but I think colloquialisms and the jargon of the music business should be avoided when possible. The article lacks that final polish that "exemplifies our best work". Jivesh, I hate to ruin you day but, after so long at FAC and so little support, it is clear to me that more work is required. Graham Colm (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all the respect I owe to you, you have added a few words I don't even know. I had to open my dictionary. And Graham, most of what you have done here is finding synonyms. I am NOT saying this article is perfect. But I did not understand why we needed other forms of the same word with same meaning. And the links you removed were ones I was told to link. Read the above comments please. I cannot do something for one editor and something else for another. We will never reach a consensus this way. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have withdrawn my oppose – the article is improving. Graham Colm (talk)
  • This sentence from the Lead tells the reader little, "The ballad received a mixed reception from music critics, who commented on the vocal performance, lyrics, and arrangement." What else would music critics comment on? The production I suppose, but as it stands the sentence seems pointless. The Critical Reception section is good, please try to summarise it a little better.
  • You are so right here but again I had to change it what it is now because of a reviewer here. Anyway, I am adding back my original sentence and I am happy to do that. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we find a better expression for "love interest"? It's coy, colloquial and unencyclopaedic.
  • I think lover is even more unencyclopaedic. What about romantic interest? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, better. Graham Colm (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced the X-Factor stuff is relevant. Likewise, the fact that someone sang a cover version on the radio in South Korea. It's a weak way of concluding the article. Whereas ending with the quote from Barbara Ellen, writing in The Observer, would be strong. Graham Colm (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am removing everything but note that they were notable covers. One was on X-Factor and the other is a famous Korean girl group. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 13:52, 25 March 2012 [16].

Pakistan

Nominator(s): lTopGunl (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has recently received a peer review and all the required changes have been made to the article. The article is in good shape and well sourced. It has under gone a through overhaul in addition to the peer review. lTopGunl (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to delegates: WP:FFA, has already been on mainpage (should this article be re-promoted, that needs to be reflected at FFA, and mainpage appearance accounted for at FA). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I haven't read the article yet, but a couple quick things at first glance:
  • Repeated wikilinks seem to be an issue.
  • As of this revision ref #123 looks dead and 224 needs a subscription required template.
  • Check image captions for compliance with MOS:CAPTION.
  • "Tourism is also noted for its potential and Pakistan has been stated as the tourism industry's "next big thing"." You should probably note in text who said this. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned Lonely Planet in text. And 123 fixed, 224 removed. September88 (talk) 19:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completed MOS:CAPTION check. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's currently an NPOV tag on the article that should be addressed before this review goes too much further. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the NPOV tag, on the talk page, the tagger said he put it there because he thought one section was too small. As he didn't mention neutrality, I encouraged him to discuss his concerns about inadequate coverage or use an expand section template instead. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Issues were discussed at Talk:Pakistan/Archive 14#Bangladesh... the current version is according to the consensus. Actually editors suggest to reduce the redundancy further if possible. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am still highly dissatisfied with the meager coverage given to the events of 1971. It is by far one of the major events in the nations history, up to 3 million dead, up to 400,000 women raped, 25000 war babies, an economy destroyed, entire villages razed to the ground, the intellectual elite dragged from their homes and murdered, up to 10 million refugees fleeing to India and a further 30 million displaced. The partition of a nation is no small thing, and it needs considerable expansion. You quite simply cannot cover a genocide in a few lines. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the current rate, your aim seems to be geared towards making this article more about the Bangladesh Liberation War than even the Pakistan Movement itself. Mar4d (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreement with Mar4d. Pakistan's page is for summary of events and Bangladesh liberation has been covered enough in that respect already; infact it has the longest explanation in Republic section than any other event. So any further detail is completely unnecessary. Go to Bangladesh and Bangladesh Liberation War to put details. September88 (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has been stable content since quite some time... it even stayed almost the same during the full overhaul of the article in last three months. New issues only started arising when intentions for FAC were put on article talk. See, for instance, the RFC about the failed state label, consensus on keeping that out of this article (that RFC delayed the FAC for a month). For the current issues too.. the talk page currently has due discussion where the consensus was to only include the no of causalities to this section (which has been done). This is completely comprehensive and as of now by-passes POV issues without going in much detail of them. Those dedicated articles are for those issues. This is a country article and going into details of each issue is completely inappropriate. Mentioning one view will require to present all clarifications or view points which will make the single incident really long. Even the campaign for the country's independence has been mentioned in a comprehensive way instead of lingering details. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously you are both wrong, articles are meant to reflect what majority of sources say. Currently the genocide is a few brief lines, hardly enough to cover the events. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As TopGun says the number of casualties has been mentioned, according to the sources you are talking about, after due discussion on Talk Page. Now further expanding on basis of strong feelings of a user on this issue has no place here; the article has to be kept reasonable length. Now if you can please properly address all points raised by the three user in reply to your comment, then we can continue this discussion. September88 (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The genocide which lead to the destruction of a nation currently has ten lines. The Media and entertainment is as follows, 9 lines for the TV station. 7 lines for music. So entertainment gets 16 lines, but a genocidal campaign which split the nation gets 10? Perhaps people ought to address my points as neither yourself or Mar4d have raised any. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is this FAC going slow or this much time is normal before actual evaluation starts? --lTopGunl (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked by TopGun to comment on this article. I probably won't provide a full review, but I'd like to offer the following comments on the basis of sections of the article I've selected more or less at random. I think that they indicate that the article is under-developed for FA status, so I'm leaning oppose. I'm shifting to full oppose due to serious problems with references not supporting the text as described below.

  • An issue raised in regards to the India article a while ago is that while a high proportion of inhabitants of that country live in poverty and its overall level of economic development is fairly low, all the photos in the article depicted prosperous people and brand new buildings. This article appears to suffer from the same problem.
  • The statement that "Growth has been slow during the civilian rules; while three long periods of military rule have seen remarkable recovery" considerably over-simplifies the argument made in the supporting reference, which explicitly states that there's more to this than just whether the rulers of the country were elected or not and notes that the military rulers did a poor job of building economic capacity. I'm pretty sure that I've seen the opposite argument made as well.
This statement is a fact. Even if on short term basis and whatever the reasons behind such an occurrence, it remains that Growth rate has been faster in those periods as has been individually noted in the history "Independence" section with sources as well. The article at this point is not arguing in favor of one or other type of government, simply stating under the "economy Section" how economy has performed after independence, and a source which vouches this is given. So adding support or against arguments for reasons behind or speculation on capacity from source is unnecessary. Will change wording to exactly to "economic growth rate" if its still an issue September88 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that, in essence, military governments have been good for the Pakistani economy when the source explicitly argues that things are more complicated than that. As such, this is one of the instances of the article misrepresenting its sources. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain again. Rough transcript from the source "Growth was relatively slow during the civilian rule in the 1950's under Zulfiqar Ali bhutto (1972-1977) and in the period (1988-200) under successive democratic governments. The two long periods of military rule under Ayub Kahn an d Zia ul Haq were periods of exceptional growth. The economy under General Musharraf has also seen remarkable recovery.

Now how exactly is the article's wording "Pakistan economic growth since its inception has been varied. Growth has been slow during the civilian rules; while three long periods of military rule have seen remarkable recovery." misinterpreting the source?

Yes the source goes on to further explain that there are other reasons behind such variable rate as well. But the fact remains. I've further tweaked the lines to include that the foundation for sustainable and equitable growth was not formed during that time. I hope its clearer now, and more matching the source. September88 (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Despite being a very poor country in 1947, the growth rate has been better than the global average during the subsequent four decades, but slowed in the late 1990s." - the 'despite' seems unnecessary here; it's generally much easier for less-developed countries to grow at high rates than it is for developed countries as they have more unused capacity.
Its directly from the source itself, and despite is meant to show the good growth rate as it was a poor country not just less developed. Removing it will take out the meaning of the sentence.September88 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, it's been taken almost word from word from the source and is a copyright violation. I don't think that the 'Pakistan Trade Development Authority' is a reliable source (it's obviously not independent of the government and has an agenda to promote the Pakistani economy) as well. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its almost similar because it explains some numbers, decades etc which can hardly to altered to avoid copy right or it'll not match the source; still it wasn't exactly similar to have copyright to have a banner it was explaining some stats not the countries views to be labeled on an agenda. Since I've removed the lines and source anyway debate is unnecessary. September88 (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Tourism is also noted for its potential and Pakistan has been stated by Lonely Planet as the tourism industry's "next big thing"" - The source provided doesn't support this, and appears to actually say the opposite. It starts with a warning against travelling to Pakistan and actually states that "Pakistan has been on the brink of being tourism's ‘next big thing’ for more years than we care to remember", which means something quite different than what has been plucked out from it, and the rest of the page states that while there's lots to see in Pakistan, it's a risky place to visit. Many national governments warn against travel to Pakistan as well (for instance, Australia).
Fixed by a user according to source.September88 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "transport infrastructure accounts for 10.5% of Pakistan's GDP" - the source actually says that the transport sector represents this proportion of GDP.
Changed.September88 (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage of the country's military, science and technology and foreign relations hardly mentions the country's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, despite these being important to all three topics. The material which does exist on these weapons is sourced to a Pakistani Government publication and reads like propaganda, despite this being a controversial topic ("The need for strategic balance in interest of security lead to Pakistan establishing itself as a nuclear power in the wake of India's nuclear tests. Despite pressure from the world, Pakistan maintains an independent stance to further nuclear development and purchase military weapons.")
  • There's no material on Pakistani support for the Taliban prior to (and probably since) September 2001.
Taliban point has been answered by TopGun below. Science and technology, and Politics (military is a subdiviosn of politics) does clearly mentions the major nuclear program actually...what is the issue here...September88 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In anycase I've changed the wording to minimal deterrence policy in politics, which should alleviate any concerns as it encompasses any nuclear delivery systems like missiles. Naming specific missiles nuclear or no is undue here and belongs to their respective specific articles. As for the source, will re-check it as per RSA. RSA has not responded yet , but I've replaced it with BBC news source that transcripts the president's speech after the nuclear tests. September88 (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material on the Pakistani political system is very 'dry' and doesn't really give a feel for how politics works in this country.
All major factors of country's politics are explained. Foreign affairs as well as Administrative divisions and major political/geographic conflicts. It has basically all the material other FA country articles has in their political section. I'm not sure how or why any more detail is needed. The relevant articles are wiki linked if anyone wish for further details. September88 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and played a major role in rescuing trapped American soldiers from Mogadishu, Somalia in 1993 in Operation Gothic Serpent." - interesting for Americans, but a minor incident in Pakistani military history.
This is meant to show how Pakistan has been active in UN missions, and interms of Pakistan's contrition to UN, this is not a minor event. September88 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not just active, Pakistan has been one of the largest contributor to UN Forces and at times the largest contributor. And this is a well known Foreign/UN mission in Pakistan's military history. --SMS Talk 09:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on sources:
    • "Ayub Khan's successor, General Yahya Khan (1969–71) had to deal with a devastating cyclone which caused 500,000 deaths in East Pakistan." - needs a reference
    • About.com isn't a reliable source
    • What makes http://www.gendercide.org a reliable source?
    • Tourist guidebooks shouldn't be used as general references
    • Globalsecurity.org isn't a reliable source (it republishes stuff hoovered up from all over the place, and is full of errors)
    • Few of the many references to PDF documents have page numbers to where the material cited is located
    • At least two of the books in the 'further reading' section are also used as references Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • "Pakistan has been successful in foreign trade by rail and has traded with countries such as Turkey and China." - the sources provided do not support this statement, and describe feasibility studies for possible rail links with China and Turkey rather than actual rail traffic.
  • Something called "Draft: Role of Connectivity in Growth Strategy of Pakistan" is cited on four occasions. It's unlikely that a draft government report is a reliable source.
Why is it not reliable? Its from Planning Commission government of Pakistan and has given proper bibliography at the end, which includes independent books, renowned journals and international forums as sources. September88 (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What appears to be the main reference for the statement that "This period is marked with political instability, misgovernance and corruption." (Marie Chene. "Overview of corruption in Pakistan") is mainly focused on the period since 1998, and states that the problematic level of corruption hasn't changed much over this time. To the extent that it has material on the Bhutto and Sharif governments, it says that they were seen as being about as corrupt as the governments which have followed them. As such, it contradicts the implication that this was a period of unusually high corruption.

""This period is marked with political instability, misgovernance and corruption." (Marie Chene. "Overview of corruption in Pakistan")"

Two sources have been given for this statement which both explains the three factors which were highlight of that period. Yes the corruption problem remains but the point is no other government has the problem as a highlight as the governments during 1990-1999.

Marie Chene. "Overview of corruption in Pakistan, clearly says that the 1990's-1999 government were dissolved on misgovernence or corruption charges. That the succeeding government actually managed to reduce the corruption, and cases were filed against the 1990s governments on corruption charges. Yes it says that the corruption indicators have fell again, which pertains to current government, as their tenure is still remaining, expanding their highlights comes in recentism. If the whole report is read its obvious that the 1990s period has been most involved in corruption.

The second source which I've linked now, explains the economy of country since its inception and apart from general overview, the 1990s is the only period about which corruption charges have been specifically mentioned which indicates again that the highlight of those government was corruption. SO I don't see how the sources aren't matching with text here. 2ndly if there is still an issue I can refernce links which tells that Pakistan ranked 2nd, 5th, and 11th, in annual reports on the most corrupt countries in the world between 1996 and 1998, and that ranking has not fell so sharply in other decades. September88 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of the sources I've spot checked as part of these comments (which I generally selected on the grounds that they appeared questionable) have not supported the text in the article or do no appear to be reliable sources. As such, I'm moving to a full oppose. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide the other sources you consider unreliable as well and why, so we can check and replace with them better? September88 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are the sources I've specified as part of my review. However, given that several of the sources said the exact opposite to the text in the article they were referenced to, I have serious concerns about all the sources. Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which several sources say exact opposite things? The ones you've pointed out I've explained, and while there are points that can be debated, no source has said exact opposite of the text. In any case I've simply tweaked/removed the objectionable lines, and references. September88 (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Before I start checking out the issues pointed out, I'll specify that the alleged support for Taliban (both before and after 9/11) has been contested by Pakistan and is a very controversial topic in itself... this was discussed at [17] and the consensus was to exclude the specific details from this article and rather mention the US relations over it which are stated as: "The U.S. war on terrorism initially led to an improvement in ties between the two countries; however, the relationship was strained by a divergence of interests and resulting mistrust in the war in Afghanistan and on terrorism related issues." Including the details in this article will open a Pandora's box. definitely not comprehensive then. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Added image related to poverty in Pakistan. This image will rotate with other skyline images to keep in balance. [18] --lTopGunl (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Adding an image which, if I read the code correctly, will only be shown to one in three readers while the other two thirds of readers get images showing modern buildings is hardly 'balance' given Pakistan's actual economic situation. Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The other two images depict different arenas as well in their own context instead of just brand new buildings (see the discussion on the talk page for reference)... but the actual point being, the text along side the image does state that the economic condition isn't this bad. Also, I didn't seem to find more images of the sort (though will keep looking) - poverty in Pakistan article had only this - due to lack of coverage. I'll see if any of the other users can upload one. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Further Reading books replaced. September88 (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Added clarifications to images tagged by CMD. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      •  All PDF references have been updated with page numbers per pdf opener recognition, as some of them do not have page numbers written in the documents. September88 (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Nick-D on the Taliban issue, at least for the period before 9/11. It should be mentioned like the support to the mujahideen is mentioned. The support before 9/11 isn't really contested.
  • Gendercide is a reliable source as it is run by the renowned genocide scholar Adam Jones (Canadian scholar) who has written one of the leading academic textbooks on the issue, and lectured at Yale University.

JCAla (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a thread at RSN to further verify the sources objected on. The point on Taliban is moot as it will not get any consensus on talk page like before. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the article may not be sufficiently stable for FA status. Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion I pointed out in my first reply shows that this was long over and the related content is pretty stable. I've corrected some of the issues you pointed out. Will also be removing the references. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it quite telling that support to the mujahideen is mentioned (because it seems acceptable) but the support (at least the one up until 9/11 in which according to experts such as Ahmed Rashid 80,000-100,000 Pakistanis were fighting alongside the Taliban) is consistently tried to be removed from history. I think we can find two consensus sentences similar to the one on the Taliban article such as "From 1994-2001 Pakistan's military provided support to the Taliban while Islamabad followed an official policy of denial. Pakistan stands widely accused of continuing the support today which it denies." JCAla (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said... this is said to be undue in the country's history. Try a thread on the talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Why does the picture in the economy section have to be about poverty or related to an image showing a slum? I think a more neutral option would be something related to agriculture for example a picture of a rural farm etc. This would also be more relevant and representative, since rural agriculture dominates and is a backbone of Pakistan's economy. I really don't see any economic significance in a picture of a slum, TBH. Mar4d (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's more reasonable... replacing it with 2 rural images (in the switch) would do better than urban slums. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comment "Sepoy Mutiny, was the region's last major armed struggle against the British Raj" First, the sentence is probably technically wrong, as British Raj started after the Sepoy Mutiny. Second, if this was the last, which was the first? Did any other armed struggles occur before this? I mean Sepoy Mutiny is sometimes dubbed as first war of independence. Is it really the last? Are you emphasizing "major armed struggle"? What is the scale of "major" in that case? Is the "major" only in terms of number of people died, or, does it also involve the political/historical significance? If the number of casualties is not the only measure of "major"ness, then there were other armed revolts or acts. So, wordings may need to be modified here.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, "...it laid the foundations for the largely non-violent freedom struggle ". Sepoy Mutiny laid the foundation of the later non-violent freedom-struggle? Can you please provide a reference for this? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the lines to be better and add two additional refs. The refs hav in detail the armed movements before 1857's. September88 (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Pakistan claims Kashmir on the basis of a Muslim majority and geography, the same principles that were applied for the creation of the two independent states. First, the source does not mention "Geography" as the basis of Pakistan's claim over Kashmir. Second, what makes this source ("Zakat Foundation of America, a Muslim charity...") a reliable source?--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the source with more reliable sources. --SMS Talk 08:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, source is better now. It seems after reading the sentences that Pakistan claims Kashmir on the basis of geography and Muslim majority, and India on the basis of instrument of accession. However, India's claim is also on the basis of Geography. Indeed, if you have to include Geography as the basis of claim, both country's claim should include geography.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Observation. Despite the fifth-most spoken language among six main languages in the country (source:Pakistan census), Urdu is the national language of the country. Is there any reason behind it? If thre is, it may be interesting to mention. (not a requirement for FA, just an incidental observation).--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is already mentioned in the same sentence, it is the lingua franca. Muslim heritage should also have been mentioned.. do you want me to expand on it? --lTopGunl (talk) 08:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Urdu was considered in pre-independence period India, as Muslim's language and a symbol of unity among Muslims because of the Hindi–Urdu controversy. So after independence Muslim League leaders who were supporting Urdu before partition preferred it to be the national language instead of Bengali, Punjabi or any other regional language. And provinces were given choice to choose their own language[19]. --SMS Talk 08:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely what I meant by heritage, added your source and this info. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As of this version, the article still says The transport infrastructure accounts for 10.5% of Pakistan's GDP despite being pointed out in FAC that it is transport "sector" not infrastructure.

Also, The road infrastructure is better than the ones of India and China... The source (a draft from planning commission of Pakistan government) does not tell that road infrastructure is better than China.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the word to sector per source, didn't notice how it got back.. fixed it now. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

  • Research and development forms an integral part in Pakistan's economy. For the most of the 20th century, Scientific efforts were at the rising level in Pakistan, that brought international recognition in its achievements, and became a major component of Pakistan's national policy.

In the source (page 9, as mentioned in the reference) provided, I did not find anything that suggests "Research and development forms an integral part in Pakistan's economy". If you have used some sentences from the source to frame these two sentences in the article, please quote from the source (maybe quote within citation, not in the body of the article).

Also, "For the most of the 20th century, Scientific efforts were at the rising level in Pakistan", completely OR (on the basis of source provided). The source does not say anything about Pakistan's national policy either.

*In modern time, the work of Pervez Hoodbhoy, Ishfaq Ahmad, and Riazudding played a crucial development in particle and theoretical physics.

What is "modern time"?

*Pakistan also produced the world class mathematicians such as Asghar Qadir and Raziuddin Siddiqui where their research played a crucial advancement in mathematical physics.

Weasel word (world class); also wrong grammar.

* Munir Ahmad Rashid became the first Pakistani mathematician to provide the another theoretical proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in 2008

Source does not verify this information. Source is just a schedule of this person's speech on Fermat's last theorem, during a conference in Dreamland Hotel of Islamabad.

  • Salimuzzaman Siddiqui was the first Pakistani scientist to bring the anthelmintic, antifungal, antibacterial, and antiviral constituents of the Neem tree to the attention of natural products chemists. He was preceded by Atta ur Rahman, UNESCO laureate, and Naveed Zaidi, organic chemist being the first scientist to developed first workable plastic magnet at room temperature

Citations needed for both sentences. Wrong grammar in the second sentence. Why does it say "He was preceeded by..?" Salimuzzaman was preceded by the two other scientists? Preceded in what?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked. September88 (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Each and every year, scientists from all over the world are invited by the Pakistan Academy of Sciences and the Pakistan Government to participate in International Nathiagali Summer College on Physics, one of the largest seminar in Physics and Mathematics

The source provided (an address by the prime minister) does not support the claims "scientists from all over the world", and "one of the largest seminar" (bye the way, one of the largest of where? of Pakistan? of world?).

  • Naweed Syed became the first scientist who managed to "connect brain cells to a silicon chip"

Does not seem to be a notable person. Better source required, not just his lab page from the university.

I've added an independent source as well to prove nobility. September88 (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*In 1998, due to amid domestic and international pressure, Pakistan became first Muslim majority and seventh country in the world to successfully develop and test nuclear weapons

First, grammar wrong. Second, Pakistan had "international" pressure to develop nuclear weapon? Some other country was telling Pakistan to build it?--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 All the above concerns have been dealt with. Refs add and tweaks/cuts made to text. September88 (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not ready to be FA yet. Rationale as follows:

Criteria 1a. The prose is below standard for FA. I have given a few examples of grammar weakness, weasel words etc in my comments above.

1b. I am not sure about comprehensiveness as several discussions are going on (in article talk page or elsewhere) on inclusion of different topics, such as Balochistan insurgency, Taliban etc.

1c. Definitely NOT well-researched, and this is a major point of oppose. As User:Nick-D has pointed out above, the article indeed had opposite to what was stated in the source. Sometimes, the source does not mention what is stated in the article. This has led to decreased credibility of the article. Additionally, there is multiple reliable source issue.

1d. Neutrality -- I am not sure, as discussions on inclusion of different topics are ongoing.

1e. Stability -- yet not very stable.

Criteria 2. Does not follow WP:MoS properly. Some instances of year ranges not using mdash (inflation rate for the fiscal year 2010-11...) Single page reference sometimes uses "pp.". The article uses random capitalisation in words inside citations. For example, a randomly-chosen citation says, "Obituary: Munir Khan Dies; Developed Pakistan Bomb Project." This should be "Obituary: Munir Khan dies; developed Pakistan bomb project."

Another random example from within the text : For the most of the 20th century, Scientific efforts were at the rising level in Pakistan. Why the "s" of Scientific is in capital. Similar example are there in the part of the article that I read.

Best of luck. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I applaud the nominators for working on such a large topic, I must regretfully Oppose this article's promotion to featured status. It looks like the prose is not at featured quality, some examples:
  • "Pakistan is the first Muslim country in the world to embrak on a nuclear power program. [202]"
  • "The national sport of Pakistan is hockey which has earned it 8 of it's 10 Olympic medals"
  • "The well-known representatives of the contemporary Urdu literature of Pakistan includes Faiz Ahmed Faiz.Sadequain is known for..."
  • "At national level, football and Polo are prominent sports..."
  • I suggest contacting some copyeditors, the WP:GOCE could probably help, to go over the whole article--it's easy to overlook small things on a large article like this. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is adding {{done}} templates? Please remove them. See WP:FAC instructions: they create errors in the FAC archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced them with the text versions and escaped yours. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moral support, but ... This is a huge article on a huge subject, but too many problems remain.
  • Linking and prose is erratic; take these two sentences: "The southern plains are home to Jackal, mongoose, jungle cat, civet cat, scaly anteater, desert cat, the wild hare and crocodiles in the Indus while boars, deer, porcupines, and small rodents are common in the surrounding areas. The sandy scrublands of central Pakistan are home to a jackals, hyenas, wild cats, panthers, and leopards." No caps needed for "Jackal", which is linked in both sentences, and is preceded by an ungrammatical "a" in the second. Four species of cat are mentioned; only one is linked, and that to the wrong article - it should go to Asiatic Wildcat, the local sub-species, not Wildcat. It looks to me as if what Pakistan has are not "Desert cats" (aka African wildcat) but Sand cats, though I accept local terms may differ. "Deer" is not very helpful; from List of mammals of Pakistan there only seem to be 2 species (excluding antelopes & gazelles), so why not name them? Actually it seems questionable whether there are any Kashmir stag left in Pakistan, and the White-bellied Musk Deer is endangered - both are rare animals of the northern mountains, so probably the antelopes & gazelles are what is meant here. Again, local terms may differ, but in that case careful linking is all the more important. With the proper links we would see which animals are actually meant. Of the 29 species of porcupine, over several continents, Pakistan has only the Indian Crested Porcupine. And so on.
  • The article is over 152,000 bytes, and slow to load and edit. It should be at the upper size limit, but is this too big? Especially as one imagines many local readers have slow connections.
  • On the whole it seems reasonably balanced, & I think the coverage of the breakaway of Bangladesh acceptable. But I think the "failed state" concept needs addressing, as do the pretty scary economic implications of projected population growth.

Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the failed state index is concerned an RFC held on the talk page concluded that this was already in the article in terms of the issues being faced and mention of the index was completely undue. About the article size, yes that is near the upper limit but I guess within? Local connections aren't dial up any more :) ...but we're working on reducing it by merging the Kashmir conflict section. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The basic linking, grammar & other points above are still not addressed. This was a passage picked more or less at random for detailed scrutiny & I suspect much of the article needs a good and careful going-over. The nom is over 3wks old & there haven't been many edits in the last week, so I agree with Regents Park below. Johnbod (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can see that there are some issues in the article. While September88 and TopGun are working on these, I also intend to be working round the clock to address some of these. Once these general issues (many of which are simply based on grammar, length and prose) are addressed, I do not see anything that could hinder this otherwise well-covered article from achieving FA status. Mar4d (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: as nominator and per all the issues fixed in last peer review and sorting done during this discussion which corrects or addresses the points raised. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As still no mention of Pakistan support for the Taliban in the article. Also the article should mention that Pakistan has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world, and that new born children have only a 1 in 4 chance of survival. This is due to only 1% of GDP being assigned to healthcare. The Handbook of Global Health Communication & Breakdown in Pakistan: How Aid Is Eroding Institutions for Collective Action as sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'd really like to support featured status for this article but I don't think it is ready yet. For one, it needs extensive copy editing and don't see that happening. I also think that the article needs to be carefully whetted for neutrality issues (for example, the clickable map of provinces labels the entire Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir as "conflict zone"). Other than that, I think the article is reasonably comprehensive and complete and is on the cusp of featured status. Perhaps the article could be taken out of the FAC process (or the process suspended) for a bit, the article copy edited and whetted for neutrality (I would love to do this when I have some more time), and then resubmitted for featured status. --regentspark (comment) 12:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 13:30, 25 March 2012 [20].

Charles Dickens

Nominator(s): Dipankan says.. ("Be bold and edit!") 05:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this is worth a featured article, and has been significantly improved since it's last nomination on March 19, 2006. Dipankan says.. ("Be bold and edit!") 05:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments this version

  • Fix the [citation needed] tags in the article
  • Consider merging short paras like "Siblings" (in Life); "Adaptations of readings, "Museums and festivals" and "Other memorials" (in Legacy)
  • WP:Galleries: Those galleries IMO are not needed.
  • References:
    • Ref 41 is dead
    • Ref 24, 44, 45, 63 etc. miss page numbers
    • Ref 44, 45, 46 miss date
    • Ref 44 misses publisher
  • "His fiction, with often vivid descriptions of life in nineteenth century England, has inaccurately and anachronistically come to symbolise on a global level Victorian society": opinion needs to be attributed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now contacted a major contributor to the article. Dipankan says.. ("Be bold and edit!") 06:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to FAC delegate the nominator has a total of 0 edits to the article, and there's no evidence that he contacted the main writers of the article of this FAC. Secret account 06:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw? Can this be nomination be withdrawn as premature? I won't bother with details at the moment, but significant content builders have recently discussed the article (nothing to do with a possible FAC), and all agreed that the article has many defects and needs to be rewritten based on scholarly sources (see here for one comment). Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. - Dank (push to talk) 12:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw - per Johnuniq. The page has significant issues and does not meet FAC criteria at this time. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 04:19, 24 March 2012 [21].

Poppy Meadow

Nominator(s): MayhemMario 16:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after the first nomination brought up many points, which ultimately lead to a fail, and a polietly comment for me to nominate this article to WP:PR, to see what it brought up, then renominate it. The PR, brought up nil pou. Literally, see it for yourself. I have to admit, it may have brought up many points if User:Malleus Fatuorum hadnt done a huge cleanup of the article, but I think now it is at te best oppurtunity it could/can be. User:Frickative got the article to GA status aswell; so although Frickative may have not nominated this article for FA, I would like Frickative to get credit if this article does succeed, along with User:Malleus Fatuorum. MayhemMario 16:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure your confidence in the overall perfection and lack of anything to be changed is correct:

  • "[...] is a brunette beautician who wears false nails." Of what relevance / significance are false nails to her overall characterisation? This section is weighted significantly to media opinion's about her character - is there no way that storylines involving her could be given as evidence of her other personality traits (e.g. her infatuation with Anthony)?
Hi sadly, the epsiodes now are unavalibale to watch. We dont nromally include quotes from the actual episodes, unless a point is made about it in the media. I have removed the 'false nail' quote. MayhemMario 18:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Reception: I would recommend that Katy Moon's discussion of Poppy be shortened - it dominates the entire section at the moment, seemingly becoming more Moon's than Wikipedia's.
  • Development > Introduction: "Kylie Babbington, who played Jodie, revealed in May 2011 that Bright would be reprising her role as Poppy, and would have comical scenes." This refers to the reprisal of her role rather than her introduction, right? It should be split off from the beginning of the section, which is her general introduction into the show and introduced in its own right. Make explicit mention to the fact she departs and then returns, and: Why did she leave?

MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done the latter point. Poppy left due to her only being a guest character, then returning as a recurring.MayhemMario 18:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, im not that confident about it! MayhemMario 18:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done all points, par 1 part of the 3rd point as I do not understand it. MayhemMario 19:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the "Introduction" is a single block, even though it details two disparate issues: firstly, her introduction into the show as a guest character; secondly, her return after a departure of several months as a recurring character. At the moment the two issues run into each other without clear distinction (in fact, the lede is far more clear than the text itself). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AH, thank you. I'm thinking of splitting it into two sections, Introduction, then Return. MayhemMario 15:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I took the liberty of just adding a space between the paragraphs to see how that worked and I hope you agree it makes everything much clearer. Obviously, feel free to revert or do whatever if you disagree / do what you feel is best. But you've improved the section anyway. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verbatim quotation: You have reduced the Kathy Moon quote from 365 words to 329, but this is still way, way too long and disproportionate. What is it about Moon's opinions that can only be expressed in a lengthy verbatim quotation, rather than in a much shorter paraphrase using perhaps a few key phrases as quotes? Brianboulton (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have further cut down the quote as far as possible. MayhemMario 15:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing my point. Moon's prose and the ideas expressed therein do not justify a quoatation of any length; the answer is not to keep pruning bits off it, but to do what I suggested earlier and use paraphrase. Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the length isnt to your requirement? If that is the case, I will try, if I can, to merge it in. MayhemMario 12:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Brian is absolutely right, so I've taken the liberty of hacking away ruthlessly at that overpowering blockquote. See what you think.[22] Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for that, it looks much better. :) MayhemMario 16:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum

  • The final paragraph of the lead doesn't quite work for me; the final sentence begins "Her return was viewed more favourably by the tabloid press", but that follows what appears to be a favourable review in The Guardian, definitely not part of the tabloid press. Furthermore, the paragraph begins with very clearly unfavourable reviews from the Daily Mail and the Metro which are tabloids. That just doesn't compute. Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Storylines
  • "... Poppy advises Jodie to ignore Darren in order to manipulate him". Where in the citation given is that statement supported? So far as I can tell it doesn't mention Poppy at all. I thought the general rule with works of fiction was that the book/story/episode was the source for itself anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! The first point is what you brought up at my talk page! I'll get on to that now, as with the second. The reference supports the whole episode, so it may not have it in wrting, but it was in the epsiode on TV. MayhemMario 16:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed the tabloid part, so theres no confusion. As with the second point, the "Poppy advises Jodie to ignore Darren in order to manipulate him" is supported by the reference, is it not? The ref supports the whole episode and what goes on in it, so... yeah? MayhemMario 16:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the episode summary linked to doesn't mention that, so what's the point of the citation? It's not the summary that's the source, it's the episode itself. Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's the epsidoe itself, but eben though it may not be mentioned in the episodes summary, we still link it to that, as thats the nearest source to the epsiode itself. MayhemMario 11:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re the tabloid part: "Her return was viewed more favourably; several Daily Mirror writers gave Poppy positive reviews, and The Sun's Colin Robertson criticised the termination of Bright's contract" still doesn't work, as it directly follows the obviously favourable Guardian review, and isn't more obviously favourable than that. Would you like me to have a go at it? Malleus Fatuorum 18:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind? Are you allowed to do that? I would be extremely grateful if you would. MayhemMario 11:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from J Milburn- I'm glad to see this back here. I can't say I have any interest in EastEnders, but having a decent pop-culture fictional character article to point to would be a great thing.

  • "the Queen Victoria pub" I don't think we need a link here- my reaction was that it was a link to an article on the pub
Somehow, during the process it must have got unlinked, beacuse it was linked to this, so I have relinked it.
  • "Hawkins assessed the situation Poppy was in; as [Poppy] was loyal to Jodie, she felt she would effectively be lying to her if Darren did not confess." Is this meant to be a direct quote? What's going on here?
Changed Quote.
  • In the storyline development section, you refer to "Darren (Hawkins)" but "Anthony Moon (Matt Lapinskas)". Both have already been introduced in the storyline section.
Done
  • "Lapinskas deemed his character is "pleased that somebody likes him", and said that while he was also interested in Jodie, he was put "on the spot" by Poppy and so did what he thought was expected of him in asking her out." Tense switch.
Im confused, where is the tense switch?
I've changed it myself. J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on Tommy Moon dying of a cot death." Tommy Moon is linked above- also, you don't "die of a cot death" any more than you "die of A suicide".

User:Malleus Fatuorum did this point.

  • "excellently written – very The Only Way is Essex – and made me" Already linked further up. Also, that Moon quote feels very long. Perhaps trim or split it? If that's absolutely not possible, a blockquote?
Unlinked and Put into Quote.
  • "commented on Poppy's return that" Clumsy phrase
Done.
  • I'm not too keen on providing the publishers for all these newspapers and magazines- I'd normally just provide the name of the publication. That's your choice, though: As long as it's consistent.
I think it is conisistent, and it is used in all EE articles, so I would rather it was kept.
If you're happy with it, then that's fine. J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also recommend trimming excessive capitals from article titles. This Is Not Easy To Read Even If The Other Website Likes It Like This. (Don't do that with book/magazine titles or anything, though. Just article titles.) I did one that was really rather unpleasant looking, but there are others.
Done.

This really is a decent article. I do feel that it is close to FA quality. J Milburn (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check: The single non-free image is appropriate and has a detailed rationale. It clearly meets the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I really don't think much more could be done on a minor soap character. Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well written and surprisingly well referenced, with an excellent balance of in-universe and real-world information. A great example of what an article of this sort should look like. J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a slight niggle, Ref 5 was published on guardian.co.uk as it was a blog, not 'The Guardian' newspaper. – Lemonade51 (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. MayhemMario 16:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- I don't see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of copyvio or close paraphrasing; can the nominator point to a recent one at FAC, either for this or an earlier nom? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? But what does that mean? :) MayhemMario 18:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just what it says -- but if you don't know I guess you've never had one and need to be initiated... ;-) FYI, this is an example -- it has to be performed by an independent reviewer, so we'll add it to the list of image/spotcheck requests at WT:FAC accordingly... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose after source spot-check. I opposed the last nomination here not even two months ago based predominantly on sourcing and attribution issues and recommended a complete audit by an independent editor. This doesn't appear to have been done before renomination. I found issues with 4 of 6 refs that I randomly checked. I do not believe this should become a featured article until an editor with a solid understanding of summary, paraphrase, and quotation audits each ref used in this article. Spot-checks:

Ref 1, seems hinky to me and violates infobox guidelines.

  • Article text: Our infobox lists Poppy's birthday as "21 October 1990".
  • Source text: Doesn't mention this date. We seems to be calculating Poppy's age based on her 21st birthday party being held in a certain episode. The problem is, the source doesn't mention the air date of the episode, and even it it was, this is WP:OR in my opinion. Also, this information is not written anywhere in the prose—there is not supposed to be anything represented in the infobox that's not also in the prose.
I've added it to the storyline section so it is not just in the prose. In EE articles we normally keep references in the infobox. Surrounding your question about the source, because obviously we cannot list the exact time and place in which the date was mentioned, we use a source we covers the whole episode as one, therefore referecing everything in the episode. MayhemMario 16:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 2(a), incorrect quotation formatting and violation of minimal change guideline.

  • Article text: "Both characters left the series on 14 November 2011, but with the 'potential for Poppy to appear again in the future'."
  • Source text: "'Like Norman, Poppy had always been a supporting character, not a regular, however we may well see her return again in the future.'" Two problems here. First, the source is quoted someone else, and this is not reflected in our text. Second, we've altered the quotation without using proper formatting. Please review WP:MOSQUOTE.
Done. MayhemMario 16:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 3(a), OK.

  • Article text: "Poppy's introduction was deemed 'bizarre and utterly irrelevant' by Jody Thompson of the Daily Mail"
  • Source text: "Instead, a bizarre and utterly irrelevant chat between Jodie Gold and brand new character Poppy Meadow in the Queen Vic was put into the show instead."

Ref 4(a), Violation of minimal change guideline.

  • Article text: "... and 'pointless' and 'unnecessary' by the Metro's Daniella Grama"
  • Source text: "As Jody and Poppy moved on to chat about peanuts, viewers were left questioning why on earth anyone thought this pointless sub-plot was necessary."

Done. MayhemMario 16:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 24, OK.

  • Article text: "A spokeswoman for EastEnders confirmed that the scenes had been edited following viewers' strong response to the story, but said that no complete scenes were removed: 'Given the audience response to this storyline, we felt on this occasion that it was appropriate to respond and make some changes. The vast majority of material remains intact and we don't believe that those trims we have made will weaken or detract from the overall storyline for viewers.'
  • Source text: "The spokeswoman told the Daily Star Sunday: 'We can assure you that no complete scenes were cut from this episode. Given the audience response to this storyline, we felt on this occasion that it was appropriate to respond and make some changes. The vast majority of material remains intact and we don't believe that those trims we have made will weaken or detract from the overall storyline for viewers.'"

Ref 27, incorrect formatting of quotation-within-quotation (frankly, I'm not sure how much value there is in quoted a single, unremarkable word; just paraphrase):

  • Article text: "Kylie Babbington, who played Jodie, revealed in May 2011 that Bright would be reprising her role as Poppy, with 'comical' scenes."
  • Source text: "'She's just come back and I've been filming some stuff with her, which is lovely - some quite comical stuff,' Babbington said." --Laser brain (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unquotted the word 'comical' to avoid "quotation-within-quotation". MayhemMario 16:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done all your points Laser brain. MayhemMario 16:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your speed and enthusiasm, MayhemMario, but I don't think I'll be able to withdraw my opposition until I see evidence that an independent editor who is knowledgeable about properly citing, attributing, and quoting sources has checked through the whole article. These are just samples, not a comprehensive list of problems. I found issues in the last nomination which you fixed, and I see that you claim in the peer review that you "did some edits, checked the sources, etc." That I found more issues this time (and at quite a high rate—4 issues out of 6 refs checked) indicates that you are not seeing the problems. --Laser brain (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that MayhemMario has fixed the specific issues you raised, but on the assumption that you consider me to be an editor who is "knowledgeable about properly citing, attributing, and quoting sources" then I'll commit to checking all of the online sources I can over the next day or so. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Serendipity, MF -- as there'd been no action on this for some time I was reluctantly preparing to archive the nom this very day. If you can rescue it to Andy's satisfaction it will be well worth the extra few days... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to carve a statue out of the cheese of your choice, if you were to do that. --Laser brain (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comments There maybe an WP:OVERLINK problem in the referencing section. I believe you are supposed to only link terms on its first occurrence and not overdo it. Other than that the article, I believe, is FA ready. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 14:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. MayhemMario 16:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, there are a lot of editors, myself included, who do not see this as "overlinking" but as the most sensible way to deal with things. For me, the consistency of reference formatting is important, and, further more, references should be able to stand independently. I've certainly formatted with "overlinking" in my featured articles. J Milburn (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Having looked at this in more detail given the observations by Laser Brain above I have to say that I think the whole article would need to be rewritten to make it consistent with the sources; it's not just a matter of tweaking a few words here and there. I'm rather disappointed with myself that I didn't spot that sooner. Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks for your efforts, MF. Sorry Mario, but based on the above this needs to be archived to allow you to collaborate with another editor to address the sourcing issues raised by Malleus and Laserbrain. After that, and a minimum of two weeks has passed from this nom being archived, the article may be re-nominated at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:39, 21 March 2012 [23].

A Free Ride

Nominator(s): SupernovaExplosion Talk 02:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the article, which is currently a GA, covers the topic properly. SupernovaExplosion Talk 02:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: Not my usual subject, I admit, but once I started reading I couldn't, er, stop. The article seems rather brief, which gives me pause. This was promoted to GA two days ago (March 10), and there was no peer review or external copy-editing that I can see. If anything, I think a copy-edit is needed; some examples from the lead:
  • The film is the subject of disputes over a number of issues -- clunky and perhaps overly wordy, "the subject of a number of disputes"?
  • While most sources consider A Free Ride a 1915 film, a few scholars claimed the film was produced in 1923, a claim that is rejected. Who? When was it rejected? This is complicated by the tense changes, I think: "most sources consider" -- present tense -- "a few scholars claimed" -- past -- "is rejected" -- present?
  • while others claiming the opposite is true. -- claim?
  • "While others asserting" doesn't make any sense either; it should be either "claim" or "assert", not "claiming" or "asserting". María (yllosubmarine) 17:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other random comments:

  • I'm a little confused by the assertion that the film was "screened", but no other information is given. I thought screening was a rather public affair, but if its release was kept underground, how did that work? Or am I reading it incorrectly?
  • Another prose issue, I see a lot of repetition, especially in the "Analysis" section: "shows... shows" and "uses humor... using humorous", for example.

Sorry for the brief comments, but like I said above the article itself is rather brief. I'm surprised that there isn't more thematic or historical analysis, especially if this film is as notable as what is stated. Have the sources been truly exhausted? I see that a variety of book sources have been used, but what about academic journals, like Film History and Film Quarterly? If you have it, JSTOR may be useful, as well as general research databases that have access to film journals. Until I know that such sources have been taken into account, I'm afraid I can't support. María (yllosubmarine) 13:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is coverage in journals, but I don't have access to them. Filled request in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#A_Free_Ride. After the journals are added, I think it will be worthy of FA. Thanks for the suggestions! --SupernovaExplosion Talk 15:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool, I'll re-review in a bit. However, I've removed the "done" template you included above per instructions at WP:FAC: "Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time." María (yllosubmarine) 16:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments from Maria

I still believe a copy-edit from a knowledgeable editor is needed; the issues I noted above are only examples (see updated note above), and work is needed throughout. As I stated yesterday, a PR would have been useful in this regard and others -- I don't advise jumping straight to FAC from GAC unless you have an FA or two under your belt. It's quite possible that these issues (prose and comprehensiveness) could have been addressed before you nominated at FAC.

It's great that you were able to track down two journal articles so quickly, but did you check elsewhere outside of Google Scholar? I see an article listed at JSTOR by Frank A. Hoffmann ("Prolegomena to a Study of Traditional Elements in the Erotic Film", The Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 78, No. 308 (Apr. - Jun., 1965), pp. 143-148), and while Hoffmann is referred to in the article, the source for his assertion is Thompson. I'm guessing this is the article referenced, since it states:

  • the movie's "relative smoothness of production shows clearly that experiments in the genre must have been carried on for some years before that time." (pg. 143).

The article currently states:

  • "Thomspson believes that University at Buffalo professor Frank A. Hoffman's assertion, that this genre was experimented in the years preceding this film's production date, was based on the professionalism in A Free Ride." ("Analysis")

This interpretation seems to be confusing Hoffmann's assertion, but it may merely be the wording: "professionalism" is strange for me (as opposed to "relative smoothness of production") and "that this genre was experimented" has funky syntax (compared to "experiments in the genre must have" occurred). So, again, perhaps a copy-edit can help with this particular problem, but so will consulting the original source (i.e., Hoffmann). I haven't checked if there are similar issues with other sources.

If you don't have access to Hoffmann's article, I can send it to you if you'd like. María (yllosubmarine) 17:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please send me a copy of the article. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 17:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco 1492 comment as GA reviewer:
Hi Supernova, I have to agree with Maria that you should have had a peer review and good copyedit before going to FA... as is probably evident from my own FA nominations, I have trouble fulfilling 1a. Regarding the "funky syntax" for "that this genre was experimented", I tried changing to something which flowed more smoothly but was reverted. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Crisco, I reverted that edit because your edit indicated the director himself experimented stag films before making A Free Ride, while Hoffman is saying various directors experimented stag films, so this genre was nothing new to the director of A Free Ride. Anyway, I've changed the syntax to make it better, hope the new sentence is ok. If you still believe the sentence can be made better, please go ahead. Thanks! --SupernovaExplosion Talk 08:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I had assumed that's what your phrasing was intending. The new syntax looks much better. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supernova, I sent you the article. I also made a minor change; "is an evidence" made it worse, but I believe this is an improvement. You can always seek help from experienced copy-editors at WP:GOCE if need be. 1a is a tricky thing, and it always helps to have a few pairs of eyes looking over your shoulder -- no matter your how many FACs you've attempted. María (yllosubmarine) 12:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can try to do a copyedit of this over the next couple days. Note that I try to avoid supporting articles on the basis of my copyedits though. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking a run through now, sorry if I got too adventurous. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been suggested that the cast were drawn from among the lowest stratum of the society" who suggested this? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote from Thompson [24] (p. 39-40): "a common thread that runs through many casual histories of early erotics film insists that the actors were drawn from the lowest end of the social spectrum". --SupernovaExplosion Talk 03:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea how to put it exactly in the article. Wording it "casual history" will result in close paraphrasing concern, I'm afraid. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 03:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about: "Thompson notes that some historical accounts of pornographic films suggested that...". --SupernovaExplosion Talk 05:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Free Ride is thought to have first been shown to its target audience in 1915." Who thinks this?
  • The quote from Spencer [25] (p.85), "the first known pornographic film (the little seen but suggestively titled A Free Ride) screened in 1915". I think the phrasing "...thought to" is wrong, changing it to straightforward assertion. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 03:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition to sexual intercourse, the film shows fellatio, troilism, and urolagnia." This doesn't really seem to flow with the preceding and following sentences.
  • "Despite the primitive nature of movies like A Free Ride, in a short period of time, stag films became, as observed by O'Toole, "rigidified into a restricted visual experience". is there a good way to rephrase this with less commas? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, it looks like the prose is moving in the right direction! Mark Arsten (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are the following references worthy of addition? (Since I'm not sure about their reliability, asking for second opinion)

Oppose This is also a long way from my normal area of specialty (military history), but what the hey. It's an interesting article, but its prose and content seem unpolished at the moment, and I agree that it would benefit from an intensive copy edit and comments from editors familiar with writing about films. My comments are:

  • " It runs nine minutes and depicts a motorist who picks up two women from the roadside and later engages in several sex acts with them" - surely the content of the film is more important than its running time
  • "Although most scholars consider A Free Ride a 1915 film, some claim that it was produced in 1923" - this is a bit awkwardly written
  • Rephrased "Although most scholars consider A Free Ride a 1915 film, some sources claim that it was produced in 1923." If you have any better suggestion, please tell. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 08:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since the identities of the cast were kept secret, various theories have emerged regarding their identities" - the article only identifies two theories (1. that the actors were riff raff and 2. that they were upper class - which is later mentioned in the lead anyway)
  • "Since the identities of the cast were kept secret, two contradictory theories have emerged regarding their identities" is rather repetitive. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "D. W. Griffith is sometimes credited as directing A Free Ride, a claim that is rejected by film historian Kevin Brownlow and author Dave Thompson." - who claims that he was the director?
  • The quote from Thompson [26] (p.39)]: It also gave rise to some remarkably inventive theories regarding the film's origin, including one that describes it ("unfairly," writes Brownlow) as one of D.W. Griffith's early works. It isn't, although the notion is extraordinarily entertaining." So Thompson doesn't name the source, so I can't mention any name per WP:V. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 08:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response you your comments here and in regards to the similar points I raise, my underlying concern (which I should have made clearer) is that the repeated hints at other works about this film in Thompson's book you've quoted strongly suggest that there's scope for further research to develop this article (in that it doesn't currently appear to reflect all noteworthy references on the film). Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have used all the references available to me, including the books, journals, news articles found in Google, and the references listed in those sources. I've added two new references. No more source is found that can be used in the article. So WP:RS forces us to stop in the current form. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 09:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thompson notes that some historical accounts of pornographic films have suggested that the cast were drawn from among the lowest stratum of the society such as the homeless, drug addicts, mentally ill, prostitutes, and petty criminals" - what were these accounts? (and can they be used as references?)
  • The quote from Thompson [27] (p. 39-40): "a common thread that runs through many casual histories of early erotics film insists that the actors were drawn from the lowest end of the social spectrum". --SupernovaExplosion Talk 08:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thompson argues that this claim has almost no documentary evidence, and suggests that the actors were likely drawn from the upper stratum of society." - does he have any documentary evidence to support this view? (the words 'almost no' stick out here)
  • Quote from Thompson [28] (p.40): "A common thread that runs through many casual histories of early erotic films insistes that the actors were drawn from the lowest end of the social spectrum - the homeless, the mentally ill, drug addicts, prostitutes, petty criminals and the like. But there is little documentary evidence for this claim. Indeed, there is much to suggest that the opposite was more likely, with the sheer novelty of the movies undoubtedly playing its part in the lure." What change are you suggesting? Please elaborate. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 08:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text in the article implies that the sources Thompson was disagreeing with were writing specifically about this film ("Thompson notes that some historical accounts of pornographic films have suggested that the cast were drawn...", when it appears that he was making a generic statement about these films as a whole. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thompson believes that the evidence presented to support the later production date is shoddy, but notes that some other experts agree with Brownlow's assertion." - who are these "other experts"?
  • "Evidence cited in support of a 1923 production date include the similarity of the women's hairstyle to that of Mary Pickford, an actress who dominated American film industry during the 1920s. They claim that the woman wore a Pickford-style wig. " - the second sentence largely repeats material in the first, and who the 'they' are is unclear.
  • "the Victorian moral views of the era.[10] Like other pornographic films of that era" - using 'era' twice in two consecutive sentences is a bit repetitive
  • "and finally hard-core scenes in a fragmented manner." there seem to be some missing words here
  • "However, like other stag films from the 1910s, this film is of superior quality than its predecessors" - this is a bit confusing given that the article states that this is believed to be the first commercial pornographic film
  • Why is it confusing? It is saying this film is superior compared to previous stag films, not previous commercial stag films. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 09:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the film didn't have any predecessors as such, this should be specified (eg, "However, like other stag films from the 1910s, this film is of superior quality than the amateur pornography which preceded it" or something along those lines). Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "University at Buffalo professor Frank A. Hoffman asserts that the ease with which the film was produced indicates that there had been previous experimentation with stag films" - how does he know how difficult the film was to produce given that the article basically says that almost nothing is known about its development.
  • OK, but by "whose relative smoothness of production" I think that he's referring to the firm's production standards (eg, its 'look and feel'), rather than how it actually came into existence. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Free Ride is one of the most conspicuous films of the 1910s" - what's meant by "conspicuous" here? Do you mean "best known" or "most famous"?
  • "Best known" seems the most appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the conversation and the action was done by " - "done by" is a bit awkward.
  • [29] p.39: "In her version, it is the landscape and trees that converse and cavort!" What wording do you suggest? --SupernovaExplosion Talk 11:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thompson notes that in the remake there were no actors. Instead, the events of the movie were represented by "the landscape and trees"." perhaps? (though this is a bit wordy) Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the film is PD, you could include some stills from it to illustrate the article (for instance, showing how the actors were disguised). Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm using VLC to play the video, and using ctrl+alt+s to take screenshot. But it is not working. I have no idea how to take stills. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 10:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Press "Video" then "Snapshot" and VLC will save the image for you, probably in "My Pictures" on the computer. Works both when the film is running and paused. SatenikTamar (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, those are very well chosen. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Nick-D All of your points are addressed. Re-review the article and re-assess your vote. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 12:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but you haven't addressed all my points: my concern that the article doesn't draw on all the available sources stands, and I've responded to a few points above. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have used all the references available to me, including the books, journals, news articles found in Google, and the references listed in those sources. I've added two new references. No more source is found that can be used in the article. So WP:RS forces us to stop in the current form. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 09:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that this is a short article (which is basically fair enough: it covers an ancient 9-minute long film produced in totally obscure circumstances), I remain concerned that it alludes to the availability of additional sources which might be useful for expanding the article but doesn't make use of these. Does Thompson provide no clues about who he's referencing? (in the bibliography if not the notes). The article is probably FA class now, but it would benefit from further content. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thompson provides only two references regarding the chapter where he discusses A Free Ride: 1. Brownlow, Kevin (1990), Behind the Mask of Innocence (p. 28), and, 2. Hoffmann, Frank A. (1965), "Prolegomena to a Study of Traditional Elements in the Erotic Film", The Journal of American Folklore. Both of these references are included in the article. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 00:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, fair enough. His notes are rather sparse from the bit of the book available through Google Books. I'm happy to now Support this nomination, though I assume that you'll add extra material if you you come across further sources. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Very interesting article! As a huge fan of classic films, I find it bizarre. I honestly didn't know they made porn so early. Anyway, that kind of leads into my comment. I find this to be a big exaggeration: "A Free Ride is one of the best known films of the 1910s". I see that it is sourced, but even if one writer (Nicola Simson) is claiming this, I'd still argue that she is exaggerating. I'm always reading about films, and I'd never even heard of this before now. It only has 73 votes on IMDB - it doesn't even feature in the top 250 most voted on films of the decade. I think this claim should be removed. --Lobo (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Supernova, very true, academic journals are great. However, for them to be "considered the finest source" they must be attributed correctly. This is actually what Simson's article states:

"By the early 1910s, American and French pom films were making their way around Europe and the United States. These films were considered slightly more sophisticated than their predecessors—at the very least, they had some semblance of a plot and/or characters. Owing to a prudish moral code carried over from the Victorian Era, however, it was nearly impossible to find these films in public theatres. For the most part, 'stag films' were shown in 'smoking rooms', brothels and private men's clubs, and were available through specialty catalogues. Prominent films from this period include A Free Ride (also known as A Grass Sandwich, USA, 1915) and Am Abend (Germany, ca. 1910)."

  • That is from page 642, which is cited several times in the article. The bolded portion is the only mention of A Free Ride on this page. This really, really bothers me because again -- similar to what I found above re: Hoffmann's assertion -- you are misinterpreting a source. Simson does not say that A Free Ride is "one of the best known films of the 1910s" -- rather, Simson is stating A Free Ride was a "prominent" stag film of that decade. There's a big, huge difference, which leads me to question other claims made in the article. Until each and every source is checked, I'm afraid I have to Oppose this nomination. María (yllosubmarine) 13:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad, I mistakenly omitted the "stag" part. I have rectified the problem: "A Free Ride was a well-known stag film of the 1910s". I can assure you I've checked the other sources very well. Please clarify if you believe there is any problem with any other source and point out that source. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 13:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but that's two glaring source issues that have come to light during the course of this FAC. Similar to copy-editing, your own spot-checking isn't enough. I'm glad you're quickly fixing individual concerns, but Rome wasn't built in a day, etc., etc. Until a non-involved editor has checked the sources against the wording in the article, my oppose stands. María (yllosubmarine) 13:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why not you check the wordings and the sources yourself? If you have any doubt regarding any wording, I'm ready to provide quotation from the sources. But please don't delay in building Rome :) --SupernovaExplosion Talk 13:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supernova, I'm also disappointed that this was such a gross misrepresentation of the source. You made a big change from what Simson was saying. I don't know, I fear that this whole FAC has been a bit rushed. --Lobo (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question here: "Evidence cited in support of a 1923 production date include the similarity of the women's hairstyle to that of Mary Pickford, an actress who dominated American film industry during the 1920s. Proponents of the later date claim that the woman wore a Pickford-style wig." It switches between "women" and "woman" from one sentence to the next, which is accurate? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it was one of the women (out of the two women seen in this film). I have added the missing words. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 01:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Reception and legacy reads a bit choppy to me, doesn't seem to flow too well. I'll try to take another look later. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review Images are good to go.

  • However, the vehicle in the movie isn't a Model T although I'm not sure exactly what type it is. It's far too big for a Model T which was aimed at the middle class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not included any reference because the plot section should not include referencing. But the source for the Model T claim is Slade, Joseph W. (2006), "Eroticism and Technological Regression: The Stag Film", History and Technology: An International Journal 22 (1): 35. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 21:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read WP:FILMPLOT again and it says "Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section." So I've added that reference in the Plot section. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 21:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources: The nominator asked me to look to see if any sources have been neglected. I found at least two good books and one good journal acticle that should be consulted. Additionally, searches should be conducted on Film Indexes Online and JSTOR.

  • Chapter 3 of Hard Core: Power, Pleasure, and the "Frenzy of the Visible" by Linda Williams (ISBN 9780520066526)
  • "Bold! Daring! Shocking! True!": a History of Exploitation Films, 1919-1959, by Eric Schaefer (ISBN 9780822323747)
  • Slade, Joseph. "Eroticism and Technological Regression: The Stag Film". History and Technology. doi:10.1080/07341510500497236.

Way too much to do during the FAC period. Recommend this be withdrawn for further research, source audit, etc. --Laser brain (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawing nom for further improvement As per the suggestion by Laser brain, I'm withdrawing the nom for further improvement. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 04:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:52, 18 March 2012 [30].

Multicommunicating

Nominator(s): Kommunication (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a well researched, timely and thorough article written for an academic purpose.

Kommunication (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest this article be withdrawn immediately: There are significant issues with prose style, formatting, presentation of sources etc. It would need substantial work to obtain a GA status, let alone FA. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Agreed, you're in the wrong place; shoot for GA on this one first. The referencing isn't what's expected for an FA. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per both. Whole sections without references - only 12 in the whole article, and most are to 10-20 page stretches. I doubt it would get GA as it stands. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 00:35, 16 March 2012 [31].

Missouri River

Nominator(s): Shannºn 23:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on the Missouri River article for something like half an year since the last (and third) FAC. Between then and now I have thoroughly copyedited the page, completely rewritten three sections (including the lead) and addressed all issues brought up in previous reviews, in the fear of breaking the record for most failed FACs on WP. The page has been a good article for over nine months now; overall I think it is comprehensive and well-referenced enough to deserve featured status.

Missing alt texts, broken links and dablinks have been repaired as of the day of the nomination for the convenience of the FA reviewers.

Shannºn 23:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time. Improvements have been made since the previous nomination, but I still feel the article does not meet the FA criteria. A sampling of concerns:

  • "However, his reputation was enhanced in 1720 when the Pawnee–who had earlier been befriended by Bourgmont–massacred the Spanish Villasur expedition near present-day Columbus, Nebraska on the Missouri River and temporarily ending Spanish encroachment on French Louisiana." - source?
  • "By the early 21st century, declines in populations of native species prompted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a biological opinion recommending restoration of river habitats for federally endangered bird and fish species." - source?
  • Numerous inconsistencies in reference/citation formatting, and some incomplete citations. Journal articles without weblinks need page numbers. Same with newspapers.
  • Considerable sandwiching of text between tables and images - on my screen, the Navigation section is actually made quite difficult to follow because of the layout
  • MOS issues - hyphens/dashes, overlinking, etc
  • File:Pick-Sloan_Plan.png: source link returns error. Same for File:Yellowstone_(steamboat)_aground.jpg, File:Missouririver1.jpg, File:Nishnabotna_River_aerial.jpg
  • What makes the Ezine article, which triggered the spam filter when I tried to note it here, a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed all the above comments except maybe overlinking. Could you please specify which section(s) to look at? Also, the Ezine reference (which I replaced) did not have a URL, so I can only wonder how it triggered the spam filter... Shannºn 22:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some reference formatting I noticed right away (in the five or so minutes I looked):
  • Some citations for PPL Montana/pplmontana.org seem to be duplicated; also, use one of the two names consistently
  • A fair few of the citations have inconsistent (to the assumed article standard of YYYY-MM-DD) date formatting
  • If you're going to use cite doi, make sure ALL names are formatted the way cite doi does it, or copy the information into a different cite template
  • Check all the ISBN numbers for consistent use of dashing.
This is by no means an exhaustive review, however. ClayClayClay 06:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, except I'm not really sure what you mean by "all names are formatted the way Cite doi does it," as far as I know this template automatically fills out the refs, and I have limited control over what it actually does. Shannºn 06:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is, since Cite doi formats its references a certain way, to use consistent style either all references should be formatted that way or Cite doi would not be appropriate: see Template:Cite doi#Formatting. ClayClayClay 19:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I'll use a different cite template, then, since I don't want to convert the 200-ish other citations instead :P Shannºn 20:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finished that.Shannºn 01:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still seeing MOS issues - overlinking and dash problems just in the lead. Use either spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes; don't link very common terms like Europe, and don't relink terms, especially not in close proximity (like Cenozoic twice in as many paragraphs). Lots of citation issues - compare publisher formatting on FNs 5 and 6, remove stray punctuation marks as in FNs 55 and 182 among others, compare author formatting on FNs 41 and 64, need page numbers for FNs 99-101, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all the above, except for ref 182 – Im not sure what you mean by stray punctuation mark. I looked over the citation a dozen times and all I notice is the double periods after the author name, which are caused by the template syntax. This also occurs on other featured articles including ref 84 on Columbia River. Are those supposed to exist or should I just remove the period after Lee W. ? Shannºn 06:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
request to comment on above question received no reply, Im assuming that said problems are considered fixed Shannºn 02:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the nominator has done a great job on this massive 10,196-word article; given its size, the abovementioned problems are understandable. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Please note the overlinking I fixed. I'm surprised this is still going through FAC unnoticed.
  • "a population of over six hundred thousand"—personal pref for "more than". You might like it better too?
  • long-standing.
  • MOSDASH: "Kansas City, Missouri–Kansas City, Kansas,". And there are a few boundaries that need dashes, not hyphens.
  • "A fairly undeveloped reach"—more encyclopedic might bre "relatively", if such a word is necessary.
  • Yellowstone River pic: why 160px? It was tiny. I've boosted to 240px. Quite a few others would be improved by boosting (personal pref.).
  • Looks very well-written to me. Tony (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dashes fixed, wow, there were quite a few that I missed on the last run through. I also tweaked the words you mentioned above. Shannºn 02:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • tentative Support Comments WRT prose. I think we're mostly there - the prose looks good now. There might be a few redundant words here and there but no-deal-breakers are left. This is conditional on those who are more familiar with the river happy with factual weighting etc. so I'll keep and eye on the page- beginning a read-through now. I'll jot queries below...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Missouri's headwaters forks also extend significantly farther upstream... - grammar
It is unclear exactly how far beyond the Platte his expedition actually traveled up the Missouri. Bourgmont described the blond-haired Mandans in his journals, so it is likely that he reached as far as their villages in present-day North Dakota - the bit immediately preceding this segment tells us they're going along the Missouri River, in which case, the first sentence is largely redundant, and can be reworded " It is unclear exactly how far past this point they travelled, though Bourgmont described the blond-haired Mandans in his journals, so it is likely that he reached as far as their villages in present-day North Dakota"
In 1801, the Spanish restored the Americans the rights to use the Mississippi and New Orleans - "restored to the Americans"?

Looking promising though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at the Notes and the bottom main-text section.

  • "which is just over one-half of the length of the Missouri."
  • "is maintained by various federal and state government agencies"—you could lose one word.
  • "all the land within the preserve is open to hiking and camping"—can "the" be removed? I'm not 100% sure, but I suspect it can.
  • "The river also flows through or past many National Historic Landmarks,"—lose "also" (note that two "alsos" do appear to be necessary in this section).
  • "Parts of the river itself are also designated for recreational or preservational use."—unsure "also" is doing anything useful. Nor here: "The preserve also includes a wide variety of"
  • Personal pref. only: you might consider "about" rather than the ungainly "approximately". Tony (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Made corrections to all the above (I hope). Shannºn 06:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MONGO...not going to section off this, but want to add a few comments as this goes through review...I'll add comments as I can over the next few days to a week...

  • In Course section....end of second paragraph, "the Milk River enters from the left"...perhaps better if we say from the "north"...[32]...Maybe double check the direction tributary rivers and streams enter...via topoquest. Some confusion when we're talking about stream flow..I think it should all emphasize whether tributaries flow into the Missouri from the north, south, east or west, rather than left or right...again, Course section, third paragraph, last sentence: "While it continues south, eventually reaching Oahe Dam in South Dakota, the Grand, Moreau and Cheyenne Rivers all join the Missouri from the right"...the Missouri itself is flowing south, but what direction are these other rivers flowing into it from...
    • Changed the left/right pile to N-S-E-W. I'll look over the article for more.. Shannºn 02:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in at this late date and only on this single issue, which caught my eye. Shannon had it right originally. The convention for course descriptions is to use left and right heading downstream rather than to attempt compass descriptions. It's probably helpful to link to Wiktionary's left and right on first use. Finetooth (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's the convention... but IMO it actually works better, I think, for this article. I don't know why. Would you think changing them back is a good idea or leaving it as is? Shannºn 02:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't change them back on my account. Leave as is. My real concern was that someone might leap from this to changing the left-rights in all the course descriptions in the encyclopedia. Yow! Finetooth (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maps indicate the Gallatin flows into the Missouri only one mile after the Jefferson and Madison Rivers merge at Three Forks, Montana...U.S. Geological Survey map via Topoquest...the Madison is at lower left coming in from the west, the Jefferson is flowing in from the south and those two river merge right above the 4044 elevation point at lower left...and before the canyon, the Gallatin meets the Missouri as it flows from the south...[33]
  • First sentence in Course section..."From the Rocky Mountains of Montana and Wyoming, three streams rise to form the headwaters of the Missouri River."...this seems confusing...the three main rivers that all meet to form the Missouri are the Madison, Jefferson and Gallatin...also, though it doesn't specify the mountains, this source says the headwaters are at 11,000 feet (3,400 m) [34]
    • A lot of the rivers tributaries originate above 11,000 feet... like the Middle Fork of the South Platte River which rises at something like 13,000 feet on Mt Democrat in Colorado. And some of the tributaries of the Wind/Bighorn rivers too, well above eleven thousand feet. Though Gallatin Lake is at around 9000 feet, and Madison Lake is well below at some 8,300 feet. Shannºn 06:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source lists Mount Jefferson (Bitterroot Range) as the headwater source for the river...[35]
    • I concur with Mongo on this and suggest that the source above that he cites along with the Montana river sources contained in the article be used to support the discussion of the source of the Missouri. The use of topo maps sources is problematic because usually (as is the case here) the actual content is an interpretation of what one editor thinks the topomap is illustrating. For example, the topo doesn't actually say that Bower spring is the source of the Missouri, that's an interpretation of the map data. Even seasoned editors on geographic articles like Mongo can make a mistake interpreting map data. (Being familar with the points of a compass it would be physically impossible short of the contruction of a huge aquaduct for the Madison to enter the Missouri headwaters from the West and the Jefferson from the South when the entire length of the Jefferson is west of the Madison) On the other hand, the source and sources within that Mongo cites, actually do discuss this in detail. Another point I'd like to make is that the three forks of the Missouri (regardless of which one is the farthest from the mouth) ought to be discussed with equal weight about their origin. ie. The Madison flows from Madison Lake on the Madison plateau in YNP, the Gallatin flows from Gallatin Lake in the Gallatin range in YNP and the Jefferson flows from the Centennials. Although the Gibbon is confluence source of the Madison, it is just another tributary. I think the most interesting fact about the headwaters of the Missouri is the the three forks actually form in many different ranges from the Beaverhead mountains to the West, East to the Gallatin Range.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm looking around for some books to cite on the orgination, but what is in the article seems accurate enough...though we may know more, we can only add what we can cite of course. Your feedback is very much appreciated.--MONGO 00:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Browers Spring is located on Mount Jefferson, so IMO it's either to mention the spring or the mountain, since its referring to roughly the same location. Though I'd say the spring is probably the more well-known of the two, and has traditionally been considered as the Missouri's source as far as I know... Shannºn 06:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those are valid points...I suggest we just stick with the Bowers Spring one...--MONGO 22:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I edited the first paragraph of course to mention the furthest origins of each of the headwaters (Madison and Gallatin Lakes etc.) Shannºn 02:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though not critical in itself, but we may want to mention that in addition to electrical generation from the dams, the Missouri River also has 3 nuclear power plants adjacent to it's course...I might write it as: Three nuclear power generating facilities are located adjacent to the Missouri River, including the Callaway Nuclear Generating Station in Missouri as well as the Cooper Nuclear Station and Fort Calhoun Nuclear Generating Station, which are both in Nebraska.
    • I'd agree, except not sure what section. I would have put it in the Dams section but... that's about dams. Shannºn 06:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Me neither...again, it's not that critical.--MONGO 22:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and kudos to Shannon1 for sheparding this expansive article to this level.--MONGO 07:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I continue to support this article. It is better than it was at FAC3 when I supported. I continue to think that this article is being held to a higher standard than it should because the majority of the current FA rivers are really streams and creeks. Of the 10 current river FAs (Bull Run River (Oregon), Chetco River, Columbia River, Johnson Creek (Willamette River), Jordan River (Utah), Little Butte Creek (Rogue River), River Parrett, Rogue River (Oregon), St. Johns River, and Willamette River), 6 are steams and creeks less than 60 miles in length, while 9 are 310 miles or less. In addition, FA has 8 actual creeks less than 25 miles (Aliso Creek (Orange County), Balch Creek, Big Butte Creek, Fanno Creek, Larrys Creek, Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek), Tryon Creek, White Deer Hole Creek). This article compares favorably to the Columbia (1243 miles).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments technical things...

  • Are you sure all of those pre-collapsed tables are good per WP:COLLAPSE?
  • In the Major tributaries table, you have a blank cell for the purposes of having both a rowspan and sortability. There are examples of how to avoid this, see List of Afghanistan T20I cricketers for instance. I'm not keen at all on the current solution.
  • Is there a purpose for the coloured cells or is it simply for visual pleasure?
  • Row and col scopes (per MOS:DTT) should be used to enable screen-readers to make best use of these tables.
  • In the Dams table, what is the purpose of the odd cell being coloured?
  • When sorting this table, the "total" row moves too, this should be locked in place at the bottom (have a look at the code here relating to class="sortbottom").
  • Ref 72 needs a space after its pp.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all the tables as you suggested, it looks a lot cleaner now. Yes, the colored table cells are just for readability purposes because some readers might get lost in the wall of figures therein (like I sometimes do). I don't know if the tables should be collapsed or not. The reason I collapsed them was because they make the article look too cluttered if they werent. Shannºn 02:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The article is well-researched and highly informative, with many excellent diagrams, tables and images to illustrate major points and concepts. I personally can't see what could now be done to improve the article in any significant way. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes -- I can see that Nikki has not withdrawn her long-standing oppose despite acknowledgement/actions in response to her comments, and a couple of pings from the nominator and Ucucha. On some of those issues raised:

  • Overlinking doesn't seem too bad anymore, though I wouldn't bother linking such things as en masse and canoe, for instance.
  • Re. citations, date formatting is looking consistent but no need to link organisations and publishers after first instance, e.g. Geographic Names Information System, U.S. Geological Survey, and there's still inconsistency with multiple authors, e.g. FNs 41 and 64 separate them with semi-colons (generally preferred in my experience) but FNs 65 and 66 use commas -- pls check throughout and be consistent.

Other points, for my part:

  • Make sure journal/newspaper names are italicised throughout, e.g. Sioux City Register.
  • Putting everything from First peoples to Dam-building era (inclusive) under a History section makes more sense to me from a structural perspective that having all those history sections at the same level as other distinct aspects such as Geology and Ecology.
  • I'm not one of those who is against See also sections in FAs per se but there's a fair few items here. Pls revisit and check that none are already linked in the main body and, better still, see if you can't in fact link a few in the main body instead; e.g. since you mention buffalo, I'd have thought you could link Great bison belt somewhere.
  • Pls provide a link/diff for a prior recent FAC spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of copyvio or close paraphrasing.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected all the aformentioned issues. However the most recent spotcheck I can find was from last year (in FAC2), and all the issues raised there were corrected during that FAC. Also, what you said about History makes sense, but I feel it's a little too much content for a single header. Many other articles on large rivers, e.g. Columbia River, also split up their history sections. Shannºn 02:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re. the structural point, well, I've used precedent myself when responding to suggestions on my own FA noms in the past, so I can hardly fault you there...
As far as your last spotcheck goes, that's a fair while ago so we'd better have one for this nom -- will list at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
update -- Unfortunately I don't know how to remove the wikilinks to the USGS in the first three refs, because it's part of the Cite gnis template. Shannºn 02:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, perhaps a bit of over-engineering on the part of the template designers there but that's not your fault. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)s[reply]

Comment There are quite a few dead links. Also, there are still some citation formatting issues, particularly when using the same publisher or work many different times. Suggest looking through groups of citations from the same publisher/work and make sure they are formatted consistently. Some specifics:

  • Compare refs 139 and 140 with 143 and 145.
  • U.S. National Park Service vs. National Park Service
  • 182: Website publisher= needs capitalization

While the citations have improved a lot, the combination of dead links and formatting inconsistencies is worrisome. ClayClayClay 00:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all the citations as you suggested; also I took care of the dead links. I will do a last run through of the citations tomorrow. Shannºn 07:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's one instance of National Park Service left without U.S.;
You need to check all of the warnings on Checklinks, not just the red "Dead" rated references: the first one listed (#85) comes up as a 404 even though it only has a "Suspicious" rating, and I'm sure most in the "Suspicious" (orange) and probably some in the "Connection issue" (blue) category will be dead links as well. It would be great if you checked out the "Status" errors (green) and corrected those links also to avoid link rot in the future. ClayClayClay 09:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and corrected all the remaining ones. A lot of them were not dead, though. Anyways, I added archive linkes to the ones that are, etc. Shannºn 03:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, my previous concerns were fixed, thank you. I am looking through again:
  • All the USGS Gage references need ending dates (in lieu of "present"): some date to 2009 and some to 2010. See 17 (or 47, depending on the style you're going for) for suggestions on what they should look like, pick one style and use it for all of these refs.
  • 133 needs an access date
  • Are 176 and 179 the same reference? if not, which one is 178 referring to? (Dyer)
  • 194 vs 193 (archive placement & formatting)
The things I can pick at wrt referencing are starting to dwindle, I'm reasonably confident you'll stop hearing my random complaints soon :) (also, thanks for bearing with me, it's the first time I've meaningfully reviewed references in an article) ClayClayClay 15:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finished. Good to hear this about the references. The referencing is always what's killed this article at prior FACs. Shannºn 21:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more this time: 148 and 150 point to the same website, but have different publisher info. Was one of the references lost? ClayClayClay 19:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I have no idea how that happened, since I'm sure they were supposed to be the same citation :P Shannºn 23:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source spot-check
  • Ref 6(b), OK:
  • Article text: "With a drainage basin spanning 529,350 square miles ..."
  • Source text: "The Missouri River drains one-sixth of the United States and encompasses 529,350 square miles."
  • Ref 97, OK:
  • Article text: "However, his reputation was enhanced in 1720 when the Pawnee – who had earlier been befriended by Bourgmont – massacred the Spanish Villasur expedition near present-day Columbus, Nebraska on the Missouri River and temporarily ending Spanish encroachment on French Louisiana."
  • Source text: "The next morning, August 14, 1720, the [Pawnee] Indians attacked. In only minutes Villasur, L'Archeveque, Naranjo, 3l soldiers, 11 Pueblo Indians, and the priest lay dead"; "Villasur's defeat ended Spanish exploration of the Nebraska country"
  • Ref 131, fails verification:
  • Article text: "The Department of the Missouri, which was headquartered on the banks of the river at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, was the military command center for the Indian Wars in the region."
  • Source text: Mentions Department of the Missouri prominently, but I can't divine whether that means it was the "military command center". Perhaps the nominator can indicate how they deduced this.
  • Ref 151, fails verification.
  • Article text: "Flooding damages on the Mississippi–Missouri river system were one of the primary reasons for which Congress passed the Flood Control Act of 1944, opening the way for the USACE to develop the Missouri on a massive scale."
  • Source text: Is a general description of the Flood Control Act of 1944, but contains no text about the Missouri or the Mississippi–Missouri river system, nor does it contain any text about flooding damage of any kind. --Laser brain (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my spot-check above. I'm sorry to have to do this, but 2 problems out of 4 checked is an alarming rate. --Laser brain (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above has been corrected. What about the rest of the article? I have no problem responding to further spot checking as quickly as possible. Shannºn 02:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further spot-checks
  • Ref 191(c), OK:
  • Article text: "Visitation has increased from 10 million visitor-hours in the mid-1960s to over 60 million visitor-hours in 1990."
  • Source text: "In 1954, there were approximately four million visitor hours on the main-stem reservoirs. Ten years later, with the closure of the last reservoir, that number had increased to over 10 million. By the late 1990s, the number of hours spent recreating on the Missouri River reservoirs peaked at over 60 million visitor hours."
  • Ref 198, fails verification:
  • Article text: "Plant life is more diverse in the Middle Missouri but it does not have many species of fish."
  • Source text: Does not mention plant life in the Middle Missouri; in fact, the source is about the Upper Missouri. The source does mention fish species of the Middle Missouri, but only to say that the Upper Missouri has roughly half the species diversity of the Middle Missouri.
I'm sorry, but I keep finding problems. The referencing does not appear to have been done carefully. Please find an independent editor to cast a wider net—in my opinion all of the sources will need to be checked and fixed before this could become a featured article. --Laser brain (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of 198, I found that that was actually a misinterpretation of the reference content which I have corrected in the article. As per your suggestion, where can I place a request for this article to be spotchecked? Shannºn 01:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I believe that you may have just unfortunately hit a lot of problematic citations. I went through and checked eleven random citations (3, 17, 33, 54, 95, 109, 134, 168, 199, 215, 220). Only two of them (95, 168) had problems. I think the referencing issue in this article might not be quite as bad as you make it out to be. Shannºn 04:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, the nom has been open for 2 months and there are still concerns with referencing that I can't see being fully assuaged in the near future. I realise this is a letdown after the support received for prose, images and so on, but we really need to archive this and allow you, preferably with another editor per Laser brain's advice, to go through the entire article to check the accuracy of the refs. When that's done, a peer review (which, remember, FAC is not) might also be in order. Once all that's complete, including the usual two-week breathing space between FAC noms, pls try again as clearly the other FAC criteria are looking solid. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 15:42, 14 March 2012 [36].

Roza Shanina

Nominator(s): Brandmeister t 13:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am nominating this for featured article because the article underwent a major work since its creation, becoming a GA. It was copyedited by two editors, while I managed to obtain additional scanned references from Russia. The article ultimately received high rankings on the article feedback tool and now fills the undercoverage gap in the English-language sources about her. I think no major omission was made. Brandmeister t 13:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak OpposeSupport now that changes have been made. Her early life and the section "Character and Personality" are a bit too intimate in detail, but otherwise the article is fairly good.
  • Perhaps a Russian pronunciation guide for her name should be included?
  • "Roza was above average in height, with light brown hair and blue eyes, and spoke in a drawling Northern Russian dialect." As far as I know, a person's appearance does not need to be described (even if their photo is black-and-white). Her dialect may be worth mentioning, but there's no need to include "drawling".
  • "Shanina graduated from college in the 1941–42 academic year, obtaining her certificate." Are we calling her "Roza" as above or "Shanina"? Be consistent. I'm not very familiar with Soviet academic terminology, but I would prefer the word "diploma" here unless "certificate" is the proper translation. And finally, "Shanina graduated from college in the 1941-42 academic year and obtained her certificate/diploma" avoids any participial phrase.
  • "At that time the Soviet Union had been deploying numerous female snipers, because they were small in stature and had flexible limbs, as well as being both patient and cunning." The last part of this sentence doesn't seem quite right; perhaps it would be better as "and it was believed that they were both patient and cunning".
  • "The other girls, concerned, ran up saying, 'That was a fascist you finished off!'" I'm assuming that the Soviet Union was sending women, and not mere girls, into World War II.
  • "In May 1944, Shanina became credited with 17 confirmed enemy kills,[13] and in the second half of May was praised as a precise and brave soldier." I would rewrite this as "By May 1944, Shanina was credited with 17 confirmed enemy kills, and was soon praised as a precise and brave soldier."
  • "Shanina loved writing and used to send letters to her home village and to the other girls in Arkhangelsk." "Used to" is rather informal; better is "would often". And once again, it's hard to believe that mere girls would be subjected to the horrors of war, though in this case I would replace "other girls" with "her friends".
  • A citation should be given for the second paragraph in the "Diary" section.
  • "Three of Shanina's brothers (Mikhail, Fyodor and Sergey) died in the war. Mikhail died during the Siege of Leningrad in 1941, while Fyodor was killed the same year during the Battle of Crimea." Why mention all of this after describing Shanina's personal life, at the end of the whole article? Indeed, are the fates of her brothers relevant to the article? I do not believe they are unless her mourning over them is noteworthy.
All in all this is a very readable and informative article, but it could still use some fine-tuning. Interchangeable|talk to me 21:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all fixed, thanks. I decided to leave her appearance as there's no color photography of her of the time to my knowledge. As for diploma, the original word in the ref is "аттестат", which is closer to "certificate" than "diploma" IMO (I'm not sure that the document looked like diploma). As soon as I get more familiar with IPA, I'll add it. Brandmeister t 14:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The lede should describe her death, given that it comprises a significant part of the article, and happened under exceptional circumstances. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Brandmeister t 12:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. But I wish you luck with this nevertheless. Roza was obviously a remarkable woman, and she deserves to be remembered. Unfortunately though this article needs a lot of work on the prose to meet the FA criteria. Maybe a MilHist A-class review would be a good place to start? I'll give just a few examples of problems anyway:

  • "There Shanina lived with her aunt Agnia Borisova. On Saturdays Shanina went to the village to take care of her ill aunt." Is this a different aunt?
  • "Roza together with one friend in grades five through seven had to walk 13 kilometres (8.1 mi) to Bereznik ...". I don't understand what "one friend in grades five through seven" means in this context.
  • "... to the rail station and rode to Arkhangelsk to study in the college there". You don't study in a college, you study at a college.
  • "Shanina departed almost without money or possessions." What does that mean? With very little money and almost no possessions?
  • "Shanina received little from home ...". Little what from home? Financial support?
  • "At that time the Soviet Union had been deploying numerous female snipers, because they were small in stature ...". How do we reconcile this with having been told earlier that she was "above average in height"?
  • "For her actions in the 1944 battle for the village Kozyi Gory ...". Should that be "for the village of Kozyi Gory"?
  • "Shanina with a sniper badge on the right chest." As opposed to the wrong chest? "Her right chest" would be better.
  • "In the diary Shanina noted in particular ...". Whose diary? Hers?
  • "Shortly before her death, Shanina was made eligible for her third Order of Glory." How is someone "made" eligible, as opposed to becoming eligible?
  • "... which asked Shanina's contemporaries to write what they know about her." The tenses don't match;. should be "to write what they knew about her".
  • "In 1964–65 a renewed interest in Shanina sparked in the Soviet press ...". Why?
  • "... and most of all, valued courage and absence of egoism in people". The word is "egotism".

Malleus Fatuorum 02:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed or paraphrased. The article was previously copyedited in the Guild of Copy Editors, but I'm ready to address other problems if they are. Brandmeister t 12:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest that you ask for your money back from the GoCE in that case, as there are still lots of problems. A few more examples:
  • "Shanina died during the East Prussian Offensive while shielding the wounded commander of the artillery unit." Why "the" rather than "her" artillery unit? Was there only one involved in the East Prussian Offensive?
  • "There Shanina lived with her ill aunt Agnia Borisova. On Saturdays Shanina went to the village to take care of Borisova." That still doesn't make sense. If she lived with her aunt then she must already have been in the village. Or did she board at the school during the week?
  • "Shanina departed almost without money and possessions." Still hasn't been fixed.
  • "... Roza sometimes returned from her compatriots of Ustyansky District to her college dormitory at 2–3 am". "Compatriots of" is very unidiomatic.
  • "Shanina graduated from college in the 1941–42 academic year, obtaining her certificate." Her certificate of what? Her graduation certificate? If so, then it's sufficient to tell us that she graduated from college.
  • "At that time the Soviet Union had been deploying numerous female snipers ...". "Had been" implies that they no longer were, and thus is incompatible with "at that time".
  • "... while still living in the dormitory." What dormitory? Last we heard she'd been offered a free apartment.
Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I just don't know whether it was her artillery unit, so changed to "an". "...while still living in the dormitory" has been left because she would probably live in the kindergarten's apartment only temporarily while working. Brandmeister t 21:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, I don't speak Russian. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in how multi-author sources are notated
  • Be consistent in whether months are abbreviated or not
  • FN 16: formatting
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide locations for books
  • Compare formatting of FNs 17 and 18
  • Who publishes this source? This one? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. The first source is published by the Russian state TV and radio broadcasting company Pomorie, the second is the webportal of Arkhangelsk Oblast (Ustyany District in particular). I've removed the last ref as it's user-generated. Brandmeister t 16:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd take another look at the page; I wasn't careful enough last time.

  • "Before moving to a dormitory..." In what academic institution/boardinghouse?
  • The sentences in the article, and in particular second paragraph of her early life are all very short and choppy; you should join a few together with semicolons, commas, and transitions.
  • Should the Diary section be so intrusive, in the middle of her two tours of duty? It might be better to place it at the end of the section.
  • "Diarial" is indeed a word according to TheFreeDictionary.com, but it may confuse readers. As a caption for the image, I would prefer "one of Shanina's notebooks".
  • Shanina cannot have "a sniper badge on her right chest" as per the caption of the image in the East Prussia section. If so, she must have two chest. Better is "on the right side of her chest" or simply "on her chest". Or you could just avoid all mentions of her chest altogether and use "Shanina with a sniper badge." Come to think of it, what was that badge and what was its significance? Is it a Soviet or Allied military award that should be mentioned? Is it one of her awards of honour and glory?
  • For which counter-offensive did she receive the Medal for Courage?
  • "Following the East Prussian Offensive, the Germans tried to strengthen every location." I would heartily commend Germany for attempting to fortify the entire universe, which is what "every location" actually means, but I assume "fortify all of their strongholds" was intended.
  • "Its title refers to the Shanina's words..." I understand the difficulty with using articles in English, but they are not used before proper names unless an entire family is being described. So drop "the".
  • "'I have clearly remembered the mother's eyes. They weren't teary anymore." That first sentence seems like a mistranslation, not that I speak Russian or can even access the original text.
  • Should "Oy tumany moi, rastumany" be romanized? After all, its translation is given immediately, it is a genuine Russian title, and the article is understandable without it (unlike her name; Ша́нина would turn away a lot of readers).

The article is still excellent; I won't retract my support. Best of luck, Interchangeable|talk to me 18:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Largely fixed. I decided to leave the Diary section where it is for chronological concerns to maintain smoother text flow. The ref doesn't specify which counter-offensive. What's wrong with "I have clearly remembered the mother's eyes" and how do you propose to tune it? The song's Romanized title was retained for encyclopedical purposes since the translation may vary. Brandmeister t 16:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does not make sense. The present perfect tense, which is used, means that the action was completed soon before the time of speaking or writing. I assume that this is what is meant: "I clearly remember her mother's eyes." (This describes the action in the present; Shanin is talking about the present. "They weren't teary at all..." ("They weren't teary anymore" means that they were teary at some point in the past, but this is no longer the case; this is obviously a fallacy.) Interchangeable|talk to me 19:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to past simple. The mother already lost some sons before Shanina's death, so I translated that another sentence the way it is. Brandmeister t 22:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose. Unfortunately it seems your copy editor might not have been as thorough as needed. This really does need to be looked at closely by another copy editor. As it stands, there are too many points where the English is not quite at the natural, native-speaker level. The content is very comprehensive, the structure is strong and the topic is very interesting, but I can't support without the prose receiving some further attention. Please do renominate this after it's been copy edited again. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Malleus, who did his usual fine work. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 08:57, 11 March 2012 [37].

S&M (song)

Nominator(s): Aaron • You Da One 15:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... "I think it meets FAC criteria". I've said this so many times! lol. I'm not a religious person but I pray to God that it passes this time. Thanks. Aaron • You Da One 15:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Calvin999. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All my previous concerns about prose and sourcing have been addressed. Good job. Orane (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I request clarification on a couple awkward expressions in the "Composition and lyrical interpretation" section. It states, "The lyrics of "S&M" revolve around sex, sadomasochism, bondage and BSDM fetishes, including the various sexual fantasies and turn-ons of its protagonist... Rihanna stated that although she acts in a non-conservative manner and implies that she is "bad", this is not the case in the bedroom, confirming that she is "good" at performing sex.[9] After singing these lines, Rihanna confesses her love for chains and whips, chanting."
It goes from talking about a protagonist to taking about Rihanna herself. If you're still discussing the lyrics, you need to be consistent in differentiating between the protagonist/narrator and the actual artist. I'm thinking that it's the protagonist who says that she is good at sex, and not Rihanna herself (at least in the context of the lyrical interpretation). Am I being clear? Orane (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Have changed to protagonist. Aaron • You Da One 22:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images

  • The Britney Spears image caption should not have end punctuation as it's not a sentence.
    Removed Aaron • You Da One
  • FN 90 needs to be consistent with other magazine references.
    Fixed Aaron • You Da One
  • Also, languages do not have to be linked and avoid repeating publishers (e.g. "IRMA. IRMA", there may be more).
    What do you mean by linked languages? Aaron • You Da One
    FN 130 - "Greek" is linked. Does not have to be. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Aaron • You Da One
  • PDF refs should specify "format=" as a PDF, FN 124 has a typo.
    Added format=. And where is the typo?
    Sorry, it was 132 and 133. After the date, there's a pipe. Missed format for 134. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Aaron • You Da One
  • MTV.de can be MTV Germany, just saying.
    Done Aaron • You Da One
  • Do Billboard refs have the publisher parenthesized or not? Be consistent.
    Yes they do. They are all the same now. Aaron • You Da One
  • FN 5 needs single quotation marks for "Bad Ass" because they are inside the reference title, which is surrounded by double quotes.
    Done Aaron • You Da One
  • FN 10 publisher needs to be linked.
    Done Aaron • You Da One
  • Publisher for FN 42 can be the Polish Society of the Phonographic Industry.
    Done Aaron • You Da One
  • FN 86 is RadarOnline, one word.
    Done Aaron • You Da One
  • Works and publishers for FN 139 do not have to be linked.
    Done Aaron • You Da One
  • Everything else looks good. However, the last few references were where I found a lot of issues, so double check that area. I may update with more concerns. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Oppose on criterion 1a, prose. I'm finding it hard to read through the first paragraph of the lead, which isn't all too positive of an indication of what is yet to come in the article. Several examples:

  • "with production helmed by" is a rather ungainly construction. What's wrong with "produced by"?
  • "It was released on January 21, 2011, as the album's fourth United States single, and on February 11, 2011, as the third European, Oceanic and South American single." The way the regional adjectives are used here makes the sentence needlessly difficult to digest.
  • "Inspired by channelling Rihanna," What does this even mean?
    She was channelling Rihanna when writing the song. She was inspired by Rihanna. I don't know how else to put it simply. Aaron • You Da One
  • What does channelling mean in this context? I'm unfamiliar with it being used this way. Auree ★ 21:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the lyrics based on the hook which she conceived." Clause should be restrictive here
    ? Aaron • You Da One
    He means that you should change "which" to "that". Orane (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I killed two birds with one stone by merging the sentence it occurs in with the preceding one--gets rid of some redundancy and the clause, so struck. Auree ★ 21:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Aaron • You Da One
  • "The lyrics of "S&M" revolve around sex, sadomasochism and bondage and fetishes." Is not bondage a fetish? Also, no need to wikilink common terms like "sex".
    Unlinked sex. Bondage is not a fetish; bondage is a type of restraint and sexual activity. A sexual fetish is when one is aroused by body parts or a specific object. Aaron • You Da One
  • Done. Aaron • You Da One
  • The article is written in American English; "whilst" is not American spelling.
    Changed to "while". Aaron • You Da One
  • ""S&M" received mixed reviews from music critics, who criticized the song's overtly sexual lyrics, whilst others called it one of the best tracks from Loud." The usage of "who" here implies that all of the critics (the ones that gave mixed reviews) criticized the lyrics (negatively), and it doesn't flow well with the contradiction in the third clause. Suggest rewording to ""S&M" received mixed reviews from music critics; some criticized the song's overtly sexual lyrics, while others called it one of the best tracks from Loud." or something along those lines.
    Re-worded. Aaron • You Da One

Thanks for your changes. Two more things:

  • Although I personally don't see much need to wikilink the term, "fetishes" should be linked upon first occurrence in the lead.
  • "The video initiated a lawsuit" I'm not sure videos initiate lawsuits; people or organizations do. Auree ★ 21:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I'm finding lots of issues in the lead alone, so I feel inclined to oppose at this time. Auree ★ 01:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this comes down to your own personal preference of what you like and dislike. The lead follows the same style that recently pointed FAs have. Plus, it has been copyedited by people with FA experience. I can't keep on changing the lead to please just one person. Aaron • You Da One 12:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin, this nomination would have a better chance of promotion if you engaged with reviewers, rather than dismissing them. Correct grammar is not a question of personal preference. For example, Hylian Auree is correct about the need for a restrictive clause – all you have to do is to agree on changing "which" to "that". And, "whilst" is archaic even in British English. FAC is not a vote and one unaddressed oppose can be enough to prevent promotion. Also, note that the reviewer has successful FA experience too! Graham Colm (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not basing this on personal whim (aside from the first two concerns, perhaps, which I have struck now); I'm basing this on FA criterion 1a: "It is well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." My concerns are heightened by the fact that the lead should represent the article at its best; I am, as everyone else here, a voluntary reviewer with an opinion of my own, and as it stands I find parts of the lead to be rather ponderous. Again, this is just my opinion, and other reviewers may agree or disagree. Auree ★ 15:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I mean, people read things differently. Aaron • You Da One 16:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calvin, I think you should just implement Auree's changes. To tell the truth, my support is based on a previous version of this article. At the last FA, the introduction was not like this ("on February 11, 2011, as the third European, Oceanic and South American single" etc). So, just go ahead with the changes, and invite the reviewer to read the full article, which, in my opinion, is markedly better than the prose in the intro. Orane (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, Orane, I have no problem with reading through the rest. It just struck me as unusual to find so many prose errors in the lead. Auree ★ 21:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I've done the last thing now. Aaron • You Da One 22:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've read till the Remixes and release section, and I must say that Orane was right in what he said. The sections only need a light copy-edit as far as I can tell, which I will make soon. One thing that struck me as odd is the repetition of the years in dates throughout the Remixes and release section. I would only keep the first ones in each paragraph (January 17, 2011, and January 23, 2011). Auree ★ 22:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Aaron • You Da One 22:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the repetition of "2011" in every date is necessary, as there's no other year mentioned in the section (e.g. "April 11, 2011" could just be "April 11"). Auree ★ 22:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your assessment, Auree. Also, I just trimmed and rearranged the first paragraph of the intro just a little bit. Will do another light copy-edit of the entire article soon. Thanks also for your part in copyediting it. Orane (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that your changes make a world of difference. The first paragraph of the lead is now engaging and introductory, which is how it is supposed to be. I will strike my oppose but will refrain from supporting for now. I'll try to read the rest of the article by tomorrow. Auree ★ 23:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "S&M" became Rihanna's tenth US number-one single on the Hot 100 chart, and Spears' fifth. -> "Spears'" should be "Spears's". Till I Go Home (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't an accepted rule that governs the possessive of singular nouns that end in s. It depends on how the word is pronounced; do we want to hear "Spears" or "Spearseez"? I prefer the former based on euphony. Graham Colm (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, just checked other FAs and a second 's' is not imposed. Till I Go Home (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and see here about euphony [38]. Best wishes, Graham Colm (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Jivesh
Prose that seem awkward
    • An uptempo dance-pop and eurodance song that samples the synthesizer line from Depeche Mode's 1984 hit "Master and Servant", the song's instrumentation comprises synthesizers, bass beats, a keyboard and guitars.
    • American singer and songwriter Ester Dean received additional writing credits.
    • Chris Ryan of MTV Buzzworthy compared "S&M" to the production of Loud's lead single "Only Girl (In the World)", which was produced by Stargate. - I think you can let the reader know that both songs were produced by Stargate? Did the critics mention this while comparing both songs? If no remove , which was produced by Stargate
    • Rihanna's vocal range spans one octave from B3 to B4 on the song - You can let readers know that those two are musical notes.
    • Dean, who served as co-writer, also provided backing vocals. - What makes that a necessary mention for the second time?
    • was criticized by Meg Sullivan of The Music Magazine as a case of "I had nothing else decent to write." - What is this piece of criticism doing in composition?
    • the singer ... the song's protagonist - make a choice, I think it is necessary. Anyway, I don't think Rihanna ios playing a protagonist here because she overtly talked about her (dirty) fantasies to a magazine.
    • An official remix of "S&M", featuring rapper J. Cole, was released on January 17, 2011. - Did Rihanna confirm it was official? Or her label? Released? Where? I don't think it was available for paid download.
    • contemporary hit radio and rhythmic radio station - Will you use station for all or not use it at all?
    • Extended play - should be small "e"
Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done all. Aaron • You Da One 13:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jake Conway of Q wrote that its lyrics showed that "Rihanna proves why she remains one of the most provocative artists in pop music," and "turns the tables on abusive ex-lover Chris Brown."
    • Nick Levine of Digital Spy gave the song four out of five stars - Care to mention it is in fact a rating
    • Meg Sullivan of The Music Magazine gave a mixed review, noting that it is a "catchy" song, but does not make an impression or provide memorability, writing that the hook "Na, na, na, c'mon" is a case of "I had nothing else decent to write." Sullivan continued to write that the lyrics were purposely written to shock and offend, but noted "In all honesty, these days I'd be more shocked if her next single WASN'T [sic] about her sexual desires." - Allow me to say that this is very verbose prose and it is very bad when read aloud.
    • Chris Ryan of MTV described the song as being about "Dirty, naughty, illicit bedroom activities". - I think it should be a small "[d]..."
    • James Skinner of BBC Music wrote that "S&M" lacked the appeal Rated R's "chart-friendly moments" had. Skinner criticized the use of overtly suggestive lyrics that he said were not synonymous with the flirtatious appeal that Rihanna was trying to create. With regard to Rihanna's vocals, Skinner described her delivery of the line as "forced", criticizing her for not projecting a "daring" or convincing sound. - Here you said too much in per unit line and you are again using a very verbose prose.
    • USA Today's Steve Jones noted that Rihanna "never retreats from that sexually aggressive tone as she shakes off the dark cloud of domestic violence that veiled 2009's Rated R", and added that "Loud's pulsating opener, S&M, makes it clear from the jump where [Rihanna's] headed as she acknowledges that 'chains and whips excite me'."[13] - Won't this fit better next to Sal Cinquemani of Slant Magazine, and Thomas Conner of the Chicago Sun Times...
My general comment on critical reception is that the prose is overly verbose at times and it could have been organized better. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • denoting sales of over 15,000 copies - certifications are based on shipments
      • You know now that different countries are based on sales or shipments. Aaron • You Da One
    • The song has since been certified gold in Belgium, denoting sales of over 15,000 copies,[54] Denmark,[55] and Sweden,[56] and platinum in Switzerland, denoting sales of over 15,000 copies.[57 - The shipments for the others are the same?
    • was officially released as a single - remove officially
    • The song was number one on March 13, 2011, for five non-consecutive weeks - What does this sentence even mean? :S
    • denoting shipments of over 280,000 copies of the single - shipment should be used (singular) + of the single is repetitive next to copies. No need to say that.
    • In the issue of Billboard published on April 30, 2011, "S&M" sold 293,000 downloads, due to the release of the remix featuring Britney Spears, and replaced Katy Perry's "E.T." on the Billboard Hot 100 - This sentence is very confusing. Make it clear that downloads came both form the album version and the remix.
    • "S&M" became Rihanna's eighth number-one song on the Billboard Pop Songs chart, and made Rihanna the artist with the most number one songs in the chart's nineteen-year history
    • denoting shipments of over two million copies - I hope you know what has to be corrected
    • "S&M" ranked at number 15 on Billboard magazine's best-selling top 50 Pop Songs[67] and number two on the top 50 best-selling Dance/Clubs Songs of 2011. - WP:OR... in the US, year-end charts are not sole based on sales. So, you should not write "best-selling"
      • Not OR. There is a source there.
  • It is still OR. I just told you those two charts (in fact any year-end chart in the US) are not based on sales only. So don't write best-selling. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed all. Aaron • You Da One 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The music video for "S&M" was filmed in Los Angeles during the weekend of January 15, 2011.[70][71] It was directed by Melina Matsoukas, the director of the music videos for "Hard", "Rude Boy" and "Rockstar 101". - Can easily be one sentence if you remove all the unnecessary details.
Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Aaron • You Da One 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

**according to gossip-blogger Perez Hilton who was in the video. - Did I really see Perez Hilton? If yes, everything coming from it has got to go.

  • Perez Hilton is not even allowed in GAs. I know the source is MTV News but it remains the blogger's analysis. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rihanna's love of pop art influenced the video - Not sure about this phrasing, especially be FA standards.
    • The music video was premiered on VEVO on February 1, 2011. - Remove was
    • I see over-linking of Perez Hilton.
General comment: The synopsis is pretty interesting. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Huffington Post wrote - A magazine does not write, a journalist/critic writes
    • OK! magazine - Why OK! magazine when you never said Billboard magazine? Be consistent
    • Same for New York magazine
    • I see over-linking of Billboard
      • It's only linked once in the entire body. Aaron • You Da One
      • Only linked once in this section.
  • It's linked twice; in Background and conception, then in Reception and ban. It's obvious I won't write something that is not true. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I go out to make something, I kind of go out with the intention to get it banned – [well] not to get it banned, I always want my stuff played – but to make something provocative ... so when you do something that's provocative, that's usually a repercussion. It's gonna be talked about or banned or slandered in some way. But it's making an effect and people are having a dialogue about it, so, to me, that's successful - So this is supposed to be a block-quote? However, my eyes don't see it as a block-quote. Either you move those pictures (which, in my opinion, are unneeded) or you paraphrase the quote as the reception is already made of quotes and quotes.
    • at the 2011 BRIT Awards on February 15, 2011
  • ?
    • Although Rihanna had planned to perform the entire song to promote its release as a single' - since when do we promote the release of a song? Did you mean simply "Although Rihanna had planned to perform the entire song to promote it"?
  • Then please make the correction I asked for. If you did not understand, read what I wrote one more time. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spears' outfit was black, and she wore a mask and rabbit ears, and both singers wore chained handcuffs.
    • Rihanna opened the performance seated and provocatively opened her legs, and simulated whipping sounds were used throughout the song.
    • Rihanna performed "S&M" on May 27, 2011, on NBC's Today show's "Summer Concert Series", along with "Only Girl (In the World)", "What's My Name?" and "California King Bed", where she gave an interview about the album, and about her controversial performance at the Billboard Music Awards with Spears.
    • I see over-linking to BDSM
  • It has been linked twice. In Composition and live performances. And again, i won't write something false. I did not say where simply because you have written the article and you should be knowing where. Added to this, this is an FA review. Comments should be brief. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • She then transitioned into "S&M" - This reads awkwardly as well.
Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some final comments (Prose that still looks sloppy);

  • Although Rihanna had planned to perform "S&M" in its entirety to promote its release as a single, she only sang the chorus and one verse, inserted between "Only Girl (In The World)" and "What's My Name?".
  • I see some repetitive use of Rihanna
  • She changed the performance - Is this the best way of saying this? Change would be like she did not even perform "S&M"
Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done all three. Aaron • You Da One 17:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to Support All my concerns with regard to the prose have been addressed. I will do a quick check of the references and support. Well done. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and references. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"for 4:03 (4 minutes, three seconds)." -> Why not 4:03 minutes or four minutes, three seconds, or something like that.
"'Shut me up, gag and bound me/'Cause the pain is my pleasure/Nothing comes better'" -> consistency with the slashes (see section above, second para)
I read "via iTunes" four times in the same paragraph
"A blond woman in a red jacket with black fur on her shoulder. She is singing into a microphone" -> Am I missing something? Also, it is the only image with ALT text.
"where [Rihanna's] headed as she acknowledges that 'chains and whips excite me'" -> I think that 'chains and whips excite [her]' has more sense in the sentence
"In the UK," -> In the United Kingdom; as it is the first time it is mentioned
"R&B / hip hop single" -> Shouldn't be R&B/Hip hop (if it is the name of a chart) if not MOS:SLASH applies
  • The Official Charts Company actually list R&B/Hip hop songs as Urban, so have written Urban. Aaron • You Da One
"and top-ten in the Netherlands,[51][52] peaking at numbers six and seven, respectively." -> What does that mean?
""S&M" charted at number eight in the Czech Republic.[53]" -> Why don't you merge it?
  • The sentence would be too long then.
"and walks Hilton" -> Perez Hilton? Paris Hilton?
  • Sorry, Perez was previously mentioned in the first para but it was removed. Aaron • You Da One
All "Apple"s should be "Apple Inc" (without the dot, it will appear)
  • Only Time Inc. should have the Inc. included. All others should not. Pretty sure it is mentioned above. If not, then it's in the last FAC. Aaron • You Da One
Ref 64.- Consistency needed
  • I have written |work=Billboard|Prometheus Global Media| Lol. Aaron • You Da One
Ref 105.- Accessdate missed
Ref 132.- Accessdate missed
  • Added. Aaron • You Da One
  • The main concern I have is the correct use of English. Since Rihanna is Barbadian, and Barbados is part of the Commonwealth, shouldn't this article be written in Barbadian English? Words like "conceptualized", "color", "criticized", etc. shouldn't be written in British English? The same concern with the dates. Tbhotch.™ 19:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that the word "Barbadian" only appears once in the entire article, that she resides in the US, that the song was produced in the US and that both the article and the single are highly US-centralized, I think American English is most applicable here. I think the lyrics of her songs are also written in AmE in her album booklets, though I'm not too sure about this last point. Auree ★★ 20:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll ask to the respective MOS, considering that she is not Barbadian-American the article should have British English, in my view. Tbhotch.™ 01:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WT:MOS the American English should be WP:RETAINED, unless there is a consesus at S&M talkpage or WP:RIHANNA to use British English. Tbhotch.™ 05:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to support. Considering that this article has been reviewed multiple times, if there are no problems with references, images or spot-checks, it'll have my support. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked at images and sources above. Spotchecks haven't been done though. (hint to anyone interested in doing so) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to Oppose
  • Three block quotes for an article of this size is a bit excessive. The Britney Spears one I see as the most unnecessary and it adds little to nothing to the article.
    There are two block quotes now. Aaron • You Da One
    ... and the one that was removed is now a normal (but rather long) quotation. Paraphrase it, trim it or don't use the quotation at all. Second, I personally do not see the value in the Britney Spears block quote. "She really liked the song to begin with, but it was a different story when she had to sing it, and she really wanted to be a part of it." is the only part of the quote that adds something to the article. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical reception is excessively using quotations. I understand this is a place where there will be more quotations from the rest of the article, but this is too much.
    Doing Aaron • You Da One
    Better, but first paragraph is still do dense in quotations. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's fine now. Aaron • You Da One
  • Likewise the Reception and ban section, but to a lesser extent.
    Doing Aaron • You Da One
    Could use a bit more work. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's fine now. Aaron • You Da One
    Done. Aaron • You Da One
  • "Chris Ryan of MTV Buzzworthy compared "S&M" to the production of Loud's lead single "Only Girl (In the World)"" - what aspects of these songs exactly are similar? This sentence is open to interpretation.
    That's it. He just compared it their production. Aaron • You Da One
    I just happened to notice that the source does not compare the two singles, but only says that Stargate put their signature sound on both songs. The source also says something about the "steady-rocking dance track, with ominous, snarling keyboard sounds." You could integrate that into the section too. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 16:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing was done to address this concern. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You said it was a suggestion. Aaron • You Da One
    An idea to get you started. "X compared the song to Y" is not enough. It's vague and leaves readers hanging. The statement isn't even supported by the source. Did you read my "suggestion"? Please fix this, thanks. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. ANd it is supported, it's clearly there. Aaron • You Da One
    There's a difference between a direct comparison between two singles and saying that a producer produced both songs. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see what was wrong with it, because it was the lead single, but I changed it anyway. Aaron • You Da One 15:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that it was a lead single does not matter. It still was not a comparison. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Stargate, who have also put their signature sound on previous singles from Rihanna's Loud album, like "Only Girl (In The World)," He is all but explicitly comparing it. Aaron • You Da One 15:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No the writer is not. He's only saying Stargate produced "Only Girl (In the World)" as well. That is not a direct comparison. They've put their signature sound in about fifty other songs. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is a case of "I had nothing else decent to write."" - that's somewhat unprofessional writing
    I disagree. Aaron • You Da One
    It's a journalistic tone: not encyclopaedic. Try something like "shows the writer's lack of good ideas", or remove the word "good", or something. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 16:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed. Aaron • You Da One
  • "Chris Ryan of MTV described the song as being about "dirty, naughty, illicit bedroom activities"" - should be in composition?
    Moved. Aaron • You Da One
  • The information about radio censorship should be moved to the Release section, not in Critical reception, which is for reviews from critics.
    Moved. Aaron • You Da One
  • Per WP:ORDINAL, chart positions should be consistently written as numerals or words.
    All chart positions are numbers now. Aaron • You Da One
  • Chart performance repetitively says "S&M" over and over. Replace these instances with it, or the single, or etc.
    Changed a lot of them. Aaron • You Da One
  • "The resolution of the lawsuit was announced on October 19, 2011, as Rihanna was ordered to pay LaChapelle an undisclosed sum of money." - can be tightened to "On October 19, 2011, Rihanna was ordered to pay LaChapelle an undisclosed sum of money."
    Changed. Aaron • You Da One
  • Synopsis section of Music video could use more "she"s than "Rihanna"s.
    Changed a lot of them. Aaron • You Da One
  • "inserted between "Only Girl (In The World)" and "What's My Name?"" - awkward "inserted".
    Reworded. Aaron • You Da One
  • "She gave an interview about the album, and about her controversial performance at the Billboard Music Awards with Spears" - interview to whom? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't say. Aaron • You Da One
    The comma placement here is awkward.
    Overall, there is still more work to be done. Some concerns need revisiting. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the comma. Aaron • You Da One
  • It looks as though a few concerns have gone unnoticed? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on criterion 1a. From the lead alone:

  • "...the song was released on January 21..." – Was the song released (i.e. published) or was this recording of the song released?
    Released in the sense that people can buy it, as usual. Aaron • You Da One
    People can buy the legal rights to the song?? Or did you mean the sheet music? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When people can buy the song, yes, a CD or a digital download. Why are you making things so difficult and unnecessarily complicated?? Aaron • You Da One
  • "...instrumentation comprises of..." – explanation here
    Changed to consists. Aaron • You Da One
  • "...which are about sex, sadomasochism, bondage and fetishes..." – wouldn't BDSM cover all of that?
    No. If you would have read the comments above, you would see that BDSM is the consensual use of restraints and other prohibitive devices, which is none of those. Aaron • You Da One
    Really? You might want to read the BDSM article... Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I did. Sexual intercourse is not a restraint, sadomasochism is not a restraint, and a fetish is not a restraint. Aaron • You Da One
  • "...were conceptualized by Dean, who attempted to reflect Rihanna's sexually confident persona."
    Removed. Aaron • You Da One
  • Regarding the previous sentence, I don't see support for that idea later in the article.
    Writing and theme section. Aaron • You Da One
    No, there's nothing in that section to support the idea. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is now. Aaron • You Da One
    You've repeated the phrase in the body, but the citation you paired with it doesn't support the idea at all. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'S&M' received divided opinions..." – Something's weird about a song's receiving an opinion. Songs can receive reviews or praise or scorn, but I'm not sure about opinions. Maybe because opinions remain with you but reviews/praise/scorn transfer...?
    A review, praise or scorn is still an opinion. Aaron • You Da One
  • "...some criticized the song's overtly sexual lyrics, while others called it one of the best tracks from Loud." – The second part does not necessarily contrast the first. It's not even meaningful on its own, as Loud could be the worst album of all time for all I know.
    Okay? Aaron • You Da One
  • "The song was number one on the singles charts in Australia, Canada, and Poland, attaining top-five positions in Germany, France, Ireland and Spain." – This construction suggests that reaching number one in A/C/P is how a song attains a top-five position in G/F/I/S. Or maybe the other way around...
    Reworded. Aaron • You Da One
  • The previous example contains one list that uses a serial comma and one that does not. Check for consistency throughout.
    What is a serial comma? Aaron • You Da One
See Serial comma, usage should be consistent. Graham Colm (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Usage remains inconsistent. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...at the 2011 BRIT Awards, and sang..." – What does that comma accomplish?
    Removed. Aaron • You Da One
  • "...but photographer David LaChapelle filed a lawsuit and alleged that it incorporates ideas..." – Based on the construction, "it" refers either to "the use of vibrant colors and Rihanna's sensuality". I suspect you actually mean the video generally, so state that.
    Well it's obvious considering the previous sentence talks about the video, and the first part of the sentence talks about critics opinions. Aaron • You Da One
    Indeed it's obvious, but you're here because you believe the prose is excellent and not merely sufficient to get the point across, right? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So you agree it's obvious? What's your point then? Aaron • You Da One
    Criterion 1a. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more from later in the article, just for fun (spot the errors):

  • "The photographer continued to explain why he felt a lawsuit was appropriate and likened it to singers sampling other artists' lyrics and melodies for use in their own work..."
    ? Aaron • You Da One
How can a lawsuit be likened to sampling? Graham Colm (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is very easy to comprehend. He is arguing that why should a singer be able to copy things for their music videos when they have to get permission to use another singer's song. Aaron • You Da One
It might be easy to understand, but it's poor prose. You have to replace it in the sentence (a pronoun, which refers to lawsuit) with whatever it actually refers to. Graham Colm (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a grammatical mistake in the sentence, too. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been changed. Aaron • You Da One

I would also point out that only minor changes were made between the last failed nomination and this one.

Your point is redundant. Aaron • You Da One
Redundancy, exactly. Why should reviewers bother with a nomination that's already failed when minimal changes have occurred in the interim? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well it can't be that bad, I have 3 supports, so. Aaron • You Da One 00:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 05:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, a new error has now been introduced in the lead: "The song's lyrics, which are about sex, sadomasochism, bondage and fetishes." Auree ★★ 16:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Corrected. Aaron • You Da One
I removed a bunch of redundant commas from the article and have also made the non-usage of the serial comma consistent; however, I came across this, which is exceedingly cumbersome: "In the issue of Billboard published on April 30, 2011, the album version of "S&M" and its official remix sold a combined total of 293,000 downloads, due to the release of the remix featuring Britney Spears, and replaced Katy Perry's "E.T." on the Billboard Hot 100, becoming Rihanna's tenth US number-one single on the chart." as well as this "The end of the video flashes between scenes from throughout the video and new scenes of Rihanna suggestively eating bananas, strawberries and cream, and bejeweled ice cream." Please revise. Auree ★★ 16:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done both. Aaron • You Da One 16:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Overall, I was disappointed in this song, I didn't like it as much as some of her other stuff. But as to the article itself:
  • Writing and theme and Composition and lyrical interpretation look fine to me, no comments there.
  • "Cinquenmani described "S&M" as an ode to sadomasochism that would catch the attention of Janet Jackson." Maybe note why he mentions her specifically here? i.e. does she have a history with this kind of theme?
  • "late night Cinemax naughtiness" I don't think you're supposed to link within quotations like that.
  • I made some copyedits, hopefully they are inoffensive. I'm really impressed that you are trying for a sixth time with this, I'll try to go over the rest of the article when I have more energy. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. I have done your comments. I think the linking of cinemax in this circumstance is fine, because I don't think it's a commonly known thing. I wouldn't have known what it was otherwise. Thanks for your c/e's. Aaron • You Da One 00:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome, one more thing, it looks like you might have left out a word here: "Jake Conway of Q wrote that the lyrics of displays why the singer continues to be one of the most provocative recording artists in the music industry". Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol, thanks. Aaron • You Da One 00:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really satisfied with the way you present whole Janet Jackson bit: you have "Cinquenmani described "S&M" as an ode to sadomasochism that would catch the attention of Janet Jackson,[14] due to the singer's tendency to perform S&M style performances.[35]" Cinquenmani says: "After comparing last year's Rated R to Janet Jackson's The Velvet Rope, Eric Henderson ended his review of the album by expressing hopes that Rihanna wouldn't follow up with something like All for You. At first glance, it appears that his fears were justified: Like Janet's last hit album, Loud is a decided step away from its über-personal, melodrama-drenched predecessor... That's not to say there aren't traces of the R-rated Rihanna here. The album opens with an ode to S&M that would make various parts of Janet's body perk up."[39] I'd suggest something like "Cinquenmani described "S&M" as an ode to sadomasochism that compares to Janet Jackson's The Velvet Rope".
    Done. Aaron • You Da One
  • I don't have a problem with linking to Cinemax, but is there a way to do it outside the quote so it lines up with WP:MOSLINK?
    Not really. Aaron • You Da One
  • I'm not sure you represent the Daily News piece accurately here: "Lindsay Goldwert of the Daily News suggested that Rihanna's comments on the types of sexual activity that she enjoys may be part of a healing process, after she was assaulted by her ex-boyfriend Chris Brown in February 2009.[40]" The article never explicitly mentions healing from abuse by Chris Brown, it quotes a couple therapists who say that submissive roles can be part of a healing process of childhood abuse or a way for powerful people to get relief from responsibility. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed it. Aaron • You Da One
  • Ok, I think that was probably a good idea, it wasn't really about the song per se. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a suggestion about flow: you start the Writing and theme with statements that a. Rihanna made indicating that she like S&M sexual activity in real life, b. then talk about a co-writer, c. then a statement by Rihanna that the lyrics are metaphorical--rather than about actual S&M sexual activity, d. then mention another co-writer. I'd move c. right after a., maybe add a "however" or something to note the contrast. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, but then the lyrics are being spoken about before we find out who wrote them? Surely it's best to keep it as who wrote them first and then what they are about. Aaron • You Da One 17:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I see what you're saying here, but is there a way to keep Rihanna's comments and the lists of co-writers together? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's fine as it is to be honest. Aaron • You Da One 18:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple more prose comments:
  • "various explicit acts with the singer with a feather boa and a top with the word "censored" across it are displayed." Maybe rephrase to avoid the "with... with" here.
    Was thinking of ways to rephrase but this one works the best. Aaron • You Da One
  • "The end of the video intercuts scenes from throughout the video and new scenes of Rihanna..." Is there a good way to avoid saying "video" and "scenes" twice here?
    Changed. Aaron • You Da One
  • "Rihanna responded to the news via Twitter, writing, "They watched 'Umbrella' ... I was full nude"." Could this be clarified a bit? A link to Umbrella (song) might be helpful too (though hopefully not within the quote". Mark Arsten (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Linked. Aaron • You Da One
  • Comment: I don't think I'll have time to finish my review of this article, but at the request of Calvin/Aaron I'll post my thoughts. I'm not inclined to support at this point as some of my concerns about MOS/Prose are unresolved and one of the references I looked at didn't support the claim found in the article. I still think this nomination could succeed if thoroughly spot-checked and if an experienced prose reviewer were to review the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks found some issues:

  • "she does not think of the song in a sexual way" vs "I don't think of it in a sexual way"
    Reworded. Aaron • You Da One
  • Short verbatim phrases like "sexually aggressive tone" should be quoted
    Quoted. Aaron • You Da One
  • "Rihanna logged the shortest span between a solo artist's first and tenth number-one in the chart's history" vs "Rihanna logs the shortest span between a solo artist's first and 10th No. 1s in the chart's 52-year history"
    Reworded. Aaron • You Da One
    Which now reads, "Rihanna set a recorded for the shortest span between a solo artist's first and tenth number-one in the history of the Hot 100" - it's still too close to the source, and what does "set a recorded" mean? Graham Colm (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops typo. Well, that was what happened. Aaron • You Da One 17:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The wording is too close for inclusion in a FA, see here where it says "...cannot be closely paraphrased for copyright concerns, but must be substantially rewritten in original language". Graham Colm (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how I am supposed to re-word this case. It wouldn't really sense any other way as there is only one way to say that she logged the shorted span. It's not even identical, it is different. Aaron • You Da One 17:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Try something like "With only four years, eleven months and two weeks between her first and tenth number one on the chart, Rhianna set a record for a solo artist." Graham Colm (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've used that. Thanks. Aaron • You Da One 19:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't find "The video's production was influenced by Rihanna's love of pop art" in the cited source. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. Aaron • You Da One

Oppose Featured Articles represent our best work – but this one does not. I have followed this and previous nominations closely and reviewers are constantly highlighting problems. It's turning into a peer review of gigantic proportions. In this nomination further problems with the prose, which is a persistent problem, have been raised. And, we now have concerns over close paraphrasing, following a spot check. I think part of the problem is the nominator's unconsidered, quick (too quick), responses to comments, which are generic problems. I see dismissive comments like, "there is only one way to say that she logged the shorted span". Wrong, there are many ways to write things – English is a rich language. Looking once more at the article today – and to be blunt, I am tired of reading it – I immediately saw another error; "The single was released on iTunes Stores throughout Europe on February 11, 2011.[11] and South America." And colloquial phrases such as "uploaded online" still occur. I would be embarrassed to see this one the Main Page as a representation of our best work. The constant and numerous fixes here and there are not working and often introduce new problems. As I said many moths ago, the nominator needs to find collaborators; writing a Featured Article is not easy and there is no shame in admitting that help from other, more experienced, editors is needed. I expect the response to this comment will be an edit or two to address the two examples I have given – but this will not be enough; better contributions than this have failed to meet the criteria. Graham Colm (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close it then. Don't bother keeping it open. Clearly 3 supports means nothing. Aaron • You Da One 22:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Three supports matter, but three opposes indicate ongoing concerns that need to be addressed away from the current review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, clearly doesn't. And a comment like that Graham is hardly uplifting or motivational. Thanks for basically undermining all the work I've put into it over the last 8/9 months. Aaron • You Da One 12:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 14:17, 10 March 2012 [41].

Glen P. Robinson

Nominator(s): Disavian (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. The last FAC, started on Nov 8 and closed on Dec 12, made it all the way down the page with only one reviewer; User:Fifelfoo proposed some excellent changes. Hopefully, this nomination will receive a bit more love than that one did. :) Disavian (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Glen Parmelee Robinson, Jr." Missing comma.
  • Author for FN 3 is missing.
  • The caption for the photo is missing.
  • "Atlanta-area science-based companies." --> "Atlanta-based science-related companies."
  • "moved to Valdosta, Georgia in" missing comma after Georgia; please check throughout article.
    • Done. That was the only instance I could find. Disavian (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "American possessions during World War II." --> American possessions during the war." Stating WWII twice in one sentence is awkward.
  • "radiology-related equipment"
  • "it had $3.1 million revenue" --> "it had received $3.1 million in revenue"
  • "and $1.9 billion in revenue in 2005." for consistency with preceding figures, please also provide the amount in today's money?
  • "As of 2006, he and his wife, Jan, have had five" Not sure about this, since I have a limited understanding of English grammar.
  • FN 15 and 20 -- seasons should not be capitalised.
  • Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I'll be out all day judging a LEGO robotics competition, so it'll be a bit before I'm able to attend to most of your suggestions :) Disavian (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds cool -- enjoy yourself. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support My comments had been satisfactorily addressed; 1a/b/c/d/e (✔), 2a/b/c (✔), 3 (✔), and 4 (✔) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs) 02:05, January 23, 2012

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't need retrieval dates for convenience links to print-based sources like Google Books
  • Be consistent in whether locations are provided for books
  • Be consistent in how magazine/journal publishers are notated, and indeed whether they are included at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image appears unproblematic, though I don't have OTRS access to verify. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the ticket; it's all in order. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on content coverage, source quality, toolbox issues, citation formatting, inflation per last time's explanations, I think I spotchecked a few of the sources last time, I remember having gone through a fairly detailed process with this. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Quite short compared to most FAs, which isn't a criterion in and of itself, but I think it's indicative of a lack of comprehensiveness (criterion 1b) given some of the comments I've made below (such as a two-decade gap). Prose is choppy, and difficult to follow in places (1a), multiple examples below, and it relies far too heavily on non-independent sources for my liking (1c), see my last bullet point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • References in the lead are a pet hate of mine. They're not against the FA criteria per se, but per WP:LEADCITE, they shouldn't be there if not necessary (because the lead is intended to summarise what is written and cited in the body)
      • FAC reviewers seem to go back and forth on whether leads should have citations. However, since this is a BLP, I would err on the side of leaving them, even though the information isn't really contentious, simply because the mood and policy seems to swing so wildly about this. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • a physics graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) with both Bachelor's and Master's degrees seems like poor grammar to me. Perhaps it's an Americanism, but something seems odd about the structure "X graduate of Y with both A and B". It also makes it sound like he got both at the same time. Perhaps "graduated from the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) with a Bachelor's, and later Master's degree..."?
      • Perhaps is is an Americanism, but it's a style choice made, it seems, for brevity, and is expanded upon properly in the body of the article. I did re-work the structure to the form "a graduate of Y with both A and B in X," however, since that did seem to flow a little better. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are Bacherlor's and Master's capitalised?
    • Is it necessary to repeat "Florida" in the Early life and education section?
      • This was the result of not piping a link. Fixed. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some time after his family moved to Valdosta, Georgia, in 1937, Robinson opened a small machine shop—you either have too many or too few commas there, depending on what you're trying to say. Is it that the family moved in 1937, and he opened a shop at some point after that? If so, just say that!
      • This is correct, but I will agree that it is ambiguous. I've reworded the sentence. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't abbreviate to WWII in prose
    • Did he enlist voluntarily or was he conscripted?
      • As far as I know, no source specifies this. At least for American WWII veterans, it's uncommon for written accounts of their lives to distinguish between whether they were drafted or they were a volunteer unless they were a volunteer before the U.S. officially entered the war. Short of actually asking the man (which I believe would constitute original research), it's unlikely we'll ever know. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would like to note that this source uses the language "Within a few months, he enlisted in the Navy Signal Corps as a technician responsible for installing telephone systems on re-captured Pacific islands." - which would imply that he enlisted rather than being conscripted. However, I'm not sure I feel confident making that assumption from one sentence in one source. Disavian (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Robinson was also a member of Georgia Tech's prestigious secret society, the ANAK Society.—I'm sure you can think of a more interesting way of phrasing that that doesn't ruin the prose.
      • I presume your issue is the repetition of "society." This was the result of not piping a link to the article that is titled with the full name of the organization, which includes "society." Since I suppose it's been established that it's a society, I've shortened it to just "ANAK." LaMenta3 (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • too many sentences starting with "Robinson"—variety is the spice of life
    • One of his ham radio friends was actually his boss's boss and EES director, Gerald Rosselot.—what does that mean and why is it significant?
    • Prose doesn't flow well throughout the "Early life and education" section
    • In 1950, Robinson went to Tennessee to work in nuclear engineering for Oak Ridge National Laboratory, servicing radiology-related equipment at local hospitals.—Why did he move to Tennessee to do that?
    • bought all but one of the original investors What does the mean? Do you mean bought *out*? And if so, why all but one?
      • Yes, I believe that should have been "bought out." Fixed. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Years later, the school would promote Scientific Atlanta's origins at Georgia Tech, and Scientific Atlanta has been a longtime financial contributor to Georgia Tech. Is it really necessary (or neutral) to put that there? It smacks of "I told you so!"
      • I disagree. Most of the rest of the article's characterization of Georgia Tech's attitude toward Scientific Atlanta (and vice-versa) was almost adversarial, so it's important to note that, that is no longer the prevailing attitude. If the initial conflicts weren't so entwined with Robinson's professional biography, I'd be inclined to agree that this is unnecessary, but since they are, a characterization of the present relationship between the two entities is necessary to maintain neutrality. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scientific Atlanta helped NASA establish ground stations for communications with astronauts during the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo projects. That's a very abrupt sentence. When? Why? What specifically did the company do? What does this have to do with Robinson?
    • When John Glenn became the first American to orbit the Earth in 1962 on Mercury-Atlas 6, his voice was transmitted and received by radio antennas designed with equipment built by Scientific Atlanta—interesting, but what makes that more than trivia?
    • Ted Turner purchased one of Scientific Atlanta's first satellite systems, which formed the basis of Turner's "Super Station" that was broadcast around the country to other cable providers. Tell the reader who Ted Turner is in this context.
      • In this context, it's really only necessary to know that he's the owner of a "Super Station," which I believe is adequately conveyed. Further information is served by clicking on the wikilink to Turner's article.LaMenta3 (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Robinson remained CEO of Scientific Atlanta for 20 years, and chairman of the board for an additional eight years, until he retired from the company in 1979. That's a big jump. What did he do in the intervening 20-odd years?
    • Legacy section—that list of positions should be prose (at the minute it reads like a bulleted list, only with the bullet points removed)
    • Of the 40 sources cited, 25 are connected to the Georgia Institute of Technology, which I don't think can be considered an independent source for information on its alumni; of the remaining most appear to be press releases, web pages for various companies with which the subject has been involved, and new article about products produced by his companies, but the majority of the biographical information comes from Georgia Tech. That's not sufficient to meet 1c in my opinion.
      • I have a hard time believing that a nontrivial number of those Georgia Tech-related sources are not sufficiently neutral and reliable for our purposes. They're published by a variety of people and organizations related to the school, and a few of them appear to be of a historical motivation; for example, this particularly informative source is that man's PhD dissertation in History of Technology. Deriding a source simply because it is related to Georgia Tech is like deriding a source because the author lived in the same city as the subject. Disavian (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I broadly agree with HJ Mitchell's comments above. Here are a few additional prose comments:

Early life and education
  • "... as the School of Physics started its degree program that year." What year?
  • "Working after hours at EES, Robinson built a television set in the lab". As opposed to, for instance, in the men's toilet?
    • Hah. As opposed to, at home? How would you phrase it? Disavian (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific Atlanta
  • "... Robinson bought all but one of the original investors". How do you buy an investor?
  • "... his voice was transmitted and received by radio antennas designed with equipment built by Scientific Atlanta." That's not all clear. Was it the antennas that were designed by Scientific Atlanta or were they designed by some equipment produced by Scientific Atlanta?
  • "Years later, the school would promote Scientific Atlanta's origins at Georgia Tech, and Scientific Atlanta has been a longtime financial contributor to Georgia Tech." That's a very awkward tense switch, from "would" to "has been". And what school are we talking about anyway?
  • "... it received $3.1 million in revenue in 1962". You don't receive revenue.
Legacy
  • "... in 2006 he was awarded with the Joseph Mayo Pettit Alumni Distinguished Service Award." You're just "awarded", not "awarded with".
  • "Since 1995, Scientific Atlanta has sponsored scholarships in Robinson's name for children of Scientific Atlanta employees." Rather laboured repetition of the company's name. Why not just "its employees", or "their employees"?

Malleus Fatuorum 20:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 19:26, 9 March 2012 [42].

Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars

Nominator(s): Khanassassin ☪ 13:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... it is ready :) -Khanassassin ☪ 13:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still a Wikicup nomination? - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't want this article to be FA because of that, but I will include it in my WikiCup score. - So, yeah, I guess. --Khanassassin ☪ 19:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the strength of Ruhrfisch's oppose in the last FAC. He had mentioned at WP:PR that the article needed copyediting, and no edits had been made since then. I've been through the diff; nothing has been done since the last FAC that I'd call copyediting, and what's been done has made it worse (inserting a contraction, for instance). I understand that it's frustrating that copyediting is hard to come by, and I'm sorry I don't have a solution. - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contraction? --Khanassassin ☪ 15:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check the diff since the 20th for "it's". - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um...the article will fail because of an "it's" - wow, that's a bit harsh, isn't it? --Khanassassin ☪ 15:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what Dank is saying: he's giving that as only one example of the issues with the article. Ucucha (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... Could somebody post the issues on the talk page of the article, so I can fix'em? --Khanassassin ☪ 17:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of an FAC is that issues are raised on the FAC page. I'll raise some more soon. Interchangeable|talk to me 17:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK --Khanassassin ☪ 18:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the issues Dank has raised are significant. I randomly chose a section ("Development"), where I found a run-on sentence as the first sentence in the section-- got lost before I finished reading it. Popping down in that same section, found: "A few years earlier, Cecil had played for a cricket team with the composer Barrington Pheloung. Charles decided to contact him to suggest that he writes the music." Writes? And between Ccil, Pheloung, and Charles, who is him? Next, I went down to the section "Director's Cut" and found "On March 21, 2009, Ubisoft released a special edition of Shadow of the Templars for the Wii and Nintendo DS. According to Cecil, the Director's Cut came about thanks to a group of Broken Sword fans, who started an online petition begging him to bring the series back to the Wii and DS.[58] The game was programmed by Tony Warriner and Joost Peters." Why the jump from an online petition to who progarmmed the game? Please get independent eyes to look over the entire article, for grammar, prose and flow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Khanassassin. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose prose and referencing format. Web references should have access dates, in the lede alone I've seen several elementary prose issues, such as "The player assumes the role of George Stobbart -a young American patent lawyer who is an eyewitness and victim of a bomb attack on a small Parisian cafe" (emphasis added) 12:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose and recommend withdrawal. I've been watching this article closely as it's been rushed to this process multiple times now. Needs careful attention and copyediting by an unfamiliar and competent copyeditor, plus attention to referencing style and format. --Laser brain (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 16:46, 7 March 2012 [43].

Led Zeppelin

Nominator(s): SabreBD (talk) and Scieberking (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this article because we believe it meets the criteria for construction and style. The article has not been peer reviewed, but was recently promoted to GA status and points for further improvement noted in that process have been implemented and sufficient time has elapsed for editors to consider and implement some further changes. As the major recent editors of the article are the editors most likely to be able to implement any suggestions and requirements that arise as a result of the FA process.SabreBD (talk) and Scieberking (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The lead contains this sentence, repeated in the text: "The band are widely considered to be one of the most successful, innovative and influential groups in the history of music." This, as stated, seems a touch hyperbolic, and does not seem to be evidenced in these extreme terms by the sources. I suggest you modify by rephrasing as "...in the history of rock music." Brianboulton (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would change it to "history of popular music", as they have not only influenced rock musicians.--♫GoP♫TCN 14:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a source that says this for popular music, so I suggest adjusting both instances to fit that and adding the reference to the main body.--SabreBD (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was not entirely happy with the source I had in my back pocket, so I have adjusted the sentence slightly to say they were one of the most influential rock bands in popular music and provided a source that supports that. Happy to discuss this solution or others.--SabreBD (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No citations to "Could a Robert Plant-free Led Zeppelin tour succeed?" or MacBain
  • FN 50: page(s)?
  • Check formatting of quotes within quotes
  • Ranges should use endashes
  • Be consistent in whether or not ranges are abbreviated
  • Be consistent in whether website names are upper- or lower-case, and whether shortened citations using them include the .com (or similar)
  • Be consistent in how websites are formatted
  • FN 167, 171, 184: page(s)?
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books, and if so what information is included
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? Rey 1997? This? This?
  • ISBN for Cope?
  • Why so many citations to Britannica?
  • Publisher for Grossman, Hunter?
  • ISBN and publisher for Fortnam?
  • Be consistent in how Guardian and Rolling Stone refs are notated
  • Page(s) for Pond 1988?
  • Where in Ontario was Rey published?
  • How are you ordering works with no author? It's mostly alphabetical by publication, but not always
  • Be consistent in what location info is included for books and how it is formatted

Oppose at this point, as there are too many problems with references. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this process discourages breaking up comments it is probably easiest to say that I believe I have resolved these issues, with the few exceptions below. (To follow what has been done and how, it is probably easiest to look at the recent article history.) However, this is quite complex so I may have missed something or made an error, and if so please let me know. Issues that I have not implemented are: the interview at This - as I think a case can be made in an interview like this to say this is a reliable source, unless we have reason to believe the interview is not genuine. If that is not acceptable I will find a substitute or remove the text it supports. I was also unsure what point was being made about Britannica (Fast 2011): I can only see this used for one reference - perhaps there is some confusion (or a now resolved technical issue) with the book by the same person (Fast 2001), which is the key musicological text on the band.--SabreBD (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the opening line: "Led Zeppelin were an English rock band"; shouldn't it be "Led Zeppelin was an English rock band" as we're talking about only ONE band and the name is singular (as opposed to, say, The Beatles, which is a plural name)? Jimknut (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In British English all bands are treated as plural - see American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement.--SabreBD (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 16:46, 7 March 2012 [44].

Seili (album)

Nominator(s): Frous (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it has what it takes to be considered one. Frous (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Dead link fixed. -- Frous (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmmmm. About overlinking, is this version ok?[45] -- Frous (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, overlinking seems to be cleared up. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please do not use "done" (or other) templates, per FAC instructions. Brianboulton (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources minus spotchecks.

  • The lead does not require citations unless there are direct quotations or information that is not in the body of the article.
  • Please make sure reference numbers are ordered numerically. For example, [15][16][11].
  • I question how these are high quality reliable sources: technodisco.net, lyrics.com, soundi.fi. I'm not necessarily saying they are unreliable, but an explanation as to how they are reliable would be nice.
  • Likewise Stara and Iskelma.fi? The FN 17 iskelma.fi link also does not seem to return any text and it is hard to verify whether it supports the cited statements.
  • FN 1 is MTV3 and its publisher is Bonnier Group. Be consistent as to whether both the work and publisher for MTV3 references are provided. Same with the Rovi Co. ref, the work of which is AllRovi.
  • First charts table must be formatted per WP:ACCESS.

That's about it. Spotchecks pending. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soundi is Finnish music periodical. According to Finnish Periodical Publishers' Association,[46] Soundi's circulation is 25,000 and the association describes it as "by far the most popular rock periodical in Finland".[47] -- Frous (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please be more specific with the charts table, what do I have to do to it? -- Frous (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference is MTV3 Store Download, a music shop owned by MTV3. So, I guess the proper "publisher" is there MTV3 Store Download, but by convenience it links to MTV3 because that hasn't any article yet. -- Frous (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
S*it, Iskelmä seems to have deleted the article. Anyway, I found a somewhat similar description of Seili's polarized nature from one Rumba article. -- Frous (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by ordering reference numbers numerically? Many of those sources provide information that is relevant in different spots of the text, so they get mixed. I don't see any common sense in putting the same source in several cite web templates, if that's what you're asking for. -- Frous (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've formatted the table. As for the reference numbers, that's the way it's always been done. I'm not asking you put the same source in multiple citation templates. Just re-order the "<ref></ref>" and "<ref name=/>"s. It works. I'll give other replies soon. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I'm not very familiar with all the referencing details, I still don't get what you mean. How can I even put the refs [15][16][11] in numerical order, with the source no. 11 being used earlier in the text, before the refs no. 15 and 16? -- Frous (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where you're coming from. However, this will really never be an issue. Try it and revert if it does not work, although I do not understand why it shouldn't. By text, you mean the whole article right? If, by text, you mean just the sentence that is being cited, don't worry. This has always been encouraged and done. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I mean the whole text. I really have NO idea of how to put those [15][16][11] in numerical order, without using the cite web template twice with the same source. Can you explain to me what I have to do, in simple English? Thanks. -- Frous (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry. The prose is poor and unintelligible in places. Many sentences lack logical flow and ramble on. I am not giving specific examples because experience has shown that nominators often address these only, and do not realise that the whole text is problematic. The article reads like a poor translation in need of attention from a native speaker and good writer. The article needs to be rewritten from top to bottom. Graham Colm (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 18:40, 3 March 2012 [48].

Liverpool F.C. in European football

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article is now very close to featured standard. After the previous nomination failed i listed the article for peer review, which was constructive and addressed a number of issues with the article. Thanks n advance for taking you rime to review the article, cheers NapHit (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Shankly years: "with some Liverpool players feeling cheated by his decisions" is one of those with + -ing sentence structures that the prose people complain about. Could use a re-wording, if possible.
done NapHit (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence as a whole now reads "The second leg was controversial: Shankly described it as 'a war' he felt that the referee, Jose Maria Ortiz de Mendibel, had shown bias toward Internazionale, the Liverpool players felt cheated by his decisions." A never-ending sentence that needs a break or two, and some punctuation after the quote. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok made a few changes, should read better now. NapHit (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fagan years: The Benfica link is a bit of overlinking, as the club was linked in the previous section. UEFA was also linked earlier in the body.
done NapHit (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Benitez years: Not sure a source from 2005 is enough to say that "debate still continues" about the controversial goal against Chelsea.
reworded NapHit (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes LFC History (refs 88, 89, and 93) a reliable source? I'm aware, since I've asked about it before, that other folks at FLC haven't voiced any issues regarding its reliability. However, this is a different process and the relative strength of sourcing required is probably still a little higher here than at FLC, much as I wish that FLC will achieve parity one day in this regard. Restating the case you've made for the site at FLC may help the source checkers here in their verdicts. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, LFC History is a statistical site which provide the official stats of the club. This is evidenced by the sixth paragraph on this page. NapHit (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • In 'Return to Europe', "The season was the club's most successful since the 1980s as Liverpool won a cup treble with the UEFA Cup, the FA Cup and the League Cup" → replace 'with the' with 'consisting of the'
done NapHit (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Benitez years, "A poor start, with two losses in their first four games...", need to clarify that they were in a group immediately. It was not necessarily a 'poor start' because they got through the treacherous third qualifying round, didn't they?! 'A poor start in the group stages...' would be better. That would mean 'in the group stages' near the end of the sentence becomes redundant.
implemented your suggestion NapHit (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Having finished fifth in the Premier League in 2004–05, Liverpool were not guaranteed entry into the Champions League, and faced the prospect of not being able to defend their European title", remove the comma between Champions League and 'and'.
done NapHit (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A third-place finish in the 2007–08 Premier League...", Arsenal finished third in the Premier League in 2007–08, I'm guessing you mean fourth?
Indeed, not sure how I missed that one, done NapHit (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For references, BBC Sport is the 'work', BBC is the 'publisher'. – Lemonade51 (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
done, thanks for the comments, much appreciated. NapHit (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As runners-up to Manchester United in the 1996 FA Cup Final, Liverpool were able to compete in the 1996–97 UEFA Cup Winners' Cup", isn't the Cup Winners' Cup for winners of domestic cup comeptitions? I am aware that as Manchester United won the double that season, their spot was allocated to Liverpool. You may need to clarify that; if you feel it has nothing to do with the main body of the article put it as a footnote, if you do think so -- slot it into the sentence.
added a bit about this, although it was in the article a bit earlier as liverpool qualified for it in 1971-72 despite losing the final to Arsenal. NapHit (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, must have missed that. Have reverted to its previous form.
  • "The season was the club's most successful since the 1980s", disambiguous - 1980s refer to a period. Ideally you should which season it is.
done NapHit (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Liverpool advanced through three qualifying rounds and met Chelsea...", replace met with 'were paired up with'
reworded a bit different to yours, paired up with suggests they just played Chelsea, should read clearer now. NapHit (talk)
  • "A fifth place finish in the 2009–10 Premier League...", seventh? – Lemonade51 (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how I missed that, done NapHit (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In several cases, such as this one, "By beating Roma 2–0 in the second group stage, Liverpool progressed to the quarter-finals. Liverpool..." wouldn't it be sufficent if you replace the bolded part with 'The club', or if you are referring to a specific game → 'The team'. I think you will find it flows better for one. Have a read through the entire article because I feel in some cases, not all it can be placed in.
Gone through the article, and replaced multiple uses of liverpool where appropriate NapHit (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the winners of the Cup Winners' Cup in the European Super Cup, but failed to retain the Super Cup", replace bit in bold with 'trophy'.
done NapHit (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "UEFA banned English clubs" → "UEFA banned all English clubs"
done NapHit (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Return to Europe after Liverpool won the first leg against Bayern, "This appeared to be to Liverpool's advantage...", Could be improved no? Something like "This gave Liverpool a vital advantage..."
I think its fine the way it is, as it did appear to be to the club's advantage, yet they went out in the next leg. I think they the sentence is worded at the moment sums up what happened perfectly fine. NapHit (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. – Lemonade51 (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A seventh place finish in the 2009–10 Premier League meant..." seventh-place should be hyphenated for consistency. – Lemonade51 (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
done NapHit (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 84 does not verify Liverpool group standing - in fact it's just the group tables for the competition this season.
added correct ref NapHit (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under records, is there 'Biggest defeat' to correspond 'Biggest win'? – Lemonade51 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
after a bit of searching, I've found it and added it. NapHit (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A seventh-place finish in the 1998–99 FA Premier League meant the club did not qualify for Europe...", slight niggle with this part. Liverpool could have qualified by means of reaching a final of a domestic cup competition that season, so league form shouldn't take precedent regarding qualification in Europe. I would suggest adding "on virtue of their league position" at the end of the sentence or inbetween "Europe" and "in 1999–2000". – Lemonade51 (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure its necessary. I see what you're saying, but if they had qualified for Europe through a final, it would be mentioned, as it is whenever that has been the case in the rest of the text. NapHit (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My concerns have been addressed. Prose is good and the article by and large is comprehensive because of the use of statistics and a detailed summary table. I have no problems with the sourcing as NapHit has shown the validity of LFCHistory above. – Lemonade51 (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Ongoing prose issues:-

  • In the lead:-
  • To avoid confusing readers unaware of the history of European club competitions and the various changes of trophy name, I recommend you alter the first paragraph to read: "Since 1964, they have won 11 European trophies: the European Champion Clubs' Cup (formerly known as the "European Cup") five times..." etc. That should clarify that their 2005 victory was one of the five, not a separate achievement.
  • Rather than stating repeating in the third pargaraphs) the information already provided, that Liverpool have won the UEFA Cup three times, I'd alter the sentence in the third paragraph to read: "Liverpool's total of three UEFA Cup wins has been matched only by Internazionale and Juventus."
  • I would describe the 11–0 victory as their "biggest win in Europe" rather than their "record" win. The word "record" is distinctly overdone in this paragraph, what with Carragher, Gerrard etc
  • Introduction
  • During their time in the Second Division further competitions [plural] were created..." - but you only name one.
  • Clarify whether Liverpool's second division status disqualified them from ll European competitions; otherwise, why is it relevant?
  • A very clumsy sentence: "Liverpool were promoted back to the First Division during the 1961–62 season, and in the 1963–64 season they won the First Division enabling them to participate in European football for the first time in the 1964–65 European Cup." I hardly know where to start, but "back" is redundant: teams aren't promoted "during" seasons; the close repetition of "First Division" is clunky, etc. Suggested rephrase: "In 1962 Liverpool were promoted to the First Division. Two years later they won the Football League championship and thus made their European debut in the 1964–65 European Cup".
  • The remaining sentences in this paragraph likewise look in need of pruning and smoothing.

I have not gone beyond the Introduction section, but it is likely that similar problems occur throughout the text. I peer-reviewed this article nearly a year ago, and suggested then that it needed the services of a competent non-involved copyeditor. Since then the article has had two further peer reviews, a successful GAN and an unsuccessful FAC. I can't help feeling that all these reviews are missing the main problem, which is the prose. Otherwise the article is informative and well-presented, and could be the basis of a good featured article, but it does need that prose attention first. Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting Brian, I've addressed the comments you made. Regarding the prose the article has had at least two copyedits from the GOCE so the prose should be ok, but judging by your comments, this is not the case. It would be great if you could review a bit more of the article to see if the prose is shaky later on as well, cheers. NapHit (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 18:29, 3 March 2012 [49].

Billy Butlin

Nominator(s): Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to be a well written and engaging read about a significant individual who was well known in the UK during the 20th Century, I took it to GA and Peer Review in June of last year and felt it was then in the condition required of a Featured Article but I did not have the time to put it forward then. I just did the final checks and corrected a few rotted links and submit it as ready. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick check, leaning toward oppose: Auree ★★ 16:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:OVERLINK: Essex is linked twice in close proximity in the First holiday camps section, and why are there wikilinks to common terms such as summer camp, amusement park and haunted house (which is erroneously linked to a Disney Land attraction)?
  • Link for Ref 47 in Websites returns an error.
  • Refs 2, 35 and 37 contain redirecting links. Title for Ref 2 needs to be updated as well, and why is Ref 37's title capitalised?
  • There's a raw </ref> tag in the bibliography section... and several raw urls and generally poorly formatted refs exist in References.
  • Books don't need retrieval dates, and watch out for excess punctuation (Co..)
  • I won't give a detailed source review for the references, but in addition to the above I'm seeing a lot of formatting inconsistencies, such as, but not limited to date notations, whether newspaper locations are given or not, errors in punctuation, etc. Actually, I'm seeing a lot of them without having given it a thorough check, so I'm inclined to oppose based hereupon. Auree ★★ 16:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done an OVERLINK clearup - I would say that the terms amusement park and summer camp, and even Haunted House aren't quite as well known in the UK as they may be in other parts of the world so linking them still seems appropriate.
  • Link 47 - The Grand Order of Water Rats Obituaries for 2003 still works fine for me - were you getting a specific error.
  • Redirects and titles fixed,
  • Seems it was just due to my connection then. Wikiinking and urls have been fixed now. Auree ★★ 10:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the formatting errors and removed the book access dates.
  • The additional punctuation was due to the cite template adding an extra period. I've removed the contraction period on Co to fix.
  • Generally I've preserved source name and title as given by the source but I will work on formatting these consistently. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spent a lot of time on this this afternoon and have hopefully cleaned them all up. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't read the whole article yet, but at a glace it looks like a copyedit might be needed. For example in the First holiday camps section it looks like you have inconsistent comma usage: "In 1936 Butlin had proposed a new holiday camp..." and "On 30 January 1937, Butlin turned his business into a..." about a paragraph apart. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been copyedited twice now, (as well as by myself), obviously this has been missed, hopefully not much else has been. I've reworded the first sentence as it seemed to scan better in the new wording. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - it's an interesting article, but I don't feel it currently meets the FA criteria. Specifically:

  • 1a/d: there are grammatical errors (ex. "Butlin soon learned that the more likely people were to win; the more they would spend") and some problems with unencyclopedic tone (ex. "Butlin decided to set his own course in life and made his way back to England with only £5 to his name")
  • 1c: a couple of unsourced statements (ex. "launched a friendly takeover for £43 million (2011:£423 million), which both Butlin and his son agreed to accept.")
  • 1c: use of questionable sources, for example this
  • 2: WP:MOS violations, for example inappropriate capitalization in "Cherie is an Actress"
  • 2c: multiple inconsistently-formatted citations
  • 3: media problems - File:William_Butlin_Signature.png is tagged as lacking author info (should be easy to fill in), and according to Commons Canada applies copyright protection to signatures; same issues apply to File:Billy_Butlin_Attestation_Paper_(Front).gif. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
those examples are now reworded - I'm sure the latter is a paraphrase of a Butlin quote but I can't identify the source to change it into a direct quote. Are there any other examples giving you concern?
All statements should be covered by the sources given. I've inserted a page number for that particular piece of information, and can only see another situation where (like the lede) the claim is cited elsewhere so a separate cite isn't given but I will do another sweep.
Ideally the song should have been a source about it's own lyrics, but we don't have a citation style for that - Hence the use of the web. The information in the source is verifiable and neutrally presented so shouldn't be a concern - but I've switched to a web newspaper instead.
I've done a thorough regexp search and can't see any other inappropriate capitalizations, though there are situations where I might have believed the noun to be proper (such as "battalion" in 170th (Mississauga Horse) Battalion) and have continued to retain these unless you feel they are also inappropriate?
Citations should be generally consistent now though I'm still double and triple checking.
These shouldn't be a problem; Butlin provided his signature under Crown Copyright (and this form has been released as such by the Canadian government) limiting copyright to 50 years from creation (meaning it went PD 14 years before Butlin died) - I've added author information as bes I can. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Comments/suggestions: G'day, I made some minor tweaks to the early life section, please check that you agree with my changes and tweak as necessary. I didn't have a look at the full article; my area of interest is military history, so I mainly only looked at the Early life section. I have the following suggestions:
    • "His intention had been to sign up as a despatch rider, as the army already had a full quota..." Full quota of what? Do you mean full quota of infantry? It seems a little confused here;
    • do you know the date of when Butlin arrived in England?
    • do you know the date of when the 216th arrived in France?
    • do you know the date of when Butlin returned to England after the war (I assume that it was sometime in late 1918 or early 1919, but I might be wrong);
    • "works out at 1 in 700 for a 3 ring game". I think that this should be "works out at 1 in 700 for a 3-ring game";
    • in the World War II section there is a red linked image. I'm not sure if this has been deleted, or if the syntax is wrong;
    • there are some capitalisation issues, for instance "Shirley (Born 1931 to Dolly)". This should probably just be "Shirley (born 1931 to Dolly)" (there are a few examples similar to this);
    • the heading "Bibliographic Notes" should probably be "Bibliographic notes" per WP:Section caps;
    • the page ranges in the Bibliographic Notes section should probably use endashes instead of hyphens, and instances of multiple pages should probably use "pp." rather than the singular "p.";
    • there is some inconsistency in the date format used for the Retreived dates for the websites. For instance compare "12 June 2011" against "November 3, 2010";
    • in the Bibliography, the capitalisation of the titles probably should be tweaked in a few cases. For instance The Bantams: the untold story of World War I, probably should be The Bantams: The Untold Story of World War I (there are a few other examples that also should be adjusted to follow suite). AustralianRupert (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Army had a full quota of dispatch riders - His intent was to sign up to be one, they would say "sorry, but our quota is full" and he would get a badge without actually having to serve.
        • Ah yes, I understand now. Sorry, for some reason I was misreading that bit. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I had a go at rewording it. I think it is a little clearer now. Please check that you agree and adjust if you see fit. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have any dates - The two relevant sources Allinson, and Dacre I only have in snippet form and while it might be able to extract dates from them I haven't been able to do so yet.
      • Dash added to 3-Ring.
      • Fixed - it was accidentally broken in a semi automated case correction,
      • "Bibliographic notes" corrected and also page ranges.
      • Dates should all be fixed now.
      • Capitalisation generally follows Google Books Usage, but I'm happy to tweak these.
      • I Still have the other capitalisation errors such as (Born.. to fix but will repair these as soon as possible. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • A Couple of other date corrections done, and the capitalisations done also. I've also spent some time reworking most of the references correcting wrong/missing/miscategorised information and parameters. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your adjustments look good. I've had another quick look and had a go at doing some copy editing. I found a few things that needed smoothing, but I don't think I know enough about the topic to give it a proper go. Sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • No need to apologise, the work you've done already is a big help and much appreciated. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments - I have decided that this FAC will benefit from being archived at this stage, and renominated after more work. In particular, look for WP:MOS issues such as periods in captions, and clunky prose. Graham Colm (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/March_2012&oldid=485653169"