Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2008

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 promoted 15:31, 31 March 2008.

Diocletian

Self-nominator I've been working on this article for some time now, and I think that it's now more or less up to Featured Article standard. Comments welcome. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 05:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support While not being an expert in the Roman history I nevertheless have always been interested in this subject. So from my point of view the article appears to be comprehensive, well sourced and well written. I have only one concern with it. The lead contains the following words: "ending forty years of peaceful coexistence between Christian and Pagan, and resulting in a revanchist Christian Church.". The facts stated in this phrase are not mentioned in the main text of the article. I think you should drop it from the lead or explain in more detail what you mean by "peaceful coexistence" and by "revanchist church". Ruslik (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've dropped the sentence, and added a little paragraph on the aftermath of the persecution. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "...known in English as Diocletian", may be simply "known as" because not only in English? And no mention of dominate in the lead. --Brand спойт 09:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've dropped the "in English". I'm not so sure the dominate needs to be mentioned: few of the works I've read give it much press, at least, not by that name. I'll look over my materials again tonight (I don't have them with me), and see if I can justify the change. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well written and comprehensive! You did an excellent job! I had read it a few weeks ago and was thinking that it's probably the best article I have seen on one of the Roman emporers.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment

• Hyphens aren't needed after -ly words, eg. "personally-led campaigns"

• Done.

• Some dates need linking, including in the footnotes.

• Done(?)

• "newly-built Christian church" - all churches are Christian

• Done.

• Some compound adjectives need hyphens, eg. "second and third century emperors", "five year census"

• Done(?) Tell me if I've missed any.

• "one-thousand years" - hyphen not needed

• Done.

• Non-breaking spaces are needed between numerical and non-numerical elements, eg. "27 BC", "5 km"

• Done.

• "a looser administrative structure than that which was imposed on ..." - "which was" is redundant

• Done.

• "Prior to" is overly formal. "Before" is better.

• Done.

• Ref page numbers are inconsistently formatted, eg. "pp. 8–9." vs "p. 22–23.", "pp. 280–81" vs "pp. 134–5"

• Done(?) Tell me if I've missed any.

• Sentences shouldn't begin with "but"

• Done.

• Some measurements are missing conversions

• Done(?) I think the km's the only one.

• An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.

• Done.

• Some duplicate refs can be combined, eg. refs 23 and 27

• Done(?) Tell me if there are any I've missed.

• Logical quotation should be used, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks. Epbr123 (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Done(?)

I think I've fixed all your concerns. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

All other links checked out fine with the tool. I'll try to get back later and do a review of the article itself. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed all your concerns. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Prose needs some tweaking though not looking too bad. There is some redundant wording and some words used where a slightly more appropriate one would improve flow. I will post any that aren't straightforward here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In Bithynia,[22] some of Numerian's soldiers sensed a bad smell emanating from the coach. It would have been the kind of smell corpses are known to emanate in the later stages of decay, especially in hot climates - seems a bit wordy - why not "In Bithynia,[22] some of Numerian's soldiers sensed a odour reminiscent of a decomposing body (or corpse) emanating from the coach." - or something like it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to: "In Bithynia,[22] some of Numerian's soldiers smelled an odor reminiscent of a decaying corpse emanating from the coach." Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support everything has been addressed. Oppose for now, pending resolution of the following concerns/questions/quibbles.

All in all a very nice article. I'll be happy to support when some of the prose issues are taken care of, and when some of the clarifications are made. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed all your concerns. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 05:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've resolved any continuing concerns you've had, save for that copyedit. Any suggestions on how to cut down on verbiage? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I do if I can't find someone to go through for me, is to sit back from the text for a day or two, then just go line by line through it, trying to change all the passives to actives and reading it aloud to myself. If I get lost reading it, its a sure bet the reader is lost too. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I did some copyediting also, hopefully I didn't break anything. I'm sure others will find other things to tweak also. May I compliment you on the excellent job on a very difficult subject? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment, and thank you for providing a very intensive review and copyedit. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - well done - prose nicely massaged. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a real imitable article. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 14:33, 31 March 2008 (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 promoted 15:31, 31 March 2008.

Jacques Plante

Jacques Plante was a goaltender for Montreal Canadiens dynasty in the late 50s. He is now best-known as the inventor of the first practical goaltender mask for ice hockey. He was also the first one to use it regularly in NHL games. I've worked since around December on this article, and with the help of Risker, Nishkid64 and many others who gave me pointers and/or actually edited it, I think this very comprehensive article about Plante is worthy of featured status. Maxim_(talk) 15:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination–concur with Maxim, I think this article is ready. Risker (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Links were reviewed. As per previous hockey FACs, the tool doesn't like websites from the Hockey Hall of Fame, but I've cheked manually and they work fine. Maxim_(talk) 15:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments-

• Does line 13 to 18 of the first paragraph in "Early Life" really need all the repeated cites? Couldn't it all be cited with just one?

• I'm unsure of what lines you're talking about. Can you be more specific? I don't use monobook Skin so the lines probably render differently for me. --Maxim_(talk) 19:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In Early Life, why did his school's coach order the former goalie off? Perhaps just a quick phrase?

• Done. --Maxim_(talk) 19:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Same with Minor Leagues, couldn't the tuques statement be concluded in 19 cite? There's a few of those else where in the article, but it's a minor thing.

• I don't understand what you mean by this... --Maxim_(talk) 19:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Figured this one out; the same reference (#19) was used for two consecutive sentences, and I have simply cited once for both sentences. Risker (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps a little more detail on the on-ice brawl in section "Five Stanley Cups"?

• I've reworded that paragraph, and inserted a link to the article about the incident. --Maxim_(talk) 19:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And I've done a little further work on it, because on further research the suspension came several days before the ensuing riot. Risker (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, Support. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The fifth paragraph in the opening seems to be repeated in the 'Retirement and death' section. Seeing as how the opening is usually is supposed to be a brief overview of the article, it would probably be in the best interests to merge that information into the relevent section, and merge any other information into the proper place.

Also wouldn't hurt to add a few external links, seeing how there is only one. Knowing that there are currently issues with a template for a link, I know that isn't long to be fixed. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All my concerns addressed. Also like seeing so many images of Plante, and the video clip. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Two worthwhile external links added, including a link to the "History by the Minute" video re-enactment of Plante's injury that led to him wearing the mask in regulation play the first time; many Canadians will remember it. Risker (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• About the lead, the lead is supposed to be an overview of the article. While it mentions parts of Retirement and death, it's supposed to do that, and section itself gives more information on that, too. Maxim_(talk) 12:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment

• The "See also" section belongs above the "References" section
• "where he became well known" - "well known" needs a hyphen
• "Canadiens won the game 3-1" - wrong dash
• Non-breaking spaces are needed between numerical and non-numerical elements, eg. "50 cents"
• The "See also" section shouldn't contain articles already linked elsewhere.
• "he signed for $35000" - should be "$35,000"
• Some duplicate refs could be combined, eg. "Plante, R., pg.214" or "Plante, R., pg.14"
• Some inconsistent page number formatting, eg. "pg.214", "pg. 216"
• "He's [Plante] the biggest attraction since the good old days of Terry Sawchuk". - period belongs inside the quotes if present in the original text.
• "three–week training camp", "10–year contract" - should be hyphens.
• "a $10–million ... contract" - hyphen/dash not needed. Epbr123 (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly all done. For your 4th point, can you please link me to the appropriate guideline as I'm not sure what to do. Secondly, I think the see alsos are to link to subject that were not discussed a lot but are somehow pertinent to the subject. The mask is mentioned, even linked, but not discussed as much and should be an important read after the Plante article. Hall and Sawchuk were Plante's contemporaries and the two other leading goalies of the age. Maxim_(talk) 01:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding non-breaking spaces, the relevent guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Non-breaking spaces. I think they just need to be added to "50 cents" and "$10 million". Regarding "See also", Wikipedia:Layout#See also states, "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment", so I'll leave the decision to you. Epbr123 (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have taken care of the non-breaking spaces, thanks. Risker (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—This is very well-written indeed. Since so much of the referencing is to a book by "Raymond Plante", it would be good to know who that author is—perhaps even a mention in the main text (Legacy?). If it's his second wife, RaymondE. If not, is it his brother? Tony (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC) PS Check Canadian spelling of "fibERglass". Tony (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the spelling tip, Tony; the brand name here is FibERglas, just to add to the confusion. The author of the primary source is, oddly enough, no relation to the subject. I was surprised at that too. Risker (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

Everything looks great now. Thanks for putting up with me! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 promoted 00:05, 31 March 2008.

Irreplaceable

Self-Nomination: After being passed to GA, geting fresh eyes for the peer review and additional substantial reviews, I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it is now ready. "Irreplaceable" is song by Beyoncé Knowles and was 2007's best-selling single in the United States. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Hey, I was gonna comment on the peer review, but I guess I am too late.(been busy lately) I do think this article needs some serious prose work, some parts are kind of choppy, some sentences are short, and could be merged together. Here are a few examples of the prose issues I see:

• When Ne-Yo heard the song, the melody was more guitar-based. He felt that it sounds like country western music. It was brought to R&B when the drums were incorporated, and Ne-Yo considered making an R&B-country western music song. - could be combined into somthing easier, like "Ne-Yo felt the original demo sounded like country music, although adding drums gave the song an R&B feel. He considered making an R&B country crossover song." or somthing to that effect.
  • Hmm. Sounds like the history is twisted a bit. Here is the real statement: "When I first heard the track, produced by Norwegian production team Stargate, they just played the guitar. There was no drums to it and sounded like country western music and when they put the drums on it, it brought it back to the R & B side of things. I was then thinking of making an R & B country western music song." --Efe (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ne-Yo also felt that with a woman singing it is empowering. - Stubby, could use clarification.
  • Merged. --Efe (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• A demo of the song was presented to her, and was pleased after listening. - confusing
  • Clarified. --Efe (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• In an interview, Ne-Yo said about the writing that "Beyoncé had some stuff that she wanted to get off her chest, and that's what she did." - you could just use 'Ne-Yo said "Beyoncé had some stuff that she wanted to get off her chest'.

• The strum of guitar was noted by Al Shipley of Stylus Magazine as an integral element Stargate and Ne-Yo crafted on contemporary singer Rihanna's 2007 single "Hate That I Love You". - run on sentence, could be reworded.
  • Fixed. --Efe (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These sentences (and quite a few more) have an akward feel to them, and could be rearranged/rewritten. Other than prose, the article seems very comprehensive, and the sourcing looks good, good job! Skeletor2112 (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - subdisfactory the graphic. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 12:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007, MEDIA TRAFFIC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. =)

• • THis one http://host17.hrwebservices.net/~atrl/trlarchive/db.html looks to me like it's a private site?
    • Used in "Hollaback", "Rich Girl", "Cool", etc. ARticles already featured.
      • Those articles aren't being evaluated here; if they use non-reliable sources, they can be submitted for review at WP:FAR. For this article, please explain reliability of that source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe this site gets its chart from this archive.

All the other links check out with the link tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is better, although there are cleanup needs in the ref formatting. Who is Spence D. and what makes him reliable? No last name doesn't inspire confidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clean it up right now. I'll try to scan his bio in the page. If it fails to meet WP:RS, I'll remove it and look for another review. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its Spence Abbott. Since {{Cite web}} do not allow this formatting, February 01, 1990, I used the YYYY-MM-DD formatting to all references to achieve consistency. My problem now is what type of template I'll use for the sheet music ref. --Efe (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nuetral Regretfully withdrawing my support. Read below comment. Wow. Sorry I didn't comment on the PR. Surley deserving for FA. Efe deserves the nom credits also. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 20:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Cautious neutral. Tony (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC) not well-written. In particular, many of the relationships between the ideas within sentences are jumbled. Please get someone new to sift through the whole text.[reply]

• "Originally not created for her, Beyoncé re-arranged the demo presented by the producers—a country-turned-R&B-pop song during the production." I can't see a clear referent for the last three words. Appears jumbled.
  • Removed the last three words. --Efe (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "a female empowerment anthem"—"an anthem to female empowerment" would be better; I do hope this is referenced in the main text; it's such a contestible statement that you might consider saying who "considered" this, even in the lead.
  • Changed per suggestion. All are properly cited in the main text. Don't worry. The New York Times also said its a statement of independence.--Efe (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "the album's third single late in 2006"—so the third of how many in late 2006? I think you need a comma.
  • Yah, I got your point. Its really confusing to others. "Late in 2006" is added after "released domestically". --Efe (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• ""Irreplaceable" was certified as multi-platinum, and one of the best-selling single of 2007, establishing Beyoncé among successful female artists to date."—Was certified as one of the best-selling single (I think you mean singleS) of 2007? I think you need "was" before "one". Was it both the multiplatinum and this best-selling thing that established her as ..., or just the second reason? Jumbled; the causality needs to be absolutely clear.
  • Changed to: "Certified as multi-platinum, "Irreplaceable" was one of the best-selling singles in 2007, establishing Beyoncé among successful female artists to date." --Efe (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed again to clarify the causality: "Certified as multi-platinum, "Irreplaceable" was one of the best-selling singles in 2007, and its addition to Beyoncé's achievements establishes her among the most successful female artists to date." --Efe (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Compared WITH, for contrasts. Tony (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Sandy: Im hiding Dihydrogen Monoxide's comments since he allowed me to do it. --Efe (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the reviewing. I think no one here will disagree that we need to maintain very high standards of writing and verification for the huge increase in the proportion of FACs on popular culture. Otherwise, the currency will be diluted, yes? To do this, reviewers need to engage with the criteria, or nominators will be discouraged from doing so. While it's good to have people such as Mojska and Burningclean on board, they are providing absolutely no indication that they have engaged with the criteria. What are we to make of these postings? —

Support - subdisfactory the graphic.

Support Wow. Sorry I didn't comment on the PR. Surley deserving for FA. Efe deserves the nom credits also.

Now Mojska and Burningclean, and others I see doing the same thing in the FAC room, these declarations of support (or indeed of oppose, where that occurs) are worth nothing to the process without using your knowledge and expertise to critically evaluate the article WRT to the criteria. Sandy has—I think in desperation—pointed out the woeful state of the verification of this article, and I'm not sure that the nominator is yet convinced of the need for a thorough audit in this respect. I have picked to pieces a few sentences to show the density of issues in the prose, but nowhere is there a sign that the whole text will be properly copy-edited by someone new to it, to produce an authoritative and well-written article. No number of blithe supports will change this. I call on you, the experts, to take on a more critical role, rather than rolling up just to support-as-easy-vote in an area that you like and have considerable investment in. Please match your interest in the area with reviews that will prompt article improvement during this process. Tony (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Tony, you have a very, very valid point. I read the article and did not point out grammer mistakes simply because I create alot of grammer mistakes myself. I usually don't notice them when I am reviewing an article. I do not oppose but I am striking out my support and replacing it as nuetral. sorry, Burningclean _[speak] 18:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comments upon my oppose above.
  • Fair-use rationales: I wonder what a judge would think when WP is being sued for copyright infringement when she sees the FU rationale for this article, and two others in which the track is used, just cut and pasted. Exactly the same wording? No, the folks at WP:NFC would be alarmed to find this; thing is, we need the FU rationale to be more closely related to the text it is supporting. Criterion 8 at NFC says this:

Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

I cant access the sample so I asked the uploader which part of the song is uploaded so it will be properly captioned. --Efe (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per captioning, I stated in the template the relationship of the instruments to the genre of the song. --Efe (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convince us, please, or the NFC police will be visiting (after 23 March, I believe). At the very least, I think you need to say something about how the file "illustrates" the article — perhaps in the terms you've used in the main text, harmony, form etc. I've always wanted to know how an audio file shows similarity or difference in terms of the surrounding output by this artist and similar artists—I don't know, it's not my area, but you need to do something different for each of the linked articles. So the vocal range is more than an octave and a half—is that unusual for this artist (and the style in general)? Is the less aggressive tone to do with the lyrics here? Just one level deeper would make your FU claim stronger.

The notational excerpt: "To visually present the musical structure of the song."—It's "part of the excerpt" rather than the whole song, and "structure" normally refers to form on a larger scale than three measures. Visually? Better "To present the notation of part of the audio excerpt, showing the basic harmonic progression, rhythmic style, and pitch relationship between piano and voice." Or something like that. Caption and main text: en dashes, not hyphens, between the chords.

I used this: "To present the notation of part of the audio excerpt, showing the basic harmonic progression". --Efe (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright tag includes this statement: "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale as well as the source of the work and copyright information." Have you provided copyright information? Who holds the copyright? Sony, is it? Website or postal address might make the company feel more recognised if their copyright people inspect the info file. Catalogue number of the album? Track number and its total duration? More details would shore up your claim. I'm not being a contrarian, but warning that they're about to get tougher on NFC!

I think Columbia also owns the copyright. I stated Columbia in the description page. --Efe (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Sony Urban Music. --Efe (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at the prose that describes the excerpt: What is a "moderate" pop song? We see "moderate" again a line later. Replace "written in the key of" with just "in". No hyphen after "-ly". ""Irreplaceable" refers to a woman breaking up with a boyfriend after she found him cheating, and was considered a statement of independence." What, the woman was considered a statement of independence?

All crashed out comments were addressed. For the "moderate" stuff and "written....." were already fixed because the first para was copyedited/reworded. --Efe (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And below, why oh why is that little-known country, the US, linked? Please tell me. Australia too. In general, it's not necessary to link anglophone countries in the English-language WP.

Fixed some of them. --Efe (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE After fixing questioned sources, a copyedit by someone new to this article will follow. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - Hey, sorry for the delay, I haven't been on much in the past few days. Another look finds the prose is still pretty choppy in places - mostly in the "Background and inspiration" section -its just confusing in places. The "composition" section looks good, as does the "Release and live performances" section. I'll try and clean up a bit of the prose, but here are a few sticky sentences I notice from the other sections:

• American country band Sugarland first sung "Irreplaceable" and Beyoncé later appeared to perform." Sung? should it be performed, or sang, or somthing else? and did Beyonce appear with the band, or perform on her own? its a little confusing. if the sentence is related to the 2007 American Music Awards info before it - "..and a "surprise" performance of the country version of the song during the 2007 American Music Awards. American country band Sugarland first sung "Irreplaceable" and Beyoncé later appeared to perform. The band has been known for covering Beyoncé's songs during their live shows and the idea of teaming-up emanated from their publicist" - then it needs to be restructured, you could try somthing like: American country band Sugarland, who were known for covering Beyonce's songs live, were joined by the singer for a performance of "Irreplaceable" at the 2007 American Music Awards. or somthing like that.

Fixed per suggestion, but with little addition. I removed the "idea of teaming up" thing because its too much detailed. --Efe (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the quotes in the Critical reception section don't really describe the song or add to the article, such as: "Bernard Zuel of The Sydney Morning Herald noted the track "a pretty good rhythmic ballad" and "Carolyn Davis of US Magazine referred to "Irreplaceable" a "power ballad". A power ballad is a type of song, not really a critical description. I think that there are ample quotes and critical responses, you could lose a few for clarity.
  • I removed the former because its the only description of the song posted in the site, as well the latter. --Efe (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Spence D. of IGN observed that "Irreplaceable", along with "Resentment", are more oriented on traditional contemporary R&B compared with other tracks in the album". The 'are more oriented on traditional contemporary R&B' part sounds a little strange, could be "have more in common with", or somthing different.
  • Changed to: Spence D. of IGN observed that "Irreplaceable", alongside "Resentment", "go for a much more traditional contemporary R&B vibe" compared to the other tracks in the album, and stated that it made them "stand out as if they were recorded separately from the rest of the album". The following by Spence D. was removed. Do you think the remaining quotes can suffice readers' understanding? --Efe (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • More importantly, who is Spence D, and with no last name, what makes him a reliable expert? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "and at the 2008 Grammy Award for Record of the Year." - should be "awards", and the sentence is a little vague, did they just get nominated, or win? And I'd think that the Grammy nom is a little more notable than the VH1 one... Im not sure the nominators are needed, you could add "by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences" - but I think the sentence would read better leaving both out, to say somthing like: "Irreplaceable was nominated for Record of the Year at the 2008 Grammy Awards, as well as Song of the Year at VH1 Soul Vibe's awards show."
  • Fixed. I wanted to add that it was lost to blah blah blah to clear it out but some users would always object that its too much detailed. Any thought? --Efe (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at the "Background and inspiration" section, to tighten up some of the prose there. Skeletor2112 (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=) =) =) Thanks for the help. Like Burningclean, we need assistance from those who have good grasp in English. --Efe (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a good grasp, I just suck at spelling. (I'm from and live in America) :p Burningclean _[speak] 21:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If thats only your problem, you dont need assistance anymore. Even Microsoft Word can help you fix them. Hehe. Thanks for striking neutral. --Efe (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I stumbled on this article randomly, saw it, and thought that it should be a WP:FA. I noticed someone was heavily editing it, so I didn't bother to touch it, but then I noticed that it was already nominated. Good lord, the article is definitely WP:FA status in my books! Gary King (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2008 (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 promoted 00:05, 31 March 2008.

Anarky

Self-nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have methodically edited this article for over a year, to the point where I have exhausted all known first and third party sources, creating as comprehensive article as possible on the subject. If it isn't ready to be featured now, it must be nearly so. Cast (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Displaying my ignorance of comics, what makes http://www.2000adreview.co.uk/index.shtml a reliable source? Likewise http://gocomics.com, http://www.newsarama.com/, http://www.comicsbulletin.com/panel/108672670397105.htm, http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=36&t=003866
  • http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/bakunin/rousseau.html It would probably be better to quote direct from Bakunin and add a link to the online version.

No links show up as dead. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The numerous websites dealing with comic books are known for reliably publishing interviews with comic book industry insiders; reporting breaking news regarding the industry; offering numerous reviews of comic book content; and detailing reports on industry conventions. They are to comic books as ESPN reporters are to sports games. As for your suggestion regarding the quote of Bakunin; I have followed this and traced the information to the source: an 1868 speech by Bakunin. The information is now properly cited and a link to an online version is provided. Cast (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly on the Bakunin, it just makes more sense to quote direct if you can, and give the online text as a backup. That way if the online source goes dead, you still have the cite.Ealdgyth | Talk 00:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for what makes the sources above reliable sources is still needed. Specific pages that shows authorship/ownership of the sites, what makes them published experts in the field, fact checking, editorial oversight, reputation, etc. For example, a bulletin board posting is unlikely to be a reliable source unless you can prove who the author is and what makes the author an independently published expert in his/her field. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if I must run down the criteria for each site and author, lets try to run down a list:

1. 2000 AD Review: About Us. 2000 AD Review is a website focusing on reviewing content and interviewing authors associated with the 2000 AD magazine. From the website: "This is an unofficial site. All characters and related indicia are © and TM of their respective owners. Original content (c) 2002 Gavin Hanly"
2. About Newsarama.com. From the front page: "Copyright 2008, Newsarama.com Newsarama.com is the comics industry's #1 source for daily comic book news, previews, reviews and commentary, and is home to the largest comic book reader message board community on the Internet, with discussions ranging from Marvel Comics' X-Men and DC Comics' Superman to manga and the smallest indy publishers."
3. GoComics.com FAQs. "© 2008 uclick The uclick Network refers to the group of entertainment Web sites developed and managed by the people at uclick, LLC. uclick Network include: Doonesbury.com, uPuzzles.com, Garfield.com, NewsoftheWeird.com, GoComics.com and uExpress.com." (Emphasis added.)
4. COMICON.com: "COMICON.com is a one-of-a-kind virtual comics convention, only available on the Internet. We are not affiliated with any real-world conventions..." COMICON.com title and design © and (TM) 1998-2002 Steve Conley and Rick Veitch

• Comicon: PULSE: a news service attatched to Comicon.com. Jennifer Contino, author of the noted article, is the head writer of the online publication. Please understand, all articles are published via bulletin board posts. (The author's forum account is only accessible to members.)

Almost all of the interviews/columns were written by contributing staff writers about whom I have little information. What is immediately apparent is that the information obtained from these sources are all direct quotes from interviews with notable figures in the comic book industry. The reputation of these writers might be immediately suspect if not for the fact that comic book professionals consistently return to give ever more interviews. I should at least hope this consistent reputation would lend to them some credibility. It should also be noted that such sources as Newsrama.com are currently used in other featured articles, such as Superman and Batman. The only non interview noted above is an article by Jennifer Contino. Her job title as head writer of Comicon: Pulse is accessible, though you'd have to do more detective work to find out about her. Her subject is notable. She, it would seem, is not. On a side note, it should be understood that the relationship these types of websites have with the industry is somewhat tight, and at times there is overlap. Gail Simone was a contributor to a similar website before she made the leap to professional comic book writer.--Cast (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I couldn't sort out this one above : http://www.comicsbulletin.com/panel/108672670397105.htm SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, missed that one. © 2000-2008 Comics Bulletin, All Rights Reserved. Current company owner is Jason Brice. Wikipedia has an article on it, Comics Bulletin, though it is flagged as having been edited by individuals with a conflict of interest. The column was co-compiled by former managing editor, Craig R. Johnson.

Our article on them is of no use, because our article isn't reliable; how can you demonstrate that the author of that article is a reliable source, published expert, etc, per WP:V? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing some digging, but the compiler seems to be non-notable. I can't find much of anything on him. I can only point out his job title at the time of writing as managing editor, and who the owner of the website is. On a side note, this is not an article in which he interprets and reports information. It is a column in which he posts written quotes from authors, in this case the pertinent author being Alan Grant himself. Alan Grant also contributed to this same column repeatedly before and after this instance. So the question in this case isn't so much what are the credentials of the compiler (note I haven't referred to him as author), but rather what are the credentials of Alan Grant. Those should be instantly manifest.--Cast (talk) 18 March 2008

• Support, meets the FA criteria. I share Ealdgyth's concerns about the reliability of the comics websites, but as Cast is an editor in good standing and I am unfamiliar with the comics media, I am more than willing to accept Cast's word on the matter. скоморохъ 03:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, heavily referenced article with a neutral tone. Informative without delving into trivia. A few images seem to be included more for decoration than illustration, but not excessively so. The article definitely compares well with those describing characters with a more extensive history, such as Superman or Batman. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd chosen each image because I felt at the time that they were illustrative, but this was at times relating to the text they contained. Now that they've been reduced the text has been blurred and they've lost a degree of their informative purpose (although I feel they have retained some degree of purpose). If the matter is pressed and must be resolved, I can replace them with more illustrative images.--Cast (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry overly much. As I said, the article still falls within the guidelines, it's just around the upper boundary :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question "Anarky would appear "in the late 40s"" - 1940s or issue #40 something? It reads like you mean the previous. indopug (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well the citation gives the full context, but I'll reword it a bit for further clarity.--Cast (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral --Laser brain (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Oppose - I really like the article; it is a fantastic reference. However, I'm really struggling with the sourcing here, pursuant to criterion 1c. I've realized since reviewing video game articles that a lot of fan sites and blogs are considered reliable sources of information in those circles - comics appear to be no different. There is almost nothing in your list of sources that I would bet any money on being reliable. For example, some sites transcribe interviews but we don't know where they came from or if the text is accurate. You cite a single blog ten times, where I can't find information about the author. There is a donation link despite the fact that authors don't have to pay anything to maintain a blog at blogspot. I don't mind narrow statement being sourced to these sites, like: "The author of the popular fan blog 'Anarky World' really hated this storyline" but the sites are not used this way. Some examples follow:[reply]
  • Some of what I consider important statements in the article are sourced to really shaky sites. For example, "This steady evolution in Anarky's abilities was later poorly received by fans, who saw it as having overpowered the character, preventing the suspension of disbelief that was previously possible for a character still described as in his mid-teens. It was further criticized by Matt Morrison, a contributor to Fanzing, an online fanzine produced by fans and professionals of the comic book industry, to be a contributing factor to the failure of the second Anarky series." The first sentence isn't really even cited, despite making a huge generalization about the fans of the magazine. The only citation for this whole passage comes at the end, leading to "Fanzing", a site whose articles might be written by, well, anyone. Could be me for all you know. Trust me, I'm not a reliable source, nor am I qualified to make statements about the entire fan base of a comic.
  • A lot of your sources are primary.. the comics themselves. If you are just providing plot summaries, these are not even needed per Wikipedia:When to cite. Slims the list a bit.
  • However, this brings me to my next point - some statements that go beyond summarizing and into interpreting are sourced to the comics themselves. That is, unfortunately, original research. Examples:
    • "Throughout Alan Grant's series of books written for the character, cunning and intelligence were viewed as his primary tools for victory, often using quick thinking, fighting skills, and technology in conjunction with each other in order to defeat tougher opponents."
    • "In accordance with the superhero convention of following a recognizable theme, the character's tools often incorporate the circle-A into them."
    • "At this time, the tone of the character began to move away from improvised munitions, and toward self-sufficient funding for more elaborate technology."

--Laser brain (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your input. I've tried to initially address the last two of your three main points. You are right in regards to the three examples of my prose which unfortunately appear as original research. An unfortunate product of my prose. I've reworded them to remove statements which appear interpretive. Your point regarding the citing of comics was one I initially dealt with prior to the GA nomination. Some of the plots for the character span multiple issues, and so questions arose of which issue and plot was being referred to. The comic citations are used primarily where direct panel/page citations are necessary (where does Anarky make his cameo in Wonder Woman? Only one panel of a single page. Blink and you'd miss him.), or where it becomes necessary to point out exactly what issue of what arc a quote came from. I'll go back over these citations and try to slim them down, but if they compromise reader understanding, I'm sure you'll understand if I do not.

Now on to your first, and the most pressing point. This issue has now been raised several times; a question of verifiability. You note a blog is often quoted. I'm sure you're referring to "BATMAN: Alan Grant & Norm Breyfogle Speak Out" on 20th Century Danny Boy. You're not the only one who has problems with citing a blog. For a good long time, I didn't like it either, which is why I was very happy to find the author moved the post to a website, with all legal disclaimers conveniently placed at the bottom of the page, Adelaide comics and Books presents: Alan Grant & Norm Breyfogle. "Content on this page is copyright 2006 Alan Grant, Norm Breyfogle and Daniel Best and cannot be reproduced, reprinted, stored, transmitted (electronically or otherwise) without the express written permission of all relevant parties involved. Interview conducted via phone in May 2006 and edited by Norm Breyfogle, Alan Grant and Daniel Best." (emphasis added.) Just before I began the nomination process, I found the website had gone dead. In my haste the repair the link, I foolishly reverted them to the blogpost rather than the more respectable, and verifiable, archive.com. Now thinking clearly, I'll shift the citation to the archived website.

That said, you are right in noting that I had to rely on some slim choices when it came to my references. As you note, these fan zines and blogs can be useful for reflecting the general disposition of a fanbase, but are not verifiable. Given that Anarky isn't the most widely known character in the DC pantheon, I was hoping a few well chosen citations could be used to represent the general attitude for the character. I have encountered other fan reviews of Anarky, but none which I felt were useful. Fanzing at least had it's legal disclaimers and staff information available (by the way, I doubt you are Matt Morrison, unless you are from Arlington, Texas. Are you from Arlington, Texas?) At any rate, I'll address this matter in the coming days. This is nothing a little rewriting can't fix.--Cast (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: on the matter of the interviews, I can understand that you feel concerned that there is no way to know if these transcriptions are literal or edited, but I'm left with no way to address this. I've tried to provide the legal owner and publisher information for each of these cites as they've been requested, and if that isn't good enough for these websites, I have to ask, how is it possible for any websites? If nothing else, I have always found the interviews remarkably consistent. Grant and Breyfogle have been asked about the character rather often, and only Grant has been known to be self-contradictory (a point noted in two of the interviews, where he makes off hand remarks about believing his own memory to be poor. Perhaps we ought to consider Alan Grant an unreliable source?)--Cast (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cast, thank you for taking my criticism so gracefully - it speaks volumes of your character. I struck some of my issues above, and I now understand your purpose for citing the books themselves. I need to think some more on the issue of sourcing. I keep coming back to the same thing: Per our policy on verifiability, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Going through your list of sources, I'm having a really hard time figuring how well they adhere to this policy. Your responses have given me some food for thought; I'm closer to thinking that for the subject matter, it may never be possible to source it differently than you have. Are there any print magazines or journals that publish criticism or reviews of comics? --Laser brain (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journals and magazines? I can't recall many off the top of my head, save Wizard magazine, and a weekly segment, Fresh Ink, on Attack of the Show! on the G4 channel. I don't watch that show, but I know of it. I'm rather positive there are more. At any rate, there is no sign that these ever touched on Anarky, so they are rather moot for the purpose of this article. Anarky might have gained attention by magazines when the series was running, but they simply didn't pick up on him, perhaps owing to him being a lesser known spin off of Batman. It was around too short a period to be on their radar.--Cast (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now addressed the Fanzing reference by rewording the section to remove sweeping generalizations. However, I did not remove the reference itself. Given that the owner and staff information is provided, and that the review is intended as a review, rather than a report of facts, I feel it is acceptable. Most all of the citations in the article refer to reviews, primary sources, or Grant/Breyfogle commentary. The major question becomes, can we count on the four articles [1] [2] [3] [4] and multiple interviews cited to be reliable. I have already provided the publisher/owner legal information for these. If I must demonstrate that these are reliable, I am at a loss as to how I might do so. Perhaps I might find an archived example of editors taking steps to rectify inaccurate information, but I doubt it would be possible for each website. Perhaps it is worthy of note that such websites as Silver Bullet Comic Books have been used within other Featured Articles, such as comments made by Alan Grant in the Batman article. It might be best to seek neutral input from other featured article nominators of comic books. Input on how they have dealt with these websites. This would be an acceptable use of canvassing, and I feel it is becoming increasingly necessary. Perhaps the issue should be raised on the talk page of WikiProject Comics.--Cast (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your attention to this. You have convinced me to withdraw my opposition. I'm not fully supporting because I am still really unsure about this whole issue. I think we have a start, though. --Laser brain (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help in improving the article. Neutrality is certainly preferred to opposition. If you have any further concerns, please don't hesitate to raise them. I'll be sure to do what I can to improve the article wherever possible.--Cast (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per my own suggestion above, I raised the question of the reliability of comic book websites at the WikiProject Comics talk page. The discussion may be of value to any editor concerned with the reliability of sources used in the article: Reliability of Comic Book websites --Cast (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cast, I am leaning more toward supporting due to this conversation. In your estimation, is your use of these sources limited to reviews and interviews? Do you have sources that you would consider serious journalism? --Laser brain (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at a previous post in which I commented that the article contains four articles, I must retract that. A closer look reminds me that two are previews of upcoming comic releases, and a third is an interview with an editor in charge of a comic series. Of the comic book website sources used in the Anarky article, I'd say the vast majority are interviews, reviews, and a few previews. So I would say there is only one article which attempts serious journalism: Anarchists Storm DC Comics!. The article is a report of a protest and counter protest outside of DC offices following the release of the V for Vendetta film. Article was written by Valerie D'Orazio, and provides a short blurb about her at the bottom of the page. Of this article, I only draw one brief reference to Todd Seavey, a freelance writer who has written issues of Justice League, mentioning that Anarky would be a "dream comics project." In light of the commentary on the WikiProject Comics talk page, if this article is suspect for attempting journalism, we may easily strike it from the article, and nothing of great value would be lost. As it stands, it merely provides an example of an author (with a political affiliation in libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism) who would write a story for the character, if given a chance. It is used to illustrate both a professional desire to see the character return to publication, and emphasis the political themes of the character.--Cast (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I appreciate the queries regarding the reliability of the sources, but the sources used are considered reliable within the world of comics, and I personally don't see anything wrong with the way the silverbullets story has been used. It's being used to cite the personal opinion of a writer, and I don;t think we have any reason to doubt that that opinion has not been reproduced faithfully. Certainly the writer has had the opportunity to correct that piece, and whilst the online comic book news sites have been criticised by The Comics Journal, one aspect that was noted was their ability and willingness to correct material. At some point I will review my Journal issues and see if I can source additional material regarding this series, but as it stands I think this meets the standards. Hiding T 18:46, 29 March 2008 (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 promoted 03:07, 30 March 2008.

Cannon

Nominators:
AndonicO
Grimhelm
Keilana
Bibliomaniac15
Anonymous Dissident
J-stan

This article has been the Tzatziki Squad collaboration for awhile, and it's finally ready for FAC. It's had a peer review, been thoroughly copyedited and referenced, and is quite comprehensive. (If any of you others want to put your 2¢ in, please do.) Ladies and gentlemen, I give you cannon. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I made some fixes to the image placement per WP:MOS#Images, but otherwise it looks great. Nice work! VanTucky 03:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes and support. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I support this nomination. Towards the end of the run, I did a bit of work with referencing and copyediting, but the real stars of the show are Keilana, Biblio, Jstan, and, of course, AO. Very well done to everyone. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this support is valid... you came late but you did quite a bit of work. · AndonicO Hail! 08:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahh, yes, I guess I did do a bit. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added this to my list of FACs I'll feel guilty if I don't review at some stage. Out of curiosity, does having that list of nominators actually mean anything? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it does. Per articlestats, they all made significant contributions to the article. See the WP:FAC instructions on contributors supporting and objecting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you think about it, H2O? Justin(Gmail?)_(u) 17:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• He means he'll review it later on. · AndonicO Hail! 18:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I see. Justin(Gmail?)_(u) 18:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't sure whether to add my name to the nominators or support (didn't know about articlestats before - seems I have the second most edits). I expanded a bit on Vauban though. I also extend my commendations to AndonicO for his sterling work to this article. --Grimhelm (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Just did a read-through, and it's fantastic. I send a virtual hardy slap on the back to all those involved in its development! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That hurt... thanks! ;) · AndonicO Hail! 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I had one nitpick about the cannon's meaning in the 1812 Overture, but I fixed it myself. I'm so WP:BOLD. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It isn't in the page history, are you sure you saved it? · AndonicO Hail! 18:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite nicely written, but I have a few concerns with its present form:

• While the general list of references is decent—if a bit lacking in works on artillery specifically—the actual citations are somewhat less serious than I would have expected. For a topic on which so many academic works have been written, the heavy reliance on dictionaries and non-scholarly websites seems surprising, to say the least.
• Focusing on the "Early modern period" section in particular:
  • The text seems to wander around somewhat haphazardly. The lack of chronological order in the points mentioned adds to the confusion—we jump back and forth from late 16th-century Russian sieges, to late 15th-century wheeled carriages, to mid-17th-century Swedish tactics, and back to early 16th-century Italian fortifications. This also introduces some potential points of confusion; for example, explosive shells predate the invention of the mortar, canister/case shot was available long before Gustavus Adolphus used it, and so forth.
  • More generally, there seems to be a certain lack of focus on the most salient points. The move from siege weapons to field artillery is glossed over; Machiavelli is an inadequate source, and Flodden is more suited to be a secondary example than as the only mention of an engagement involving artillery. Similarly, the development of fortifications to deal with cannon is devoid of historical detail; there's a great deal that can be said here beyond the single mention of Vauban.
  • Field artillery is generally forgotten in favor of naval artillery; there's little mention of any developments—or, indeed, of what cannons were actually used for on the battlefield—until we get to the middle of the 19th century.

In general, I would say that there's a dearth of core details—names, dates, places—and an over-use of examples detached from the main point; but perhaps I was just expecting a meatier article, and this is suitable for an introduction. Kirill 19:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm working a bit on Early modern period now. For the moment, I've removed the Vauban information, as it was unsourced, and repeated what was already mentioned. I'll try to find something with more details from G-books, to expand on what was already said. The points of confusion you mention, however, are stated as you say, and I don't think they're confusing... It says the Dutch "learned to shoot bombs filled with powder," not that they used them for the first time; the same with Adolphus: he "pioneered the use of canister shot against infantry," rather than invented it.
• Does the wording for siege engines read less "glossy" now? I'll try to find something to support Machiavelli a bit later, as well as another example other than Flodden, and a documentation on a battle involving light cannon in the 16th/17th century.
• Further, I think the "Artillery Through the Ages" book contains more info (I think I remember reading it, at least) about this period; I'll take a second look later today, and add anything useful.
• Thanks for taking the time to review. · AndonicO Hail! 21:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I re-ordered that section also; is it better? · AndonicO Hail! 21:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that flows quite a bit better, I think. As far as some other points:

• I'd strongly recommend Bert Hall's Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology, and Tactics as a source for that portion of the article.
• The trace italienne is not a specific type of star fort, nor identified particularly by having batteries; rather, it's the original name for the style of fortification that reached its height with the star fort.

Kirill 02:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll try to find that book. I've removed the mention of the trace italienne. I'm adding a bit more on Adolphus now, I'll get around to re-adding Vauban and finding a few appropriate battles to add details of tomorrow. · AndonicO Hail! 02:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some possibilities for battles:

• Cerignola (1503) and Ravenna (1512) are decent early examples of artillery being used in defensive and offensive roles, respectively. Post-Ravenna, field artillery is pretty much used in standard ways until Adolphus & Co. come up with horse artillery. It may also be useful to discuss grapeshot, Napoleonic artillery, and so forth, but that'd be a bit later.
• Padua (1509) is a good example for the development of new fortifications to withstand cannon, if you need one; but there's relatively little information on it that's easily found.

(These are just suggestions, incidentally, and likely colored by my own area of interest; so please feel free to ignore them if you find something more suitable to use.) Kirill 02:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Your suggestions are appreciated, unfortunately, it's late, and I've been editing for a few hours straight, so I think I'll turn in for now. I'll take a look at that tomorrow, and add it in where appropriate (also found the Battle of Breitenfeld, which might deserve a mention). Thanks again for your input, it's been very helpful. · AndonicO Hail! 03:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some material on Vauban with references. We could also stand to have some more mention of gabions - they were a feature of cannon warfare in the Early Modern Europe. --Grimhelm (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose until the following issues can be fixed.
  • Are some of the individual year links necessary? There's some MoS guideline page which advises against individual year linking, unless it is useful in the context of the article.
    • I've de-linked them.--GrahamColm^Talk 18:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent referencing: please include publisher location, publisher, page numbers and date, where applicable.
  • Ref #4: http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/cannon.htm is not a reliable source. What's strange enough is that you guys are now referencing from a guy who referenced from Wikipedia (see the last sentence of his page).
    • Removed one instance of this source, and used a different one for the other claims. · AndonicO Hail! 12:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #5: http://www.the-tudors.org.uk/mary-rose-warship.htm is not a reliable source.
    • Replaced with similar information sourced by Webster's Dictionary, Britannica, and another book. · AndonicO Hail! 12:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #6: http://www.defencenews.com.au/article-archive.cfm?ID=513&currentpage=2&detail=yes&thiscatid=0 doesn't work for me. Broken link?
    • Works perfectly for me... maybe try this link (removed an unecessary bit from the end of the url)? · AndonicO Hail! 13:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #10: Is http://www.tmth.edu.gr/en/aet/1/31.html a reliable source? It comes from the website of a museum, but we don't know who authored the page.
    • Changed source. · AndonicO Hail! 13:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #11: Science & Civilisation in China, vol. V:7: The Gunpowder Epic – is the bolded text correct?
    • I mis-formatted the ref template, fixed. · AndonicO Hail! 13:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #15: The 1990 edition was authored by David Harding according to Google Books. However, Amazon.com and Google Books list the "Diagram Group" as the author of the book's other editions. Diagram Group is not the publisher.
    • Fixed publisher, and added author/ISBN. · AndonicO Hail! 13:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #18: http://www.history-forum.com/ is not a reliable source. Please find a replacement source.
    • Replaced with a book. · AndonicO Hail! 13:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #19 and 20 need publisher info.
    • Question (not done): I think "History of Science and Technology in Islam" would be the publisher, in this case, as they seem to be articles published directly onto the website by Ahmad Y Hassan; I'm pretty sure they're reliable sources though, considering they're from him. Also, do we need publisher information for all cite web sources? I thought it was more important for cite book (or perhaps I assumed that). · AndonicO Hail! 14:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The publisher would actually be Ahmad Y Hassan, since it's his self-published website (I could have brought up WP:SELFPUB, but Hassan seems to be an expert and a scholar on the matter, so it's a reliable source). Publisher info is more important for cite book than for cite web. However, I still feel that this information should not be neglected. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 17:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, done. · AndonicO Hail! 17:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #25: http://www.hyw.com/Books/History/gunpowde.htm is not a reliable source.
    • Claim removed: 45 minutes of searching turned up nothing. · AndonicO Hail! 17:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #27 and #29: http://www.mediumaevum.com is not a reliable source.
    • Removed, as #27 wasn't relevant, and #29 was sourced by a better reference anyway. · AndonicO Hail! 18:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #30: http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/gp_wpns.htm is not a reliable source.
    • Changed source. · AndonicO Hail! 18:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #33: http://www.trivia-library.com/b/military-and-war-weapons-the-cannon.htm says the © 1975 - 1981 by David Wallechinsky & Irving Wallace; Reproduced with permission from "The People's Almanac" series of books." You might want to use the book as a direct reference.
    • Changed source to "The People's Almanac". · AndonicO Hail! 14:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid it's very bad practice to change the reference without having seen the source you cite. If you can't find the book, you must at least note that you came by the information via the website, I feel. Also, just as a general question to anyone, do we cite unsigned EB articles? I wouldn't, as a standalone cite. 86.44.18.217 (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #39: could you provide a page number for the direct quote from Machiavelli's The Art of War?
    • Page listed. · AndonicO Hail! 14:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #50: http://www.civilwarhome.com/artillery.htm is not a reliable source.
    • Changed source. · AndonicO Hail! 18:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #51: Needs publisher info, date, etc.
    • Added publisher and year. · AndonicO Hail! 20:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #52: Is the author (W. L. Ruffell) a reliable source?
    • Yes, a quick research reveals he is an expert on the subject of medieval artillery and siege machinery. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #56: More details – publisher, author, location, page numbers?
    • Added publisher, year, accessdate, and url. · AndonicO Hail! 21:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #61: http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/mortars.htm is not a reliable source.
    • Sentence removed: again 40+ minutes of looking, and I've got nothing. · AndonicO Hail! 00:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #66: Is http://www.avalanchepress.com/BritainsAntiTankGuns.php a reliable source? Avalanche Press is a board wargames company. At the bottom of the page, it says "To see these guns in action, buy one (or all) of these great titles TODAY!", followed by some links to Avalanche Press games. The reliability of this website is questionable, at best.
    • Added a more reliable source, confirming that one. · AndonicO Hail! 23:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #67: http://www.2worldwar2.com/german-tanks.htm is an unreliable source.
    • Replaced with a book. · AndonicO Hail! 01:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #68: http://www.worldwar2aces.com/ is not a reliable source.
    • Gone. · AndonicO Hail! 01:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #70–71: Is military.com a reliable source?
    • In this case, I would say so. [5] explains some, I think we can consider their technical information reliable in this case, but there may be material there that would be unsuited as reference material. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #73–74: These need publisher info, date accessed, date created, author, etc.
    • Fixed. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #78 says the 1771 edition of EB was published in London; EB was published from 1768 to 1771 in Edinburgh.
    • Oops, fixed. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #80: http://www.musicwithease.com/tchaikovsky-1812-overture.html does not corroborate the statement made that the 1812 Overture featured a cannon.
    • Added new reference. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #81: Needs publisher info, author, date created, etc. This should be formatted with {{cite news}}, not {{cite web}}.
    • Done. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #82: {{Cite book}} should be used, not cite web. The book's title also needs to be used, not "Tchaikovsky – Google Book Search"
    • Changed to the proper format. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #85: http://library.thinkquest.org/5116/percussion.htm is not a reliable source; furthermore, I think it was written by some middle schoolers.
    • I've removed the information, the link is now broken and I can't find another citation. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #88: Is Songfacts a reliable source?
    • No, I have removed it as the material was cited to a more reliable source first. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of these websites are self-published and the page creator is not necessarily an expert on the matter (or rather, there is no indication the author is an expert). This is why I labeled them as unreliable sources.
  • In the "References" section, you include location in only a few references. Please provide the publisher location for all book refs.
  • I may most more comments later. I haven't read the article yet. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 19:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll try to fix up the refs you've suggested. · AndonicO Hail! 20:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• All done Nishkid. Anything else? · AndonicO Hail! 10:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you address my first point (it wasn't referencing-related)? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 18:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've addressed this point. --GrahamColm^Talk 18:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the few you fixed were actually fine... I had already removed the MOS-violating ones. Mind re-adding them (I'm not able to now...)? · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Some of the references are a little strange. Refs, 6 and 94 direct to Google and Amazon respectively. Refs 25, 27, 59 don't give the name of the publisher. Some of the books have ISBN numbers, other do not and shouldn't there be a p. before the page numbers? These points may have been covered above. In order to keep an open mind, I tend not to read other reviews at FAC before adding my two pennies worth.--GrahamColmTalk 14:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have made some changes to the article, [6] and I'm prepared to support the nomination subject to the problems with the references being solved.--GrahamColmTalk 16:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 6 and 94, done. 25 had the publisher, but it wasn't displaying due to a formatting error. For #27, I've added publisher, year, and location. I added publisher, year, and ISBN for #59, and inserted "p." before page numbers. I'll look for ISBN numbers now. · AndonicO Hail! 18:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been watching you working. Graham.--GrahamColmTalk 18:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--GrahamColm^Talk 18:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<comments about browser problem moved to talk> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments added back. I've removed the superscript tags. Andonic, I will comb through the article and look for referencing issues. In the meantime, could you address my first point regarding individual year links? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 20:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've unlinked all of them. I'm still looking for ISBNs, and adding the books in "Notes" to the "References" section. · AndonicO ^Hail! 21:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: What about the paragraph in "20th and 21st centuries": "'Testing has also been carried out on nuclear cannon in the 1950s, as in the United States' Operation Upshot-Knothole. Today, United States 152 mm artillery fires Shillelagh missiles, which are guided to their targets by infrared beams, and the Super High Altitude Research Project artillery can fire shells 75.75 mi (121.91 km) above the earth's surface.'" I think it's a bit trivial, and is out of place (possibly inaccurate, too: our article on Shillelagh says they were abandoned, and I can't find any modern American 152mm artillery here); any comments? · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed; feel free to add it back. · AndonicO ^Hail! 16:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A wonderful article. It's balanced, comprehensive and well-written. Majoreditor (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2008 (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 promoted 03:07, 30 March 2008.

Komodo dragon

previous FAC

This is a self-nomination. I've worked on this article for more than a year, due to my procrastination. I've managed to pull it together recently, though, and I feel that it has reached its best point. I've addressed all concerns in peer reviews and the former FAC, so I'd like to see how it stacks up now. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 21:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Extremely well done, the article has great organization and seems to fit all of the other criteria. Hello32020 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I've watched this one from the sidelines and have seen it improve considerably over the past months. I have only one concern, concerning the "venomous" aspect, as I believe the researchers in that particular case have maliciously and purposefully used misleading words in their thesis. However, as there is no published testimony refuting their studies, yet...I will not let that stand in the way of this article's promotion. The prose is excellent, the references are done properly, and the subject matter is definitely notable and worthy. About time a real dragon article was featured instead of one about pixelated dragons! Great Job!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I noted your edits. I think the wording you used was way too strong, so I toned it down. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 21:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're probably right, I'm not known for my subtlety! Still, it is what it is and you've done an excellent job with this one!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - This article is well wrote and sourced, truely good read. Sunderland06  22:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Done in a manor that I believe is very eloquent and detailed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanksfan6129 (talk • contribs) --Catgut (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments Just a few issues.
  • It may be within the broad paragraph number requirement of WP:LEAD, but the intro doesn't feel like a complete, concise overview of the entire article. Can you expand it a little bit?
  • per WP:MOS#Images, your image placement needs work. The placement of the scale image in Anatomy and morphology is an example of images divorcing text and headers, as well as being crowded. The left alignment issue is also present with Parthenogenesis and Conservation. The two images in Feeding ecology (just changed to Diet) violate the stricture against having a pair of images that directly face each other on both sides of the text. Image placement is tricky sometimes, so I'll take a whack at it myself. I've dealt with image placement sufficiently.
  • Shouldn't Evolution and Dragons and humans really be sub sections (or just a single section) of History? A single history section makes a lot more sense to me. I merged Evolution and Dragons and humans in to History section, and separated the etymological information in to a beginning section on etymology. I also redacted some of the other section titles for simplicity and clarity. I'd be willing to support now, but please try and expand some of a lead a little, you might mention parthenogenesis, even if I can't spell it :) VanTucky 02:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the images is set, and I've expanded the lead. You notified me on my talk page that you don't really agree with my changes. Incidentally, I don't really agree with your changes either. I think that the images are placed rather sloppily, and that the etymology section would do better as a subsection in a "Dragons and humans" section. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 03:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppily is a rather unconstructive criticism, if you have something more helpful about how you'd like the images, please tell. And I didn't do it with intentional disregard (i.e. sloppy), I did it according to WP:MOS#Images, which says that left-right alternating can be helpful, especially when you need to avoid separating headers and text. I'd be fine with getting rid of etymology as a separate section, but "dragons and humans" doesn't sound like an acceptable section title to me, it's about the history of the animal, of which it's evolution is a part. If you go with it's history, starting with evolution and then discovery (which, btw, is kind of Eurocentric in attitude) and subsequent study it provides a more cohesive and readable through-line for the reader. The previous structure read disjointed. Thanks very much for the lead work, it looks great. VanTucky 03:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subsections describe the events surrounding the discovery of the Komodo dragon by the Western world, which is a particularly interesting and important section. Also note that "Conservation" and "In captivity" does not really fall under history. I am not opposed to the etymology section, nor did I remove it, but I just think that it works much better as a second-level heading later down. I do, however, like the simplification of section headings, that was much clearer. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 03:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation efforts/status and the history of the animal in captivity is part of its history. The fact that it's primarily in relation to mankind is a given, and to state so in the section header is a redundancy imo. I didn't see where you put the etymology, so apologies; put it somewhere else if you like. VanTucky 03:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right then, I see your point. However, I'd like to move the images so that they don't seem off-center in the sections. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 03:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to set a compromise with the images. I've moved them so that they don't look off-center, and I've checked them with the MOS to make sure they comply. I have my thumbnail size set to default 180px, and it looks fine in Mozilla Firefox. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 03:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the body images are fine, but several of the ones you left aligned early on still violated the basic MOS images tenet that needed to be fixed: left images that move the text of a section separate from it header. Check out Sea otter for an example of the proper style of image alignment. But for one compelling exception (the image is too wide not to), all the left aligned images do not divorce text from headers. VanTucky 17:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The ref "sciam" has been moved to a different url; see here. I'll stop by to make more comments later. · AndonicO ^Hail! 13:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.
• Expanding on that, a few of the links are off. For example, from the first paragraph of the lead: Komodo island is not linked, but island is; meters and feet are linked (shouldn't be). Further down in the lead (and the article), Komodo island is linked to, which is odd, as there's no reason why it shouldn't be linked in the first sentence too/instead. Invertebrates, birds, and mammals are not linked in the lead, which should be, while zoo is linked twice in the entire text, and I doubt should be linked at all. Finally, years should be linked when part of a full date (can't remember where the MOS page is, sorry); random example: September 13, 2008. · AndonicO ^Hail! 17:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed. If you catch any that I've missed, let me know.

• You need replacement or supporting references for these:
• Ref 13: Is that website reliable? It says it can be edited by anyone (though a bit better than wikipedia, as the edits are reviewed, but still...).

• Yes, I think it can be trusted. However, I have backed its occurrences with other sources just in case.

• Ref 15: Not a reliable source.

• How? It is published by a zoo that is known for being the first in the Americas to have parthenogenetic offspring.

• Doesn't seem to have been written with much thought; grammar and spelling errors all over. Are you sure? · AndonicO ^Hail! 22:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that I think about it, I've replaced it with a much more reputable book. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 22:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 29: A news article, shouldn't be used as a primary source (unless there isn't anything else available; maybe check google books). Major claims are based on this ref... not good.

• Added from an article from Scientific American.

• Various other refs are pretty shaky, but they're not used to cite important information, so they're okay. If you could replace them, though, that would be optimal. · AndonicO ^Hail! 20:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't worry. I've made sure that my refs are better than the ones we used in Cannon. :) Boy, did I freak out when I saw Nishkid's giant list. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 20:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, me too. Took me about 30 hours to finish all he asked, heh. · AndonicO ^Hail! 21:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support
  • "A member of the Varanidae,..." Would "A member of the Varanidae (Monitor Lizards),..." be ok?
    • I've linked to it in the text. I don't want the prose to get too chunky with explanatory notes.
  • "Komodo dragons are, interestingly enough, capable" - what makes it "interestingly enough"? what is interesting about it? is it rare?
    • Removed.
  • Ectotherm redirects to "Cold-blooded". Is this the term that should be used in the article?
    • "Cold-blooded" is actually a misleading term, which is stated in the Cold-blooded article itself.
  • "and climb trees proficiently" conflicts with "as their great mass makes climbing impractical."
    • Sorry, that statement about the tree climbing refers to when its young.
  • regarding holes, these statements seem to conflict: "are able to conserve body heat throughout the night" - "usually located on ridges with a cool sea breeze". What's the source for the 2nd statement?
    • It's covered by ref 19 at the end of the paragraph.
  • mention "The Komodo dragon's loosely articulated jaws, flexible skull" at the beginning of how they eat rather than the end? I was left wondering "how?" the whole paragraph.
    • I've made it less ambiguous by linking it to them swallowing it whole.
      • I fixed it [7]
  • So the members of Varanidae have been verified to have venom, but so far only observation has been used with the komodo dragon?
  • How is the venom produced?
  • Should venom be mentioned in "Anatomy and morphology"?
    • The venom part is not exactly conclusive. More information may come, but so far, that's all they've been able to figure out. Also, anatomy and morphology refers to the structure of the Komodo dragon, so the venom wouldn't fit there.
  • Is the short form "Komodo" or "dragon" or "monitor" I see all three used. Should probably be consistent.
    • I have it so that it isn't repetitive, as opposed to hammering in "Komodo dragon" a hundred times.
      • Repetition of the subject's name is common in all articles. An example of another animal having multiple names, but the article using only one is the FA article Cougar. Should we see if anyone else has a comment?
        • Fixed. Changed to "Komodo dragon" or switched with a pronoun.
  • Are there any other islands besides padar that they formerly inhabited? Should ...and formerly padar... be in the island lists?
    • It fits best in Conservation. I've mentioned in the Evolution section that the Komodo dragon's range extended even to Timor. Since they don't inhabit these islands anymore, I don't think it's needed.
  • The list of island is in 3 spots: intro, Ecology and Conservation. Is this desired?
    • I've removed the mention in the Ecology section. I've kept the lead one (per WP:LEAD) and the Conservation ones, which lists the population numbers.
  • Why is Monitor lizard in the see also list? It's linked via Varanidae. I still believe that this should be mentioned.
    • Mentioned and removed from see also.
      • Thank you very much.
  • Why is Megalania prisca and European dragon in the see also list? Neither seems very linked with the subject.
    • Megalania prisca is another example of an enormous monitor lizard that formerly lived in Australia. The two are often compared. As for the European dragon, it is the origin of the Komodo dragon's name.
  • Thats all my comments. -Ravedave (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like a lot, the article is exemplary --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The only thing that I would like to see different is the many appearences of the words "Komodo dragons" in the lead which seem unelegant in many consecutive sentences - However I can understand that it is difficult to find a better solution. A very fine and well structured article that deserve FA-status.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it warrants a whole "Etymology" section, but it is worth noting. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 22:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I find the history section to be very strange, covering too many unrelated topics. I would put evolution near the beginning of the article, then another section for discovery and study, and another section for conservation and captive animals. Mangostar (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.
• Comment Okay, I've started to read it now. Here are a few things I've spotted:
• Maybe change the phrasing here: "They are protected under Indonesian law and a national park, Komodo National Park, was founded in order to protect them."
  • Rephrased.
• Explain a bit more in this sentence: "This creates an ideal culture for the virulent bacteria that live in their mouths." Why do they want bacteria in their mouths in the first place?
  • A more careful reading should answer this question: "These bacteria cause septicemia in their victim; if an initial bite does not kill the prey animal and it escapes, it will commonly succumb within a week to the resulting infection."
    • Yes, but that's further down in the article; the sentence I mentioned stands pretty much alone.
• "With the help of a favorable wind and their habit of swinging their head from side to side as they walk, they may be able to detect carrion from 4–9.5 kilometres (2.5–6 mi) away." Is their swinging their heads a habit?
  • Yes.
• "As Komodo dragons mature, their claws are used primarily as weapons, as their great mass makes climbing impractical." I think that might be an incorrect use of "mass;" do you mean "weight," or "size"?
  • Changed to size.
• "Although they eat mostly carrion, studies show that they also hunt live prey with a stealthy approach followed by a sudden short charge. When suitable prey arrives near a dragon's ambush site, it will suddenly charge at the animal and go for the underside or the throat." Two things wrong here: "studies show" is out of place, isn't needed, and somewhat detracts from the sentence. The other is the "sudden short charge"/"suddenly charge" repetition. Maybe "sprint" could be a good substitute.
  • Rephrased
• Another sentence with an unnecessary repetition: "In addition to the assertions of venomous saliva, Komodo dragons also possess virulent bacteria in their saliva..."
  • Fixed.
• "There are recorded examples of parthenogenesis, a phenomenon also known to occur in some other reptile species, such as Whiptail lizards." Should go in the "Parthenogenesis" section, which, in turn, should be a sub-section of "Reproduction."
  • Removed, felt a little out of place
• This isn't cited: "Sungai, a Komodo dragon at London Zoo, laid a clutch of eggs in early 2006 after being separated from males for more than two years. Scientists initially assumed that she had been able to store sperm from her earlier encounter with a male, an adaptation known as superfecundation."
  • Cited.
• "Widespread notoriety came after 1912, in which Peter Ouwens, the director of the Zoological Museum at Bogor, Java, published a paper on the topic after receiving a photo and a skin from the lieutenant, as well as two other specimens from a collector." Incorrect usage of "in which;" I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, but I assume it's the year?
  • Fixed.
• "Research after the Auffenberg family has shed more light on the nature of the Komodo dragon, with biologists such as Claudio Ciofi continuing to study the creatures." Is Ciofi notable enough for a mention?
  • Yes. He is an authority on the Komodo dragon, and I've cited his work quite a lot throughout the article.
• "Their populations are restricted to the islands of Rinca (1,300), Gili Motang (100), Gili Dasami (100), Komodo (1,700), and Flores (perhaps 2,000)." Maybe arrange in alphabetical or numerical order, unless they're already arranged according to something else?
  • Fixed. Organized from least to greatest.
• "However, there is evidence that Komodo dragons are becoming accustomed to human presence, as they are often fed animal carcasses at several feeding stations by tourists." Perhaps you could expand a bit on why it's bad, if they aren't being harmed? Not very well explained, and it should be, considering the sentence begins with "however."
  • Removed the however part.
• This is a bit POV and weaselish: "Komodo dragons have long been great zoo attractions, where their size and reputation make them popular exhibits."
  • I would disagree. Komodo dragons are a flagship species for those of Indonesia. NPOV != No POV.
• Hope that's not too picky... · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well done, I'll support now, as there are only a couple minor things left. · AndonicO ^Hail! 02:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose for now - I'll add some stuff as I go:

• Support - ok, I am happy. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a problem with Anatomy and morphology' - the first always makes me think of heart and lungs etc. which are not discussed here. The second makes me think of shape, which is not really discussed either. Description is the common heading name used in almost all other biology FAs.
  • Changed.
• Also, there is a photo of the skin but no description of it.
  • I'm a little baffled by this. It's just a closeup of the skin. Am I supposed to explain the Komodo dragon's scales and everything.
• Physiology is also jargony, why not just senses?
  • It used to be called senses, but it was changed a while back into something more jargony. I think it would do better being clearer.
• link or explain vomeronasal.
  • It used to be linked, but it redirects to Jacobson's organ, which is linked in the text. Nevertheless, I've linked to it just in case.
• Komodo dragons are largely solitary, coming together only to breed and eat. They are capable of running rapidly in brief sprints (up to 20 kilometres per hour (12.4 mph)), are excellent swimmers (may dive up to 4.5 metres (15 ft)) - 2 sets of parentheses looks awkward, why not the mdash or ndash?
  • Fixed.
• Surely the Venom and bacteria section would be better next to bits talking about its body under Anatomy/Description etc.?
  • I think it fits better next to the diet section. Move if you want, but that's just my opinion.
    • That one wasn't a deal-breaker. no problemo. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• ''It is thought that the Komodo dragon evolved to feed on the extinct dwarf elephant Stegodon that once lived on Flores - reword, weaselly. May as well name and describe the person who thought up the idea.
  • Named.
• The Komodo Dragon should be singular throughout.
  • Still fixing. This will take a while. I'm fixing most references to the plural, but some sections feel awkward when changed to singular, so I've retained those.
    • I agree this is tricky. Sometimes it does go really awkward so don't worry about those too much. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It had been thought that bites inflicted by these lizards were prone to infection because of bacteria in the lizards' mouths, but these researchers have shown that the immediate effects are caused by mild envenomation. - needs rewording. First was widely held so say so, change "researchers" to "research team" or something a bit more formal.
  • Fixed.

All these should be straightforward fixes. If you disagree and put up a valid argument I will be happy to listen. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Current ref 20 (Fry, Brian G. et. al Early Evolution of the Venom ...) lacks publisher information.
  • Current ref 23 (Chasing the Magic Dragon) could use publication information (issue, date etc) with it.
  • Current ref 25 (Jessop, Tim S. et. al Distribution Use and Selection of Nest Type...) is lacking publisher information.
  • Same for current ref 30 (Strange but True: Komodo Dragons show that Virgin births are possible)
  • And for current ref 36 (Trapping Komodo Dragons for Conservation)
  • And for current ref 45 (Transcript Sharon Stone vs the Komodo Dragon)
  • And for current ref 47 (Editor stable after attack by Komodo Dragon..)
  • Current ref 44 ("Such jokers, these Komodo dragons") has an access date but no link to a web page

Links checked out fine with the tool. The reason for giving full publication information on articles that are linked on magazine web sites is so that if the web link ever goes dead, the information to find the article in the print version is still there so the reference is still valid. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed them. For refs 30, 36, and 45, these are internet only and weren't on the respective magazines. For ref 47, I'm not sure how to cite the actual newspaper issue that it was in. The site only mentions that it was on page A-14 before. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 18:51, 29 March 2008 (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 promoted 03:07, 30 March 2008.

Spyro: Year of the Dragon

A bit shorter than some odysseys that are video game articles, but it covers the previews, music, gameplay, and reception fairly well, methinks, better than some of the shorter FA game articles I’ve done in any case. Fire away your comments. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The audio sample should include the article the fair use rationale is for. It is a bit shorter than your usual, but it looks good with a quick skim, as you usually do it. If I feel it, I'll take a deeper look. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 00:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bit shorter? Then you haven't seen this one... :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed fair-use for the audio sample. Salavat (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can't comment on the shorter FA game articles you speak of, but, there are some things that can be done to improve this article (at least, prior to me going through it properly to decide which way to vote). There are a lot of terms used that should either be explained in the article, or if possible, in separate sub-articles. While I understand them, having played this a long time ago, an average reader may be confused. Rhynocs, "health bar" etc. are some examples. I also don't think it is comprehensive enough - you can give more details about the game. One place to start is the bonus-type areas, where you can skateboard. The skateboard doesn't just miraculously appear out of no where - you have to go through a certain ... To access each level, you have to go through a certain ... To access certain levels, you need to collect ... What are examples of these levels? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how rattling off the names of levels where you can skateboard improves the comprehensiveness of the article in a good fashion. As for 'Rhynocs' and 'heath bar', I've reworded and expanded, but I think if you read the gameplay section it's fairly clear that Sparx functions as a visual representation of your health. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not for a person who has no experience or knowledge in playing games of this nature. So far, the article is quite vague in a lot of areas. I'll give more thorough review later, although, it may seem more like a criticism if I bring out its weaknesses in too much detail. Will look through it again before I do make such a review. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks good! Short but comprehensive, has images, NPOV, and well written. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support another great work from Fuchs. igordebraga ≠ 18:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Lack of sales data. This is not comprehensive. - hahnchen 23:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe there is some data. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it got fixed less than 20 minutes after my edit. I came across a Gamasutra article on the game regarding copy and crack protection, it seems quite interesting although whether or not you think it's too niche for an encyclopedia is up to you.[8] - hahnchen 14:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• "The game was the last Spyro game Insomniac Games would make". Why not use "made" instead of "would make"?
• "Named for the animal of the Chinese zodiac". Surely it should be "named after".
• "after one hundred and fifty". Per MoS, 150 shouldn't be written out in full. Change for similar examples, such as "thirty".
• "The game was eventually followed by". "eventually" is redundant here.
• "third person" should probably be hyphenated.
• "Year of the Dragon is a platformer primarily taking place in the third person, and its gameplay is very similar to its two predecessors." Prose is weak here.
• "These gems are used to pay off other characters". You probably should elaborate upon this as it leaves me none-the-wiser.
• "will cause the player to lose and life". Should have been "lose a life". Please proofread.
• "who has feelings for Hunter." I feel a bit iffy about this but I may be wrong. Any chance of rewording to make it seem less informal?
• "where Spyro and his kind are". Should probably change "kind" to "kin".
• "instead of tacking on more". If he actually said "tacking on", then quote it; if he didn't, then reword.
• Reception should include at least one sentence devoted to music, especially considering the composer. Much more than the passing reference to "rich sound".
• Actually, I'd probably feel more comfortable if the section was expanded in general. The last paragraph's placement in this section is dubious too.
• MobyGames link is questionable to say the least.
• Ref 17's title nees fixing

Okay, I hope this helps. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed except for the reception section. What is your issue with the last paragraph? I can't exactly think of a better place for it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Development. I just think it doesn't have much to do with the game's Reception. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Did we ever get a decision on Magic Box as a reliable source? Otherwise everything looks good on the sources.

All other links checked out fine with the tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No; I'm afraid this discussion didn't go very far. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: As my comments have been addressed. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:00, 29 March 2008 (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 promoted 03:07, 30 March 2008.

Ima Hogg

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is the most comprehensive single article on this fascinating woman, and it meets the Featured article critera. I did a lot of the research and writing, but this has been a team collaboration. Special thank-yous to: Elcobbola and The Fat Man Who Never Came Back for image help, Corvus cornix and SWTPC6800 for research, Nishkid64 for writing the lead, Yomangani and Maralia and Tony1 for copyediting, and SandyGeorgia for MOS help and general whip-cracking (and if I forgot anyone I am sorry). Karanacs (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:LEAD and reformat with a four paragraph lead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done. Karanacs (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, it looks like a very interesting article. I noticed that two of the picture captions mention the entrance to her home, but I don't see that the significance of the entrance is explained anywhere. Why is the entrance notable?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the second one's caption is talking about how she restored the entrance, when the actual picture is of the back. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, I added a sentence to explain why the entrances were a big deal at this home. What is now the front entrance used to be the back; the original entrance is now the back of the house. Karanacs (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hogg served as district attorney from 1880 to 1884. This article suggests there was an intervening election in 1882 (which he won after giving his daughter an amusing name). However, The Texas Constitution of 1868, Article V, Section 12, stated: "There shall be a District Attorney elected by the qualified voters of each judicial district, who shall hold his office for four years; and the duties, salaries and perquisites of District Attorney shall be prescribed by law."[9] Are we sure that the term of office had been reduced to two years, as of 1882? In other words, are we sure that there was an election in 1882?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is what my source said, in discussion of her name. I checked several sources on Jim Hogg, and they all said that he was district attorney from 1880-1884 but didn't specify whether that was one term or two. I checked the Constitution of 1872 (which should have been in effect during the 1880s), and it says that if there is no district attorney, then a county attorney would have a 2-yr term.[10] It's possible that my source confused district with county attorney; I'm not sure. Karanacs (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source that definitely confirms he ran for reelection in 1882.[11]Ferrylodge (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We say in the article that "there are some who believe that James Stephen Hogg...." Do we know whether this is a fringe belief, the belief of a large minority, or a majority belief? For a Wikipedia article to say "some people say" seems weaselly even if the Wikipedia article is quoting some source saying "some people say." See what I'm saying?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a direct quote, and the source does not go into any more detail. The Hoggs are the subject of much legend in Texas; these stories are common knowledge and often discussed in schools. This is another legend, and I don't have any way of being more specific. If others think that this is also problematic we can take out that whole sentence, but I'd like to wait for further opinions. Karanacs (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't take out that sentence, but maybe rephrasing to: "legend has it 'that James Stephen Hogg....'" There seems to be a ton of evidence that this was mere legend. See Mary Kelly's book. Also, since this book by Kelly is available online (via Google Books), it would probably be a good idea to link to it.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to think about the rewording. I think the article makes it clear that this is a legend, and I'm not sure the value in removing this as a direct quote. (and thanks for adding the link to the Google book in the article) Karanacs (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in view of recent edits.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with a few small points.
  • "Hogg worked on a volume about her father's papers" - the word "volume" is wierd and unclear to me in this context. Do you mean a single book in a set of books? If so, it's oddly worded.
  • I haven't seen other articles have external links to pictures of the subject. I'm not sure if this is within Wikipedia standards so I think they should either be added if PD-US or the links removed. There's already a link to the Commons category, so PD images could be added there if the point is making a collection of images about her.

Overall, this article is very well written and ready to be featured. Royalbroil 02:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded to "Hogg worked on a collection of her father's papers", as it was actually a multi-volume set. Thanks for pointing that out. I agree with you about the images, especially since several of them were poor images. I've removed all but her page at the UT Santa Rita Awards. Karanacs (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, excellent article. --Laser brain (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Comments Wow, good work. The prose is what I would expect from the editors who worked on the article. I really didn't find anything "wrong"; below are some comments that boil down to preference so they are not dealbreakers.[reply]
  • "Hogg successfully ran for a seat on the Houston School Board in 1943, where she worked to remove gender and race as criteria for pay..." Maybe pay rate?
    • Changed but feels awkward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I changed it to "...criteria for determining pay." Feel free to change back to the original; it's no big deal. --Laser brain (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Under Ima's supervision, the house was later remodeled and a portico was added to what had been the back of the house; Ima made this the new front entrance, orienting the house away from Varner Creek." This sticks out as a time you switch to calling the subject "Ima" when you normally call her "Hogg" or rarely "Ima Hogg".
    • changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the next year Ima nursed him..." Ditto.
    • Here, I changed a few, not all, because it's necessary in some cases to distinguish her from him. Please adjust if still needed ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hogg won with 4,350 votes, more than 1,000 more than the runner-up." That's a lot of mores.
    • Changed, please tweak as needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her first purchase, in 1922, was a 'Spanish foot chair'" Why single quotes? --Laser brain (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed those quotes, not necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Diff of changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Having gotten the nitt-picking sorted out, now it’s time for the compliments. This is a masterpiece , a fine, encyclopaedic biography of one of America’s great philanthropists. I felt I knew Ima Hogg well after reading this and her portrait at the top of the article is worthy of being featured alone. I know have said this about other FAs, but this is a great Wikipedia treasure. Graham. --GrahamColm^Talk 02:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There may be some organizational quirks remaining from the “dump all information in now and sort out later” writing method. For instance, as Ferrylodge pointed out, there are events from 1914 in the “early years” section (Ima was in her early 30s). Also, the third paragraph of the “Education and musical interests” seems out of place, as the context (or, perhaps, just the wording) seems to imply that visiting “concerts and museums” was a merely a diversion from grief (i.e. not an action that should really be interpreted as supporting/indicating/etc. her interests). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think some of that can be resolved by moving some of the info that relates to her character and disposition into that section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Karanacs rearranged; better now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A minor point, but I find the chronology unclear in the current version of the Description and disposition section::

One morning, Hogg was awakened by a burglar in her bedroom. She confronted the man, who was attempting to steal her jewelry, and convinced him to not only return the jewelry, but "wrote down a name and address, handed it to him and told him to go there that very day to get a job".[96] When asked why she did that, Hogg responded, "He didn't look like a bad man."[96] Later that year, she sailed to Germany, alone.

How old was Miss Ima during this burglary. "Later that year???" Later what year? The year of the burglary? A mediocre student of history would have to click on the Franz Ferdinand link to figure when these events occurred.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added citation to the burglary in 1914. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes more sense, at least to me. She was thirty-two! That would have been a much cuter burglar-thwarting story if she had been ten years old or something.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Significant contributor moral support. Karanacs gets the credit, and this article was a fun collaboration. I figure as a significant contributor because of my gazillion little MoS tweaks, ref fixes, etc. The article is soundly and reliably sourced, has free and properly licensed images, is MoS compliant, is comprehensive and engaging, and has been copyedited by many of Wiki's finest writers. Nice job Karanacs, on a fine tribute to a great lady ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much, Sandy, for prodding me into getting involved, and then holding off everyone/everything else so I could finish. I really enjoyed myself. Karanacs (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saving the March 7 pre-improvement version here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Unbelievably minor style issue, of the sort SandyGeorgia regularly rectifies. The Fat Man spies some inconsistency among parenthetical metric units. In one place we see "fifteen miles [24 km]" whilst in another we see "5 feet 2 inches (157 cm)."--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The first had to be handled differently because it's within a direct quote, and the cm conversion isn't part of the quote, hence brackets. Suggestions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right, as usual. There's no other way to handle these, as long as all the non-quote metric units are formatted the same.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The following sentences sound awkward when paired together: "Her interest in mental health came from her father, who had read widely on mental health issues; during his terms as governor, Ima had often accompanied him on visits to state institutions, including charity hospitals and asylums for the mentally ill.[51] While she was a student at UT, she became fascinated with mental health.[52]"

So did she glean an interest in mental health from from her father when she was a child, or did she first become interested in the subject as a college student? We might want to re-word the second sentence to make it clearer that she continued to pursue her passion for mental health while in college (as long as we don't stray from the sources, of course).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think I've addressed this. Karanacs (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good, Karancs.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Worthy article on an amazing woman. (Disclaimer: I provided some bits of information from the Iscoe reference—some of which were included and some of which were not—and also a few relatively minor edits, but was not otherwise engaged in the creation of the article) — Bellhalla (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—Well-written, comprehensive, well-cited. Disclaimer: I copy-edited the prose a while back. Tony (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Amazingly well-written article about a great woman. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<off topic comment moved to talk page> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with a few nitpicks

Otherwise looks pretty good! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – incredible article, beautifully written. Miss Ima is smiling. (Contributions - few edits early on and a few images), Postoak (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2008 (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 promoted 00:24, 30 March 2008.

Ancient Egypt

I feel this article is now essentially complete. It covers every single aspect of ancient Egypt, including legacy, and is reasonably concise. It is well referenced, and the bulk of the sources, landmarks in their field, were published within the last ten years, so it is current. The article has 3 featured pictures and other carefully selected images, such as the golden mask and Rosetta stone that are touchstones of the ancient culture. The writing has been polished by months of work, peer reviewers and copyeditors. (Self-nom) Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please add publisher information to all of your websources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't hide the Table of Contents: see WP:WIAFA, criterion 2b. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment support - rename the section tecnology, medicine and mathematics in culture. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 06:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is already a culture section; the Table of Contents was hidden. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Just a few quick notes:

• I notice the historical eras are all capitalized in {{Small Egyptian Dynasty List}} (and presumably in the linked articles), but only some of them are capitalized in section headers here.
• Pharaoh should only be capitalized when used as a title with a name
• Some of the subarticle links use {{Main}} while others use {{See also}}; that's logical in theory, but in some cases it looks like Main would be more appropriate than See also.
• Image captions that are complete sentences should end with a full stop
• It looks like most of the links in the See also section are already presented in {{Ancient Egypt topics}}, and perhaps the ones that aren't in the template should be considered for inclusion there
• In references, use endashes rather than hyphens for page ranges (p. 67–69)
• Reference 16 is missing a page number - "Robins (2000) p."
• In references that refer to books listed in a bibliography, the year is only used to distinguish between multiple books/editions by the same author. Here, there is only one ambiguity—two books by R. H. Wilkinson—so references to those books are the only ones that need a year or a title listed.
• In the Bibliography, one item ("Günther Hölbl") doesn't begin with 'lastname, firstname'

These are just from a cursory review; I'll try to get back here and do a thorough readthrough soon. Maralia (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the see also section by moving appropriate links to the template as you suggest, others already linked in the article. Ref formatting should be fine now, and the main/see also is fixed as well. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I switched the touregypt source to a book published one. As for the truman site: I'll make a special trip to the university library and drag out the original article. As for the Clarke book: don't judge a book by its cover; it's a reliable technical book; not a lightweight at all. It was originally published by oxford university press, so it should be fine. "Some books give place of publication, others don't..." fine, I'll add whatever I can. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Perhaps show in the bibliography that its a reprint of an earlier book? I know Dover does a lot of those types of reprints. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note added to the citation about the Dover reprint giving full details. My library doesn't have the book giving the info about the golden ratio, but since this sentence is really not that important, I've removed it. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the useful information on the golden ratio because the entire sentence can be attributed to Kemp (1989). Jeff, in the future, if you need help with finding or accessing sources, please post on the article's talk page or ask me directly. I might be able to help. — Zerida ☥ 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I used to edit this article a long time ago, so I am not giving a support or oppose per se because I'm not sure if my past involvement has a bearing on its promotion. Since I was pretty inactive between November and February, I haven't followed the article's progress, so I feel that I can at least offer some comments. First, I am not clear why neither this nomination nor the peer review (which I just finished reading) was announced on WP:KMT (didn't find anything in the archives). Not everyone will necessarily be watching the article (I didn't) or may be busy with other articles. I point this out because it's critical that such a visible article on this topic undergoes review by editors with knowledge of the topic.

I am not going to spend much time going over the technical aspects since they're already being covered, except I will mention that this is a bad idea here because from what I see the article uses several references by the same author(s), and it's not clear which one is being cited.

In terms of criteria, the article more or less meets most of them, but to varying degrees fails "Comprehensiveness", "Factual accuracy" and a little bit of criterion 4 ("unnecessary detail").

• Sources: There is an over-reliance on books and web sites. In a featured article about an academic topic, in particular one that is generally about ancient Egypt, I'd also prefer to see several peer-reviewed journals or magazines cited, which are especially useful in reporting on recent finds/archaeological discoveries. Ideally (though I wouldn't expect it), an article such as this would be referenced by French and German-language sources because most Egyptological literature in the West is actually in these languages.
  • I'm afraid I don't have much access to KMT, JEA, or JNES, and I don't read French or German. If you do have sources you think should be included, by all means add them as additional reading. I'll add links to KMT and the others in the see also section. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comprehensiveness vs. Too much detail: The article gives too much detailed coverage of the major historical periods (especially the NK), but fails to mention or doesn't go into enough detail about several important topics. The Government and Technology sections are pretty good; the Culture section could be better and *better referenced*. Some topics that need more coverage, using specific examples/figures, are professions; courtship and family relations; towns and township; the role of women; festivals; education and learning; housing (royalty vs. commoners); contacts with other nations; sports and crafts; animal and stock-breeding. The historical periods should be truncated and have a link to the main article on each one underneath the section heading (e.g.; {{main|New Kingdom}}). Some of that material appears to be copied from the main articles, like the Ptolemaic dynasty for example, so I'd suggest at least eliminating those portions as there is no sense in having the exact same information in both articles (this is otherwise OK, just not in a featured article I feel).
  • Predynastic: The section goes through the major predynastic sites of Upper Egypt, but makes no mention at all of the major Lower Egyptian sites like Maadi, Faiyum and Merimda, among others. This is an important detail that should not be overlooked. The northern sites predate their southern counterparts by several centuries, and our knowledge of predyanstic Lower Egypt has expanded in the last couple of years with discoveries such as this one.
    • A good point. Added mention of northern Egyptian cultures engulfed by the Naqada, but no room to elaborate on details. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roman Domination": This section like the Ptolemaic one needs to be re-written, with more references, focusing more on aspects of continuity and change in Egyptian culture itself. This after all is an article about Egypt, not the Ptolemaic, Roman or Byzantine empires. We're interested in Egypt under Graeco-Roman rule, with less focus on the rulers and more focus on the culture being ruled. I am unclear what this means: "a Christian, Greek-speaking state that had little in common with the Western Roman Empire, and which disappeared in the face of the Islamic invasions in the fifteenth century." What "Islamic invasions" and what does Byzantine Egypt have to do with the 15th century? Is this a reference to something that happened elsewhere after Byzantine rule ended in Egypt many centuries prior? Of what relevance is this to the article?
    • These sections have been rewritten, with extra sources. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Language and Literature: This is by far the most problematic section for me, not only because it happens to be an area of specialization of mine, but because it suffers from all the problems that I mentioned: gives very superficial overview of the language, is not entirely factually accurate, contains typological errors ("Like the semitic [sic] languages,"), and inadequate coverage of the major works of Egyptian literature, its genres and famous papyri. Admittedly, when that section was first written, it gave an overview of the major phases of Egyptian, but since then each one has been transferred to its own separate article. The section therefore clearly needed to be rewritten, but this does not give it justice. That the language section is superfically covered is also evidenced by the fact that only one reference is cited (a popular introductory grammar of the Egyptian language) and only to the first few pages. Furthermore, it makes the claim that Coptic "remained" in use in the Egyptian Church and that is still in "limited use" today. This claim cannot be attributed to Allen, a violation of WP:V and WP:SYNTH. It is also factually inaccurate because, if anything, Coptic is used more often in the liturgy today than it did a century ago. Another factual inaccuracy is that Cushitic is a language group of North Africa. Also no mention is made of the scribal tradition or the Per Ankh.
    • Thanks so much for helping out with this section, it's so much better. I did find a source which does a good job describing the Per Ankh, and I will try to incorporate this into the article soon. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Art and Architecture: I already mentioned housing. Needs more specific and wide ranging examples from different dyansties. Needs to mention Amarna art and why it's important, as well as Saite revival. Art depicting everyday life, examples like the Meket-Ra model, etc.
    • Added this to the art section, which is now significantly more comprehensive, an excellent suggestion. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks great. I added a brief on palaces to give an idea of domestic architecture. — Zerida ☥ 09:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Religion Needs to mention Akhenaten and atensim. Detail on the role of the priesthood. Important religious festivals. Important rituals and ceremonies like the Isis and Nephthys mourning scene or the anointing of the god's statue (doesn't have to be one of these, just something interesting and unique). Last paragraph in Burial customs needs a citation.
  • Legacy and rediscovery: This is awkward: "As the traditional establishments in Egypt were disbanded by early Christians, the authentic knowledge of Egyptian history was displaced by second-hand accounts and the invented stories of tourists and treasure-seekers." This is cliché and a bit Eurocentric: "Interest in Egypt was re-awakened by European travellers of the 17th and 18th centuries". Egypt is a country. The point you want delivered here is interest in Egyptian antiquity, which was not started by modern Europeans, but can be traced through Graeco-Roman and medieval Islamic writings (meaning it was always there). The scientific investigation of Egyptian civilization however (like everything else) begins in the early modern period.
    • Reworked the section, should be OK now. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is all I have time for now, but it covers the major areas that need attention. A lot of effort has clearly been put into the article. It appears to have just been promoted to GA status. But this is not an automatic step to Featured status. There is no hurry--unless there is an urgent need to get the article featured within a week, I think it needs more time for further development and refinement. — Zerida ☥ 02:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Announced. I will begin working on your helpful comments. Do you think I have referenced too many books? For this topic, I don't see how journal articles are better than books, since this is intended to have broad-brush coverage. The role of women is covered in the Legal section, is this enough? The article discusses farmers, artisans, overseers, is this enough on professions, or what else are you looking for? The article discusses contacts with other nations in the history sections especially, is there something specific that is missing? I'm not sure what about animal breeding needs to be in the article. It would be helpful to have specific examples.

I considered using {{main|New Kingdom}} etc., but since we have the navbox, having the headings under each section would be redundant. Some of the info in the history section was copied to other articles, not from them, but I will work on them as you suggest. I will also work on the language section, but I am totally unfamiliar with anything called "Per-Ankh", nothing I have come across in my sources mentions this. I will add a paragraph on Amarna art, but Akhenaten and the Aten are given their due weight in the history section. I feel adding it to the religion section would make it too lengthy, but I'm open to change. I'm not sure what you are looking for in the role of the priesthood, but if you have something in mind another sentence could be added. In Legacy and rediscovery, the idea was to point out Egyptomania. How would you put it? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the years back into all the sources. This could be essential in the future, if another book by the same author is introduced. For the same reason we don't use ibid, it can't hurt to have the years. And besides, taking them out and putting them back in is very tedious, so I'm not going to do it again. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your questions:

• Do you think I have referenced too many books? To clarify what I said, I think that the article should be referenced by academic journals in addition to the books cited; examples like KMT, the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Journal of Near Eastern Studies and (in an ideal situation) Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur. It may not be one of the criteria, but despite its general scope, I feel that a featured article on Ancient Egypt should contain the most up-to-date archaeological information from academic journals. Since you probably have access to such sources, I would suggest giving them a look.
  • I wish I did have access. If you had something in mind, by all means add it as additional reading.
• The role of women is covered in the Legal section, is this enough? Not quite. I'd want to emphasize the point regarding the status of ancient Egyptian women vis-à-vis other women of antiquity; how despite this status, Egyptian society was still largely male-dominated; what roles they could play (as unmarried, married and divorced women) and what varied positions they occupied; courtship styles; I'd want to briefly mention the role of the Divine Wives of Amun and cite specific examples of prominent ancient Egyptian women, not only queens, but interesting women like Naunakht whose will was found at the worker's village at Deir el-Madinah (I just realized that Deir el-Madinah is not mentioned in the article). Another nice addition would be brief mention of the Instructions of Ptahhotep or the Leiden Papyrus 371 as examples of what you had just talked about wrt women.
• The article discusses farmers, artisans, overseers, is this enough on professions, or what else are you looking for? A brief breakdown of the "social pyramid" as Egyptologists like to call it, and where these professions fit into it. I would briefly emphasize several professions that formed a distinct class, such as scribes, soldiers, medical professionals and engineers (don't forget Imhotep), in addition to those you mention like farmers or court officials. You give a good overview of the role of the priestly class; I'd also want to briefly mention what kinds of lives they led; their families (that they didn't abstain from marriage); ritual cleansing and rites of passage; abstinence from certain foods; their specialize garb; their roles in the major festivals (Opet, etc.)
• The article discusses contacts with other nations in the history sections especially, is there something specific that is missing? More on contact with other nations in the predyanstic period (including Sumer), as well as Kerma later on. I'd again cite specific examples that might be interesting, like the Egyptian statue of Sennuwy which was found in Kerma, and the Minoan frescoes which decorated the palace of Ahmose I in Tell el-Dab'a as evidence of trade and foreign contacts (including within Egypt).
  • Minoan frescoes and trade with Crete mentioned, the article already mentions contact with Nubia, Libya, the Levant and Byblos, Anatolia (tin, bronze), Punt, the rest of the Mediterranean, etc. and it mentions Ramesses's II peace treaty with the Hittites. I think this should be enough. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure what about animal breeding needs to be in the article. It would be helpful to have specific examples. This should probably be incorporated into the agriculture section, and I would extend it to fauna in general. I'd give a brief history of the kinds of animals and brids that were bred in Egypt since the predynastic period, or those that figured prominently in the environment. The horned cattle (like those shown in painted reliefs from the tomb of Nefertari e.g.), sheep, pigs, poultry and geese, and how some contributed to the Egyptian diet; or those for transportation like the donkey. You might want to mention that horses were not introduced into Egypt until the Hyksos occupation. You could also mention which animals were deified, like the cat for instance, and those kept as pets like monkeys and lions (royalty). There were also domesticated bee hives. Herodotus described the harmony that characterized the relationship between people and animals in Egypt. You might want to throw in something that sheds light one that.
  • New section on livestock added, I covered almost everything you pointed out, but I think a history of domestication would be too lengthy. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I am totally unfamiliar with anything called "Per-Ankh", nothing I have come across in my sources mentions this. The House of Life was the main office where the scribes worked. There was at least one in the all major cities, comprising libraries (called the House of Books), labs and observatories. One of the oldest was in Damanhur. Not absolutely essential, but would be a nice addition to convey the point that the ancient Egyptians had other interests besides religious pursuits.
• In Legacy and rediscovery, the idea was to point out Egyptomania. How would you put it? I would simply make reference to Egyptomania in colonial times and later one, its positive and negative outcomes, and the scientific discovery of ancient Egyptian civilization (not "the European discovery of Egypt" or something along those lines). Those sentences just need to be reworded to avoid POV. I hope this helps. Good work on the Ptolemaic and Roman sections. — Zerida ☥ 02:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy section reworked, should be OK now. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Language section also rewritten. Will do a more thorough check on other sections, though things are already looking great. — Zerida ☥ 03:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like most sections at this points get a √. The New Kingdom and Predynastic could use more work. I added to references for the latter under Bibliography. I recommend truncating some of the NK and Naqada material and elaborating a little on predynastic Lower Egypt instead. You mentioned adding something on the Per Ankh institution, so I think that about covers it. — Zerida ☥ 04:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realized my source for the Per Ankh is a website--a tertiary source that isn't acceptable. Do you have any good secondary sources? In all my books, I've never come across this topic; this may indicate that maybe it's not notable enough to be included. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will add some background information on it from Strouhal. — Zerida ☥ 03:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There was some WP:SYNTH in the mathematics section which was pointed out by another editor. I've made additions and rewrote parts as appropriate. I think this is the biggest issue for me at this point, namely synthesis so I recommend going over the citations to make sure that no OR is being introduced. Also, if nothing is done to the PD and NK sections, I will be making changes as appropriate as well. — Zerida ☥ 22:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a single sentence in the New Kingdom section that isn't absolutely essential. We have to mention Hatshepsut, Akhenaten, and Ramesses II, and the transition to the third intermediate period. I think they are already very concise and mention only the most important points. Since the New Kingdom was the peak of ancient Egyptian power, it makes sense to have this amount of material on it. As for the predynastic, I feel it's already the right length. The focus on the section should be the transition to unification, and I feel the section already does this. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly think of several different ways of truncating the 5 NK paragraphs into more concise prose. You say I can't think of a single sentence in the New Kingdom section that isn't absolutely essential. In fact, the very first sentence in that section ("The pharaohs of the New Kingdom used military force to expand the country's borders..") could be done away with, as it colors the whole discussion of the NK in terms of violence and military conquest. While there is some validity to that argument--that the NK was more characterized by its military interactions with foreign nations than other periods--it does not need to be hyperbolically stated in those terms nor in the very beginning of the section. The length of that section gives the impression that the NK was somehow more important than other periods. While there is also validity to that view for various reasons, Egypt above all is known for its pyramids, which the OK section could use to elaborate on a bit further.

As regards the PD section, it is not an issue of length overall, but how much coverage the Naqada period is taking at the expense of the PD northern communities. It is not sufficient to state that all that Lower Egypt is worth mentioning for is that two of its cultures were engulfed by the Upper Egyptian conquest. That does not provide sufficient context to understand these events if one does not know enough about the topic. The other problem is that the main article on Predynastic Egypt itself needs more work because it covers very little of LE with the exception of Faiyum, so we're left with this impression that predynastic Lower Egypt was just not that important. Hendrickx & Vermeersch describe some of the LE sites in the Prehistory section of Shaw, FYI. See also this list. — Zerida ☥ 03:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zerida, your suggestions have been most welcome and I greatly appreciate the work you've done on the article. I'm glad you've helped make it better, especially with respect to the literature section. However, some of your suggestions are asking too much and I think are taking us in the wrong direction. The PD section does not have to "do justice" to the (let's face it, obscure) lower Egyptian cultures, instead it should provide a synopsis of the transition to unification, the major events of which are social stratification and leadership, adoption of animal husbandry and agriculture, etc. These are discussed in general as "a series of unique cultures." Going into more depth than this, mentioning the names of each, let alone discussing all of them, is not in keeping with the summary style. The Naqada culture is given special priority, because it is the Naqada culture which expands and grows in power, forming political core of the unified state. But you are right, the sub-article Predynastic Egypt should have better coverage on this point. In this article, we are looking for a synopsis only.

As for the NK, just as the era was inaugurated by the sword, so too is the paragraph. My RS show clearly the military nature of the NK, including military-style titles among the administration, military men serving in the administration, expansion of territory, adoption of new weapons, and military iconography proliferating in art. Military is certainly a main feature of the New Kingdom, since this is how they achieved and justified their power. We rightly color the paragraph with overtones of the military.

I think the article is well balanced; I've carefully and critically studied many publications and the Digital Egypt site. To the best of my ability, the weight I've given each topic is in direct proportion to the weight the topic is given in the sources. I've given special emphasis to getting a very broad scope on topics such as daily life and social status, which aren't so awe-inspiring as to have been written about extensively. It's a delicate balancing act, and one can always point to things that aren't in the article, simply due to the richness of the culture. But we have to know when to stop. As I said above, I believe the article is essentially complete. We can always put in this or that or the other thing, but we would end up with extensive bloat that is no fun to read. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that there is such thing as a "complete article" on Wikipedia. This is Wiki after all so other editors will always want to make contributions to existing articles if they happen to fall within an area of interest. But I must again stress the issue of inappropriate synthesis of material that I've been noticing lately. I will assume good faith with your intentions, but you must absolutely be vigilant about what it is that you are claiming in the article and attributing to the authors cited. I have pointed out several instances of these, including a recent one of a reference that *I* cited. I understand that my editing may seem a bit heavy-handed to you, but that fact is that much of what I do on Wikipedia involves contributing to articles about Egypt. So if an article has "Egypt" as part of its title, I will potentially have a lot to say about it, especially if it is bound to get a lot of exposure. I get the sense that you really want the article to be featured, so I hope it does, but my priority here is for the article to be as balanced and factual as possible. Furthermore, your last comments on the article's talk page are indicative of strong ownership tendencies. Since I am not going to stop editing the article, I hope you can find a way to accommodate my edits. — Zerida ☥ 08:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wrote anything that indicated ownership, it's not my intent to do this and I hope you don't stop editing, because you've made several excellent improvements and suggestions. If there are still problem areas, I would like to continue working together to reach a mutually agreeable solution. I feel we have done a reasonably fair job of this already, although not perfectly. Reading the math section after your last revision, I am satisfied with it, even though I don't agree completely, because you were able to fix some of the objections I had. I'd say 2-3 factual errors (which have now been corrected) in a 100kb article is doing pretty well, isn't it? Like you, my primary goal is to have the article thorough, balanced, and accurate. It might be helpful if you could summarize, giving clear specifics, what you think still needs work on this article, because otherwise I can't see what if anything could be improved. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK; the tendency to be a little possessive of articles which bear our sweat is an issue that all good writers run into from time to time. As I mentioned though, the PD and NK sections needed work, so I've gone ahead and expanded the PD with more information on northern cultures, and tightened the NK a little bit. Most of the major points are still mentioned. I will be going over the items I brought up in my review here, making changes or additions if the need arises. If a point of contention comes up, we can continue discussing on the article's talk page. BTW, there is a hidden image in the PD section; not sure if this is waiting to be revealed or if something else will replace it. — Zerida ☥ 22:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hid the image a while ago because of lack of space for it, with the idea that it might be useful in the future. There might be space for it now. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have to have the image where it is now, or can we move it down to the second paragraph in the PD section? It's squishing the text against the navigation template facing the other side. I am not terribly familiar with image MoS. — Zerida ☥ 06:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it seems to vary based on system and browser used. — Zerida ☥ 21:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Well, as founder & an inactive member of the Ancient Egypt WikiProject you've done a lot with this important article. (I had to dig deep into the article history to see if I had edited this article. There are quite a few important Wikipedians who appear in those pages.) I do have some suggestions:

• Dates. Maybe because that's the part I focussed on the most back when, I feel something needs to be said about the problems of dates in ancient Egyptian history. Not that the modern equivalent of these dates can be shifted to whatever value a scholar wishes, but that there is a lack of precision the further one goes back. (ISTR reading the figure of a couple of years either way for the New Kingdom, a decade either way for the Middle, & a century either way for the Old.) I wrote an incomplete attempt to explain the problem at Egyptian chronology, an article that deserves more attention.
• Links to the articles on the individual Dynasties. Please add them, as I think they are appropriate.
• Keeping the footnotes & bibliography in sync. I noticed that the footnotes refer to a source "Allen (2000)", but there is no matching entry in the Bibliography. I didn't check to see if there were similar
• If you need help with providing cites to translations of various texts, I do have a copy of Ancient Near Eastern Texts & Moran's translation of the Amarna Letters -- as well as a few other scholarly Egyptological works. Drop me a line & I'll see what I can do. (At the very least, both of those books ought to appear in a "Further Reading" section.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added Allen to the source list, and I'll add links to the dynasties. The MoS says to link only the first occurrence of the term, so that's what I'll do. As for the dating, do you think putting that in a footnote would be a good strategy? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 20:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote on chronology, link to Egyptian chronology and citation added. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As the comments above show, no article on such a vast topic can please everyone, but I think this already clearly meets FA standards on content, referencing and general style (I didn't really look at MoS detail points). If something needs to be cut, the bit on glass-making in the technology seems way too detailed, especially given that we don't know if it was all imported or not. The art section would benefit from a sentence or two on media, mention that not all art was massive sculptures, and more links, and a few more bits dotted in the history sections on the political context of neighbouring powers would help. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Meets the FA criteria to the best of my knowledge. VanTucky 03:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments

• I see a cite for Robinson (1998) but no Robinson in the bibliography. Probably Robins (1998)
• Cite for Billard (1978) p. 109 but nothing in bibliography
• Ditto for Aldred (1988) p. 259
• Guessing by the page numbers, I think I'm seeing two instances of Loprieno (1995) that probably should be Loprieno (1995b)
• Several books in the bibliography that are not cited in the text. Do we wanna move to to a "Further reading" section? What does Wikipedia's guidelines etc. suggest?

I just added references to be used in one of the sections. Maybe Bibliography is a good catch-all term for now. — Zerida ☥ 18:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of the ref issues above. Earlier I trimmed excess unused references from the bibliography section, but the ones I left in are good general sources. I'm not sure what benefit it would be to put them in a separate section. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, looks like named refs could be used for the following:

• Allen (2000) p. 13
• James (2005) p. 54
• Loprieno (2004), p. 161
• Manuelian (1998) p. 358 (five instances)
• Manuelian (1998) p. 372 (three instances)
• Manuelian (1998) p. 381 (three instances)
• Robins (1998) p. 212
• Ryholt (1997) p. 310
• Shaw (2002) p. 146
• Shaw (2002) p. 313
• Shaw (2002) p. 422 Ling.Nut (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a possibility, but it would save only a few characters and is much more sensitive to breaking if the refs are changed or shuffled. If it's really a big deal I guess I can do it, but I'm reluctant. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As per http://can-we-link-it.nickj.org/, potential high-value wikilinks at:

• Middle Kingdom of Egypt
• Nineteenth dynasty of Egypt
• Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt
• Twelfth dynasty of Egypt
• Psamtik III
• Alexander III of Macedon
• mud-brick
• history of ancient Egypt
• ancient Near East
• James Henry Breasted Ling.Nut (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I linked a few of these, others are linked in other ways or are not relevant. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Wow! Very impressive work. The prose is engaging, brilliant and certainly on a professional standard!! It appears to be comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable, satisfying criterion 1. Criterion 3, a requirement of GA status, appears to also be satisfied. To my knowledge, criterion 4 seems satisfied too, as it doesn't seem to go into an unnecessary, confusing level of detail. I do note that that issues may be raised regarding content by those more knowledgable on the subject (and MoS guidelines may need to be met in some areas), however, as such, the standard of this article is extremely high, and at least, close to being Wikipedia's very best work. While I am making an assumption that any other issues raised in relation to content and MoS are resolved within a reasonable time (if not resolved in this time, then my vote of support would be invalid), I wish to congratulate all major contributors to this article for an oustanding effort in making an article of this quality, and length. It is always a pleasure to review an article of such a standard. So, upon resolving major issues that may exist (if any more, and if raised), this article is indeed worthy FA status, and I therefore submit my vote of support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I believe this meets all the criteria. I have no objections. 79.76.234.35 (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must be logged in. Anonymous editors may propose suggestions, however. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 12:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

79.76.234.35 (talk · contribs)'s only edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Hard to write a short survey article on such a vast topic, and this one does it well. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Appears to meet MOS guidelines, is well-written and stable, and appears comprehensive (although I am not an expert in the field). Karanacs (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes and questions: Per WP:MSH, is the capitalization of section headings correct on, for example, Predynastic Period, Early Dynastic Period, First Intermediate Period, etc.  ?? Readable prose size is 71KB, which would make this one of Wiki's five longest FAs; has anyone looked at whether summary style has been effectively employed? Please have a MoS guru (like Tony1 or Epbr123) go through the Math section; I'm not certain, for example, those fractions are displayed correctly, among other things. Please check citations for consistent usage of p pp p. and pp. pp. is not used consistently on plural pages. There are also missing named refs, see WP:FN, one example (all should be checked):

75. ^ Manuelian (1998) p. 372

76. ^ Manuelian (1998) p. 372

77. ^ Manuelian (1998) p. 372

To locate others missed, you can go to the printable version, and copy paste the refs into an Excel spreadsheet, then sort to locate duplicates. Is everything listed in Bibiliography really used to source the article, or is some of that Further reading ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Capitalization corresponds to Egyptological convention; same for the main articles on those topics. "Domination" in the Roman section was capitalized before; that's the only one I changed. With regard to length, the History, Art, Architecture and Burial customs are the longest sections. The intro is a little long, and some of that information is mentioned under Legacy. When the article was submitted for FA review it was at 91 kb; now it's at 104 kb. It seems inevitable that the article will be longer than average given the nature of the topic, but there is potential for further work on the longest sections. — Zerida ☥ 20:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be a summary of everything in the article, so of course it will cover the same points; I think the length is appropriate for an article of this size, compared with other FAs. One paragraph that is too much detail is under the Predynastic, mentioning the lower Egyptian cultures. I justified earlier why we don't need to have coverage of that topic (See my comments "The PD section does not have to "do justice"..." on this page for an explanation) and removing that would help immensely. Otherwise I think the history section is appropriate. The language section could be trimmed, as it is a little too technical. Architecture, art and burial customs could be brought down some, perhaps by a few sentences. The Predynastic and Language sections could be trimmed by up to a paragraph each, though. I'll implement the multiple name refs thing, even though I hate it because it breaks so easily.Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have to revert your unilateral deletion of the the work put into the PD to bring it to balance. A general encyclopedia on ancient Egypt covers every major area or aspect of the civilization. The PD covers 2,000 years of history in three paragraphs. We want a featured article on ancient Egypt to be a miniature version of this type of work. The contention that one part is "too technical" is not a good argument; the same can be said about archaeology or architecture. This type of information is standard in any well-written article on a language. You seem somewhat familiar with Allen, so I suggest going over it in-depth. — Zerida ☥ 23:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depth is exactly what is not needed in summary style! But what do I know, I'm not an expert, I just know that I think the language section is too long and technical. Being too technical and having too many details is a perfectly appropriate argument; I don't think the other sections are so detailed or technical as the language section. I've been trimming some of the other sections as you suggest in order to shorten them, they were indeed a little long. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about "depth" was to help you understand the language section if you found it too technical. I wasn't suggesting that we should cover it in-depth in the article, and it hardly is. I'll see if I can work around some details however. — Zerida ☥ 23:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The language section has been truncated, it should be fine now. The Art, Architecture and Burial custom sections are still far too long. — Zerida ☥ 00:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK all multiname refs are taken care of and the p. pp. consistency issue as well. Combined with using the "Find on this page" option, the excel-sort approach is actually very effective, thanks SG. The language section is looking much better and the Predynastic shorter, thanks Zerida. I'll ask Tony1 to look at the math section. ([13]) Do we have to put uncited bibliography entries into a further reading section? To me that would look odd, especially considering that many of the bibliography entries could themselves be further reading. Zerida, if those sections you mention are too long, what do you suggest we remove? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed down those sections, see what you think. — Zerida ☥ 00:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put a few elements back, but it looks a lot better, thanks. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Down to 94 kb. I think that's pretty good for a topic of this scope. — Zerida ☥ 02:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few minor changes since your last run-through, and I think we're right on track. We haven't lost any content but it is certainly more compact. Given the richness of the content, I'd say we did OK, compared with such monsters as the Byzantine Empire (a whopping 136kb [14]). I'm certainly very happy with the current article. The only thing I'm not sure of is this "further reading" issue. Is there some MoS thing on this? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better, except for the raging Bibliography; see WP:GTL for discussion of References vs. Further reading. Also, the size is now a much more reasonable 61KB readable prose (9950) words: see WP:SIZE re 10,000 word max guideline. Another issue: see WP:LEAD. An article this size should most assuredly have a four-paragraph lead, and the lead needs to summarize all important aspects and highlights of the article. For an article this size, the lead is underrepresented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it looked a little small; I'll change back to the previous version. I'll follow your link and fix the bibliography. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I renamed the ref/notes/further reading sections, and removed the entries that we didn't directly cite. Then, I created a further reading section where I put only the most important selections that weren't cited. This is my best understanding of the GTL. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:09, 29 March 2008 (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 promoted 00:16, 29 March 2008.

Double Seven Day scuffle

Quite a short article, about a very short fight between South Vietnamese secret police and a group of famous US journalists which lasted less than a minute in all probability, and only one punch landed. I used a book about the experience of journos in South Vietnam, so that's probably about as specialised as we can get for a source. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• with all the talk of the photos of Arnetts bloodied nose - could you not include it? I was rather expecting to see it and was disappointed!
  • Fainites meant to say "could you include it?" Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 23:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• there are quite a few copyediting/grammar type errors, eg "was tall man" and "speaking French....(who was?)" and "hardened public feelings" rather than "public feelings hardened".

Fainites ^barley 23:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedited. Unfortunately, it's unusual that the actual punchup is the most famous instance of journalist confronations mentioned in Prochnau's book about the experiences of media in Vietnam, but the actual picture is not there. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It must have been in the papers at the time so someone must have it in their archives! Its like doing an article on the hoax moon landing without the piccy of the flapping flag. Fainites ^barley 16:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Managed to scrounge one out. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great picture.Fainites ^barley 08:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Although you have removed errors the prose could do with tightening. eg 'blithely'.

Fixed. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice little article. Fainites ^barley 23:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't want to either support or oppose at this stage, as I've only had a cursory look at this article, (though my first impression is leaning towards the latter). My main concern is with the prose in some areas, such as here: "The editor of the New York Times told Halberstam that it was out of line for him to send cables to the White House without the authorisation of his superiors. " In this particular example, a direct quotation from that editor of the NY Times may make the prose appear more professional, but a similar result can be achieved if a better choice of words (instead of 'out of line') is used. Perhaps another copy-edit is needed in other places. The article's length is indeed quite short! I'm curious as to why no other Wikipedia articles are linked as sub-articles (in a "see-also" section for example)? Parts of the article also lack wikilinking to other relevant articles, which it could do with (eg; Washington) - this, among other little issues, is something that I would've expected the GA review to pick up on, although I am more concerned that the reviewer (in this case) has said very little in his review at all. After all, a GA review should clearly state how the article satisfied the GA criteria, and specifically note any suggested improvements (or if there are none that the reviewer can think of), and should not merely be a checklist (especially if the article was not quick-failed!!) In my opinion, the GA review for this article sadly did the opposite, and I hope it is not a common practice by this reviewer, or any other GA reviewers, to review articles in this manner, especially when making a recommendation that the article go through to FAC! Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Direct quote added for Halberstam. And the article was expanded a little more from some bits and piêces lying around. I personally think the links are obvious, but more things have bên linked. Also, there is no real need for a see also section when there is a big template of related topics at teh bottom. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Yes, the template does seem sufficient - it was a fault on my part for not noticing it. As for linking, I think it's generally better to wikilink to other Wikipedia articles as much as possible (except, if for example Washington appeared several times, then keeping it to once per paragraph is sufficient). It is interesting that among other features, being able to navigate between relevant articles in this way is something that many non-Wikipedians find attractive about using Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I personally enjoy vignettes like this and would love to see more of them zipping through FAC. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Interesting article, well-referenced. Meets my criteria for FA. Khoikhoi 03:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The redlinks should probably have at least a stub to explain what these are in at least a little bit more detail. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although not part of the criteria, I have created the relevant stubs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Laser brain (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Comments - great article, I really enjoyed reading it. A few comments:[reply]
  • "Halberstam, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the Buddhist crisis, was a tall man, standing around 20 centimetres (7.9 in) taller than the average diminutive Vietnamese policemen. He waded into the fracas swinging his arms, reportedly saying 'Get back, get back, you sons of bitches, or I'll beat the shit out of you!'" I think you can eliminate the word "diminutive"; it doesn't lend any additional explanation to the point that Halberstam was taller. Additionally, is there any more information in your sources about this part of the incident? I mean, normally police officers have weapons. It seems ludicrous that a man swinging his arms around would scare off professional police officers. Were they unarmed? Did they have orders not to use their weapons? At least in some countries, even motioning as if you might assault a police officer will get you beaten and/or arrested. There is no indication of why Halberstam wasn't arrested; from reading your description, he is the one I most expected to be.
  • "The photos of Arnett's bleeding face were circulated in US newspapers..." Can remove the "were".
  • Why don't you cite any print news or journal sources for this event? There must be tons of stuff out there. --Laser brain (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the language tweaks that you suggested. The information in the books didn't explain why the cops didn't arrest Halberstam etc. Yes it is surprising. There had been a few embarrassing incidents for the government in 1963 during the protests - Hue Vesak shootings, Hue chemical attacks and the self immolation of Thich Quang Duc involving police brutality, so possibly they wanted to do pretend to be civilians randomly harassing Americans instead of pulling a gun and show that they are government officials bullying people. Since at that time the Diem regime was getting massively criticised for repression. Another thing, is that you would be surprised how skinny Vietnamese people can be, even trained army people - just look up some history books, eg see how bony General Le Minh Dao is, the article has a picture for you. I'm not sure why we would want the news article for use as a source, because the correspondents for the Vietnamese news at the time are the journalists who are in the fight, they are too close to the action to be neutral, which is why I used the books, which are by historians and professors. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses, I have stricken my comments and changed to support. Good work! --Laser brain (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2008 (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 promoted 00:05, 28 March 2008.

SS Christopher Columbus

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's an interesting article about an obscure but important part of maritime history. SS Chris was an oddball.. the only passenger whaleback ever, built for the Worlds Columbian Exposition, she carried over 2 million passengers in her 40+ year career, but she is not very well known. She looked funny to be sure, but she was built in record time and she was designed to load and unload thousands of passengers fast, and to move at a high rate of speed while sailing... I think this article meets all of the criteria, and can be modified to meet any that I missed :). It's stable, and on a non controversial subject so sticking to the NPOV was pretty straightforward. It started as a spinoff from Whaleback, made WP:DYK, and during the course of two GA nominations, (one failed and one successful), has had a lot of eyes on it and a lot of hands helping make it better. I think it's pretty thoroughly referenced, (almost) all the links check out mechanically, and it's got an interesting selection of images, (including a painting, photos, postcards, a newspaper ad and even a free pass signed by her designer), well spaced and not overwhelming... There's a quote from her designer, cites from the NY Times about her impromptu racing career and lots of other tidbits. This is my first FA nomination so it's with a mixture of trepidation and excitement that I submit this article for your feedback and review. I look forward to taking on board ouch! all actionable suggestions and ending up with a better article, pass or fail. Thanks for your time and consideration. ++Lar: t/c 20:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belatedly adding myself as co-nom; looking forward to putting her through the wringer to get her up to FA! Maralia (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<article stats moved to talk page>