Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2008: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
promote 4
promote 3
Line 1: Line 1:
== August 2008 ==
== August 2008 ==


{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1995 Japanese Grand Prix}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meteorological history of Hurricane Jeanne}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Candide}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Vince (2005)}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Vince (2005)}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Puerto Rican Amazon}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Puerto Rican Amazon}}

Revision as of 01:39, 16 August 2008

August 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 01:39, 16 August 2008 [1].

1995 Japanese Grand Prix

Nominator(s): D.M.N. (talk)
previous FAC (00:07, 17 May 2008)


I nominated this article once in March, and again in May, with both FAC's failing due to a number of issues, mostly concerning reliable sources. I have removed the un-reliable sources from the article, and added more reliable sources such as books. I've also tried to tighten up the prose in places so that the text flows better. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More to come later. —Giggy 10:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date linking is no longer encouraged by MoS, which is different than saying it is discouraged. The exact wording at Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Date autoformatting is: "Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Date linking was only used in one place in this article. It doesn't add anything whatsoever to the article, so I've got rid of it. D.M.N. (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Sandy, my mistake - I'll be more careful with my wording in future. —Giggy 08:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yeah, that's all I got. —Giggy 09:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. D.M.N. (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as all issues are addressed. —Giggy 07:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oppose Image:Podium1995JapanGP.jpg fails WP:NFCC#8 Fasach Nua (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How? —Giggy 10:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not unsuprisingly, it's presence does not significantly increase my understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding, feel free to use the link above Fasach Nua (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so reading that, it sounds like no photo whatsoever would increase someone's knowledge of the topic. Would a picture of the start of the race be better? D.M.N. (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a problem with the readers' understanding of how the race began, that would require such an image? Fasach Nua (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. It sounds like that any image of the race that I put into this article would get struck down by this claim as such. D.M.N. (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article doesnt need a copyrighted image than it doesnt need a copyrighted image! Fasach Nua (talk)
Note: Much as comments here should be about content rather than the contributor, I don't think this user really understands the criteria he is citing, and has made a number of misguided recent edits under this belief. Bob talk 17:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My take on the criteria is the image has to be one of a defining event. You could justify something like the start crash at Spa '98 because it's hard to convey the extent of the incident without an image. Here, the main purpose appears to be to identify drivers, whom are living people. In addition the copyright tag used is "This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit." - the image actually appears to come from Getty. AlexJ (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. It guess it could be argued that the circumstances of this image are unrepeatable, even if they aren't as unreplacable as images such as the example you gave. Difficult to say, isn't it? I still don't think it's justifiable to oppose a whole candidacy on the basis of one image, though, especially as it does have all the correct fairuse information, etc. Bob talk 19:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, Fasach Nua. I'm familiar with NFCC and was questioning your justification in this case since clearly, differing people see that policy differently. D.M.N., I would suggest you add a few free images (Michael Schumacher, Mika Häkkinen, and Johnny Herbert all have them, as well as Commons categories to choose from other images) instead of the nonfree one, since I do agree with the statement "If the article doesnt need a copyrighted image than it doesnt need a copyrighted image!" (opposition over this is valid, even if some consider it silly). —Giggy 08:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've removed the podium image, and added two free use images, one of Schumacher, and another of Damon Hill. D.M.N. (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth noting in the caption of the Schumacher image that it was taken several years after the event.--Diniz(talk) 22:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another point concerning images - if images of 1995 season cars in action are required beyond what we have already, then I could ask the Flickr user I got these two images from to change the licensing on the rest of his photo set from the 1995 British Grand Prix.--Diniz(talk) 23:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the article meets criteria 3 in full Fasach Nua (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - One thing that stands out a bit for me in this article is the picture of Michael Schumacher. Now there is probably nobody on the planet who knows MS but doesn't know he drove for Ferrari. But the point is this article is about the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix - when he drove for Benetton, therefore it strikes me as strange to have him pictured in his 2005 Ferrari shirt. Someone's going to say 'but we don't have a picture of him in Benetton colours' – I know that, but the picture isn't central to the article in any way so I think it would be better to remove it. Mark83 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As he's the winner of the race, and a key figure surrounding the event, I think it's best to keep it until a free one of him in the Benetton comes up. I will (however), follow Diniz's suggestion and note in the caption that the image was taken in 2005. D.M.N. (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. D.M.N. (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport - I was a supporter last time, but I have become better at spotting writing errors since the last FAC. Let's see what I can find.

I'll look at the rest after these are done, but there isn't much more to review, which is good. Spend some time checking the commas, since I found the most issues in that department. As for the picture, you could always insert a free photo of Schumacher if the podium shot remains an issue. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time for the final comments from me. I'll perform strikes after these are looked at, so don't worry that I haven't done it yet. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "set the fastest lap on lap 33" A tad redundant with the laps.
  • If I removed that, it would be: "Schumacher, who came out in second after his pit stop, set the fastest lap." - for me, saying that in my head, it sounds like the sentence stops abruptly without any kind of flow - it's like it would be missing a bit of information - the reader wouldn't know when he set it (of course they could look in the infobox). D.M.N. (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the References, you could move the full Autocourse reference with author, dates, ISBN etc. to a new Reference section, renaming the existing section to Notes. The individual citations would then be just the author and page number. This is only a suggestion and not something I would withhold support over. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's all from me. I told you there wasn't that much more. Assuming these are handled quickly, I will return tomorrow to perform strikes and give my support. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:44, 5 August 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 01:39, 16 August 2008 [2].

Meteorological history of Hurricane Jeanne

Nominator(s): ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's become fashionable to flood FAC with hurricane articles again (sorry SANDY!). The real reason is because I was waiting for the other tropical cyclone FAC's to end, so as to not cause a flood. I wrote this article a few weeks ago, to the same standards as Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan and Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma, and I believe it's up to scraps. Any comments? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed out a potentially bad taste opening line. Any comments? I'd love some feedback, really! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments

  • On September 11, convection became slightly better organized,[5] and the next day broad cyclonic turning became evident,[6] though overall development was hindered by upper-level wind shear from Hurricane Ivan in the Caribbean Sea,[7] as well as from an upper-level low to the north of the wave.[6] Longish sentence. Might be better split into two.
  • The temporary weakening was due to an increase in shear and dry air increased. Awkwardly worded. Change "dry air increased" to "increased dry air".
  • I would personally like to see the information about forecasts trimmed slightly. At least two paragraphs focus on that.
  • In the see also section, add a link to Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan.

Otherwise, it looks good. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:18, 11 August 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 01:39, 16 August 2008 [3].

Candide

Nominator(s): Rmrfstar (talk)


I've been working on this article for a long time, and I'm quite sure that it is ready. It has gone through some very extensive GACs. In any case, I will do my best to respond to objections and criticisms as honestly and quickly as is possible. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that though a recent WP:NOVELS peer review technically occurred, and is mentioned on Talk:Candide, no comments were made. I couldn't wait any longer. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Double check that all the sources listed in the bibliography are actually used in the article. I noticed that "Cates, David Allan "Comparing Candide and X Out of Wonderland" isn't used as a footnote. Same for the Adorno ref, Asbury ref, Betts ref, etc. I didnt' check them all, you can use your search function in your browser for that. Refs that aren't used as sources can go in a "Further reading" section.
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A number of the sources that were listed under the heading "Bibliography" were not mentioned by the in-line references. This was intentional. I don't see why they should be separated from those that are; but I expect I'm in the minority. In any case, I've created the "Further reading" section with all of the extra citations transferred there. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline is WP:LAYOUT, if you want to double check. But I'm done here! Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Through the allegory of Candide" - why not just "Through allegory"?
Done.
  • "...; most conspicuously, he rails against Leibniz and his Optimism." - reads awkwardly. How about "..., and, most conspicuously, he rails against Leibniz and his Optimism."
Then there would be way too many "and"s. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2008
Too many "and"s? Erm... I don't really have much to say to that, but that doesn't seem much of a reason not to change it to me. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the phrase with that "and" added, "... Voltaire ridicules religion and theologians, governments and armies, philosophies and philosophers, and, most conspicuously, Leibniz and his Optimism." Even with the serial comma, the reader will likely confound which words are part of the list. Also, using the word "and" changes the meaning of the sentence unacceptably: "most conspicuously..." is a logical continuation of the first clause; but it is not an addendum to it, because "Leibniz and his Optimism" falls under the categories of "philosophies and philosophers". -- Rmrfstar (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2008
  • "Candide, Voltaire's magnum opus," - why is it phrased like that? It would seem that such a phrasing would be more fit for the first sentence of an article, introducing the subject. Something like "Candide is Voltaire's magnum opus" would be more appropriate. Two independent clauses would be too much, I expect.
Why are appositives only to be used in the first sentence? I use it here because I want to connect the ideas that Candide is Voltaire's magnum opus, and it has been often mimicked and adapted. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2008
Hm, I'm not sure why it just reads... wrong. Maybe it's just me. This is minor, anyways, so feel free to ignore it. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes you use the serial comma, sometimes not.
Sometimes it is necessary to remove ambiguities, and sometimes it is not, such as in my above response. To quote the MOS, "Both styles are acceptable in Wikipedia, but in a case where including or omitting the comma clarifies the meaning of the sentence, that solution should be adopted." I don't think it says that one style should be maintained for the whole of an article (as should be done with regard to issues of British vs. American spelling). -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2008
Really? Huh, that's funny, but I can't see why the serial comma would clarify one sentence better than another or vice versa. I'd still really prefer consistency. Plus, there's also the small chance that the difference would confuse a reader. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS exemplifies:
Sometimes omitting the comma can lead to an ambiguous sentence, as in this example: The author would like to thank her parents, Sinéad O'Connor and President Bush, which may be a list of either four or two people.
Including the comma can also cause ambiguity, as in: The author would like to thank her mother, Sinéad O'Connor, and President Bush, which may be a list of either two or three people. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2008
  • Redundancy: "Candide underwent one major revision after its initial publication, in addition to some minor ones."
Some is not necessary here; but it does make more precise how many minor changes were made (i.e. not a lot, but a few). This precision is nice because the article doesn't mention any more about the minor changes; the reader should not think that many, many minor changes were made. Also, the word balances the sentence, IMHO. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2008
To be honest, I've never felt that some implied *any* kind of impression of size or value, but it's your call if you want to keep it in. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having checked the dictionary, I think you're right that "some" is completely indefinite. Still, I'd like to leave it, for balance: there should be a parallel construction between "one major revision" and "some minor ones". -- Rmrfstar (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2008

Possibly more to come. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the article is far superior now than it was before. Major formatting problems appear to be non-existent. The important sections appear to be comprehensive. Other things can be fixed later, as it would seem to be minor things that would not prohibit from being an FA. If things happen between this and closing that suggest other problems, I may reconsider. However, I feel comfortable enough at this time to support. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the info box seems to stick out. Perhaps remove and incorporate information in? The lead also seems to be a tad short for the massive amount of content. Under creation, there is an image that is making the header move to the right, this image should be moved down or somewhere else to remove this problem. The subheadings under creation should be merged into one area, as these are linked and shouldn't be split apart. What makes the "philosophy" not part of the themes? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This oppose had changed to comment: [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More problems - "Further reading" should be dropped or included. Leonard Bernstein's picture should be in the section for him, not at the end of the previous one to overlap with the edit function. "1787 illustration of Candide" needs to be moved, it is violating MoS by being against a heading section. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even more - "Among the literary works written before Candide, one finds many satirical and parodic precursors, but Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels (1726) is Candide's closest literary relative." Please source that. I know of many scholars that would say otherwise. You have one source. Either tone down the claims to base it on that one source, or find more. Also, "one finds many satirica" seems inappropriately put. Try to remove the rhetorical "one". Also, paragraph beginning "A number of other textual sources for Candide have been identified. Ira Wade" should be moved to the section concerning the earthquake. Sentences like "Candide is mature and well-developed, not impromptu, a" are opinion and should be treated as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The info box seems to stick out." is not an actionable concern, because that's the whole point. Infoboxes make key information easily accessible. Or should we reformat all of the articles on novels, biographies, elements, compounds, continents, countries, states, cities, towns, rivers, albums, singles, species, and battles simply because they have infoboxes which extend past the lead? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, its quite actionable, because infoboxes can be removed. Most of that information isn't really vital, and the trend has been to shift away from infoboxes in such situations. Also, when I say "stick out" I don't mean overlapping into other areas. I mean that it looks unpresentable. The combination of the titlepage formatting in the box causes it to formatting in a rather unappealing way. Also, it is misnamed as a "frontispiece", as the frontispiece is the picture at the beginning and not the title page.Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Actually, its quite actionable, because infoboxes can be removed." Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should. If your problem is with a misnomer, fine, that's a valid concern and a separate issue. In regards to the infobox itself, however, this is an FAC for Candide, not for Template:Cite book. Let's stick to the issues that matter, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT calls about what is, in my opinion, a helpful and presentable infobox. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox includes no information that is not present in the rest of the article (except for the photograph). Note that the inclusion of the infobox is a matter of standardization within WP:NOVELS. In including it, I'm satisfying their guidelines. FAs must meet Wikiproject standards.
  • Saying the lede seems "a tad short" doesn't help: I'm not adding words to beef up its edit count... What information do you think should be added?
  • I have right-justified the image in ==Creation==.
  • "The subheadings under creation should be merged into one area, as these are linked and shouldn't be split apart." I'm sorry... why?
  • I have renamed "Style and themes" to just "style" to make it clear that "Philosophy" is a separate subject.
  • "Further reading" should be dropped or included." I just created this section (see above). Please provide a reason for dropping it or re-including it.
  • I have moved Bernstein's image and the 1787 one.
  • "Among the literary works written before Candide, one finds many satirical and parodic precursors, but Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels (1726) is Candide's closest literary relative." The source for that statement is number 11, at the end of the paragraph; it seems silly to repeat it.
  • I have reworded the Gulliver statement, I believe in accordance with your desires.
  • I have discussed this on the talk page: "Candide is mature and well-developed, not impromptu, a" is not an opinion; it is fact. The article does not say that it is "good"; it says it is well-developed, meaning that Voltaire carefully developed his story. This is a fact. There is nothing POV about the statement in question.
  • You say "the paragraph beginning with 'a number of other textual'" should be moved. I think you mean sentence: the paragraph after the first sentence would not make any sense in the section you suggested. In any case, I have moved it.
  • I'm pretty sure that the image in the infobox is not mislabeled, but is indeed the frontispiece of (this edition of) Candide. Who said it was the title page? -- Rmrfstar (talk)
1) "I'm sorry... why?" - because the sections are two small and separating them is unnecessary. They can form one solid section. 2) "Please provide a reason for dropping it or re-including it." I can show you where one of the directors have said the same thing previously if that helps. :) 3) "it says it is well-developed, meaning that Voltaire carefully developed his story. " Then say carefully developed. As a literary critic in the field of 18th century lit (British), I haven't seen "well-developed" used in such a way. Its a throw away term at best. 4) the lead needs a lot of work. I would remove the term "biting" to characterize wit, and I would add at least one more section to cover the style and philosophy. This can't be supported until the lead covers the whole page. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5) I don't believe that the infobox is as standard as suggested, otherwise, there wouldn't be this category with the massive amount of infoboxes used that are "incomplete", which Candide is labeled as one. If you believe the infobox should stay, please complete it (or remove the template that suggests it is incomplete). Ottava Rima (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another version of the picture. Wider, with less slant and a little clearer. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incase anyone disagrees with my suggestion to remove the problematic infobox: "Many novels do not necessitate layouts such as this, or have special requirements that do not fit the template exactly. Feel free to adapt this WikiProject to specific situations and to discuss changing it." Taken directly from here at the top. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes are not mandatory, but neither are they discouraged. If the main contributor wishes to retain it because of standardization, that is perfectly acceptable. Funny, I recently rewrote the sentence you quoted above at WP:NOVELS. In case its implication is not clear, there is always an exception to every rule (ie: WP:IAR). Not every article needs an infobox, true, but not every article does not need one. Because this is entirely a subjective issue, AND infoboxes are in no way included in the FA criteria, I think the box vs. no box objection does not apply here. Also, the infobox is in fact complete in that it contains all compulsory details per Template:Infobox Book, so I've removed the tag from the talk page banner. María (habla conmigo) 13:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was why the infobox was under comment. I since changed it to opposed based on the missing lead. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1)Which sections of "Creation" do you think should be merged? I did them all.
3)I have changed "well-developed" to "carefully developed": good suggestion.
4)Other editors made some minor changes to the lede. Then I completely reworked it. It's not 3 paragraphs, but it should summarise the rest of the article much better.
5)I've completely reworked it again: it's now 3 paragraphs.
6)I greatly appreciate the effort, but I think your version of that picture of the frontispiece is more crooked! Sure the top line is straighter, but the rest is worse... -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images

This should be an easy fix. Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced it with a sourced version. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replaced this image again... this time with a version whose exact provenance is known. This image is also better, because it depicts Voltaire when he wrote Candide better -- Rmrfstar (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Oppose. I've never actually read Candide, so this article was my introduction to the topic. I think the article is in good shape, but it still needs more work to get to FA status. I've listed below some issues I saw.
    • Looking at the Historical and literary background section:
      • The first two sentences mention events that might have influenced Voltaire. Then it discusses various other works, then it goes back to talking about events in a small section (which is really too small to need to be its own section). Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
      • I am confused in reading this section as to whether Voltaire ever mentioned these other texts as being influential, or if later analysts decided they must have been. If so, it would help to know who said this. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The language of the paragraph should make it clear that this is analysts talking, for instance, "As evidenced by similarities...". -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008
It used to be, with the following, "Optimism is founded on the theodicy of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) that says humanity must live in the best of all possible worlds because God is a benevolent deity. This concept is often put into the form, "Tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles" (All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds). This locution expresses the fundamental tenet of Leibnizian Optimism to which Candide adheres for the majority of the story." I commented out this passage at the recommendation of Cryptic_C62, see Talk:Candide#Part_1. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008
I have re-included this information, because Awadewit agrees with you. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008
Done. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008
That whole (short) paragraph is served by the citation at its end. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008
I tried to smooth it out. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008
      • I'm not sure why we are told that German personality stereotypes are an inspiration for a 1669 work - nothing in the section shows that Voltaire might have read or been influenced by that novel. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Voltaire was influenced by the stereotype, as described in the 1669 work. The mentioning of the 1669 work illustrates, especially with its title, the reality of the stereotype. I have greatly expanded the explanation, per Awadewit's agreement. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008
    • "Candide is mature and well-developed, not impromptu, as the choppy plot and the aforementioned myth suggest" - how can it be considered mature and well-developed if the plot is considered choppy? Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is intentionally choppy. I added this word to the article too. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008
Voltaire sent them the work chapter by chapter. The depth of their personal relationship is not relevant here. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008
    • The organization of the Creation section is a little odd. First we hear about the various editions of the work, then we go back in time to read about a 1759 publication, then we hear about versions of the work before the 1759 publication. I think the section would do better if it were in chronological order. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Fixed. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008
    • "The La Vallière Manuscript, the most original and authentic of all surviving copies of Candide, " - what makes this more original and authentic than a copy of the 1759 publications? Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has Voltaire's handwriting on it: "...then edited directly". -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008
Removed. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008
    • Need a citation immediately after a quotation "Frances K. Barasch, literary analyst, described Voltaire's matter-of-fact narrative as treating topics such as mass death "as coolly as a weather report". (even if that means that the cite will be duplicated in consecutive sentences) Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008
    • Probably need a citation for "The dry, pithy explanation "to encourage the others" thus satirises a serious historical event in characteristically Voltarian fashion." Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008
It is now. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008
    • The article would likely benefit from a read-through to weed out unnecessary phrasing. For example, there is a lot of use of "Indeed," or "in fact," or similar phrasing which offers no real value to the sentences. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of the four uses of the words "indeed" or "in fact", I have removed three. I do not remove the remaining instance because without it, the passage would make no sense. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008
    • There is a lot of mention in the article that Candide upset people for its portrayal of government and religion, and I expected to see a section in this article describing what would have made them upset. A little of this info is spread throughout the article, but it would be nice to see a more focused look at this. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a couple of sentences giving some examples of criticism of religion and government: I put it in Reception and Legacy, where there is the focused discussion on its being banned. The other possibility is to write a longer section, maybe to go under "Satire", but I don't think that is necessary: I don't know what it could say: Voltaire makes fun of everything.
I think your changes are definitely an improvement. I wonder if there are specific examples of denouncements or bannings of the book, or other details that could flesh this out a bit more. Karanacs (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! The reason for the recent referencing error (mentioned below) was that I just accidentally deleted just such an example... it might not be enough, however, so I'll look for more. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found a good one. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need a cite immediately after this quote "According to Bottiglia, "The physical size of Candide, as well as Voltaire's attitude toward his fiction, precludes the achievement of artistic dimension through plenitude, autonomous '3D' vitality, emotional resonance, or poetic exaltation. Candide, then, cannot in quantity of quality, measure up to the supreme classics."' even if it means duplicated citations in successive sentences. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008
    • This sentence needs to be fleshed out "Candide also inspired artists and musicians over the centuries." - how did it inspire artists and musicians? Were any of their works notable enough to be mentioned here? ...I see now that Bernstein's operetta is listed later. There needs to be a better connection between the sentence in the Legacy section and the section here. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted that silly sentence. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008
Done. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008
Fixed. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008

Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of the suggestions. I'll continue addressing them as I am able. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am done, for now, addressing your objections. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience with me. I think the article is much improved thanks to your efforts. I'm going to strike my oppose for now. I see that you are getting a copyeditor and that Awadewit still has some open issues; I'll try to check back in soon to see if they've been addressed and rethink my position. Karanacs (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose (I reviewed this article for twice for GA, I think.) I realize that this article's editors are going to tire of my endless lists of fixes, but I think the article doesn't quite hang together yet. I hope we can provide you some help here at FAC, because you know I think this article is really important! Here are my suggestions for improvement:

Done... I think. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008
  • Voltaire ridicules religion and theologians, governments and armies, philosophies and philosophers - This is from the lead. I feel like the philosophy bit was covered in the article, but not the religion or the government bits. Perhaps more could be added about how Voltaire ridicules religion and government? I don't think that the reader will understand, for example, why the book was banned or viewed as scandalous. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my response above. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008
I do not think that this is sufficient. It is my understanding that the book was banned partially because of its religious commentary, however, this is not explained very well to the reader. The religious criticism contained in the book is not well-explained, nor is the historical context. I think a whole section is needed on this topic. Awadewit (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have further expanded the discussion of Voltaire's irreverence in the section "Reception" by including a more detailed example of what bits of Candide obviously infuriated the church. TODO: Search for literary criticism of Voltaire's methods The more I look at this problem, the less I know where to put and how to write this section... I'm having a really hard time justifying its creation: his criticism of religion is important, but no more important than his criticism of governments, the Germans, the French, the British, armies, colonisation, or anything else. Does each of these deserve its own section? That question asked rhetorically, I have, in my recent additions, tried to better explain why Candide was banned by religious authorities. This was your original criticism and I do think it has been addressed fully. Just as his criticism of Germans is embedded in "Creation", Voltaire's criticism of religion is embedded in "Reception".
This is still insufficient. To someone who has not studied religious history, much of this section will be meaningless. Furthermore, the prose is much too compressed - all of the references have to be explained to the reader. I would remove this information and create an entire section on "Religious criticism" (or some such thing). I see some Voltaire biographies cited in the Candide "Bibliography". I assume this means you have read them? I would think it would be clear why including a section on religion would be so important, then. Voltaire was known as a critic of religion and Candide continued that prominent theme in his oeuvre. It must be thoroughly explained here. Awadewit (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read any Voltaire biographies from start to finish. But I think I grasp that religion was a very important matter for him. I never denied this; I simply recognised that other matters are also important. I know for instance that Voltaire's relationship with France, his exile thence, etc. meant a lot to him. There are many prominent themes in his oeuvre; they can't all have their own sections. I'm saying that I can't write too much on religion, to keep it balanced. I will try to explain better though.
I have done a bit. Karanacs wants more examples. I'll search them out now.
I've found a juicy example and included it.
Hm. I still think that this part of the article is a bit weak. I don't think it is a good idea to relegate a major theme to the "Reception" section. However, I would like to hear other views on this from other reviewers. Awadewit (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This novella tells the tale of a young man, Candide (from the Latin candidus[5]), who has been indoctrinated with Leibnizian Optimism - I would put the detail about the etymological derivation of Candide's name in the article itself. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I lengthened the summary by moving it there. ;) -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008
  • Apart from events, contemporaneous stereotypes of the German personality may have been a source of inspiration for the text; they were for Simplicius Simplicissimus, the 1669 novel by Hans Jakob Christoffel von Grimmelshausen. - The connection to this seventeenth-century German novel is unclear to the reader. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I explained it better. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008
This is better, but it is still not clear why this novel from 100 years earlier is being mentioned. Did it influence Candide? Awadewit (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Um, it is still not explained why this particular work is important to the writing of Candide. Yes, their protagonists were similar, but is that all? Candide was part of a genre - its protagonist is similar to many works. There must be something more to make a book written a century earlier worth mentioning. Awadewit (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The two connexions listed are: 1) the protagonists are (quite) similar; 2) Voltaire probably read it.
If we need to beat the reader over the head with this relatively unimportant and rather speculative analysis, we could state, "Voltaire used a 'bold and buffoonish manner' also." One might say in addition that the criticism of Germans in Candide is not confined to its protagonist; but that isn't too relevant. Shall I strike (or comment out) the paragraph? Again, I'd rather say less and not confuse anyone.
Since Voltaire admitted familiarity with fifteenth-century German authors who used a 'bold and buffoonish style, it is quite possible that he knew Simplicissimus as well - I am pretty familiar with the literary critical style, and the phrase "quite possible that he knew" is not a strong claim for the influence of the Simplicius on Candide. Are there other scholars that make this claim? If just this one person makes this claim, I worry that we are not representing the mainstream view of Candide scholarship. If the view of many scholars is that it is quite difficult to ascertain just how this book may have influenced -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008

Candide, that uncertainty must be made much clearer to the reader. Awadewit (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mainstream opinion is that they are very similar, and that's all. There's no solid evidence that Voltaire actively used Simplicissimus as a source (that I've found).
  • Candide's parody of the bildungsroman is also likely based on François Fénelon's The Adventures of Telemachus. - This needs to be explained to the reader (who probably hasn't read Fenelon and might not make the "Telemachus" connection). Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • The first part of "Historical and literary background" starts out by talking about the historical events, such as the Lisbon earthquake, but these are quickly dispensed with. The earthquake then returns in the "Voltaire and the Lisbon Earthquake" section. I would divide this section into "Literary" and "Historical" and group all of the historical information together. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008
I rewrote this section. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008
  • The earthquake had an especially large effect on the contemporary doctrine of Optimism, a philosophical system which implies that such events should not occur - The "because" part of this sentence is missing - Why did Optimism imply such an event should not occur? Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I re-included this section. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008
This helps, but I feel like perhaps there should be a whole subsection explaining Optimism or perhaps some of this information should go elsewhere, such as the fact that Candide adheres to this system. Remember, this section is supposed to be about Voltaire and what influenced his writing of the book, not the characters of the book. There needs to be same careful thought into how to explain Optimism to readers who are unfamiliar with it. Awadewit (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved some of the information elsewhere: specifically to the end of the introduction to the synopsis. Now the "Background" section doesn't discuss Candide (the character). I do not think a whole section should be devoted to explaining optimism; for that, we have wikilinks.
But readers cannot understand Candide without understanding Optimism - that is why we have to offer them a summary of what it is. I do not believe that relying on wikilinks is sufficient here. (This is why writing about parodies and satires is so very difficult. We first have to explain what the works are criticizing and then explain how they are performing that criticism!) Awadewit (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I am just quite sure that enough explanation exists (with this section re-added) for a totally ignorant reader to understand the satire. Really, the "optimism" in Candide is extraordinarily simple.
It is not the satire that needs more explaining, it is what Voltaire is making fun of. Yes, Candide's optimism is simple, but Leibniz's is not. It is Leibniz's optimism that needs more explanation, so that the satire is totally clear to the reader. (This is why writing articles about parodies and satires is so hard - so much background information has to be given.) Awadewit (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Readers need to be able to understand Candide. They do not need to be able to argue against it. That is, they only need to know the parts of optimism that Voltaire criticises here (and, where especially notable, what Voltaire avoids mentioning, such as with Pope). I don't understand what more needs to be said. Voltaire makes fun of the Seven Years' War... must the article include a summary history of European politics, warfare as adequate "background information"?
I think I would have included more information, but this may be a difference in style. I tend to give more historical background. Awadewit (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not suddenly. The lede introduces "Leibnizian Optimism" which is shortens to "Optimism". After that, the two are used interchangeably: this is unambiguous because of the capital "o". I've added a parenthetical phrase in the introduction to make clear that sometimes simply "optimism" refers always to "Leibnizian optimism". -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008
  • More publications occurred in other languages: Candide was translated once into Italian and thrice into English that same year - Does this mean that all of the initial publications - in all of those five countries - were in French? Perhaps that should be made explicit? Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: that's why the word "other" is used. I have made this more explicit by saying that all 17 versions from the first year are in French. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008
  • In addition to this manuscript, there is believed to have been another, one copied by Wagnière for the Elector Charles-Théodore, who hosted Voltaire during the summer of 1758. The existence of this copy was first postulated by Norman L. Torrey in 1929 - I assume it has never been discovered? Do we need to state this explicitly? Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008
Alas, Klee died in 1940, so his work won't be in the PD until 2010. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008
Not too far away. :) Awadewit (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the scheme used below because it is easier to reference and it has more divisions. - What does "easier to reference" mean? Also, I don't think "has more divisions" is a good reason to use one scheme over another. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have to use one method, and Cryptic C62 thinks I need to explain my choice. Do you disagree? I don't have a better reason than: "easier to reference" is important for someone searching through the Wikipedia article to find out what happens in a certain chunk of the book. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008
I don't understand what "easier to reference" means. I think we should use whichever scheme is more prominent in the scholarly literature. Awadewit (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess that the 3-way division is more popular in scholarly literature (based on my survey of it). But I can't say that in the article because I do not expect I could source that statement.
That is good to know. I understand why Cryptic C62 thinks we need to explain why we are using the three-way split, but it would be best if we could say something like "the leading Candide scholars use this schema" rather than "it looks nice on the page". Awadewit (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That statement, "... leading Candide scholars ..." would be inappropriate. Personally, I don't think any reason need be expressed. Let us just say, "This article splits it into 3 sections." I've written this for now (better no information than confusing information).
  • I still think the plot summary is much too long. I know I have asked the editors to reduce it every time I have reviewed this article. Perhaps I should just reread the book and reduce it myself. Give me two weeks and perhaps I can do that. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've said this before: you think it's too long; others think it's too short. Every time I shorten it, someone else lengthens it (or desperately wants to). I've just cut it down to 7 medium-to-long paragraphs of plot. Because others will want to re-include what I have removed, I have commented-out, not deleted. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008
I've found that there is a desperate desire to have long, detailed plot summaries on Wikipedia, but we are not CliffsNotes. You don't what the reader to get bogged down in the plot summary and never get to the rest of the article. Currently, the plot summary is about 20% of the article - I still think that is too much, but let's see what other people have to say. Awadewit (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say that "we are not CliffNotes" is not an argument against long summaries because our job is to be the best encyclopedia not "something other than CliffNotes". I also don't worry about the length too much because I expect some readers to come to Wikipedia for a good plot summary, and the other readers to just skip it.
The best encyclopedia entries do not contain long, detailed plot summaries. Now we can debate that proposition! Awadewit (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the initially naïve protagonist eventually comes to a mature conclusion — however noncommittal — the novella is bildungsroman, that is, a parody of one. - This is confusing - is it a parody or not? Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained this to you: in order to be a parody, a work must be that which it parodies. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008
The problem is that the "that is" construction is unnecessarily confusing. How about just saying "the novella is a parody of the bildungsroman" or something like that? Awadewit (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion fundamentally changes the meaning of the sentence and (no exaggeration) would ruin the whole paragraph. In any case, I think I have found a less interesting way of wording what I want to say, so that the link between the bildungsroman style and the humour persists.
Actually, from what I can tell, scholars do consider Candide a parody of the bildungsroman genre, so I don't think my version is a misrepresentation. Having a section on "parody" in the "Style" section would allow you to discuss the difference between "satire" and "parody" in the novella. However, if you want to focus on the debates regarding the genre of the novella, having a subsection on "genre" where the bildungsroman, the conte philosophique, etc. is discussed is another option. Awadewit (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your version was a true statement... it just wasn't what I wrote, which is significantly more nuanced. There is no real "debate" on which genre Candide fits in. I will add paragraph or so on the "conte philosophique" matter. Really though, I've changed it to a version I believe you'll find non-offensive.
Perhaps, there was a misunderstanding? I was suggesting something like "As the initially naive protagonist eventually comes to a mature, however noncommittal, conclusion, the novella is considered a parody of a bildungsman". I see you have removed the "parody" bit. The new formulation is clearer and I see the parody bit is earlier in the paragraph. Awadewit (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there was.
Done.
  • Voltaire depicts the worst of the world and his pathetic hero's desperate effort to fit it into his Optimistic outlook. Much of the work is a discussion of various forms of worldly evil. Rarely does Voltaire diverge from this technique, - "this technique" does not refer back to the proper referent, I don't think Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased.
Yup. Done. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008
I meant part of the "Satire" section. Awadewit (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had done that... Do you mean get rid of the "Picaresque" subheading altogether? I have done this now.
  • These gardens are likely references to the Garden of Eden, but it has also been proposed, by Bottiglia, for example, that the gardens refer to the Encyclopédie, and that Candide's conclusion to cultivate his garden symbolizes Voltaire's great support for this endeavour - The connection to the Encyclopedie needs to be explained more explicitly. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have done so sufficiently.
Much better. Awadewit (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My French is not great, but I attempted a translation. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008
You made the same criticism in your last GAR. My response was, "I have looked, and I, (quite surprisingly), cannot find such information. I don't know where else to look." -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008
I quite easily found material in the MLA database. I found articles comparing Candide with the works of Samuel Johnson, Samuel Beckett, Ralph Ellison, Rousseau, and Nietzsche. I can send you these citations. This is by no means an exhaustive list, as I only looked for about ten minutes. Awadewit (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Would you please send me these citations? You may e-mail them to me using the link on my talk page.
Done. Awadewit (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got them. Thanks.
I've done the research (with your kind help) and written a bit to expand this section.
I don't see anything on Rousseau! Rousseau would be the most important figure to include, in my opinion. Awadewit (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just remembered... Rousseau claimed (quite loudly) never to have read Candide. Obviously many people doubt this, but I don't think it should be included if he denied it.
The problem is Rousseau was a notorious liar or at least a notorious "misrepresenter". Anything Rousseau said about himself is basically up for grabs. Have you read his Confessions, for example, where he claims to be writing the unvarnished truth about his life? The number of "misrepresentations" in that autobiography are staggering. It is really important not to take someone like Rousseau too seriously. Awadewit (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you really are a literature student... I have not read his Confessions. I'll look around. If you can find something, e-mail it to me. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2008
All I can find comparing the works of Rousseau's to Candide (4–5 articles in total) is about Julie, or the New Heloise and this article demonstrates no such connexion is possible. I checked his Confessions, and Rousseau says there pretty explicitly that he never read Candide. I don't claim to make a definitive statement that there was no influence, but I am disinterested in the matter by the absence of visible evidence. If you can find something off of which to work, I'll run with it, but searching for "Rousseau AND candide" (and various other queries) in all of the obvious on-line journal databases (MLA Bibliography included) yields very little. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I am troubled by how little the article discusses Candide's effect on eighteenth-century literature. It seems to mostly focus on the work's influence hundreds of years of later, but surely it had an influence much earlier than that. As we have at least one example of eighteenth-century literature with Brown, I'm not going to push this, but this section still seems a bit haphazard to me. Awadewit (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A copyediting pass by an uninvolved editor would be a good idea - it would smooth out rough edges, remove redundancy, and catch things like the BE/AE inconsistency in the article. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You requested this in your last GAC: Cryptic C62 did a very thorough one quite recently.
That may be, but the article still needs more work. Here are some examples from the "Optimism" section:
  • Primary among these is Leibnizian optimism (sometimes called "Panglossianism" after its fictional proponent), which Voltaire ridicules with description of seemingly endless calamity. - "descriptions"
  • In this process, Voltaire demonstrates a variety of irredeemable evils in the world, leading many critics to contend that Voltaire's treatment of evil - specifically the theological problem of its existence - is the main focus of the work. - "in this process" is unnecessary"; WP:DASH; "main" is unnecessary
I fixed this.
  • Also, war, thievery, and murder - evils of human design - are explored as extensively in Candide as environmental ills. - awkward syntax
I fixed this.
  • Ridicule of Pangloss's theories thus ridicules Leibniz himself, and Pangloss's reasoning is silly at best. - wordy and convoluted
The entire article needs to be gone over with finetooth comb. Awadewit (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Tony1, whom I know to have a comb with very fine teeth. (The comb has the fine teeth, not he).
Tony is skiing til August 8 (see his talk page notice), and may be swamped when he returns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that. I have asked User:Buster7 in addition.
Wikipedia editors all seem very busy these days. I've asked a real life friend.
My friend did a read through, but didn't find much. However, User:Samuel_Tan just did a very thorough job with the first half. I've asked him to copyedit the rest too, but he's very busy.
Done. See below.
  • The infobox (which I personally think is not a helpful addition to the article) has some problems. The French flag is not appearing correctly on my screen and the genre "conte philosophique" is not mentioned in the article. It should either be discussed in the article or removed from the box. Considering there is a discussion in my little Oxford "introduction" to Candide over whether or not Voltaire invented this genre, I have a feeling there should be more discussion of this genre in the article. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think the French flag is appearing correctly: it's the 18th century version French flag, which doesn't look too good shrunk down. Some other editor thought using that version would be a good idea. What do you think?
Conte philosophique: I've added some basic discussion of the genre and Candide's place in it.
Oh, yes, I see what you mean by the flag. Perhaps removing it would be a better idea? Awadewit (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
I'll delete the infobox... it's pretty redundant...
  • Ira Wade, a noted expert on Voltaire and Candide, speculates that Voltaire's primary source for information on the Lisbon earthquake was the 1755 work Relation historique du Tremblement de Terre survenu à Lisbonne by Ange Goudar.[12] - This sentence does not fit into the flow of the section on the historical and literary background. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've written a transition. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008
  • Another interpretive possibility is that Candide cultivating "his garden" suggests his engaging only in necessary occupations, such as feeding oneself and fighting boredom. This is analogous to Voltaire's own view on gardening: he was himself a gardener at his estates in Les Délices and Ferney, and he often wrote in his correspondence that gardening was simply, for him, an effective way to keep busy. - This does not make sense - these are not analogous readings. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer "similar" to "analogous"? -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008
I don't really think they are similar, either. One says gardening is "necessary occupations" only and the other says gardening is a "way to keep busy". These seem quite different to me. Awadewit (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For Voltaire, keeping busy was very important (from my readings of his correspondence). I've reworded the sentence to make this clear. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2008
  • Some critics conjecture that Voltaire meant to spare Pope this ridicule out of respect, although Voltaire's Poème may have been written for Pope. - Slightly confusing - should the "for" be an "about"? Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-written this bit. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008
I've attempted to do this. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008
I don't think I would have written that if the list in the back of the referenced book has not said it. If you can find a counter-example, I will remove the "20th century". -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008
Some of them are sources for commented out material. Others I included because I thought they would be good spring boards for further research into Candide. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008
I did not. But I could, if you want, put those references into ==Further reading==. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008
Let's just leave the link, then. Awadewit (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What problems have you found? If you tell me, I will fix them. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008
For example, the article needs to have a consistent dash style - non-spaced em-dashes or spaced en-dashes. Ellipses need to have non-breaking spaces around them, if they have spaces. These small kinds of things. I haven't checked the whole article for MOS problems. These were just two that jumped out at me. Awadewit (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:DASH, WP:PUNC and WP:MOS#Ellipses. User:Epbr123 is very thorough at that sort of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked him. -- Rmrfstar (talk)
... and it looks like he's done it! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article improves every time I read it. Thanks for your hard work on this! Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these objections seem to be repeats of above. I'll try to address them as quickly and thoroughly as possible. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I continue. Thanks for responding to my responses. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I really want this article to succeed! I mean, it's Candide! Awadewit (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nominator I will need to reread this article in toto to reassess my "oppose" since it has been significantly altered. Please let me know when to do so, that is, after all additions, deletions, copyediting, etc. has been completed. Awadewit (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All that is left to be done, I think, is the copyediting of the second half. I will tell you when that has been completed. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is done. CharlotteWebb has done it. I believe I have addressed all of your active objections. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will reread the article today and tomorrow. Awadewit (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reread the article and updated my list. Awadewit (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated my responses. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I seriously doubt I caught everything. — CharlotteWebb 18:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the only user to have copyedited since the FA nom. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(out indent) I will change to "support" once the Voltaire image issue is resolved. Awadewit (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to explain... but I've fixed it! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in "fixing" the problem, I introduced another one. The latter (and final) error was kindly repaired by Scartol. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions for reviewers
1) What do we think about the religion theme appearing in the "Reception" section? I myself think it is a bit too short and oddly placed here, but I would like to hear other thoughts on this. Awadewit (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2) What do we think about the length of the plot summary? I myself think it is too detailed, but again I would like to hear more opinions on this matter. Awadewit (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To 1 - the reception should be a response to the religious views, otherwise, it seems to belong in satire. To 2 - I actually thought Chapters X–XX could have a little more. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava, I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean in your response to (1). Could you please explain? -- Rmrfstar (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your section is called reception. So, when you begin the paragraph "Organised religion, too, is harshly treated in Candide.", it focuses on what Voltaire said and not on what people said in response to Voltaire. The paragraph is correct if moved up to his themes. Its just a small change of perspective from Voltaire centered to outsiders looking in. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done: I have moved the material on religion up to ==Style==, but not ===Satire=== (because it doesn't discuss satire). Actually, I'm really happy with how the paragraph fits there, now that I've added some transitional material to connect it to the rest of that section. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
plot

FWIW, I think the length of the synopsis is appropriate. There are in the work -- quite deliberately--as many events and reversals as the author could mange to incorporate--and he was the cleverest person in Europe at things like that. The details are often referred to, and given that unfortunately most people who come to this article will not--no matter how enticing the article--actually read the work--it is well to provide as much information as can be reasonably comprehended by those with no special interest. This is a major work as literature, but even more significant as history of ideas, and the more familiarity with it the better. DGG (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this entirely, and was a bit miffed by the number of paragraphs which had been <!-- commented out --> apparently by someone who decided they were "too much plot detail". I can only speak for myself, but I will say this article really does make me want to read the book. With luck I will find time for that. — CharlotteWebb 18:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
N.B. I commented out the sections per Awadewit's request to shorten the summary. I expressly commented them out so that if other editors should disagree with her, we could re-include them, by consensus agreement. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see consensus is against me here and have struck my request for a shorter plot summary. Awadewit (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note

Numerous unsigned comments throughout make it hard to follow the discussion. Please sign your posts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::The novella begins with a young man, Candide, who has been indoctrinated with Leibnizian optimism (hereafter sometimes simply optimism) and lived a sheltered life in an Edenic paradise. - this is odd, there is a perfect tense and a simple past tense - the second should be "is living" or "has been living" I think.

As expected by Voltaire, Candide has enjoyed both great success and great scandal. - is 'forseen' a better verb? As the use of the perfect tense in the second clause leads me to think it is referring to contemporary/posthumous success (?)
I don't like "foreseen"; it almost implies clairvoyance to me... as if he knew everything that would happen to Candide, including becoming one of the most popular books of all time. I intentionally use "has enjoyed" because I want to say the success and scandal were not just directly post-publication but indeed have endured to the present day. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, point taken. Happy with the response. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is repetitive - I know it is hard to avoid but the 1755 Lisbon earthquake is repeated alot in the beginning of Historical and literary background - it would be nice to streamline these.
I read through the section and could only bring myself to delete one instance of "earthquake" in "Historical and literary background". -- Rmrfstar (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every little bit does help. I'll have another look too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article, thorough, and structured nicely, although something does seem a little off about the prose. An example in the 'Legacy' section is the sentence, "Charles Brockden Brown, an early American novelist, may have been directly affected by Voltaire, with whose work he was well acquainted.", it just seems a bit awkward to me. And the frequently used adverbs scattered around make this article read more as a school paper than for Wikipedia. Still, I support because it is up to featured quality criteria. Excellent work. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I've reworded that one sentence. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:12, 15 August 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 02:11, 14 August 2008 [5].

Hurricane Vince (2005)

Nominator(s): Plasticup T/C


This article is short but comprehensive. It passed GA ages ago and with a little work I think I have brought it up to FA standard. It hasn't been peer reviewed, but as it is short I should be able to work out any issues that may arise. Plasticup T/C 23:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the information on US government web pages is in the public domain unless specifically annotated otherwise. The NOAA document credits the Portuguese group but does not specify a special copyright situation. Plasticup T/C 10:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link I was looking for: The information on government servers are in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public. Plasticup T/C 12:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It means one of the most unusual ever. It developed over water too cold for hurricanes, strengthened in conditions that usually forbid strengthening, and made landfall in an area that one other hurricane maybe ever reached. Are you worried that the sentence is unclear, or that the claim is not supported later in the article? Plasticup T/C 23:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To me the sentence is unclear. It is the lead sentence, so I think it should be very clear. If it is one of the most "unusual" ever, then that is a big claim in the first sentence so perhaps it would help if you clarified the time frame (do you mean since 1842?) and also defined "unusual" (because it landed on the Iberian Peninsula?) How long does the data base of hurricanes go back? Are there not many "unusual" hurricanes, depending on how you define "unusual"? (I am a fan of your hurricane articles, in general, as you must be aware.) —Mattisse (Talk) 00:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation comes in the second sentence. I have expanded it a little to clarify what made the hurricane so unusual: it developed further to the northeast than any hurricane in recorded history and the waters over which it formed were considered too cold for tropical development. "Recorded history" goes back a while, maybe 100–150 years. The data gets worse the further back you go, but as far back as 150 years there are decent records that would probably have captured similar storms had they existed. Its exceptional landfall is also mentioned later in the lead, if one needs more evidence of the hurricane's unusualness. Plasticup T/C 00:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the current wording. Adding "ever" would be both redundant and potentially inaccurate. — Deckiller 04:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A hurricane is a type of tropical cyclone, as are tropical storms, typhoons, and super-typhoons. Plasticup T/C 15:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with one minor comment. In the sentence, At the time there was still uncertainty as to whether Vince was tropical or subtropical, but the forecasters of the NHC later conceded that Vince had formed as a subtropical storm and evolved into a tropical storm before it was named., it might be best to specify that it was Richard Knabb who made that assumption. Other than that, good work! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Knabb hints at it in the first advisory but it is Franklin who pins it down in the TCR. Given that several forecasters worked on the storm I am a little hesitant to attribute it to any one of them, but if I were to pick one it would be the author of the final Tropical Cyclone Report. Plasticup T/C 13:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I hadn't noticed that. In that case, it's better to leave it as it is. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
    • The biggest thing (which almost makes me want to oppose) is the first paragraph in Records and naming not being sourced. What does most northeastern forming mean? I know there is a hidden comment which points to the talk page, but I don't quite buy that logic. It would be nice if there was a source and explanation for that part a little more.
    • Also, in the records section, it says a storm in 1842 may have struck the Iberian Peninsula, even though the lede says Vince was the first tropical system to do so since 1842. It'd be nice to just pick a consistant method throughout the article.
    • One more thing about the lede. I greatly disagree with the usage of most unusual in the opening sentence, as that is very subjective. It's the same reason we don't use notable, as others may think it was not so unusual. Is there a better sentence you could use?
    • All in all, though, the article looks great. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am citing HURDAT for the information on northerly forming and easterly forming storms, and I am removing the "most northeasterly" claim. I was always a bit skeptical about the way that tidbit had been generated and I think the article is better off without it. This site appears to verify the claim that is the the most northeasterly forming storm, but I don't know about their reliability. It also doesn't define how northeasterly-ness is measured.
  • The 1852 ambiguity is cleared up, in the sense that the conflict in the literature is fairly represented. Two authoritative sources are saying two different things, so the best we can do is acknowledge the discrepancy.
  • Regarding "most unusual" in the lead, the NHC refers to its unusual location, and the fact that it is the only tropical storm to hit the Iberian Penisula (for several generations, at least) warrants a mention. I don't have a problem with using a superlative there, but as two reviewers have mentioned that sentence I'll soften it a little. Plasticup T/C 16:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to check the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might have been ready for promotion except for the sentence fragment just left in the first paragraph; please consider having Deckiller revisit to check all prose changes made since his support. Also, why are quotes in italics (see WP:ITALICS). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed those two thing and will read through it one more time before asking Deckiller to take another look. Plasticup T/C 15:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a couple more (mostly cosmetic) edits, and I see that you have already asked Deckiller to help us with a copyedit. Hopefully he can give some more of his usual top-notch feedback. Plasticup T/C 15:45, 13 August 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 02:11, 14 August 2008 [6].

Puerto Rican Amazon

Nominator(s): Joelr31

This is the second article I created after joining Wikipedia and after some time without any improvements the article finally received some needed attention by User:Caribbean H.Q. and some copyediting by User:Casliber. I believe that all FA criteria are met and that any concerns will be promptly addressed. Joelito (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. One thing though, "Natural predators of the Puerto Rican Amazon include the Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), the Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo platypterus), the Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) and the Pearly-eyed Thrasher (Margarops fuscatus).[2]" - that reference only names the Red-tailed Hawk. An alternate reference that lists them all might be better. maclean 01:18, 8 August 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 02:11, 14 August 2008 [7].

Wipeout 3

Nominator(s): David Fuchs


Continuing the fine tradition of nominating video games I played in my formative years, I now present Wipeout 3. It's gone through a peer review and I copyedited it once myself, so hopefully spelling and grammar aren't going to be a huge issue. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Seems now's the season for racing games, eh...
  • Shouldn't the series article be at Wipeout (series)?
  • "in an effort to create what a Psygnosis staff member called "a believable future"" - quote = ref needed.
  • "Wipeout's soundtrack is composed..." - Wipeout or Wipeout 3? (throughout) (also "Wip3out track listing"..., same in reception table)
  • No including aggregate scores in the review box?
  • The last paragraph doesn't really fit in a "reception" section....

Yeah, that's all I found. Did some copyediting too, prose is generally good. —Giggy 03:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Wipeout series article is neither here nor there for the FAC... :P I've gone through all instances of Wipeout and appended -3 to them to avoid confusion, and added the quote ref to the lead. As to aggregate scores, I didn't put them in because at my last FAC, a reviewer complained about using the scores in the body prose and then repeating them on the side (I have no opinion either way.) As to the last paragraph... it kinda serves to sum up and finish the article, but I really can't think of anywhere better than the reception; it talks about the next video game in the series, and so is more of a bookend then anything else. (I guess it's sort of my writer's signature element, I guess.) But it seems kinda pointless to put it in its own section; I guess if you have any suggestions?. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Techincally true, but something to take note of (re. series article)...
    I'd rather see the aggregate scores in the table than the prose if we're going to have one but not the other. The table seems more "aggregate-ive"...
    I tried renaming the reception section ([8]) so hopefully that solves the last para issue - any objections to that? —Giggy 12:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None at all. I'll go ahead and add back in the scores if it bothers you :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm feeling much less bothered now :) Support. —Giggy 14:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Sources are still good from the PR, the links all worked according to the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional support - Looks quite good to me, but keep in mind this is my first video game review. Here is my series of quibbles.

  • "was released in Europe and North America in September of 1999." Unneeded word.
  • Gameplay: "Other weapons are used offensively; craft can use rockets, missiles and mines to attempt to disable their competitors." Some oddities here. How about "Offensive weapons are also avaliable; each craft can use rockets, missiles and mines to attempt to disable its competitors." I also don't like "to attempt to", but hopefully you can come up with something better. If you use this wording, remove also from the next sentence.
  • "top three finishing craft; each craft..." Craft is redundant here. I notice a lot of crafts in Gameplay; is it possible to change a few of these.
  • Sound: "focused on bringing together music early on in the game's development cycle." Again, removing an excess word would make the writing tighter.
  • Special Edition: I'm worried that tracks could be confusion because we just finished talking about the music soundtrack. I would reverse the use of tracks and courses here.
  • Reception and legacy: "and the title was named the 92nd best game by the publication in 2007's "IGN's Top 100 Games"." I thought IGN was a website. Usually the term publication is reserved for printed sources. I'm also not thrilled with having back-to-back apostrophes; see if the 2007 part can be placed earlier in the sentence.
  • "The Designer Republic's style was consistently praised as helping making the racing locales seem real..." Grammar issue here. I think you mean "helping to make the racing locales seem real..."
  • References out of order: [14][4][24]. What puzzles me is that the newspaper article mentioned is the one out of order. Why wouldn't this come first?
  • Link The Times.
  • "been expecting much more from the sequel;" Is the semi-colon correct? I was thinking this could be a colon.
  • "Alistair Wallace of Gamasutra, in a retrospective on the Wipeout 3 games..." I looked at the link, and this is incorrect. The retrospective is mostly about Wipeout 2097, although other games in the series, including this one, are mentioned.
  • While I'm here, the New York Times article (ref 2) is avaliable online. Just search for Wipeout 3 on the NYT site.

Most of it looks fine, but I'd like to see these fixed before I fully support. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that David Fuchs said he resolved the issues here. I left one issue unstruck, but that's not enough to prevent my full support. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that one too (forgot about it :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NitpickComment: You may also want to fix the randomly placed closing quotation marks throughout the article. Those that end by a period, place all of them either before or after it. « ₣M₣ » 23:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a reason for that: unless it's the full quotation, punctuation goes outside the marks. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images

  • Image:Wipeout3.png - I'm confused by this sentence in the fair use rationale: The image is not of lower resolution than the original cover. Copies made from it will be of superior quality, and could be used as artwork on illegal copies of this video game. - Isn't the image supposed to be of lower resolution and prevent illegal copying? Awadewit (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I think the license I copied and modified was vandalized or something... I fixed the rationale. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the rest of the parts of the rationale. Looking closely at them, I think they all have been vandalized. Awadewit (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they were (and that's why i say we semi image pages, because I've never seen a constructive edit from anons on them...) I fixed it up; the other image used has proper tags. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. Awadewit (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not thrilled with the prose

  • "and design for in-game menus and race courses, in an effort to create what a Psygnosis staff member called"—Can "in an effort" be removed?
  • "upon release"—on?
  • "would be released"—can't it be just plain and simple: "was released"?
  • There's an awful lot of "which". Some are easy to replace, like "Scattered across each raceway are weapon grids, which bestow random power-ups or items." Just make it "grids that". Audit throughout.
  • "for a short period of time"—think of a way of removing two words?
  • "Offensive weapons are also available; craft can use rockets, missiles and mines to disable competitors. Players can also use an auto-pilot power-up to safely coast through difficult turns." Which "also" do you want to get rid of?
  • "The default game mode awards medals to"—hyphen somewhere to help the poor readers? The ensuing para is excellent, except that one word needs to be removed.

I think it needs a good massage. Tony (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done all the above, including the removal of the 'which' instances. To clarify, why exactly is 'which' bad, so I don't make the same mistakes in the future (English musta' glossed over that bit, all I know is MS Word yips at me about it.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

As expected, this was a good read David. I noticed a few minor issues that I was hoping you could look at before supporting though.

  • I noticed Giggy's comments above and have some related comments:
    • Minor issue, not a deal breaker: I too am not a fan of aggregate scores—or any scores really—used in prose. With them in the table, I see no real reason to include them in the prose. I don't see it a problem to use the ref to support the reception being positive though.
    • The last paragraph of the "Reception and legacy" section does seem a bit out of place. On a similar note, the "Special Edition" section seems awfully small for it to have its own section. Perhaps combine the two small parts into a "Re-release and sequel" section to serve as a bookend for the article.
  • In the lead, it mentions the release in 1999, then describes the gameplay, then switches to the re-release. This seems disjointed to me and I think it would flow better if the gameplay and re-release sentences were switched.
  • Is there any other info about the commercial performance of the game? The current information is kind of bare minimum.
  • Question: Why are Wipeout 2097 and Wipeout XL both wikilinked when they go to the same article. Should the Wipeout XL be renamed to Wipeout 2097 to avoid confusion?
  • The prose looks good after the copy editing. Nothing really stood out as bad to me. The flow of the "Reception and legacy" section seemed a bit off to me. Not sure what it is, maybe the order of some content. I don't really have any solution in mind though.

This is a good article that is very close to FA quality. I'll check back later. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I swapped around some of the content, and merged in the Special edition with sequels at the end, and referred to 2097 exclusively. As for critical performance, that it was a "disappointment" was all that I could find; all the other sales information I was able to find was for more recent entries in the series. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The recent changes tipped the scale for me. Though I think the article still has some minor room for improvement here and there. But I still believe it meets criteria in its current form. Good work David. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:35, 12 August 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 02:11, 14 August 2008 [9].

M-28 (Michigan highway)

Nominator: Imzadi1979
previous FAC (04:04, 17 July 2008)


The last nomination was ill-timed because I was in the middle of moving into a new apartment. The article needed some copy-editing before I was going to nominate it. Copyediting is the only issue left over from the previous editor's nomination. User:Finetooth just completed a copyedit after some minor edits from User:Davemeistermoab and User:Scott5114. In my opinion, the article is ready for FAC. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments In copyediting the Seney Stretch section, I found three references that did not back up the claims being made...and I assume this is just because the links are out of date (some of the pages were last accessed in 2006). I replaced two of them and found an archive URL for the third. References now need to be checked for the rest of the article. I'll see if I can do that in the next couple of days. —Zeagler (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

  • Current ref [2] ("MSHD19") is being used to support the date the route was established, though the reference only has the date that particular map was published.
  • Current ref [12] ("fowler") doesn't mention scenic views along M-28 (which is too bad, because that article is a great advertisement for the U.P.). You could probably reword to "...closely parallels the Lake Superior shoreline" and let the reader infer that the views are scenic (and reference with a map).
  • Unless I don't know how to read them, the right of way maps (current ref [47] and [48]) don't give the historical information in the prose.

—Zeagler (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Updated the date information. I've inserted a reference from Hunt's Guide that calls it "scenic M-28" referring a reader to the Marquette area an hour west of Munising. I've commented out the Fowler ref for the moment. Ref 47 (Alger County/Munising ROW map) shows the ROW for that section of roadway was transferred to the City of Munising on 11-07-63. Ref 48 (Chippewa County ROW map sheet) shows the date M-28 was extended from I-75 eastward to M-129. This notation is next to the number 67 and north of the label for Bruce Township. It uses the label text "M-28 established 3-03-89".
See if you can find a use for Fowler somewhere else in the article though, because it's too good to leave out. Makes me want to take a road trip to the U.P. right now! —Zeagler (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOSNUM accepts two standard date formattings. Are you sure it's acceptable to use ISO format? Tony (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've relinked the dates using the American-style formatting (e.g. July 22, 2008). However, as all the dates are autoformatted, the actual appearance will depend on the user preferences. There are also no non-breaking spaces in the dates as they are already autoformatted. --Polaron | Talk 15:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Image:Hiawatha National Forest.jpg displays a copyright notice but it has a GFDL license—those are incompatible.
    • All other images check out fine. --Laser brain (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In what way is having a copyright incompatible with GFDL? GFDL does not mean that the owner abandons their copyright -- it merely means that they agree to release the work under the GFDL. older ≠ wiser 21:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My understanding is that if someone just puts "Copyright So-and-so", they implicitly reserve all rights unless otherwise specified. That would mean no unauthorized reproduction, non-commercial, etc. I believe the author has to explicitly release something under the GFDL for it to be so. --Laser brain (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, and that is precisely what happened here -- Decumanus (who's no longer an active editor) uploaded a self-made photo and explicitly released it under GFDL. He retains the copyright, but it is GFDL. older ≠ wiser 21:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think the confusion is coming from the fact that he apparently originally uploaded it to en.wiki and the original is no longer available. Someone named "CarolSpears" moved it to commons and put "© 2004 Matthew Trump" in the description. That copyright symbol normally indicates the person did not release anything. GFDL is called a "copyleft" for that reason—the two are at odds with each other. --Laser brain (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The confusion is understandable, as GFDL is truly horrible for reading and comprehension. But GFDL does not preclude persons from retaining copyright on their work -- it only ensures that any work licensed under GFDL may be freely reused under the terms of the GFDL. Each contributor to Wikipedia implicitly retains copyright to their work while agreeing to release it under GFDL. older ≠ wiser 22:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've contacted the uploader of that photo for clarification on the licensing tags and pointed him here to this discussion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a larger than usual gap between the Seney Stretch section and the text draws a concern - it looks like the Hiawatha NF pic is causing this. (DISCLAIMER: I'm using Internet Exploder 6 ;) )  — master sonT - C 22:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone take a look at this? Everything looks find to me in Safari, Firefox, Opera, and Internet Explorer for MacOS X. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources still look good, links still worked with the link checker. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Services section looks like an advertisement for points of intrest the route. Maybe just merge it into the Route description? I think that would be better. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate the suggestion, but my opinion is that the section is fine where it is. I'd appreciate any other feedback though. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, it probably violates WP:TRAVEL. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Going to disagree with you here, as the roadside parks and rest areas only exist because of M-28. They're veritable features of the route. I will put forth, however, that the Lakenenland mention violates WP:TRAVEL. I spent four years of my life in the U.P. and drove M-28 countless times but have never heard of it. —Zeagler (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oppose The fact that the parks and such only exist because of M-28 is irrelevant. The article is about the road, not the surrounding tourist attractions and rest areas. We might as well include information about gas stations along the road. Most of the information could be incorporated into the route description in a less travel guide-like manner. Until this issue is addressed, I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose. The rest of the article is great, but the services section detracts from the article substantially. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Whoa, did my comment drive you to oppose? If the gas stations were part of something like an Illinois Tollway oasis, then yes, I'd say include those, too...but MDOT doesn't do anything like that. —Zeagler (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • These appear to be officially designated picnic/rest areas and scenic overlooks. USRD standards do allow for such things to be listed in its own section in freeways. While not really a freeway, the route is primarily rural in the locations with rest areas so effectively functions as one. It's not as if we're listing private stores/shops/gas stations here. The existence of these rest areas is a fundamental component of long rural arterial roads. --Polaron | Talk 02:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • True, but USRD standards do have their flaws. The purpose of Wikipedia articles is to inform the reader about a subject, not list attractions for them to visit on their trip down the highway. I'm sure there are plenty of roadgeek sites that include such information, and could be listed as an external link. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The roadside parks are as much a part of the highway as the centerline and shoulders. They are established for the same reason as the highway itself, the convenience of the motoring public. At most the section could be moved into the RD as a subsection, but otherwise the services provided by the state as a part of the highway are as much a part of the story of the highway as the rest of the pavement. I respect your opinion, but I don't agree that it should be removed. As for Lakenland, it is a recent development that has attracted attention in the local media (The Mining Journal no longer archives old stories online for very long and I no longer live in Marquette County so I can't easily find the article anymore). Unlike the guideline in WP:TRAVEL, I did not include every attraction along the routing. Da Yoopers Tourist Trap in Ishpeming Township was not include even though it has many more billboard advertisements pointing drivers to it. Lakenenland was included partially because it's in the middle of nowhere and the sign for it along the entrance just jumps out at drivers because the area is so undeveloped. I will leave its inclusion in the article up to the community at large though. I would appreciate any suggestions you have concerning the tone of the paragraph/section, but this editor's opinion is that the content was carefully written to highlight the roadside services offered and not be a litany of parks and attractions. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) It seems to me then that to satisfy JC's objection and remove his opposition I could simply move the entire current paragraph up to the other section. The content of that single paragraph doesn't fail WP:TRAVEL though. If this is the case, why is the current location such a problem? Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section doesn't technically fail WP:TRAVEL, but it would seem somewhat like an advertisement for MDOT's rest areas/parks. Additionally, it is information that could be less obtrusively incorporated into the article by listing each attraction in it's appropriate segment of the RD. Keeping it a section separate from the RD would be equal to creating a designated section for all curves and turns on the highway. Don't let me discourage you; this is an excellent article for the most part. It's just this one issue that prevents the article from being perfect, or nearly so. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the article again, I could go with moving the section. The 'historic bridges' seem much more important, and they're a subsection of the 'Route description'... —Zeagler (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no article is ever perfect, even a feature article. No one here is advocating a literal turn-by-turn summary of the highway's routing. At issue is the inclusion of one single paragraph that highlights a feature of the roadway, namely the services offered by the state agency that built and maintains the roadway. Scattering mentions of the rest areas and roadside parks throughout the route description, I think, would actually call attention to them more. You'd end up with a dozen or so sentences or more added just to mention that there's another park avaiable where this paragraph condensed them into a few sentences, highlighting two. The Tioga Creek roadside park was added because of the waterfall as a natural feature, and the second was added to tie in Zeagler's photo that he uploaded and contributed to the article. To add them throughout the route description would interrupt the flow of the existing text just to mention a park when beyond the two highlighted, they are all roughly the same. Plus it collects them into a single location so a reader looking for information using this article can find all of the parks available without needing to read the entire route description. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a follow-up, I have three editors who have expressed an opinion to leave the section as is. I have one who's expressed an opinion to remove/rework it. There seems to be no applicable section of the MOS that says it is in violation. Even the objector has said it doesn't fail WP:TRAVEL. Project standards make it an optional section on its own, but there's some preference to merge it as a subsection elsewhere. It is my preference to leave it as is if there is no disagreement over the wording of the section and how to apply the MOS to it. There are three more editors who having read the article voted to support it, taking no mention of the section at all. There are two other editors who have commented on the article without commenting on this section as well. While consensus isn't a raw vote game, it seems that there isn't any consensus here to make any major changes concerning the Services section. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Services section moved up into the Route description as a subsection and the Historical bridges moved into the History section according to our discussion on IRC and the User:Imzadi1979/Sandbox4 example variation. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a. Buzz me when the whole text is scrutnised, preferably by someone new to it. Sorry to be so late; the director may choose to hold off for a few days.

  • Why link "U.S. state"? There's a sea of blue already up there, and this helps no one. You want your readers to click on "Michigan", don't you?
  • What does "Ste." mean?
  • Why not "half" rather than "one-half"? No, better "is one of a pair of".
  • "Traveling" is redundant.
  • "M-28 is the longest state trunkline in Michigan numbered with the "M-" prefix at 290.43 miles (467.40 km)." Comma after "prefix", please. Better audit the use of commas throughout. Reading bits of it aloud can help. Also, "is Michigan's longest ...". Why on earth do links to miles and km persist, I wonder? Strategic linking throughout, please, not scattergun.
  • "M-28 also carries two memorial highway designations along its route." Awkward leakage into trucks carrying things along the route. Recast the whole sentence. Indeed, try to address the succession of stub-sentences at the end of para 1.
  • Suddenly the roadway is in "sections", having just emphasised its wholeness.
  • "Some of the other landmarks accessible from M-28 include"—Spot the three redundant words. Yes, this is a formulaic lead, I can see from having just read another highway nomination. Think of varying the formula sometime? Tony (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will atempt to edit, but I am out of town on vacation with only my iPhone for Internet access. This article has already had a thorough copy edit by Finetooth. For the record, Ste. is the abbreviated spelling of Sainte used by the City of Sault Ste. Marie, from the French sault de Sainte-Marie or rapids of Saint Mary's. Imzadi1979 (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I printed a copy of the article and reviewed through it for comma usage, and some other copy edits as I haven't read the article completely since renominating it 3 weeks ago. Let me know if there are other examples to fix. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spot sample: "Seney Stretch"

  • Conversions: small to small, large to large. Sq miles to sq km, acres to ha. Nearly a hundred thousand acres: do Americans visualise that easily? Surely they'd prefer sq miles.
  • "A portion of the Seney Stretch forms the northern border of the Seney National Wildlife Refuge.[22] Established in 1935, this refuge is a managed wetland in Schoolcraft County.[23] It has an area of 95,212 acres (385 km²),[24] and contains the Strangmoor Bog National Natural Landmark within its boundaries." Not good writing. As I pointed out before, "A portion" would be better, plainer, as "Part"; it's overused as either. "Within its 95,212 acres (....) lies the SBNNL.". But what the heck is this landmark? We shouldn't have to hit the link to know the basics.
  • Is it the straightness and flatness of just this part of the highway that gives it a boring reputation, or is it the whole highway? Unclear.
  • "though others claim it's 50 miles (80 km), only because it seems longer."[18]—This is a rather feeble quote, don't you think? Who are "others"? If they don't say so, we're adopting the source's fuzz. And does that US publication really give the km conversion, or have you inserted it? If you have, it must be in square brackets, yes?
  • "The largest changes made to the stretch since the original construction were the addition of passing relief lanes and a full-scale, year-round rest area in 1999." "its" rather than "the" original constr.? "most significant" rather than "largest", since you don't necessarily mean big size.

Sorry to say, I really think it needs fresh eyes throughout. It's hard to do yourself; I'd find it so if I'd written it. FACs are often the crunch that leads nominators to form valuable collaborative relationships: can this be the case here, too? Tony (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to give it a good copyedit. Can the closing director keep this open for another day or two? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tony1, can you take another look if you get a chance? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I made a couple of tiny tweaks, but following Julian's ce, it looks pretty good to me - almost interesting, considering it's another US road. jimfbleak (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I'm a little skeptical of the growing number of articles about roads. But this shows how an article about a road should be written. Well-researched, comprehensive, and strong prose (even if the topic is a little dry). Randomran (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn the oppose, but do keep sifting and polishing if it's promoted. Here's another spot-check.

  • "The 290.4-mile-long (467.34 km) highway comprises mostly two lanes"—The triple bunger is unnecessary, since one of the three words is redundant. "Comprises" is a little ungainly here, and perhaps clarify the lane structure on this first occasion: "The 290.4-mile (467.34 km) highway is mostly two lanes in each direction". Sections, segments, portions, part—you're trying to add variety in that paragraph. Do be careful that it's not laboured; sometimes it's better to repeat the word, or to recast to avoid the need in the first place. Clarify: "three consecutive segments of the trunkline form part of the Lake Superior Circle Tour".
  • "until approximately 1936"—"about" would be so much nicer. So we don't know exactly? I presume the doubt is transmitted from Ref 30.
  • "state line"—just check it's not a single word.
  • " The last significant change to the M-28 routing occurred on March 3, 1989"—please use plain words: "was on". Tony (talk) 01:50, 14 August 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 20:04, 12 August 2008 [10].

Proxima Centauri

Nominator(s): RJH (talk)


This is a science article about the nearest star to the Sun. My hope is that it is reasonably accessible to a general audience, although some science background may help. It has undergone a PR; a check by BrighterOrange's script; reached GA status, and now I believe this page may satisfy the criteria for a Featured Article. Please take a look and let me know what you think. I'll try to address any specific concerns. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Proxima Centauri was discovered to share the same proper motion as Alpha Centauri in 1915 by Robert Innes while he was Director of the Union Observatory in Johannesburg, South Africa. This is the sort of thing that gives the scientific passive a bad name. Please make it: Robert Innes, Director of the Union Observatory in Johannesburg, South Africa in 1915, discovered that Proxima Centauri had the same proper motion as Alpha Centauri. and so on in other cases. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I updated the above text. Thanks.—RJH (talk)
  • 'a main-sequence star for another four trillion years' (from lead and repeated in text) Are you certain this is 4 trillion, not 4 billion? This seems an exceptionally long time. I don't have full access to the source so cannot check myself. GameKeeper (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checked a few more sources, very low mass stars do have such a potentially amazingly long life time. GameKeeper (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a graph here: Red_dwarf#Description and characteristics.—RJH (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amongst the known stars, Proxima Centauri has been the closest star to the Sun for about 32,000 years and will be so for about another 9,000 years, after which the closest star to the Sun will be Barnard's Star. Surely Alpha Centauri.--Grahame (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the orbital period of Proxima (if any) is 500,000 years, I'd expect them to stay in roughly the same configuration during the above time frame. So that probably means Proxima will be closer than Alpha Centauri. But I changed the text. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments - looked pretty good on first read-through - some copyedit issues will follow but first I have a couple of comprehensiveness questions. all potential deal-brekares dealt with, anything else is a bonus and we're over the line in my book. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber's issues and responses
Given we mention the Sun's appearance, but how bright would Toliman A & B be from Proxima? Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, back-of-the-envelope-wise, I think the magnitude adjustment is about -10, so I think they'd be roughly -5/-4. Are you suggesting that this is needed for comprehensiveness? —RJH (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a reliable source could be found, I believe it should be in. If one can't, well then it can't. So, the answer would be if at all possible yes. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page lists the visual magnitudes as -6.6 and -5.2 respectively, so I was off a little on my guestimate. The question is, since the SolStation source might be considered suspect (per below), do we consider the Andrew James source sufficiently authoritative? It'd be nice to know his academic qualifications.—RJH (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) agree. I find it hard to believe there are no RS's for this but had a look and can't find out who he is on the website. He is a member of the Astronomical Society of NEw South Wales and gets positive feedback from Douglas Snyder here...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll include it as an external link.—RJH (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what would flares do to a hypothetical planet. Is there any info available? Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is discussed under "Possible companions", paragraph 4.—RJH (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Hmmm..I guess for the reader, does it just mean the surface is bombarded by radiation? heat? Not hugely clear. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As we're talking about a purely hypothetical planet here with unknown physical parameters, I think that would be excessive and bordering on OR. The effect upon the planet depends on whether it has a magnetic field, the strength thereof, and the existence of an atmosphere, including whether it is a gas gient. The topic really should be covered on the Flare star page. Sorry, I'm going to weasel out of this one.—RJH (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No no, that's ok. I like reading alot about stars but am a real neophyte. Many of my questions here are not authoritative and i am feeling my way a bit. That expalins the situation well. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The star's magnetic field is created by convection throughout the star,.. - 2 'star's flows funny. Just 'inner convection'? or is it self-exlanatory that convection is inside - would 'internal convection' suffice? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm attempting to say that 100% of the star is undergoing convection. Is that not the meaning of throughout?—RJH (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I get it now; still I was trying to figure out a way of not using the noun 'star' twice in the one sentence.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the second use of star to 'stellar body'.—RJH (talk)
Even during quiescent periods with few or no flares - why not just 'quiet'? Does the unusual 'quiescent' add anything that a plainer word doesn't?
Well, quiet is normally an acoustical term, whereas quiescent can apply to any activity. So I think it avoids a potential point of confusion.—RJH (talk)
Fair enough. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::The activity level also appears to vary with a period of roughly 442 days, analogous to the Sun's solar cycle, which has a period of 11 years - 'The activity level also appears to vary with a period of roughly 442 days, shorter than the solar cycle of the Sun, which has a period of 11 years' --> too simple? Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modifed. Thanks.—RJH (talk)
Among the known stars, Proxima Centauri and Alpha Centauri have been the closest stars to the Sun for about 32,000 years .. - is there any likelihood there are unknown stars that are closer? If not I think we can remove the first 4 words. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly; I can't say for sure. There are some red dwarfs that have high velocities, so perhaps one whipped by during that time period. Astronomers are still finding previously undiscovered red dwarfs. Just covering the bases.—RJH (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am happy with that explanation. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worthwhile explaining any of its alternative names/designations in the body of the text?Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't think so. The history of the catalogs is covered elsewhere and I haven't run into anything particularly interesting concerning Proxima Centauri.—RJH (talk)

More questions later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback.—RJH (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very fine article on an interesting subject. However, questions and comments on a few details. Kosebamse (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately I'll have to disagree with most of your conclusions. So, please pardon.—RJH (talk)
        • No prob, I see your points and don't oppose this nomination; nevertheless picking a few nits, see below. Kosebamse (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for your comments and amendations. One problem is the excessive number of references and links which represent an amount of work that could have been invested far better into improving the article even further. Howeve, that seems to be counted as a bonus nowadays. Support FA. Ceterum censeo that this puerile referencing lunacy must be stopped. Kosebamse (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for the support. As far as I know, articles are not written under a deadline. Hence your statement about the time allotment doesn't seem quite accurate. The article has as many references as it needs, and the addition of the citations did not detract from the time spent developing the article.—RJH (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kosebamse's issues and responses
    • "has been proposed as a destination for interstellar travel" While appealing to nerds and kids, the possibility of traveling there is currently so extremely remote that it should not be mentioned in the introduction.Kosebamse (talk)
      • The lead should be a summary of the article. This topic is discussed in the article. Whether it is a remote possibility or not is speculative; it's just an interesting fact, so I'd like to leave it in. Besides, just who is going to be reading this article?—RJH (talk)
        • Matter of taste. I think every article, and most of all every FA, should be as much as possible oriented towards a general readership.Kosebamse (talk)
          • True, but I'm inclined to keep it in the lead because it is discussed in an article section. Sorry, but I'm going to decline to agree with you on this one.—RJH (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Because of its proximity, the diameter of the star can be measured directly, and is one-seventh that of the Sun" in the intro should be at the beginning of the second paragraph. Important information first, please, readers want to form a mental image and the size is one of the most relevant pieces of information.Kosebamse (talk)
      • Well, personally, I find the fact that this is a flare star is quite important. It is a major distinguishing element of this star, and is a reason for a lot of astronomical investigation. Hence I think it is reasonable to put it first. Mass determines size, so that goes before dimension.—RJH (talk)
        • See my answer above re general readership. I'd guess a reader without much prior knowledge would have to look up what a flar star is, while size is readily understood.Kosebamse (talk)
    • "mass is about an eighth of the Sun's" and "the diameter of the star can be measured directly, and is one-seventh that of the Sun" deserves further explanation. Are those two pieces of information bullet-proof and iron-clad? As the volume changes with the cube of diameter, that implies an enormous difference in density between the Sun and Proxima centauri. I see it's explained further below, but a half-to-three-quarter-informed reader will stumble over that. Perhaps the actual density should be mentioned in this context.Kosebamse (talk)
      • The size is well determined and the mass comes from stellar models, so yes they are pretty solid. I think that the average density, while perhaps of interest to some, isn't important enough to include in the lead. It's a fairly useless parameter as most of the star will not be at that density. I just include it for completeness and to give some perspective. Is that reasonable?—RJH (talk)
        • The question of average or not average density is rather specialistic, but someone with a basic understanding of math or physics might stumble here and wonder whether such differences between densities of stars are real, even if they had read about white dwarfs, neutron stars and such.Kosebamse (talk)
          • Okay, I included a sentence, although I'll note this conflicts with your earlier statement about targeting a general audience. =) —RJH (talk)
    • Furthermore, in that same sentence, please use angular diameter which is the technically correct description (the actual diameter is not measured but calculated from distance and angular diameter)Kosebamse (talk)
      • Both the angular diameter and distance have relatively small margins of error. A reasonably accurate value can be derived thereof. I'm not sure I understand why a computed value is unsatisfactory here. A discussion of the derivation of the size would need to include information about limb darkening and fitting of computer models, which I'm not sure would be relevant.—RJH (talk)
        • Sorry to pick these nits, I don't object to the use of that value here, but it should not be described as "measured", because what's been measured are two other values from which the diameter can be derived.Kosebamse (talk)
          • I see your point. It has been corrected.—RJH (talk)
    • "Red dwarfs such as Proxima Centauri are, in general, far too faint to be observable with the naked eye" seems a little vague. Are there any at all that are observable? If so, which ones? If not, please strike "in general".Kosebamse (talk)
    • "If the Sun were to become as dim as Proxima, all of the planets except Venus" - the point becomes only clear to somebody who knows what makes planets shine. Given that most people believe that the moon's phases arise through an effect of Earth's shadow, or that the difference between stars and planets is generally not known etc. etc. (personal experience, I have asked many an otherwise well educated person), one should not assume that kind of knowledge of Wikipedia's readers. Please xplaijn some further, or perhaps leave it out.Kosebamse (talk)
    • "Because of Proxima Centauri's southern declination" - please link or explain "declination".Kosebamse (talk)
      • It is linked in the infobox.—RJH (talk)
    • "This illustration shows the relative sizes of (from left to right) the Sun, α Centauri A, α Centauri B and Proxima Centauri" is a little misleading. Relative to what? To each other, I presume? There are so many things in astronomy that are either named relative or absolute that this description might look slightly confusing to a reader with a degree of prior knowledge. Perhaps better "comparative sizes" or something along these lines?Kosebamse (talk)
      • Yes, their sizes relative to each other. Sorry, I thought it would be obvious. I used your suggested word instead.—RJH (talk)
    • "has been the closest star to the Sun for about 32,000 years and will be so for about another 9,000 years, after which the closest star to the Sun will be Barnard's Star." It's discussed some further below, but the question coming up at this point is whether this is due to the proper motion of Proxima centauri itself, its motion within the Alpha centauri system, the proper motion of the Alpha centauri system, or all or some of these. Perhaps that could be explained a little more clearly. Kosebamse (talk)
      • The statement has been modified, per the earlier issue.—RJH (talk)
    • Kosebamse (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea; the page seems well researched and the information has proven mostly reliable. But it is the only source that lists the nearest stars. The alternative would be to compute it myself, but then we would have to do it for every star within a given distance to be certain. That would probably be too close to OR. Anyway, I relocated it to the talk page and asked for a better reference.—RJH (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is all they give us, nothing to meet WP:V: http://www.solstation.com/about.htm SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images

Comment Ref #25 is missing ISBN or some easy way to find the book. Also, you might want to consider splitting Notes and Refs parts. Nergaal (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You probably mean Campbell (1899), which was published before ISBN was established. (But I added in a link to the Google scan.) I considered a split along notes/references, but it is ugly trying to maintain a separate notes section because of the clumsy mechanism of the alternative citing system. I prefer to just let the back-end database take care of the tags. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 19:50, 12 August 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 19:31, 12 August 2008 [11].

Greater Crested Tern

Nominator(s): jimfbleak (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's passed GA, and been peer reviewed. Some nice images and relatively short jimfbleak (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Martybugs Gives these details: contact details, view my website, view my photo gallery, or visit my blog. The blog has the name Martin Pot, email address is mpot@martybugs.net Image:IMG 2535 1000 crop.jpg has the summary "self-made by Martin Pot (martybugs)" so appear to be one and the same. I've asked him to clarify the summary page. The gallery link works from his userpage and from the image page for me - the gallery has all rights reserved, but doesn't include this image, presumably because it's GFDLed. Should I remove the image? jimfbleak (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, don't take it off yet. If you've contacted him then we'll wait a bit for a reply from him. I'm willing to assume it was him unless he says otherwise. —Giggy 03:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks jimfbleak (talk) 05:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that it's definitely one of my images, and that I provided a 600 x 388 pixel version to wikipedia under a GFDL / cc-by-3.0 license. My wikipedia username is User:Martybugs, real name is "Martin Pot". Apologies for any confusion, but I've updated the image page to reference both my real name and wikipedia username. Martybugs (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Some things I noticed at first glance:
  • Add non-breaking spaces.
  • Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings.
Moved image to comply with MoS. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what I've missed here. All the measurements have nbsp, I've done it for the percentages to be on the safe side now, I've read the MoS page and still can't see where any other nbsp should go? jimfbleak (talk) 05:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
which nests in dense colonies on coasts and islands in the tropical and subtropical Old World. - for me, 'coasts' flows funnily here. Maybe 'coastlines' or 'coastal areas' would be better.

..becomes less extensive in winter - 'recedes'?

::, and the offering of fish to the female is part of the male's courtship display. - I'd maybe make the comma a semicolon and rewrite as ', the male offers fish to the female as part of a (the?) courtship display.' - as this is a bit ungainly

I've fixed these. What's happened to the taxobox template, not showing correctly on any bird page or in history at present jimfbleak (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sometimes among stunted vegetation - I'd say either 'among shrubs', or 'in vegetation', but not this combination.
Great Crested Terns has grown by an order of magnitude - I presume this means ten-fold? May be easier to say that instead.
Done these, should have thought of ten-fold myself jimfbleak (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables: The information in the two tables could be combined into one table, if the species and describer columns were combined in the first table and an extra column was added for the population numbers. Snowman (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
done jimfbleak (talk) 09:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Not as fascinating as Nuthatch, but I still enjoyed reading it! :) Here are my teensy-weensy suggestions for improvement:

Support This is a comprehensive, well-written, and well-researched article. Awadewit (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In both the "Footnotes" and the "References" sections, the publication location and publisher of books is cited inconsistently and the ISBNs are formatted differently. Please standardize.
  • "cm" and "in" should be linked the first time they are mentioned, not later.
  • The paragraph about the bird calls seems to interrupt a description of how the birds look. Could this section be rearranged to bit so that it seamlessly flows from plumage to bird call?
  • Some overlinking perhaps? Lots of the geographical locations seemed to be linked multiple times.
  • The region also supports major colonies of other seabirds, and since nesting follows the summer monsoonal flooding, it is presumably a response to fish stocks rising due to nutrient enrichment of the Gulf by river run-off. - awkward sentence
  • I saw a bit of inconsistency in the AE/BE. It is supposed to be in BE, right? Someone needs to take a quick run through and check on that.
  • Image:SternaBergiMap2.svg - It would be good to have all the publication information for the book on which this map was based.
  • For some reason, the description and source books don't match.

Nice to be down to the nitpicks, isn't it? Awadewit (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many apologies for long delay, all fixed I think, except that I couldn't find any non-BE. My in-line spell check and an external spell check in Word found non-BE only in the refs, which of course I can't change. Can you point me to what I've overlooked? jimfbleak (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-ize/-ise is optional for quite a few BE words, I'll check again though. jimfbleak (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there are two "recognizes", but both in refs jimfbleak (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Parents do not recognize their own eggs or newly hatched chicks, but are able to distinguish their chicks by the time they are two days-old, shortly before they begin to wander from the nest - This doesn't look like a quotation to me, but perhaps I am missing something. `Awadewit (talk)
Thanks, jimfbleak (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll have another read through see if there's anything I can tweak jimfbleak (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Emu bits in particular. I've made a couple of minor changes. At this stage, it's difficult to keep track of the early fac edits and why they were made. jimfbleak (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, minor format fix helpful since I can't see that sort of thing myself jimfbleak (talk) 05:27, 12 August 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 19:31, 12 August 2008 [12].

Robert F. Kennedy assassination

Nominator(s): Fritzpoll (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been extensively rewritten since it was listed as being in urgent need of cleanup. Since then, I've taken it through to GA, and the article has been peer-reviewed and copyedited by several other editors. I believe that this article represents the fullest possible account of the topic without going into irrelevant information, and that it is well-written, per the copyediting performed by independent editors. I look forward to any constructive feedback that arises out of this process. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "The assassination of Robert F. Kennedy," – remove the link or the bold; linked text can't also be bold, per WP:BOLDTITLE
  • Some of the web references are missing access dates, such as ""Sirhan Sirhan Kept Behind Bars". CBS (March 6, 2003)." and "Warren Kozak (March 17, 2006). "One Common Link". NY Sun."

Gary King (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out - corrected these and one or two other citation formatting errors Fritzpoll (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.citizinemag.com/politics/politics_0506_rfk_twhite.htm while probably okay, it looks like this is a freely distributed magazine newspaper in Austin? Some might feel that this isn't the best source for information on something like this subject. I do note that it's covered by another book, so I'm not sure why it's needed.
  • What makes http://crimemagazine.com/index.html a reliable source?
  • Current ref 50 is lacking a publisher. (James Randerson "New Evidence challenges...")
  • Same for current ref 52 (FBI Robert F. Kennedy ...)
  • Same for current ref 53 (Democracy Now Special ...)
  • Same for current ref 54 (Robert F Kennedy Assassination...
  • Same for current ref 57, 58 and 59.
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just got in - this an acknowledgement that I'm looking into these, and will post back here once I've sorted them out. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed' except for the crimemagazine.com reference, which I'm still working on. I believe I'm able to replace it, since, although I believe it to be a reliable source, I cannot provide the necessary proof that it is. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update - removed the crime magazine source, as the book covers it. Also refactored the following two sentences into one, and added a new source for balance. You may wish to check the formatting of the new source, number 38 at the time of writing. Otherwise, I believe I have addressed all your comments. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Very good work here. I would take out both the conspiracy theory para in the lead, and the "see also" section (you already have categories). I've only read about half yet, so a more substantial review to follow... ( Ceoil sláinte 00:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Going off what Ceoil said, I think you should mention Bobby (2006 film) somewhere in the article (there's a legacy section...). I think you could remove the see also section after that. I also think some stuff from the legacy/aftermath section should be mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead, as opposed to removing it. —Giggy 00:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll look into it in the morning (later today, actually) - would a one-liner acknowledging the existence and content of the film be sufficient? I'm wary about removing the last paragraph of the lead because I believed the lead was to summarise each major section of the article. Some of the legacy/aftermath section is already covered by the penultimate paragraph of the lead. Fritzpoll (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very nice work. However (this might be just me) the lead looks a bit short. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 17:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lead says that "the shooting was recorded on audio", however this is not confirmed in the article body which says only that the immediate aftermath of the shooting was recorded. Which is correct? Kaldari (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is mentioned in the "Second gunman section" that there was a recording of the shootings. Is this not enough? (genuine question that I can't word any other way to sound less snarky - just assume it's not! :) )Fritzpoll (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, sorry. I actually skipped the Alternative theories section (being a wikipedia editor tends to make one weary of conspiracy theories). I expected the information on the recordings would have been in the Media coverage section, but I see I was wrong. Sorry about that. Carry on :) Kaldari (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alternate images per MoS. When alternating, try not to have any images on the left situated right below a heading, which would violate MoS. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that they added "can" in there. Thats odd. I was wondering - why have media coverage after the shooting. It just seems like it would be part of the "assassination". I also think that the assassin could have more info on him drawn from the other page. Also, the aftermath section could have a little more. It is a draw of interest for me and it seemed to end to quickly. Over all, it seems fine. I will wait to see what others say. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good questions: the media coverage section follows the assassination itself, because it is not solely descriptive of the event. It actually covers events after Kennedy's assassination as well, so it was generally felt to warrant a separate section. The info on Sirhan is, I believe, an acceptable summary of the main article for the purposes of this article, and the section here is adequately sourced, unlike the main article (which will be one of my next projects). I'm not sure what else could be added to the aftermath section, but I am open to suggestions. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, tough tough tough. I almost think that the whole information from the Sirhan Sirhan page on the assassination should be moved to RFK and the summary moved there. Why? Because of the flow - assassination and trial should be linked, unless the trial is placed on its own page. If that is possible? And I don't know what can be added to the aftermath section either, it just feels like there might be something more (as this was a big assassination). :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What material from the main article is missing from the summary? I see some material from his parole hearing is gone, but I'm not sure this particular article should duplicate the contents of another one. Unless you're suggesting that Sirhan shouldn't have his own article? :) I'll let other editors weigh i on this one. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to swap them - put the "person" article trial information in the "assassination" page, and the trial summary in the "person" page. Why? Because the individual is notable as an assassin, but the assassination is notable for who was killed. To put it quickly - When I look for info on RFK's assassination and the trial afterwards, I'd look on RFK's page, and then the assassination page. Going to a third page on a guy that didn't have any other notable information seems to be three steps removed. I think Sirhan should have his own article, but the assassination/trial section should be only a summary. Its just a priority thing. Either way. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed it myself. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nice little article. One thing I'd like to see though is a closer examination of the background. I believe a lot more could be written in that section. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts as to what's missing? I wanted to keep it relevant to the assassination, and everything else I could come up with wasn't relevant to the assassination, but more to Kennedy himself. Open to suggestions though :) Fritzpoll (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I meant background I meant the Alternative theories section. I'm sure I've have seen numerous reports on the web and journals discussing possible motives and theories for the assassination, probably enough for an article of its own. I just wondered if there was anything missing that might add to the evaluation of his death. As it stands the paragraph and article is very concise which is a good thing but just thinking about the possibility that something has been left out. I'll check it out later and give the article a reread and then make my decision. OK? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean. Actually, I got started on this article because its conspiracy section was about 30K long and it was posted at the Fringe theories noticeboard. What's in the article is thus delibrately small per WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT and also because this is as sourced as this section could be from reliable sources! Anyway, I'll let you do your thing, because I may well have missed something. Cheers Fritzpoll (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Commments by Blofeld

  • You need to mention place of death in the intro. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Keeper ǀ 76 21:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hubert Humphrey is overlinked
    Fixed. Keeper ǀ 76 21:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sirhan was convicted on April 17, 1969 and six days later was sentenced to death.[37] The sentence was commuted to life in prison in 1972 after the California Supreme Court". What happened in those three years?? He was sentenced to death in 1969. What happened in those three years? Could you explain briefly?
    • I can perhaps take a stab (no pun intended) on the third question. Probably nothing happened. When someone is "sentenced" to death in the US it generally takes several years (I think I read that the average duration is 7 or 8 years, I'll be damned if I could find a source for that though, please don't ask for one:). He likely was sitting in prison, waiting for doomsday, probably riding out the appeals process (that's a question perhaps that needs clarifying. Did SS ever attempt to appeal his conviction?) Keeper ǀ 76 21:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7-8 years is ridiculous. During that time the offendant costs how much to feed and house from tax money??. Want happneed to the good old days when crminals were hung in the public the following day after conviction? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that this is anywhere near relevant to the discussion about a FAC, but I'd much rather have due process and a jury if someone decides "I've committed a crime" than the "good old days" of a lynch mob with a rope. Reminds me of this, which was unfortunately, not that long ago. 7 or 8 years isn't that long to "wait" before killin' someone off for a crime. It has been proven to be too hard to unkill them in light of new evidence </digression> Keeper ǀ 76 15:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It would be helpful if the fair use image, Image:Rfk assasination.jpg, had a more informative description. In particular, it should credit the photographer, whoever that is, and link to a more relevant source than rrstar.com, which appears to be rather sloppy with image credits and is undoubtedly not original source (and the image is not CC-nc licensed, as the fair use rational previously stated). The other images are all fine copyright-wise.--ragesoss (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Now those small issues have been cleared up. A prime example of how to write a concise article that is to the point and highlights all the main points in a good summary. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments regaridng images:
    • Image:Robert F. Kennedy.jpg is using a bogus copyright tag (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 30) whose deletion is imminent pending re-tagging of so licensed images. Please re-license as appropriate.
    • Image:Sirhan3.jpg has a misleading copyright tag (being released to and being the authorship of are entirely different notions). The federal government can hold copyrights if they are transfered. Does the source confirm the image is PD, or just that it was "transfered" (if the latter, it needs to be established that IP rights were indeed forfeited). Please re-license as appropriate.
    • Image:RFK Cross.jpg does not have a verifiable source or summary, as required per WP:IUP
    • Image:Rfk assasination.jpg: concerns above are valid. WP:NFCC#10A requires attribution of the copyright holder if different from the source (which certainly appears to be the case here). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Progress on the images ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll be checking on those at lunchtime today (UK time) - sorry for the delay, I've been dragged around other parts of the wiki these past few days and missed elcobbola's comments. I'll seek to resolve them shortly Fritzpoll (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, I'm not good on these image problems (will probably go ask someone for help). My solutions will probably be a) switch to a fair use rationale since I can't establish a PD release b) I'm not sure on this one - will seek clarification about what this means c) I can't find the part of WP:IUP that you mean - the image was released by the person taking the photograph. I don't doubt that there needs to be an additional tag, but I don't know which one d) I'll track down the copyright holder. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) The first image, Robert F Kennedy, is from Wikicommons, so falls under fair use per them. If this image is to be challenged, it must be taken up there, and the pages here are not affected unless that challenge results in the deletion of the picture. 2) The Sirhan3.jpg falls under this same regard. 3) The RFK Cross.jpg image is now on Wikicommons and cannot be challenged here. These three images should not be used as a justification against promotion unless Wikicommons moves to delete the images. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"WP:NFCC#10A requires attribution of the copyright holder if different from the source (which certainly appears to be the case here)" On looking at the photo, you see the link to this, which is the source for the image, plus marks the copy right at the bottom: "Copyright © 2008 GateHouse Media, Inc. Some Rights Reserved." Thus, copyright holder and source are the same. There is no image concern here. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Commons is an archival site. Usage of images hosted therein subjects them to the aforementioned Wikipedia policies. The Commons does not allow or host fair use (i.e. nothing can "[fall] under fair use per them". This image was not taken in 2008; "Copyright © 2008 GateHouse Media, Inc. Some Rights Reserved." is not germane and/or correct. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3lcobbola, as I stated before, if you have a complaint with the rationale tags, you have to take them up to commons. This is not the appropriate place (i.e. Wikipedia). As long as commons hosts it, it falls under GFDL and cannot be argued here. Please go there and report back with the progress. Secondly, the copyright of the final image (2008) shows the most current copyright, as many books are copyrighted in the original publication and later publications, so too can images hosted on websites. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Struck because its now being reviewed at Commons. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who wrote the initial fair use rationale for Image:Rfk assasination.jpg, and my apologies mis-sourcing it to Gatehouse Media. My initial reading of the Gathouse site was that they owned the photo, but further examination seems to show that I was incorrect. I did a bit of sleuthing, and according to a profile of Boris Yaro in the University of Southern California's alumni magazine, he's the photographer of that image and it was taken for the LA Times. I've updated the image page accordingly. I think this should now meet the sourcing requirements of WP:NFCC#10A. Does it look good to others? Vickser (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image issues have now been resolved with my final edit removing the page of Sirhan's diary and replacing it with a link to Wikisource. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, no remaining image issues. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:29, 11 August 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 08:03, 9 August 2008 [14].

Robert Sterling Yard

Nominator(s): María (habla conmigo)


This is a small article dedicated to a largely forgotten figure in the modern wilderness movement. Yard is second in a series I hope to complete on the eight founding members of The Wilderness Society; unlike the Bob and others, however, there are no mountains or parks named after him, nor are there any biographies dedicated to his life. What you see as far as research is (sadly) what you get. :) I created the article back in March and it was promoted to GA on July 14. It then went through a week long PR during which I received very helpful comments from Sillyfolkboy, Ealdgyth and Ruhrfisch. I believe the article is as comprehensive as it can be and fulfills the FAC criteria. All comments/suggestions will be addressed as quickly as possible. Thanks for your time! María (habla conmigo) 13:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (not oppose, but not a support) - The lead is a little short, but seems comprehensive. Not many pictures, but the topic is small, so it could get away with that. Perhaps make the second picture 200px, moved down a paragraph, and placed on the left. His body is facing right (at least it appears to me), which would conform to MoS. Put all of the biographical information as subheadings under "biography" so it groups these areas together for convenience. Turn references into Harvb style. Is the selected bibliography his works or works on him? If they are works on him, turn them into references and expand accordingly. If they are works by him, you will need some background on what they say. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll reply to your points as you have stated them: 1) The lead is comprehensive in regards to the article itself, which as you can see is not very long. If there's anything I've left out or not explained properly, please do give examples. 2) Images are not a requirement for FA, as you may be aware. 3) I prefer the one image I could find of Yard to be in the lead section, despite which way his body is facing. :) He is looking straight ahead, which does not interfere with image MOS, I believe. 4) With a biographical article this short, I think that a main header called "Biography" is somewhat redundant. It's obvious that this is a biography, is it not? Again, I don't think this is a problem. 5) I hate, loathe and despise Harvard referencing. It is also in no way mandatory. 6) The selected works are indeed his own, but I don't think they require explanation as they're somewhat diverse in nature. Several of them are mentioned in the body of the article, I believe. Perhaps I should just delete the section? María (habla conmigo) 17:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note - your points are exactly why I commented and didn't oppose. :) Also, on five, agreed. Now, on 6, this was for my benefit (I was interested). I couldn't find the first one mentioned, which is why I commented. Perhaps these books should be given their own page, or at least, a "list" page with short summaries (if you feel they aren't notable enough on their own). I would appreciate that based on my own budding interest in the topic. Now, you should keep that section, but perhaps rename it? "Major works" or some similar title would be appropriate. However, I think someone already changed this. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Awadewit saved the day. :) Unfortunately, I don't believe the books are important enough to warrant individual articles or even a summary article; The Publisher (Yard's take on the publishing world) is an interesting read, but it isn't notable. The other works are basically descriptions of various parks, and although quoted here and there by other conservationists, I couldn't write anything about them more than is already stated in this article. Alas, poor RSY. María (habla conmigo) 18:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find one outside source on each of them and put them in a List of Works, then that is enough to prove them notable, especially with a notable author (their combination would make them worth having a page). That is not to say that they could exist on their own, but combined, they should have enough for form a short list, which would supplement the page nicely. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that there's nothing else of note to be said about these works. A detailed publication history/description would serve no interest for the casual reader. Plus, I'm not terribly interested in writing a list article. :) Any other concerns? María (habla conmigo) 19:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say that now, but once this pretty article gets posted on the main page, there will be an increase in demand. :) Perhaps someone can do this in the future. By the way, here is an online link for the current edition of Glimpses of our national parks. I think some of the others are online also. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Nice work as always, Maria. (As a "treader of dusty city streets" who does not enjoy camping, I particularly liked finding that quote.) Although some of the info feels thin (esp. early life), I'll assume this is because the info is simply not available. A few odds 'n' ends before I can support (I've made some copyedits on my own, but I wanted to run these by you for approval or discussion):
  • These high standards, based upon an aesthetic ideal, led him to become involved in the protection of wilderness areas in later life. Not sure I see the cause/effect elements at work. Clarify?
  • The cause and effect is difficult to explain... mainly, his ideas about conservation turned to militant preservation once he developed his high standards. Because that takes too much explaining, however, I've changed it to "He opposed commercialism and industrialization of what he called "America's masterpieces", and his high standards (based upon aesthetic ideals) for proposed national parks caused discord with his peers. Yard later became involved in the protection of wilderness areas."
  • I'd favor de-linking Switzerland in the quote. Looks like a random blue blotch. =)
  • Heh, removed.
  • Do we need the attribution after the quote, since it's explained before the quote?
  • Also removed.
  • Yard's most successful publicity initiative during this time... This is a really long sentence. I think adding some em dashes (after "which" and before "connected") would make it easier to read.
  • I agree, added.
  • Internal conflicts within the NPS led to Yard being passed up for interim director... Two problems here: "internal conflicts" sounds a little vague, and it sounds like Yard was a shoo-in for the position (which, if true, should be made explicit).
  • He was, really, but much like John Adams in 1776, Yard was obnoxious and disliked but he got the job done. Sutter wrote that Albright's wife insisted that Mather had said the position should fall to her husband which, since Mather was less than capable at the time, couldn't be refuted. TMI? "Internal conflicts" has been changed to "disagreements" for now, but I'm not sure if that's an improvement. In short, Yard was very, very opinionated and ticked everyone off.
  • Sure, makes sense – but how about a bit of reworking to make it clearer? I propose indicating earlier in the ¶ that Mather took the position at first (this isn't made clear until the sentence in question). Then proceed with: "When Mather suffered a breakdown and had to take an extended leave, Yard believed himself next in line for interim director at the NPS. Disagreements within the organization, however, kept him from the position." Fair? – Scartol • Tok 21:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a rift between the NPS and Yard began to grow ... Consisting only of himself and a secretary... Again, this feels like a slight POV through implication – as if his appointment to this tiny office was a result of the rift. If true, let's explicitize. (I know, that's not a word.) If not, let's reword.
  • Decided to reword, how about: "A rift between the NPS and Yard began to grow, and in June 1918 he was put in charge of the National Parks Educational Committee."
  • Mmm, I still feel like there's a cause/effect thing going on here which should be either made explicit or removed. It would help if we mentioned who put him in charge of the NPEC (to get rid of the passive voice). – Scartol • Tok 21:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some more careful reading of my sources and as a result decided to do some major rewriting and rearranging of the two last paragraphs in the section. The troublesome "rift" sentence is now gone, but something more concrete has taken its place. Better? María (habla conmigo) 12:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only was Robert Sterling Yard instrumental in the creation and maintenance of national parks, but he was an important figure in the modern wilderness movement. This feels unnecessary, as it is covered in more depth earlier in the article. A remnant from earlier drafts perhaps?
  • Actually, that's a newer addition! I wanted to have something about his legacy in regards to the NPS/NPCA in the last section, so as not to imply that he's only important as far as the Wilderness Society goes. Should I lose it?
  • No, it's a worthy transition, but I'd prefer wording along the lines of: "His work to preserve wilderness in the United States has also endured." – Scartol • Tok 21:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to supporting this soon! – Scartol • Tok 19:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your help, Scartol, especially in fixing my sloppy prose. :) María (habla conmigo) 19:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that all of my concerns have been addressed, I'm pleased to Support. – Scartol • Tok 12:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images

  • Image:RobertSterlingYard.jpg - The description for this image says "Portrait of American writer and wilderness conservationist Robert Sterling Yard in Yosemite National Park, 1920" but the date says "unknown" - might we resolve this contradiction?
  • Hee, I love this picture, but I didn't upload it. Bear dinners (dumping food on the ground and letting the bear's chow down for the public's entertainment) and other similar shows were a big concern for Yard and other similarly minded conservationists. There's quite a good article about the early years of the NPS and its effect on bears in Yellowstone here (it uses the Albright w/ bears pic, in fact). Oh, and I requested that the image be moved to the Commons. :) Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 13:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Stephen Tyng Mather.jpg - Since this is a cropped image, it would be a good idea to upload the uncropped image as well and link it to the cropped image - that way we have both and the user can see the changes made to the image. This is done when images are restored, for example, so that the differences are always visible and a history of the image is retained. It is so easy to do and so helpful to future users! Awadewit (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Too bad more information is not available on this person, eh? He seems like an interesting guy. Perhaps there should be a way to flag articles for academics - OR can be done here in a major way! Please help us! :) Anyway, from the nomination statement, I take it that this article is as comprehensive as it can be, and I find it to be well-written and well-researched. It is too bad that the images aren't of a higher quality, but again, I'm guessing next to nothing is available on that front. Here are my nitpicks: — Awadewit 14:34, July 24, 2008 — continues after insertion below

  • Their numerous articles and publications became part of a movement that resulted in legislative support for a National Park Service (NPS) in 1916. - This is a bit awkward - "articles and publications"? "became part of a movement that resulted in"?
  • Changed to: "Their numerous publications were part of a movement that resulted in legislative support for a National Park Service (NPS) in 1916."
  • Yard, who believed that the primary purposes of national parks were spiritual and cultural rather than recreational, worked to promote the national parks and educate Americans about their use. - I find this a bit vague. What is the difference between spiritual, cultural, and recreational? These words are so amorphmous that I don't think anyone knows what they mean!
  • He opposed commercialism and industrialization of what he called "America's masterpieces", and his high standards (based upon aesthetic ideals) for proposed national parks caused discord with his peers - This is not very clear - what did he want? Perhaps a longer quote?
  • I reworked the first part of the paragraph, improving the flow (I hope): "Yard worked to promote the national parks as well as educate Americans about their use. Creating high standards based on aesthetic ideals for park selection, he also opposed commercialism and industrialization of what he called "America's masterpieces". These standards caused discord with his peers. After helping to establish a relationship between the NPA and the United States Forest Service, Yard later became involved in the protection of wilderness areas."
  • The United States had authorized three dozen parks and monuments over the past forty years, but there was no single agency to provide unified management. - Perhaps give the timespan - would this have been from 1870 to 1910ish?
  • Done.
  • The unprecedented press coverage persuaded influential Americans about the national parks - Persuaded them about what exactly? Something is missing here.
  • Added "about the importance of national parks".
  • We no longer have to link dates, so you might think about unlinking all of the dates. They are so unsightly.
  • I kind of like them... Done.
No need to speak softly. :) Awadewit (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to do a featured topic on The Wilderness Society? That would be awesome. :) Awadewit (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the plan! It should take, oh, about four years or so. :) Thanks for your help! María (habla conmigo) 15:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are more sources available, including his diary: over 80 items on Worldcat[15]. --Una Smith (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these "sources" are works written by Yard himself. Some are also archival materials, which means they are typically not available via interlibary loan. The diary in particular is in the archives of the New York Public Library. I can't say I plan on visiting NY anytime soon, so there's nothing I can do, I'm afraid. :) María (habla conmigo) 14:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those sources are not written by the subject of this article; they are about the subject. Re his diary, you might contact NYPL to request a photocopy. In my experience, libraries often do grant such requests. --Una Smith (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is worth writing to the library. Wikipedia articles are supposed to quote sparingly from primary sources, anyway (see WP:PRIMARY). This seems like a lot of extra work for very slim rewards. Awadewit (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39 of your 80 results are by Yard. 14 of the 80 are archival materials. An advanced search shows that there are 46 books that contain the exact phrase "Robert Sterling Yard". Of those, half of them were written by him and although the rest may mention him or even include a quote of his, they are not biographical in nature and therefore would be little help. Paul Sutter's book is one that I have used extensively for this article and it's very, very good. However, "Robert Sterling Yard: a living influence" by Benton MacKaye may be the only useful work listed, but it's available only from Harvard and no information other than the title and author are seemingly accessible from WorldCat. So trust me, all available sources have been tapped in order to write this article. María (habla conmigo) 22:46, 26 July 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 02:36, 8 August 2008 [16].

La Peau de chagrin

Nominator(s): – Scartol • Tok


Another of the ~100 novels in Balzac's magnum opus La Comédie humaine. Peer reviewed by Awadewit. Thanks in advance for your consideration. – Scartol • Tok 17:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Some things I noticed at first glance.
Thanks for your comments, Julian. – Scartol • Tok 21:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right-align images under section headers.
Assuming this is in reference to the Wikipedia:MOS#Images guideline, that refers to second level (===) headings. In Peau, I've right-aligned all such images, or placed them just above the heading itself. Please let me know if I've missed any. – Scartol • Tok 21:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I should have specified. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 750 copies of an octavo edition were agreed upon, with a fee of 1,125 francs paid to the author upon receipt of the manuscript – no later than mid-February. Avoid starting sentences with numbers.
Oops! Fixed. (That also remedies the icky passive voice, which somehow was used.) – Scartol • Tok 21:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"somehow was used" made me smile. Plasticup T/C 20:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I see it linked once in the lead and once in the body – which I've always considered standard practice. I've also linked the Revue de Paris and the Paris Observatory; perhaps one of these was at the start of a line and looked like just Paris? – Scartol • Tok 21:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've always tried to link things once in an article, but that's fine too. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the start of the book, the shopkeeper discusses with Valentin "the great secret of human life"[39] – three words, which Balzac renders in capital letters: VOULOIR ("to will"), POUVOIR ("to have power"), and SAVOIR ("to know"). Not a huge deal, but try not put dashes directly after footnotes.
Agreed. Reworded to remove dash. Thanks again! – Scartol • Tok 21:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object - Images were apparently never reviewed. :)

Wow, I was really sloppy. Thanks for checking up on these, A. – Scartol • Tok 17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Hdb 01.jpg - The source information for this image is incomplete (full citation, please!) and I'm not sure it is in the PD. The illustrator who copied the image did not die over 70 years ago.
Excellent. Still needs full source info, though. Awadewit (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added. – Scartol • Tok 20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:1830 ad 200.jpg - This is licensed under GFDL 1.2, but the site claims copyright over the prints. I do not think they can do this, however we need to figure this out. If anything, this is the wrong license for these images because the site does not license them under the GFDL license.
  • Many websites put a general copyright notice up for whatever original content they have in the design. My guess is that's in play here. I think you're right that they can't copyright the images; my understanding of this section is that the image in question (pub. 1830) is unambiguously in the PD. Since Grandville died in 1847, we can use {{PD-old}} – to which I've switched it. – Scartol • Tok 17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:George sand.jpg - This image is up for deletion. You might want to enter into that debate or at least look into it. Note that the reason for the deletion request is "this painting does not depict George Sand".
  • But does it need one? It is a photographic reproduction of the original painting at The Vatican, and as such can't be copyrighted. My understanding is that the source is only necessary for copyright purposes. – Scartol • Tok 17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Théophile Gautier by Bertall.jpg - Ideally, the uncropped version of this image should be uploaded and linked to this image so that users can follow the image's transformation. Also, describing the cropped version as "cropped" is a good idea, so that other users know the photo has been altered.

These issues can easily be resolved with a little attention. Awadewit (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 99 bottles of beer on the wall, take one down, pass it around, 98 bottles of beer on the wall. :) That's what I always think when I see another Balzac article. :) This article is well-written, well-researched, and well-illustrated (love the squiggle!). Here are my nitpicks:

Aw, you just like the squiggle 'cuz of Sterne. =) JK. Thanks for your comments. – Scartol • Tok 16:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Realistic detail also appears in the geographical descriptions of Paris: the novel is filled with actual locations, including the Palais Royal and the Notre Dame Cathedral. The narration and characters allude repeatedly to art and culture, from Gioachino Rossini's opera Tancredi to the statue of Venus de Milo. - This paragraph is just kind of hanging there. Could these two sentences be integrated into the opening paragraph on realism?
  • This is demonstrated in the book through the gambling house, the orgiastic feast, the displays in the antique shop, and the discussions with men of science. - Weak construction
  • I eat small potatoes for breakfast. =) (I actually did have tater tots this morning.) I changed it to: "In the gambling house, the orgiastic feast, the antique shop, and the discussions with men of science, Balzac examines this dilemma in a variety of contexts." Better? – Scartol • Tok 15:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The novel established Balzac as a genuine figure in the world of French literature. - Is "genuine" the best word? Perhaps something like "prominent"?
  • The publication information seems to be split between the "Writing and publication" section and the "Reception and legacy" section. I still feel like information is being repeated. Perhaps the last paragraph of "Writing and publication" should be cut and integrated into "Reception and legacy"? I hate to suggest this because "Writing and publication" is a complete section as it is - it flows so nicely! I feel like the deficiency is more in the first part of the "Reception and legacy" section which doesn't flow as well. If I had any brilliant ideas, I would offer them, but unfortunately I don't. Does anyone else?
  • I struck the paragraph about the Romans et contes philosophiques and how it was followed by the Nouveaux Contes philosophiques. It seemed important when I was first composing the article, but I think you're right in that it mostly repeated what was said earlier. (The Nouveaux info will be good to put into the LCH article when I finally get around to that.)
  • Not that anyone asked, but I think this problem is somewhat related to Balzac's obsessive work patterns – constant revisions and re-editions lead to a confused history for each book that doesn't fit neatly into the section headings we're trying to use. – Scartol • Tok 16:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My to-read list just gets longer. Awadewit (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd say this one is – with Le Père Goriot – one of his must-reads. Thanks again, A. – Scartol • Tok 16:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I added a missing non-breaking space. Most of them were in there, so I assume you know how to use them (which saves me looking up that WP:MOS link), but you might want to run through it again and check them. Plasticup T/C 20:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fantastic article. The writing is compelling. Couple of nitpicks/questions:
    • Is there bibliographic info for the book, like an ISBN #?
  • As noted in References, the 1901 English edition is OCLC 9435435. ISBNs were first issued in the 1960s. – Scartol • Tok 01:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Reviews from others, however, were also very positive." - I'm not sure "however" is used correctly here if the reviewers agree.
  • The "however" here contrasts with the fact that the earlier sentence refers to a review by Balzac himself. (ie: Even though the most glowing review was written by Balzac, others also agreed.)
    • "He probably wrote the following note in his scrapbook at the same time:..." - what is the "probably" referring to? that he wrote it, or that it was written in his scrapbook, or that it was written at that time? maclean 22:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Another Balzac novel brought to vibrant life by one of our best writers, Scartol. Although I know I need to find something to criticize (lest I seem totally useless!), it's honestly rather difficult with such a nice article. :) How about the following?
    • The occasional references to the painter Raphael, the protagonist's namesake, are tantalizing to one who loves his paintings. Is there more than a coincidental connection?
  • I've not found any explicit connection made, by Balzac or reviewers or critics or elsewhere. I agree that the connection seems obvious, but I didn't want to stray into possible WP:OR terrain. – Scartol • Tok 20:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not terribly surprised. Thank you for looking, I was just curious and imagined that other readers would be as well, Willow (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did Goethe really conclude that La Peau de chagrin demonstrated the incurable degeneracy of the French nation? Quel citoyen du monde! A little preparation for, or clarification of, that sentence would be helpful to readers, methinks.
  • Yes, apparently he did. I included the footnote: "Critics continue to argue about whether Goethe's comments were praise for the novel or not." Maybe I should move that into the article itself? – Scartol • Tok 20:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a rather shocking quote; can we add any more context? I guess I would add the "Critics continue..." sentence to the article itself; it's a relatively short paragraph and tempers its predecessor more immediately than a footnote would. Willow (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I also added a phrase of lead-in. – Scartol • Tok 22:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we get a transliteration or, even better, a translation of the Arabic? Does it come from the Arabian Nights, or some antique poem perhaps?
I agree that we shouldn't distract the reader; perhaps you could present the translation in an explanatory footnote? It's pretty cool. It's a pity that nothing is known of the source. I suppose the most plausible explanation is that Balzac wrote the quote in French and then had it translated and written out in Arabic calligraphy - oops, that's more WP:OR! ;) Willow (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I suspected, but I like your idea about him seizing it from somewhere else. If I ever find out, I'll let you know. – Scartol • Tok 22:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does Balzac really espouse the philosophy that someone powerless and poor but gifted with knowledge can be happy? Or is it rather a Platonic ideal of harmony, that all three are needed in proper proportion? Does Balzac suggest that knowledge, like wealth and power, demands its own price?
  • It's often difficult to figure out what he believed, especially since he often kept his true beliefs behind a wall of ego and "I'm a genius and you probably wouldn't understand me" obscurity. He apparently did feel that knowledge by itself can provide happiness – Balzac wasn't really about harmonic ideals. (He ate huge portions, worked for days without sleep, guzzled gallons of coffee, etc etc.) Though he didn't seem to feel that knowledge itself demanded a price, the story suggests that desire and power (the vouloir and pouvoir mentioned by the shopkeeper) did demand a heavy price indeed. – Scartol • Tok 20:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think your last point is made very well in the article, and it seems as though my other questions would carry us into WP:OR. I'll confess to being surprised, though, that Balzac didn't think so; it seems almost an archetype of literature that knowledge too comes with a price. Perhaps someday you can let me know whether his opinion changed in his later novels; I'm curious to know. ;) Willow (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given the fact that for much of his life he had no real power other than his considerable intellect and creativity (and will), perhaps it's not surprising that he saw knowledge as a complete good. I'm definitely planning to move into some of his later novels next, so I'll let you know what I can glean about all of this. (Although he really didn't return to these issues much in other novels; the Études philosophiques is a pretty slender section of LCH.) Thanks again for your generous consideration. – Scartol • Tok 22:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for another beautifully written article! :) Willow (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. – Scartol • Tok 20:51, 7 August 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 02:36, 8 August 2008 [17].

Midtown Madness

Nominator(s): —Giggy

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've worked on it for the last few months and believe it meets criteria. It's a rather short article on a racing video game, which despite positive reviews wasn't the most popular thing in the world, hence there's only limited information available on it. Anyway, I'm happy to make changes based on any comments here, so thanks for reading!

GA review: Talk:Midtown Madness/GA1
WikiProject Video games peer review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Midtown Madness

Cheers —Giggy 09:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "The game puts the player in a vehicle on the streets" I'm pretty sure that the player doesn't actually go in the car. Strange choice of wording anyway.
    • Reworded to "The game is set in vehicles on the streets..."
  • "internet" should be capitalised.
    • I always thought it was a common noun but it seems I'm wrong. Thanks, done.
  • Not sure how to interpret this one—criterion 2b specifies a system of heirarchical headings, yet this doesn't have one.
    • Hmm... that's a problem. I can't think of any other sections/subsections to add, do you have any ideas?
      • It's a strange one, so it will probably need someone more experienced than myself. I just remeber Bibliomaniac mentioning it at the first Melee FAC. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I may butt in completely uninvited: I don't interpret this to mean that there must be subheaders. If you don't have something to create a subsection on, there's no reason to create one, that would be an arbitrary requirement that doesn't add anything. The content is more important. I interpret the criteria to mean that content should be organized in a logical way, with any subtopics presented as such. Just my thoughts on that. delldot talk 21:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the player races against the clock". If there's a time limit, then state that. "Racing against the clock" is a little too informal for me.
    • Reworded to "the player must complete the course within a time limit".
  • "alter the in game weather" Hyphenate?
    • Done.
  • "Besides the change of environment, these alterations can affect the vehicle's performance." A technical one, but wouldn't the addition of rainfall make things more slippery, thus affecting performance?
    • Yes, that's what happens in-game - my reading of the sentence says this, are you reading it differently?
  • "Pedestrians are frequent throughout the city.[7]" Seems to appear randomly from nowhere. If you feel it's worth keeping, consider joining with the sentence referring to how traffic and police can be modified.
    • Removed; it's somewhat duplicated by something in the previous paragraph.
  • Not sure about my knowledge of vocabulary, but what makes "bins, parking meters, mailboxes, and street lights" novelty items?
    • Novelty isn't the best word; my point was that they are done as "eye candy" to make the game look good... knocking them over doesn't help you win races. Can you think nof a better word?
  • "which Clint Keith of Angel Studios said was the design team's favorite mode."" I'd question this statement's relevance; I don't see why such comments should be in "Gameplay" anyway.
    • I couldn't think of anywhere else to put it but it seemed like some OK trivia. Removed.
  • "Angel Studios, who at the time was attempting to sell Microsoft its 3D vehicle simulator. Keith notes Angel Studios were initially". Which one?
    • "Were".
  • If by "take up Microsoft on its offer" you mean "accept it", then write that.
    • Yes, I do mean that, so done.
  • "to reach the finish line before a faster car". "before a faster car" can be saved by writing "first".
    • Good idea, done.
  • "players can choose their car from half of the list of available vehicles" I don't understand—if all the cars are available, then why can the player only choose half of them? It might be just me, but I don't understand this sentence in general.
    • The other half must be unlocked; I've reworded to make this more clear.
  • "Furthermore, Angel Studios announced they were considering releasing a custom map designer, but this eventuated." Giggy, looking at these definitions, this isn't meaning anything to me.
    • Oops, should be "...never eventuated".
  • "IGN rated game's appearance highly" the?
    • Yep, done. Darn touch typing. :-)
  • "though generic looking portions of the city were noted." I'm not sure if "generic looking" should be hyphenated or not. This is a bit repetitive consider "noting"'s already used in the sentence. Finally, saying that something is noted means nothing, although I assume it is negative.
    • I'm not aware of that needing a hyphen. I've fixed up the other issues.
  • "third-person" is hyphenated in the WP article, so it probably should be here. Same for "first person".
    • Both are fixed, thanks.
  • "IGN described in-game narration by Marty Lennartz as a nice touch". "the" before "in-game". But mainly, I'm not sure about introducing such a concept in the Reception, as I thought that would have been mentioned first in "Gameplay". Apologies if I've made a mistake on this.
    • Fixed the "the". Not sure where I can put a mention of him in gameplay; ideas?
  • "pedastrians" Typo
    • Fixed.
  • What does the MobyGames link contribute?
    • Not much, removed.
  • For ref 15, I think a date is found if you click on the following page, in small red text.
    • Thanks for picking that up, added to the ref.

Okay; I'll have another look once these issues have been resolved. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps for your detailed review; I have replied inline. —Giggy 01:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some further discussion with Ashnard (as well as a reason for his not being able to support) at User talk:Giggy#Midtown Madness (permalink). —Giggy 10:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking. FiringSquad (about page) is cited frequently on IGN; examples [18], [19], more and GameSpot, eg [20]. Does that suffice for FiringSquad?
Still working on Sports Gaming Network. —Giggy 23:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC) (note: SGN done, see below Jappalang's massive post (thanks! :))[reply]
FiringSquad's (FS) various articles are used as references for the following books:
FS is also referenced in more than 30 scholarly articles,[21] including a European patent for a computer case.
Besides frequent mentions on Gamespot and IGN (as pointed out by Giggy), FS is also:
  • recommended for their AMD K7 550Mhz test report by Impress Watch's Akiba PC Hotline.[22]
  • quoted by Gamasutra for its comment on developers griping about the ballooning development cost of games.[23]
  • noted for its SimCity 4's review in Reason magazine's print edition article on games.[24]
FS is also partnering with market analysis firm Evolution Research to increase the reliability of online sampling of gamers.[25]
I believe the wide and many references to the site in printed and online material could be considered as vouching for FS staff's reliability on matters relating to the video games industry. Jappalang (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is clear, thorough, well written, and covers the subject fully with the information available. I can't suggest anything different for the article, so I give my vote thusly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • My comments based on this revision of the article:
    At a glance:

    • The article intro really shouldn't be three small paragraphs, two (or better one) should be enough since the article really isn't that long.
      • Hmm... would you suggest combining the first two paragraphs or something like that? I'm not really sure as to other things to do with it.
    • Overall if the paragraphs throughout the article were the size of the paragraphs in Reception the article would look a bit cleaner.
      • I've combined paragraphs in a few situations and will look to do more where possible.
    • Is that really all the reviews there are for this game?
      • That's all I've been able to find in reliable sources; as always if you can find others I'll try to use them where I can.
    • The image's caption could be shortened, and the image could be enlarged a bit.
      • Enlarged in terms of the uploaded file, or the display size of the the thumbnail? I trimmed the caption a bit.
        • As in the thumbnail on the article itself, just to offset the rather large amount of text.
          • OK, done.

    Upon closer examination:
    Intro:

    • "personal computer" doesn't really need to be spelled out, PC should be fine. Either way, personal computers embody a number of operating systems. Does this game run on Windows, Linux, etc...?
      • I clarified it to "Windows".
    • "As well as" → "Along with"
      • Fixed.
    • Is "Internet" really suppose to be capitalized? I personally treat it like a noun.
      • The Internet article has it capitalised even when not starting a sentence (ie. it's treated as a proper noun). I went by that.
        • Gotcha.

    Gameplay:

    Development:

    • "At the start of the game, players can choose their car from half of the vehicles available in the game—the others must be unlocked." seems redundant after the Gameplay section. Perhaps work this into the following sentence as a passing remark. The following sentence is hard to read and might need to be re-written.
      • Thanks, I made some changes as suggested.
    • "eventuated" → "happened"
      • That's a better word, thanks.

    The undercarriage:

    • The code looks solid, there are a lot of unneeded spaces that could be coded out without changing the way the page looks though. Seperating the different teplates at the top of the page would make it easier for other editors to see what they're doing.
      • Certainly not my strongest point, so you're welcome to make any changes you think would make editors' lives easier.

    All in all, the articles structure is solid, you did a lot with small amounts of information. There's only going to be nitpicking between here and FA status. Cheers. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much, I have replied inline in italics. Cheers —Giggy 08:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I've done some copy-editing, but it needs more. Some phrases remains obscure, for instance: "the game's non-player graphics were poor"; "other 3D entertainment areas, such as the Nintendo 64 console"; "considering releasing a custom map designer"; "unlock half of the cars available in the game". The prose is not yet FA quality. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I reworded the first three; couldn't think of a better wording for the fourth one at the moment. I'll give the article another fully copyedit (hopefully within 24h), hopefully that will alieve your concerns. —Giggy 05:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The phrase about the "custom map designer" is still unclear, though now I feel I have an inkling: you mean they were considering including an option for the player to design their own map? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done another full copyedit of the article, I hope this helps. —Giggy 14:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • A simple question: when was the game released? There's nothing mentioned in the body of the article itself, and the lead has the following (to me) nonsensical and ungrammatical sentence: "The game was released on April 30, 1999, and a downloadable demo on January 21, 2001." How was the game released two years before the demo?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by jbmurray (talk • contribs)
          • I was thinking exactly the same thing as you when I wrote the article; why was something labelled a demo released after the game? The only conclusion I could draw was that it was some sort of special edition release... in some cases a beta version of a video game will be released after the real thing as a collector's item of sorts. I haven't found any sources that deal with this indiscrepancy. I also reworded the sentence slightly. —Giggy 08:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Rather odd. In any case, there should be some discussion of the release in the body of the article; at present, there's none. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • It was already mentioned in the "Development" section (I didn't want to make a "Release" section with just that, and I've never seen a VG article with such sections (they mostly just keep the info in the lead)), I've added a bit more there. —Giggy 09:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • The problem is that the following paragraph is all off: "Midtown Madness was released on April 30, 1999. A demo of the game was released for download on January 27, 2001, featuring three vehicles (Mustang, Panoz Roadster, and City Bus), as well as all of the driving modes available in the full version.[12] The demo also included content not available in the final version, such as the ability to send billboards flying.[13] Numerous additional tracks and miscellaneous features were released for the full veresion on the day of the demo's release.[14] Angel Studios announced they were considering making a custom map designer, but this never happened.[15]" I think I introduced some of these problems a few days ago when I was copy-editing, as I presumed that the demo was an early version, and that there was then a subsequent final version. Can we get this straight? For instance, the original version (1999) had ten vehicles; the demo version had only three? Both version had the same number of modes? The (subsequent) demo added stuff with the billboards? What's with these "additional tracks and miscellaneous features"? (NB we have a tyop on that sentence, too.) And what's with the famous map designer, would it have been an add-on subsequent to the demo, that never happened? I don't understand... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • OK, wait, scrap all this. The dates are all wrong. I'm an idiot for not noticing this any earlier. I just realised that all the publication dates for the Computer and Video Games things were the same date; January 27, 2001. Why on Earth would they announce an upcoming demo at exactly the same time? [26]/[27]. With this in mind I checked some more old articles on that site, and found that in several cases, the publication date for stuff that should have been published pre-2000 was way off. I thus don't think those dates are reliable. I'm really sorry for the confusion and can't believe I never picked up on this before.
                    Anyway, I did some more searching, and found the demo was released on May 1, 1999 ([28]/[29]), followed by the real thing on May 27, 1999 ([30]/[31]/review published on that day). Modifying article accordingly. My apologies, again. —Giggy 00:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Now (hopefully!) sorted: [32]. —Giggy 00:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Needs work on the prose.

    • "Before a race, the player can alter the race duration or the in-game weather (which can affect their vehicle's performance). Additionally, Checkpoint mode allows players to"—Isn't it stronger without the hedgehog "Additionally"? And there's an "additional" further down that may not be necessary.
    • "The city in which the races are set is modeled after Chicago, and players pass notable landmarks such as the "El-Train", Sears Tower, Wrigley Field, and Soldier Field."—I had to hit one of those links to see that those landmarks are indeed in Chicago. I think you need to phrase it so the "and" connection is explicitly logical.
    • Do we need a link for "traffic lights"?
    • "LAN" is linked twice, not distant from each other, either.
    • Order of ideas: "The original idea behind Midtown Madness, according to project director Clint Keith, came to two Microsoft employees while they were "trying to cross a busy Paris street"." Try 2,1,3, rather than 1,2,3, and lose a comma.
    • "Keith notes that"—Unnecessary and laboured. Just remove it.
    • "Ultimately, however, they agreed, and"—Put "however" first and lose a comma ... or two.
    • "Gary Whitta of PC Gamer reported that the representation of the city was mostly accurate, though some landmarks were changed to improve the gaming experience." Ambiguous: you mean the change was on the basis of their feedback, or the real-life landmarks had been changed already?
    • "some" raises alarm bells with me. "though some landmarks". What happens if you just get rid of it?

    Who's the vid game edit guru? It's not a huge job, but attention to detail is required. Tony (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks so much for these comments Tony, I've addressed them. I think Deckiller is the guru; I'll contact him and see how busy he is. —Giggy 03:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Deckiller has gone through and done a fair bit of copyediting. —Giggy 23:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I ran through only the lead and the first half of the gameplay section; there's still work to be done, but at least it's a start. — Deckiller 18:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, we want to be proud of this, so the rest needs to be massaged. Please locate word-nerds from vid g. FA edit summaries on hitory pages. They're around, these people. Tony (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment by Sillyfolkboy: Maybe i'm being stupid but aren't full dates always supposed to be linked to let the software to the magic changy thing?
    • "To unlock the other cars, the player must win several races in a specific mode" Does this mean just one specific mode or various times in each mode?
    • Why does "World's Deadliest Police Chases" return so few google results? Is that the right name for the show? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nah, per recent WP:DATE changes date linking is optional and not recommended. The software only made those changes for people who set a preference, so for all non-logged in folk it would do nothing and get confusing.
      • I've reworded the statement you quoted.
      • I took the World's Deadliest Police Chases thingy direct from the source cited. The name also comes up here (IGN asks if the game will be like the show). I've never heard of the show but going by those two sources I assume it's real... —Giggy 05:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments (by BuddingJournalist)
      • "reviewers praised the gameplay, but publications such as Allgame and Total Video Games criticized the graphics." If these truly are notable "publications", shouldn't they be italicized. And if so, why aren't they linked. If not, why are they mentioned in the lead?
      • " Microsoft received permission from Volkswagen for the Beetle, and told IGN it was planning on using the Ford Mustang and F350,[11][12] both of which ultimately appeared in the game." Why is Microsoft telling IGN this information notable?
      • Is there a consensus/guideline on refering to reviewers by their publication name rather than their actual name? ("Gamspot approved of...") I assume these aren't all editorials.
        • It varies with different article; I usually go with publication name (authors are cited in the footnote, though), others go by author. I don't know of a strong consensus either way and am impartial to changing it if you have a strong argument one way or the other. —Giggy 08:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "city bus legitimately pulling out at a four-way junction can end your attempt instantly and tragically." How does this fit in with the sound descriptions of the rest of the sentence/paragraph? And what does "attempt" mean?
        • It doesn't - I've moved it up to somewhere where it fits in better. "Attempt" referred to the current race; I've noted that (does it work OK?). —Giggy 08:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "arguing that it felt as if cars "are often driving" Tense tension. BuddingJournalist 07:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - A racing video game. How did I miss this? Let me add some thoughts, keeping in mind that this is the oldest active FAC, meaning this will be shorter than most of my reviews.

    • Gameplay: "Players have a choice of up to ten vehicles" Ten can be given as a numeral, although editors differ on this. This number happens to be the typical cutoff point.
      • Yep, I generally spell out numbers up to and including ten.
    • "This is a capture the flag style game" Hyphen after flag?
      • Done.
    • Development: Corrections needed. The Beetle in the game was the New Beetle. Yes, I did look that up. :-) Also, the F350 should be F-350, with hyphen.
      • Both fixed; shows how little I know about cars!
    • IGN could use a link here. Other reviewers could also use links, including GameSpot.
      • Linked IGN; the others are linked in the reviews box and thus don't really need links in the reception prose.
    • Reception: "generic looking" needs a hyphen.
      • Fixed.
    • "PC Zone praised Angel Studios for avoiding gimmicks, but instead..." But isn't needed with instead.
      • Fixed.
    • I noticed a complaint above about "non-player cars". How about this: "However, it complained that cars not controlled by the player were lacking in details."?
      • I like it :-) Done.
    • "Total Video Games was critical of the setting; the review declared that cars "are often driving without noticing you at all."" Sounds more like an AI issue to this Gran Turismo 3 and 4 veteran. I can certainly relate.
      • The context, I believe, is that traffic (and sometimes opponents, but mostly traffic) will continue driving despite the obstacles that end up in front of them (such as power poles, police cars, or you). I suppose it is more an AI thingk, reworded accordingly.
    • Comma after and "fast and loose" would help break things up a bit.
      • Done.
    • "Reviews of Midtown Madness attributed most praise to its..." Attributed the most praise.
      • Done.

    Now a couple comments on prior issues: Back in 2001, people who play video games, like myself, were amazed that a city could be recreated in detail. To my knowledge, we weren't nit-picking every street corner like we do today. I do believe World's Deadliest Police Chases was a real show; it sounds like something Fox would have aired. That's it from me. 66.238.217.93 (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That was me forgetting to log in.logged in on the wrong window (I need multiple windows for FAC work). Just wanted to clarify. :-( Oh, and the police chase show is real.[33] I knew it was a Fox show. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks very much for your comments! I've replied inline in italics. And yeah, I was pretty impressed with this game's recreation back when I first played it, though I can't remember when that was... —Giggy 07:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After these changes, and one of my own (logical punctuation in a photo caption), I'm ready to support. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments and support! —Giggy 09:18, 7 August 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 01:14, 6 August 2008 [34].

    HMS Ark Royal (91)

    Nominator(s): Benea (talk)


    I'm nominating this article for featured article because after passing good and A class article reviews, and having been substantially worked on by a number of editors, I now believe this meets the required standards for a Featured Article. Benea (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as major contributor. I believe that the article is a good candidate for Featured Article status. The article comprehensively covers the ship's history from concept to sinking and re-locating, with all content reliably sourced and all major facts attributed with a citation. The article is stable, with the only forseeable changes being minor content, formatting, and grammar fixes arising from the FAC process and general editing. It follows the style guides for layout and formatting, with appropriate structure, illustrations, and size. I feel that the quality is at least on-par with other naval history FAs.
    However, I am most likely biased, as I have been involved in copyediting the article in order to reach this point (Benea is wholly responsible for the excellent content and research, and deserves all the praise. I just made the words pretty :P ), and this will likely influence my judgement. I am open to the idea of improvements to the article, and will happily help implement them. To that end, I will be replying to some of the comments during this discussion. -- saberwyn 07:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sabrewyn is far too modest! I had the easy (for me at least!) job of working the information in, and doing the sourcing. But without Sabrewyn's work this article would have rusted at GA class, as the final finishing touches are all his. Benea (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Sources look good, links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:07, 1 August 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 01:14, 6 August 2008 [35].

    Scottish National Antarctic Expedition

    Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk)


    I'm nominating this article for featured article. It is a sister article to William Speirs Bruce (FA 2 July 2008), and tells the story of his hugely successful but generally forgotten Antarctic expedition of 1902-04. This was carried out in the shadow of Captain Scott's Discovery Expedition, which got all the glory although arguably achieving much less. The article has been a GA sine May, since when it has been peer reviewed meticulously and further revised by the nominator. In my view it is ready for its FA baptism. Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - sources still look good, double checked them again after the peer review. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not quite yetSupport. I am pleased to see that Brianboulton has largely kept his opinions out of the article. Nevertheless, this half-paragraph is not neutral; it's a effort to correct the sources that offend him:

    It is typically confined to a passing mention or footnote, often with little regard for accuracy—Elspeth Huxley, in her 1977 biography of Captain Scott, dismisses the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition thus: "There was Bruce’s venture shortly to sail in the Scotia to the Weddell Sea; this, too, got trapped in sea-ice and returned without ever reaching land". Fiennes also stresses that Bruce "failed to make a landing on the continent", while mentioning none of his successes.

    Without this, it would be an excellent article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would welcome other views on this. Personally I don't think it is POV to point out inaccuracies in the remarks of writers commenting on this expedition. These inaccuracies arise from their lack of knowledge, which in turn derives from the low profile given to the expedition by historians, compared with the much-chronicled adventures of Scott and Shackleton. There is no question of my trying to "correct sources that offend" me; they merely illustrate the point I was making in the article. But, as I say, I am prepared to be guided by consensus. Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When an otherwise reliable source contradicts more reliable sources, and the choice between them is clear, that's (at most) cause for a footnote, lest the misinformation reappear. This is inappropriate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You folks clearly have some previous, and it would be helpful to me if you could re-phrase the above. Which is the "otherwise reliable source"? Which are the "more reliable sources"? What is the choice that is "clear". Sorry if I am being dim. Ben MacDui 17:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you're not being dim, I don't understand the comment either. Nor do I have any "previous" with PMAnderson. What I think it means is that the judgements of writers about the Scottish Expedition such as Huxley, which "contradict" other reliable sources, should be mentioned, if at all, in a footnote rather than in the text. Perhaps he will confirm or correct my understanding? Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite right. Now please consider doing it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. In the interests of consensus, and hopefully to move on from this specific concern, I have amended the article's penultimate paragraph. I have reworded to avoid any impression of partiality , and have transferred Huxley's comment entirely to a footnote. I've decided to leave Fiennes out of it, rather than labouring the point and extending the footnote. I hope this meets your concerns, also those of Ben MacDui. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More than. I'd have kept Fiennes myself, but you can't please everybody. Ben MacDui 08:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments by Ben MacDui 08:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Excellent work. My quibbles are as follows:

    1. On her way southward she called at Kingstown,[1] Funchal (Madeira) and the Cape Verde Isles,

    This might be better as: On her way southward she called at Dún Laoghaire, (then known as Kingstown), Funchal in Madeira and the Cape Verde Isles,
    On first reading I assumed that the route took her first to Jamaica, and I can't think of a good reason to have Madeira in brackets.
    The Dun Laoghaire connection was in the footnote, but I had overlooked possible confusion with Jamaica. So I've reversed the position: Dun Laoghaire in the text, Kingstown in the footnote. I've removd the Madeira brackets. Brianboulton (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    2. On 17 February the position was 64°18′S, and five days later they passed 70°S,

    Odd use of spaces before 'S' and in next sentence too.
    I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are querying here. Can you enlighten?
    In fact, its my browser (Firefox) showing what appears to be a space after the minute sign. Not your problem at all.

    3. "which the Union Flag and the saltire were displayed" looks like inconsistent use of capitals.

    Saltire should have been capitalised, and now is.Brianboulton (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But you may want to link to Flag of Scotland, thus: [[Flag of Scotland|Saltire]], which will not change the visible text; it will convey the perplexed to where they need to go. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. This has been done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    4. Its a very odd image of Gough Island, which I don't understand. The description says "View from the top of Gough Island." But the land in the background looks higher than the camera "View to the top of Gough Island"? Anyway it's a bonus to have a snap at all, and I don't expect you to visit and find out, but I don't believe you need to credit the photographer as that already exists on Commons.

    The image title "Gough Island top view" isn't mine, and isn't used in the article's text or caption. I have credited the photographer in accordance with his request on Commons, which seems polite. Brianboulton (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding of the procedure is that isn't necessary to do so here. I'm on a very slow connection at present and will look at this again later.
    Having looked into it I can see nothing obvious in MOS, and the best I can do is a description of the process by a knowledgeable Commons editor who says it should be attributed. Fuhgedaboutit. Ben MacDui 19:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    5. "It is typically confined to a passing mention or footnote, often with little regard for accuracy—"

    If you are alleging inaccuracy you should provide a specific example. Did the expedition reach land?
    The statement by Huxley contains two inaccuracies: that the expedition was "trapped in the ice", and that it "never reached land". Scotia was never trapped. During its Weddell Sea voyages it was briefly held on occasions, but avoided altogether being trapped, as the text makes clear. It did reach land, and wintered in a safe harbour at Lawrie Island. It performed a great deal of work on land, including the establishment of Orcadas weather station. It also discovered a new coastline in the Weddell Sea. All this is covered in the text. In view of these facts, I don't think it unreasonable to describe Huxley's remarks as "inaccurate". Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this dash correct?
    The dash has gone, as part of a slight rewording of the para. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is clearly some history alluded to above, of which I am ignorant, but I don't find the paragraph otherwise lacking (assuming the statements expressed are accurate).
    I think all the history you need is in the article as cited information. The lack of official recognition accorded to the expedition, Bruce's poor PR skills, the overwhelming impact of Scott and Shackleton, all contributed to a lasting general ignorance of the facts of the expedition. I have altered my text slightly, replacing the "often" in the above quote with "sometimes". Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't doubt that Huxley's tone is somewhat dismissive, but you could interpret her stated remarks to mean that the expedition did not make landfall on the mainland of the Antarctic continent and that her reference to being trapped is glib shorthand rather than wholly inaccurate. It is hard to form a clear opinion without reading the texts.
    OK, this point is also being contended by the first reviewer. See the discussion up there - I am trying at the moment to establish exactly where he/she stands. When this is clear, I will make a proposal which I hope will be satisfactory to all. Brianboulton (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. I'd be quite happy to support if we can resolve this issue. Ben MacDui 19:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see revised penultimate paragraph, also my response to above reviewer. I trust all is well now Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not yet looked at the references and will revert asap.

    I fixed a typo and wonder if there should not be periods at the end of nos 18 & 38. The first date in no. 55 is not consistent with the others, which are linked. Ben MacDui 17:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right about the two missing full stops, now added. As to the wrongly formatted first date in [55], this was my faulty use of the cite web template; the first date should be year of publication, not linked. Access dates are automatically linked. Thanks for spotting these small errors. Brianboulton (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am now pleased to Support. Ben MacDui 08:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: this isn't (really) supported by guidelines/policy, but if I may make a suggestion/observation: the penguin picture seems a bit out of place. 1) It's atypical to have two images as such in the lead section, 2) at higher resolutions (e.g. 1680 x 1050 and 1920 x 1200), the images stack causing Bruce and the saltire to be pushed downwards and (partially) out of their respective sections and 3) the image is nowhere near the prose discussing the "serenade". Can it be relocated? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The positioning of the piper image was raised at peer review. I defended its positioning in the lead then, because of the picture's totemic nature in regard to this expedition, but this is not my adamantine view. The image stacking problem you mention is not apparent on my screen (which is a bit wider than most), but I accept it must be an irritation to others. The logical place for the piper is the Second voyage section, where the event occurs. If I place it there, I will have to discard, or move, the Coats Land image already in that section, which is not long enough for two images. I don't want to lose Coats Land, which was an important discovery on the expedition. I could move it to the final section in place of Gough Island, which is less important and was visited after the Antarctic phase of the expedition was over. I will mull over these options for a short while. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You could have both: all you need do is put the piper on the left side of the page opposite the sentence in which he's mentioned; that should not sandwich even on a wide screen. Alternatively, you could move the ship, now in the lead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • My preferred choice, at the moment, is to leave things where they are. I certainly don't want to move the ship. I can't get a decent location for the piper in the Second voyage section unless I remove the existing image. If the problem identified by Elcobbola is a general one, I will do this, but I've yet to find that it is (see Ruhrfisch comment, below). Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I peer reviewed this article, felt it was essentially at FA level then, and find it has improved since. I must admit I did not have a problem with the former paragraph pointing out errors in other sources, but there is no chance of perceived POV as the article is now written. I also am in favor of the piper and penguin staying where they are - it is not a problem on the three different monitors I have looked at this article on. Would the use of {{clear}} help here? Well done article, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I also peer reviewed this article. It was great then and worthy of a star now. Just a couple of very minor quibbles...

    • "The major task completed during this time was the building of a stone building..." in the first voyage section. Maybe "...construction of a stone building...", or "...building of a stone shelter...", or anything that eliminates two "building"s in quick succession;
    • "Several of the original crew left during the Buenos Aires interlude, some through illness and one through a misconduct discharge.[16] Replacements were recruited locally,[16]..." Using two sentences to convey a single theme seems odd, especially when they share the same reference. I think "Several of the original crew left during the Buenos Aires interlude, some through illness and one through a misconduct discharge, and replacements were recruited locally.[16] Scotia left for Laurie Island..." would read better. --FactotEm (talk) 18:23, 3 August 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 01:14, 6 August 2008 [36].

    General aviation in the United Kingdom

    Nominator(s): FactotEm (talk)


    This article has received two detailed peer reviews: first, and second. All points raised during these have been addressed, and positive comments were made about its quality and suitability for FAC. FactotEm (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support: I was involved in both of the peer reviews. This article has been most thoroughly researched, is comprehensive and very well presented. My only criticsm - and the editors will sigh, because I've raised this before - is still with the fatalities table in mid-article. My understanding is that in cells where no figure is given, this is because the requisite figures are not available from the source, and "n/a" presumably means "not available". But n/a can equally mean "not applicable". To avoid confusion, therefore, I'd add a footnote explaining what n/a in this table actually means. It's a small point, but worth doing to avoid confusuion. All in all, however, this is an excellent article, well worthy of promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Made a sighless amendment to the reference, and the abbreviation is now footnoted. Thanks. --FactotEm (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support: I thoroughly enjoyed reading the article. I know very little regarding aviation, but I found this article very clear and detailed, but not crammed with confusing facts. Good job. Calor (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs) 16:46, July 27, 2008
    Deadlinks resurrected. Cite web is now cite journal (does it matter that the actual issue is not referenced? There is no indication online which issue the article originally appeared in). Ref 77 publisher information added to the ref.
    Rainair is the sole flying club operating out of Beccles airfield, and the page referenced provides references of its own. Does that answer the question? --FactotEm (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further to the above, Rainair is listed in the UK Aeronautical Information Publication (official source of info for licensed aerodrome facilities) as the aerodrome administrator. See item 6 here. --FactotEm (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have the date of the original publication, that's fine. Some journals don't do issue numbers per se. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The web site lists recent issues and their contents, and the article I've referenced comes from the July 2008 issue. I've added this info to the ref. Thanks. --FactotEm (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Excellent article: informative & well written. A couple of suggestions:

    • The lead section is a bit wordy. See the suggested reworking in my sandbox. As it stands, the first sentence reads more like a scholarly essay than a WP article: I suggest moving the CAA review reference to a footnote. I've changed one or two links, too, to make them more relevant (eg there was no point in linking the word pilot in glider pilot).
    • Speaking of gliding—how did you guess I was a glider pilot?—there's no reason to limit the discussion in para 2 of the sports section to international gliding comps: there are plenty of national & regional UK comps as well (& this is supposed to be about GA in the UK, after all).

    Please feel free to lift anything you want from my draft. Good luck! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PS Some of the 19,000 pilots who hold professional licences are also engaged in GA activities. Any idea how many? 1,000? 10,000? Or do you mention this somewhere else? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments. I've incorporated some of your suggestions into the article, but others I am not so sure about...
    • The definition is a tricky issue. There is no formal, agreed definition, and even the CAA varies (the regulatory review uses a slightly different one from the strategic review). To simply state that it "...is defined as..." is inaccurate, hence my qualification in the first sentence. You do have a valid point here, I just don't know how to get around it and still be accurate, and my preference is for accuracy at the expense of conciseness. Does that seem fair to you?
    • I want to keep "corporate aviation" as an additional descriptor for business aviation. This is because business aviation by itself might be confused for business travel on airlines, whereas corporate aviation has a better connotation of travel by business jet etc.
    • I have rejected your sandbox link to commercial pilots because it links to an article on the Commercial Pilot Licence. This is a specific licence, rather than a collective term, and excludes the other professional licence (ATPL).
    • I have edited the info on planning down a little, in a meet-you-half-way kind of action. I think that "...far from favouring..." can be construed as POV. It tends to imply that the planning system should favour GA. I also cannot exclude mention of the national significance of GA public transport operations, as you have done in your sandbox version, because this is a key issue in the sources and needs to be in the lead.
    You make a very good point about the focus of gliding sports in the article. My difficulty here is that the source only describes international competition. If you can point me to a reliable web source that describes nationally based glider sports (perhaps a glider club web site), I will happily change this section.
    Not to worry, found Lasham's web site, lots of useful info. Updating now. --FactotEm (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And all done now. Thanks for prodding me on this one. That paragraph was my least favourite, and now I think it looks good. --FactotEm (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally, no, there is no indication of whether a professionally licensed pilot is operating a GA or CAT flight. The data are simply not collected. --FactotEm (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Yes, I agree: the gliding section is much better & meatier now. If you want any extra details you could look at the BGA website; but you seem to have got most of the essentials already from Lasham. Thanks for going the extra mile.
    Re my sandbox suggestions:
    • First sentence. I'm sorry, but it just won't do as it stands. OK, by all means say has been defined rather than is defined; but For the purposes of a strategic review, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) really ought to be relegated to a footnote. My reason for saying this is that the casual reader coming to this topic for the first time just doesn't need to know all this: it's information overload! And there is, I think, a general principle on WP that the boldened topic of the article should come at the beginning of the first sentence. If you stand back for a moment from your close involvement in this article, I hope you'll agree that the introduction will be much crisper & read better if you follow my suggestion. Having said my piece, I in turn will now stand back & leave it to your judgment ...
    • If you follow the link to Lighter than air you'll see that, apart from a cursory mention of aircraft, it's mainly about gases. Fascinating, of course—but not all that relevant in this context. That's why I suggested the link to the (admittedly unfamiliar) term aerostat, which turns out to cover all lighter-than-air craft.
    • Re planning & POV. Don't you think that The planning process has become a mechanism for restricting aerodrome use sounds just a tad POV?
    Another sentence from the lead section which could be trimmed a bit: Although GA operates from more than 1,800 aerodromes and landing sites, ranging in size from large regional airports, through predominantly GA airfields, to informal farm strips, over 80 per cent of GA activity is conducted at 134 of the larger aerodromes. My suggestion: Although GA operates from more than 1,800 sites ranging in size from airports to farm strips, over 80 per cent of GA activity takes place at 134 of the larger aerodromes. Readers wanting more detail will find it in the Aerodromes section.
    All the best. My Support remains undiminished. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points all...
    • I think "...has been defined..." strikes the right balance between accuracy and crispness, and the issue is after all fully explained in the definitions section. Well argued.
    • Aerostat is of course a better link. I missed that change when I reviewed your sandbox.
    • Removed the POV from the planning statement. Good catch.
    • Agree with the aerodrome info, though I've retained the text "...large regional airports...". "Airports" alone is I think too vague in the sense of scale it conveys (I don't think I need point out to you the comparison between East Midlands Airport and Wolverhampton Airport).
    You have picked up on a number of points that I was already vaguely uneasy about, and pointed the way to a better solution. I appreciate your input. Thanks. --FactotEm (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. Looking very good now. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS The quote from the CAA strategic review in the opening sentence does need a footnote giving the reference—especially in light of the quotation marks. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point, but I really do not like cites in the lead. Because the WP:LEAD is fairly unequivocal about citing quotes, I've actually chosen to remove the quote marks instead. The text is still quoted and properly cited in the main body. Fair enough? --FactotEm (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. All the images seem to be in order copyright-wise, except for Image:Grid AstonDown.jpg. It is not clear whether the creator, Stephen Cook of the Cotswold Gliding Club, is the same person as the uploader, User:Ndsg. At least one other upload by Ndsg says it is by Stephen Cook and from the Cotswold Gliding Club website, although I was unable to verify the source. I've left a note for Ndsg, so hopefully this can be sorted out quickly.
    Also, the article seems undercategorized; it has only a single category, "Aviation".--ragesoss (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I found it difficult to identify any other relevant categories for what is a wide ranging subject. Would you consider, for example, the categories Aviation history, Air sports, and Airports in the United Kingdom as suitable for this article, i.e. the main sections within the article? If so, I can add the article to suitable categories for all main sections. --FactotEm (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Added to Categories:Civil aviation :Aviation statistics and :Aviation terminology, and changed the original category to :Aviation in the United Kingdom. These seem to represent the best selction in terms of the general nature of the article. Dropped a note on the reviewers talk page asking him to revisit his comments here in the light of this. --FactotEm (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've dealt with the query about the gliding image. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 08:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Very happy to hear that. It's an excellent image. --FactotEm (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me to be in the wrong place, however. Shouldn't it be attached to the Sports section rather than to Private flying (which makes no reference to gliding)? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. As a side note, it was not attached to Private Flying either. The selection and placement of images for this article proved awkward. As my starting point I wanted to illustrate as much as possible all the main types of aircraft and activities covered in the article, but the sections that deal with this info can sometimes barely hold a single picture, let alone the many that are required. The other difficulty is that images should not be placed directly under level 3 sub-headings. My solution is to place images at the beginning of the larger sections so that they stack right aligned throughout that section (this is the case for the Activities and Regulation sections). Where these images appear in relation to the sub-sections is purely a function of the viewer's screen resolution. Having said that, the Sports sub-section is (just about) big enough to accommodate two images, so the gliding comp and aerobatic aircraft images are now attached to that section. --FactotEm (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The position of the images now looks fine on my screen. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW I too, like one of the contributors to the peer review, feel a little unhappy with the section title Scale: it's not obvious from the ToC what it refers to (though that becomes clear enough when you get to the section itself). Would Scale of operations be better? Be that as it may, there still seems to be some overlap between Scale and Aerodromes (eg the number of aerodromes/airfields). Anyway, just how many aerodromes did GASAR identify?! You do point out, however, that "[t]he number of aerodromes that support GA in the UK is difficult to establish with certainty," which is fair enough.
    You might like to mention that there are some 85 gliding sites in the UK. The majority of these operate from gliding-only airfields, though some do share facilities with other GA activities. There's a useful clickable map of these sites on the BGA website. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. "Scale" seemed a perfectly adequate title, but I'm outnumbered now, and the ToC comment is a fair point. Changed to "Scale of the sector".
    • Subtle distinctions. The number of aerodromes analysed by the GASAR study is given in the Aerodromes section, and the purpose of this section is to characterise the nature of aerodromes used by GA. The number of aerodromes identified by the GASAR study is given in the Scale section, the purpose of which is to describe the size of the sector. I can't see any overlap.
    • I'm not sure about mentioning the number of gliding sites. Notwithstanding the suitability of a clickable map as a source for this figure, the article is a general overview of GA. With the exception of an additional footnote in ref#52 (intended more to explain the GASAR study than to identify the number of aerodromes in any particular segment) the usage of aerodromes is characterised rather than specified. --FactotEm (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine: it's your call. Ref 52 does however say Of the 687 aerodromes, 113 were used for glider, microlight, balloon and parascending operations which were nowhere described in detail, and could not therefore be included in the classification analysis ...—& my point is simply that roughly 85 of them are described (in detail) as gliding sites on the BGA website. But I certainly take your point that this article is about GA rather than gliding! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I right in thinking that this is not an issue that affects your support for this FAC? If so, I would like to take this to the article talk page rather than clutter the FAC discussion with what is, for the purposes of the FAC, irrelevant detail. If this issue does affect your support, we can continue the discussion here. --FactotEm (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    [outdent]Sorry, I must have got carried away. You're right, this isn't really an issue for the FAC. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Responded over at article talk --FactotEm (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    [Just to be clear, since FactotEm asked,] the concerns mentioned in the above comment seem to have been addressed, although I've asked NigelG to make the source and permissions of the Stephen Cook photo more clear on the image description page.--ragesoss (talk) 18:54, 5 August 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 01:14, 6 August 2008 [37].

    Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale

    Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk)


    As I said before, thank you to everyone who reviewed Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories. The article wasn't promoted but all the comments were useful and the article certainly improved as a result of the reviews. Hopefully, this article will meet with greater favour! DrKiernan (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments -

    Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Francois Velde is an amateur herald who lists his references: he indicates that the information on Albert Victor can be found in Neubecker, Otto: Heraldry: Sources, Symbols and Meaning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976. While Velde's academic work is in other areas (e.g. http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7306.html), he is a professionally-trained scholar, so I have always assumed him to be reliable. DrKiernan (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably borderline under WP:SPS. I don't have that work on heraldry, unfortunately. Does the College of Heralds or whoever it is that currently regulates that in the UK not have a site? And Albert Victor's not on the monarchy site? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My library has a copy of Neubecker's book. I've checked it and confirmed that the heraldic label given for Albert Victor is as shown on the Heraldica site (which is what the site was cited for). Consequently I've updated the article to use the book for this reference, rather than the website. Dr pda (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks from me too! All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • "born two months prematurely" → "born two months premature" as the premature is describing the "two months" and not the "born" if it's placed after it
    • remove the bold in "Prince Albert Victor of Wales from birth." as bold formatting should be used sparingly (usually only in the lead), and I don't think it's necessary in this case
    • "on 10 March 1864 by " – link the date; there are a few more unlinked dates. if you choose to link dates in the article then link them all
    • link the dates in the references per the above point
    • is there a ref for "A pair of alternative history novels, written by Peter Dickinson," paragraph?

    Gary King (talk) 04:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. I cleaned up a few unlinked dates, but otherwise found the article excellent in all particulars. Very well done! Coemgenus 13:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Per comment above (Dates unlinked) and this diff, Dr Kiernan has chosen not to link dates, following the recent change to the Manual of Style which made it optional. I've reverted your changes. Dr pda (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Current refs 77 (David Duff) and 95 (Alison Weir) appear to be to books, and give the full bibliographical information. For consistency with other book sources shouldn't these appear as author, page no. in the inline citation, with the full info in the references section?
    • The bibliographical information for the Alison Weir reference needs checking—it is lacking an ISBN; a worldcat search gives the title as Britain's royal families : the complete genealogy, i.e. the not a, and shows editions of 1989 and 1996, not 1999 as referenced (though of course there may be a 1999 edition).
    • Concerning ref 75 Official statement released to the press and quoted in many newspapers, it would be nice to have a reference to one of the newspapers.
    • Ref 80 (Mark Roskill) is the only place in the article where a citation template is used. I'm not sure if the 'consistency in citation style' requirement means this should be replaced by a manually-formatted citation or not.
    • The honorary doctorates and honorary colonelcies appear to be unreferenced. Dr pda (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Very well-done article. Two small issues:
      • "he was excused examinations" - I'm not sure what this means
      • "Much of Albert Victor's time was spent in drilling at Aldershot, which he disliked, though he did like to play polo." - I'm unsure if this says that he disliked drilling or Aldershot
      • "was a cover-up at the highest levels " - are there any details about the cover-up? This makes it sound as if there might have been evidence against Albert Victor if not for the cover-up, also, and I'm unsure if that is what is meant.

    Karanacs (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks!
    • It means he didn't have to take any examinations.
    • The drilling! Now reads: "Much of Albert Victor's time at his post in Aldershot was spent drilling, which he disliked, though he did like to play polo."
    • Changed to "none of the clients were ever prosecuted", also added "At the time, all homosexual acts between men were illegal, and the clients faced social ostracism, prosecution, and at worst, two years imprisonment with hard labour." DrKiernan (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I peer reviewed this and thought it was close to FA quality then and has since improved. My only quibble is that the last chapter of Fictional portrayals needs references (presumably full bibliographic info for the novels and story mentioned). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! DrKiernan (talk) 12:26, 5 August 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 05:27, 4 August 2008 [38].

    Anekantavada

    Nominator(s): Alastair Haines (talk)

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because Anish, has repeatedly expressed his desire to work this article up to FA standard. He has energetically sought several peer reviews and copy edits, welcoming direct improvements to the article and providing improvements as recommended in other cases. Additionally, Anish is keen to work other Jainism articles up to FA. The sooner we can assist him with top notch refinements, the sooner he can move on to providing the same quality co-ordination of sourcing and editing he has contributed to the current article.

    As for the article itself, first and foremost it is based on impeccable sources and refined to a readable, reliable, informative text, that is clear of POV or other issues. It has a very clear presentation of its sources, a fine bibliography in itself. Philosophy, history, criticism and even human interest are presented logically, appropriately illustrated and come in a text that has some rather long, but essential foreign terms. Altogether, it is an excellent example of an introduction to a topic for which quality English language text for the popular educated market is rare.

    Of course, no article is ever perfect. However, several editors have worked hard to support Anish' initiative. Our own limitations prevent us from providing further constructive criticism. So I am proud to present Anish' work, but request we honour him as he would like by offering our most searching constructive criticism. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Article stats:
    467 (465/2) Anishshah19
    66 (63/3) Alastair Haines
    34 (5/29) Qmwne235
    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Any particular reason for not listing User:Anishshah19 as a co-nominator? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Three reasons:
    1. Anish and his role is clearly stated in the nomination—he is the main contributor;
    2. to my understanding, he is consenting to nomination, rather than promoting his own work; and
    3. this is my first nomination of an article for FA, so I could be overlooking proceedural things.
    If there's anything inappropriate in this, surely it must be my incompetance, and not relevant to either Anish or the article. I tried to follow everything the FAC pages and tags told me to do, feel free to point out anything I overlooked at my talk page. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing wrong at all; just curious, because it's common for a main contributor to nominate their own work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Reply: Out of all the sites of Jainism, Jainworld.com is authentic, informative, comprehensive and popular web-site since 1997. It has faithfully rendered translations of many ancient Jain texts, literature, mythology, legends and stories. While there are hundreds of Jainism related sites, I have chosen to reference one item from Jainworld.com as it contains literature and writings of modern scholars also like Pt. Sukhlal Sanghavi, Pt. Hukumchand Bharil, Kanji Svami and like.--Anish (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if I'm also allowed to reply here, but I will anyway. Jainworld.com is recognized as a reliable source on Jainism within the Jain community. As Anish said above, it has accurate translations and commentaries on Jain texts. It is widely used by Jain temples in India, the U.S., and all over the world. --Qmwne235 19:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: Sacred-texts.com is a site that strives to produce the transcriptions of public domain texts on the subject of religion, mythology, folklore and the esoteric. The texts are posted for free access on the Internet like a public library. It has faithfully posted and reproduced the translations of Acaranga Sutra and other Jain canons by the noted German Indologist Hermann Jacobi. One of the reviews of this site is posted here that you may like to go through - http://www.mouthshut.com/review/Sacred-Texts.com-89518-1.html --Anish (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Otherwise sources look good and links checked out with the link checking tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the reliablitiy of the non-english sources Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope this satisfies your query. If so you may support this nomination.--Anish (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliability of these sources still unclear; see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for how to go about addressing these queries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Reply: I have corrected the dating format as suggested. The website contains the following information: Ron Huntington, former professor of religion at Chapman University and co-director of the Chapman University Albert Schweitzer Institute, was preparing a textbook on world religions at the time of his death. A chapter of the textbook was to introduce Jainism, the religion from the Indian subcontinent that stresses ahimsa, radical non-injury or nonviolence, as a way of life. On account of the probable influence of Jainism and the ethical principle of ahimsa upon Schweitzer and his ethic of Reverence for Life, the chapter prepared by Ron Huntington is reproduced here. So I guess, the publisher would be Chapman University. --Anish (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comments not a field I am an expert in but I will note some places for improvement:
    According to anekāntavāda, truth and reality are perceived differently from different points of view, and no single point of view is the complete truth - to avoid repetition --> 'according to its doctrine' ()
    Proponents (of anekantavāda) apply this principle to.. - can lose brcketed bit without losing meaning
    Philosophical overview section I'd rename Philosophy or Tenets - that it is an overview goes without saying
    I will do some straightforward fixes but am clueless over comprehensiveness. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support – After going through the article, I am of the opinion that this article should be a featured article. It has good prose, impeccable scholarly references and explains the concept of Anekantavada in a very clear and lucid manner. It has already been rated as a Good Article. Overall, it is an excellent article and if it passes the vote, it will be the first article on Jainism in this category to do so. --Manish Modi 13:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish Modi (talk • contribs)
    • I strongly support the nomination. The article is thoroughly researched and very well written. I hope to add something to it but after a while. I think this should be a very interesting article not only for those who are interested in Jainism, but also those interested in exploring pluralism. Anish has done great work on it.--Malaiya (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - It meets all the criteria, so there is no reason not to move it up. The article has come a long way, and now has enough information for even an expert on the subject to learn something. All of this information is supported by specific citations. To borrow and summarize from WP:WikiProject Jainism/Assessment:
    A featured article should be:
    • (a) well-written (although there may some minor grammatical or stylistic errors, one would have to actively search for these to find them)
    • (b) comprehensive (this article includes information not only about anekantavada itself, but also about related principles, criticism, history, and those influenced by it)
    • (c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; (the citations provided are mostly of important Jain scholars or those who are otherwise familiar with the principles of Jainism)
    • (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; (although one may perceive a bias if one overanalyzes the article, the criticism section nicely balances the article out)
    • (e) stable (no major edit wars have taken place)
    • (f) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections (the lead is very well structured; it is concise and comprehensive)
    • (g) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help); (yep)
    • (h) consistent citations (always footnotes here, with references below)
    • Images. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. (yep)
    • Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. (about as long as most FAs, maybe even shorter, but is still comprehensive without unnecessarily meandering; every section pertains directly to the doctrine)

    However, the article could use a little help from a proofreader who can make sure the article adheres strictly to the technical aspects of WP:MoS. I'll go through it again to try to smooth out any stylistic flaws that may still exist. --Qmwne235 19:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • SupportComment by Ruhrfisch I peer reviewed this and am delighted at how much it has improved. I still have some concerns about the article that need to be resolved before I can support it here. I also note that I made some minor copyedits just now ("stand point" and "stand-point" are now all just "standpoint", same for "viewpoint"), and many more refs now follow puntuation without a space, but I am not sure all such nitpicks have been caught. Here are some of my concerns:
    • According to Wikipedia:See_also#See_also "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 and common sense." All three "See also" links are already linked in the article and may not be needed here.
    The see also section has been changed, trust it is more relevant now. --Anish (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to Wikipedia:MOS#Quotations, "Block quotations A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation, ..." There are many short block quotes used that seem to violate this (the dialogues are fine as block quotes as they are more than on paragraph)
    Standardised the block quotations. --Anish (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The formatting and referencing of block quotes is not consistent. For example this identifies author and source in the text, has a ref, and then repeats this in small text after the quote:

    "Ācārya Divākara further states in Sanmatitarka:[31]

    All doctrines are right in their own respective spheres – but if they encroach upon the province of other doctrines and try to refute their view, they are wrong. A man who holds the view of the cumulative character of truth never says that a particular view is right or that a particular view is wrong.
    —Ācārya Siddhasena Divākara, Sanmatitarka 1:28"

    While another block quote is just followed by a large type "5.113" (I assume this is chapter and verse?).

    "Māhavīra encouraged his followers to study and understand rival traditions as demonstrated by Acaranga Sutra:[43]

    "Comprehend one philosophical view through the comprehensive study of another one." - 5.113 "

    Other quotations from Jain writings do not include any X:Y numbers. These need to be consistent throughout.

    Standardised the quotations, author, text, verse format. Certain texts like Acaranga etc do not have authors as they are canons and not attributed to a single person. --Anish (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Formatting of references is not consistent. For example Ref 1 just uses the author's last name (Dundas), while others like ref 2 use last name, first name (Koller, John M - later he is just Koller, John in ref 48). This is followed for Indian names in ref 4 (Jaini, Padmanabh), but ref 9 gives the name in regular order (Duli Chandra Jain - this is an editor).
    • I have no idea what ref 5 means, it is just "so Monier-Williams"
    • Ref 26 is to an unpublished manuscript, but WP:RS stipulates reliable sources must be published.
    • I have no idea what ref 32 means "E. B. (2001) p.2093" If E.B. is Encylcopedia Brittanica, I do not think that is the best source to use in any FA.

    In short, the refs need some work, mostly polish, but a few more serious problems. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone has fixed all the references, so after a little bit of polishing, those will be fine. I agree with you regarding the See also section; all of the topics in it were linked prominently and discussed earlier in the article. As for the block quotes, many of those involve rather strange circumstances, so I'll leave those for someone more skilled with MoS quotation guidelines. --Qmwne235 02:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the update. I am also not an expert on MOS quotation guidelines, but it seems odd at least that different quotes have such different styles, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I struck resolved refs. There is still an unpublished work cited, although it is a duplicate ref in each case and contravenes WP:RS. I also note that this "Acarya Siddhasena Divakara. in (ed.) Bhadrankar Vijaya Gani: Vardhamana Dvatrimsika. Jaipur: Prakrit Bharti Academy." is missing a date. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done both of them--Anish (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think most of the Ruhrfisch’s concerns have been resolved. --Anish (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Except for some very short block quotes, which I will assume are OK, all of my concerns have been met. Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The image should not be a problem as the licensing seems to be okay. This image is also used in the article Adi Shankara which is also a “featured article” --Anish (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is whether the website owner actually created the image or just scanned it from somewhere. --NE2 16:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether it is used in another featured article is not relevant; we need to get this cleared here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not an expert in Images and licencing. Prima facie the licencing seems to be ok. Evidence has been emailed and lodged with the Wikimedia PR department. I dont know what more I can do about this. Can anyone help?--Anish (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments. I haven't had time to read the article in depth. The concepts and terminology used are completely foreign to me, which made digging into the article pretty difficult. I read the philosophical overview section and skimmed the rest for now.
      • The philosophical overview section offers very useful information, but I think it's focus might need to switch a bit. After the intro to that section, the information is presented in terms of Jainism rather than in relation to anekantavada. For example, the section Jain doctrines of relativity could be reworded to be "Anekantavada is one of three Jain doctrines of relativity used for logic and reasoning. The other two are...". It's the same information, just worded a bit differently so that the focus remains on the subject of this article.
      • This did not make sense to me until I thought about it a bit. "Syādvāda is the theory of conditioned predication which provides an expression to anekānta by recommending that the epithet Syād be attached to every expression" - can we simplify the sentence or begin with a simpler explanation?
      • There are a great many quotations, and I wonder if the article would be better if, in some cases, the meaning behind the quotation were explained and the quote left out. (In some cases the meaning is explained and the quote is added in...just because?). I have not read the article extremely closely, but on a skim this has a vaguely proselytizing tone.
      • WP:MOSQUOTE says that quotations of less than 4 lines should be inline and not offest with blockquotes

    Karanacs (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I really appreciate Karanacs' comment, because he addresses complexity respectfully, by pinpointing what needs more (or better) explanation, and even by offering suggestions. I'm intrigued by the "vaguely proselytizing tone" comment and can see how quotations in articles may be understood in this way. My own impression is quite different though. I'm from a different religious tradition, but personally felt the quotes gave substance to the criticism Jainism would direct at other traditions (including my own), rather than feeling editor(s) were seeking to make such comments via the quotes. As such, I found the quotes increased my sense of NPOV rather than suggesting a Jain POV for the article.
    The more abstract the content of quotes, the more I prefer quotes to editorial paraphrase. The doctrines covered in this article are sometimes quite abstract, and although I'd like explanation, I'd like such interpretation from experts. Just where Wiki needs to draw the line on such things in featured articles is probably pretty inexact. So long as existing quotes are at least retained in footnotes, I'd not oppose changes along the lines Karanacs suggests. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: I welcome Karanacs’ valuable comments and suggestions for improvement of the article. I have made certain changes as suggested by her and I also agree with Alastair’s reply to her. Jainism is not a proselytizing religion and the quotations from the scriptures were felt to be necessary to provide a better understanding to this concept of anekantavada. Maybe she found it a bit proselytizing as she has just not found time to read the entire article. To balance out, there is a section on criticism and in “intellectual Ahimsa” section, opinion of John Cort and Paul Dundas (both are indologists and Sanskrit/ Prakrit Scholars) have been taken to balance out that view. I hope that she is satisfied by the changes and reply.--Anish (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anish and Q need to disclose that they're major contributors. Tony (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose until properly copy-edited throughout; can you find someone fresh to it? Here are random examples from the top.
    • "differently from different"
    • "claimed to explain"—see Fowler on "Jingles"
    • Move "only" to as late as possible in a clause: "others are only capable of partial knowledge". Where should it go?
    • "that clings too dogmatically to its own tenets"—So it can cling dogmatically, but not too dogmatically? I'd remove "too". After all, what is "too", here. Fuzzy boundary.
    • "The word anekānta itself is a compound of"—spot the redundant word.
    • Full-stop to semicolon before "Hence", in the first section.
    • Consider adding a comma: "According to Jains, the ultimate principle should always be logical and no principle can be devoid of logic or reason."
    • "Thus one finds in the Jain texts deliberative exhortations on every subject, may they be constructive or obstructive, inferential or analytical, enlightening or destructive." MOS breach in the use of "one" (who is this "one"?); just make the statement. I'd insert a comma after "Thus", but that's up to you. "may they be" is ungrammatical; you mean ", be they ..."
    • MOS breach: please read about captions, which should not have the final period if they're not a complete, formal sentence.
    • Rather long blockquotes. Check to see whether they can be trimmed down with the use of [square-bracketed bridging text to save lots of words], and ... ellipsis dots to indicate omissions of text that we don't, strictly speaking, need. It's not a deal-breaker, but they do seem lumpy. I sort of want to know who the translator was, if possible. For example, was Sharma's book written in English? If so, did he translate the original Sanskrit?
    • "in some ways it is and it is indescribable"—easier to digest if you put a comma after the first "is". It's translated, so you have the right to do this. Same for the analogous phrases there.
    • Third- and fourth-level titles really are almost indistinguishable (yet ANOTHER issue WikiMedia needs to address). How about making the Syadvada et al titles fifth-level; see if the hierarchy is clearer. Tony (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I really like Tony's comments, they clearly express insights into the text that eluded me.
    However, I also disagree with several of them: I prefer only in its current position over the alternative; degree of dogmatism simply is fuzzy in Jain descriptions of the doctrine; I prefer stops to semicolons as a general rule.
    Mind you, I think "claimed to explain" is a nice catch, and agree with the suggestion to supply a comma (see above).
    The point here is that I'd encourage Tony to make some of these changes directly. Even where I disagreed, I'd probably not bother reverting them. Some questions are simply matters of taste, there's no objective way of settling them.
    On the other hand, several copyedits have already eliminated some distinctly convoluted, unclear, redundant and even POV text.
    But the way forward here is clear. So long as anyone claims the text isn't stylistically up to par as they see it, we can action this by recruiting yet another copyeditor, and hence yet another opinion. That's all to the good. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I found Tony's comments very helpful and have followed some of his suggestions. As I have been a major contributor of this article, I have not "voted" on this pages. Q, I believe is not a major contributor, but his comments were very valuable to improve and remove misunderstanding on the article. I did some of my own copy editing also to enable greater understandability of this article. I have requested user ukexpat to do more copy editing and hope that Tony's oppose will be turned in "support". Thanks.--Anish (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Some sections (notably "Intellectual ahimsā and religious tolerance") need to be put into prose. NB that quotations of less than (roughly) three or four lines long should not be indented. Also, the bibliographic practice of putting component works under the text in which they're collected (e.g. Ahimsā, Anekānta, and Jaininsm) is at best idiosyncratic. All works should be listed alphabetically by author. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Three different editors (myself, Karanacs, and jbmurray) have now pointed out that block quotes are used incorrectly here. Please put quotes shorter than three or four lines back into the text of the article. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have done it for those quotes that were of two lines i.e. less than 3 lines. Actually I was waiting for someone more expert to make changes as I did not want to commit a blunder again. I was also checking other featured article as to how they have given a treatment for quotations. For eg. William Tecumseh Sherman and still am confused as to its treatment. But, I hope now its Ok.--Anish (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: I can't see any outstanding issues regarding reliability of sources, they were always a strength, the two E.B. refs and the unpublished manuscript have gone. Image licensing applies to one image, and I have seen discussion on talk pages regarding this. It appears permission was granted by the image owner at one point, but then not considered sufficient by a Wiki review at a later point. Still, that review did not choose to "speedy delete" the image. It would be nice if someone who knows more about this could inform the rest of us who watching this page. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I have found another copy of the image. Looks higher resolution to me. To be honest, it also looks like it could well have been scanned from a book. Which book? Who is the artist? My recommendation is that we replace this image with another. I suspect Anish could locate another image and seek permission from its publisher faster than we can discover the "copyright chain" for the current image. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Alastair, the concerns on references and formatting seem to have been sorted out. Also the concerns of tony have been addressed on copy editing. I also am a bit taken aback by the concerns on image of Adi Sankara. I relied on the fact that it has been on wikipedia for last two years and is a part of a featured article, which, I assume would have also undergone a detailed scrutiny. And also, I assumed, if the concerns would be raised or else this image would have been deleted long back. Nevertheless, all the concerns ought to be addressed and there is another image, [39] which can also be used, if the licensing is clear on it. The editors can provide some suggestion on the above. --Anish (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per image concerns:
      • Image:Mahavira mahabirji.jpg: The BBC seems to think this image is copyright of JainWorld. The image claims (implicitly) to be self-made, but is of web resolution, lacks metadata and is from a drive-by uploader - meaning limited (>50 edits) contributions. Can the discrepancies be resolved? (Quack?)
      • Image:Gandhi studio 1931.jpg is claiming p.m.a. 70+ years. It was taken in 1931, which means the author would have to have died within 7 years of taking it; claiming p.m.a. 70+ in this case requires quite a leap of faith especially when the author is claimed to be unknown! I would buy this if the image was taken in 1831, but this PD claim has absolutely no reasonable support.
      • Image:Adi Shankara recoloured.jpg: The source does not confirm the PD claim. Even if it did, it seems quite unlikely that the webmaster would be the original author/copyright holder (especially in the light of Alastair Haines' comment above). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm beginning to feel sympathy for poor Anish here. This would be funny if it weren't for the delays in accepting his hard work with the text content of the article for the great contribution that it is.

    What tickles me is the "unreliable source" Jainworld turns out to be a substantial enough entity for the BBC to acknowledge to hold the legal right to grant them permission to copy an image. ... Man, did that come out of left field! I can just see someone knocking on my door next week and offering me a magazine with that picture of Adi Shankara on the front!

    And then, I really take Sandy's point, not only can images on other FAs not be trusted, even featured images cannot be trusted either! Gandhi is a featured image at Turkish Wiki ... tesekkur ederim!

    From the FAQ Sandy mentioned, "Q: Did you write all this stuff? A: No. Most of it was written by dead people, a long time ago." Yup, that's not reliable. Dead people don't write, not now, not even a long time ago. Depending on what you believe, they have better things to do than writing ... hmmm, does a wiki editor believe there is anything better than writing?

    But to be more constructive. UK copyright is different to the US, doesn't Mahavira come under 2D image of PD art? Let's do it that way? Problems? And/or let's kill two ducks with one stone and check with Jainworld: ask permission for GFDL, and for some other credentials while we're at it. It's 2am here, I'd better sleep. Hopefully someone will rescue some of this while I'm away. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hrumph!

    • Citing a copyright holder is not indicative of reliability; anyone can hold a copyright on a self-created image. Giving proper credit is, if anything, only germane to the reliability of BBC.
    • I hate to quote Reagan, but "trust, but verify" is good advice. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and, consequently, should not be trusted in the absence of verification (e.g. reliable sourcing). Other FAs and/or images therein were not necessarily properly vetted.
    • Mahavira is not a 2D object (U.S. Bridgeman v. Corel would not apply). Even if it were, U.K. has decisions and opinions (e.g. Interlego v Tyco; Hyperion Records v Sawkin; Laddie, Precott and Vitoria, 2nd edn; Copinger & Skone James 15th Edition; Michalos, The Law of Photography and Digital Images, 2004) which set the threshold of orginiality rather low (e.g. choice of filters, angles, lighting, etc. may be enough to warrant a new copyright). You're correct that contacting JainWorld would be a good route to take. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The way I see it, some objections have been raised on two references – Jainworld and Sacred-texts.com. These objections were raised before by diligent editors and then resolved to their satisfaction. Now more mavens have chipped in and repeated these resolved queries as apparently these two references still don’t “inspire confidence” and hence again we have been called upon to give more additional testimony that will “inspire confidence”. I was looking for contstructive comments and contributions, but then……… so be it. I know every one cannot be satisfied and I dont intend to, but here is one more attempt.

    • Let us tackle sacred-texts first by taking help of google scholar and google books. Many scholars and authors have thought it fit to quote and refer Sacred-texts.com. A search on Google Scholar here [40] gives a number of “284” and Google Books [41] gives a number of “251”.
    • Jain world.com – Prof. Yashwant K. Malaiya of Colorado University has compiled a list of authoritative websites and Jain world is listed under two categories – supersites (extensive articles and books) and Advanced sites (excellent source for scholarly books and article). Check here. [42] This sort of objection can go on and on and I have my limitations on replying to the same query repeatedly.
    • As far as images are concerned, we can correspond with jainworld, but I think it will be of no use. Because, even after contacting Jainworld, some hotshot may have additional barrage of objections which will go to infinite regression of questioning the source of the source of the source. If one were to question the validity of images in “featured articles” or featured images itself, then there would be no dearth of objections from hotshots who consider it their moral duty to raise all sorts of objections. If that be the case, then more than the half of the featured articles need to be down graded simply because of the “image issue”--Anish (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • These objections were raised before by diligent editors and then resolved to their satisfaction. If you can point me to where those discussions occurred, I will review them; on this FAC, reliability of sources hasn't been addressed or resolved. Ealdgyth raised the concerns and has not stuck them. Also, a link to google scholar doesn't directly answer WP:SPS concerns; please see the Dispatch for examples of how to answer the query. The sources may very well be reliable; we just need for you to give us the info to verify that they are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have addressed these issues before and now once again I have done it. The straightforward question was - "what makes" Jainworld and Sacred-text a reliable source? Anyway I thought it was a straight forward question. So I gave a straight forward answer on what makes it a reliable source. I can take the horse to water, but I can't make it drink. If one group has pre-decided that they are not going to be satisfied by whatever explanation is given, I simply cannot help it. Just look up the explanation that I have given to Ealdgyth and then once again to you. And try to understand it - what makes it a reliable source. I was hoping for something constructive and not road blocks. But so be it. I have given it my best shot. If some who has supported this nomination can reply to this query is a different manner and language that Sandygeorge and group can understand, please give the reply in that manner maybe this nomination will not fail due to so called outstanding unresolved queries. Or else we can just forget it. --Anish (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok...let me once again go through the Dispatch to see what seems to have been still missed out that has not yet inspired confidence.--Anish (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t know whether those objecting on “sacred texts” have taken adequate efforts to check and verify the references quoted. What I have basically quoted is not sacred-text.com but Hermann Jacobi’s book, edited by Max Muller i.e. Sacred Books of the East published by Oxford Clarendon press. Now, since the copy right for the book has expired and it has been scanned and put up on “sacred-texts”, I thought “why not give a link for sacred-texts.com for easier verification.” Check this page [43]. I could have easily avoided the linking. If the link of the sacred-text is causing agitation, I can simply remove the link for sacred-texts. The reference for Jacobi will still remain the same (as the book is the reference) and there will be no changes in the article, only the link for the bibliography can be removed. --Anish (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As for Jainworld.com, I have checked the dispatch and in my opinion - although the dispatch does not seem to be part of the Wikipedia mandatory rules – Jainworld does not seem to be contrary to these guidelines. It is neither a blog or a forumpost nor a self-published articles nor usenet postings, nor having a “highly commercial feel” nor a fan contributor site. Secondly I have already posted the view of Prof. Yashwant of Colorado University who says that it is an excellent source for scholarly books and articles as per the link above.--Anish (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I like the points of the last poster (Anish?). I can see an argument for not linking to Sacred Texts, since its text uploads are not professionally edited. However, nor are the uploads at Project Gutenberg, the Internet Archive or Google Books. On balance I'd go for keeping the link, but if it's the only outstanding objection other than images, I can see light at the end of the tunnel here.
    I'm glad to hear someone (Anish, I think) continue to stand up for Jainworld. I think there's a cultural issue here. As a westerner, I do think Jainworld has a "highly commercial feel", but that's with my cultural blinkers on. My experience of South-East Asia, and India, while not extensive, certainly suggests "commercialism" is more pervasive in these cultures. I think, once again, it is not the reliability of content that is really at question, but a western scruple (and a wise one) regarding linking to sites with a "commercial feel". Clicking on links at such sites can download adware (I think). This is one reason quality western sites avoid any actual advertising, and often even the appearance of advertising.
    I think this is an important issue for us to resolve, and plead for "cultural sensitivity". Jainworld is probably a very responsible site operating in the Indian economy. Indian sources are obviously ideal for Indology, and Jainworld for Jainism in particular. I'd like for Wiki to listen to Professor Yashwant on this matter. Perhaps a short article on Jainworld could help give readers a collection of sources that help verify its reliability. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I use some old local histories that are available in libraries or as expensive reprints or online on genealogy websites (which by themselves are perhaps not reliable). When I cite them, I give the full book information (the current Jacobi refs are missing this), the ISBN for the reprint, and the web link to it. See for example ref 6 in Larrys Creek. Perhaps the Jainworld and Sacred Texts books could be cited in a similar fashion? Just an idea that hoepfully helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good to me. Three issues: reliable source identified clearly, accessible copies located if possible, integrity rating of copy indicated if questionable.
    Here's Ruhres example:
    Alastair Haines (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I like Rhur's advise. It can be done. But only for sacred-text, not for Jainworld.com. I suggest that we delete all references of Jainworld and the corresponding paragraphs from article. Hopefully this will address all the concerns on reliability.--Anish (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the problematic Jainworld and applied Ruhr's idea and changed the references. I now trust that the problems of references have been resolved.--Anish (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, now that the issue of images is hopefully at least mostly resolved, it's time to move on to other things. I still see some rather short block quotes that should be taken care of (see "Early history" and "The parable of the blind men and the elephant", specifically). I'm hesitant to mess with them myself, as I'm not an expert on MoS, but they need to be fixed. I think the citation issues have mostly been fixed. Some copyediting work still needs to be done; I just fixed a few rough sentences, and there are bound to be more. I think that unless something else arises, MoS issues like sentence flow and block quotes should take top priority. --Qmwne235 22:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick look at the article now indicates that the problem of block quotes and MOS seem to have been resolved by Qmwne and Alastair. The number of quotes seem to have been reduced by more than a half. I dont think there are any copy edit or grammatical issues. And with removal of Jainworld and correcting of Jaconi references, Sandygeorgia's concerns too seem to have been hopefully resolved. I hope then we can move forward from here. If so, this will be the first article on Jainism to be featured. --Anish (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Change—I withdrew my oppose above; it's considerably better. But the fact that I can still pick out little glitches should prompt the nominators to get someone new in to polish it up. I think the prose shouldn't hold up a promotion now, but please do make us proud of it in the coming days/weeks. These are samples from a small portion.

    • "According to German Indologist Hermann Jacobi, Māhavīra in his time, effectively employed the ...". Bump bump; suggest you remove the second comma.
    • "a 17th century Jain monk"—what's missing?
    • "was desirous of"—make it one word. In fact, see the whole sentence: "Emperor Siddharaja was desirous of enlightenment and liberation and he questioned teachers from all the various traditions". This should be "Emperor Siddharaja desired enlightenment and liberation, and questioned teachers from all of the traditions." I hope "various traditions" was clear; if so, this should also be clear, but better. Try to avoid the V word.
    • Do watch "or" in English. This one is an equative or, and isn't clear: "so in the kaliyuga or "the age of vice"" --> "so in the kaliyuga ("the age of vice")". Tony (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More excellent observations regarding English expression from Tony. We do keep throwing copyeditors at the article. I only wish Tony had time for more of this himself, he's outstanding. Anyway, I'll work on your points myself right now. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish I knew about that script before I corrected the dashes in the references by hand. Could you indicate an example of one that remains? They look fine to me. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Found two at the end that must have been added recently. Fixed now. Any I've missed? Alastair Haines (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok.I think I have found one free image of Gandhi in wikipedia commons and my friend will be uploading a self taken image of Mahavira idol. I dont know what to do about Adi Sankara yet.

    I have changed these three images. Hope the issue is resolved. Also, WP:MSH issues and --WP:DASHes concerns have been addressed. Anish (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We're short on image-knowledgeable reviewers: can you ask User:Elcobbola to revisit? If he's not available, then User:Kelly or User:NE2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Image:Gandhi writing Aug1942.jpg needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. (The source would need to confirm 1) the image was first published in India and 2) that such publication was 60+ years ago to support the PD-India copyright tag). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi died on the 30 January 1948 (aged 78) in New Delhi. 1948+60=2008! We're getting pretty close here. ;)
    Here be more information — GandhiServe Foundation.
    It would appear our image is a copy of PEMG1942085005 according to the GandhiServe catalogue numbering system.
    According to the same source, the photographer appears to be Kanu Gandhi (1917–1986), the great-nephew of the man himself.
    The Indian Copyright Act (1957) Section 13(2)(i) states its provisions are applicable when:
    "in the case of a published work, the work is first published in India, or where the work is first published outside India, the author is at the date of such publication, or in a case where the author was dead at that date, was at the time of his death, a citizen of India;"
    Section 25 of the same act specifies that copyright extends for 60 years from 1st January of the year following publication.
    If the photograph was published before Gandhi's assassination, it would now be public domain in India.
    However, since India declared independence only on the 15 August 1947 and became a republic on 26 January 1950, it is just possible that copyright for this image actually falls under the (UK) Copyright Act 1911. I'm unclear which law would apply between 1947 and 1950.
    I'll keep looking for publication date. I suspect this will be prior to 1947. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great Work. I have also found one image and put up a message for user:elcobbola as to whether this image here [44] copyright free? It says Gandhi at his spinning wheel in 1929. Public domain image. If yes, under what licencing can it be uploaded? Maybe this will resolve the last hurdle.--Anish (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done some more reading of the Indian and UK copyright acts and it appears that what these laws actually are is a promise from the government to protect the rights of those who produce original works. So, with India taking responsibility for governing its citizens, it took responsibility to protect copyright retrospectively. A breach of the copyright of a photograph in 1970, published in what is now India in 1920, would have fallen under the jurisdiction of the Indian judicial system not the UK judicial system. Wikipedia, in 2008, therefore answers to the Indian government regarding copyright of all images published in what is now India since January 1st 1948. Anything published in what is now India prior to that time is released by the Indian Copyright Act (1957) into the public domain. The law provides for waiving copyright in various cases, but not for enforcing more than this. In fact, 2008 was a historic year for Indian copyright, since it is now more than 60 years since Indian independance was declared. From now onwards, everything protected by this law was first published in sovereign India. But was PEMG1942085005 first published before independance? Where was it published? Alastair Haines (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like this is going to take some time to resolve; can that image be commented out in the meantime? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The legal stuff is easy. The problem will be finding the publication date. The photograph was taken about a week before Gandhi went to prison for two years, while the British were fighting the Japanese on the eastern borders of India. Gandhi was a journalist and publisher, but wartime censorship and emprisonment would not have been conducive to publication until after the war.
    The photograph has been released by GandhiServe to several professional websites, who have displayed it with acknowledgement to both author (Kanu) and to GandhiServe. It is likely this included a royalty, it is almost certain that it would not have granted permission for modification. The licensing at GandhiServe is specific about both matters.
    Kanu Gandhi, being deceased cannot give us permission to use his work. I'm not sure GandhiServe will want to admit that the photo is in the public domain, since they sell high quality copies. But that's the most obvious way forwards, to ask GandhiServe for the date of first publication. They could be very nice and especially so to Wikipedia. So long as it is clear that we'll be displaying a low quality version, that doesn't compete with their image.
    If we can find a date of publication prior to Indian independence we can go ahead, otherwise we can't. Kanu may simply have turned over his personal collection of unpublished photos to GandhiServe, in which case they won't be out of copyright until 60 years after first being published by GandhiServe.
    I recommend someone contact GandhiServe. I expect they'll reply promptly, they look very professional and friendly. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't answer my question; do you want to comment out or remove this image while you wait for resolution? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alastair...Good research...but we may be back to square one and this will drag on. why dont we use this one here [45] copyright free? It says Gandhi at his spinning wheel in 1929. Public domain image. this might solve our problem.--Anish (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:FCDW/August 11, 2008; it won't solve the problem unless someone reviews and clears it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Be careful in your research to remember that date created and date first published are not the same thing. Gandhi's lifespan is not relevant or helpful in determining PD status. (Merely taking a picture does not start the clock running; we indeed need to know an author or a publication date.) The proposed image is fine if http://www.sacred-destinations.com can be established as a reliable source (ask Ealdgyth?) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am at my wits end over Gandhi image. One would have thought that Image of India's father of nation would not be a problem, and considering that there is a featued article of Gandhi.--Anish (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyways, I have uploaded a new image which I believe will not be a problem. Now over to sandy and elcobbola.--Anish (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Link to the new image, please? (Elcobbola is traveling and his limited access, so the easier you can make it on him, the better.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Image:Gandhi face.gif. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I like Sandy's image. I did note that the Bern Convention specifically provides that photographs are to have a copyright term of no less than 25 years after creation of the image (hence dates have some circumstantial relevance). It is up to various jurisdictions what additional protection they wish to offer. From the Indian and UK laws, it is clear that they provide a term analogous to that of other works, though they both isolate photographs as a special case.
    GandiServe has to watermark its images because many (if not all) are actually public domain. They also have to advertise them as being created from negatives using a high quality reproduction process. This also is because they cannot assert they hold the copyright (in all cases). The basis of sale is quality, not merely copyright.
    I think Anish is also making an important point. There are public domain images of all recent national leaders. It would be odd if there were no PD images of Gandhi. The most likely explanation is precisely that offered by the site that offers Sandy's image—all photographs from that period are public domain. It sounds too blanket to me, it should say, all images published in that period are public domain, and that is true.
    If someone just looked at newspapers and other works published prior to 1948 with pictures of Gandhi, some will match pictures on the internet. But why even bother. Simply scan those images, they are now PD. We can make our own. All that is required is to note the source—a book or newspaper published prior to 1948.
    Our problem is only the laziness of web-sites, and our own! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandy's image? I linked that image from the article, so Elcobbola could check it. It was added by Anish, and still needs to be checked. Did you notice the question I asked above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Sandy, I saw it, but I didn't understand it. Not sure I do even now. Bear of little brain, that's me. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try to be more clear :-) This article's promotion is being held up by one image, whose resolution isn't likely going to be easy or fast, based on the complexity of the image issues, as explained by Elcobbola. If you remove or comment out the disputed images, I can promote the article. You can sort that out over time. Otherwise, this FAC continues to rattle around at the bottom of the page, waiting for this to get sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I get it. Let us go for one last chance here. If it does not succeed then we will go without gandhi's image.--Anish (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS here's a start at Google Books.
    Gandhi, "Quit India" The New York Times 5 August, 1942. Is probably worth checking in a library. I'd imagine the NYT illustrated the text. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You are right Sandy, to make Elcobbola's job easier:

    • Here is the link to image [46]
    • And here is the copy right statement that image is in public domain [47]

    Hope this will speed up the things.--Anish (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Different image, same issue. It's indeed acceptable if that source can be established as reliable. Is a team of Junior college students a reliable source for assertions of copyright status? (e.g. Do they mean PD in the U.S. or in India? There's quite a difference and one would expect someone attune to copyright law to make the distinction. What cited source here is the image from/provided that information? Shouldn't we be using that source directly, not third party?) I don't do source reliability, but the lack of specificity seems a red flag. But, again, all is well if the reliabilitly can be supported. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about this? (Postcard - i.e. published - and dated 1942). Crop as needed. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Or this (1939) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Elcobbola, you are a life saver. I have uploaded this image [48] here. --Anish (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Three cheers for Elcobbola! Good call (imho) on copyright of the other image. Also, tremendous generosity to do our work for us! I added that website to my browser bookmarks. I've learned a lot regarding image copyright in this process, and I thoroughly approve the tough-but-fair insistance on "doing the right thing". I only hope Anish will recover from the stress regarding images and, after a breather, plow on with adding more work towards featuring Jain articles. How are we going with the overall process Sandy? Alastair Haines (talk) 06:19, 4 August 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 05:02, 4 August 2008 [49].

    Willie Wagtail

    Nominator(s): Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs)

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is comprehensive, the prose is good (having been reviewed and/or copyedited by t least 3 others) and it is amply illustrated with free images from commons. Please let me know how I can improve the article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - sources look good, links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - with a few points. Nitpicking really.
    You seem to tippietoe around whether the fantails as a group are a family or not. No mention of the family in the intro and noncommittal as to subfamily or family in the taxonomy section. Yet if I recall the discussions as to breaking up the Dicruridae the problem was not so much the fantails as the break up of the monarchs - I don't think it would hurt the article to described the fantails as a family, while mentioning other points of view.
    Guilty as charged - I did focus on genus classification, though I did mention the 3 families in para 4 of the taxo section. I will place a sentence in the lead. OK, I added 'Within this group, fantails are placed in the family Dicruridae or their own small family Rhipiduridae.' to the lead. Question is, should I add note on Corvidae as I have seen some taxonomic arrangements lump all the corvines into a large broadly defined Corvidae family or is that view uncommon enough to leave out?
    The superlumping approach has not been widely adopted, I'd leave it out of the lead. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wagtail is very "chatty" with a number of distinct vocalisations and can be quite noisy - should be the Willie Wagtail, and what do you mean by noisy? Loud? Intrusive? Obnoxious?
    Aaawww, never heard of them being classified as obnoxious, they are noisy in a quiet sorta way really...
    Noisy is seldom complementary; if they are loud or insistent those would be better words to use. Noise is loud sounds that annoy (to my mind). Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just removed that segment. It added nothing as "chatty" already mentioned. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    but avoids densely forested areas such as rainforest even in New Guinea? Some birds that avoid rainforest in Oz are less picky up there.
    The PNG books indicate it prefers cleared areas there, but is not clear on how absoloute this is. I will clarify I put in an extra line due to it being quite a different environment and thus notable to specify
    Fair enough, I wasn't sure. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although the Willie Wagtail is a successful species, predators do account for many eggs and young. , any student of biology will tell you that common and successful species ar common prey items. The whole sentence seems slightly redundant.
    What about European settlers - I seem to recall them cropping up in children's books, but I could be wrong.
    Yep, forgot about them. There is a Willie Wagtail in Blinky Bill and Dot and the Kangaroo. I could have sworn it'd be in the May Gibbs stories too but I can't find my old copies of them and there is nothing online


    done Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unrelated to the true wagtails of the genus Motacilla; instead it is a member of... not convinced "instead" is the right word here
    ...Isle of Man, as well as Northern Ireland. why not just "and" (those pesky conjunctions..)
    Reference 54 Bill Blinky Bill Grows Up'. I'm not sure why this is bold in ref? (it is the volume within the book, which is a compilation of 3 books.not sure what to do meslf here..)
    jimfbleak (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There are rich opportunities for improving the prose in the lead. This doesn't augur well for the whole article. 1a is at issue. Please bring in one or more of your wordish collaborators, Cas.

    • Measuring 19.0 to 21.5 cm (7½–8½ in) in length"—Either use "From" at the start or "19.0–21.5". (fixed)
    • Semicolon after the second "underparts" to avoid sentence-stub. (fixed)
    • "islands north of Australia"—vague: Papua? Borneo? Timor? I'd say "Papua and numerous small islands in its vicinity", or something like that. (fixed)
    • Comma before "including", or better "group that includes". (fixed)
    • "Within this group, fantails are placed in the family Dicruridae or their own small family Rhipiduridae." Remove "placed". I don't get the "or". Is it "either ... or"? Is this a family within a family? If so, please clarify succinctly. (see below)
    • "It is insectivorous"—What is "it", especially at the start of a para? (fixed)
    • Remove "areas such as". Tony (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC) (fixed)[reply]
    OK, I dealt with the points but need to explain classification. The genus of fantails (Rhipidura) lies in a large group of corvine birds, but with in it, some authorities rank them in their own family Rhipiduridae, while others reduce them to a subfamily of a larger family called Dicruridae. It is not acrimonious or particularly controversial, only an issue of where one places the Linnaean yardsticks into a newer understanding of relationships. I need to sleep now but am happy to receive input on it plus look over text more tomorrow. I'll ask Reworded to Within this group, fantails are placed in the family Dicruridae, although some authorities consider them distinct enough to warrant their own small family Rhipiduridae.

    Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 27 July 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 05:02, 4 August 2008 [50].

    Alleyway

    Nominator(s): Kung Fu Man (talk)
    previous FAC 19:39 June 19, 2008

    Addressed the issues brought up with the previous version of this article, including fair use rationales for the images that were more appropriate and requested (and subsequently received) a copyedit to improve the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Comments

    Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Interview with one of Tengen's employees with the relevant statements echoed in the Game Over book.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To append that, Mobygames does link to two interviews conducted on the site (Ed Logg, Gregg Tavares). Tavares himself cited an article by him in his blog and links to tsr's site (notably in his links and to that interview). ClassicGaming cites them as a resource as well, as do many other websites. As far as the site owner I have no information on him: he apparently remained solely by that username online. Will this suffice?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the main owner of the site has chosen to remain anon, I'm uncomfortable with using it as a source, but as you have the information backed up by another source, I'd suggest moving the interview to an external link. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the ref then, it would be out of place as an external link due to most of the discussion revolving around Nintendo v. Tengen. The Game Over book covers the Tetris delay well enough on its own.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose: Neutral:

    • "for the original Game Boy." No need to sepcify which—if it was a different version then it would have been introduced by that name.
    That's nitpicking. To a casual reader Game Boy by itself could just as easily mean Game Boy Color or Game Boy Advance, such as you yourself are suggesting could be implied by the bit below.
    Yeah, but that's why the word is linked. The encyclopaedia can't cater to common misconceptions. As for nitpicking, that's pretty much what FAC is, although some problems are really obvious.
    • "It is a Breakout clone and was one of the first four games developed and released for the system by Nintendo. It was a launch title for every release of the Game Boy.[1]" A couple of things here: firstly, the second sentence is confusing. Do you mean "for every release" as a regional thing, because this could imply the variations of the Game Boy. Secondly, both these sentences seem to say the same thing. If it was one of the first four released, then it must be a launch title.
    Fixed.
    • "The game was first released in Japan in 1989,[2] and was later released in North America. It was eventually released Europe in early 1990." Don't know why these very similar sentences are separate; when was it released in NA?
    Fixed
    • "Alleyway was released with limited advertising, and receivedreceiving moderate to low scores from reviewers who compared it heavily to games like Arkanoid.[5]" You know, review things like this to improve flow.
    Fixed.
    • "The object of Alleyway is to clear all breakable bricks". Use more accurate English; "clear" could mean anything.
    Fixed.
    • "The gameplay is similar to that of Breakout." Strange to have a standalone sentence like this that seems to appear randomly without explanation. Consider merging into first sentence.
    Fixed.
    • Again with the prose: "Paddle speed can be changed by holding either the B or A button on the controller while moving the paddle,[9] and the paddle 'which can only move horizontally at a fixed height." Needs someone to copyedit prose to fix the other examples.
    Fixed...
    • Just want to clarify what may be a personal misconception here: "a downward 45° angle". Maybe I'm getting my Mathematics mixed, but I don't understand this phrase. I know what a 45 degree angle is, but thinking this through, I don't know what this "downward" thing means in relation. I can only think of two variables: whether this angle is aimed left or right, but this article doesn't explain that. I'd appreciate it if you could clarify this.
    Reworded.
    • "one thousand points scored, until the player has over 10,000 points". Inconsistency with number usage. Probably should be displayed in digits, per WP:MoS
    That's in line with the large numbers policy on the page you just linked to.
    No it isn't. I used probably as two words are allowed, although I wouldn't go there in the case of thousands. Regardless, the usage isn't consistent. "one thousand" and "ten thousand" or "1000 and 10,000", preferably the latter.
    • "Because there is no battery-backed SaveRAM or a password feature, Alleyway must be completed in one sitting." Replace "must" with "can only". Suggests that everybody who buys the game must complete it.

    Fixed.

    • "The player's ball will only travel in fixed angles of 15°, 30° or 45°." No need to say that the ball belongs to the player. If you've given the three possible outcomes, then "fixed" is redundant.
    Feels more grammatically correct with the "fixed" there. Otherwise, fixed.
    One would have though that the "only" would have established the concept of constant, but nevermind.
    • "The velocity is dependent on what brick type the ball comes into contact with." I'm not sure about this one. Technically there is a difference between speed and velocity, although I think that you're talking about the ball in regards to speed. I don't know if the two can be used interchangeably in an encyclopaedia.
    Fixed.
    • "at a steep angle." Unsure about the English here; tehnically, the angle istelf is neither steep nor flat, only the line of movement.
    Not really another way to word that and get the point across.
    Well, it says the ball either travles at 15, 30, or 45 angles, so which is it? What's there is technically incorrect.
    • "the player manages to get the ball with the bulk of the paddle before it falls into the pit below, it will bounce back into the playing field." Not sure about the word "bulk"; plus, it is dependent on interpretation.
    Replaced bulk with better descriptive term "body".
    • Sometimes when reading I have the feeling that the article's going into unnecessary detail. It raises the question whether such detail would be used if the game had more substantial content.
    The detail is necessary to fully understand the subject in question, and is cited appropriately without original research. It's no different than the detail one could say on a game like Tetris.
    At an extreme example: "If the player can hit all bricks for every stage through one playthrough, the player will get 9276 points plus an additional 9700 from clearing each bonus stage, making the maximum possible/"perfect" score on a single playthrough 18,976 points."
    • "twenty four" Should be hyphenated. Again, inconsistency with number usage as "32" is present in the aricle.
    Fixed.
    • "Every three regular stages, the" Put "After" before "every".
    Fixed.
    • "where the same pattern of bricks appears but behaves differently." Up until now, the concpet of bricks "behaving" in any way hasn't been explained. What does this mean?
    Seems kinda silly to point out they're normally stationary, no? There's not a really convenient way to reword that.
    • "where the bricks move downward the height of one regular brick in short bursts, increasing in speed the more the current ball bounces off the paddle." Just generally an awkward sentence that needs rewording.
    Worded better.
    • "As the player progresses through patterns" Why word it this way?
    Why not? Levels is inappropriate as the added gameplay elements only appear with the start of a new pattern set.
    • "From the fourth stage on when the ball comes into contact with the top of the area, the paddle's size is halved until the stage is cleared or a life is lost" Needs a comma after "on", rearrange sentence so that it isn't begun with "when", if you know what I mean.
    Should be fixed.
    • "Unlike regular levels, the ball will cut through the blocks in these stages without ricocheting, and contact with the ceiling will not affect the paddle." Don't understand. From what I read, the ball would just cut through everything, never returning. What's the point of this game then?
    I've clarified that a little.
    • On scoring, the article really shouldn't go into specific number of points or the methods to achieve them. To be honest, I find the "Scoring" section to be totally useless.
    It's a principle part of the game, and the only real goal of the game is to get a high score. It's vital to understand what the game is about.
    Yeah, but giving the specific numbers and specific methods is needless.
    • The part about Mario on the box is not cited, and is poorly written in parts: "at the controls, but despite this the"
    I have to cite the box even though it's clearly up there at the top of the article?
    My mistake. Apologies
    • "well after the North American release." Watch out for informal phrasing. Try to be more specific too.
    Fixed
    • Looking at "Development", I'm seeing very little of how the game was actually made.
    There isn't anything available. You can't fault an article when information simply doesn't exist: it was a Breakout clone. There isn't even a credits sequence to cite who the programmers were.
    • The "Reception" coverage seems insufficient for an FA.
    There isn't anymore said though. People compared it to Arkanoid or enjoyed it as a portable Breakout clone. You can't cite what doesn't exist and won't exist; even EGM didn't give the game half a page when they reviewed it, only a single column on a page.
    • I'm not sure about sources, but the instruction manual is given as a source published by Nintendo, even though it's given by way of another, assumedly unreliable site.
    It's a transcription of the manual. Transcriptions are, last I checked, perfectly allowed to give the article reader a sense of the context being cited, no?
    I was questioning the point that the information of the site wasn't included in the ref. I'm not an expert on refs, though.

    It's a decent article, especially considering the game's age, but I just don't think it's ready yet. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Addressed the issues the best I could.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Responded to some points, will take another look later. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, addressed the other issues mentioned to this point.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, all immediate issues seem to have been addressed, so I've declared nyself neutral. Regarding Reception and Development, that revolves around how the availability of information affects the comprehensiveness of the article in regards to 1b, but this seems to be a grey area. I personally feel that it's insufficient, but I suppose it would be unfair of me to oppose based on this. I still feel that there's too much unnecessary detail in the article. On a final note, the lead references the origin of the game's name, although this isn't mentioned in the main body of text. The lead is supposed to be a summary of everything in the body of text, so there shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't present further down. Good luck. Ashnard Talk Contribs 11:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well actually was created pretty much from scratch, but the diagram is still based in look upon Nintendo's, so I credited them under the free license tag to make everything smoother given it was an issue brought up in the previous FAC.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reviewing only image licensing: I agree with the above comment on the balls image; the shadows definitely match the images on the Nintendo site. I'm not sure that the Japanese box art is necessary. --NE2 12:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Improved the caption to make the box art more relevant to the article section it relates to.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please ping one of the two image reviewers (above) to find out if they're satisfied now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - This has changed masses since the previous FAC. The prose has improved tremendously, and this is a very good article on what is a difficult subject (a very old game, hard to find reliable sources for). Well done. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments regarding images:
      • Image:Alleyway boxart.png needs a verifiable source (WP:IUP and WP:NFCC#10A) and a complete rationale (WP:RAT and NFCC#10C).
      • Image:Alleyway-balls.PNG contains contradictory information (permission asserts "Free to use for informative purposes. No copyright exercised on images", yet fair use is claimed). Image is not low resolution (NFCC#3B), but this may be moot as image appears to be replaceable with a free alternative (NFCC#1). A free alternative illustrating ball behavior could be easily created.
      • Image:Orig-alleyway-art.PNG appears purely decorative (NFCC#3A and NFCC#8); how does seeing the Japanese cover contribute significantly to our understanding of the game or its development? Article discussion (i.e. prerequisite critical commentary) of the covers is minimal. Prose and the "international box" depicted in the infobox appear adequate. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removed the image...but I still feel it should be there as well to fully convey the game as a whole, as well as the one real difference between the Japanese and worldwide view of the game, as to the Japanese this was not presented on the packaging as a Mario title. Your call though. Either way, everything should be fixed and addressed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Better than the average video-game article, but the prose could still use some improvement. I've done some copy-editing, but more could be done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      A follow-up... I still can't bring myself to support. There are some paragraphs that are still rather iffy, such as the second paragraph in the "Reception" section. On the other hand, I can't quite bring myself to oppose, either. It's basically not a bad article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, 1a. Concur with Jbmurray that it's better than average, but that's not good enough for FAC. Rough prose needs additional copy-editing and de-mystifying for our general audience.
      • Will a general audience know what a "global launch title" is?
    Changed to worldwide...which is kinda funny because while that term is easier to understand, it redirects to global.
    I'm actually more concerned with "launch title", which I noted you have wikilinked somewhere else but it needs linking or explanation in the lead. --Laser brain (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kicked the wikilink up there so launch title is now linked in the lead.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "It is a Breakout clone and was one of the first four games developed and released for the system by Nintendo." The addition of "by Nintendo" qualifies the statement and implies there were other manufacturers releasing games initially. Is that correct?
    Fixed, reworded a little to keep the fact that it is a Nintendo product intact without the noted implication.
      • Please find a better term than "used up" to describe the paddle stock.
    Changed to depleted.
      • "The player may have up to nine paddles at any one time." Why not "at once"?
    Fixed.
      • "The game lacks a continue feature ..." Video game jargon.
    Linked to Continue. Alternative would probably be much wordier and unnecesary.
      • "The ball will only travel in 15°, 30° or 45° angles." Surely "at" angles, not "in".
    Fixed.
      • The "type of brick type"?
    Fixed.
      • "... gray and black bricks increase its speed, while white and indestructible bricks have no effect." How does one discern an indestructible brick? You've described the first three types visually and the last type by behavior.
    Fixed, at least should be. The comma after square is to emphasize that it isn't implying there are more than one type of indestructible brick.
      • You've mixed the terms velocity and speed in the article, but they don't mean the same thing. Such statements as "The ball's direction and velocity ..." are inaccurate because direction is calculated in velocity. However, the term is used correctly in this statement: "Whenever the ball starts to loop between objects such as the ceiling, indestructible blocks and/or the paddle itself, its velocity will alter at a random point after the second cycle on its next collision."
    Fixed.
      • Regarding the second sentence above, recommend "change" instead of "alter".
    Fixed.
      • The whole explanation of high a score you can get is baffling. Non-video game people will not be able to parse "sprites" from Super Mario Bros.—please at least link the game title to ease their pain. Beginning with "Since the icon stops changing at that point ..." I'm completely lost. The term "rollover" also needs explanation and it is linked to a disambiguation page.
    Super Mario Bros. is wikilinked in the previous section. Reworded the bit after the icon point to be more direct and hopefully easier to understand. The definition of "rollover" is covered on the disambiguation page however, 9th definition there.
    Getting better, but I still don't understand "As a result the highest displayable score is 39,999, while the maximum score will only be displayed as 35,565." You've said 39,999 is "displayable", meaning it can be displayed, but then you say that it won't display. Unclear why? --Laser brain (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded it a little to state only four digits of the score are displayed, that should work with the subsequent icon description. Changed "display" the later parts stating what the highest visible score is to word it a little clearer.
      • "Promotion of the title in Nintendo published material consisted of a segment taking up a third of the page they were on." Who or what is "they"? You don't refer to anything plural in this sentence. --Laser brain (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.
    Addressed everything tossed out here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments—The prose is OK.

    • Position "only" as late as possible in a clause: "which can only move horizontally at a fixed height" (it can't sit horizontally, though). —>so should "only" come before "horizontally" or "at"? It changes the meaning. Only if either of those positions would give the wrong meaning would you retain the current position.
    • "Alleyway was also re-released for download onto"—remove "also"? The "re-" does it, surely.
    • "Reception of the game has been mostly negative."—Unlike the title above, a "The" is required; but probably better would be "Reviews of ...". Tony (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All three should be fixed and dealt with.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:33, 27 July 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 01:22, 3 August 2008 [51].

    Learned Hand

    Nominator(s): qp10qp (talk); Slp1 (talk)


    When Newyorkbrad left the project, he said in his leaving message, "I am sorry for the pages that never got written and the FA that never got done". He was referring to Learned Hand, a famous U.S. judge and legal philosopher. We feel the article now meets the criteria, and we bring it here as a tribute to Brad. qp10qp (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I was endlessly impressed by Newyorkbrad's participation here, and was deeply shocked by his departure. Making this encyclopedia better, in content amongst other things, was for me the only proper way to respond. Learned Hand would have made a great WP editor: he was a clever, fair, hard-working person and a great writer. And a human being too. Remind you of anyone, perhaps? We look forward to hearing your comments, suggestions and edits to the article itself to make this article the best tribute it can be. --Slp1 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Peer Review here. qp10qp (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support. I have done a fair amount of minor copy-editing on this article, both recently and earlier on. But the people who have really put in the work have been qp10qp and slp1. This is a hugely impressive effort. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but I have a few nit-picks.
    1. The sections are rather lenghty -- perhaps some sub-headings might make it easier to read.
      I would not really like to insert subheadings now, because each section has an organic form. A big effort was made to keep prose clear and provide a smooth read. The reading-ease figures, which you can click on from the box above right, are quite reasonable, I think. qp10qp (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2. "The next Second Circuit vacancy arose in 1921, but with the reactionary Warren G. Harding administration in power, Hand did not put himself forward." This sentence lacks a citation, and some readers might take issue with the characterisation of Harding as "reactionary." I'm not sure the man had any ideology, myself.
      A ref lower down the paragraph covered this, but I've now reffed the sentence to Gunther, where he says: "By then the Republican party had swung sharply to the right: while Hand had hoped that the relatively liberal Herbert Hoover would be the Republican nominee in 1920, Warren G. Harding had been chosen in the smoke-filled room, representing all the conservative business-oriented forces that TR had sought to overcome eight years earlier". This isn't necessarily personal to Harding, more a characterisation of his administration, which represented the anti-progressive side of the party. qp10qp (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since someone else objected to this further down, I have changed it to "conservative". qp10qp (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Conservative" makes sense. Otherwise you'll get complaints every few months from Harding fans -- yes, they exist. Coemgenus 20:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Otherwise, I think it's an excellent read. Coemgenus 20:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Issues resolvedWeak opposeSeveral MOS issues.
    In the lead:

    Supreme Court should be "Supreme Court of the United States"
    Done. qp10qp (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "A gift for language." - Seems like an opinion
    It's a view that all the sources agree on. It's a significant aspect of Hand, because it is unusual for judges to write opinions with such high literary style. It is often argued that without it, he would not have been so famous or so influential. qp10qp (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be best to cite that fact. miranda 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is cited in the last section, where the relationship between his literary style and his influence is covered. But, anyway, I have now cited it to Schick in the lead as well. (Wyzanski said that a Hand opinion was like a sonnet, but we've left that degree of drooling out of the article.) qp10qp (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, if it's cited elsewhere...it is no use to cite the fact in the lead, since you are basically summarizing the article in the lead. miranda 02:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Constitution needs to be hyperlinked because there are many different constitutions
    Last sentence seems like a quote dump.
    Could you explain further? qp10qp (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead, he advocated the "combination of toleration and imagination that to me is the epitome of all good government."
    I think there is a better way to sum this information up without using exact quotes. miranda 22:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, but might you not then think it was an opinion? qp10qp (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No, but you can sum up an author's intention without using direct quotes. "He advocated strict tolerance of federal/government" or whatever. miranda 23:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the selective use of quotes can be elegant and telling. There's is a lot more to this quote than I could summarise in my own words. It brings together his attitude to judging and his attitude to government, both of which were combined in his views on the constitution. Hand words it beautifully, and I am not enough of a writer to reword it for him without loss. qp10qp (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "he described himself as a person who advocated "[quote]"."? That would be much better... miranda 02:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Article:

    hyperlink "Jan. 27, 1872"
    comma after 1872
    Done. qp10qp (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "," not ", - I see several instances of this occurring throughout the article.
    We are trying to use logical punctuation, as recommended by the M0S, rather than American style. We place the commas outside the quote marks where they would not logically be part of the quote. qp10qp (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know I am and many others are used to the "," rather than the "", unless you are grouping two different quotes. miranda 02:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    history, science, and languages need to be decapitalized b/c they are general classes not specific classes like Applied Science, Ancient History, etc.
    There are two schools of thought on this, and I don't think it matters either way. qp10qp (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I just decapitalized them again before reading this. I must be of the other school of thought. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Harvard Law Review needs to be ital.
    Done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    uncle - what was his name since he had so many?
    Matthew Hale—I've added it. qp10qp (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Spanish-American" hyphen, not a dash
    Because this is a war, the disjunctive en dash is used rather than a hyphen ("Spanish-American people" would have a hyphen). qp10qp (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But the article is Spanish American for the references to people. And, when I research facts on the Spanish-American War, it's always a hyphen and not a dash. miranda 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's Spanish American as a noun but Spanish-American as an adjectival compound. In Spanish–American war, the meaning is Spanish v. American. qp10qp (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Show me where you got this information, because in books, they use hyphens. miranda 02:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's covered here a bit: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes. To be honest, though, I don't rely so much on the MOS as on more established manuals. Brian Garner, in A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, says: "The en dash is used to join pairs or groups of words wherever movement or tension, rather than cooperation or unity, is felt. It is often equivalent to to or versus. E.g.: 'current–voltage characteristic'; 'the Fischer–Spassky match'; 'the Marxist–Trotskyist split' ." qp10qp (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand now. Thanks. miranda 08:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "December 6, 1902" - hyperlink
    U.S. v. Kinnerly" - future article? if not, delink
    Certain to be article. It's an important case, and there's a lot of material on it. qp10qp (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Hand had voted for Hoover in 1928 and 1932" simplify the cruft
    Could you explain further? qp10qp (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hand had voted for Hoover in 1928, and he did so again in 1932; but in 1936, he voted for the Democrats and Franklin D. Roosevelt, as a reaction to the economic and social turmoil that followed the Wall Street Crash of 1929. - See what I mean? miranda 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This comes in the context of Hand's rejection by Hoover in 1930 for the Supreme Court; so we need a pluperfect for the first vote before continuing with the perfect for the next two. qp10qp (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "August 18, 1961" - hyperlink

    That's all I can see for now. miranda 20:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the decision has been not to hyperlink dates in this article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but this goes against MOS. miranda 21:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) ...which says "Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, striked those. miranda 21:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Another "21 May, 1944" needs to be May 21, 1944 for consistency. miranda 21:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The date delinking drive is so recent that it's left one or two ragged edges, by the looks of it. qp10qp (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another point. Does Bill of Rights need to be italicized in Alexander Hamilton's caption if it's not italicized anywhere else in the article? miranda 21:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason is that in the rest of the article the Bill of Rights itself is talked about, whereas The Bill of Rights was the title of a book of lectures given by Hand, and this is what the caption referred to. However, I agree this may not be clear and so have changed the wording in the caption, eliminating The Bill of Rights. qp10qp (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, okay. I see that, now. Then the caption should read: "Alexander Hamilton, whose constitutional philosophy was analyzed by Hand in his book Bill of Rights, published in 1958." miranda 22:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think my new wording has solved it by leaving out mention of the book altogether. qp10qp (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did ask the FA team to keep an eye on the article, but this isn't an FA team mission. We have not rushed the article, I assure you.qp10qp (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it looks like it was part of Mission 3. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Goodness me, I never noticed that; I do apologise. At any rate, neither Slp1 nor myself are members of the FA Team, though I have helped out with their projects. qp10qp (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but it's alright. I'm more concerned by the fact that everytime I make a comment at FAC Sandy somewhat attacks me. I was simply notifying the noms, not really making a negative presence here. I just felt that we were unfinished, but after a thorough read, I disagree with my earlier !vote. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 13:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not personal. Sandy points out unactionable opposes. It's just a matter of giving some actionable reasons. In other words, an opposer has to give the nominators something they can work on. qp10qp (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - sources look good, links all checked out with the link checker tool. I checked this article at PR, but I double checked here. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Much appreciated, as always. qp10qp (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments on images

    Been having trouble with that. Believe it or not, I relinked it just before putting the article up for FAC, but it's died already. So I have delinked the source: it is easy enough to find (Harvard University Library). qp10qp (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added publisher and ISBN for the ones I have the book for. Let me know if it suffices.--Slp1 (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Joseph McCarthy.jpg - The license seems to be incorrect here. I doubt this was published before 1923, being that the photograph is dated 1954.
    The licence covers pictures whose copyright has expired because they were published before 1923 and also some later pictures whose copyright may have lapsed for other reasons. The source shows that this one comes under other reasons. (I'll leave the two above to Slp1.) qp10qp (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there is an entirely separate tag for the 1923-77, published without a copyright notice, permission. I'll try to find it. Awadewit (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've got it. Awadewit (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    These should be easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments (I haven't edited this article until the FAC.) A wonderful article. I've read about Hand here and there, particularly in books about free speech, but never a whole biography. Thanks! Here are my prose nitpicks:

    • Friends and admirers often lobbied for Hand's promotion to the Supreme Court, but circumstances and his political reputation conspired against his appointment. - What reputation?
    That he had supported the Progressive Party and, in particular, run for a position under their colours. Taft brought this precise point up when he opposed Hand for the Supreme Court, where he said that Hand "had turned out to be a wild Roosevelt man and a Progressive, and though on the Bench, he went into the [Bull Moose] campaign ... If promoted to our Bench, he would most certainly herd with Brandeis and be a dissenter. I think it would be risking too much to appoint him". qp10qp (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we add a phrase or sentence explaining this? My question was meant to imply that the sentence was too vague. Sorry it was too vague in and of itself. :) Awadewit (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed "political reputation" to "political past", and the reader can surely now see that this refers back to his running for office on the Progressive Party ticket, which was already mentioned. qp10qp (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good solution. Awadewit (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • His decisions in specialist fields, such as patents, torts, admiralty law, and antitrust law, set lasting standards in craftsmanship and clarity. - "craftsmanship" is a bit vague
    That word struck me as a bit odd at first, but I found that it comes up again and again in the sources and in legal appreciation of Hand. It refers to the extreme care he took in seeking precedents and historical data and constructing opinions that logically satisfied all angles. His reinterpretation of the "clear and present danger" test is an example; another is the formula he devised for the Carroll Towing liability case. I think it is hard for us non-legal types to grasp this aspect of judicial decision-making. qp10qp (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if it would be better to say "extreme care in seeking precedents and historical data", then? I wasn't really sure what "craftsmanship" meant in this context, but this is explanation is very clear. Awadewit (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we have to use the word craftsmanship. There is even a book of Hand's writings, published in the sixties, called The Art and Craft of Judging. qp10qp (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • who had risen rapidly through the ranks of an Albany-based law firm in the 1860s and by age 32 was the firm's top lawyer - Is "top" perhaps a bit collloquial?
    Changed to "leading. qp10qp (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the end of "Early life", the article says Hand was accepted to Harvard University, then the "Harvard" section says he attended "Harvard College". - Technically correct, I suppose?
    Good spot: changed to Harvard College for consistency. qp10qp (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • initially focusing on classical studies and mathematics as advised by his late father - "suggested" instead of "advised", maybe?
    I like advised because Samuel Hand doesn't sound like the suggesting type to me. qp10qp (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. He was "un peu special", as they say in French! --Slp1 (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A frequently-cited 1913 decision was United States v. Kinnerley, an obscenity case concerning Daniel Carson Goodman's Hagar Revelly - "was" or "is"?
    I doubt it is still cited: certain decisions get cited again and again until they are superseded. Obscenity cases later moved on, thanks to Hand. qp10qp (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • which stemmed back to a seminal English decision of 1868, Regina v. Hicklin - "English" or "British"?
    English it seems, based on this Hicklin test and other reliable sources [52], [53] Slp1 (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And don't forget that Scotland has its own legal system. qp10qp (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Hand expected, Roosevelt lost to the Democratic Party's progressive Woodrow Wilson, though he polled more votes than Taft - It is confusing to describe Wilson as "progressive" when the previous sentences discuss Roosevelt's "Progressive Party".
    OK. I have cut the word "progressive" there. qp10qp (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several possible war-related positions presented themselves, but nothing came of them, apart from the chair of a committee reporting on the effect of the war on intellectual property rights. - A little hard to follow
    Clearer, now I hope.--Slp1 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to: "After the United States entered the war in 1917, Hand considered leaving the bench to assist the war effort. This proved unnecessary, and he was able to spare time from work to chair a committee that reported on the effect of the war on intellectual property rights." If you mean that the job itself seems unclear, I suppose it is. Certainly obscure. qp10qp (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I changed it a bit more, having figured something different out during an edit conflict. Now reads "Several possible war-related positions presented themselves. However, nothing came of them, aside from the position of chair of a committee on intellectual property law that suggested treaty amendments for the Paris Peace Conference." --Slp1 (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I never really like mentioning things that didn't happen, though; it just gets in the way, I feel. qp10qp (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmm. True, except that I think the point is that he really did want to join in the war effort, and was very disappointed when the opportunities promised didn't work out. And even embarrassed: it was part of the the reason he couldn't speak out in WWII because he hadn't done anything in WWI. It was more than sparing time, and things that weren't necessary.--Slp1 (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like the statements are slightly different. Leaving the bench was unnecessary vs. nothing came of his efforts to leave - slightly different meaning. Do we know which it was? Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just meant that since none of the jobs materialised, it wasn't necessary for him to leave the bench. I'm happy to let Slp1 take charge of this one. qp10qp (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hand sought to refresh a senior judiciary that was seen as corrupt and inefficient "reform", maybe?
    Actually, the nasty mistake there is that "Hand" somehow must have crept in instead of Coolidge. It was Coolidge who was seeking to refresh the judiciary with new blood. I have changed this to "add new blood". His only influence lay in appointments because he couldn't sack federal judges. qp10qp (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He rarely spoke out publicly, not only because of his position but because he thought fighting talk unseemly in an old man - "fighting talk"? Sounds a bit colloquial.
    Changed to "bellicosity". --Slp1 (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I love that word! Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He concentrated on relations with his judges and on cleansing the court of the odor of corruption - just the odor of or actual corruption?
    Worked on this to explain about the patronage appointments.--Slp1 (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Augustus Noble Hand died in October 1954, but Learned Hand himself remained in good physical and mental condition. - Why "but"?
    One died but the other kept going. I think "but" is correct here. qp10qp (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but why are they being contrasted? Just because they are related, we can compare their lives? Why not compare them to other people? It all seemed a bit arbitrary. Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean. The books make a good deal of their long life together, coming from the same family and working on the same bench for decades. But we haven't emphasised that in the article, so I have dropped mention of Augustus here, leaving "Learned Hand remained in good physical and mental condition for most of the last decade of his life". qp10qp (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He lost his faith in God as a student, and from that point his gospel was skepticism - "his gospel was skepticism" - This phrase rankles this skeptic. :)
    I anticipated that this might raise eyebrows, so had taken the precaution, in a footnote, of quoting Hand saying this. The more I read about Hand, the more I realised that this was not just a throwaway line. Look how he talks about his "faith" in that famous Spirit of Liberty speech.qp10qp (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would quote Hand saying it in the text, then. Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very awkward to fit in grammatically and we are just about to go into another quote there. Instead, I've changed it to "He lost his faith in God as a student, and from that point, he became a sceptic". The gospel bit is still in the note. I think it is an important point that Hand replaced one kind of zeal with another. It did take faith to hold on to what he believed when that differed from what the government or what the people believed. In the Masses case, he knew full well when he went against the new Espionage Act that he was throwing his changes of preferment out of the window. Scepticism was a faith to him; he wasn't a cynic. qp10qp (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He held it desirable that the members of a democratic society should seek to influence legislative decision-making. - Important part of sentence is buried.
    Have tried to make it clearer.--Slp1 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any judicial ruling that had the effect of legislating from the bench troubled Hand, particularly the decisions of Supreme Court judicial review - Seems a bit wordy
    OK, I've cut the second half of that, since we go on to talk about his views on the Supreme Court. qp10qp (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've repunctuated this article's quote style three times now, back and forth, after requests at PR and here, and no one is ever happy. That MOS section needs rewriting so that it is clear. It positively guarantees objections if it is followed. qp10qp (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was specifically referring to the quotation punctuation, which does not follow logical punctuation. This part of the MOS, I feel, is fairly clear. Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain? I've repunctuated the quoting three times, so clearly I am missing something. qp10qp (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The quotations that are sentence fragments and come at the ends of sentences in the article should have periods outside of the quotation marks. Ex: Learned Hand was "blah blah blah". Awadewit (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, done. Brings us back where we were twice before. qp10qp (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A very interesting and engaging article! Awadewit (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Many thanks for taking the time and trouble. I didn't think you would want to review this, but your comments have helped us improve the article. qp10qp (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My moonlighting interest in US constitutional law is little known. :) Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I just went to link the birth and death dates, and I saw a note saying that the decision has been made not to link these. Can someone please explain why that is? We do it so that date preferences work, and I can't think of a single reason why we shouldn't. Raul654 (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Search me, Raul. Keeps us on our toes, I suppose. One fallout is that in an article like this which has to use American style (September 12), the delinking has exposed the "12 September" form that we had used as wrong. So we've been playing catch up. qp10qp (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Tony1 is the man for these questions, Raul. I have been just trying to keep my head low, and going with what seems to be the FAC flow.--Slp1 (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Recent changes to WP:DATE (with which Tony was involved) have basically made this not recommended. Readers don't see autoformatting if not logged in, so it just confuses them for no noticeable benefit. Reading User talk:Tony1 should have some answers to your questions, there's been a lot of related discussion there. —Giggy 04:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support but with a nitpick. (not blocking but a nice to fix?) The first picture of Hand in the article proper is this one Image:LearnedHand.jpg which is not until considerably into the article. It has no context in the caption whatever. I suggest it might be improved with a date... presumably this was when he was first appointed a federal judge? Are there any pictures of him when he was younger that might be usable earlier on? Other than that, a very nice article about one of the most important jurists of the 20th century. ++Lar: t/c 00:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but <sigh>. We have spent a lot of time and energy on the pictures for this article. Looking at the talkpage you will see our struggles with Harvard, the Library of Congress and pictures from his biography. The first picture in the article is dated 1924 at the Lib of Congress. This is almost certainly wrong (he doesn't look 52, the clothes are wrong for the period, and he is wearing the same outfit and pince-nez as another picture by the same agency also in the LOC which is dated 1910 to 1915). So rather than giving information that seems clearly erroneous, we have omitted the date. And finding copyright free images, as not proved at all easy, despite our best efforts. It would be great if others could succeed in tracking something down.--Slp1 (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've lengthened the caption–though, as Slp1 says, we have to be vague because we really have no idea about the real date or context of this picture. For the earlier part of the article, there is the possibility of that Dostoyevskian one in Gunther, from 1893. What has stopped me adding that so far is that we are well-imaged for that period, what with the two pictures of him in group photos, etc. Slp1, what do you think of my adding that one? qp10qp (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be great. I think one of the group shots is plenty.--Slp1 (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I think it looks good. qp10qp (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some comments from someone presumably someone with some knowledge of the subject have been made here and here. The article's authors might want to make some changes based on these. —Giggy 04:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, for the link to very useful suggestions. I will start by fixing the easy ones; and here is a start on the Posner thing. Not the height of legal literature perhaps, but a beginning. [54] Slp1 (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting to see an article getting a review from outside Wikipedia. Some useful stuff there, though the assumption of ignorance on the Kennerley typo is a bit galling. We don't pretend to be legal experts, and we've been asking for help from legal experts all along, without really much response. We haven't done any social networking (we are backwater article writers); I never spoke to NYB in my life.
    Some people there would like an article about Hand's cases, and certainly there should be one, but this article is more about the popular Hand. The structure of the article uses Hand's life to look at a series of important stages in American history over a very long period, from Lochner to Brown. The chance to do this in a single article is quite rare. The article doesn't dumb down Hand's ideas, but it is aimed at a popular readership who would like to get a handle on Hand, so to speak. The more popular books about Hand don't use legal citations: I raised the possibility on the talk page, but there was not much input from legal people on that score. We could add them, if reviewers would like, but the cases are famous enough to find easily. qp10qp (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tonight I reread Ronald Dworkin's 1994 review of Gunther's book (republished in his book "Freedom's Law"). Dworkin was one of Hand's clerks, and I laughed again at the eye-witness account of the young lawyer who, unexpectedly confronted with Hand as judge in a trial, requested an hour's adjournment so that he could call his office, saying "My senior partner will fire me if I don't give him a chance to argue this case." Sure enough, an hour later, not one but two unprepared senior partners were on their feet in front of Hand!
    More to the point, Dworkin divides the issues of Hand's life into four "stories". The first is Hand as part of the story of America 1872-1961, a few years after the Civil War, till just before the radical 60s. The second is the psychological portrait of a shy man, lacking in confidence, who was also charming, and whose marriage was less than he wanted. The third is the professional story: what law students learn about how he changed and influenced law in the 20th century. The fourth story is about Hand, the Bill of Rights and the issue of judicial restraint.
    While it's true that I lack a legal background (despite encouragement from my school to enter the field!), nevertheless I think Dworkin is right to see the broad picture; his life is not just his judicial decisions. People who are interested in the legal details can click through to the specific articles, though One is right that these could do with some intensive work (from editors who made different professional decisions than I did, I suspect). I'm still looking at and thinking about some of One's suggestions, especially the Patent law and Posner aspects, but honestly, I do not think it is necessary or appropriate for this article to be a detailed overview of his legal opinions. Slp1 (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been thinking about and reading around the Patent and Posner issues. Gunther doesn't highlight any particularly important cases in patent law. I realize that Blaustein wrote a book in 1983 on the subject, and there is also a 1940s article referring to his work in this field, but view of the more recent sources on Hand give anything more than cursory attention to his work in Patent Law, including Vile's "Great American Judges: An Encyclopedia". I am not sure why the article would need to emphasize an area that more receent scholars/books haven't.
    I feel the same about Posner: it seems that there is a link there, but I suspect a reference to this belongs more in the Posner article than here. Posner's opinions involving Hand's formula are not widely accepted, so I am not sure why this article should include what seems to be fairly tangential subject. It's not like Posner is taking Hand's work to new heights of influence. --Slp1 (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support For disclosure: I had a minor role in expanding this article (a few KB of text, I suppose). I applaud Slp1 and Qp10qp for the phenomenal work they've done on the article. It meets all the FA criteria and I believe it truly exemplifies the best of the best. I'll see later on if I can find ways to improve the article even further. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OpposeSupport While the article is strong factually, and the writing is very good, I don't like a couple of judgmental statements in it, and a few picky style things. I point at:

    Between the wars:

    "reactionary Warren G. Harding administration". I think a better phrasing could be found that doesn't include "reactionary". Having read the above comments, perhaps: The next Second Circuit vacancy arose in 1921, but with given that the Harding Administration was far more conservative than Hand himself, he did not put himself forward.

    OK, I have changed it to conservative. But we lose a distinction between Harding and Coolidge: they were both conservative, yet Hand was willing to put himself forward under Coolidge, and Coolidge was willing to appoint him. qp10qp (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "Calvin Coolidge, gladly appointed" . . . unsourced, who says he was glad? Are there Coolidge letters quoted in Hand's bios? Another adverb, properly sourced, might be good there. Maybe "readily"?

    I have removed "gladly", which is not important. I chose the word based on the following in Gunther (275): "Calvin Coolidge was receptive to merit considerations, for he was eager to put the sordid politics of the Harding era behind him". From this I deduced that he was glad to appoint Hand. qp10qp (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "a passionate supporter of freedom of speech, and any sign of the "merry sport of Red-baiting" alarmed him." I dislike attributions of emotions to people, and think that it could be better phrased (of course, if the bios quote a letter saying "I am alarmed", then never mind).

    OK, I have toned it down to the following: "He remained, however, a strong supporter of freedom of speech, and any sign of the "merry sport of Red-baiting" troubled him." He was actually highly emotional in his letters, but we have largely kept this out of the article in favour of cooler wordings. qp10qp (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Postwar years:

    "Once again, his attack on traitor-hunting" Certainly an odd phrasing. What it traitor-hunting? It turns up 196 google hits. Might want to rephrase.

    I've changed it to "attack on McCarthyism". He used the term "witch-hunting", but I am reluctant to use that expression without directly quoting him. qp10qp (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Influence:

    "Marvin Schick has pointed out that this mythical status is paradoxical." Surely that should be "mythic"? Hand did exist, I studied his cases in law school.

    Changed to "mythic". qp10qp (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Aside from that, it looks quite good. Over the long term, I'd suggest expanding the parts about Hand's less popular views, such as his (actually very reasoned, though I disagree, I've read it)" opposition to Brown. Perhaps a quote or two. Be interesting to wonder if he had been on the court, or appointed CJ so Warren didn't make it, what would have become of the case . . . but I digress.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Many thanks for the review. qp10qp (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers. This is what comes of our not being from the United States. qp10qp (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Questions:
      • Do we need Albany in the lead, when we are about to repeat it?
    We say that he was born in Albany and then that he started out as a lawyer in Albany; if we don't say that he started out as a lawyer in Albany, readers might assume that he started out as a lawyer in New York City. qp10qp (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The wording on his name is mushy; it suggests, but does not state, he was named after relatives named Learned and Billings. Is this so? Who were they?
        • Learned was his mother's maiden name; we should say so.
    Changed to: "His mother's family traditionally used surnames as given names, and the name "Learned" was her own maiden name." qp10qp (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Holmes recommended him for the Supreme Court in 1923. When? On what occasion? Before Harding's death? (If it is for the vacancy filled by Pierce Butler, 1922 would be better.)
    Changed to "by 1923, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wanted him on the Supreme Court". I think he was just recommending him in general rather than for a specific appointment. qp10qp (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because Hand starts the lectures with an analysis of the Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian positions on the Constitution. This wasn't an original research decision, though: it is based on the emphasis in the sources. I think it appropriate to place a picture of Hamilton in the philosophical section, since Hand's constitutional philosophy specifically derives from Hamilton's. Two other considerations were involved: we were short of good images for this section; and Hamilton is an interesting figure, whose importance to the U.S. Constitution may not be known to everyone—perhaps this will nudge them to look him up. qp10qp (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, considering that Hamilton has been on the United States ten-dollar bill since the 1920s (and various other denominations before that), I think the curious would have probably already looked him up. ;) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that not everyone who reads Wikipedia is American. qp10qp (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All of which is an argument to link to Hamilton (and to Jefferson). The picture is off-topic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify this for me, please? Is the book you are talking about the "Spirit of Liberty"? Slp1 (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Bill of Rights, I should think. In it, Hand argues that judicial restraint would forbid the striking down of segregation laws; of course, it would also have forbidden the striking down of worker-protective laws, as in the Lochner case. PMAnderson, in what way do you think the wording should be clarified? qp10qp (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would leave out, or recast, These lectures proved to be the last major critique of judicial activism from a progressive. If a progressive = Hand, this is trivial; if it = "from any progressive", I don't think it's true.
    I think the word "major" makes it true. Anyway, changed to: "These lectures proved to be Hand's last major critique of judicial activism, a position he had first taken up in 1908 with his attack on the Lochner ruling."
    • Mentioning Frankfurter is likely a good idea, since Gunther does make much of it. However, I think some caution is required too: Boudin, in his Standford Law Review of the book says "... Gunther unexpectedly blames Justice Frankfurter for Hand's sour view of the Warren Court and thus indirectly for Hand's damning doubts in the Holmes Lectures about the basis for judicial review. ... With great respect, this explanation rings of special pleading, seeking to mitigate Hand's unsatisfactory positions."--Slp1 (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Gunther mentions Frankfurter a lot in this context, but no one else seems to. qp10qp (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • ANB says that "Hand had failed two years earlier to attain a federal judgeship", which sounds like the 1907 judgeship was created and went elsewhere. Please check.
    What happened was that Congress was going to create this new judgeship in 1907 (at least, the New York legal community assumed so), but it didn't happen; the new judgeship was actually created in 1909, when Hand put himself forward for it again. qp10qp (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: Should this line from the article (He later described himself as a "serious boy", a hard worker who did not smoke, drink, or consort with prostitutes.) be changed to add quotes like this (He later described himself as a "serious boy", a hard worker who did not "smoke, drink, or consort with prostitutes".)? It just seems like language is lifted from the source material. Remember (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not lifted. "Serious boy" comes from page 30 in Gunther, where Hand says: "I was a serious boy, oh boy, wasn't I a serious boy!". The rest is paraphrased from page 29, where he says he was one of "the very obedient, docile little boys. We went to our classes. We didn't drink. We didn't consort with the hetaerae. We worked every night. And we were nice boys". I think that word "hetaerae" discouraged us from quoting this full on. qp10qp (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a nice quotation, though, and a sample of Hand's sense of humor; with a link, hetaerae would not be a problem. Some will object that this is not excruciating accuracy in quotations, so this may be better after FAC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure about the hetaerae myself. In another FAC I was involved with the term "cause célèbre" was taken out because it was a "foreign" non-English word that was too difficult to understand (or link to apparently).--Slp1 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on what you cited, I would remove the prostitute info. I can't tell from his quote whether he was actually referring to real prostitutes (and the quote seems to imply that prostitutes were a common vice) or whether he was just referring to refraining from loose women in general in a joking fashion. In the alternative, I would put the actual quote in the footnote so people know where you got that information from without having to get the book. Remember (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see quite what distinction you are drawing; but prostitution was certainly a common vice in 1890's Boston. (The same page has a calmer quote saying that he "didn't smoke or drink at all in college. Mother wouldn't want me to." Prostitutes would have been right out.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Thanks, Remember, but there is, as you might guess, more than that mentioned above: Gunther talks further about Hand's sexuality on page 76. "Learned had not yet met a "respectable" woman whom he could imagine spending his life with, and he avoided prostitutes. As Charlie Barlow [a Harvard friend] wrote after an evening taunting Learned about his abstinence from worldly temptation: "Chastity, sir, is certainly the greatest aim of mankind on earth and I trust you will cling to yours"." --Slp1 (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind. It appears you have a lot of support for the statement that he avoided prostitutes (which I guess was a notable thing at the time). I would, however, put the citation from Guther on page 76 as support for the quote. Remember (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I'm afraid to say that all-male universities and prostitutes tended to go together in those days, rather inevitably. qp10qp (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - Not that my opinion matters much, but this article is impressive. Remember (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Everyone's opinion matters! Thanks for your comments and suggestions, and of course for support.Slp1 (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Supreme example of positive collaborative editing by wikipedians. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Provisional support: I think that this is a very good piece of writing, and a comprehensive account of the man. Here are the things I would change as well:

    • birth and death date format
    Can you explain further? If you are thinking about date-linking that we have decided not to use this in this article --Slp1 (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • which Progressive party - link in intro goes to disambiguation
    Thanks, fixed. It was linked correctly at the first mention but not the second. The second link may not be even desirable --Slp1 (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • a sentence on where the weird surname combo comes from
    There is something about this in the first section of the bio, but I will add a bit more there.--Slp1 (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • just for structure, I'd make subsections: a lot of people (like me today!) will just want to look at the article for his legal work: e.g. you could just put the first lot under biography, and then the rest under academic work.
    I'm not in favour of this, since the sections are organic and will not yield to subsectioning without an entire rewriting. There is a section about jurisprudence at the bottom, but some of the legal material is necessarily bound in with the biography. qp10qp (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would link every case, even if the article isn't there yet and there's that nasty red colour on your beautiful article. This is just because legal readers are good at coming along and going "oh I know that case" and putting it up. This encourages people and it saves people going back later to link it.
    I hate redlinks, but probably a good idea.Slp1 (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do. There aren't many without an article. qp10qp (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Red links for all cases now in place. qp10qp (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All cases, also, must have proper citations in the footnotes. Don't know if you two are lawyers, but I think this is essential. For Americans, you're really lucky because the majority of judgments are also online. If you can find them, put in the external links too.
    No, we aren't lawyers. As Qp10qp noted, there is a tension about whether the article is a general biography or a source for legal beagles. I think it is quite likely that another article about his cases is required that can satisfy the needs of lawyerly types. But still yes we can add the citations. Will do it as I have time.Slp1 (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the fact that we aren't lawyers, plus the fact that the general sources for Hand don't bother with the legal citations, was a reason why we didn't think legal citations would add much. We asked about this on the talk page and didn't get much response. Since you ask, we will of course add them to the notes; but I think the cases the article talks about are easy enough to find anyway. qp10qp (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Legal citations have now been added for each case. qp10qp (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • List of judgments: that's what I came looking for. There isn't one! I think you need this. Just put something in there above the see also section: start with the famous ones he's done and that already have articles. There's an article calculus of negligence which you should link to the sentence US v. Carroll Towing.
    I would like to see fewer lists at the bottom of articles. They are temptingly easy to add to and soon get out of control. I don't think it would add anything to the article to list the cases we already mention, and to list cases we don't mention would raise the question of why we didn't mention them. On what basis would we choose which to list from Hand's four thousand judgements? I also don't believe that Hand's fame is really about the mass of his judgements: he is known for a small few, but his fame rests more on his public profile. qp10qp (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Link to Calculus of negligence added. qp10qp (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that for an FA (this is just me) a few blue quote boxes go well. This guy was a man of letters, renowned for his clear, incisive and witty judgments. I think that you should putting in a few of his most famous lines here and there.
    There are already lots of his more famous quotes included, just not in blue box format. I personally like the fact that they are integrated into the text. Slp1 (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Aside from that, I think it's great article. Certainly perfect for a biography: but if you do these few more things to make it a little more helpful for picky lawyers like me, it'll be even better. Wikidea 13:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Congratulations on the FA (and thanks to Qp and Slp for robbing me of an opportunity to nag on command :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 3 August 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 01:22, 3 August 2008 [55].

    Balch Creek

    Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk)


    I'm nominating this good article for featured article because, improved during peer review, it meets the criteria. It describes and tells the story of a short, schizophrenic creek that begins in a forest and ends in a storm sewer in Portland, Oregon. My thanks to User:Epicadam, User:Doncram, User:Ruhrfisch, and User:Ealdgyth, who took part in the peer review, and to User:Juliancolton, who did the GA review. Finetooth (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • The first sentence is exceedingly awkward: something of the something in the something of the something in the whatever (or something like that). Consider rephrasing.
    • Second sentence seems to suddenly digress - how about "...is named after (person), who is famous for..."?
    • You use "unincorporated Multnomah County". First of all, the second "unincorporated is unnecessary (though it's fine to describe it as "unincorporated" again later in the text). Second of all, what does "unincorporated" mean in this context, anyways?

    More later - I'm busy right now. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support (and more comments) - prose is excellent over all, some little things:

    • "This bottom land"?
    • Why exactly is "Guild's Lake" bolded?
    • "in the early part of the 20th century" -> "in the early 20th century"
    • "The creek drops from 1,116 feet (340 m) at its source..." - add "above sea level", if that's what you mean.
    • You use "a minimum of 0" then just "minimum of 0". Be consistent.
    • Redundancy: "including mixtures of red alder and cottonwood trees in some areas" - this is debatable, but I like to strive to be as concise as possible.

    Excellent work. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply: Thank you, User:Nousernamesleft, for the helpful suggestions and for your support. I took your advice and made all of the changes you recommended. I have unbolded Guild's Lake, replaced "bottom land", removed the repetition of "unincorporated" and wikilinked "unincorporated" in the main text. In this context "unincorporated" means not part of Portland or any other city or town with a municipal government. I have added "above sea level" and wikilinked it, fixed the red alder sentence, and inserted the missing "a" before the second "0". I fixed the "20th century" phrase. Most helpful were your suggestions about the lead, which I re-wrote for clarity and concision. The lead included a nest of passive-voice verbs that User:Epicadam had warned me about but which escaped fixing until today. I have replaced them with active verbs. Thanks again. Finetooth (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - I reviewed the sources at PR, and the one concern I had was addressed. I double checked them again just now, still look fine. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks again, Ealdgyth. I always appreciate your help. Finetooth (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • there are a few refs that should be combines ("Streams & Water Bodies" is cited in two different footnotes)
    • Are there any named tributaries? The map clearly shows at least one tributary, but none are mentioned anywhere in the article.

    Circeus (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply: You are right about the redundant citations. In response, I found ways to combine or compress several. I think I caught them all. Your question about tributary names is good. I can find no "official" names. The Friends map shows three tributaries, one joining the main stem at Cornell Road and two crossing the Audubon property. I originally thought the bigger of the two Audubon streams was called "Woodpecker Creek", but only one source called it that. It may well have been a "working" name rather than an official one since an official Woodpecker Trail is nearby. In response to your question, I have added the three unnamed tributaries to the course description. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. Finetooth (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your kind words and your support. Finetooth (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support (and comments) A very well-written, interesting and informative article -- just what an encyclopedia should be. I fixed a couple of very small grammatical issues and I have one question about a street name:

      • Industry section: "longterm economic viability as an industrial district." - corrected 'longterm' to 'long-term' per the cited material
        • Did you mean to say "Northwest Northwest" as in: "what later became Northwest Northwest Saint Helens Road and Northwest Yeon Street"?
      • Fish and wildlife section: substituted 'simpler' for 'more simple'

    Good show! Geoff (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply: Both of your changes improved the article. Also, you are quite right about the accidental doubling of "Northwest", which I fixed after seeing your note. Thank you for your kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, ragesoss, for checking the images. I appreciate it. Finetooth (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, it looks like you strugged with delinking accessdates. What you did works, but another way to do it (for future reference) is to use the accessmonthday and accessyear parameters, instead of accessdate; that results in delinked retrieval dates. Please consider cleaning out those empty parameters on cite templates in the future, as they just unnecessarily chunk up the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks User:SandyGeorgia. I removed the rest of the empty parameters in this article, and I will remove them from other articles in the future. I moved the access dates back inside the templates using the two parameters you suggested. This is more elegant than leaving them orphaned. Finetooth (talk) 21:51, 2 August 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 01:22, 3 August 2008 [56].

    Domitian

    Nominator(s): Steerpike (talk)


    This article has taken a lot of time and effort. As I believe it currently fits all the criteria for a Featured Article Candidate, I'm proud to put this up for nomination. Style should be good, structure is clear, images are free, treatment is comprehensive without going into unnecessary detail, etc... I would like to pre-emptively address three possible criticisms though:

    • Size: the current article size is 92kb, however readable prose only constitutes about 65kb. So I see no problems with the current size of the text. There is little that could be shortened in the current format anyway, since several terms relating to Roman history, especially in the opening sections, need at least some clarification for uninitiated readers.
    • Ancient sources: the use of ancient sources is generally discouraged as a primary source for a Wikipedia article. In some sections, I *do* cite ancient authors, but I have tried to use these sparingly, and only when a) the statements are uncontested, b) are used as a direct quote, or c) are used to highlight a controversy.
    • Modern source: some may criticize my "overreliance" on Brian Jones' The Emperor Domitian as the main source of reference for this article. However, as noted even within the article: book length studies of Domitian are few and far between, with the only other notable books either written over a hundred years ago (Gsell, 1894) or largely based on the work of Jones itself (Southern, 1997). At present, the work of Brian Jones is simply thé most authoritative source on the Domitianic era.

    Any other objections I'd be very happy to discuss! Regards. Steerpike (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from epicAdam (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for starters, here are some WP:MoS problems that can be dealt with fairly quickly:

    • The article jumps between British and American word spellings... choose a variation and then make sure all the following words match up: armor/armour; neighbor/neighbour; meter/metre; defense/defence; offense/offence; pretense/pretence; organize/organise; criticize/criticise; ization/isation; equaling/equalling; traveled/travelled; fulfillment/fulfilment; program/programme
    • There are areas that need non-breaking spaces (i.e. &nbsp;) between numbers and their units of measurement.
    • Units of measurement should be spelled out in the main article text and converted both between US standard and metric units. (i.e. "My house is 15 miles (24 km) from the store." Not, "My house is 15 mi (24 km) from the store.")
    • When providing dates, don't write "the 13th of January" write instead "13 January" or "January 13" (depends, again, on British v. American grammar)
    • You have a number of wikilinks that lead to disambiguation pages... you probably want to take care of those as well: Arx; Bath; Corruption; Dacian Wars; Domitian; Expedition; Flavia Domitilla; Forth; Illyricum; Lucius Aelius Lamia; Nominal; Odeum; Parthenius; Play

    I'll check over other parts of the article in a bit, just wanted to give you a head start.

    Ok, I went with British spelling and fixed consistency and measurement units accordingly. Non-breaking spaces added and disambiguation pages removed, except "Odeum", which can't lead anywhere else. Should I put a non-breaking space between "80,000 soldiers"? The dates still have to be addressed. --Steerpike (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All dates have been checked and fixed now. --Steerpike (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • For authors like Eusebius of Caesarea. you usually alphabetize and/or list in references as Eusebius, not "of Caesarea".
    • Current ref 113 is missing a page number (Thompson, Leonard L.)
    • Current ref 94 is missing a page number (Di Martino, Vittorio)
    • http://www.livius.org/cao-caz/casperius/aelianus.html what makes this a reliable self-published work?
    • Also, I know you discussed this above, but there is a LOT that is sourced to primary sources. I don't have a problem with reliance on one secondary source, sometimes folks just don't write about what we want them to, but it's pretty much a given that Suetonius and Tacitus has axes to grind and too much reliance on them leaves you open to OR.
    Otherwise links checked out with the link checker, sources look okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed Eusebius and replaced refs without a page with better alternatives. The pageless citations were basically a remnant from a past version of the article. As for "Livius.org", the author, Jona Lendering, has adequate credentials to be considered reliable, I believe. But just to make sure, I've replaced the citation with one from Grainger. As for the ancient authors, I agree that relying on primary sources is dangerous with regards to OR. But I've expressly tried to avoid piecing together the article based only on classical authors. Whenever I do cite these primary sources, it's always for the reasons I mentioned above. But I could cut back on them if you like. I do like to include some references to ancient authors, as their texts are not only very interesting, but still widely read and hugely influential. --Steerpike (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On livius.org, to determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.
    On the ancient sources, I totally understand the desire to add some ancient sources, it's just that if you rely on them too much (which is a fine line and something that varies from article to article) you're treding into OR territory. I tend towards the "use them as sources the absolute least you can" school, but that's something that's a personal preference. My rule of thumb is I use ancient/medieval sources for quotes and color, and try to rely on modern historians for facts and all other information. That doesn't always work out, (I had to use Bede a LOT with Augustine of Canterbury, and I certainly can't see forcing you to change out the sources just because of my whims. I'm hoping to find time to actually review the whole article in the next couple of days, we'll see how it goes. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • "between 69 and 96, encompassing the reigns of Domitian's father Vespasian (69–79), his elder brother Titus (79–81), and finally Domitian's own."
    • "...whose brief reign came to an unexpected end on 13 September 81." - tantalizing, but could you be a little bit less vague, even in the lead?
    • "The following day, Domitian was declared emperor by the Praetorian Guard, and began a reign which lasted more than fifteen years" - I'm not quite sure what's wrong with this sentence... maybe nothing is. However, I think that "and began a reign" seems not to use Domitian as a subject. Maybe "...Guard, beginning a reign..."?
    • I wonder why there's a citation for exactly one sentence in the lead? Is it a highly contentious statement?
    • "Domitian was born in Rome on 24 October 51, as the youngest son" - how about "...on 24 October 51; the youngest son..."
    • "Modern history has refuted these claims however, suggesting these stories..."
    • You seem to use commas very liberally throughout the article. While I don't think this is grammatically incorrect, it does make the reading a bit difficult sometimes. Would you clean this up a bit?
    • "A number of ancient authors have implicated Domitian in the death of his brother..."
    • "...suggesting the latter had played some part in uncovering the conspiracy..." - "some part" sounds strange - how about "a part"?
    • "A highly detailed account of the plot and the assassination is provided to us by Suetonius," - is provided to "us"? How about simply "is provided"?

    Excellent article overall. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Most points have been addressed in my last edit. With regards to the citation, I think someone once made a fuss about the statement in the lead not being sourced. But I've removed the citation now. As for the commas, I used these with the intention to improve readability, especially when the sentences are long, and contain a lot of information. But I'll see what I can do. --Steerpike (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support all of my image concerns have been addresses/addressed as fully as possible, so there are no image formating problems when reading the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose MoS problems - sandwiching. Images shouldn't "sandwich" text between them. This happens six times. Also, comments in the image descriptions are lengthy, unnecessary, and sometimes include speculation/"weasel words", for example: "According to some authors, Nerva took part or had advance knowledge of the plot against Domitian. Immediately following the assassination, he was proclaimed emperor by the Senate." The phrase "according to some authors" jumps out, especially without citations to show that there are authors who believe such. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandwiching probably depends on screen resolution. I have a 1024 x 768 monitor, and it looks fine to me. So I'm not sure if this can be fixed. I like to include a little more elaborate commentary in images than merely state "what it is". I think this is a bit more informative. And I don't usually cite sources in image descriptions because it's already mentioned in the text. But I could source it if you like (or change the wording). --Steerpike (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That wouldn't make sense. I have a tight resolution and it sandwiches. There is one image that is only a few lines apart, which would mean even with an extremely tight resolution, it should probably sandwich. I just moved the size to half of my screen width and it sandwiches at ceremonial heir. By the way, MoS does not allow images on the "left" to be directly under a heading, so thats a problem there. All you have to do about the wording is to drop the "some scholars" type of beginning. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your text size then? Anyway, here's a proposal for a different alignment of images: User talk:Steerpike/Sandbox. Would that be better? MOS prefers that multiple images be staggered alternatively left and right. BUT, it also discourages left-aligned images under second level headings. I'm not sure if my proposed solution actually solves this, but otherwise I think aligning all images to the right will look awkward. I've also edited some of the captions, and cut the images of Vitellius and Titus altogether (in my alternative version). What do you think? --Steerpike (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Better. Now, to finish - 1) Under family, first paragraph, add a sentence or two extra. That will open the formatting up and the first paragraph is rather tiny. 2) Year of the four emperors - Move the picture down to the next paragraph, or split the top paragraph in half and move the picture infront of that new second paragraph. Add four lines or so to the second paragraph marriage section, split the top paragraph, move the picture down to the new second paragraph. I say this because the section is a little short and you can go into more detail about the state of the marriage. 3) In the administration section, move the picture down to the second paragraph, split the second paragraph, and add about two more lines. That section is a little brief, even though there is a lot you can say. 4) Military activity picture is 250 px, but other left pictures are 200px. Perhaps shrink it? Also, don't let pictures push the headings to the right, which it appears to do on my screen (Military activity and Dacian war, for example). Add a few lines about the state of military forces, what kind of patterns, leaders, etc. This will give you a new paragraph and you can move the fort picture down accordingly. 5) Standardize the image sizes, they tend to range a lot. If needed, crop the "excess" off the pictures. Domitians statue has a lot of extra hanging around that just takes up space. So does the stone face. Try that for now. It will fix a lot of the problems and fill out the article nicely. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, the new version is currently in progress, but not yet completely finished. A few notes:
    • I've moved the dynasty box to the Emperor section. This will clear up some image space in the introduction, and fits better contentwise.
    • I've expanded the marriage section in accordance to your wishes, and cut back on the caption text in the image.
    • Most other images have been moved to fit better with the text-structure. There should be next to no sandwiching left now.
    • You asked to expand the administration and military section, especially with regards to the image placement in the text, BUT there really isn't that much left to say. At least nothing that isn't already mentioned either a) in the section or b) somewhere else.
    • I haven't yet standardized the image sizes. I picked a different size for each image depending on how much detail should/can/needs to be shown. Busts are obviously going to be smaller than full length statues or maps. Images of coinage are naturally wide.
    • I have cropped the statue from Vaison-la-Romaine.
    • EDIT: the rock sculpture has been removed because apparently, it was subject to a special Romanian copyright. I've replaced it with a map, although I will see if I can find a better one yet.
    Tell me what you think. --Steerpike (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I leave matters to technical accuracy and referencing to those more well versed in the topic than myself. Otherwise, excellent work: generally very well written and well illustrated. Please address the following issues in the lead:

    • "While Titus shared almost equal powers in the government of his father, Domitian was left with honours but no responsibilities." Titus' powers were equal to whose?
    • "encompassing the reigns of Domitian's father Vespasian (69–79), his elder brother Titus (79–81), and finally that of Domitian himself."

    I have made a few other copyedits but the text is well structured, flows well and is involving. Fully supporting the article for featured status is pending completion of the minor copyedits that remain. Dhatfield (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The sentences you mentioned have been fixed. --Steerpike (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to support. Great work. Dhatfield (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did go back and alter one or two of your copyedits. I think "foreshadowing what was to be his role for at least ten years" is less ambiguous than "foreshadowing his role for at least ten years", which could be read as if the foreshadowing lasted ten years. Also "was carrying on an affair", instead of "had carried on", in the Marriage section. The rumours of the affair were concurrent with the exile and return of Domitia. --Steerpike (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: One thing that has been bothering me for a while is this: when do you capitalize the word "Emperor", and when not? I'm afraid capitalization is slightly inconsistent at the moment. --Steerpike (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support changed from Slight oppose I think it's got the basics, just needs some work. Still some concerns over overlinking and jargon, but able to support now.

    • It probably could do with a good copyedit by someone better at it than i am. The prose is servicable, but might be a bit wordy at times.
    • Need to explain what Domitian being hailed as Caesar meant.
    UPDATE: I don't think I'll ever be able to fix this. Much as I tried, it would probably take a long and awkward paragraph to adequately explain what the significance of Domitian being hailed as Caesar was. I'm just going to have to assume that it is clear from the context that it is a title connected to the imperial power. The word caesar is not thát obscure anyway. --Steerpike (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same as above about linking revolted and Batavian revolt.
    UDATE: Fixed. --Steerpike (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jargon alert - the whole article is full of it. Folks aren't going to know what a suffect consul is, or what the various titles of magistracies are or anything like that. I strongly suggest having someone unfamiliar with Roman history read through the article. I'm too familiar to catch all the jargon.
    Ok, general comment about the "jargon" complaints. I'll try to cut back on jargon wherever I can BUT, I can't and won't stop to explain every Latin/Roman term in the article. Not only would that make the text hopelessly convoluted (you should try to work in a definition for client in that paragraph), it would go against FA-criteria which ask that articles don't delve into unnecessary detail, and perhaps most importantly, would kind of beat the whole point of wikilinking, and Wikipedia in general. I don't think there's an elegant way to write an involving narrative on Domitian's life, AND at the same time digress to explain terms like quaestor, suffect consul, client,... I've checked the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on Domitian (otherwise far inferior to this article, if I may be so bold), and they also use terms like Praetor without explanation. Most of the times, it's clear from the context what the terms refer to (titles, offices), and if not, the explanation is only a click away.
    While I sympathize, I only do so to some extent. I write FAs on almost as obscure topics (medieval English bishops, anyone? Quarter Horses?) and get constant requests to explain in the text things that I'd rather just wikilink. In all fairness, Domitian is probably a bigger topic (and more important topic) than Easy Jet, so it needs to be understandable to folks without having to leave your article to figure things out. Suffect consul should be explained, I would think, otherwise people aren't going to realise that while its an honor, it's not as big an honor as being named the main nominative consul for the year. I can see that maybe not so much need for praetor, etc., but when Domitian is acclaimed as Caesar, while it is clear from the context that this is a title, it's not clear why this acclamation is important. If it was clear that Caesar was the title right below Augustus, it would be more clear what the entire context of the event is. As far as client, if you can't explain what the it means in that sentence, you might just go for "spent the night hiding with a supporter of his father" which expresses what a client is without bogging the article down with uneccessary detail. As a last note, the idea is your article is so engaging and interesting that they don't WANT to click away to figure out what a term is, right? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As with caesar, I'm having a hard time fitting in a good explanation of "suffect consul". I don't think it's quite as difficult to do as caesar, but I haven't yet worked out a good new paragraph. --Steerpike (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the definition from the Oxford Classical Dictionary: "suffectio was the procedure by which a substitute or suffect (suffectis) was appointed whenever a Roman magistrate resigned or died in office." then later "Under the empire consuls ceased to hold office for the full year; those appointed after the original ('ordinary') pair were suffecti. They did not give their name to the year, unlike 'ordinary' ones, although they had the appropriate rank and title of consularis." (I can supply the exact page number and stuff if you like) It might work well as "...suffect consul, or replacement consul..." in the text with a longer explanation in a footnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the lead, I THINK the MOS still says that date ranges have unspaced ndashes, but I'm not sure, so double check that with someone. I went through and changed them all that I saw to unspaced dates, since that was what was being used elsewhere in the article. If I'm wrong, feel free to revert.
    Endash is spaced when either of the two parts contain a space (e.g. New York – San Francisco)
    • Might be a bit too much detail in the lead about Vespasian and Titus. It tends to overpower the rest of the lead which should be about Domitian. You discuss nothing of what Domitian DID, like the rebellions he faced, etc. It's all him overshadowed by his brother/father and what people thought of him.
    Well the fact is, he was overshadowed by his brother and father during the 70s. His role in the civil war was limited, he had no active part in crushing the Batavian rebellion, and after that time his function was largely ceremonial. That's pretty much the point of the entire section. The only event of significance in Domitian's life during the 70s was his marriage to Domitia. But I've reworked the lead to include a bit more on Domitian's policies as emperor.
    I just found it odd to have so much in the body of the article on what he did, but very little in the lead. I've gone ahead and marked this resolved, but you could add another paragraph if you really felt the need for more. The article is big enough that four paragraphs in the lead wouldn't be amiss. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will probably rework the lead sometime soon anyway. It doesn't quite flow well enough yet. --Steerpike (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Third paragraph of the lead "Traditional views hold that Domitian.." seems a bit awkward to me, perhaps change it to "Traditionallly, historians hold that ..."?
    Fixed.
    • Need to explain what a gens is. (Family section)
    I've added a sentence here, but I think it's clear from the context that a "gens" is a family line.
    Never assume on the reading abilty of 12 year olds. (I always wonder how many 12 year olds are assigned papers and run immediately to Wikipedia...)
    • Need a citation for the older siblings. Are they twins? they are given the same birth year. Do we know their birth dates exactly? If so might list those...
    Somewhat surprisingly, I cannot immediately find a proper citation to back this up, so I'll have to put it on hold for a while.
    EDIT: The statement is now sourced. Turns out she wasn't born in 39, but around 45. --Steerpike (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For Helvetia (and all the Roman provinces) it would be nice if you gave modern locations also, so folks don't have to click through to the province articles. Not everyone has a grasp of Roman geography.
    Fixed.
    • Probably a bit of overlinking going on. I noticed links for poverty, propoganda, adolescence, poetry, law, bow and arrow, baldness, wig, suicide, anarchy, bodyguard, seige/beseiged, literature, exile, heir, horse, divorce, adultery, democracy, culture, taxes, political corruption, debt, surplus, banquet, dwarf, swamp/marsh, gold, silver mining, chapel, morals/morality, satire, dagger,
    Not yet addressed, but I'll see what I can do. I do like to wikilink less obvious terms in the article too, and certainly broad concepts like "democracy", "culture", "taxes", etc.
    I'd have less problems with democracy, or propoganda if things like horse and wig and baldness weren't linked (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Explain who Britannicus is folks don't have to click through to the article.
    It says in the paragraph that Britannicus was the son of Claudius.
    Missed it! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Family section, you've linked "revolted" to the First Jewish War article. You'd be better off saying "The same year the Jews of the Judaea province revolted in the First Jewish War... " or whatever the title of the article is. The current link is titled revolt, and doesn't give any inkling that it links to something besides the definition of revolt. I'm afraid most folks won't click through to the hidden title.
    Fixed.
    • Per the MOS, curly quotes are not used for block quotations.
    Switched to "Quotation" template.
    • Need a citation for the last two sentences of Youth and character.
    Fixed. --Steerpike (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Year of the Four emperors section - need to briefly explain princeps.
    Switched princeps to emperor.
    • Same section, you use Egypt at first, then switch to Ægyptus. Pick one and stick with it, I lean towards Egypt, myself.
    Fixed.
    • Same section "Vespasian accepted, and through negotiations by Titus joined forces..." is awkward, consider rewording.
    Fixed
    • Same for "... leaving Titus in charge to end the Jewish rebellion." Perhaps "...leaving Titus in charge of ending the Jewish rebellion."?
    Fixed.
    • Same for "Support for the old emperor was quickly wavering however.." Perhaps "Support for Vitellius was waning, however, ..."?
    Fixed.
    • Year of the Four emperors - explain what the Arx is?
    I've edited this out. Only a minor detail after all.
    • You need to explain that a client in Roman usage wasn't the modern usage, otherwise folks are going to think that after Domitian's escape from the Capitol, he spent the night with a business client of his father's.
    EDIT: changed to supporter. --Steerpike (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aftermath section... first paragraph, are you referring to only Rome or to the whole Empire? It implies Rome, although you don't specify where Vespasian returned to, which should be done.
    Fixed.
    • Need to explain who Tacitus is.
    Fixed.
    • If Domitian's son died between 77 and 81, he was 4 to 8 years old and no longer in infancy. Childhood would be better description.
    Fixed.
    • Need a citation on the last sentence of the first paragraph of Ceremonial heir.
    • Need a citation on the last sentence of the second paragraph of Ceremonial heir section.
    • Need a citation on the last section of the fourth paragraph of Ceremonial heir.
    • Need a citation for the last sentence of the third paragraph of Economy section
    • Need citation for the last sentence of the fourth paragraph of the Religious policy section
    • Need a citation for the last two sentences of the first paragraph of the Revolt of Saturninus section.
    All citations fixed.
    • I have some qualms about the reliance on the ancient sources for the basic biographical details of the life. It might be best to rely on modern scholars for this, especially as the subject is Domitian and the ancient authors are biased.
    Well the problem is that there are no modern sources to provide basic biographical details of Domitian. A historian like Jones has to use the same information from Suetonius as presented here. But I repeat, whenever there is a controversy regarding statements from ancient authors (as in the alleged Flavian poverty under Nero), or bias comes into question, I do NOT quote these writers as presenting factual information.
    The major problem is that Wikipedia guidelines want folks to use secondary sources for this sort of information. I'm not going to necessarily oppose based only on this, but it's going to be an issue if it makes it to the main page. There will be some folks that scream because the article uses primary sources and thus could be OR. Using secondary sources protects you from charges of OR. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've cut back on ancient sources. The Year of the Four Emperors is still a sore point (I really need Kenneth Wellesley's The Long Year 69 for this section), but otherwise citations to ancient authors were either replaced by modern sources, or are now accompanied by a second, modern citation. But this work is still in progress. --Steerpike (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the links, but note that I did use some of these sources in the article, such as Agricola and Domitian, Imperial Finances under Domitian...,... In any case, The Emperor Domitian is already an excellent synthesis of all pre-1992 material.
    Overall, I'm not ready to support. It's a slight oppose until the issues of jargon have been addressed at the very least. Other concerns are the reliance on ancient sources for basic facts and the need for a good copyedit by someone not connected with Roman history. I'd also like to see some of the above sources used, if possible, if they are worth using. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
    Comments between your text. Regards. --Steerpike (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    UPDATE: I've cut back further on ancient sources. Out of 153 references (not counting duplicates), "only" 32 are still sourced to ancient authors, as opposed to 56 in the original version. But only a few of these are actually used a direct source of "fact" (I'd have to order a new book to fix these). The others are usually sources to direct quotes, and accompanied by references to modern authors. --Steerpike (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The reign of Domitian has some importance in the history of Scotland, so it would make sense to link it in this article. Maybe not so much Greece or Spain, but certainly Rome. Aside from the fact that Domitian's reign significantly changed the face of the ancient city of Rome, it seems beyond absurd not to link Rome in an article on a Roman Emperor. But I was already fixing the overlinking while you posted this. By the way, you linked "18 September 96" in the third paragraph of the lead, but this date already has a link at the top of the lead. --Steerpike (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dates are not linked or not because they were previously linked: they are linked or not so they will display consistently per user preferences. By linking one, and not the other, one of them displays for me as September 18, while the other displays as 18 September. See WP:MOS; either link all month-day combos or delink all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed + overlinking in general. If there's anything else that should be (de)linked, feel free to change it. --Steerpike (talk) 22:33, 2 August 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 01:22, 3 August 2008 [57].

    Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)

    Nominator(s): Blackngold29, Gary King (talk), Rezter


    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. Gary King (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments regarding MoS:
    • Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) is the third studio album by American metal band Slipknot. It was released on May 25, 2004 by Roadrunner Records, and a Special Edition version of the album containing a bonus disc was released on April 12, 2005. Why is "Special Edition" capitalized?
      • Done
    • Add non-breaking spaces throughout.
    • After the album was complete, the band expressed that these side projects "saved the band" and "helped [them] break out of the box [they] were in". The period goes outside of the quotation when only a segment of the sentence is a quote. I see this quite a bit in the article, so instead of me listing every one, just make sure to read up on WP:PUNC.
    • Otherwise, it seems to comply with the MoS. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the reliablity of the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of FLs use the same sources as we have (we also used them on Slipknot's discography) see Sepultura discography, Metallica discography, Nine Inch Nails discography. REZTER TALK ø 16:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because a lot of FL's use them, doesn't mean that the source itself is reliable. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I can't determine how reliable they are, but my point is that if there is so much featured content using the same sources they must have been challenged before and found reliable. If the case is that this article isn't considered FA quality based upon these sources then all articles sourcing these sites should be challenged too. REZTER TALK ø 00:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    According to everyhit.com's FAQ page To anyone who submits info: "Please quote your source as we're keen only to print factually accurate information and may need to check it." Seems reliable to me. Blackngold29 03:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but they don't give their sources on the pages themselves. And I'm not seeing that anyone else uses them as reliable, such as Rolling Stone or one of the UK magazines. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The following FAs all use the site: Californication, Dookie, Blood Sugar Sex Magik, Year Zero, and that with hardly looking. If there is even another site that offers the same info, I cannot find it. I would find it difficult to believe if the topic of UK album sales has never come into play before...and from what I can see everyhit is the only consistant source used. Blackngold29 16:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On the reliability of the source http://www.everyhit.com , whether it is used in other articles is not relevant here, and please see this:

    It all began with Janet Jackson. No; not that one! My mum! She had a wind-up gramophone and a wad of 78 singles; 12 inch discs, the 'modern' ones made of thick pure vinyl, the older ones manufactured from brittle shellac. Quite why I was drawn to these as a very young child is unclear. But the combination of the technology, the fusty smell and silky texture of the vinyl and, above all, the magical way in which the music was made was an irresistible draw.

    My parents were (and still are) great music lovers. Having been teenagers through the rock 'n' roll era, they had amassed vast record collections. These were carefully stored and catalogued. They were keen that I - and my brothers - developed an appreciation for music and soon we were off to buy our favourites with every last bit of pocket money. Our complimentary tastes worked well and the record collection swelled. We realised that, with our combined tastes and pooled resources, we were building the definitive (post) rock 'n' roll record collection; every track ever to have hit the Top 40.
    As a student, I took a job in a record shop. I never saw money in my wage packet. The management cut out the middle man and paid me in vinyl! The staff discount came in handy for family and friends too. The collection swelled. Now, in the 80s, I was purchasing every track to hit the Top 40.
    This habit has continued through to this day. Happily, I find myself in the lucky position of getting each new release through the promotions mechanism of the great British record industry.
    The website itself gives no reason to believe it meets our WP:V policy; please establish that it meets the expectations for WP:SPS (see the examples at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no opposition to just removing the three charts cited to the source, that would be easier (until a better one can be found of course). But I still find it difficult to believe that there is no site comprable to Billboard in the UK. Especially with the large number of albums that are included throughout WP that list UK charts; thusly we are essentially saying that there is no UK singles chart. Blackngold29 22:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not exactly sure how much of a difference this makes but on the Discographies project page they list all the sources you have provided as "reliable". See Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#Useful_resources:. REZTER TALK ø 09:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for a discussion of why various wikiprojects useful sources lists don't always translate into reliable sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyhit.com has been removed until further investigation can be done as to its reliability. Blackngold29 22:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It is the first and only album" - if it's the only of course it's the first
    • "Nevertheless, they eventually managed to write more than enough material for the new album, releasing five singles" - the two parts of this sentence are pretty unrelated
    • Pleased don't use the metacritic score in the lead; instead summarise reviewer opinions
    • Is "exercised other musical projects" correct phrasing? Don't think excercised is a good word here.
    • "The musical style of Slipknot is often difficult to pinpoint because of the genres their music covers; however, Vol. 3 is regarded as their most diverse album." – why however; the statements agree?
    • Why is the audio sample in the reception section?
    • Sometimes it’s referred to as Vol. 3, sometimes as the full name. Be consistent.
    • Some of the reviewers in the reception section are wlinked, some aren’t. Be consistent (I don’t think any are linked earlier in the article)

    —Giggy 02:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All done Gary King (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. —Giggy 02:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per 1c, as certain statements aren't "factually accurate", but are opinions. More specifically;
    "The musical style of Slipknot is often difficult to pinpoint because of the genres their music covers, and Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) is regarded as their most diverse album." - According to whom?
    Removed
    "The lyrics of Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) include strong use of metaphors and touches upon themes including anger, disaffection, and psychosis.[16]" - According to whom?
    Allmusic... hence the citation. It sounds weird to say, "According to Allmusic, the lyrics...". I'll remove the "strong use", but I don't think this is a case that needs accredited. Blackngold29 01:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "However, songs such as "Pulse of the Maggots" and "Before I Forget" use the band's usual "pounding metal" style.[15]" - According to whom is this "usual"?
    "Other tracks such as "Blister Exists", "Three Nil", and "Opium of the People" combine the two extremes of their recognizable metal edge with melody, with the most apparent shifts being in Taylor's vocal style.[16]" - According to whom?
    Me, ;) Removed
    "Despite the initial problems, the writing process eventually became extremely productive." - According to whom was the writing process "extremely" productive? What can be regarded as "extremely" productive? The composition of 10 songs? A 100 songs? The use of the word "extremely" isn't warranted.
    Reworded

    LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to state that I don't feel my objection has been fully addressed, and deem it valid still. At the end of the day, comments as regards lyrics are opinions, and not factual. Therefore, they need to be accredited. I am vehemently against quotes being misused, and am frankly fed up of seeing them in FACs. Take this from the lead as an example; ".. some critics also added that the album was "a triumph"". That's absolute rubbish, as any minor investigating can tell. Only Q uses the words "a triumph", and as far as I am aware, one magazine does not constitute "some critics". LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have accredited the reviews in the intro, as well as the lyrical themes to Allmusic. Blackngold29 20:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My concerns still remain unaddressed: "However, songs such as "Pulse of the Maggots" and "Before I Forget" use a more "pounding metal" style.[17] Other tracks such as "Blister Exists", "Three Nil", and "Opium of the People" combine the two extremes of their recognizable metal edge with melody, with the most apparent shifts being in Taylor's vocal style.[2]" These are opinions, and not facts, so need to be attributed to the journalist's opinion. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have attributed the remaining statements. I only took into consideration the specific examples you mentioned, I should've realized that you wanted everything attributed. Blackngold29 19:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, leaning to Oppose
    Some comments resolved. --Efe (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some complete dates dont have links (WP:DATES).
    • Some quotations are not using the logical quotation style (WP:PUNC).
      • Example: The magazine also concluded that "the riffs have lost none of their impact, but it seems like finally the group also wants you to appreciate their vocal and lyrical impact." --Efe (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have unlinked all dates. That punctuation used in that quote is correct because it stands as a full sentence on its own, so the period belongs in the quote. Gary King (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The precedent "that" means that the quotation is quoted not in full. Also, what is the rationale behind unlinking full dates? --Efe (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm certainly no expert on punctuation marks but that's how I interpret "When quoting a sentence fragment which ends in a period, some judgement is required: if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside. The period should be omitted if the quotation is in the middle of a sentence." Full dates are unlinked in this article because they are optional. Gary King (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are parts in the first section called "Recording and Production" that are obviously off-topic. "To promote the album, the band toured on Ozzfest and the Jägermeister Music Tour, and made an appearance at the Download Festival. The album's record label, Roadrunner Records, posted an MP3 of "Pulse of the Maggots" in its entirety (excluding the fadeout transition from "Vermilion") on the now defunct SK Radio website for free download for only one day on March 30, 2004. Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) was finally released on May 25, 2004,[14] and a special edition version of the album containing a bonus disc was released on April 12, 2005." --Efe (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it that there is a chart for the singles? This is about the album and not its singles. --Efe (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The section Artwork only explains the main cover and not the alternate cover. Therefore, the latter fails to comply WP:NFCC#8. --Efe (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not exactly sure how much we could add for a simple picture of the band, let alone any sources. Would simply stating that it is a picture of the band be enough? Blackngold29 04:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not necessarily. Even main covers of albums and songs are deemed NFCC non-compliant. How much more if its just an alternate cover. Also, this is not about the band. The image must increase reader's understanding why the cover is presented like that (especially that its an alternate cover). --Efe (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The artwork section saves more the main cover but the alternate, its not. --Efe (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have looked for an article about the SE, but cannot find one. As far as I can tell it's their picture in front of the Houdini Mansion, but I obviously don't have a source. So I assume it's better to leave it out then add un-sourced material. Blackngold29 16:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The audio sample Image:Slipknot - Vermilion.ogg's fair use is just a copy and paste. The inclusion of this sample is not well-explained in the purpose parameter and in the article itself, it is not mentioned. Therefore, it fails WP:NFCC#8. --Efe (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No Efe, that's not a correct statement. The song is mentioned several times in the article itself. There's no problem with the rationale here. --JayHenry (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mentioning the song throughout doesn't warrant a fair use. The sample is used to present the kind of music the album is featuring, or part of the album. And I see no discussion in the section "Musical and lyrical themes" that corresponds to the caption of the sample as well as its fair use purpose. Also, the audio samples lacks copyright information. --Efe (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • In my opinion that just doesn't have anything to do with WP:NFCC#8. The caption of the sample doesn't need to be repeated in the musical and lyrical themes section (what would be the sense of requiring information to be repetitive?) nor does it need to repeat the image page. NFCC#8 says "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." This easily, easily clears that hurdle, and is thus a valid rationale and valid use. It's actually a bit silly to suggest that someone could understand a band without hearing any of their music. The source of the audio is clearly identified as Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) and the record label (which by definition administers the copyrights) is also clearly identified. There is nothing to suggest this sound clip is inappropriate. --JayHenry (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • using the sample, what do you want to convey to the readers? or enhance their understanding in connection with what is being discussed in the article? --Efe (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Do you seriously not know? 1) I've never edited this article and don't like Slipknot. I'm a neutral reviewer. I personally don't want to convey anything. 2) It's obvious that the authors of the article included the music sample so that someone can hear the song being discussed and the band that performs it and specifically the song's use of guitar solos and some more melodic song structures which were previously absent. This is all explicit. You cannot argue that a musical sample of an album does not enhance one's understanding of an album. -JayHenry (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Sir, I am only 18 years old and I may not fully learned the nitty-gritty of WikiPedia yet. But somehow, with my constant editing/contribution, I have learned little by little.
                  1. "The caption of the sample doesn't need to be repeated in the musical and lyrical themes section" I didn't say you have to repeat it. The gist only.
                  2. I read the first and section and I see no better warranty of the sample's inclusion.
                  3. This is about the album so the audio sample have nothing to do with presenting who's band is singing. So what about Slipknot? Hmmm. Maybe the vocals. But I can see nothing in the text that explains their, for example, their blah blah blah vocals.
                  4. "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." This statement does not mean that because you mention the guitars and whatsover of the song, the sample will help readers increase their standing. Besides, its not deterimental to our understanding if the editor will take out the sample (not to mention the sample is "Vermillion" and the text always mention "Vermillion Pt. 2"). --Efe (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I didn't inquire about your age. But I am concerned because you're making distinctions that appear to me to have no meaning. This album is a collection of songs by a band. So a sample of a song is a sample of the album. Hearing the band play a song on the album is hearing the album. Presenting a band's album is the same as presenting the sound of a band as heard on the album. Do you see what I'm saying? The things you're talking about don't have anything to do with image criteria. Slipknot's "blah blah blah vocals" has nothing to do with anything. Look, an album is primarily an auditory thing. You listen to it. Therefore listening to it significantly increases ones understanding. Could someone who has never listened to Mozart truly understand his music? Of course not. That's actually ludicrous for me to suggest, is it not? Despite the vastly lower standard of artistry, the same thing holds for Slipknot. This is very simple, very basic, completely valid fair use. --JayHenry (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Oh my. Pity myself. I still have to "educate" myself what truly fair use is. Since I will be out for two days, I'll consult, probably, two users on this matter. Good day. --Efe (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Image review: everything resolved. --JayHenry (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image review
      • Image:Slipknot - Vol. 3- (The Subliminal Verses).jpg -- This is a visually arresting image. Both the article and the fair use rational would benefit from some discussion of this piece of cover art.
      • Image:Slipknot - Vol. 3- (The Subliminal Verses) Special Edition.jpg -- I'm less enthusiastic about this image. It's just a picture of the band. Many albums have alternate cover art, but without discussion of the cover art or any evidence of its significance I'm not sure it's really following the letter or spirit of the guidelines to include this. This looks like just a picture of the band to me, and they more-or-less always look like this in their pictures, so I'm not sure it's even very distinctive. I dunno... thoughts?
        • My opinion on this is the cover art is very different from the original and it should be used to help visually identify the product. The content of the cover (for example you saying it's just a photograph of the band) is beside the point. It isn't a limited product, it's a deluxe edition of the album which was released about a year after the original and includes an additional disc. REZTER TALK ø 01:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Image:Slipknot - Vermilion.ogg -- The official style guideline is: "Copyrighted, unlicensed music samples should generally not be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter." In this case, 10 % would be about 25 seconds.
    • Thoughts welcome. --JayHenry (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "Special edition" is discussed in the second sentence of the article; in addition to the track listing. The FUR of the regular cover art, seems pretty on par with other album covers to me. Blackngold29 01:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So there are two schools of thought on Wikipedia. One is that an album cover is fair use for an article about the album as identification. The other, more conservative school of thought, is that you really ought to have discussion of the cover art itself to justify the rationale. With the first image it's actually more of a content issue. That's a really interesting image on the cover--what's the story behind it?--inquiring minds want to know! With the second image it's trickier, because another goal is that Fair Use should be limited. Very many albums have alternate covers, or different covers in foreign countries, etc. Most people will grant you the first image without any discussion. Is it acceptable Fair Use, however, that every single alternate cover is automatically allowed, even if the image is unremarkable? I think most Wikipedians would agree that's going too far. In my opinion the second image is really borderline: just a non-significant image of the band on a fairly typical alternate issue... --JayHenry (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoaaa, I see non-breaking spaces added to double items such as "12 reviews"; please see the MOS and MOSNUM guidelines on this. Only add hard-spaces where it's likely to be ungainly or confusing for a number to appear on the next line. This is hardly the case in 21 chairs or 12 reviews. The disadvantages of adding willy-nilly all over the place are possible text-stretching (especially adjacent to images), more work for editors, and clunky edit-windows. Tony (talk)

    Comments—<frowns and grimaces>

    • FU justification of audio file. There's only one in the article, which is good. Caption: ""Vermilion", the album's second single, makes use of guitar solos and some more melodic song structures which were previously absent from the band's discography." This is not well-written. "Makes use of" --> a single word? Song structures absent from discography? No, songs might be absent or present, but style and structures are something within songs. By "structure", do you mean the formal structure of repeating segments of the music/lyrics? What was different or unusual? Guitar solos: so their first album didn't have these; does the second album stand as unique in this respect, or did it establish this use as a hallmark of their style thereafter? Trying to get a grip on why this FU satisfies NFCC#8 (inclusion leads to a significant understanding).

    Prose: Gary, where are your word-nerd collaborators?

    • "Taylor made a point of avoiding the use of profanity in response to people claiming that he relied upon it". The old noun plus -ing, and here, rewording is the best option—"in response to claims that". See: easy! Can we make "upon" just "on", in 2008?
    • "the lyrics of Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) include metaphors and touches upon themes including"—the lyrics touches? "Upon" again.
    • Stylus magazine—would italics make it clearer for the readers?
    • This—> Stylus Magazine called it the most "depressing and emotional" track on the album. The magazine also concluded that "the riffs have lost none of their impact, but it seems like finally the group also wants you to appreciate their vocal and lyrical impact."—Dot after the closing quote would be less clunky, and MOS-compliant. But more importantly, you've lost me on the logical flow. Why "but"? The quote is pretty crappy, so what about paraphrasing the gist of it and making both quotes flow into a cohesive run of statements (with the same ref. number).
    • The "Artwork" mini-section. I've had a go at trying to fix it. Please check my "whenever".

    I believe User:Deckiller might be copy-editing at the moment. He's very good and knows the field. Tony (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    GrahamColm has given the article a c/e. I've believe I've fixed the remaining concerns that you have raised. However, about the non-breaking spaces: Earilier in this review Juliancolton stated that they should be added, so they were, now you're saying to take them out. Which is correct? Blackngold29 03:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support No problems with the criteria. Prose and aesthetical details can always be more or less improved of course, but the current version is definitely well written enough for FA status. Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — I had previously ignored the article, but looking over it, I'd say that it is very good in terms of writing, formatting and sources. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comments: I'm not familiar with too many music related FAs, but there are some issues which stood out to me.
      • Organization: The flow of the information in the article seems off to me and I think the structure of the article can be rearranged to improve this.
        • The "Artwork" section seems too small to stand on its own. I would try to integrate the content into the rest of the "Production and promotion".
        • The "Personnel" section seems out of place at the end of the article. I would consider moving it to be a subsection of "Production and promotion". Also, what do the numbers beside each band member's name mean? If those numbers remain in the article, I think some kind of brief description should be included.
        • "Chart positions" looks like it should be a subsection of "Reception". I know in video game articles, a table of review scores is included to the right in the reception sections. maybe something similar could be done here as well.
        • As ended an article with a "Reception" section is general practice on Wikipedia, I would suggest moving the "Track listing further up in the article. Either before or after "Musical and lyrical themes".
      • Excessive use of quotes: I would summarize some of the quotes in the "Reception" section. Some are hard to follow. I'm not sure what "Slipknot still bring the noise" exactly means; I'm assuming something positive.
    Overall the article is good and informative, but not quite Featured quality. I'll check back later to see if they are addressed and to check refs/other loose ends. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Reply to Guyinblack25
    Most album articles put the prose before the "listy stuff" (track listing, band members, chart info). I guess it could be changed if you still want it to be, but it would be the first time I've seen it like that. The numbers are explained in their article, I don't think too much info should be repeated. Blackngold29 16:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really agree with that style of organization; all prose then all lists. But I'm no music article expert, and if it works for others, then it can't be all that bad.
    I still think some explanation should be provided for the numbers, either that or exclude them as it was very puzzling seeing them there. That and the long quotes are the only style issues I think should be addressed. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Things are looking better, but I still think there are too many long quotes in the reception section. I believe such content should be summarized as often as possible. For example:
    • Instead of John Robb of PlayLouder proclaimed "Slipknot defied all kind of logic by becoming one of the biggest groups in the world", try John Robb of PlayLouder complimented Slipknot's unexpected rise to become "one of the biggest groups in the world"
    • Instead of Robb went on to add, "Its differing textures make it far better than Iowa.", try Robb added that this album is better than their previous album, Iowa, citing its "differing textures".
    It looks like the reliability of everythit.com has not been completely addressed above. I would also like to know what makes artistdirect.com a reliable source? I didn't look too deep, but I didn't find much info about them on their website.
    These are minor issues:
    • Some of the magazine references, like Q and Kerrang!, include the "accessdate" parameter. I've come to understand that accessdate refers to the date a webpage is accessed. I believe this is normally reserved for when the "url" parameter is used.
    • Some of the magazine references, like Kerrang! and Revolver use the {{cite news}} template instead of {{cite journal}}. This is certainly nothing to oppose over, just my slight OCD desire for uniform formatting.
    Those are the remainder of my concerns. I'll check back in later. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    While the {{cite journal}} template does include a space for accessdate, I think I'm gonna agree with you that there's really no point for a non-internet source. I removed them, and cleaned up the news/journal cites. I understand better what your saying about the quotes/prose, I made a few adjustments, including your suggestions. I hope it's enough, let me know if it isn't. Thanks. Blackngold29 19:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are some good steps forward. I wouldn't be opposed to the negative comments in the "Reception" section getting the same treatment and summarized more. My only major concern left is the reliability of everythit.com and artistdirect.com. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Both questionable sources have been eliminated. I'll see what I can do with the negative comments. Blackngold29 22:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: All of my major concerns have been addressed. My only remaining issue with the article's structure is more of a personal preference. The article looks to be well-written, well-sourced and comprehensive. Nice job. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:47, 31 July 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.
    1. ^ Kingstown, a port just south of Dublin, is now called Dún Laoghaire
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/August_2008&oldid=232225967"